Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

Why don't you get it? Two men and two women cannot enter into the same type of relationship as a man and a woman can.

Every time I list what constitutes a same sex marriage, we agree it's all exactly the same as what constitutes a heterosexual marriage, yet you keep attempting not to explain why they're so vastly different as to require active discrimination by your church.

Quote:

This is not just about nature and how we obviously sexually fit together.

Have you seen how the male hand fits so well sexually with the male sex organ?

Quote:

It is about the very real differences between men and women that are deeper than the surface, our chromosomes, or our sexual organs.

You keep saying this as though it were self-evident and glaringly obvious. Like "Fire is hot!" "Water is wet!" "For the love of Zeus, Snow is COLD!"

So I'll ask, yet again, fully cognizant of the fact I'll get no intelligible answer: SO FUCKING WHAT!??

Quote:

Oh so you think because so many people have thought this way then they must be right?

What's the use of reductio your absurdum, right? I know.

Quote:

Where have I heard that before?

Oh, you've used that argument like a half trillion times before: something about millions of millions of billions attesting to something or other regarding some guy mentioned in an old book from a minor desert people or something.

Quote: FrGamble

You are at war with Eastasia.

I can't quite say you'll enjoy reading "1984," but I think it should be required reading at all schools all over the world.

Quote: FrGamble

I like that paragraph too but it is not an example of circular reasoning. The author is admitting that the transformation of peoples lives is real through what they claim is their faith in God.

Dr. Novella is saying these people have had subjective experiences they claim are transformational and they attribute them to "God." Then they use these subjective experiences as proof that "God" exists. That's about as textbook a definition of circular reasoning as you can have. What more do you need? A picture of Ouroboros?

Quote:

The author suggests that it is really human psychology for no other reason than it is "a far simpler explanation." I wonder why the researchers think that the basic human psychology is so open to religious faith?

If I had a dime for every person who claimed a transformational experience due to either religion, philosophy, a novel or movie thick with ideas, the latest life-coaching/psychology/empowerment/detox/astrology craze, I'd be richer than the Vatican.

Quote: Nareed

Every time I list what constitutes a same sex marriage, we agree it's all exactly the same as what constitutes a heterosexual marriage, yet you keep attempting not to explain why they're so vastly different as to require active discrimination by your church.

Look I've had to tread carefully on this issue with you before so why don't we just agree that men and women are different. They are equal, but different. Certain things appeal to men and women differently, the reasoning process is different, how they handle problems, emotions, etc., etc. These are not hard and fast rules and there are of course exceptions but are you really going to say that men and women are not unique and different than each other. They are complementary and made that way for a purpose.

So that being the undeniable case we can clearly see that the loving relationship of two men is going to be different than the relationship between a man and a woman. If you have two identical elements and you combine them you will come up with something different then if you combine two elements that are not the same. You would also call those two compounds by different names.

Quote:

You keep saying this as though it were self-evident and glaringly obvious. Like "Fire is hot!" "Water is wet!" "For the love of Zeus, Snow is COLD!"

So I'll ask, yet again, fully cognizant of the fact I'll get no intelligible answer:

It is that obvious. See above.

Quote: Nareed

Dr. Novella is saying these people have had subjective experiences they claim are transformational and they attribute them to "God." Then they use these subjective experiences as proof that "God" exists. That's about as textbook a definition of circular reasoning as you can have. What more do you need? A picture of Ouroboros?

I think calling the personal experiences people have of God all over the world and throughout history as subjective manifestations of a non existent God the real definition of circular reasoning. The only way Dr. Novella could arrive and such an asinine conclusion is if he begins with the false idea that there is no God.

Quote:

If I had a dime for every person who claimed a transformational experience due to either religion, philosophy, a novel or movie thick with ideas, the latest life-coaching/psychology/empowerment/detox/astrology craze, I'd be richer than the Vatican.

If I had a dime for every person who claimed their life was made better by rejecting God and deciding to live life based on their own version of selfish morality and rejecting any true purpose for their life and the existence of the universe I would be as poor as St. Francis.

Quote: Nareed

Dr. Novella is saying these people have had subjective experiences they claim are transformational and they attribute them to "God." Then they use these subjective experiences as proof that "God" exists. That's about as textbook a definition of circular reasoning as you can have.

And that's exactly what FrG is doing. He
wants us (and everybody else) to take
his personal subjective experience, which
could have and does have a myriad of
real reasons for happening, and throw
those reasons out the window and go
immediately for the 'it's god!' explanation.

This is what Christians have ALWAYS done.
Their well runs dry, the cow stops giving
milk, a baby is stillborn. Do they try and
find why these things happen? No, they
just find a witch to blame it on and kill her.

Quote: FrGamble

Look I've had to tread carefully on this issue with you before so why don't we just agree that men and women are different.

I've never disagreed with this. It's self-evident.

My question remains "so fucking what?"

Quote:

So that being the undeniable case we can clearly see that the loving relationship of two men is going to be different than the relationship between a man and a woman.

If you can find any two marriages that are identical, I'll send you a dime.

So far all you've done is equivocate on the issue.

But if same sex couples are equal, why does the church insist they refrain from ever having sex, but there is no similar oppressive prohibition for heterosexual couples?

I await your non-answer.

Quote: FrGamble

I think calling the personal experiences people have of God all over the world and throughout history as subjective manifestations of a non existent God the real definition of circular reasoning.

You can call it purple clover dinosaur for all I care.

The fact that such experiences can also come as a result of cheap "psychology" seminars which "peddle a bunch of easy answers," is rather telling.

Still, anyone mounting a philosophical apologia of the validity of the "God" experience, would do well to call Dr. Novella's argument fallacious and offer proof to counter it, rather than futilely attempting to throw a perceived slight back at him.

Quote:

If I had a dime for every person who claimed their life was made better by rejecting God and deciding to live life based on their own version of selfish morality and rejecting any true purpose for their life and the existence of the universe I would be as poor as St. Francis.

Yes, because you're setting up a paradox and expect it to make logical sense.

So I'll say this: My life is infinitely better since I realized there is no god or any deity of any kind, and since I've adopted a different type of morality which recognizes and celebrates true purpose within rather than without one's self.

I think this should be worth a penny, given the descriptive discrepancies. I'll send you one, if you like, if you pay me $10 via Paypal for shipping and handling. What the hell, I'll send two.

Quote: FrGamble

I think calling the personal experiences people have of God all over the world and throughout history as subjective manifestations of a non existent God the real definition of circular reasoning.

And I think calling the personal experiences,
without delving into every aspect of what
the psychological reason for them happening
might be, calling them proof that god exists
is irresponsible and nonsensical.

Look at the scientists who investigate child
reincarnation. Do you think that every kid
who says they have past memories is believed?
Hell no, they put them thru exhaustive
investigations to get real proof that the memories
are real and the kid had no way to find them
from the outside world.

Christians, on the other hand, just take at face
value every convoluted 'testimony' that one of
the flock comes up with that god was indeed
talking to him. I've seen it, I've been in the
same room with these people. It's never questioned,
indeed, it's encouraged. It's lunacy is what it is.

Quote: Nareed

So I'll say this: My life is infinitely better since I realized there is no god or any deity of any kind,

Agree 100%. You hear this all the time
from people who realized they were
atheists. Atheism isn't a decision, you
don't 'decide' to be one. You just
gradually come to realize that gods don't
exist, there is zero evidence for them, and
that you're an a-theist. You reject theism,
which makes you an atheist.