Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
You're making a completely ridiculous demand and equivocation.

This absolutely the point I was trying to make.

Asking me to produce God is EXACTLY the SAME as me asking you to show me the complete animal-to-human evolutionary process.

Both are the central key to my faith and your science. False equivalency not found.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Asking me to produce God is EXACTLY the SAME as me asking you to show me the complete animal-to-human evolutionary process.

You are absolutely certain that your God exists.

I am not absolutely certain of every aspect of the evolutionary process.

Thus, no, they are not the same.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,209
5,789
126
This absolutely the point I was trying to make.

Asking me to produce God is EXACTLY the SAME as me asking you to show me the complete animal-to-human evolutionary process.

Both are the central key to my faith and your science. False equivalency not found.

Except we are not asking You to conjure "God" to appear before us. Provide Evidence from any legit source.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
You are absolutely certain that your God exists.

I am not absolutely certain of every aspect of the evolutionary process.

Thus, no, they are not the same.

You know what Charles, that's fair, and understandable.

But please understand, I am NOT asking for scientists to fulfill this request. I only wanted to point out the absurdity of the demand to produce God (which is stupid anyway since I have no authority to demand God come down here -- I am sure that any reasonable person knows this).

That's all I wanted to point out.

Thank you.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
The problem, Rob, is that there is no evidence at all for the existence of God.

The only thing we are ever offered is "Here is X phenomenon that we can't explain using current science, so it means God did it". And that's not evidence.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
As a moderate conservative I never have understood this opposition to gay marriage. If certain people are hell bent against gay marriage, just revise tax and insurance laws to treat a civil unions the same as a marriage (rights/status/whatever).
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,375
10,976
136
The problem, Rob, is that there is no evidence at all for the existence of God.

IMO, that isn't the problem. I don't mind people believing in the existence of God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but the moment that they start saying "No, all the evidence you have produced to support this theory is wrong because I know that this fantastical being did something that conflicts with your theory despite the fact that I have no evidence to support what I claim to know."
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
18,375
10,976
136
As a moderate conservative I never have understood this opposition to gay marriage. If certain people are hell bent against gay marriage, just revise tax and insurance laws to treat a civil unions the same as a marriage (rights/status/whatever).

220px-New_York_City_Proposition_8_Protest_outside_LDS_temple_20.jpg


Equal rights is a matter of principle. If society panders to people who think that gay people are second-class citizens who do not deserve the same rights as "normal" people, then society is basically saying it is OK to treat gay people as second-class citizens.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
The problem, Rob, is that there is no evidence at all for the existence of God.

The only thing we are ever offered is "Here is X phenomenon that we can't explain using current science, so it means God did it". And that's not evidence.

Lol - "God of the gaps"!

I don't know what to say to you. I really don't have much else to say.

You essentially take the bullets from my gun and expect me to shoot when you say something to the effect of "intelligent design doesn't require a intelligent designer".

Yet, I know that every single structure on this planet that we've planned, designed, and built, had a designer. My mind tells me, thus, that since I see organization that reflects the same planning, implementation, and execution in our own bodies, someone probably designed US. Call it God of the gaps all you please, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that we were designed seeing the design in our own physical world that we've created.

It's not that I can't defend my position, I just don't see the point anymore.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
IMO, that isn't the problem. I don't mind people believing in the existence of God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but the moment that they start saying "No, all the evidence you have produced to support this theory is wrong because I know that this fantastical being did something that conflicts with your theory despite the fact that I have no evidence to support what I claim to know."

I don't even care so much about that.

The core of what I take issue with is summarized nicely on this billboard. :)

religion-is-like-a-penis1.jpg
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,104
6,312
126
Except we are not asking You to conjure "God" to appear before us. Provide Evidence from any legit source.

It's not as easy as that. You probably saw Jody Foster's character in First contact. Only she and the audience are the legitimate source for knowing what really happened to her, and we only know what happened according to the film script. Knowing there is a God is the same thing. You fall through this hole and you know. If your hole appears in a Christian context you find Jesus, if a Buddhist, enlightenment, etc. There are all these legitimate sources whose words about what happened are based on words from their past, from how they speak of this internal experience. The God experience is know only to those who know it but all those who know it have no doubt.

What troubles me about Rob is the fantastical nature of how he describes his knowledge, as if the words he uses to portray it are what is true, and not the essence of his experience. He and thousands of others of religious faith paint such a ridiculous picture of their knowledge that it turns everybody else off.

The religious person can never make religion sound reasonable to a non religious mind, a mind that has rejected the obvious horse shit, or cabbage that religious folk propound.

As a result, few that reject religion can get from there back to real understanding. Fool me once and all that shit...

This is why all the real teachers lead by example. They are folk who act in ways that make the right kind of people say, "I wish I were like that. He or she sees in ways I never imagined. How come?" There is a peasant woman from India, a fisherman's daughter I believe, who had enough food to feed some of her neighbors as a child. She developed so much love and empathy that today she had hugged millions and millions of people, owns hospitals and has built thousands of homes for the poor. All she does is manifest true being.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
It's not that I can't defend my position, I just don't see the point anymore.

Rob, you seem like a nice enough guy, but sorry, it really is that you can't defend your position.

There is no scientific evidence for the existence of supernatural beings.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
Lol - "God of the gaps"!

I don't know what to say to you. I really don't have much else to say.

You essentially take the bullets from my gun and expect me to shoot when you say something to the effect of "intelligent design doesn't require a intelligent designer".

Yet, I know that every single structure on this planet that we've planned, designed, and built, had a designer. My mind tells me, thus, that since I see organization that reflects the same planning, implementation, and execution in our own bodies, someone probably designed US. Call it God of the gaps all you please, but it's not unreasonable to conclude that we were designed seeing the design in our own physical world that we've created.

It's not that I can't defend my position, I just don't see the point anymore.

Have you really looked at our bodies though? They are inefficiently designed (and I'm being generous in that description). What the hell are wisdom teeth for?! Why do we not have more than one heart? Why isn't it better protected? Why are our brains so massively under-utilized? What's baldness good for? Our balance is ingeniously controlled... by the inner ear? Come on!

There are many many ways in which the human body is either not designed as you suggest, or the designer is a moron, which cannot be applied to a god and maintain the point of faith.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
What exactly are you referring to when you say "supernatural cause?"

I'd term an event that did occur to be of natural cause until some evidence provided a falsification of that notion. Ergo, it falls into the Super or Extra natural arena.
To go to the extreme.... With some reasonable confidence level it is possible the entire Universe 'popped' into existence out of nothing... no space, no matter, no energy, no rules, time or creator.... Simply put, nothing is unstable and something will always occur... That is to me a natural cause for the Universe. The alternate or one alternated view is that a God made it occur... That is a supernatural cause.
Intuitively, I know God exists but there is no evidence for this existence but I know it is true... And with that state of mind that I have I still don't ascribe the creation of the Universe to a God but, rather, include that among the theories I find reasonable. That does not defeat the God premise for me but IF he did create the universe then I'm about understanding his mind or alternatively, the workings of nature...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
There is no doubt science help us appreciate the physical world much better. The Bible isn't a scientific textbook so no, it doesn't overly concern itself with the things science does. It's a book designed to draw humans closer to God. Too bad religion has fooled and decieved people for centuries, so I don't blame people who avoid or completely ignore and denounce religion.

Atheists commonly use science to pad their unfounded falsehood that God doesn't exist.

The Bible and science should support one another, not fight one another.

Until God posts a message on YouTube I'd say there is NO evidence for a God. It is Faith and nothing more that enables one to accept a God... That notion does not satisfy a whole host of people.... I've no problem with folks who are atheist... My belief is twixt me and what I believe in... No one can alter that by their belief...
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
It's not as easy as that. You probably saw Jody Foster's character in First contact. Only she and the audience are the legitimate source for knowing what really happened to her, and we only know what happened according to the film script. Knowing there is a God is the same thing. You fall through this hole and you know. If your hole appears in a Christian context you find Jesus, if a Buddhist, enlightenment, etc. There are all these legitimate sources whose words about what happened are based on words from their past, from how they speak of this internal experience. The God experience is know only to those who know it but all those who know it have no doubt.

What troubles me about Rob is the fantastical nature of how he describes his knowledge, as if the words he uses to portray it are what is true, and not the essence of his experience. He and thousands of others of religious faith paint such a ridiculous picture of their knowledge that it turns everybody else off.

The religious person can never make religion sound reasonable to a non religious mind, a mind that has rejected the obvious horse shit, or cabbage that religious folk propound.

As a result, few that reject religion can get from there back to real understanding. Fool me once and all that shit...

This is why all the real teachers lead by example. They are folk who act in ways that make the right kind of people say, "I wish I were like that. He or she sees in ways I never imagined. How come?" There is a peasant woman from India, a fisherman's daughter I believe, who had enough food to feed some of her neighbors as a child. She developed so much love and empathy that today she had hugged millions and millions of people, owns hospitals and has built thousands of homes for the poor. All she does is manifest true being.

The woman in your example treads the path of true being; she may hold an image or thought in her mind that she associates with the destination but it is the journey she holds dear, just as dearly as she hugs each person along her way.

Some of the religious see the destination as just as important if not more important than the actual journey, or they concern themselves with the structure of the bridge they must cross to get to the "other side".
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Surely you would want to check how decent Google's identification verification systems are before making such a statement? :)

http://www.facebook.com/pages/God/10141208299


:)

hehehe

I guess the better question might be; why God don't edify the multitude if he's so nice a God... Strange...

Rob has this notion that there is no Heaven, Hell or torment, etc... but yet finds it necessary to comply with biblical (his) teachings.... Why? What is the reward? Can't one be moral and be atheist.... Rob feels that when you die that is the end my friend.... and I can't accept that being a conscious being.... Something is missing.... something very very important.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
but it's not unreasonable to conclude that we were designed seeing the design in our own physical world that we've created.

That's entirely unreasonable, though. The conclusion is not supported by anything resembling "reason".
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,104
6,312
126
:)

hehehe

I guess the better question might be; why God don't edify the multitude if he's so nice a God... Strange...

Rob has this notion that there is no Heaven, Hell or torment, etc... but yet finds it necessary to comply with biblical (his) teachings.... Why? What is the reward? Can't one be moral and be atheist.... Rob feels that when you die that is the end my friend.... and I can't accept that being a conscious being.... Something is missing.... something very very important.

If I understand you right I think I have seen this expressed as, the soul doesn't long for what doesn't exist. Such a longing would not arise were it not possible. The Sufis use the allegory of the droplet of water that returns to the sea or the plaint of the reed the result of its separation from its osier bed, that our longing for God and our love for Him is the result of separation, that we were once united with Him and that our rage and anger and hunger is over that loss. Of course, we don't know what we feel so it is easy to deny all of this if it's so.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,104
6,312
126
The woman in your example treads the path of true being; she may hold an image or thought in her mind that she associates with the destination but it is the journey she holds dear, just as dearly as she hugs each person along her way.

Some of the religious see the destination as just as important if not more important than the actual journey, or they concern themselves with the structure of the bridge they must cross to get to the "other side".

Yup, religions become worshiping of the bridge instead of crossing it.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
That's entirely unreasonable, though. The conclusion is not supported by anything resembling "reason".

In other words, if my views don't agree with evolution, they're "unreasonable".

Now you see why I refer to it as pure dogma of a different breed. No ifs, ands, or buts about it: evolution or bust.
 
Last edited: