…

Do you not understand irony?

There’s no such thing.

Otherwise you should believe that I have a little man living in my belly like Kuato in “Total Recall” just because I say I do.

Do you?

boris on October 29, 2007 at 2:50 PM

You missed the whole point.

Do you not understand irony?

There must be something in the water.

For someone to get their panties all in a wad and start calling me, or any one else, names for saying “insensitive” things about a subject (in this case religion) when most of the comments on this site (and I pretty much think web sites in general) are “insensitive” and in a lot of cases down right nasty and often a whole lot worse than nasty is so totally absurd. On the subject at hand, religion, just look through the comments and you will find all manner of “insensitive” things being said about atheists and by people who probably claim to be Christians. In fact way beyond insensitive. Some people sound almost like they would like to kill them.

HELLO!!! Saving “nasty” things about one thing or another is pretty much what this and most web sites are mainly about. In fact at times like this when there is not much solid news, it is pretty much all this and others are about. Just take a look at the various threads. Pretty much all of them are slams on somebody or other. Yup, pretty much all of them.

I along with probably most people commenting on this site have said many “nasty” things about Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, John Murtha, etc., etc., etc and no one has ever called me a mean nasty jerk for doing so. I guess it all comes down to whose “ox is being gored”.

That anyone can not see the profound irony is truly amazing.

People are so strange. If there be a God, he must be laughing his a$$ off. Maybe it was even fatal for him and that’s why we never hear from him.

frost on October 29, 2007 at 2:57 AM

inviolet on October 29, 2007 at 7:39 AM

If these are Christians, then if Christ were alive today he would not be a Christian.

Are atheist Covenamt aliens right that the “Forerunners” are not their gods, or are they wrong in claiming their universe has no creator[s]?

Have to confess that I know nothing about Halo, other than it seems to generate a lot of revenue for MSFT. You’ve done a good job of explaining the scenario though. To express certainty that there is no creator strikes me as an obvious fallacy. I don’t know if the creator of the universe also authored the Bible, but I do hope he’s not a latte-sipping software developer who left his screen saver on overnight.

and the latter can be broken down to 10 rules

Arguendo the Covenant aliens in the Halo virtual reality discuss their religion among themselves. Most worship the “Forerunners” but the “gods” who created their universe actually work for Microsoft.

Are atheist Covenamt aliens right that the “Forerunners” are not their gods, or are they wrong in claiming their universe has no creator[s]?

Well speaking as a Christian and an engineer, dedalus, I know that I couldn’t create this Universe.

No, not this one. But you could probably create a different universe–or at least a software tool that played chess better than me.

My point is that it is less presumptuous to act as God-like creators of medicine and machines than it is too use our minds to comprehend the intention of the Creator of all things in the universe. But we believe that the former is really hard and the latter can be broken down to 10 rules or a single book.

If the “child” label is gone, they can consent, therefore a “pedophile” is no longer “taking away” anyone’s rights.

OK. Some agreement. I’m saying consenting adults and you are saying what if an adult is, say, 12. Then there is no crime. Certainly, in earlier civilizations adulthood was recognized at the same time as reproductive capacity. But if you are saying that it is by convention that we determine what age constitutes statutory rape, and therefore anything else we do we can justify by saying its “conventional wisdom” I don’t think you have a society that scales.

Defining adulthood is something that is probably more difficult today than ever before. In most places you can drive when you are 17, vote when you are 18, drink when you are 21. Consent to sex at…you’d have to read 50 different state interpretations of that. However, once you are an adult you are entitled to the liberty that the Constitution promises.

Much of what we know and learn in science does not come from empirical observation.

No, but since the time of the Enlightenment we separated science from natural philosophy, and within the scientific method the use of the metaphysical is a cheat.

Have a nice day :-)

You didn’t address my point which is pedophilia takes away the rights of another person in a way that gay relationships among adults do not.

dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Again, I don’t condone the behavior, I am speaking for the sake of argument… but I did address it, you just missed it. These “children” are only “children” because of (modern) “conventional wisdom”, which is what makes them incapable of “consenting”. If the “child” label is gone, they can consent, therefore a “pedophile” is no longer “taking away” anyone’s rights. Are you mixing up “pedophile” and “child molestor”? A pedophile might just claim to be attracted to adolescent girls, and might have never done anything physically with them without them consenting… which again, isn’t possible under law, which is dictated by “conventional wisdom” and common sense.

(For anyone who tries to jump in and pull some drive-by BS, please don’t read this as an individual comment, it requires that you’ first read this one:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/28/quote-of-the-day-137/#comment-756521

Okay, now it’s lunch time.

I doubt I could even create a drop of water, starting from scratch. The engineers you know must be brilliant.

So, my point stands, I hope that you don’t have some nice pedophiles help you in business some day, because if they’re nice guys, and you haven’t seen them do anything harmful, but they tell you that they’re born this way, etc. etc. then you’ll be forced to defend them too.

Social conventions are important and must be continually argued over (e.g., a woman’s place is in the home or 21 is the right drinking age). To me “conventional wisdom” is a shared opinion based on observation but not examined scientifically–however, it isn’t a defined term.

You didn’t address my point which is pedophilia takes away the rights of another person in a way that gay relationships among adults do not.

boris on October 29, 2007 at 12:42 PM

Again, you’re still not making any sense.

Are you sayiing the engineers you know would design a better universe than God?

Sure. I know engineers who use their intellects to think about what they’d do. I also know religious people who use their intellects to comprehend the intention of God. Both seem challenging.

No one claims laptops evolved, dude

Sorry, I assumed you could follow the train of your own thoughts …

Here is a more complete quote for your benefit:

with billions of dollars and high tech equipment at their disposal can’t create life from non-life (though they promise they’re close), and yet somehow (even if they do), their INTELLIGENT DESIGN that went in to CREATING said life, will suggest that billions of years ago “nothing” once “evolved” the same thing they just struggled to create, with all of their wisdom and resources?

See the point was not about “evolve”, it was about “create”.

Make sense now? Even Leonardo could not create a laptop. Does that prove they don’t exist?

A pedophile commits a crime directly against victim. Who is the criminal victim of a gay relationship?

dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Sorry dedalus, box ya in:

Common sense too often is diluted with conventional wisdom. I don’t think we are bound by nature in our exercise of morals, love or charity.

dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:20 PM

For starters, the simple “attraction” isn’t a crime, but that doesn’t excuse sickos.

Anyway, on to the real point…

It is a type of conventional wisdom that has decided “18 is an adult” (of course age of consent is 16 and 17 in many states)… But plenty of 12-15 year olds are certainly capable of being part of 2 people creating a child, and do in some cultures, and did in the past in many others. It is just a recent societal phenomenon or a “conventional wisdom” sort of thing that makes people of this age “children” and off limits. There are plenty of pedophiles that would say EXACTLY what gays do. That they are born attracted to who they claim to be attracted to. At least in the case of straight pedophiles, they’d have more of a case than gay adults.

That said, I don’t by any means condone the behavior. But I can foresee a time in the very near future where “pedophile rights” become the debate. The only reason they are different is because of what the age of consent is, as dictated by “conventional wisdom” about maturity.

None of that really matters though… The point was that you claim to defend gays, simply because they helped you in business… not because there is any evidence that they are really gay. So, my point stands, I hope that you don’t have some nice pedophiles help you in business some day, because if they’re nice guys, and you haven’t seen them do anything harmful, but they tell you that they’re born this way, etc. etc. then you’ll be forced to defend them too.

I’ve been helped in business by some exceptional gay people and because I think being free to marry the person we love is fundamental to the proposition of liberty.

I have been helped tremendously by gay people as well in business. However it is a leap to go from that to saying – well they should be allowed to ‘marry’ (a religious institution) whoever they love.

You mean numbers of wives? You mean ONLY persons? I’m sure that people ‘love’ certain animals too.

I don’t say that gay people should be punished. But I think that there needs to be a standard set up in the government that promotes a stable and secure family. That is the only way to create a successful society. If family means nothing then society is in trouble.

Christians who deny evolution would do well to clearly state what it is they are denying.

also

Does all that empty space argue for an intelligent design? It seems unlike any engineer I’ve worked with.

dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:05 PM

That made me laugh.

1- Are you sayiing the engineers you know would design a better universe than God?

2- If there were human beings literally stacked on top of each other filling the entire universe guess what the universe would still be? Mostly empty space.

If you can’t even understand the basics of what humans have been able to observe about the physical univese, how do you suppose to understand the reason God does what He must do?

It is an interesting question, and not at all a diversion in a thread on atheism. The emptiness of the universe is bothersome from a design standpoint. It is also bothersome from a evolutionary standpoint in that the size and age of the universe is large enough that randomness should have created life elsewhere.

dedalus on October 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM

You’re right on that, it’s not a diversion at all, in general… but as a specific reply to my comment (which was a specific reply to someone else’s comment) it didn’t make sense, and diverted, without actually reacting to what I said. It’s not an unimportant point, I just was bothered that it was supposed to be a reply to me, when it is it’s own topic, not tied to what I had said.

I can only hope that you don’t get “helped in business” by pedophiles at some point.

A pedophile commits a crime directly against victim. Who is the criminal victim of a gay relationship?

Actual truth is facts that can be verified empirically. I can’t prove there’s no God. You can’t prove there is one. In the absence of evidence, we assume something doesn’t exist. Otherwise you should believe that I have a little man living in my belly like Kuato in “Total Recall” just because I say I do.
Allahpundit on October 29, 2007 at 9:43 AM

Question:

If the above is correct, what should we do when the philosophy of science crumbles to the ground, after the adoption of the above rigid, strong empiricist methodology?

Much of what we know and learn in science does not come from empirical observation.