And now for something completely different
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:14
VIEWED: 15117
PAGE 7 of 14
Quote:Ugh. Allow me to clarify.
Originally posted by citizen:
Erm, HIV destroys the immune system, eventually leading to the condition called AIDS.
I believe there is evidence to suggest HIV may only be a co-factor in destroying the immune system, leading to the condition called AIDS. Meaning HIV may not be working alone. For example, the prolific presence of HHV-6 in AIDS patients has not been well investigated as a possible alternative cause or co-factor of immune dysfunction in these patients, because HIV is already blamed.
It is like cops who have a suspect stop looking for other suspects, even though there is some evidence that this suspect may have had accomplices.
Quote:My doubt is on whether HIV is the ONLY cause of AIDS. No one claims that the flu is the ONLY cause of sore throat. But authorities claim that HIV is the only cause of AIDS. Now if you show me an authority who says AIDS has many different causes, among them HIV, then I will rephrase my doubts more precisely.
But to say that casts doubt on HIV as a cause of AIDS? To me that sounds like suggesting the Flu is a co-factor in a sore throat, because you get one with Tonsillitis?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.urmc.edu/smd/mbi/education/courses/MBI456files/HV123-07-not
es.pdf
HHV-6. HHV-6 causes roseola (exanthem subitum) in infants and infects almost all (>90%) of children by age 3.
But since these children don't get AIDS until infected with the HIV, it would be illogical to say that HHV-6 is the 'cause' of AIDS. The sites you linked very strenuously objected to the HIV as being the cause of AIDS.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We will return back to our regularly scheduled program.
Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I find vague hand waving at an experiment no one has performed, and wouldn't be all that conclusive if they did (lie detectors are notoriously inaccurate), a wholly unconvincing argument. If we crucify them, how many would rise from the dead?
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Not so. If you take a lie detector test to folks on both sides, guess how many creationists would pass as truly believing in their Creator? A lot more than FSM-ers who truly believe in the Noodly King.
Quote:Maybe, but number of true believers is not a value judgement of religion. Unless you think Christianity is more of a religion than Buddhism or Hinduism. If you can't apply the argument equally, it's no argument at all. The argument doesn't work for religions with fewer followers than Christianity, so it doesn't work to debunk FSM as a religion. If it debunks FSM, it has to be able to debunk any religion, other wise you're just operating on confirmation bias.
The Bible myth has had time to become personal, and a person's belief is more than logic. Of course, as you say I can't see into people's heads and until I get my own lie detector I'm only hand-waving here. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that more folks believe in God than believe in the FSM.
An analogy would be antiques. One person will throw out an old radio as junk, another will pick it up and lovingly restore it because they see it as valuable. The person who threw it out, meanwhile, has spent they're time collecting antique bottle caps. You can't turn around and say the bottle cap collector is a wrong because they threw out an antique radio, but imbue bottle caps with value, or vice versa. The value of the belief is to the believer, and has nothing to do with age or the number of other believers. It's not for you to tell someone their belief is a lie (even if it is), nor that another belief is worth more than theirs, even if in your estimation it is. So saying "FSMers are lying", and "Christians are lying" are identical sentences, because they're both telling other people what they believe, and no matter what you think of their beliefs, you haven't the right. Outside that, talking about ages and number of true believers, is nothing more than a rationalisation.
Quote:Thats a rather gross over simplification, and quite misleading. Either people don't really believe, but think they have some good ideas, or their Evangelical/Fundamentalist. What happened to the shades of grey in between?
OK, I think we could make 4 groups here:
Quote:Firstly I reject the false dichotomy of your groupings, but secondly that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the only people that can make the distinction between true belief and fake belief is the believer him/herself. You don't have the right to tell them which 'group' they fit in, neither do I or leadb. Indeed, what group they really fit in is entirely irrelevant.
I gently posit that both leadb and you are not making a distinction between 1 and 2. To leadb, FSM-ers are lying every time we bring up the FSM, because he may think we are arguing for the existence of this silly deity, and not the principle behind it. The thing that bugged me about this thread is that you seemed to be playing into that, and placing yourself in group 2. Which effectively takes you down to the dogmatic level of those in group 4, and loses sight of the whole point.
To put it in refrence to your groupings, it seems to me leadb is making the blanket statement that 1 is all there is, and that he has the right to make that statement in the name of "calling a spade a spade". I'm saying that we have no right to place people in either 1 or 2, only they have the right to place themselves in either catagory.
Quote:No, there isn't. It's very easy to say, but doesn't mean it's true. You're estimation of someone else's belief is not better than theirs, you are not the final arbiter
Originally posted by leadb:
I don't tell them what to believe; I am calling a spade a spade. Big difference.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point about FSM is that it's an obsurd analogue of any religion. IF you say "religion X's creation myth should be taught in school" then why would you not teach religion Y's myths too and if you include religion Y then why not all the others?
Why should religion X be "special?" Of course the believers of religion X think it's the one true faith, that's obvious, they could hardly be believers and think otherwise but in a society where they do not form 100% of the population is it right that their view should have prominence over any other?
In the US they took a specific approach which is to basically give no religion prominence, which is a good thing I cant see why anyone would view that as being anything but amicable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess we disagree. I believe it is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, to state when someone is, to the best of one's assessment, lying. Clearly, you think it is ok to just lean back and accept the lie. To each his own.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I don't tell them what to believe; I am calling a spade a spade. Big difference.
No, there isn't. It's very easy to say, but doesn't mean it's true. You're estimation of someone else's belief is not better than theirs, you are not the final arbiter of belief, and you don't get to say “you don't believe what you say you do” and pass it off as calling a spade a spade.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I think it's fine when someone is lying about facts or figures, but when it's something specific and deeply personal about themselves, I don't think I have the right to tell other people how they think and feel about things. They know what they believe, you do not. Casting yourself as the final arbiter of other peoples beliefs, seems to me to be hubris.
Originally posted by leadb:
I guess we disagree. I believe it is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, to state when someone is, to the best of one's assessment, lying. Clearly, you think it is ok to just lean back and accept the lie. To each his own.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ahem Tries to politely join the conversation.
LeadB, you seem to take a strong personal exception (1) to FSM and the people who profess it. Earlier I posted that I thought it was b/c you saw them as a parody of Christianity (2).
(1) True and (2) true ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It would be, but you see, I'm not. I'm not claiming to be the final arbiter of their belief, I am merely observing the words they are uttering are lies. That is the difference.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:No, I think it's fine when someone is lying about facts or figures, but when it's something specific and deeply personal about themselves, I don't think I have the right to tell other people how they think and feel about things. They know what they believe, you do not. Casting yourself as the final arbiter of other peoples beliefs, seems to me to be hubris.
Originally posted by leadb:
I guess we disagree. I believe it is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, to state when someone is, to the best of one's assessment, lying. Clearly, you think it is ok to just lean back and accept the lie. To each his own.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ahem Tries to politely join the conversation.
LeadB, you seem to take a strong personal exception (1) to FSM and the people who profess it. Earlier I posted that I thought it was b/c you saw them as a parody of Christianity (2).
(1) True and (2) true ?
1) I'm not sure how to answer your question. Let's hope I hit it. I do not take personal offense from FSM; it neither attacks me, nor my beliefs. I will say I understand how folks would be offended, and not necessarily just the radical fundamentalists which Cit indicates.
I do not take -strong- exception to the people who profess it; I understand they have an objective; and I do not agree with the method. I believe they are lying; and have no qualms so asserting. Apparently, Cit thinks I'm going to offend the FSM'ers' or something else terrible is going to happen for me calling them on the carpet.
2) The problem is that I see people going to school boards and professing a faith in FSM for the purpose of affecting policy; namely to have their faith included in the science section if creationism is going to be permitted; in such a circumstance, I believe it will only muddy the waters to profess a faith so publicly for such purpose. I believe people will feel mocked.
As stated previously, I believe a better tactic is to attack the -science- of ID. It has the advantage of being true, and thus does not bear some of the problems of the FSM approach.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME