How do you deal with a religious family?

[The Grand Nudger]

You'll outlive your parents opinions of you and your actions, your son will outlive both you and your parents and both of your opinions and actions. Nothing quite like an invocation of ones mortality and legacy to shut down any busybody tendencies. You do no harm to your child by putting a wall between your child and the imposition of others opinions. Draw the line and declare it to be non-negotiable, you're the one raising the child, not them. They had their shot with you. If it didn't take then that's down to their own incompetence and no one should expect to get a do-over.

Problem solved?

(I've seen grandparents treating grandchildren like a second chance to "get it right" armed with all of the knowledge of how they "got it wrong" the first time -my mother and grandmother are both notorious for this-. That's something for them to explain to you, not to your son.)

[Elskidor]

They are all self proclaimed Catholics that say one prayer a year at Easter, that they all loathe, and are drug addicts, thieves and hypocrites.

They're no more hypocritical than atheist drug-addict thieves. It's a shame that your in-laws suffer those problems.

Yeah I wouldn't mind my mother-in-law spending a year in rehab, and my sister-in-law repaying the four thousand dollars she stole from us, but people that don't want to change aren't going to. I use to have pity, but there is a time to draw the line. My family was always quick to push me away and show me tough love every time I went into a year long drinking binge and continued to hurt them. With her family though. .. Well, they believe family is forever and you can shit on them all you want without repercussions. I just can't fly like that anymore, and wouldn't expect to be forgiven if it was me.

But yeah, anyone, regardless of their beliefs, can act that way. I just find out annoying from those who claim to be so much better because they think they are fine Catholic people, and are given a pass 'cause of Jesus.

[genkaus]

I had a list that can be used for ANY witness. That's why one, uncorroborated, witness statement in court is not proof even if that witness is 100% certain of the facts he's remembering. But it is evidence.

To be clear, I gave my reasons why in my opinion they may not be credible. I don't know for certain, and other people are certainly entitled to make up their own minds.

Don't sell yourself short. Uncorroborated witness statements are used as evidence in court - it isn't always sufficient evidence, but it is still admissible. What you argued was that only those statements were uncorroborated, they were not eye-witnessed and are the result of hearsay - something which is inadmissible. Therefore, not evidence.

A valid hypothesis is synonymous with the term "valid theory".

No, its not.

The theory of Newtonian Mechanics is a valid theory, it's even useful we still use it today, however that doesn't make it "truth" or for that matter correct.

It is a valid theory because it has evidence supporting it.

For the resurrection? No, but there's credible evidence for other things.

But you didn't say those "other things" were a valid theory, you said that about resurrection.

The theory that the OT was invented "as a way to try to control society" is a valid theory, however it has little to no evidence. Just like say the theory that the Egyptian Pyramids were built by slaves is a valid theory, however the evidence for it is extremely weak and the evidence that they were built by workers is quite strong (they excavated some of their graves for some of the pyramids).

If these things don't have credible evidence supporting them, then they are not valid theories either.

Virtually everyone agrees that Jesus did exist, that he called disciples and that he died on the cross. Christians believe the nativity and the resurrection and that all of the events regarding him are accurate.

Even assuming you have some credible evidence supporting his existence, the Christian belief in nativity and resurrection would still not constitute a valid theory.

That's not 100% the case. A theory can be partially correct, for instance it could be correct that Jesus survived the resurrection somehow and this was kept secret.

You mean he survived the attempted execution, which means he never died and was thus never resurrected. That would definitely prove the resurrection claim 100% false.

That eventuality would mean that there was a resurrection of sorts, but not in the way the Bible describes it.

No, it'd mean that there was no resurrection of any sort and the bible got it wrong.

So there's not exactly evidence, let's say, that Jesus was reburied, or that his body was stolen or that he survived the crucifixion - those are the other possibilities and there's an absence of evidence for them. But just because there's an absence doesn't make those theories invalid, nor does it mean any are improbable.

Actually, it does. Having no evidence means they are not valid theories.

I'd simply say that there's certainly not convincing evidence given that the resurrection is both: a. an historical event AND b. a supernatural event.

Without any actual evidence of its occurrence, you cannot consider it a historical event.

Nonsense, that debate would mean that every single uncorroborated witness statement made in court is untrustworthy. It's simply a statement of fact that a. the witnesses did not directly relate their testimony and b. there's no way of knowing the quality of the testimony.

Every single uncorroborated, non-eye-witnessed, hearsay testimony is untrustworthy - which is why they are not allowed in courts.

I don't think most Christians want to impose their beliefs upon others.

So when can we expect prostitution to be legal?

But I don't think saying that to an ordinary Christian is a good argument, I think it would be better to say you recognise they don't want to impose their beliefs upon others and that since they would agree their beliefs whether real or unreal are based on faith and not provable facts there's no point in them trying to prove their case to you. You could also say that you agree that freedom of religion and beliefs is a valuable freedom - I think nearly all Christians would agree with that statement.

I don't talk to those Christians at all. The ones I do talk to generally feel that their beliefs should influence government policy.

[Aractus]

Don't sell yourself short. Uncorroborated witness statements are used as evidence in court - it isn't always sufficient evidence, but it is still admissible. What you argued was that only those statements were uncorroborated, they were not eye-witnessed and are the result of hearsay - something which is inadmissible. Therefore, not evidence.

No it's not eye-witness evidence, but it's still evidence.

But you didn't say those "other things" were a valid theory, you said that about resurrection.

So? there's still such a thing as right or wrong "by association".

Even assuming you have some credible evidence supporting his existence, the Christian belief in nativity and resurrection would still not constitute a valid theory.

It constitutes a valid theory, there's no reason nor benefit to say it doesn't.

You mean he survived the attempted execution, which means he never died and was thus never resurrected. That would definitely prove the resurrection claim 100% false.

No, it would depend on their context and use and understanding of the term. Let me give you an example from psychology - indigenous people (specifically I'm thinking of Australian Aborigines) grouped "danger", "fire" and "women" in the same category in their minds. That's a pretty foreign concept to us, especially if you don't know the context (that being that they believed the sun to represent a female goddess of sorts). But, personally I think it's more likely that one person thought he saw Jesus and then convinced others that they had shared that experience.

Actually, it does. Having no evidence means they are not valid theories.

Again, that's not true. There's no direct evidence whatsoever that Jesus was reburied, but that is my theory and it is a valid theory. By your definition the only theory that fits the evidence is that Jesus was resurrected and all other theories would be invalid.

Without any actual evidence of its occurrence, you cannot consider it a historical event.

Again you're thinking way too narrowly. If you think more broadly the event could be real but not the details.

Every single uncorroborated, non-eye-witnessed, hearsay testimony is untrustworthy - which is why they are not allowed in courts.

In courts, yes, but by historical standards they are useful.

So when can we expect prostitution to be legal?

Prostitution IS legal - where do you live?

I don't talk to those Christians at all. The ones I do talk to generally feel that their beliefs should influence government policy.

And, which policies? Without context there's not a lot to go on, but I will say that ALL lobby groups undermine democracy. We had a proposal for traffic-light labelling on food, supported by the public, that was fought against from the food-industry lobby groups.

How about copyrights? Copyright was meant to last 50 years - now it lasts for the life of the "author" plus 75 years!! That's what lobbyists did, not what the public got for their own interests.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again you're thinking way too narrowly. If you think more broadly the event could be real but not the details.

Dear Radio, is it true that in Moscow, on the Red Square, they're giving away cars for free?

-Yes, but not in Moscow, in Leningrad. Not Red Square, but Square of Revolution, and not cars, but bikes; which aren't being given away, but stolen.

Something like that Aractus?

[Mister Agenda]

On the practical side, maybe the OP could try coming out to the one or two family members she trusts the most. If it goes well, they will help buffer you from more unreasonable relatives.

[genkaus]

No it's not eye-witness evidence, but it's still evidence.

Inadmissible evidence - which is to say, not evidence at all.

So? there's still such a thing as right or wrong "by association".

Yes, and that's called a logical fallacy.

It constitutes a valid theory, there's no reason nor benefit to say it doesn't.

The reason being that it doesn't fit the criteria of a valid theory and saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

No, it would depend on their context and use and understanding of the term. Let me give you an example from psychology - indigenous people (specifically I'm thinking of Australian Aborigines) grouped "danger", "fire" and "women" in the same category in their minds. That's a pretty foreign concept to us, especially if you don't know the context (that being that they believed the sun to represent a female goddess of sorts).

Not really - hot chicks are dangerous.

But, personally I think it's more likely that one person thought he saw Jesus and then convinced others that they had shared that experience.

If you think that that guy was guilty of witness tampering then that's a very good reason NOT to believe his story.

Again, that's not true. There's no direct evidence whatsoever that Jesus was reburied, but that is my theory and it is a valid theory. By your definition the only theory that fits the evidence is that Jesus was resurrected and all other theories would be invalid.

You can keep calling it valid - doesn't make it so. When you are ready to provide credible evidence for it, then we'll talk. And by my definition, the whole resurrection itself doesn't fit the evidence and is therefore an invalid theory.

Again you're thinking way too narrowly. If you think more broadly the event could be real but not the details.

The critical details must match - otherwise the event is not real.

In courts, yes, but by historical standards they are useful.

Nope.

Prostitution IS legal.

Somewhere where people get arrested for prostitution.

And, which policies?

Minority rights. Womens' issues. Scientific research etc.

Without context there's not a lot to go on, but I will say that ALL lobby groups undermine democracy. We had a proposal for traffic-light labelling on food, supported by the public, that was fought against from the food-industry lobby groups.

How about copyrights? Copyright was meant to last 50 years - now it lasts for the life of the "author" plus 75 years!! That's what lobbyists did, not what the public got for their own interests.

And I'm against the one originating in religion.

[Aractus]

So? there's still such a thing as right or wrong "by association".

Yes, and that's called a logical fallacy.

No it isn't, we do it all the time and we do it in courts as well. It's how we associate things together like actions and consequences. It is absolutly used in court - you can demonstrate that your witness is "reliable" or demonstrate that he is "unreliable", for instance, and that is using the "by association" principle.

You can keep calling it valid - doesn't make it so.

As far as science is concerned there are an unlimited number of valid theories. In science, they generally like the more simple theories over the more complicated ones.

Or let me repeat the historical argument I already gave you: prior to the 1980's there were Egyptologists who theorised that the pyramids were build by Egyptian workers, and not by slaves. They had no direct evidence for the theory, yet they still had it. Later it would be effectively proven correct.

There are plenty of other examples in history of why these theories are important - they direct what you look for and consequently where. Many very important archaeological discoveries have been made off the back of theories (eg I think that there was people here in such and such a time and we're going to look for their remains).

The trap that you're falling into is telling people that they can't think for themselves, they can't have their own ideas, they can't make their own theories, they can't think outside the box and produce non-logical theories.

In courts, yes, but by historical standards they are useful.

Nope.

Well I've just explained why they are, and there's other reasons too.

Somewhere where people get arrested for prostitution.

Right, and what have you done about it? Have you formed an interest group, have you attended town meetings to voice your concerns? Did you join a political party and suggest the party take the position that prostitution should be legalised for the greater benefit of the community? Did you do any of this, or are you just complaining because something is not the way you would like it?

Minority rights. Womens' issues. Scientific research etc.

Minority rights are an interesting thing. In the 1980's, here in Australia, we prevented an AIDS epidemic from happening here, however it was largely done by the three communities themselves: the gay community (more specifically the men who are sexually active with other men), the sex workers and the injecting drug users. This of course was backed by government, but essentially they themselves needed to tackle the issue.

It does show what minorities can do when they are empowered to do so.

The only one of those groups which was controversial was the injecting drug users, because people said "they're just junkies, they're not a real community or group". Yet they proved otherwise by taking action against AIDS, which was only possible by mobilising and taking action as a community.

---

Dear Radio, is it true that in Moscow, on the Red Square, they're giving away cars for free?

-Yes, but not in Moscow, in Leningrad. Not Red Square, but Square of Revolution, and not cars, but bikes; which aren't being given away, but stolen.

Something like that Aractus?

Yes, something like your Chinese whispers example.

[genkaus]

No it isn't, we do it all the time and we do it in courts as well. It's how we associate things together like actions and consequences. It is absolutly used in court - you can demonstrate that your witness is "reliable" or demonstrate that he is "unreliable", for instance, and that is using the "by association" principle.

Reliability of a witness isn't related to anything he is associated with - it is depends directly upon what he says and does.

As far as science is concerned there are an unlimited number of valid theories.

And only one way to become a valid theory - get evidence.

In science, they generally like the more simple theories over the more complicated ones.

Not if the simple ones don't have any evidence for them.

Or let me repeat the historical argument I already gave you: prior to the 1980's there were Egyptologists who theorised that the pyramids were build by Egyptian workers, and not by slaves. They had no direct evidence for the theory, yet they still had it. Later it would be effectively proven correct.

Let me correct you: prior to the 1980's there were Egypthologists who hypothesized that the pyramids were build by workers. But since they had no evidence for it, it remained a hypothesis. Now that they do have actual evidence for it (graves of workers), it is now a valid theory. This theory is falsifiable - if tomorrow we find that the people in those graves had nothing to do with building pyramids or that slaves were given an honorable burial because of their work on pyramids - the theory would be falsified and invalidated and its back to the drawing board.

There are plenty of other examples in history of why these theories are important - they direct what you look for and consequently where. Many very important archaeological discoveries have been made off the back of theories (eg I think that there was people here in such and such a time and we're going to look for their remains).

Those theories are more than just guess-work - as you seem to suggest. They have a lot of other evidence going for them.

The trap that you're falling into is telling people that they can't think for themselves, they can't have their own ideas, they can't make their own theories, they can't think outside the box and produce non-logical theories.

They should think for themselves, they can have their own ideas, they can make up their own hypothesis - but they can't make up their own facts and they can't make up evidence. Which is why they can't make up their own theories.

Well I've just explained why they are, and there's other reasons too.

Nope.

Right, and what have you done about it? Have you formed an interest group, have you attended town meetings to voice your concerns? Did you join a political party and suggest the party take the position that prostitution should be legalised for the greater benefit of the community? Did you do any of this, or are you just complaining because something is not the way you would like it?

are you just complaining because something is not the way you would like it - this.

Minority rights are an interesting thing. In the 1980's, here in Australia, we prevented an AIDS epidemic from happening here, however it was largely done by the three communities themselves: the gay community (more specifically the men who are sexually active with other men), the sex workers and the injecting drug users. This of course was backed by government, but essentially they themselves needed to tackle the issue.

It does show what minorities can do when they are empowered to do so.

The only one of those groups which was controversial was the injecting drug users, because people said "they're just junkies, they're not a real community or group". Yet they proved otherwise by taking action against AIDS, which was only possible by mobilising and taking action as a community.

How exactly is this relevant to minority rights?

[Aractus]

As far as science is concerned there are an unlimited number of valid theories.

And only one way to become a valid theory - get evidence.

No, that's how to "prove" a theory.

Not if the simple ones don't have any evidence for them.

Again, you're incorrect. An example is the Darwinism theory that evolution is driven by DNA mutations - there are competing theories to this, and when that theory was first invented it had no direct solid evidence whatsoever for it. If it gets disproved it will still be a valid theory, just one that has been disproved.

The ability to develop theories involving the use of little direct evidence is a very important skill. So I completely disagree with you trying to say that they're "hypothesises", the term is synonymous with theory but the meaning is slightly different. In any case, there is valid evidence for the theory that Jesus is resurrected. It's only the quality of said valid evidence that is disputable, not its existence in the first place.

Those theories are more than just guess-work - as you seem to suggest. They have a lot of other evidence going for them.

But not direct evidence, that's my point. They're using I guess you could say rules about what they've learned and theorised about other things to apply it to new situations and develop theoretical proposals for where humans might have been at a certain time.

They should think for themselves, they can have their own ideas, they can make up their own hypothesis - but they can't make up their own facts and they can't make up evidence. Which is why they can't make up their own theories.

No one's making up evidence, no one's making up facts.

How exactly is this relevant to minority rights?

It's perfectly relevant. 1. if those groups had not been treated as being valid minority groups then solutions to the issue would never have been developed and enacted on - case in point the USA did not have anywhere near the success of containing the HIV outbreak as we did in the late 80's, but they had exactly the same opportunity. 2. It's a very clear example of acknowledgement of those groups and their ability to tackle such an important health issue when given the ability/support to do so.