to the atheists on the board

Scientific evidence is irrelevant and not a factor in man's ability to practice faith in God. No scientific evidence I have seen makes a case for the non-existence of the God of my understanding.

I too can claim that you are opaque to faith, but what's the point?

You demand others be "rational" according to your belief systems in their personal lives with their chosen beliefs which is a value judgment on your part as to the way that people "should" make conclusions about the meaning of life, the cause of life, and the purpose of life.

Hardly a live and let live philosophy.

Fortunately we have a constitution that still protects the rights of citizens to practice the freedom of religion and personal belief systems without fear of persecution or ridicule from the government.

From what I have seen from the band of atheists who dogmatically pass judgment on other's beliefs based on their opinions of what is reasonable, it is easy to imagine a scenario that if the atheists were in power, that they would pass laws prohibiting people from having "irrational" beliefs in God.

That is sanity?

Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

Why? You'll only say that scientific evidence is irrelevant when it comes to faith. What's the point, ART? Your irrationality is like a brick wall. You're completely opaque to reason.
More...
 
Appeal to authority is valid when the appeal is made to a body that is THE recognized authority on mental health, i.e. the professional societies that psychologists and psychiatrists belong to like the AMA, the American Society of Psychologists, etc.

Supporting evidence for correct understanding of the appeal to authority fallacy is found here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:


Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:





Faith in God is not deemed unreasonable nor a sign of mental illness by these professional organizations.


That you may claim to know more about what mental health is than the professionals in the field of mental health is without basis and is just unqualified opinion.

Your statement is not reasonable as you are questioning the experts in the field as not having expertise, as well as ad hominem with comments on what you believe is my weakness.



Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

BTW, that's called an Appeal to Authority. You only believe what people in a perceived position in authority believe. That's your weakness. You don't know how to believe the facts by themselves.
More...
 
Me:
>So, are you still going to defend the blanket statement:

>>snip<
>>belief in God does not produce behavior or thinking
>>deemed irrational by any psychological standard.

>...or are you going to concede that it was a generalization
>that can be proven wrong by example?

ART:
>The statement you make is that some people who
>commit irrational (as opposed to rational) crimes are
>believers in God.

>I agree that the above is a true statement.

ART, In your quest to avoid answering the question you are starting to get sneaky. The statement you are agreeing to is not the question being asked. Not only is it YOUR statement, it's not even directly derived from my question.

>Even in this case, there is no proof that it was the belief
>in God that led to the criminal behavior of the few that
>did commit irrational crimes. It could have been a chemical
>imbalance or other factors that clouded the persons
>judgment on how to act on their belief in God. Many
>possibilities exist to explain criminal behavior.

Interesting ART, not a single example has yet been given, but already you have already declared "Even in this case, there is no proof...". Even in WHAT case?

>Make a case if you can.

Why should I make a case to someone who as already determined that "there is no proof" before even hearing the example? As the old saying goes...I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid.

>Yes, we can find cases that people claim they were
>acting for their God. Sirhan Sirhan claimed that God
>told him to kill Bobby Kennedy. As a society we
>condemned his actions.

Why would you condemn the actions of a man acting on God's bidding? Seems that throwing him in jail for life is the ultimate in ridiculing his beliefs and that according to you "is not laughable, it is sad and indicative of a lack of emotional and mental maturity" I smell double standard.

So (again), are you still going to defend the blanket statement:

>snip<
>belief in God does not produce behavior or thinking
>deemed irrational by any psychological standard.

...or are you going to concede that it was a generalization
that can be proven wrong by example?


JB
 
I stand by the statement until shown differently that belief in God was the cause of the effect you call irrational criminal behavior.

Quote from Turok:

Me:
>So, are you still going to defend the blanket statement:

>>snip<
>>belief in God does not produce behavior or thinking
>>deemed irrational by any psychological standard.

>...or are you going to concede that it was a generalization
>that can be proven wrong by example?

ART:
>The statement you make is that some people who
>commit irrational (as opposed to rational) crimes are
>believers in God.

>I agree that the above is a true statement.

ART, In your quest to avoid answering the question you are starting to get sneaky. The statement you are agreeing to is not the question being asked. Not only is it YOUR statement, it's not even directly derived from my question.

>Even in this case, there is no proof that it was the belief
>in God that led to the criminal behavior of the few that
>did commit irrational crimes. It could have been a chemical
>imbalance or other factors that clouded the persons
>judgment on how to act on their belief in God. Many
>possibilities exist to explain criminal behavior.

Interesting ART, not a single example has yet been given, but already you have already declared "Even in this case, there is no proof...". Even in WHAT case?

>Make a case if you can.

Why should I make a case to someone who as already determined that "there is no proof" before even hearing the example? As the old saying goes...I may be dumb, but I ain't stupid.

>Yes, we can find cases that people claim they were
>acting for their God. Sirhan Sirhan claimed that God
>told him to kill Bobby Kennedy. As a society we
>condemned his actions.

Why would you condemn the actions of a man acting on God's bidding? Seems that throwing him in jail for life is the ultimate in ridiculing his beliefs and that according to you "is not laughable, it is sad and indicative of a lack of emotional and mental maturity" I smell double standard.

So (again), are you still going to defend the blanket statement:

>snip<
>belief in God does not produce behavior or thinking
>deemed irrational by any psychological standard.

...or are you going to concede that it was a generalization
that can be proven wrong by example?


JB
More...
 
>I stand by the statement until shown differently
>that belief in God was the cause of the effect you
>call irrational criminal behavior.

And once again you stand by a different statement than the one being challenged.

It's clear you are afraid to confront something here...constantly avoiding the question, twisted answers, stating "Even in this case, there is no proof..." in a case not yet presented.

Never mind.

JB
 
Non sequitur.

Quote from Turok:

>I stand by the statement until shown differently
>that belief in God was the cause of the effect you
>call irrational criminal behavior.

And once again you stand by a different statement than the one being challenged.

It's clear you are afraid to confront something here...constantly avoiding the question, twisted answers, stating "Even in this case, there is no proof..." in a case not yet presented.

Never mind.

JB
More...
 
Me:
>It's clear you are afraid to confront something here...
>constantly avoiding the question, twisted answers,
>stating "Even in this case, there is no proof..." in a case
>not yet presented.

ART:
Non sequitur.

The fact that you avoid the question is evident in your posts and is there unarguably in the record. My 'conclusion' is indeed just a hypothesis, but I disagree that it doesn't follow the premise or that it is illogical.

However, just for the sake of the exchange...OK, Non sequitur.

Now, challenge my hypothesis of the reason behind your avoidance. I say you are afraid of something...perhaps I'm wrong. Why after all these posts have you still not answered the question as asked by me but instead continue to answer your own questions? Why have you assumed the facts in a case not yet presented?

Unlike you, I'll always entertain alternate hypothesis.

JB
 
No, it is not clear that I am avoiding anything. That is your assumption, an incorrect one.

I disagree that I am avoiding questions or twisting answers.

I am not avoiding anything. I stand by statements made previously.


Quote from Turok:

Me:
>It's clear you are afraid to confront something here...
>constantly avoiding the question, twisted answers,
>stating "Even in this case, there is no proof..." in a case
>not yet presented.

ART:
Non sequitur.

The fact that you avoid the question is evident in your posts and is there unarguably in the record. My 'conclusion' is indeed just a hypothesis, but I disagree that it doesn't follow the premise or that it is illogical.

However, just for the sake of the exchange...OK, Non sequitur.

Now, challenge my hypothesis of the reason behind your avoidance. I say you are afraid of something...perhaps I'm wrong. Why after all these posts have you still not answered the question as asked by me but instead continue to answer your own questions? Why have you assumed the facts in a case not yet presented?

Unlike you, I'll always entertain alternate hypothesis.

JB
More...
 
ART:
>No, it is not clear that I am avoiding anything. That is
>your assumption, an incorrect one.

There is no assumption. There is a record of 12 posted exchanges between us on this subject since I began asking this simple question:

>ART:
>>snip<
>>belief in God does not produce behavior or thinking
>>deemed irrational by any psychological standard.

>Me:
>Ok ART, just one simple question?...do you REALLY believe
>that statement as written, or it is just a casual generalization
>that all of us can make from time to time?

With all those posts you still have never answered the question. You have created your own questions several times and agreed with yourself regarding each but you have never answered *that* question.

That's the thing that's cool about the written word in a forum like this...it can't be ducked and dodged without record.

Enjoy your fantasies.

JB
 
Part 1: Yes.

Part 2: No.

"Enjoy your fantasies."

Irrelevant, opinion, assumes fact not in evidence.


Quote from Turok:

ART:
>No, it is not clear that I am avoiding anything. That is
>your assumption, an incorrect one.

There is no assumption. There is a record of 12 posted exchanges between us on this subject since I began asking this simple question:

>ART:
>>snip<
>>belief in God does not produce behavior or thinking
>>deemed irrational by any psychological standard.

>Me:
>Ok ART, just one simple question?...do you REALLY believe
>that statement as written, or it is just a casual generalization
>that all of us can make from time to time?

With all those posts you still have never answered the question. You have created your own questions several times and agreed with yourself regarding each but you have never answered *that* question.

That's the thing that's cool about the written word in a forum like this...it can't be ducked and dodged without record.

Enjoy your fantasies.

JB
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top