Cruel Joke or Medical Anomaly?

UM List ^ | Tim Wilkins

[r9etb]

The article predicates it's hypothesis on the existence of God.

No it doesn't. Your antipathy toward religion has obviously clouded your mind on this. While the author does approach it from a religious perspective, he goes out of the way to point out scientifically verifiable ideas that should warm the cockles of your heart.

And you misspelled "its".

[John O]

People are born with all sorts of faulty mental/emotional/psychological faculties, from fetal alchohol syndrome to Downs syndrome and so on. It seems reasonable that people can be born with any sort of mental/emotional/psychological defect.

The key difference is that the diseases one can be born with all have a genetic or physiological marker. SAD is more closely related to what they used to call "shell shock" it is a result of trauma of some sort. It is purely a mental disease and no one is born with this disease. They catch it from somewhere else.

[adam_az]

You made the argument that all morality is dependento on divinity.

I replied, that's crap. Religion is manmade, not divine. (even if you belive in God.)

Since man created religion and its moral codices, man can also create moral codices outside of the concept of religion that are not your straw-men examples like rouseau and "might makes right."

Do you get it yet?

[Dad was my hero]

Thanks for explaining.

I still disagree with your premise that the article is predicated on the existence of God but rather that he tries through his article to tackle both positions through his argument.

BTW, I've known plenty of adults with poor reading comprehension and was wondering only if you were one. Of course, the problem with them is that so many don't recognize it anyway. Maybe I have it because I don't see how God's existence is his underlying argument but rather the overall focus of one of his two prongs of discourse. As noted earlier, the first being if God created things, then why... OR the second being that if things evolved post big bang and following what we call Darwinian evolution, then why...

[adam_az]

"No it doesn't. Your antipathy toward religion has obviously clouded your mind on this. While the author does approach it from a religious perspective, he goes out of the way to point out scientifically verifiable ideas that should warm the cockles of your heart."

I approached from that direction too.

Search the thread for "screwdriver."

I guess you never mistyped an apostrophe? I didn't realize I was in the presence of perfection. I genuflect in your honor!

[Leatherneck_MT]

I stand corrected and agree with you entirely.

[adam_az]

It's the underlying argument, because he's writing from the perspective of knowing that God exists, and that he(the author) understands God's will.

If either of those two conditions can not be proven, then the argument based on those conditions falls.

[little jeremiah]

Regarding the term "inborn psychological" I MEAN (SORRY _ ALL OF A SUDDEN MY CAPS ARE LOCKED _HELP!) THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL QUALITIES _ SOME FROM BIRTH< AND OBVIOUSLY VERY INFLUENCED BY UPBRINGING> BUT BABIES ARE NOT "BLANK SLATES">

(SORRY ABOUT THESE CAPS _ I"LL INVESTIAGE NOW!)

[little jeremiah]

NOPE _ (SORRY _ MY CAPS ARE INEXPLICABLY LOCKED) I PROVED THE FLAW IN YOUR CATEGORICAL STATEMENT THAT "GOD HAS NOT A DAMN THING TO DO WITH IT"> IOW YOU STATED AS FACT THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST> THEREFORE< YOU MUST KNOW EVERYTHING> THEREFORE YOU ARE GOD_LIKE IN YOUR UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE AND VISION>

[r9etb]

Since man created religion and its moral codices, man can also create moral codices outside of the concept of religion that are not your straw-men examples like rouseau and "might makes right."

Ah, but the rub is that they cannot demonstrate that they're absolute -- relativism is the best you can do. Worse than that, given your loudly stated desire for "scientifically verifiable evidence," the only thing I'd expect you to be in favor of is things like might makes right, which is present at every level of life on Earth.

Unless you're going to call the theory of evolution a "straw man example," which I rather doubt.

Do you get it yet?

[adam_az]

Don't pull a Maureen Dowd on me, caps-boy. At least she has the decency to use ellipses, unlike you.

My whole quote was:

"Homosexual practices of promiscuity and poo-play are unsanitary, and homosexuals tend to die much earlier than their hetero counterparts because of it. God doesn't have a damn thing do do with it."

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Occam slices all of those dialectical arguments with his Razor.

So why not explain what Occam says if you place your trust in his arguement?

You asked for proofs and were given them. If you're unahppy, state why.

[adam_az]

"Ah, but the rub is that they cannot demonstrate that they're absolute -- relativism is the best you can do."

Religious morality, being invented by man, is also relative.

I'm not going to bring evolution into this, and it's a bad example, because it is an attempt to describe a biological process, not relationships between humans. I'm guessing you brought it up, out of an itch to change to topic to something you feel more comfortable debating. I'm not interested.

[adam_az]

I did.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1034458/posts?page=156#156

[Hermann the Cherusker]

My point was, all of those long dialectical arguments culminated in the idea that, therefore, the answer must be a God.

Nope. Didn't you read what I posted?

"... and this everyone understands to be God."

"... to which everyone gives the name of God."

"This all men speak of as God."

"... and this we call God."

"... and this being we call God."

St. Thomas is saying that the descriptions given are descriptions of what we call God.

The alternative to this is to say that they are not descriptions of what we call God. This requires (a) providing the alternative description of what we call God, (b) providing the alternative naming of these five things as some other thing(s).

If you wish to take up that challenege, go ahead and do so here and now. Don't sit around and pretend that Occam did it for you.

[little jeremiah]

I AM TRULY SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS> I HAVE A WEIRD LAPTOP< AM NOT VERY COMPUTER LITERATE (PUTTING THAT MILDLY) AND SORRY FOR MY COMPUTER IGNORANCE I DON"T KNOW WHAT ELLIPSES ARE>
I WILL RETREAT TO THE PRIVACY OF MY QUARTERS AND TRY TO FIX MY KEYBOARD>

AS FAR AS YOU WHOLE QUOTE< I WAS REPLYING TO THE GOD DOESN"T HAVE A DAMN THING TO DO WITH IT PART> (OBVIOUSLY!)

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Not an answer. See #175.

[Coleus]

thanks for the thread. Can you post the link?

[William Wallace]

You're insulting me because I have a deeper understanding of his article than you have the capability to grasp. That's pretty funny.

What's funny is the chasm between your inflated opinion of yourself and your foolish/belligerent posts on this thread.

Since you're a fan of Occam's Razor, perhaps that instrument can help you discern why you need to resort to self-congratulatory utterances like the above when nobody else is singing your praises.

One possibile explanation is that no one on this thread is clever enough even to be a Salieri to your Mozart.

The other explanation is much simpler. BibChr summed it up earlier in one word.

[jimt]

Of course I could be wrong, but to me it appears the question is directed at those who believe in God. Whatever it is, for those who believe in God it's a valid question.

I think it's a valid question for everybody, believer or not.