CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson
You have not offered a single example in our discussion. You have not offered a single example relevent to our discussion. You don't even know what we're talking about seemingly, and half the time can't even keep it straight whether you're talking to me, or to Ming.

Sometimes I have responded to one, sometimes to the other, and sometimes to both, so that I make a few less posts and don't repeat myself as often.

I think you're completely and utterly confused about what it is I said.

I said that it's bull**** when you claimed an absolute reality of how all incestuous relationships will be unhealthy. You can't even understand that, even though all it takes is about 6th grade reading comprehension.

If you tell me I am wrong in saying something, and then respond to something completely different, yeah, I will be confused about what you said. I am not sure if this happened, but I admit that it could. And no, that has nothing to do with a '6th grade reading compreshension' (really, do we have to get to personal insults?)

I stand by that all incestuous relationships (as I have defined in this thread) are unhealthy, based on my current understanding of psychology.

No Jon. I've specifically responded to everything you've said to me. You have failed to address anything I have said. The only thing you even quoted you then went on to talk about something completely different.

Wrong. I can link to the post in this thread if you wish.

"Have you even read my posts?"
"Please refer to majority opinion among experts?"
"I am not a psychologist. Talk to some of them, please."

And now you are here pretending like it's me just saying, "No, I'm right and you're wrong". That's all you've done. The hilarious thing is you still don't understand what I've said. You are completely and utterly clueless.

But if you want to address what I've said...

You haven't addressed the cultural taboo issue that I raised.

Yeah, you say it is all cultural taboo. I don't know of any culturals where siblings having relationships were encouraged that were successful so I have a hard time responding to it.

You haven't addressed the health of relationships between siblings who were unaware of their relation.

I did! That is what I meant by saying that you don't even read my posts. I said that the unhealthiness was due to emotional sibling relationship, not biological sibling relationship. Which makes sense since my concern is emtion health rather then physical health (which is with children).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Aeson


So you're saying you don't think any of us have seen studies?

None of you have referenced seeing any. Just saying that you saw some would probably make me go look up a study showing that you were wrong.

JM

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
You should ignore what other's religion says about science, I agree. Religion is based on personal experience or assumptions, as such it is evidence for the one who beleives in it and not for others. If God hasn't called you to be a Christian (or something else) than it is correct for you to ignore religion.

JM

I have no problem with religon, those who adhere to it simply choose to neglect occam's razor for that particular case. And if they do that for that case than why can't those with strong ideological belifs do the same for other cases?


BTW I (currently) do belive in a God paritaly comaptible with the Chatolic Christian view of God. But I have changed my opinon several times each time after a thourgh internal dialogue, reasoning and extensive study of the subject. I probably know about as much (or more) about each of the major religions as someone who belongs to them!

I suppose you could call me a deist who likes atheists.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
But most scientist are agnostics or atheists.

That isn't because of evidence that God doesn't exist. Rather, that is becuase of the mindset of scientists.

Current evidence does not favour God.

Current evidence doesn't disfavour God either.

I haven't heard of a way to come up with a proper experiment that conclusively proves or disporves most psychological and sociological theories.

I was thinking physics.

JM

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The interesting question would be whether CA's constitutional amendment, if passed, would violate the US constitution (since it is not permitted to). This could be the boon that allows it to be challenged in FEDERAL court - in the California circuit, which will probably be the best place THAT could happen, I'd think...

Well, there is that. Quite frankly, I am hoping that the amendment will not show up on the CA ballot come November - and if it does, being soundly defeated ... but worst case scenario; you are right Snoopy - the only option left in that case would be Federal Court ... (but lets not think about that possibility right now).

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I was thinking physics.

I usually do to, belive it or not.


But in this case I was trying to say that the tools currently avilable to the "social sciences" are about as good as current physics tools are about the existance of God.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I have no problem with religon, those who adhere to it simply choose to neglect occam's razor for that particular case. And if they do that for that case than why can't those with strong ideological belifs do the same?

Err, no. Some people (claim to) have evidence of God's existence. It just isn't easily repeatible nor is it universal.

BTW I (currently) do belive in a God paritaly comaptible with the Chatolic Christian view of God. But I have changed my opinon several times each time after a thourgh internal dialogue, reasoning and extensive study of the subject. I probably know about as much (or more) about each of the major religions as someone who belongs to them!

I don't really see how reasoning comes to play... If you bleieve in God you can construct an internally consistent view of the world. There isn't any reasoning of Him into existence, it must be assumed (or experienced).

I suppose you could call me a deist who likes atheists.

I agree that agnostics can be boring. Atheists usually don't understand the issues involved though.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


I usually do to, belive it or not.


But in this case I was trying to say that the tools currently avilable to the "social sciences" are about as good as current physics tools are about the existance of God.

Really? Cause I think that they have at least something that they have been working on. We physicists have nothing (nor can imagine anything) that would do anything about the existence of God.

I guess that I generally assume that observation, mathematics, and enlightenment provides better tools then nothing.

JM

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I have the status quo position and have seen studies. No one else has even said they have seen studies.

JM

I'll make it easy. Just one.

Adult, consensual, incestuous relationships. I'll make it even easier - either "good" or "bad" findings/effects will do.

I don't think you can deliver.

[EPW]

You can't beat psychohistory

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Really? Cause I think that they have at least something that they have been working on. We physicists have nothing (nor can imagine anything) that would do anything about the existence of God.

All we have to do is eliminate the role of creator and prove that physical laws can not be changed.

Once the above has been done God is no longer omnipotent and he is no longer the creator, if both are true, then why call him God?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Err, no. Some people (claim to) have evidence of God's existence. It just isn't easily repeatible nor is it universal.

Some people (claim to) have evidence of Big Foot's existance. It just isn't easily repeatible nor is it universal.

[EPW]

You could define God as the Universe and be done with it.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Really? Cause I think that they have at least something that they have been working on. We physicists have nothing (nor can imagine anything) that would do anything about the existence of God.

I guess that I generally assume that observation, mathematics, and enlightenment provides better tools then nothing.

JM

Well, if I might put my 2 cents worth in...

I concur that mathematics and observation are both valid tools that a scientist has in his/her grasp. My heartburn is with enlightenment - how in the hell is that a scientific measure...of well, anything?!?

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

I don't really see how reasoning comes to play... If you bleieve in God you can construct an internally consistent view of the world. There isn't any reasoning of Him into existence, it must be assumed (or experienced).

hmmm You dislike the "philsopher's God" interesting...

Why do you (a scientist) view the entire universe with reason but see it as inappropriate to view God with reason?

Originally posted by Jon Miller

I agree that agnostics can be boring. Atheists usually don't understand the issues involved though.

JM

Very true, but admit it. The average Atheist is more interesting that the average Christian.