> It's odd that if you had such compelling evidence that time would play
> a role at all.  Are you sure that it isn't just a different form of
> indoctrination that is in play, here?

> > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > created heaven and earth."

> > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > alteration?

> That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> fit the description.  Or that it isn't a literal event.  Or any number
> of other possibilities.

> It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> develops.  But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> must be literal, and must be to a satiation event at all.

> <snip>

> > > So there’s my anecdotal evidence: given a fair hearing of arguments
> > > from both sides, 147 +1 = 148 out of 150 intelligent boys [over 98%]
> > > thought Catholicism was false. But in post #3, there’s more.

> > Simple anecdotes are not evidence; your numbers are not statistically
> > significant; using just one class risks other factors being the key
> > one, and thus not just that the arguments are so compelling; just
> > because some or even most are convinced by certain arguments does not,
> > in fact, make those arguments correct.

> > And here I thought you might actually have some evidence, not some
> > fallacies ...

> ... wrote the guy who basically believes in god based on the fallacy
> of appeal to authority...

> <snip>

> > > Well, as I just said, no one post is going to do it. If you stay on
> > > the group for years, perhaps you will change your mind and perhaps you
> > > won't.

> > It's odd that if you had such compelling evidence that time would play
> > a role at all.  Are you sure that it isn't just a different form of
> > indoctrination that is in play, here?

> It appears, based on that comment of yours, that you are not aware of
> the extent of the damage indoctrination can do to a person's mind.
> People who have been indoctrinated, especially when emotional bounds
> were involved, cannot be cured by rational arguments alone.

> > It appears, based on that comment of yours, that you are not aware of
> > the extent of the damage indoctrination can do to a person's mind.
> > People who have been indoctrinated, especially when emotional bounds
> > were involved, cannot be cured by rational arguments alone.

> And how do you know that the new indoctrination is better than the
> old?

> Get an argument right for once, would you?  

> > > > It's odd that if you had such compelling evidence that time would play
> > > > a role at all.  Are you sure that it isn't just a different form of
> > > > indoctrination that is in play, here?

> > > It appears, based on that comment of yours, that you are not aware of
> > > the extent of the damage indoctrination can do to a person's mind.
> > > People who have been indoctrinated, especially when emotional bounds
> > > were involved, cannot be cured by rational arguments alone.

> > And how do you know that the new indoctrination is better than the
> > old?

> Who said anything about a "newer" indoctrination?

> > > Ask rappoccio...
> > > Heck, look at yourself... You are Mister Rational, yet you believe in
> > > magic - you find all kinds of ways to rationalize each magical belief
> > > (such as "We use snow shoes to walk on snow, so Jesus might have been
> > > able to walk on water..." Don't you see how ludicrous this is? If you
> > > are right, and Jesus used some sort of contraption/trick to walk on
> > > water, then it was no miracle at all, and the bible is lying and
> > > disingenuous when reporting the event...).

> > Get an argument right for once, would you?  

> You know Allan, sometimes I do get things right.

> > This was my reply to your
> > comment that you needed some kind of proof that walking on water is
> > possible before even deigning to bother considering it, and my reply
> > was that it is quite possible naturally, so it doesn't seem all that
> > miraculous at all.

> Exactly what I wrote. How can you claim I got it wrong?
> "
> If you are right, and Jesus used some sort of contraption/trick to
> walk on
> water, then it was no miracle at all
> "

> Except that, of course, the conclusion I draw from that is not
> something you would agree with ("then it was no miracle at all, and
> the bible is lying and disingenuous when reporting the event").
> However, that conclusion is all mine, I did not attribute it to you.

> The only part I attributed to you is quite clearly delimited by
> quotes:
> "We use snow shoes to walk on snow, so Jesus might have been able to
> walk on water..."

> Of course, it is a paraphrase, but I thought you would see that; and,
> since it is not a distortion of what you actually wrote, what is the
> problem, really?

> >  I even commented that theists would get ticked off
> > at me for making miracles less than miraculous.  And you spout this
> > crap as if it was what I said.  Sheesh.

> ???
> You just admitted that you said that...
> "
> This was my reply to your
> comment that you needed some kind of proof that walking on water is
> possible before even deigning to bother considering it, and my reply
> was that it is quite possible naturally, so it doesn't seem all that
> miraculous at all.
> "

> What's the problem?
> The only problem I see is that it is factually wrong, we cannot walk
> on water. I have seen many attempts, including using some sort of
> water shoes, and they all failed. However, this is besides the actual
> point.

> I see, you will not admit that you were rationalizing magical events
> in order to make them fit into you web of belief... unless belief in
> magic is part of your web, in which case I will retract this statement
> that you are trying to rationalize magical events.

> > BTW, I do still intend to reply to that post, so you don't need to
> > follow me around and make up stuff about my arguments.

> Wow. You agreed that what I wrote was what you stated. So, please, do
> show me which part of my post is a fabrication of things you did not
> actually write.

> >  We can leave
> > all the strawmans inside that thread so that they're all in one place.

> What strawmen?

> Did you get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
> _________________________________________________
> Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.
> -- Peter Ustinov

> > > > It appears, based on that comment of yours, that you are not aware of
> > > > the extent of the damage indoctrination can do to a person's mind.
> > > > People who have been indoctrinated, especially when emotional bounds
> > > > were involved, cannot be cured by rational arguments alone.

> > > And how do you know that the new indoctrination is better than the
> > > old?

> > Who said anything about a "newer" indoctrination?

> If rational argument can't get past the indoctrination, isn't it only
> some kind of deprogramming that can?

> > > > Ask rappoccio...
> > > > Heck, look at yourself... You are Mister Rational, yet you believe in
> > > > magic - you find all kinds of ways to rationalize each magical belief
> > > > (such as "We use snow shoes to walk on snow, so Jesus might have been
> > > > able to walk on water..." Don't you see how ludicrous this is? If you
> > > > are right, and Jesus used some sort of contraption/trick to walk on
> > > > water, then it was no miracle at all, and the bible is lying and
> > > > disingenuous when reporting the event...).

> > > Get an argument right for once, would you?  

> > You know Allan, sometimes I do get things right.

> Except that in this matter you have been continually misinterpreting
> my arguments, and this one is no exception.  This was an expression of
> frustration with that, which anyone should have gotten.

> > > This was my reply to your
> > > comment that you needed some kind of proof that walking on water is
> > > possible before even deigning to bother considering it, and my reply
> > > was that it is quite possible naturally, so it doesn't seem all that
> > > miraculous at all.

> > Exactly what I wrote. How can you claim I got it wrong?
> > "
> > If you are right, and Jesus used some sort of contraption/trick to
> > walk on
> > water, then it was no miracle at all
> > "

> Now, think about this really carefully for a moment: where did I ever
> say that this was what Jesus actually did?

> Again, the argument you were making -- it seemed to me -- was that
> something like walking on water was just such a violation of what we
> know that unless it could be proven that such a thing was EVEN
> POSSIBLE no one should even deign to consider that such a thing
> happened, let alone try to consider how that occurred.  My reply was
> not to make claims about how it happened, but to point out that by the
> science we have now it is, in fact, theoretically possible,

> I wasn't rationalizing magical events at all.  I was simply pointing
> out the hole in your logic that these "magical" events are so outside
> the realm of possibility that they can be dismissed out of hand.

> > > And here I thought you might actually have some evidence, not some
> > > fallacies ...

> > ... wrote the guy who basically believes in god based on the fallacy
> > of appeal to authority...

> Fallacies only apply to deductive arguments, which belief is never
> since that would imply certainty.

> > > > > > It's odd that if you had such compelling evidence that time would play
> > > > > > a role at all.  Are you sure that it isn't just a different form of
> > > > > > indoctrination that is in play, here?

> > > > > It appears, based on that comment of yours, that you are not aware of
> > > > > the extent of the damage indoctrination can do to a person's mind.
> > > > > People who have been indoctrinated, especially when emotional bounds
> > > > > were involved, cannot be cured by rational arguments alone.

> > > > And how do you know that the new indoctrination is better than the
> > > > old?

> > > Who said anything about a "newer" indoctrination?

> > If rational argument can't get past the indoctrination, isn't it only
> > some kind of deprogramming that can?

> > > > > Ask rappoccio...
> > > > > Heck, look at yourself... You are Mister Rational, yet you believe in
> > > > > magic - you find all kinds of ways to rationalize each magical belief
> > > > > (such as "We use snow shoes to walk on snow, so Jesus might have been
> > > > > able to walk on water..." Don't you see how ludicrous this is? If you
> > > > > are right, and Jesus used some sort of contraption/trick to walk on
> > > > > water, then it was no miracle at all, and the bible is lying and
> > > > > disingenuous when reporting the event...).

> > > > Get an argument right for once, would you?  

> > > You know Allan, sometimes I do get things right.

> > Except that in this matter you have been continually misinterpreting
> > my arguments, and this one is no exception.  This was an expression of
> > frustration with that, which anyone should have gotten.

> > > > This was my reply to your
> > > > comment that you needed some kind of proof that walking on water is
> > > > possible before even deigning to bother considering it, and my reply
> > > > was that it is quite possible naturally, so it doesn't seem all that
> > > > miraculous at all.

> > > Exactly what I wrote. How can you claim I got it wrong?
> > > "
> > > If you are right, and Jesus used some sort of contraption/trick to
> > > walk on
> > > water, then it was no miracle at all
> > > "

> > Now, think about this really carefully for a moment: where did I ever
> > say that this was what Jesus actually did?

> > Again, the argument you were making -- it seemed to me -- was that
> > something like walking on water was just such a violation of what we
> > know that unless it could be proven that such a thing was EVEN
> > POSSIBLE no one should even deign to consider that such a thing
> > happened, let alone try to consider how that occurred.  My reply was
> > not to make claims about how it happened, but to point out that by the
> > science we have now it is, in fact, theoretically possible,

> Really?

> How is it theoretically possible for one to walk on water without any
> visible means of support?
> I am really curious about this.

> Which gets us back to my original claim...
> Either (1) you think Jesus did it using some yet unknown method thats
> science will eventually be able to explain and reproduce (which means
> that it is not a miracle).
> Or (2) it was a miracle, i.e. divine magic was involved.

> Which is it, Allan?

> > And it accuses me of rationalizing the
> > event in doing so --

> If you believe (2) above, but use (1) as an explanation for (2), then
> I am right.
> If you believe (1), then I will admit that you are not rationalizing a
> belief, but then you have to admit that Jesus did not perform any
> miracle, and explain how Jesus had the knowledge and capacity to
> perform those deeds.

> > read the entire paragraph you wrote -- which was
> > not what my point was, at all.  It was simply to point out that the
> > thing you consider so unlikely and so implausible that any reference
> > to it happening should be utterly dismissed out of hand isn't actually
> > all that unlikely, according to science.

> <snip>

> > > I see, you will not admit that you were rationalizing magical events
> > > in order to make them fit into you web of belief... unless belief in
> > > magic is part of your web, in which case I will retract this statement
> > > that you are trying to rationalize magical events.

> > I wasn't rationalizing magical events at all.  I was simply pointing
> > out the hole in your logic that these "magical" events are so outside
> > the realm of possibility that they can be dismissed out of hand.

> Well, it depends.
> I will wait for your answers to points (1) and (2) above to comment on
> this.
> _________________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry

> > Really?

> > How is it theoretically possible for one to walk on water without any
> > visible means of support?
> > I am really curious about this.

> If I may interrupt, there's a picture of Jesus walking on water here -
> shows how it's done.http://www.myspace.com/iceskatingjesus

> > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?  Recall the example in "The
> > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> I'm not sure that your example is valid.
> Let's take the conditioning approach first - and I will talk about the
> crow,
> not the insect.  Where did the crow "learn" this from in order to
> become
> "conditioned"?

> > > Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
> > > In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
> > > souls.  It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
> > > purposes.  At least try and be honest about your own religion,
> > > please.

> > > > Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> > > > volitional control over their brain processes.  Indeed, there is
> > > > nothing in them that could exercise volition at all.  There are *only*
> > > > brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> > > > principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics.  That would include pre-
> > > > human hominids.  So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> > > > is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> > > > Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> > > > capacity for sin or virtue.

> > > > The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.

> > > > On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > > > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > > > > account.  And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > > > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > > > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > > > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > > > > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > > > > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > > > > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > > > > created heaven and earth."

> > > > > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > > > > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > > > > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > > > > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > > > > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > > > > alteration?

> > > > > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > > > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > > > > fit the description.

> > > > > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.

> > > > > >  Or that it isn't a literal event.

> > > > > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.

> > > > > > Or any number
> > > > > > of other possibilities.

> > > > > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > > > > observation.

> > > > > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > > > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > > > > develops.

> > > > > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > > > > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > > > > evolutionary hypothesis.

> > > > > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > > > > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > > > > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > > > > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > > > > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > > > > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > > > > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > > > > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > > > > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > > > > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > > > > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > > > > number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> > > > > natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> > > > > sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> > > > > point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
> > > > > myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
> > > > > you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
> > > > > do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
> > > > > something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
> > > > > you?

> > > > > > But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > > > > > must be literal,

> > > > > Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> > > > > ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
> > > > > I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
> > > > > You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
> > > > > you're a heretic nonetheless. It's only a matter of

> > On Nov 4, 12:34 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Hi Joe you said: <<Now you are claiming there is "evidence" disproving
> > > Catholicism?  This
> > > is a brand-new claim for the atheist camp.  You should back it up.
> > > The world would like to know.>>

> > > I mulled over how to answer this and I will use 3 posts:
> > > 1. The complex nature of the case against Catholicism
> > > 2. Strong anecdotal evidence that the case is valid
> > > 3. More strong anecdotal evidence

> > > 1. The Case Against Catholicism.

> > > For those who don’t accept the Catholic viewpoint as valid, the case
> > > is trivial. Grown women don’t pop out of men’s foreheads (Zeus &
> > > Minerva) and virgins don’t have babies (Mary & Jesus) – QED.

> > If virgin is defined -- as it commonly is -- as being someone who has
> > not had sex, then any woman who had not had sex before artificially
> > inseminated would be a virgin who had a baby.  Since there is no
> > reason to suggest that sex was involved in the impregnation of Mary,

> What if the word Virgin did not follow the normal meaning?
> What about following the accepted teaching of the time it was used?
> In that case, as we are talking about the Essenes, the word "Virgin"
> actually meant Nun. Nuns could marry their male counterparts, but it
> was a long process. There were two parts to a marriage ceremony,
> sometimes over a year apart.  Even though the couple could have sex
> after the first part, it was advisable not to. However, Mary and
> Joseph
> must have fallen into "temptation", because Mary got pregnant before
> the second part of the ceremony.  Hence Jesus was born of a virgin
> and was take by some as being illegitimate.

> > that would hold in the Catholic case as well, and thus your "QED" is
> > far from.  In short, it isn't even impossible for humans, let alone
> > for a God.

> > >  Or, the
> > > attributes Christians assign to God are self-contradictory – case
> > > closed.

> > Unfortunately, this has not been demonstrated.  I debated it a bit
> > with Sebastien, and he was unable to come up with a compelling
> > argument for any such contradiction.  The closest we got was a debate
> > over when someone cannot do something.  But since we didn't come to a
> > consensus on that, his demonstration fell short.  Thus, your case is
> > far from closed.

> > > But for those willing to accept a priori the possibility that God
> > > violates the laws of nature and accept the rationalizations and
> > > “mysteries” used to resolve the contradictions, the case is complex.
> > > For you, the evidence is your holy book plus the whole world. For me,
> > > without a holy book, the evidence is the world alone: everyday life,
> > > science, history, psychology & sociology, and comparative religion.
> > > You may include God-given direct inspiration, but the rest of us
> > > evaluate that claim too.

> > > The case is tested by the usual criterion – is one side true “beyond a
> > > reasonable doubt?”  I claim Catholicism is false beyond a reasonable
> > > doubt.

> > > I presented some of the evidence in long threads to Kevin 2 years ago,
> > > but told him only half-jokingly that his conversion would require 6
> > > years – which is how long it took me from my first exposure to atheist
> > > discussion in grade 8 to my deconversion at university.  As we will
> > > see in post #2, two years is enough for most people if the discussion
> > > is held almost every day.

> > > So, the claim that there is evidence disproving Catholicism is by no
> > > means a new argument on this forum – it’s made all the time. But the
> > > evidence does not fit into a post.

> > I eagerly await it, since all evidence I have seen has been quite
> > lacking.

> > > On Nov 1, 5:54 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 1, 5:12 pm, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Oct 31, 2:17 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > *can't help but wonder if my sharp tongue aided Rappy's decision to
> > > > > > deconvert*

> > > > > > No, I'm no Catholic, but a Christian. Problem is Rappy isn't dead set
> > > > > > against Catholicism, but all theisms apparently.

> > > > > Catholicism has a rich, complex and beautiful rationalization process.

> > > > Grace is a particular rationalization.

> > > > A rationalization is something we tell ourselves to behave differently
> > > > than we would without it.  In the case of vices, we rationalize them
> > > > in order to commit them even though we know we shouldn't.  Grace, on
> > > > the other hand, is a rationalization to get us to do the right thing,
> > > > even though we are inclined not to.  So it is opposite in direction to
> > > > most of what we would normally call "rationalizations," but it is
> > > > fundamentally the same effect.

> > > > Grace is other things, too, but for the purposes of a discussion about
> > > > rationalization, it is a particular rationalization, not just any.

> > > > > By the time you understand why Catholicism makes no sense, you are
> > > > > unlikely to adopt another religion - especially another Christian
> > > > > religion.

> > > > It is not possible both to hold to reason and to conclude that
> > > > "Catholicism makes no sense."  Catholicism makes perfect sense.  It is
> > > > repugnant, however, to those who wish not to give up their sins.

> > > > > > But I'm going to ask a troubling question. Is this evidence of a weak
> > > > > > mind, that he would abandon anything based on what some group of his
> > > > > > *peers* are or aren't doing?

> > > > > I won't speak for Rapp but I expect he'd give the same answer as I.
> > > > > The answer is No. Catholicism believes that it has better morality and
> > > > > teaching than other religions; therefore a science-minded person knows
> > > > > that there should be measurably better behavior from Catholics.

> > > > And there is.  Catholicism has a wealth of Saints, the caliber of whom
> > > > are found nowhere else.

> > > > >It's
> > > > > not that *some* Catholics behave as badly as anyone else; it's that
> > > > > the "average* Catholic behaves as badly.  This empirical evidence
> > > > > refutes the Catholic claim to superior morality.

> > > > Actually, no, it doesn't, because it is possible that the "average"
> > > > Catholic doesn't take it seriously.  But for those who do, they can
> > > > examine the lives of the Saints, and rationally conclude that the
> > > > authentic practice of Catholicism is efficacious for conversion from
> > > > sin.

> > > > If that's what you're looking for, that is.  If you are looking for
> > > > something else, then I agree, there is no reason to prefer Catholicism
> > > > at all.  Thus does God separate the sheep from the goats.

> > > > > > What difference should it make to me if
> > > > > > there are some hypocritical Christians out there? Either the
> > > > > > experience of conversion is real and lasting. Or perhaps there was no
> > > > > > conversion at all. Or perhaps he was looking for an excuse to bail
> > > > > > out? Or who knows what else?

> > > > > I will let him answer for himself if he wishes. In my case, I never
> > > > > converted *into* Catholicism. I was baptized as an infant and
> > > > > indoctrinated in it as I grew up. I was a good student in this as in
> > > > > other things, and I took it very seriously - I was a genuine and
> > > > > staunch Catholic.

> > > > Plainly, that is not the case, since if you were genuine, you would
> > > > have remained.

> > > > > After enough evidence piled up, I eventually
> > > > > deconverted.

> > > > Now you are claiming there is "evidence" disproving Catholicism?  This
> > > > is a brand-new claim for the atheist camp.  You should back it up.
> > > > The world would like to know.

> > > > > On Oct 25, 5:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Oct 24, 8:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1."  I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > > > years.

> > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?

> > > > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)

> > > > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

> > > > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

> > > > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > > > inconsistent.

> > > > > > > > Yet, it isn't.

> > > > > > > Tell

> > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?

> What exactly is the difference, as you understand it? Are you going to
> say that conditioning has no impact on reasoning whatsoever? That all
> actions taken by a reasonable entity are devoid of conditioning?

> You see a very fine line that is not based on any real neurological
> understanding. I don't think such a fine line exists. There is a
> natural progression evident in many species from "conditioning" to
> "reasoning". Is a chimpanzee using a stick as an "insect fishing" line
> just reacting because they are "conditioned"? Or do they "reason" that
> it will be more effective? What exactly is the difference?

> Take a look at this:

> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4367/532

> > Recall the example in "The
> > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> Or people. See Dawkins' arguments about why religious "memes" survive
> so long in our species.

> > > Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
> > > In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
> > > souls.  It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
> > > purposes.  At least try and be honest about your own religion,
> > > please.

> > > > Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> > > > volitional control over their brain processes.  Indeed, there is
> > > > nothing in them that could exercise volition at all.  There are *only*
> > > > brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> > > > principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics.  That would include pre-
> > > > human hominids.  So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> > > > is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> > > > Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> > > > capacity for sin or virtue.

> > > > The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.

> > > > On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > > > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > > > > account.  And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > > > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > > > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > > > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > > > > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > > > > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > > > > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > > > > created heaven and earth."

> > > > > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > > > > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > > > > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > > > > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > > > > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > > > > alteration?

> > > > > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > > > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > > > > fit the description.

> > > > > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.

> > > > > >  Or that it isn't a literal event.

> > > > > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.

> > > > > > Or any number
> > > > > > of other possibilities.

> > > > > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > > > > observation.

> > > > > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > > > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > > > > develops.

> > > > > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > > > > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > > > > evolutionary hypothesis.

> > > > > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > > > > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > > > > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > > > > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > > > > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > > > > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > > > > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > > > > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > > > > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > > > > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > > > > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > > > > number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> > > > > natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> > > > > sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> > > > > point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of fantasy (a neolithic
> > > > > myth). If that's what you want to do, then just don't mince words: SAY
> > > > > you reject biology and observational reality. I know you're afraid to
> > > > > do so, because you'd be branded (in most intellectual circles) as
> > > > > something akin to a Holocaust denier, but hey... why should that stop
> > > > > you?

> > > > > > But it's a bit ridiculous to insist that that translation
> > > > > > must be literal,

> > > > > Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> > > > > ridiculous. However they consider it a doctrinal point, and apparently
> > > > > I'm much more aware of your own religion's teachings than you are.
> > > > > You're a heretic and don't even know it, but of course, now you do, so
> > > > > you're a heretic nonetheless. It's

> > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > account.  And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > created heaven and earth."

> > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > alteration?

> > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > fit the description.

> This is completely inconsistent with evolution.

> >  Or that it isn't a literal event.

> This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.

> > Or any number
> > of other possibilities.

> Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> observation.

> Oh, I agree, the Catholic viewpoint that an actual event occurred is
> ridiculous.

> > and must be to a satiation event at all.

> Have you ever studied primate behavior?

> > On Nov 4, 7:59 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?

> > What exactly is the difference, as you understand it? Are you going to
> > say that conditioning has no impact on reasoning whatsoever? That all
> > actions taken by a reasonable entity are devoid of conditioning?

> None of these.  All I am saying is that simply taking a conditioned
> response is not reasoning.  If all that the bird or insect is doing is
> acting instinctively, without any conscious reasoning, then it is not
> reasoning.

> Are there instinctive or automatic actions involved in our reasoning?
> Yes.
> Are those actions themselves reasoning at the time?  No.

> > You see a very fine line that is not based on any real neurological
> > understanding. I don't think such a fine line exists. There is a
> > natural progression evident in many species from "conditioning" to
> > "reasoning". Is a chimpanzee using a stick as an "insect fishing" line
> > just reacting because they are "conditioned"? Or do they "reason" that
> > it will be more effective? What exactly is the difference?

> Simple: is the chimp in any way thinking: "If I stick this stick in
> the water in this way, I can use it to spear a fish?" or is it simply
> the case where it is by water and hungry, and so that state directs it
> to use the stick in that way with no thought or understanding of what
> that will serve?

> The latter is conditioning, the former is reasoning.

> Behaviourism's dead, Rapp ...

> > Take a look at this:

> >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4367/532

> [shrug]  You misinterpret my point.  I'm not claiming that no animals
> have any form of reason.  I am simply challenging her claim that that
> was reasoning.  And we'd want to check those examples to see if that
> was simple conditioning as well.

> After all, we wouldn't want to be fooled by the counting horse, now
> would we?

> > > Recall the example in "The
> > > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> > Or people. See Dawkins' arguments about why religious "memes" survive
> > so long in our species.

> Not really relevant here, and we have to be careful with memes since
> memes are, in fact, generally ideas and so are susceptible to rational
> analysis, and generally have to be able to survive consideration ...

> > > > Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
> > > > In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
> > > > souls.  It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
> > > > purposes.  At least try and be honest about your own religion,
> > > > please.

> > > > > Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> > > > > volitional control over their brain processes.  Indeed, there is
> > > > > nothing in them that could exercise volition at all.  There are *only*
> > > > > brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> > > > > principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics.  That would include pre-
> > > > > human hominids.  So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> > > > > is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> > > > > Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> > > > > capacity for sin or virtue.

> > > > > The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.

> > > > > On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > > > > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > > > > > account.  And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > > > > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > > > > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > > > > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > > > > > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > > > > > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > > > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > > > > > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > > > > > created heaven and earth."

> > > > > > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > > > > > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > > > > > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > > > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > > > > > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > > > > > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > > > > > alteration?

> > > > > > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > > > > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > > > > > fit the description.

> > > > > > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.

> > > > > > >  Or that it isn't a literal event.

> > > > > > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.

> > > > > > > Or any number
> > > > > > > of other possibilities.

> > > > > > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > > > > > observation.

> > > > > > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > > > > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > > > > > develops.

> > > > > > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > > > > > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > > > > > evolutionary hypothesis.

> > > > > > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > > > > > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > > > > > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > > > > > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > > > > > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > > > > > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > > > > > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > > > > > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > > > > > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > > > > > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > > > > > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > > > > > number of special

> > On Nov 4, 10:59 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?  Recall the example in "The
> > > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> > I'm not sure that your example is valid.
> > Let's take the conditioning approach first - and I will talk about the
> > crow,
> > not the insect.  Where did the crow "learn" this from in order to
> > become
> > "conditioned"?

> You don't understand conditioning.  Conditioning IS learning, in
> psychological circles.  The claim is that the crow is, in fact,
> learning by conditioning.

> > These crows have only been here for a relatively short
> > time.

> Conditioning doesn't take anywhere near as long as you seem to be
> suggesting.

> >  They used to try flying down and eating the food on the ground.
> > They got the message from me that they were unwanted.

> A paradigmatic case of conditioning, BTW.

> >  Did I
> > condition them to the behaviour I described to you. No, I am not a
> > crow.

> Conditioning does not require the conditioner to be of the same
> species as the conditioned.  Also, I was not asserting that you had,
> in fact, conditioned them to do so.  Conditioning can and does occur
> without any explicit training at all.  That is why it is basically
> learning in psychology.

> > Did they present this behaviour before I made them unwelcome?
> > No, they did not.

> Are you trying to claim a direct link between then being unwelcome and
> the new behaviour, which I'm presuming is the behaviour of diving at
> the birds that do get food?  I am not making such a claim, but simply
> noting that not being able to get food directly may change their
> environment (ie where they gather).  If a crow dives at the other bird
> for any reason, and is rewarded by food being available, they will
> tend to repeat that action.  This is paradigmatic operant
> conditioning.

> Even a recognition of food in their mouth and an instinctive attack
> reaction would work just as well.  There is no complex reasoning
> required.

> >  Could they have be preconditioned to arriving at
> > my place and then responded in the manner I described?  Possibly,
> > but unlikely as it took quite some time for them to initiate the
> > behaviour.

> That only makes it more likely that it is conditioning in general, not
> reasoning.

> > > > Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
> > > > In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
> > > > souls.  It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
> > > > purposes.  At least try and be honest about your own religion,
> > > > please.

> > > > > Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> > > > > volitional control over their brain processes.  Indeed, there is
> > > > > nothing in them that could exercise volition at all.  There are *only*
> > > > > brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> > > > > principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics.  That would include pre-
> > > > > human hominids.  So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> > > > > is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> > > > > Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> > > > > capacity for sin or virtue.

> > > > > The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.

> > > > > On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > > > > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > > > > > account.  And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > > > > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > > > > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > > > > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > > > > > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > > > > > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > > > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > > > > > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > > > > > created heaven and earth."

> > > > > > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > > > > > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > > > > > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > > > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > > > > > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > > > > > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > > > > > alteration?

> > > > > > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > > > > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > > > > > fit the description.

> > > > > > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.

> > > > > > >  Or that it isn't a literal event.

> > > > > > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.

> > > > > > > Or any number
> > > > > > > of other possibilities.

> > > > > > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > > > > > observation.

> > > > > > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > > > > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > > > > > develops.

> > > > > > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > > > > > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > > > > > evolutionary hypothesis.

> > > > > > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > > > > > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > > > > > abstraction, language, self-awareness, object persistence, or any of
> > > > > > our OTHER mental capacities, is only apparent to those who already
> > > > > > presuppose the answer for religious reasons. We see all of these other
> > > > > > hallmarks of "higher brain function" present in varying degrees in a
> > > > > > cladistic categorization of animals, and indeed we see hallmarks of
> > > > > > "moral reasoning" present in varying degrees in a cladistic
> > > > > > categorization of animals, so just pretending that biology makes
> > > > > > special exceptions for human beings is *ALREADY* proving my point that
> > > > > > the two viewpoints are inconsistent. You can, of course, make any
> > > > > > number of special allowances that are completely unnecessary (since
> > > > > > natural selection and societal species living handily makes ready
> > > > > > sense of the development of moral reasoning), but this is exactly my
> > > > > > point: You discount reality (biology) in favor of

> > On Nov 4, 5:47 pm, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 10:59 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > > > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?  Recall the example in "The
> > > > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > > > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > > > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > > > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > > > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > > > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > > > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > > > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > > > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> > > I'm not sure that your example is valid.
> > > Let's take the conditioning approach first - and I will talk about the
> > > crow,
> > > not the insect.  Where did the crow "learn" this from in order to
> > > become
> > > "conditioned"?

> > You don't understand conditioning.  Conditioning IS learning, in
> > psychological circles.  The claim is that the crow is, in fact,
> > learning by conditioning.

> > > These crows have only been here for a relatively short
> > > time.

> > Conditioning doesn't take anywhere near as long as you seem to be
> > suggesting.

> > >  They used to try flying down and eating the food on the ground.
> > > They got the message from me that they were unwanted.

> > A paradigmatic case of conditioning, BTW.

> > >  Did I
> > > condition them to the behaviour I described to you. No, I am not a
> > > crow.

> > Conditioning does not require the conditioner to be of the same
> > species as the conditioned.  Also, I was not asserting that you had,
> > in fact, conditioned them to do so.  Conditioning can and does occur
> > without any explicit training at all.  That is why it is basically
> > learning in psychology.

> > > Did they present this behaviour before I made them unwelcome?
> > > No, they did not.

> > Are you trying to claim a direct link between then being unwelcome and
> > the new behaviour, which I'm presuming is the behaviour of diving at
> > the birds that do get food?  I am not making such a claim, but simply
> > noting that not being able to get food directly may change their
> > environment (ie where they gather).  If a crow dives at the other bird
> > for any reason, and is rewarded by food being available, they will
> > tend to repeat that action.  This is paradigmatic operant
> > conditioning.

> > Even a recognition of food in their mouth and an instinctive attack
> > reaction would work just as well.  There is no complex reasoning
> > required.

> > >  Could they have be preconditioned to arriving at
> > > my place and then responded in the manner I described?  Possibly,
> > > but unlikely as it took quite some time for them to initiate the
> > > behaviour.

> > That only makes it more likely that it is conditioning in general, not
> > reasoning.

> Your explanation of conditioning equally applies to a human being.

> > > > > Also, what creature doesn't have an immortal soul, as you put it?
> > > > > In the Masoretic text it says in Genesis that all creatures have
> > > > > souls.  It was the Catholic church which changed that, for it's own
> > > > > purposes.  At least try and be honest about your own religion,
> > > > > please.

> > > > > > Creatures without immortal souls do not "reason" per se; they have no
> > > > > > volitional control over their brain processes.  Indeed, there is
> > > > > > nothing in them that could exercise volition at all.  There are *only*
> > > > > > brain processes, that proceed according to the known (and unknown)
> > > > > > principles of chemistry and quantum mechanics.  That would include pre-
> > > > > > human hominids.  So-called moral behavior in them and in other beasts
> > > > > > is simply part of the genetic programming that makes up the organism.
> > > > > > Human beings alone among the animals have free will, and thus the
> > > > > > capacity for sin or virtue.

> > > > > > The above facts are consistent both with evolution and Catholicism.

> > > > > > On Nov 2, 1:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Nov 1, 8:15 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 6:10 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > > > > > > > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > > > > > > > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > > > > > > > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > > > > > > > > account.  And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > > > > > > > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > > > > > > > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > > > > > > > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > > > > > > > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > > > > > > > > Treebeard, I hope you won't mind clarifying something for me.  I agree
> > > > > > > > > that Genesis might not be a sequential account of Creation, or again,
> > > > > > > > > it might be, but in a way that I do not understand.  But surely there
> > > > > > > > > must be some things in it that we take literally, like, e.g., "God
> > > > > > > > > created heaven and earth."

> > > > > > > > > What concerns us here is solely the account of the Fall.  Briefly,
> > > > > > > > > evolution describes the process of the formation of the human race,
> > > > > > > > > "from the dust of the ground."  The Fall was an event, before which,
> > > > > > > > > we had no sin, and after which, we do.

> > > > > > > > > Why would such an event necessarily be an evolutionary saltation
> > > > > > > > > event?  Does the ability to sin necessarily stem from a genetic
> > > > > > > > > alteration?

> > > > > > > > That is, in fact, one of the tacks that can be taken: that there is
> > > > > > > > something in evolution that allows for it to be enough of an event to
> > > > > > > > fit the description.

> > > > > > > This is completely inconsistent with evolution.

> > > > > > > >  Or that it isn't a literal event.

> > > > > > > This is completely discounted as a possibility by your own religion.

> > > > > > > > Or any number
> > > > > > > > of other possibilities.

> > > > > > > Or, the most logical one: Catholicism is inconsistent with
> > > > > > > observation.

> > > > > > > > It seems that it would almost have to relate to our ability to make
> > > > > > > > moral choices, and a strict evolutionary account would argue that that
> > > > > > > > develops.

> > > > > > > I think this is as plain as day. Moral customs are seen in different
> > > > > > > forms in other species, exactly as one would expect from an
> > > > > > > evolutionary hypothesis.

> > > > > > > Why "moral reasoning" should be in ANY WAY different from arithmetical
> > > > > > > capability, facial recognition, sequential recognition, model
> > > > > > > abstraction, language, self-awareness,

> > On Nov 4, 11:41 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 7:59 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > > > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?

> > > What exactly is the difference, as you understand it? Are you going to
> > > say that conditioning has no impact on reasoning whatsoever? That all
> > > actions taken by a reasonable entity are devoid of conditioning?

> > None of these.  All I am saying is that simply taking a conditioned
> > response is not reasoning.  If all that the bird or insect is doing is
> > acting instinctively, without any conscious reasoning, then it is not
> > reasoning.

> > Are there instinctive or automatic actions involved in our reasoning?
> > Yes.
> > Are those actions themselves reasoning at the time?  No.

> Okay, fair enough.

> > > You see a very fine line that is not based on any real neurological
> > > understanding. I don't think such a fine line exists. There is a
> > > natural progression evident in many species from "conditioning" to
> > > "reasoning". Is a chimpanzee using a stick as an "insect fishing" line
> > > just reacting because they are "conditioned"? Or do they "reason" that
> > > it will be more effective? What exactly is the difference?

> > Simple: is the chimp in any way thinking: "If I stick this stick in
> > the water in this way, I can use it to spear a fish?" or is it simply
> > the case where it is by water and hungry, and so that state directs it
> > to use the stick in that way with no thought or understanding of what
> > that will serve?

> > The latter is conditioning, the former is reasoning.

> The distinction isn't particularly clear, nor simple, actually. In
> short, you're looking at this as if "reason" has some Platonic "ideal"
> form that you either conform to, or you don't.

> > Behaviourism's dead, Rapp ...

> You'll pardon me if I disagree with you.

> > > Take a look at this:

> > >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4367/532

> > [shrug]  You misinterpret my point.  I'm not claiming that no animals
> > have any form of reason.  I am simply challenging her claim that that
> > was reasoning.  And we'd want to check those examples to see if that
> > was simple conditioning as well.

> > After all, we wouldn't want to be fooled by the counting horse, now
> > would we?

> > > > Recall the example in "The
> > > > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > > > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > > > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > > > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > > > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > > > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > > > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > > > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > > > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> > > Or people. See Dawkins' arguments about why religious "memes" survive
> > > so long in our species.

> > Not really relevant here, and we have to be careful with memes since
> > memes are, in fact, generally ideas and so are susceptible to rational
> > analysis, and generally have to be able to survive consideration ...

> It IS relevant here, actually, because human beings are susceptible to
> conditioning vs reasoning like any other animal. You can literally
> "train" a person with real, physical, manifested changes.

> > On Oct 25, 5:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Oct 24, 8:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > Deconversions = 1."  I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > years.

> > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?

> > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)

> > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

> > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

> > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > inconsistent.

> > > > Yet, it isn't.

> > > Tell yourself whatever you need to, Joe.

> > I don't have any particular needs in that direction.

> > >It's based on an incoherent
> > > "special pleading" that is simply not in evidence in nature. The shoe-
> > > horning of neolithic superstition into modern science often arrives at
> > > such logically incoherent nonsense as you describe.

> > Such as what?  You say "incoherent," but don't point out any real
> > inconsistencies.

> > > But I forgot to thank you, Joe. I was amiss in my deconversion story,
> > > actually! You, Liam, and many other Catholics were the ones that first
> > > opened my eyes to the dangers such a dogmatic world-view entails. I
> > > was appalled by the lack of honesty that such a world-view engendered,
> > > so it planted the seeds of discontent in my mind when I read your
> > > posts, and those of Liam and many other Catholics. So I really should
> > > thank you for helping me deconvert, I apologize for missing it in my
> > > earlier post.

> > Blaming others for your actions does not actually remove from you the
> > responsibility for your own actions.

> He wasn't blaming you, genius. He was thanking you.

> > On Oct 24, 12:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > Deconversions = 1."  I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > years.

> > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?

> > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)

> > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

> > Hmmm.  Interesting.  You credit anti-creationist comments for your
> > deconversion from Catholicism ... a religion that is not, in fact,
> > creationist and accepts evolution, as you yourself reference below.
> > Interesting logic there ...

> Hey, look, you didn't read my post!

> > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

> > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > inconsistent. There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > > theology. They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > a saltation event. This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > the conclusion).

> > Another interesting comment.  So, here's the idea: you noted that
> > Catholicism accepted evolution, and had a notion of original sin.
> > Presumably, that idea of original sin comes from Genesis, where it is
> > mentioned.  From Genesis, the origin of original sin has to come from
> > a specific event that introduces the ability or state of sin to
> > humans.  Thus, it has to be a satiation event, but evolution --
> > according to you -- says that no such event is possible, and therefore
> > that is a problem.  You fervently hoped that they'd drop original sin
> > (which you state here is a concept that you find stupid) but they
> > didn't, and so that was a problem for you.

> > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > account.
> > And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > fact, actually interpret that?

> No, the saltation (not satiation) event was germane to the concept of
> original sin to begin with.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)

> See below:

> > So, did you ask about it, to your priest? Read theology and
> > philosophy on the topic?
> > Try to bring it up to theologians (since
> > you're a physicist, you almost certainly have access to a university
> > and so could probably find a philosopher or theologian willing to look
> > at it)? Did you do anything to see what the story actually was? As
> > far as I know, there has not been a specific, official attempt to
> > reconcile the two, and since you didn't reference any when I asked in
> > the other debate (I've replied to that, BTW) I suspect you don't have
> > one, but you can point out what it is if you have one, since you
> > generally never mention the official resolution to the issue.  So did
> > you do anything to see if there was an answer, or did you just reject
> > Catholicism because you found a supposed contradiction of a doctrine
> > that you admittedly dislike?  In short, was this just an excuse?

> Yes, actually, you can read all about a debate I had with a theologian
> here:

> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/84fff10...

> http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

> "The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
> figurative language, but ***affirms a primeval event***, a ***deed
> that took place*** at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation
> gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is
> marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
> parents" (CCC 390)." (emphasis is mine)

> In short, NO MATTER WHAT EVIDENCE is presented, the Catholic church
> will never disavow original sin, even if there is a blatantly obvious
> contradiction with observational reality (like evolution).

> > On Nov 10, 1:34 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > On Nov 4, 11:41 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 4, 7:59 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > > > On Nov 4, 3:13 am, philosophy <smwil...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

> > > > > > On Nov 4, 8:28 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > That which appears as reasoning in a creature without an immortal soul
> > > > > > > is really only a chemical reaction, such as they who assert the
> > > > > > > unreality of free will posit happens even in us.

> > > > > > Don't try that Jo. That's rubbish.  The crows that live around here
> > > > > > are amazing animals. I hate their call, but they have figured out
> > > > > > how to leave the humans alone, and go and get the food they want
> > > > > > from the kookaburras who are being fed.  The kookaburra flys off
> > > > > > with its food, and the crow flys over it and dive bombs it. The K.
> > > > > > complains, and the food falls out of its beak.... so the crow just
> > > > > > follows the food to the ground.
> > > > > > Another example........ the magpie takes its food and  "hides it",
> > > > > > turns it back, and the crow pinches it.  That's not a chemical
> > > > > > reaction of the type you are talking about.  This is pure reasoning.

> > > > > Is it reasoning, or is it conditioning?

> > > > What exactly is the difference, as you understand it? Are you going to
> > > > say that conditioning has no impact on reasoning whatsoever? That all
> > > > actions taken by a reasonable entity are devoid of conditioning?

> > > None of these.  All I am saying is that simply taking a conditioned
> > > response is not reasoning.  If all that the bird or insect is doing is
> > > acting instinctively, without any conscious reasoning, then it is not
> > > reasoning.

> > > Are there instinctive or automatic actions involved in our reasoning?
> > > Yes.
> > > Are those actions themselves reasoning at the time?  No.

> > Okay, fair enough.

> > > > You see a very fine line that is not based on any real neurological
> > > > understanding. I don't think such a fine line exists. There is a
> > > > natural progression evident in many species from "conditioning" to
> > > > "reasoning". Is a chimpanzee using a stick as an "insect fishing" line
> > > > just reacting because they are "conditioned"? Or do they "reason" that
> > > > it will be more effective? What exactly is the difference?

> > > Simple: is the chimp in any way thinking: "If I stick this stick in
> > > the water in this way, I can use it to spear a fish?" or is it simply
> > > the case where it is by water and hungry, and so that state directs it
> > > to use the stick in that way with no thought or understanding of what
> > > that will serve?

> > > The latter is conditioning, the former is reasoning.

> > The distinction isn't particularly clear, nor simple, actually. In
> > short, you're looking at this as if "reason" has some Platonic "ideal"
> > form that you either conform to, or you don't.

> I don't feel sorry at all for all the times that you claimed I read
> into your posts too much, since you clearly do.

> I don't assume that at all.  I do assume that there are certain things
> that must be present for something to be called reasoning, and that
> conditioning doesn't fit that.  This seems pretty standard and I'm
> using the standard definitions.  Basically, in order to reason your
> way to an action you must be using consciously held beliefs and
> desires to derive that an action A is the one that achieves your goal
> G.  If you don't have a goal, then you aren't reasoning.

> So, if there is a feeling of hunger and the pigeon pecks the key, that
> is not reasoning.  It is reasoning if the pigeon has the actual
> thoughts -- in some form -- of "I'm hungry, pecking the key gives me
> good, so I'll peck the key to get food".

> There is no evidence that pigeons reason at all, and many experiments
> that show that simple conditioning can show amazing results that look
> like reasoning but aren't.  Another example was modelled in AI; in the
> Starlogo language, someone ran an experiment that showed that the
> behaviour of ants to focus on the closer food source first until it
> was completed and then move on to the next one didn't have to involve
> any organization at all, but could simply be the result of an instinct
> to follow pheromone trails and the fact that pheromone trails will be
> stronger the more times ants follow that path, and that is always the
> case for shorter paths.  So, no organization and no reasoning, but
> events that really look like reasoning.

> Conditioning acts like instincts when they are active.

> > I don't think this is
> > true. There's no more an "ideal" form of reasoning than there is an
> > "ideal" form of locomotion.

> I think we can safely presume, though, that there are things that it
> has to have to be called reasoning.  Phobias aren't reasoning, for
> example.  Neither is being startled.

> > What we call "reasoning" is actually a
> > very complicated process that involves many aspects of our neural
> > functions. You can't separate them out as "neatly" as you think you
> > can.

> [shrug]  I'm just thinking that there has to be a definition of
> reasoning so that the ants in the above examples aren't doing it and
> we generally are when we think things out.  That implies some sort of
> separation.  I never claimed it was neat, just that it was
> identifiable.

> > > Behaviourism's dead, Rapp ...

> > You'll pardon me if I disagree with you.

> Then you'd be also disagreeing with all modern psychology.  And even
> yourself, since behaviourism considered the neurology unimportant and
> to you it's the most important thing.

> > > > Take a look at this:

> > > >http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/202/4367/532

> > > [shrug]  You misinterpret my point.  I'm not claiming that no animals
> > > have any form of reason.  I am simply challenging her claim that that
> > > was reasoning.  And we'd want to check those examples to see if that
> > > was simple conditioning as well.

> > > After all, we wouldn't want to be fooled by the counting horse, now
> > > would we?

> > > > > Recall the example in "The
> > > > > God Delusion" of the insect that finds food, checks its hole before
> > > > > entering, and then returns and brings it in.  It seems like that's
> > > > > reasoning, right?  Except that if you move the food away from the hole
> > > > > while it is inside, it will drag the food to the hole, check the hole
> > > > > again, and then come back.  You can actually get that insect to do
> > > > > this infinitely; it never, ever changes those actions.  So, that
> > > > > doesn't really seem like reasoning, does it?  It certainly does seem
> > > > > like a simple conditioned and instinctive reaction.

> > > > > The same could be true of the crow, in both cases.

> > > > Or people. See Dawkins' arguments about why religious "memes" survive
> > > > so long in our species.

> > > Not really relevant here, and we have to be careful with memes since
> > > memes are, in fact, generally ideas and so are susceptible to rational
> > > analysis, and generally have to be able to survive consideration ...

> > It IS relevant here, actually, because human beings are susceptible to
> > conditioning vs reasoning like any other animal. You can literally
> > "train" a person with real, physical, manifested changes.

> I never claimed that humans couldn't be conditioned.  But memes may be
> conditioned or not, and so aren't good examples here.

> > On Nov 1, 7:54 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> > > On Oct 24, 12:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > Deconversions = 1."  I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > years.

> > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?

> > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)

> > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

> > > Hmmm.  Interesting.  You credit anti-creationist comments for your
> > > deconversion from Catholicism ... a religion that is not, in fact,
> > > creationist and accepts evolution, as you yourself reference below.
> > > Interesting logic there ...

> > Hey, look, you didn't read my post!

> What didn't I read?

> > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

> > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > inconsistent. There is nothing whatsoever consistent about their
> > > > theology. They accept that evolution occurred, however their Dogma of
> > > > Original Sin is incompatible with such a view, as it would constitute
> > > > a saltation event. This is contradictory to their acceptance of
> > > > Evolution. I was hoping that they would take this finding as an
> > > > understanding that their previous dogma was incorrect, but that's
> > > > against their dogma too. I basically reasoned things out, and found
> > > > that Catholicism is a bunk system of belief, even on a technicality
> > > > (let alone the whole fact that Original Sin is pretty stupid to begin
> > > > with, but that's another story and not historically how I arrived at
> > > > the conclusion).

> > > Another interesting comment.  So, here's the idea: you noted that
> > > Catholicism accepted evolution, and had a notion of original sin.
> > > Presumably, that idea of original sin comes from Genesis, where it is
> > > mentioned.  From Genesis, the origin of original sin has to come from
> > > a specific event that introduces the ability or state of sin to
> > > humans.  Thus, it has to be a satiation event, but evolution --
> > > according to you -- says that no such event is possible, and therefore
> > > that is a problem.  You fervently hoped that they'd drop original sin
> > > (which you state here is a concept that you find stupid) but they
> > > didn't, and so that was a problem for you.

> > > Now, here's the thing: in order for the Catholic Church to accept
> > > evolution, I think that you would agree that they would have to take
> > > the Genesis account figuratively, since it cannot be literally true
> > > and evolution be true.  But, the "satiation event" is also in that
> > > account.
> > > And that account is already figurative to the Catholics.  So
> > > can you really insist that they would HAVE to take original sin as
> > > being a literal event, and thus a satiation event?  Since this isn't
> > > certain, wouldn't you have to look or wait to see how they DO, in
> > > fact, actually interpret that?

> > No, the saltation (not satiation) event was germane to the concept of
> > original sin to begin with.

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology)

> Turns out, probably not:

> "In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change
> from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in
> comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used
> for occasionally hypothesized, nongradual changes (especially single-
> step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate, standard concepts -
> gradualism - involved in neo-Darwinian evolution."

> Below, you talk about it being about parents and grandparents and
> children.  The definition here is about entire generations, not
> specific individuals.  Since in Darwinian evolution in order to AVOID
> saltation events there must be individuals who have traits that their
> parents and no one else from their generation has, we can safely
> presume that there should be a individual with moral capacity when its
> parents don't.

> > See below:

> > > So, did you ask about it, to your priest? Read theology and
> > > philosophy on the topic?
> > > Try to bring it up to theologians (since
> > > you're a physicist, you almost certainly have access to a university
> > > and so could probably find a philosopher or theologian willing to look
> > > at it)? Did you do anything to see what the story actually was? As
> > > far as I know, there has not been a specific, official attempt to
> > > reconcile the two, and since you didn't reference any when I asked in
> > > the other debate (I've replied to that, BTW) I suspect you don't have
> > > one, but you can point out what it is if you have one, since you
> > > generally never mention the official resolution to the issue.  So did
> > > you do anything to see if there was an answer, or did you just reject
> > > Catholicism because you found a supposed contradiction of a doctrine
> > > that you admittedly dislike?  In short, was this just an excuse?

> > Yes, actually, you can read all about a debate I had with a theologian
> > here:

> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/84fff10...

> [snipped posts]

> Doesn't count, because you clearly were convinced that it was true and
> it seems weren't considering yourself Catholic at that point.

> I'm going to suggest that you didn't, because you were looking for an
> excuse to leave Catholicism and this worked for you.  At least in part
> because you had to realize that the creationist stuff that made you
> deist didn't apply to Catholicism.

> > This is a source quoted:

> >http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

> > "The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses
> > figurative language, but ***affirms a primeval event***, a ***deed
> > that took place*** at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation
> > gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is
> > marked by the original fault freely committed by our first
> > parents" (CCC 390)." (emphasis is mine)

> I always have to read your sources because you have

> > funny that Neil. I think I can fathom what you're referring to. But
> > Rappy already had all his degrees before deconversion. Which was
> > really no deconversion at all...

> > Hey Rappoccio - when you were a *believer*, did you pray?

> Quite a bit, for about 20 years.

> > Was it
> > little more then squeezing bakelite beeds between your fingers while
> > repeating an incantation ad nauseum?

> Didn't Jesus teach everyone how to pray in the NT?

> I'm glad you've come to this conclusion too, I didn't realize you
> deconverted yourself also. Congratulations!

> I'm perfectly happy to bury the hatchet. I apologize for any untoward
> statements as well, I'm completely fine with a more congenial
> atmosphere from here on in.

> > > On Oct 31, 12:17 pm, Chris <chrism3...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > *can't help but wonder if my sharp tongue aided Rappy's decision to
> > > > deconvert*

> > > > No, I'm no Catholic, but a Christian. Problem is Rappy isn't dead set
> > > > against Catholicism, but all theisms apparently.

> > > > But I'm going to ask a troubling question. Is this evidence of a weak
> > > > mind, that he would abandon anything based on what some group of his
> > > > *peers* are or aren't doing? What difference should it make to me if
> > > > there are some hypocritical Christians out there? Either the
> > > > experience of conversion is real and lasting. Or perhaps there was no
> > > > conversion at all. Or perhaps he was looking for an excuse to bail
> > > > out? Or who knows what else?

> > > We do.

> > > > On Oct 25, 5:05 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Oct 24, 8:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > > > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > > > > Deconversions = 1."  I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > > > > years.

> > > > > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?

> > > > > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)

> > > > > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

> > > > > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

> > > > > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > > > > inconsistent.

> > > > > > Yet, it isn't.

> > > > > Tell yourself whatever you need to, Joe. It's based on an incoherent
> > > > > "special pleading" that is simply not in evidence in nature. The shoe-
> > > > > horning of neolithic superstition into modern science often arrives at
> > > > > such logically incoherent nonsense as you describe.

> > > > > But I forgot to thank you, Joe. I was amiss in my deconversion story,
> > > > > actually! You, Liam, and many other Catholics were the ones that first
> > > > > opened my eyes to the dangers such a dogmatic world-view entails. I
> > > > > was appalled by the lack of honesty that such a world-view engendered,
> > > > > so it planted the seeds of discontent in my mind when I read your
> > > > > posts, and those of Liam and many other Catholics. So I really should
> > > > > thank you for helping me deconvert, I apologize for missing it in my
> > > > > earlier post.- Hide quoted text -

> > > > - Show quoted text -

> No, I'm no Catholic, but a Christian. Problem is Rappy isn't dead set
> against Catholicism, but all theisms apparently.

> But I'm going to ask a troubling question. Is this evidence of a weak
> mind, that he would abandon anything based on what some group of his
> *peers* are or aren't doing? What difference should it make to me if
> there are some hypocritical Christians out there? Either the
> experience of conversion is real and lasting. Or perhaps there was no
> conversion at all. Or perhaps he was looking for an excuse to bail
> out? Or who knows what else?

> > On Oct 24, 8:17 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Oct 24, 1:24 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Oct 19, 7:41 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > > > > > I just noticed that the AvC home page says, "Conversions = 0 /
> > > > > > Deconversions = 1."  I don't know if it's said that for 2 days or 2
> > > > > > years.

> > > > > > Can anyone tell me hoo da guy?

> > > > > Rappoccio and he credits Dev :-)

> > > > Yes, it's me. I have many people to thank for this, but Dev was indeed
> > > > a strong influence. So was Simpleton, LL, philosophy, DreadGeekGirl,
> > > > Belly Bionic, and a bunch of others here. Reading talk.origins was
> > > > also an eye-opening experience, as was reading Dawkins, Harris, and
> > > > dozens of others. I also have to thank ThunderF00t for his "Why do
> > > > people laugh at creationists" series, it was great ;).

> > > > But I'll speak for myself now, I've got an hour to kill before I head
> > > > to bed (trip to Geneva tomorrow ;) ):

> > > > I stopped being a Catholic because Catholicism is logically
> > > > inconsistent.

> > > Yet, it isn't.

> > Tell yourself whatever you need to, Joe. It's based on an incoherent
> > "special pleading" that is simply not in evidence in nature. The shoe-
> > horning of neolithic superstition into modern science often arrives at
> > such logically incoherent nonsense as you describe.

> > But I forgot to thank you, Joe. I was amiss in my deconversion story,
> > actually! You, Liam, and many other Catholics were the ones that first
> > opened my eyes to the dangers such a dogmatic world-view entails. I
> > was appalled by the lack of honesty that such a world-view engendered,
> > so it planted the seeds of discontent in my mind when I read your
> > posts, and those of Liam and many other Catholics. So I really should
> > thank you for helping me deconvert, I apologize for missing it in my
> > earlier post.