"Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

Is this the stupidest argument for God ever made?

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#161  Postby Nicko » Jan 15, 2015 6:19 am

surreptitious57 wrote:I would be interested to know which dictionary Zadocfish obtained the definition from but he does not cite a source so I suspect it is simply his own which is why it is wrong


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism

A highlight and a right-click.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8638
Age: 43
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#162  Postby John Platko » Jan 15, 2015 2:00 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Don't be idiotic John.


Sounds like good advice - I'll try to keep that in mind.



it is not religion that does the fair tests, it is science and the shift in the moral Zeitgeist which is the push for reform.



Science is a method. People do fair tests. Some of them are scientists. Some of those scientists are religious. Some religious non scientist do fair tests to find truth. It's all very complicated and interwoven - very hard to tease apart what caused what.



Religions may come to the realization that some dogma about Mary being a whore is so primitive and medieval that they drop it. Religions only use critical thinking when engaging with rival religions or other views.


Are you sure about that?



Islamic critiques of western Christian Aristotelian tradition led to some people thinking that there may be a third way. So in a sense, woo can sometimes debunk woo.


Ahhh. that's like the blind leading the blind. Ohhhhh :oops: come to think of it, there are some very impressive blind people walking around my town all by themselves. And they do just fine. So these days, the blind are perfectly capable of leading the blind. A bit of religious update is needed, I think.

"the blind woo leading the blind woo" would be better. Oh look, I just tested an idea and found the flaw in it. Does that make me science? :nono:


Nevertheless, it is extremely rare for a religionist to defend atheism or agnosticism.


I wonder why that might be?



Theologians of any creed don't want to go there. Because if they did they would have to acknowledge atheism/agnosticism as valid world views.


But many/most/all don't seem to think so.



So even if Jews, Christians, Muslims detest each other's viewpoints, they will all be of one voice when addressing atheism.


Hardly.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#163  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jan 16, 2015 1:25 am

John Platko wrote:
Science is a method. People do fair tests. Some of them are scientists. Some of those scientists are religious. Some religious non scientist do fair tests to find truth. It's all very complicated and interwoven - very hard to tease apart what caused what.

Yes, some scientists are religious. But all scientists, irrespective of beliefs or lack of beliefs, has to follow methodological naturalism. A religious scientist may be motivated to study natural phenomena. Perhaps they believe that science can be a form of worship or celebration of god's works in nature. Fine. I get it. religion can be a motivator [but by no means the only one]. That has nothing to do with science as procedure and method. Effectively, all scientists who do good science leave their religions at the door. In effect, science is an agnostic enterprise. God[s] are not part of scientific models, and we know what happens when that is attempted-failure. Newton might have believed that god created the clockwork universe, but his science was about the clockwork mechanism, not it's posited creator.
Even religious scientists do not do fair tests when it comes to their religion. Their "arguments" dissolve into apologetics. Pascal, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, came up with Pascal's Wager! When anybody, even brilliant scientists start to ponder god, their output turns to shit. Why is that, do you think?
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#164  Postby Shrunk » Jan 17, 2015 9:08 pm

Another of my posts got binned. It'd be nice if they gave the opportunity to find out why posts are deleted. I'd love to hear the rationale for this one.

It was in response to this post:



It is hoped that during the Synod on the Family that will
take place in October 2015, the discussion of homosexual unions will take into account the serious risk factors inherent in the homosexual lifestyle that were overlooked in this interview.

Today, numerous peer-reviewed published studies report serious psychological and medical risks associated
with same sex unions.

http://catholiceducation.org/en/controv ... nions.html


My reply:

Typical antigay hate propaganda.

Are any other groups of people banned from marrying if they have an increased risk of some forms of cancer? Smokers, say, or people who eat a lot of red meat?

The study showing higher rates of physical abuse experienced by men in same sex relationships vs opposite sex relationships could just as easily reflect that men are more likely to be physically abusive, or that heterosexual men are less willing to report that they are being abused even to a researcher. If it was demonstrated that women in lesbian relationships are less likely to be abused than women in heterosexual relationships, would you consider that evidence against heterosexual marriages?

The transmission rate for many sexually transmitted diseases for lesbian couples is much lower than for straight couples. For HIV, it is almost non-existent. Strange how your "education" site failed to mention that very pertinent fact.

Similarly, the page mentions higher suicide rates among gay men. But the suicide rate for men in general is much higher than that for women. Another argument in favour of lesbian marriages!

And so on.

Not to deny that homosexual people, like any other group of people, experience health problems particular to their group. But it seems only for homsexuals are these problems used as a pretext for hatred and discrimination.


The CWR moderation policy:

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative and inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


I wonder which of those guidelines a violated. :ask:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#165  Postby John Platko » Jan 19, 2015 3:21 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:John Platko wrote:
Science is a method. People do fair tests. Some of them are scientists. Some of those scientists are religious. Some religious non scientist do fair tests to find truth. It's all very complicated and interwoven - very hard to tease apart what caused what.

Yes, some scientists are religious. But all scientists, irrespective of beliefs or lack of beliefs, has to follow methodological naturalism. A religious scientist may be motivated to study natural phenomena. Perhaps they believe that science can be a form of worship or celebration of god's works in nature. Fine. I get it. religion can be a motivator [but by no means the only one]. That has nothing to do with science as procedure and method. Effectively, all scientists who do good science leave their religions at the door.


I doubt that. It's certainly not necessary. There's no reason for a Christian scientist, hmmm that won't work ... There's no reason from a scientist who is a Christian to leave their religion at any door while they do their work.




In effect, science is an agnostic enterprise. God[s] are not part of scientific models, and we know what happens when that is attempted-failure. Newton might have believed that god created the clockwork universe, but his science was about the clockwork mechanism, not it's posited creator.
Even religious scientists do not do fair tests when it comes to their religion. Their "arguments" dissolve into apologetics. Pascal, one of the greatest mathematicians of all time, came up with Pascal's Wager! When anybody, even brilliant scientists start to ponder god, their output turns to shit. Why is that, do you think?


There's simply no reason not to do fair tests with it comes to religion. If your religion is hurting people it's messed up and you need to fix it.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#166  Postby John Platko » Jan 19, 2015 3:56 pm

Shrunk wrote:Another of my posts got binned. It'd be nice if they gave the opportunity to find out why posts are deleted. I'd love to hear the rationale for this one.

It was in response to this post:



It is hoped that during the Synod on the Family that will
take place in October 2015, the discussion of homosexual unions will take into account the serious risk factors inherent in the homosexual lifestyle that were overlooked in this interview.

Today, numerous peer-reviewed published studies report serious psychological and medical risks associated
with same sex unions.

http://catholiceducation.org/en/controv ... nions.html


My reply:

Typical antigay hate propaganda.

Are any other groups of people banned from marrying if they have an increased risk of some forms of cancer? Smokers, say, or people who eat a lot of red meat?

The study showing higher rates of physical abuse experienced by men in same sex relationships vs opposite sex relationships could just as easily reflect that men are more likely to be physically abusive, or that heterosexual men are less willing to report that they are being abused even to a researcher. If it was demonstrated that women in lesbian relationships are less likely to be abused than women in heterosexual relationships, would you consider that evidence against heterosexual marriages?

The transmission rate for many sexually transmitted diseases for lesbian couples is much lower than for straight couples. For HIV, it is almost non-existent. Strange how your "education" site failed to mention that very pertinent fact.

Similarly, the page mentions higher suicide rates among gay men. But the suicide rate for men in general is much higher than that for women. Another argument in favour of lesbian marriages!

And so on.

Not to deny that homosexual people, like any other group of people, experience health problems particular to their group. But it seems only for homsexuals are these problems used as a pretext for hatred and discrimination.


The CWR moderation policy:

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative and inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


I wonder which of those guidelines a violated. :ask:


I'm guessing it was:

Typical antigay hate propaganda.


as a pretext for hatred and discrimination.


that triggered the censure. Maybe try reposting without the hate propaganda line and taking out the word "hatred" in the last line, and see what happens.

I don't think any of my comments have be censured over there. Saying Catholic policy towards same sex couples is discrimination seems ok over there.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#167  Postby Shrunk » Jan 19, 2015 8:26 pm

I figure that's probably it. Well, I'm not going to pander to that. I can't think of a better term than "hate propaganda" to characterize something like this:

That's why age of consent laws exist.


Which is a movable feast. In some countries it is as low as 5.

And guess which group is at the forefront of the push to lower the age of consent? The homosexuals.


I guess I was circumspect enough in my response to that, because it was posted:

Which is a movable feast. In some countries it is as low as 5.


Oh, really? And which country would that be?

And guess which group is at the forefront of the push to lower the age of consent? The homosexuals.

"The homosexuals"? All of them?

Careful, someone might think you were acting like a bigot who blames things on "the Jews" or "the blacks".
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#168  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jan 19, 2015 11:54 pm

John Platko wrote:
I doubt that. It's certainly not necessary. There's no reason for a Christian scientist, hmmm that won't work ... There's no reason from a scientist who is a Christian to leave their religion at any door while they do their work.

You can doubt it all you like John, but it is a fact. You little slip "Christian scientist" proves my point. They DO NOT follow methodological naturalism, and therefore their 'science" is bollocks.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Some claim that Pierre-Simon Laplace never said that to Napoleon. The statement by Laplace was in any case not atheistic. He was not stating people should reject god, he was stating that scientific hypotheses have never included god and worked anyway. There is literally no need to include god in science.
Give me even one example of a working scientific model that includes god. Just one. :lol: :lol:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#169  Postby John Platko » Jan 20, 2015 2:19 pm

Darwinsbulldog wrote:John Platko wrote:
I doubt that. It's certainly not necessary. There's no reason for a Christian scientist, hmmm that won't work ... There's no reason from a scientist who is a Christian to leave their religion at any door while they do their work.

You can doubt it all you like John, but it is a fact. You little slip "Christian scientist" proves my point.


:nono: It just proves there's never a delete key around when you need one.



They DO NOT follow methodological naturalism, and therefore their 'science" is bollocks.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")

Some claim that Pierre-Simon Laplace never said that to Napoleon. The statement by Laplace was in any case not atheistic. He was not stating people should reject god, he was stating that scientific hypotheses have never included god and worked anyway. There is literally no need to include god in science.
Give me even one example of a working scientific model that includes god. Just one. :lol: :lol:


I have no idea what you're going on about but it has nothing to do with what I'm going on about.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#170  Postby John Platko » Jan 20, 2015 3:41 pm

Shrunk wrote:I figure that's probably it. Well, I'm not going to pander to that. I can't think of a better term than "hate propaganda" to characterize something like this:

That's why age of consent laws exist.


Which is a movable feast. In some countries it is as low as 5.

And guess which group is at the forefront of the push to lower the age of consent? The homosexuals.


I guess I was circumspect enough in my response to that, because it was posted:

Which is a movable feast. In some countries it is as low as 5.


Oh, really? And which country would that be?

And guess which group is at the forefront of the push to lower the age of consent? The homosexuals.

"The homosexuals"? All of them?

Careful, someone might think you were acting like a bigot who blames things on "the Jews" or "the blacks".


Well, in any case, you seem to get more love over there than I do. :lol:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#171  Postby Agrippina » Jan 25, 2015 5:37 am

John Platko wrote:
Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.


I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.


Sorry, it's taken me a while to respond to this.

Wouldn't you think that if the being actually did exist, there would be standard attributes? Surely that you have to imagine his attributes, really makes him something made up in your own mind, from ideas planted there by men in dresses? Now imagine this: if I imagined that writing or language was something I could just make up as I went along, and only known to me, and accepted by me, I would be incoherent to the rest of the world, and be probably locked up somewhere safe to be prevent my being a danger to other people. Yet you claim that your whole philosophy of life is based on some being that you imagine and that you interpret to yourself, and you expect us to believe that this being actually exists? Isn't this a little like saying you have you have a best friend who lives with you, does everything you do with you, and is always there, and you want us to accept this best friend and invite him to live with us, do everything with us, and have him always with us?

Thanks but I think I'd like to test the existence of my friends, make sure they're actually there before I expect my real life friends to meet them.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#172  Postby John Platko » Jan 25, 2015 2:29 pm

Agrippina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.


I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.


Sorry, it's taken me a while to respond to this.

Wouldn't you think that if the being actually did exist, there would be standard attributes?



No. It took a very long time for people to come up with standard attributes for atoms, but while those attributes varied in peoples minds, atoms still existed - it's like so with God, i.e. we're still trying to figure God out.




Surely that you have to imagine his attributes, really makes him something made up in your own mind, from ideas planted there by men in dresses?


That's how you imagine it to be; but it ain't necessarily so.




Now imagine this: if I imagined that writing or language was something I could just make up as I went along, and only known to me, and accepted by me, I would be incoherent to the rest of the world, and be probably locked up somewhere safe to be prevent my being a danger to other people.


:nono: You might merely be an atheist trying to develop their own framework to try to win debates against the likes of William Lane Craig because you have difficulty with words like: evidence, supernatural and such - or so it seems to me from what I remember about a certain thread about made up language.




Yet you claim that your whole philosophy of life is based on some being that you imagine and that you interpret to yourself, and you expect us to believe that this being actually exists?


Well I wouldn't go that far. I also seem to be very influenced by the fictional TV character, James T. Kirk.


Isn't this a little like saying you have you have a best friend who lives with you, does everything you do with you, and is always there, and you want us to accept this best friend and invite him to live with us, do everything with us, and have him always with us?
:nono:

I say you too have a best friend that lives in you too and you might like to invite that friend to step out of your unconscious and into you consciousness.



Thanks but I think I'd like to test the existence of my friends, make sure they're actually there before I expect my real life friends to meet them.


:scratch: Understandable perhaps, but never-the-less a sad choice.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#173  Postby Agrippina » Jan 25, 2015 4:38 pm

John Platko wrote:
Agrippina wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.


I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.


Sorry, it's taken me a while to respond to this.

Wouldn't you think that if the being actually did exist, there would be standard attributes?


No. It took a very long time for people to come up with standard attributes for atoms, but while those attributes varied in peoples minds, atoms still existed - it's like so with God, i.e. we're still trying to figure God out.

But atoms actually do exist. You can't compare a made-up character in a series of books to atoms. That would be like saying that the characters in Lord of the Rings, or Game of Thrones are real, even though they exist merely in the pages of the stories written about them, just like God.


Surely that you have to imagine his attributes, really makes him something made up in your own mind, from ideas planted there by men in dresses?


That's how you imagine it to be; but it ain't necessarily so.

I don't "imagine" it to be that way, that's the way it is. The character God is merely someone written about in a few ancient books, and who continues to be written about in modern works, exactly the same way if people continue to write the stories of the Hobbits and the Elves long after we've all died, and claim that they actually existed.


Now imagine this: if I imagined that writing or language was something I could just make up as I went along, and only known to me, and accepted by me, I would be incoherent to the rest of the world, and be probably locked up somewhere safe to be prevent my being a danger to other people.


:nono: You might merely be an atheist trying to develop their own framework to try to win debates against the likes of William Lane Craig because you have difficulty with words like: evidence, supernatural and such - or so it seems to me from what I remember about a certain thread about made up language.

Those words mean something, and I'm not going back to that conversation. That some people can't allow themselves to understand what they mean, isn't my problem, I know what they mean, and I'm satisfied that the majority of the rest of the world also understand what they mean.


Yet you claim that your whole philosophy of life is based on some being that you imagine and that you interpret to yourself, and you expect us to believe that this being actually exists?


Well I wouldn't go that far. I also seem to be very influenced by the fictional TV character, James T. Kirk.

So you allow yourself to be influenced by fictional characters? That's very strange in an adult. The words attributed to the character "Kirk" were written by a real person, not by the fictional character you allow to influence you.


Isn't this a little like saying you have you have a best friend who lives with you, does everything you do with you, and is always there, and you want us to accept this best friend and invite him to live with us, do everything with us, and have him always with us?
:nono:

I say you too have a best friend that lives in you too and you might like to invite that friend to step out of your unconscious and into you consciousness.

Wrong. My best friends are real people I can visit and interact with. I don't have imaginary friends.


Thanks but I think I'd like to test the existence of my friends, make sure they're actually there before I expect my real life friends to meet them.


:scratch: Understandable perhaps, but never-the-less a sad choice.

Why sad? I don't need imaginary friends, I'm don't have social interaction problems, despite my introversion and my early socialising issues. I've been taught how to live in the world with real-life people, even if I don't always enjoy it, I don't resort to making up people to interact with.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36689
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#174  Postby John Platko » Feb 07, 2015 2:41 pm

I'm impressed with how tolerant they have been to my posts over at the Catholic World Review Report. I thought this one might be a bit further than they would be able to go but up it went.

After this article: http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item ... color.aspx

“Grey is the devil’s favorite color.” How I wish I could take credit for that powerful quote. However, it actually belongs to none other than philosopher, Catholic convert, author, and esteemed professor Dr. Peter Kreeft. A wise listener of mine sent me the Kreeft quote to help summarize the current obsession, and not just among the general public, with the Fifty Shades of Grey book trilogy. The fictional series written by E.L. James focuses on the sado-masochistic relationship between a young woman, Anastasia Steele, and her billionaire boyfriend, Christian Grey. It is so terribly raunchy it’s been dubbed “mommy porn” by secular critics and so graphic it’s described as yet one more example of “violence against women” by Dr. Drew Pinsky, TV host and popular relationship expert. ...


I posted:

I haven't read any of the books and don't know much about them but when I read:

" The fictional series written by E.L. James focuses on the sado-masochistic relationship between ..." in the article I was reminded of:

"Saint Teresa of the Andes: I found another way to mortify myself before going to sleep: putting my weight on the tips of my toes, causes additional pain. And also, but not omitting any little act for Jesus."

"Saint Jean Marie Vianney: Oh, how I like those little mortifications that are seen by nobody, such as rising a quarter of an hour sooner, rising for a little while in the night to pray! but some people think of nothing but sleeping. There was once a solitary who had built himself a royal palace in the trunk of an oak tree; he had placed thorns inside of it, and he had fastened three stones over his head, so that when he raised himself or turned over he might feel the stones or the thorns."

"St. Francis of Assisi (1181 or 1182–1226) taught, "I have no greater enemy than my body," arguing that "We should feel hatred towards our body for its vices and sinning!" For St. Francis this attitude entailed fasting and self-flagellation for the disciplining of the body, which he called "brother donkey." This metaphor, beloved by the ascetics, expresses the idea of the body as a beast of burden that, according to Legenda maior, the life of St. Francis by St. Bonaventure (c. 1217–1274), "should be weighed down by hard work, often scourged with the whip, and nourished with poor fodder." As for St. Dominic (c. 1170–1221), aside from the usual waking and fasting, three times every night he would "whip himself with an iron chain: once for himself, once for the sinners in the world, and one for the sinners who are suffering in purgatory."

And this isn't all old school stuff - no no.

"The late Pope John Paul II, who has been put on the fast track to sainthood by the Vatican, regularly whipped himself as an act of penance to feel closer to God, and signed a secret document saying that would step down as pontiff if he became incurably ill, according to a new book.

Why a Saint? by Monsignor Slawomir Oder, the Vatican "postulator" in charge of the canonisation process, says the Polish-born Pope performed self flagellation as a bishop in Krakow and continued to do so in the Vatican after being elected Pope in 1978.

"In his wardrobe, among his vestments, there hung on a clothes hanger a special belt for trousers which he used as a whip," Monsignor Oder says. He said self flagellation was "an instrument of Christian perfection" emulating the sufferings of Jesus Christ."


It should make for some interesting discussion.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#175  Postby Nebogipfel » Feb 08, 2015 10:11 am

Surely we're getting into the wrong sort of desire here...? :naughty2:

I have to take my hat off to you and Shrunk, John. You have the patience of, er, saints.
Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion
-- Carl Sagan
User avatar
Nebogipfel
 
Posts: 2085

Country: Netherlands
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#176  Postby John Platko » Feb 08, 2015 4:09 pm

Nebogipfel wrote:Surely we're getting into the wrong sort of desire here...? :naughty2:

I have to take my hat off to you and Shrunk, John. You have the patience of, er, saints.


Shrunk and I make such a great "team" over there that some are convinced one of us is the other's sock puppet.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#177  Postby Shrunk » Apr 21, 2015 6:04 pm

John Platko wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:Surely we're getting into the wrong sort of desire here...? :naughty2:

I have to take my hat off to you and Shrunk, John. You have the patience of, er, saints.


Shrunk and I make such a great "team" over there that some are convinced one of us is the other's sock puppet.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


It looks like you're me again. Or am I you? We really should straighten that out....
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#178  Postby John Platko » Apr 21, 2015 6:32 pm

Shrunk wrote:
John Platko wrote:
Nebogipfel wrote:Surely we're getting into the wrong sort of desire here...? :naughty2:

I have to take my hat off to you and Shrunk, John. You have the patience of, er, saints.


Shrunk and I make such a great "team" over there that some are convinced one of us is the other's sock puppet.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


It looks like you're me again. Or am I you? We really should straighten that out....


:scratch: :crazy:

Surely my fellow American Catholics wouldn't support Sharia law in America on grounds of Religious freedom - they don't seem to be able to connect the very simple dots of their own argument. And this isn't just the kind of talk you get at the Tony level - Father Barron has been saying this kind of thing for years.

And speaking of Barron, I've noticed he has a new post here.

I'd like to respond to it but under the circumstances I don't think I will. Here's a glimpse of Cardinal George.

I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#179  Postby Shrunk » Apr 21, 2015 7:39 pm

A very neutrally worded question there. I was quivering with suspense at how he would answer. :lol:

So the ones who are "totalitarian" are not the people who take the view that it is a fact of nature that marriage is only heterosexual? OK, if you say so.

Pity he now won't get the chance to see the error of his ways.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "Revisiting the Argument from Desire"

#180  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2015 7:49 pm

"The state can't change the nature of marriage".

Huh, it really felt like they did that here. :scratch:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26785

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest