WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

Religions > Bible > WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 5 of 36

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Bill M"
Date:	09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM
Object:	WHICH IS THE REAL GOD

Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	27 Sep 2006 03:27:06 PM

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158870306.767703.237850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158093283.095671.202260@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

So-called 'evidence' that is not objective and verifiable is useless,
and does not even deserve to be called as such. Evidence that isn't
verifiable by an outside party cannot be distinguished from
self-delusion.

Is that a fact? Kindly illustrate your assertion by producing an ethical
system that is both objective and verifiable.

Kindly provide the cure for cancer.

If I had the capability, I would. Now explain what me providing a cure for
cancer has to do with formulating or discovering a system of ethics that is
both objective and verifiable.

In other words, it is not my burden in this debate to provide an answer
to a problem still in the process of resolution.

By your definition, ethics will always be "a problem still in the process of
resolution" because ethics are not "objective and verifiable." If ethics
were "objective and verifiable," there would be no debate as to right or
wrong. Thus, using your own definition, all ethics, since ethics are "not
objective and verifiable," are "useless" since ethics cannot be verified "by
an outside party," ethics "cannot be distinguished from self-delusion."
That is all real interesting, but while human kind is waiting for you and
your fellow travelers to work out "objective and verifiable ethics," us
working stiffs require a method of distinguishing right from wrong in the
decisions we make every day. (So do you, nihilist or not.) Since such a
method of distinguishing right from wrong is a vitally important social
lubricant, we must muddle through with something less than the absolute
confidence of scientific certitude.

I'll just add that as
a borderline nihilist, if it is impossible to come up with one then I
suggest that the question is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Pfui. Not even you really believe that right conduct is a waste of time.
If you are nihilist, even "borderline nihilist," why do you live? Purely
for
the pursuit of pleasurable physical sensation?

By the way, did you notice that you yourself retreated from the three
adjectives "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" to only "objective
and
verifiable"? How do you explain your retreat?

Because 'factual' is redundant. That which is 'factual' is that which
is objective and verifiable. And vice-versa.

Are you sure? Then must the assertion by Augustus himself that was
confirmed in all written source that survive from his time that he was
divine be true? Every monumental inscription about Augustus asserts that he
was divine. His biographers all use the term "divine" to describe him.
Augustus was worshipped before and after his death by millions of people.
Augustus himself claimed in his autobiography to be divine. All of the
manuscript and archaeological evidence contains the claim that Augustus was
divine. Explain how all of the manuscript and archaeological evidence is
not "factual, objective, verifiable evidence."

I also understand that most of the truly
important issues human beings confront cannot be evaluated on the basis
of
"objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence, because no such
evidence exists.

Then those questions aren't important.

You are mistaken. Those questions are of vital importance. Science and
scientific method can sometimes answer the questions who, what, where, when,
and how, because reduced to its fundamentals, science is nothing more than a
method of quantifying and qualifying a physical state at a given time and
place. So science can never answer the question why. Nor can science
answer the question whether or not an act was just or unjust. Those issues
must be worked out using some other method that lacks the certainty of
science.

They are mental masturbation. If
no objective, verifiable and factual evidence exists to answer these
questions, then making a choice for one solution or the other is simply
a matter of a coin flip, and it is thus a trivial and irrelevant line
of inquiry.

Then since you use up scarce resources and perform no unique function or any
other function that millions of other people can perform just as well if not
better than you, surely you understand that you must die immediately. Since
the justice or injustice of such a proposition "is thus a trivial and
irrelevant line of inquiry" and mere "mental masturbation" because ethics
are not subject to "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence, you
have no appeal. It is your duty to end your life immediately. Do so.

That is the inevitable conclusion of your line of thought.
If no objective morality is attainable, there is no morality.

Does the excessive certitude of your entirely black and white world view
provide you some type of emotional comfort or pleasurable sensation?

You may have a point here. Maybe. But maybe not. No, actually that is
gobbledygook. What are you trying to say?

I am saying that 'true' or 'false' does not exist outside of the
possibility of verifying the conclusion.

What?

How do you evaluate a belief as true or false when no empirical data is
available?

True or false is meaningless in the context where no verification is
possible.

Is that an admission that we as sentient human beings are compelled to
make decisions not supported by "factual, objective, verifiable evidence"?

I think you make many decisions every day in your life for which no
empirical data is available to guide you. And you rely instead upon your
experience and the probability of outcomes you expect and your faith in
other people.

Experience is empirical data (old empirical data applied to a new
situation). Probability of outcome is similar.

So you equate human experience with empirical data. That is pretty much
nonsense unless the variables are controlled. The human senses are subject
to failure, to flawed perception, to perceive only the expected results.
And no human being can possibly experience what any other human being
experiences. The old adage, "A man can never cross the same river twice
because the man has changed and the river has changed" is true. Or at least
has never been falsified in Popperian terms.

---
No Gods. No Masters.

User: "DarkAngel"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	27 Sep 2006 04:23:24 PM

TomP wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158870306.767703.237850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

In other words, it is not my burden in this debate to provide an answer
to a problem still in the process of resolution.

This is a ridiculous assumption to make. There is scientific debates
even in fields where facts are objective and verifiable. The
functioning of organs can be tested in objective and verifiable ways,
yet there is debate in biology and medicine. Chemical reactions,
mechanical and other physical processes can be tested in objective and
verifiable ways, and there is still debate in physics and chemistry.
Why would ethics, as a field, be immune to this?

That is all real interesting, but while human kind is waiting for you and
your fellow travelers to work out "objective and verifiable ethics," us
working stiffs require a method of distinguishing right from wrong in the
decisions we make every day.

Just like us working stiff still have to travel and eat every day while
physiotherapists figure out the way we walk, mechanics figure out how
to build a better car and nutritionists, medical practitioners and
biologists study how what we eat influences our health.
The point being that if there is no objective and verifiable way to
test these ethics, these 'right or wrong' decisions, then you
*wouldn't* need to distinguish right from wrong. You could go
willy-nilly and not care, because really what can someone else who
doesn't agree with your valuation of right and wrong say? His own
valuation has no more standing than yours, if it cannot be tested
against objective and verifiable criterions.

Since such a method of distinguishing right from wrong is a vitally important social
lubricant, we must muddle through with something less than the absolute
confidence of scientific certitude.

Well sure, but then what are you doing except conceding my point, which
is that anything short of objective and factual evidence is a lesser
form of knowledge?

I'll just add that as
a borderline nihilist, if it is impossible to come up with one then I
suggest that the question is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Pfui. Not even you really believe that right conduct is a waste of time.
If you are nihilist, even "borderline nihilist," why do you live? Purely
for the pursuit of pleasurable physical sensation?

I live because my parents liked sex, and I apparently haven't yet grown
tired of living.

Because 'factual' is redundant. That which is 'factual' is that which
is objective and verifiable. And vice-versa.

It is factual, objective and verifiable evidence that he considered
himself divine. Whoopee. How does that pertain to the question at hand?

Then those questions aren't important.

You are mistaken. Those questions are of vital importance.

Well yes, BECAUSE there is objective and verifiable ways to find truth
in the field of ethics...

Science and
scientific method can sometimes answer the questions who, what, where, when,
and how, because reduced to its fundamentals, science is nothing more than a
method of quantifying and qualifying a physical state at a given time and
place.

And everything is a physical state, since everything is material.

So science can never answer the question why.

Why is just a synonym for how. Except when it's not, in this case it's
a ***** question.
Why are we on this Earth? (How did we arrive on this Earth?): Because
of centuries of physical and evolutionary processes.
Why are we on this Earth? (What is the purpose?): Does not parse.
Please refrain from using psychotropic substances, and try rephrasing.

Non sequitur.
Since

the justice or injustice of such a proposition "is thus a trivial and
irrelevant line of inquiry" and mere "mental masturbation" because ethics
are not subject to "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence, you
have no appeal. It is your duty to end your life immediately. Do so.

If there is no objective way to determine ethical truth then your
statement has as much validity, thus none, as any other ethical
statement. I can simply reply, "Not so, since my duty is to use up any
and all ressource for my own survival and pleasure as I desire", and
given that you have no objective or factual method of determining the
truth of either statement, mine is as valid as yours... I would say
more so, since I don't give two shits about what you think my duty is.
And then where are you left standing, with your denial of the
possibility of objectively coming at an ethical truth? Just discussing
the validity of ethics imply by default the belief that there is an
objective way to value one over the other.

That is the inevitable conclusion of your line of thought.
If no objective morality is attainable, there is no morality.

Does the excessive certitude of your entirely black and white world view
provide you some type of emotional comfort or pleasurable sensation?

***** yes, I find excess pleasure in verbally shouting down
pseudo-academic *****.

You may have a point here. Maybe. But maybe not. No, actually that is
gobbledygook. What are you trying to say?

I am saying that 'true' or 'false' does not exist outside of the
possibility of verifying the conclusion.

What?

It's not very hard to understand. A statement can only be 'true' or
'false' if it is possible to verify whether it is 'true' or 'false'.
Heard of Schrodinger's Cat?

Experience is empirical data (old empirical data applied to a new
situation). Probability of outcome is similar.

So you equate human experience with empirical data.

What else could it be, supernatural data?

That is pretty much nonsense unless the variables are controlled.
The human senses are subject
to failure, to flawed perception, to perceive only the expected results.

Hey, I didn't say it was necessarily quality data. Garbage in, garbage
out. This is why we have this thing called the scientific method.
Anectodal evidence is still empirical. It's just not very good
empirical data, since it's not been reproduced and controlled strictly.

And no human being can possibly experience what any other human being
experiences.

So you reject the idea of empathy?
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	13 Oct 2006 02:35:58 PM

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159392204.014538.210210@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158870306.767703.237850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

In other words, it is not my burden in this debate to provide an answer
to a problem still in the process of resolution.

This is a ridiculous assumption to make. There is scientific debates
even in fields where facts are objective and verifiable.

But not about those facts that are objective and verifiable. Once a
scientific "fact" is established through exhaustive testing and the
conclusion is reached that a certain result will always occur in a given set
of circumstances, that "fact" is no longer debated. One hydrogen atom
always consists of one electron and one proton. Nobody is still debating
that. An atom with one more electron than protons in the nucleus is always
negatively charged. Nobody is debating that fact. If lift plus thrust is
greater than gravity, an object heavier than air will rise. The devout
Christians Wilbur and Orville Wright worked that out more than 100 years
ago, and no one is debating the fundamental physical principles of flight.
Once certain events or structures are defined as scientific fact, there is
no more debate, because all of the evidence leads inescapably to one
certain conclusion and no other conclusions are possible. At least unless
and until there is a shift in the scientific "paradigm" (Kuhn's word, not
mine. Ever read Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions"? Probably not, but you should.)
I can think of no ethical situation wherein all possible outcomes have been
conclusively proven true or false and a certain conclusion must always be
the correct course of action without exception. Can you?
Have you noticed how close your argument is to that of certain
fundamentalist Christians who propose that ethical certitude for all
situations is always and exclusively discovered in Christian scripture? The
only difference between your argument and theirs is the location of your
sources of excessive certitude. Yours is some undefined "objective" method
and theirs is the Bible.

The
functioning of organs can be tested in objective and verifiable ways,

Yes, that can be tested, but not completely. But the anatomy and physiology
of human organs have never been exhaustively and totally quantified and
qualified. If they had been, disease would be unknown. How often are
doctors stumped by a given set of symptoms? Why does one person's smoking
cigarettes for 30 years cause the accumulation of sufficient plaque in the
arteries of the heart to cause a fatal blockage at age 47, while another
person smokes the same brand at the same rate for 65 years and dies in his
sleep at 82 with unobstructed arteries? The functioning of the organs of
both people can surely be tested in objective and verifiable ways but the
outcome was surely different.

yet there is debate in biology and medicine.

Why did you fail to notice that you shifted from the hard sciences of
physics and chemistry to the rather softer science of biology to the art of
medicine? You are waffling. Deoxyribonucleic Acid is always structured as
a double helix. No one is debating that. One function of DNA is to encode
genetic information. No one is debating that. Those are two hard facts about
DNA, and no one with any sense is debating their truth. There is much
debate concerning the function of specific molecules in this chain. But
because certain information concerning DNA is still debated, does not mean
that the structure of DNA is being debated, nor is the fact that genetic
information is stored in DNA being debated. Do you understand that that
there is a difference?

Chemical reactions,
mechanical and other physical processes can be tested in objective and
verifiable ways, and there is still debate in physics and chemistry.

But there is no longer debate once scientific "facts" have been established
in physics and chemistry. No one debates the relationship of velocity to
time and distance. No one debates the existence of the Doppler Effect. No
one debates the structure of the electro-magnetic spectrum. No one debates
that a radio wave continues infinitely unless it is reflected, refracted, or
absorbed. No one debates that setting off conventional high explosives in a
specific manner in the proximity of uranium isotopes will result in a
nuclear yield. That process has been understood for more than 62 years, and
was proven conclusively to work as predicted three times within 30 days
during the summer of 1945. That is the science of nuclear weapons. No one
is debating that. Whether such an explosion should be initiated by human
beings at a specific location and time cannot be addressed by science, but
is the purview of ethics. And there is lots of debate about that.

Why would ethics, as a field, be immune to this?

Ethics is not immune to argument. Scientific facts are immune to argument.
But all of science is not science fact, or science "law" or whatever words
you care to choose to describe that relatively small part of science that
does appear to be finally and totally quantified and qualified. Since you
seem unaware of this distinction, your argument is muddled. What are
loosely referred to as "scientific facts" will never change. A hydrogen
atom will always consist of one electron and one proton. There will never
be an exception to that fact. It is provable using "factual, objective,
verifiable evidence." In fact, all of the known evidence without exception
proves the truth of the assertion that one electron and one proton will
always be one hydrogen atom, and that fact has never been falsified. I
doubt it ever will be falsified. But anything is possible.
Name a single principle of ethics that is always universal and provable
using "verifiable, objective evidence." Prove using "factual, verifiable,
objective evidence" that the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima on
August 6, 1945 and against Nagasaki on August 9, 1945 was ethically
justified. Prove that those air strikes were not ethically justified.

Just like us working stiff still have to travel and eat every day while
physiotherapists figure out the way we walk, mechanics figure out how
to build a better car and nutritionists, medical practitioners and
biologists study how what we eat influences our health.

The point being that if there is no objective and verifiable way to
test these ethics, these 'right or wrong' decisions, then you
*wouldn't* need to distinguish right from wrong. You could go
willy-nilly and not care, because really what can someone else who
doesn't agree with your valuation of right and wrong say? His own
valuation has no more standing than yours, if it cannot be tested
against objective and verifiable criterions.

Precisely. Take a shot at evaluating the morality of using atomic weapons
against Japan in August, 1945. Show us your "objective and verifiable way"
to prove those acts either moral or not moral. Or explain how no one need
distinguish whether those acts were right or wrong.

Since such a method of distinguishing right from wrong is a vitally
important social
lubricant, we must muddle through with something less than the absolute
confidence of scientific certitude.

Well sure, but then what are you doing except conceding my point, which
is that anything short of objective and factual evidence is a lesser
form of knowledge?

No, "anything short of objective and factual evidence" is not "a lesser form
of knowledge." Personally I rather appreciate and suppose I use what I call
Bertrand Russell's "taxonomy of understanding" on page xiii of his "History
of Western Philosophy." "Definite knowledge" belongs to science, dogma is
theology, and philosophy is everything in between. Which is not to say that
dogma is always or even mostly false. Not even Bertrand Russell made that
claim. Do you?
Nor is theological dogma or philosophy necessarily a "lesser form of
knowledge." They are different forms of knowledge.

I'll just add that as
a borderline nihilist, if it is impossible to come up with one then I
suggest that the question is irrelevant and a waste of time.

Pfui. Not even you really believe that right conduct is a waste of time.
If you are nihilist, even "borderline nihilist," why do you live? Purely
for the pursuit of pleasurable physical sensation?

I live because my parents liked sex,

How do you know? Maybe your parents only had sex because they felt
obligated to obey the Biblical injuction to reproduce. Or maybe you are the
intentional product of some cultural imperative to sustain or increase their
particular human cohort your parents perceived. Sexual relations between
your mother and father is most probably how your life began. It does not
even address the issue of why you have lived every day since you were
conceived. Biology explains how your were conceived, born, and matured.
Biology cannot explain why you were were conceived, born, and matured, no
why you choose to live every day.
You live every day because you yourself choose to continue to live, and no
one else has ended your life. There are certainly many mostly painless ways
to die available to you, and you yourself make the choice not to avail
yourself of a bullet to your cerebellum or to step in front of a
tractor-trailer on a street. Stop blaming your parents. They ceased to
control whether you live or die when you were rather young.

and I apparently haven't yet grown
tired of living.

I agree. You yourself chose to live today. And will tomorrow, until disease
or homocide ends your life.

Because 'factual' is redundant. That which is 'factual' is that which
is objective and verifiable. And vice-versa.

Are you sure? Then must the assertion by Augustus himself that was
confirmed in all written source that survive from his time that he was
divine be true? Every monumental inscription about Augustus asserts that
he
was divine. His biographers all use the term "divine" to describe him.
Augustus was worshipped before and after his death by millions of people.
Augustus himself claimed in his autobiography to be divine. All of the
manuscript and archaeological evidence contains the claim that Augustus
was
divine. Explain how all of the manuscript and archaeological evidence is
not "factual, objective, verifiable evidence."

It is factual, objective and verifiable evidence that he considered
himself divine. Whoopee. How does that pertain to the question at hand?

What about the several millions of people who performed the rites of worship
to the "princeps" and by every bit of available evidence treated Augustus as
if he was divine?

Then those questions aren't important.

You are mistaken. Those questions are of vital importance.

Well yes, BECAUSE there is objective and verifiable ways to find truth
in the field of ethics...

Name these "objective and verifiable ways to find truth in the field of
ethics." Please describe your methodology in detail. I don't think you
can. I base that on the experiential evidence that you have yet to produce
your "objective and verifiable ways to find truth in the field of ethics..."
Care to produce some evidence?

Science and
scientific method can sometimes answer the questions who, what, where,
when,
and how, because reduced to its fundamentals, science is nothing more
than a
method of quantifying and qualifying a physical state at a given time and
place.

And everything is a physical state, since everything is material.

Prove that. Bet you can't. Everything in your experience and within your
range of perception may be material. But when you presume that the universe
is limited to your personal purview and your personal intellectual horizons,
you demonstrate only your own pretensions and arrogance. You don't have any
idea how big the universe you are part of is, much less any idea of the
phenomena that are occurring right now. And as you have demonstrated here,
you have huge gaps in your comprehension of events on your own planet. And
I haven't even brought up the fact that neither you nor any other human
being has the slightest clue what, if anything, exists outside of our
universe.

So science can never answer the question why.

Why is just a synonym for how. Except when it's not, in this case it's
a ***** question.

No, you are factually mistaken again, why is not a synonym for how. "Why"
is cause or reason or purpose, while "how" is method or manner. Those are
not at all the same. The following definitions are from the Oxford English
Dictionary at http://www.askoxford.com/.
why . adverb 1 for what reason or purpose? 2 (with reference to a reason)
on
account of which; for which. 3 the reason for which.
. exclamation 1 expressing surprise or indignation. 2 used to add emphasis
to a response.
. noun (pl. whys) a reason or explanation.
how1 . adverb 1 in what way or by what means. 2 in what condition or
health. 3
to what extent or degree. 4 the way in which.
- PHRASES and how! informal very much so. how about? would you like? the
how and why the methods and reasons for doing something. how do you do? a
formal greeting. how many what number. how much what amount or price. how
now? archaic what is the meaning of this? how's that? Cricket is the batsman
out or not? (said to an umpire).
Note that neither "how" and "why" are used to define the other. Look up
"how" and "why" in a thesaurus. They are not synonyms.

Why are we on this Earth? (How did we arrive on this Earth?): Because
of centuries of physical and evolutionary processes.

No, you are again mistaken, quite possibly because you do not or perhaps
cannot distinguish between the definitions of "how" and "why." That is
muddled argument. The centuries of physical and evolutionary processes are
how we came to be on this earth. Merely the mechanical description of the
manner and means by which life began and progressed to it's current state.
Scientific method is the proper and probably exclusive method of
discovering the physical processes of evolution from the Big Bang (presuming
that was the beginning) to the present. Neither philosophy or theology have
the tools to discover and describe how. Science cannot even address the
purposes or reasons why we are on earth. The methods of philosophy and/or
theology are the proper tools for discovering why. Science does not have
the tools to discover the purposes or reasons why we are on earth.

Why are we on this Earth?

I do not know to a scientific certainty. Do you?

(What is the purpose?): Does not parse.

Says who? You? May I remind you that your argument thus far has been so
muddled it has imploded?

Please refrain from using psychotropic substances, and try rephrasing.

Non sequitur.

Sure it follows. You just missed the connections.

Since
the justice or injustice of such a proposition "is thus a trivial and
irrelevant line of inquiry" and mere "mental masturbation" because ethics
are not subject to "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence,
you
have no appeal. It is your duty to end your life immediately. Do so.

If there is no objective way to determine ethical truth then your
statement has as much validity, thus none, as any other ethical
statement.

You are mistaken again. There are indeed methods of determining ethical
truth. But I doubt there is "an objective way" to determine ethical truth.
Prove your point. Demonstrate your "objective way" of determining
"ethical truth." You have thus far only managed to take off on tangents.
You have never provided an "objective way" of determining ethical conduct.
By the way, have you noticed how your adjectives have melted away? So has
you certitude.

I can simply reply, "Not so, since my duty is to use up any
and all ressource for my own survival and pleasure as I desire",

Yes, and a few atheists did precisely that when they gained control of
modern nation states and the result was the most prolific mass murder in
human history.

and
given that you have no objective or factual method of determining the
truth of either statement,

Neither do you. Nor does anyone else. By the way, did you notice how your
"verifiable, objective evidence" has devolved into "objective or factual"?

mine is as valid as yours... I would say
more so, since I don't give two shits about what you think my duty is.

You miss the point. Again. Still. Merely because an ethical decision is
not formulated, arrived at, or proven using "verifiable, objective evidence"
does not mean the decision was inhumane, wrong, nonexistent, evil, or
illogical. It just means that the objective evidence was nonexistent or
unavailable. Therefore evidence of just as much utility as "verifiable,
objective evidence" must be used. I know I keep referring to the moral
conundrum presented by the use of nuclear weapons against civilian
populations in Japan in 1945, but a decision had to be made, actually a
whole series of decisions, and there was no "factual, verifiable, objective
evidence," or even "verifiable, objective evidence" available. But a
terrible war was continuing and needed to stop. What was the proper ethical
decision? What is your view? What "verifiable, objective evidence" can you
marshal to support your decision?

And then where are you left standing, with your denial of the
possibility of objectively coming at an ethical truth? Just discussing
the validity of ethics imply by default the belief that there is an
objective way to value one over the other.

No, you're argument is flawed again. The sole implication is that human
beings can arrive at methods to determine what should be most valued, but
the evidence is seldom, if ever, "verifiable, objective evidence."
You still have not provided a single example of an ethical truth that can be
proven by "factual, verifiable, objective evidence." Or "verifiable,
objective evidence." Or even objective evidence. If this was as simple as
you imply, why haven't you produced it? What is your formula based upon
"verifiable, objective evidence" for always arriving at a morally correct
decision? The world awaits.

That is the inevitable conclusion of your line of thought.
If no objective morality is attainable, there is no morality.

Does the excessive certitude of your entirely black and white world view
provide you some type of emotional comfort or pleasurable sensation?

***** yes,

Is that the most profound exclamatory noun you can produce? Figures.

I find excess pleasure in verbally shouting down
pseudo-academic *****.

Oh? When do you believe you accomplished that?

You may have a point here. Maybe. But maybe not. No, actually that
is
gobbledygook. What are you trying to say?

I am saying that 'true' or 'false' does not exist outside of the
possibility of verifying the conclusion.

What?

It's not very hard to understand. A statement can only be 'true' or
'false' if it is possible to verify whether it is 'true' or 'false'.

You are on the right track. Keep thinking. Maybe you will eventually work
this out. But first you must jettison your black only versus white only
world view. There really are millions of colors and shades of color between
the absence of reflected light and the simultaneous reflection of all
visible
parts of the spectrum. Try this: Must everything, every act, every
utterance be either true or false? Or are some things only partially true?
Or partially false? Or are some events and acts ethically neutral?

Heard of Schrodinger's Cat?

Do you mean the imaginary cat used to illustrate a point in Erwin
Schroedinger's letter to Albert Einstein dated June 7 of 1935? You could
take the trouble to spell the man's name correctly. By the way, how can any
statement about an imaginary cat be true, that is, supported by "objective,
verifiable evidence"?
Or do you think Schroedinger actually placed a living (or dead) cat in a box
with a single radioactive atom? (If you do, you have several other problems
that muddy your thought processes.) Or was Erwin Schroedinger using a
parable, a metaphor, containing fictitious elements to illustrate a truth or
set of truths?
Why do you believe a problem of Quantum Mechanics is applicable to ethics?
Quantum Mechanics only describes mechanical processes and yields parameters
of possibility, not -- emphatically not -- the morality of those processes.
This is yet another reason why the atheist position that only science and
the method of science has value is absurd.

Experience is empirical data (old empirical data applied to a new
situation). Probability of outcome is similar.

So you equate human experience with empirical data.

What else could it be, supernatural data?

Yes. It could be. By which I mean only that such a thing is possible.
Prove it could not be supernatural data. You might note that science is
only capable of analyzing nature, thus only natural data is within the
purview of science.
Probability is not certainty. Remember that.

That is pretty much nonsense unless the variables are controlled.
The human senses are subject
to failure, to flawed perception, to perceive only the expected results.

Hey, I didn't say it was necessarily quality data. Garbage in, garbage
out. This is why we have this thing called the scientific method.
Anectodal evidence is still empirical.

Pfui. Anecdotal is not empirical. Thus anecdotal evidence is not empirical
evidence. I introduced the term "experiential evidence," which you changed
to anecdotal. You had a better argument with experiential, so you should
have stuck to that instead of changing it to anecdotal. You are again
mistaken. Viz.:
anecdote /annikdot/ . noun 1 a short entertaining story about a real
incident or person. 2 an account regarded as unreliable or as being hearsay.
- DERIVATIVES anecdotal adjective anecdotalist noun anecdotally adverb.
- ORIGIN from Greek anekdota 'things unpublished'.
empirical (also empiric) . adjective based on observation or experience
rather than theory or pure logic.
- DERIVATIVES empirically adverb.
- ORIGIN Greek empeirikos, from empeiria 'experience'
(Both of those definitions are from http://www.askoxford.com/)
Here are the entries for "empirical" and "anecdotal" from Roget's Thesaurus.
Note that "empirical" and "anecdotal" are not synonymous, thus are not the
same, as you incorrectly conjectured.
"Main Entry: empirical Part of Speech: adjective Definition: practical
Synonyms: empiric, experient, experiential, experimental, factual,
observational, observed, pragmatic, provisional, speculative Antonyms:
conjectural, hypothetical, impractical, theoretic, theoretical, unobserved,
unproved Notes: empirical describes results determined by experiment and
observed behavior or facts; theoretical describes results that are based on
guesswork or hypothesis - and pragmatic is contrasted with theoretical on
the grounds that the former proceeds from what is demonstrably practical,
the latter from conjecture Source: Roget's New MillenniumT Thesaurus, First
Edition (v 1.3.1) Copyright � 2006 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All
rights reserved. "
" Main Entry: episodic Part of Speech: adjective Definition: intermittent
Synonyms: anecdotal, digressive, disconnected, discursive, disjointed,
incidental, irregular, occasional, picaresque, rambling, roundabout,
segmented, soap, soap opera*, sporadic, wandering Antonyms: frequent,
permanent, recurrent, regular"
" Main Entry: narrative Part of Speech: adjective Definition: storylike
Synonyms: anecdotal, chronological, fictional, fictive, historical,
narrated, recounted, reported, retold, sequential Source: Roget's New
MillenniumT Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1) Copyright � 2006 by Lexico
Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved. "

It's just not very good
empirical data, since it's not been reproduced and controlled strictly.

So now you want to quibble about various qualities of empirical data? When
you obviously don't know the difference between anecdotal and empirical?

And no human being can possibly experience what any other human being
experiences.

So you reject the idea of empathy?

No. But empathy is not the precise congruence of feeling you imply. And
since empathy is feeling, how do you objectively measure feelings?
Another of your arguments just blew up in your face. Did you notice?

---
No Gods. No Masters.

User: "Giant Waffle"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	27 Sep 2006 03:23:53 PM

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:27:06 -0500, " TomP"
<th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> you decided to say:

If ethics were "objective and verifiable," there would be no debate
as to right or wrong.

That is not true. Ethics can be objective and verifiable
and still be argued over, by people who do not wish to
submit to that which is correct.
Argument is not proof that something is not objective
and verifiable. People can be quite silly. :)
__
Giant Waffle
If you wish to be rude, or to play games, go find a mirror
and see if the person you see there would appreciate it.
And if the person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then
you know why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until you
learn some common decency and respect.
And do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of good
men, falsely applying them to yourself, after acting
contrary to them, as those who are wolves in sheep's clothing
often do.
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	01 Oct 2006 01:44:17 PM

"Giant Waffle" <_giantwaffle_@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbnlh2thndbnf42iat5pf3r8dt1kos7abp@4ax.com...

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 15:27:06 -0500, " TomP"
<th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> you decided to say:

If ethics were "objective and verifiable," there would be no debate
as to right or wrong.

That is not true. Ethics can be objective and verifiable
and still be argued over, by people who do not wish to
submit to that which is correct.

You waffled. Are ethics objective and verifiable or not? That is the
question pending.
Suppose people who debate what is right or wrong after the "objective and
verifiable" evidence has already established that a certain word or deed is
either right or wrong. Are these people debating the moral character of a
certain act?
Or are they arguing whether any certain people should submit in the face of
"factual, objective, verifiable, evidence"?

Argument is not proof that something is not objective
and verifiable.

Of course not.

People can be quite silly. :)

Indeed, some certainly are. Especially those people who argue that certain
phenomena, such as gravitation, that has been proven true is false. And
those silly people who argue that ethical choices are somehow the product or
result of "factual, objective, verifiable, evidence."

__

Giant Waffle

If you wish to be rude, or to play games, go find a mirror
and see if the person you see there would appreciate it.
And if the person you find in that mirror wouldn't, then
you know why I have ended my conversation with you. Rather,
I have chosen to ignore and forget you, at least until you
learn some common decency and respect.

Oh my!

And do not pretend to be my brother, while stabbing me in
the back and then quoting Bible verses that speak of good
men, falsely applying them to yourself, after acting
contrary to them, as those who are wolves in sheep's clothing
often do.

Oh my! Again. Atheists and fundamentalist Christians hereabouts typically
do find a reason to disappear when their dogma is found wanting. Or they
are caught in the act of doing something they themselves condemn. So it
does not surprise me that this atheist found an excuse to depart. Just
another in a long line . . . What was that little saying? You know, the
one sometimes attributed to Harry Truman? Oh yes. If you can't take the
heat, stay out of the kitchen.
.

User: "DarkAngel"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	02 Oct 2006 09:52:40 AM

TomP wrote:

Are ethics objective and verifiable or not? That is the
question pending.

The question is as useful as questioning whether there exists an
objective reality outside of one's own mind (i.e. not very much). It's
a basic assumption that needs to be accepted before we even start
discussing ethics. If it is wrong, then ethics itself as a subject is
useless wanking. Just like all of science (or the quest for knowledge
in general) is useless wanking if everything we call 'physical reality'
is just a figment of my imagination, or is downloaded directly to my
brain like in the numerous argumentum ad Matrix that seems to pop up
whenever this subject is broached.
Just by debating with me you accept implicitly the existence of an
objective reality. And just by trying to convince me on matters of
ethics you implicitly agree that there is a way to verify, compare and
evaluate those matters. Else you should just save your breath and
saliva.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	11 Oct 2006 05:00:14 PM

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159800760.285307.210660@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

Are ethics objective and verifiable or not? That is the
question pending.

The question is as useful as questioning whether there exists an
objective reality outside of one's own mind (i.e. not very much). It's
a basic assumption that needs to be accepted before we even start
discussing ethics. If it is wrong, then ethics itself as a subject is
useless wanking. Just like all of science (or the quest for knowledge
in general) is useless wanking if everything we call 'physical reality'
is just a figment of my imagination, or is downloaded directly to my
brain like in the numerous argumentum ad Matrix that seems to pop up
whenever this subject is broached.

Just by debating with me you accept implicitly the existence of an
objective reality.

I agree that there is a reality, but only certain aspects of reality are
objective. The reality is that certain electro-magnetic waves in the
visible spectrum appear green to the majority of human beings when reflected
from a given matter, but to a certain minority of human beings these same
electro-magnetic waves are not green. What is the "objective reality"? Is
it merely a matter of statistics?

And just by trying to convince me on matters of
ethics you implicitly agree that there is a way to verify, compare and
evaluate those matters. Else you should just save your breath and
saliva.

Have you noticed the evolution of your adjectives in this thread?
I agree that there are ways to verify, compare and evaluate ethical
decisions. I still disagree that there is "factual, verifiable, objective
evidence" on which to evaluate ethical decisions.
I can think of many ethical dilemmas for which there is no "factual,
verifiable, objective evidence." For example, is there "factual,
verifiable, objective evidence" that a woman who will probably die if she
continues a pregnancy is morally right to kill the otherwise healthy baby
she has carried for 7 months to save her own life?
Kindly point out the "factual, verifiable, objective evidence" that condemns
or exonerates the American strategic bombing campaign against Japan. Bear
in mind no organized unit of the Japanese armed forces had ever surrendered
prior to August 15, 1945 and the Japanese were committing mass murder
throughout the territory they occupied in Asia and the Pacific basin. To end
this slaughter, were the Americans justified in using the most terrible
weapons ever concocted against Japanese civilians? There are mountains of
data, and we certainly know the results of these events. But was the
decision to area bomb Japanese cities from low altitude on windy nights
using primarily incendiary bombs ethically correct? Was the decision to use
nuclear weapons on two occasions ethically correct? There is a substantial
body of evidence that the Japanese murdered far more noncombatant civilians
using swords, bayonets, and bullets than noncombatants who were killed by
American bombs. And the number of noncombatant human beings murdered by
Japanese swords, bayonets, and bullets is greater by a magnitude of 5 or
more than the number of noncombatant civilians killed by all American bombs.

---
No Gods. No Masters.

User: "DarkAngel"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	13 Oct 2006 10:10:06 AM

TomP wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159800760.285307.210660@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I agree that there is a reality, but only certain aspects of reality are
objective. The reality is that certain electro-magnetic waves in the
visible spectrum appear green to the majority of human beings when reflected
from a given matter, but to a certain minority of human beings these same
electro-magnetic waves are not green. What is the "objective reality"? Is
it merely a matter of statistics?

If you're going to try to dazzle someone with this kind of sophistry,
you might want to try on someone who didn't work on computer vision as
his Masters' thesis.
Vision 101: You receive electro-magnetic waves with intensity that can
be objectively measured over the entire frequency spectrum. Your eyes
contain a set of three (two if you're color-blind, four if you're the
lucky recipient of a relatively recent genetic mutation) types of cones
which are integrator functions over that spectrum, and can also be
objectively estimated from measurements (this is what your optometrist
does whenever he or she tests whether you are color-blind).
The electro-magnetic waves you received is dependent on the integration
of the spectrum of light that hit an object with the reflectance
function of that object, both can be objectively measured with the
proper instruments.
So while the perceived color of an object is in a certain sense
dependant on a subjective factor (the integrators in your eyes), this
subjective concept is not only entirely dependant on objective reality,
but can in fact be communicated to others using objective measures.
Adobe, for one, has made most of its money making sure that a set of
RGB coordinates always show the same (or as close as reasonably can be)
independant of the device it is shown on. And there is a whole industry
of people involved in making sure that the colors on every day objects
do not conflict. A car, for instance, has to be designed so as to have
multiple pieces made of different materials with different dyes show up
as being one solid color under multiple lighting conditions to
different people.
So when someone says this is green while someone says it isn't, it is
because they are working from different definitions of what 'green'
means, not because the underlying reality changed for one of them.

And just by trying to convince me on matters of
ethics you implicitly agree that there is a way to verify, compare and
evaluate those matters. Else you should just save your breath and
saliva.

If the methods of comparing and verifying those matters doesn't rest on
some objective bedrock, then there is no reason why we should even be
wasting time discussing these. We can just say 'this is what I believe,
this is what you believe, it's all the same anyway' and be done with
it. I can go and sacrifice little babies and nobody can tell me that
there is an objectively valid reason why I shouldn't.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	15 Oct 2006 01:18:53 PM

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160752206.061503.191120@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159800760.285307.210660@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I agree that there is a reality, but only certain aspects of reality are
objective. The reality is that certain electro-magnetic waves in the
visible spectrum appear green to the majority of human beings when
reflected
from a given matter, but to a certain minority of human beings these same
electro-magnetic waves are not green. What is the "objective reality"?
Is
it merely a matter of statistics?

If you're going to try to dazzle someone with this kind of sophistry,

Nah, I am a lot of things, but dazzling is certainly not one of them.
Except perhaps the top of my head when sunlight is reflected from it. I am
just a truck driver who reads a lot. But I took physics and optics was part
of that course. And I took human physiology and human sight was covered
there.

you might want to try on someone who didn't work on computer vision as
his Masters' thesis.

Really? What is the title and what year was it accepted? I like to look up
these theses and dissertations by people on use net to see how they were
really written. Often the style is significantly different. I often find
these theses absorbing reading. I have access to the entire series of
"Dissertation Abstracts," so I can make do with just the title and year and
no other information is needed from you.

Vision 101: You receive electro-magnetic waves with intensity that can
be objectively measured over the entire frequency spectrum. Your eyes
contain a set of three (two if you're color-blind, four if you're the
lucky recipient of a relatively recent genetic mutation) types of cones
which are integrator functions over that spectrum, and can also be
objectively estimated from measurements (this is what your optometrist
does whenever he or she tests whether you are color-blind).

"Objectively estimated"? Do you refer to the calculation of parameters of
possibility? As when accident reconstructionists calculate parameters of
possibility for a pre-collision, impact, and post-collision velocities of
the masses involved in the collision?
And how did the absence of specific one rod come to be identified with color
blindness? Was every human being in the world tested for color blindness?
Or were cohorts from groups of populations selected and studies of these
cohorts established a statistical probability for people with only two rods
in their eyes (or eye) to be unable to perceive green? And hasn't that
probability been reinforced by subsequent studies of different cohorts as
well as the collection of additional experiential data?
I think that is, in fact, a matter of statistics. Do you disagree?
I am not saying the statistical data is invalid. I do say that the method
of discovering the link between color blindness and the absence of certain
cones in the human eye was statistical. Which means color blindness is a
matter of statistics. That means the theory you outlined here is only
"objective" to the point where it is highly probable that your theory is
correct.

The electro-magnetic waves you received is dependent on the integration
of the spectrum of light that hit an object with the reflectance
function of that object, both can be objectively measured with the
proper instruments.

Isn't that a rather sophist way of saying that the human eye only detects
those parts of the visible spectrum that are reflected towards the eye?

So while the perceived color of an object is in a certain sense
dependant on a subjective factor (the integrators in your eyes),

And the color perceived is dependent upon the anatomy of the individual eye
and the individual neurons between this particular eye and this particular
brain?

this
subjective concept is not only entirely dependant on objective reality,
but can in fact be communicated to others using objective measures.

Does a color blind human being know what the word "green" means to a human
being who is not color blind?

Adobe, for one, has made most of its money making sure that a set of
RGB coordinates always show the same (or as close as reasonably can be)
independant of the device it is shown on. And there is a whole industry
of people involved in making sure that the colors on every day objects
do not conflict. A car, for instance, has to be designed so as to have
multiple pieces made of different materials with different dyes show up
as being one solid color under multiple lighting conditions to
different people.

Did you notice you mixed your terms and metaphors? "Perceived color . . .
dependent on a subjective factor"? "Subjective concept . . . entirely
dependent on objective reality"? Really?
Why is it you believe "a car, for instance, has to be designed so as to have
multiple pieces made of different materials with different dyes show up as
being one solid color under multiple lighting conditions to different
people"? Exactly who or what is the agent compelling automotive body design
that refracts or absorbs certain portions of the visible spectrum but
reflects others? Will the engineers be beaten with staves if they fail to
do this? Shot? Hanged? Burned? Their wives and children sold into
slavery? Fired?
Or do you really mean that designing cars so that all the body parts appear
to be the same color to the majority of observers is market driven? And
that statistical inferences have repeated themselves often enough in
marketing statistics to indicate that more automobiles are sold if the color
reflected by the various surfaces of the body parts appear to be the same?
I think that is the case, actually. And you referred to the same marketing
based statistics when you alleged that, "Adobe, for one, has made most of
its money making sure that a set of RGB coordinates always show the same (or
as close as reasonably can be) independant of the device it is shown on."
And I am always suspicious of statistical data whose primary function is to
increase profit, because if enough money is spent marketing almost any
specific goods or services as necessities of life, the marketing effort
creates it's own reality and luxury becomes necessity. As in the case of
Adobe and every automobile manufacturer. That pretty much reduces the issue
to merely a matter of statistics. But I already wrote that, didn't I? I
did, go back and read the beginning of your post here.

So when someone says this is green while someone says it isn't, it is
because they are working from different definitions of what 'green'
means, not because the underlying reality changed for one of them.

Yes, isn't that what I said? I quote myself: "The reality is that certain
electro-magnetic waves in the visible spectrum appear green to the majority
of human beings when reflected from a given matter, but to a certain
minority of human beings these same electro-magnetic waves are not green.
What is the 'objective reality'?" What part of that do you disagree with?

And just by trying to convince me on matters of
ethics you implicitly agree that there is a way to verify, compare and
evaluate those matters. Else you should just save your breath and
saliva.

OK, then tell me exactly where I can discover your "objective bedrock"
containing your "methods of comparing and verifying" ethical decisions.
Well?
I have asked several atheists to show me what the "objective," "factual,"
"verifiable" "evidence" for ethics is. All, just as you did here, insist
vehemently that there is such evidence. But no one has yet been capable of
going beyond your mere insistence that such methods exist. What are these
methods? What is your "objective bedrock" to judge ethical decisions? At
least the fundamentalist Christians can direct me to the Bible, and Muslims
to the Quran, and Jews to the Torah. All the group of atheists hereabouts
has done is scream that there must be some combination of "objective,"
"factual," "verifiable," "evidence" underlying ethics. I have asked various
atheists for some weeks what that evidence is. No atheist has been capable
of producing any evidence. Care to try?
I will even begin your presentation of the evidence, so all you need do is
fill in the blank space: "The 'objective bedrock' upon which ethical
decisions rest is _______ ."
I anxiously await your response. Or a response from any other atheist.
By the way, how many courses in metaphysics did you complete on your way to
your Master's degree in computer science or information management or
management information science or whatever the university you took your
degrees from called your discipline? How many courses in ethics were you
required to complete? How about courses in epistemology? The philosophy of
science? History of science? Theology? My guess is none, but I will
happily stand corrected and retract should you provide evidence that you did
complete courses in any of those disciplines.

---
No Gods. No Masters.

User: "Pastor Frank"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	22 Sep 2006 04:59:18 AM

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158870306.767703.237850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

Then those questions aren't important. They are mental masturbation. If
no objective, verifiable and factual evidence exists to answer these
questions, then making a choice for one solution or the other is simply
a matter of a coin flip, and it is thus a trivial and irrelevant line
of inquiry. That is the inevitable conclusion of your line of thought.
If no objective morality is attainable, there is no morality.

That is of course total "mental masturbation", for the subjects outside
of "objective, verifiable and factual evidence" include all qualities, which
are typically just opinions. Are you an amoral person, for whom the
qualities good and evil don't exist, because there is no "objective,
verifiable and factual evidence" for something to be good or evil, and thus
anything goes as "a matter of a coin flip"? Don't you like and dislike
anything nor anyone because there is no "objective, verifiable and factual
evidence" for having likes and dislikes?

No Gods. No Masters.

An antiauthoritarian you are though, for you supply sufficient
"objective, verifiable and factual evidence" to come to that conclusion.
"borderline nihilist" indeed!!!!
.

User: "DarkAngel"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	22 Sep 2006 06:57:44 AM

Pastor Frank wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158870306.767703.237850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

That is of course total "mental masturbation", for the subjects outside
of "objective, verifiable and factual evidence" include all qualities, which
are typically just opinions.

I don't agree. I consider those things to be objective, verifiable and
factual.

Are you an amoral person, for whom the
qualities good and evil don't exist, because there is no "objective,
verifiable and factual evidence" for something to be good or evil, and thus
anything goes as "a matter of a coin flip"?

Good and evil don't exist. There's benefit and harm, pleasure and pain.
These things are objective and verifiable.

Don't you like and dislike
anything nor anyone because there is no "objective, verifiable and factual
evidence" for having likes and dislikes?

Likes and dislikes are emotions, which come from a mixture of chemicals
in the brain, which are (in theory) quantifiable and verifiable, though
given it would involved opening the head of everyone we meet it's a bit
drastic.

No Gods. No Masters.

An antiauthoritarian you are though

Yes, thank you. Nicest compliment I've received all day.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.

User: "Pastor Frank"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	22 Sep 2006 05:25:25 PM

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158926264.378308.79360@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

Pastor Frank wrote:

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158870306.767703.237850@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...

That is of course total "mental masturbation", for the subjects
outside
of "objective, verifiable and factual evidence" include all qualities,
which
are typically just opinions.

I don't agree. I consider those things to be objective, verifiable and
factual.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, for qualities are, and will
always be a matter of opinion. I.e. what is beautiful, elevating and
transporting to me, such as the perfections of our glorious God incarnate,
Jesus Christ are perceived as being the opposite by atheist, etc. etc.,
inclusive of "borderline Nihilists".
.

User: "Pastor Frank"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	19 Sep 2006 07:21:37 PM

" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:451018f7$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158093283.095671.202260@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

The fact that you
must rely upon the adjectives "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual"
to state your case should be the first indication that your definition
of
evidence is radically delimited and highly idiosyncratic. Thus flawed.
Fatally flawed.

Is that a fact? Kindly illustrate your assertion by producing an ethical
system that is both objective and verifiable.

By the way, did you notice that you yourself retreated from the three
adjectives "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" to only "objective
and verifiable"? How do you explain your retreat?

You did not use the word "factual" in your above paragraph I quoted, so
I could hardly "retreat" from it. But now, that you start making up stuff,
and not answer questions, i.e. produce an ethical system sans reference to
any literature extant, I think you lost your credibility and my, if not
everyone else's interest all in one fell swoop.

Even if you happen to be right because you believe in something
independant of factual evidence,

That is not nor was it ever my assertion. For those things for which
"objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence exists, I accept those
things as true. Gravity comes to mind. Those things that can be fully
quantified and qualified are others. Some other things that are not
totally discernible through "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual"
evidence, but for which there is a probability that such events or
phenomena or people existed, I also accept as true. I also understand
that most of the truly important issues human beings confront cannot be
evaluated on the basis of "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual"
evidence, because no such evidence exists. Ethical systems cannot be
evaluated using "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence. If
you think I am mistaken, please illustrate your objection using
"objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence that a certain course
of action is invariably correct. Bet you can't.

you still hold no knowledge. In the
same way that holding a serie of True or False statements and choosing
to believe based on the result of a coin does not mean you hold any
knowledge. The person who holds a false belief that is rationally
supported by empirical data is closer to truth than someone who holds a
true belief because of 'faith' or other such nonsensical ways of
supposedly attaining truth.

You may have a point here. Maybe. But maybe not. No, actually that is
gobbledygook. What are you trying to say?

In any case, what about those situations and phenomena for which no
empirical data exists? How do you propose to deal with those situations?

What about ideas that cannot be quantified and qualified or reproduced by
a laboratory assay or observed? How do you evaluate those using
"empirical data" when no such data can be gathered?

How do you evaluate a belief as true or false when no empirical data is
available?

I think you make many decisions every day in your life for which no
empirical data is available to guide you. And you rely instead upon your
experience and the probability of outcomes you expect and your faith in
other people. And often your faith in other human beings turns out to be
misplaced. Or do you claim personal perfection?

---
No Gods. No Masters.
Even the most dedicated postmodernist or sollipsist
becomes a materialist comes lunch time.

User: " TomP"
Title: Re: WHICH IS THE REAL GOD	22 Sep 2006 03:05:35 PM

"Pastor Frank" <PastorFrank@christfirst.org> wrote in message
news:9b0f3$4510945e$d1d894c6$7655@PRIMUS.CA...

" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:451018f7$0$24168$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158093283.095671.202260@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

TomP wrote:

The fact that you
must rely upon the adjectives "objective" and "verifiable" and
"factual"
to state your case should be the first indication that your definition
of
evidence is radically delimited and highly idiosyncratic. Thus flawed.
Fatally flawed.

You did not use the word "factual" in your above paragraph I quoted, so
I could hardly "retreat" from it.

What are you talking about? I wrote the "above paragraph" you refer to and
"factual" is the nineteenth word in that paragraph. Look again. Honest,
"factual" is really there.
Pastor Frank, my reply was to a poster calling himself "DarkAngel." Read
the names and count the little carats. And then read the exchanges above and
you will see that DarkAngel indeed removed the word "factual" from the
triumvirate of "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual." That is what I
referred to, not anything you wrote.

But now, that you start making up stuff,

Actually, Pastor Frank, it is you who appear to be "making up stuff."
Despite your ill-considered opinion, the "word" factual really is in the
paragraph I wrote and absent from the section written by someone else.

and not answer questions, i.e. produce an ethical system sans reference to
any literature extant,

So it is your opinion that no ethical system can exist without reference to
a written source?
If that is the case, and according to your tradition the Pentateuch was
first written by Moses, that means that the Hebrews who came before Moses,
among whose number are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had no ethical system. Is
that really the story you want to stick to, Pastor Frank?

I think you lost your credibility and my, if not
everyone else's interest all in one fell swoop.

Whatever . . . you should think what is right by your light, Pastor Frank.

Even if you happen to be right because you believe in something
independant of factual evidence,

That is not nor was it ever my assertion. For those things for which
"objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence exists, I accept
those things as true. Gravity comes to mind. Those things that can be
fully quantified and qualified are others. Some other things that are
not totally discernible through "objective" and "verifiable" and
"factual" evidence, but for which there is a probability that such events
or phenomena or people existed, I also accept as true. I also understand
that most of the truly important issues human beings confront cannot be
evaluated on the basis of "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual"
evidence, because no such evidence exists. Ethical systems cannot be
evaluated using "objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence. If
you think I am mistaken, please illustrate your objection using
"objective" and "verifiable" and "factual" evidence that a certain course
of action is invariably correct. Bet you can't.