Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary superiority
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 211 of 302 (455176)
02-11-2008 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by pelican
02-10-2008 11:38 PM


Re: true beliefs?
paula writes:
We are feeling, thinking, conscious beings experienced through a living body. I believe all three incorpoated create our life experiences. Could this belief be proved/disproved?
Of course we have an opportunity to put the verasity of your belief to the test.
Step one: define feeling, thinking and consciousness.
B: define a human.
Step three: correlate the two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 11:38 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 9:22 AM Larni has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 212 of 302 (455178)
02-11-2008 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Larni
02-11-2008 8:33 AM


Re: true beliefs?
I would be happy to answer your questions if you are sincere and willing to consider my answers. However, would this be on topic for this thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Larni, posted 02-11-2008 8:33 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Larni, posted 02-11-2008 10:21 AM pelican has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 213 of 302 (455187)
02-11-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by pelican
02-11-2008 9:22 AM


Re: true beliefs?
Start a new thread and I will meet you there.
Guns blazin'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 9:22 AM pelican has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 214 of 302 (455202)
02-11-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by nator
02-09-2008 6:08 PM


Re: Out of the mouths of birds
My motivations in the debate are thus:
.
.
.
My morivations in the debate are NOT:
.
.
.
I'll add you (nator) to the long list of people I'd like to have forgive me for my uncautious typing. I didn't mean to point any of this at you, and I believe you're sincere. I also didn't mean to point it at Rahvin, either, but it sure sounded like I was.
From what I've seen, the anti-evolution crowd is only mistakenly believed to have the best of intentions. They seem very eager to rail on me and my opinions with even the slightest provocation (although, judging by my record on this thread, I may be provoking more than I thought).
Also, nator, your third motivation,
3) To understand better how the anti-science crowd thinks and what they believe, so I can better combat their influence in our society
is a very critical point here. Most of us evolutionists are used to debating with other evolutionists about scientific matters: we're used to be rebutted with answers like: "Your point is wrong for the following reasons..." When dealing with creationists, we often get responses like "I don't believe that and you can't convince me," or "This is my point and I'm sticking to it." So, some try to repeat the facts ad nauseum, and some try to explain the rules of debating, and this naturally comes off as condescending.
Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by nator, posted 02-09-2008 6:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by nator, posted 02-11-2008 5:44 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 215 of 302 (455210)
02-11-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by pelican
02-09-2008 9:28 AM


Re: This Topic
Sorry I got behind over the weekend, and am now responding to messages almost two pages back.
From my perspective, I find it extremely prideful to reject all material evidence in favor of belief in something based on personal feelings.
What about true beliefs built on rational feeling, life experience and logic? No proof whatsoever.
I think the phrases "true beliefs" and "rational feeling" are oxymorons (oxymora?), at least when discussing logic. The word "rational" suggests orderly, systematic work on a subject; but the word "feeling" suggest something much more mantic. "Rational" means built on reason, which implies that some species of "proof" exists. Therefore, feelings without evidence cannot, by definition, be rational.
But, if you believe the word "rational" to be the opposite of the word "insane," the phrase works.
This whole argument, however, leaves out the other half of my statement, which assumes that there is evidence to the contrary. In a court of law, if your testimony doesn't jive with the available evidence, you're going to jail. Therefore, your feelings and your beliefs are worthless, while the evidence is irreplaceable.
I think it takes a very humble attitude for a scientist to ignore his or her personal feelings and work only on what he or she could actually prove in a court of law. Many of us want to believe in God, but we don't let that feeling rob us of our reason.
Let's relate this back to Hill Billy and the premise of this thread. No matter how much we analyze it and how much we evolutionists dispute it, we won't convince everybody that we don't feel superior. Anybody could read this thread in its entirety and still feel that evolutionists are superior, condescending jerks, even though many of us really aren't.
Take this, for instance (from Dr Adequate):
No, the better educated feel better educated.
I think this is a very astute observation, and I agree wholly.
However, someone else could look at it and say that Dr Adequate's attitude is condescending. Although they would come to this conclusion by examining the available evidence, they would still be applying a personal opinion (a bias) to it. If you dig deeper, you'd see that said personal feeling actually has more to do with the conclusion than the available evidence. Therfore, you'd never be able to prove Dr Adequate guilty of a superiority complex with this bit of evidence.
I say, if you (any generic creationist) want evolutionists to treat you as equals in the scientific field, you have to remove all of your personal feelings and beliefs and focus only on the physical evidence, because, even if your feelings are right, you can't actually prove it to anyone.
But, most of them don't do that. And, that's why I find that creationists have a superior, condescending attitude.
Geez; me and my long posts.

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by pelican, posted 02-09-2008 9:28 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2008 5:58 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 220 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 7:06 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 216 of 302 (455242)
02-11-2008 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by pelican
02-10-2008 11:26 PM


Re: Trixie, your words betray you.
You appear to be the only one who keeps seeing these fantasies.
You have, of course, no data on which to base this conclusion, which is obviously false.
You do make stuff up a lot, don't you?
I'm sure Hill Billy wasn't fantasizing about Trixie crying.
Your certainty will be shaken if you read the post where he fantasises about Trixie crying.
Don't you go worrying your head over us females.
I am not, as you would know had you read the portion of my post that you quoted, where I wrote: "Fortunately, your disingenuous fantasies are not at all likely to upset her; the insight that they inadvertently offer into your mental processes must surely compensate in unintentional humor for what they lack in charm."
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by pelican, posted 02-10-2008 11:26 PM pelican has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 217 of 302 (455252)
02-11-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Blue Jay
02-11-2008 12:20 PM


Re: Out of the mouths of birds
quote:
I'll add you (nator) to the long list of people I'd like to have forgive me for my uncautious typing. I didn't mean to point any of this at you, and I believe you're sincere. I also didn't mean to point it at Rahvin, either, but it sure sounded like I was.
No apology needed, bluejay. I just took the opportunity to correct and clarify.
3) To understand better how the anti-science crowd thinks and what they believe, so I can better combat their influence in our society
quote:
is a very critical point here. Most of us evolutionists are used to debating with other evolutionists about scientific matters: we're used to be rebutted with answers like: "Your point is wrong for the following reasons..." When dealing with creationists, we often get responses like "I don't believe that and you can't convince me," or "This is my point and I'm sticking to it." So, some try to repeat the facts ad nauseum, and some try to explain the rules of debating, and this naturally comes off as condescending.
When a Creationist refuses to debate in good faith, uses poor reasoning, etc., and is simply too closed minded to entertain the very notion that they might be wrong, I think they very much deserve to have the rules of debate explained to them.
When they repeat falsehoods and misrepresentations for, literally, years (in the style of our own Buzsaw) even though they have been refuted and addressed many, many times, I think they very much deserve to have the evidence presented to them repeatedly.
Remember, I'm not ever trying to convince those who are blind and deaf to anything but their own religious myths and argue that way.
I will address the same argument from the same person and give essentially the same response over and over again, and I do this for the fencesitting lurkers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 12:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 218 of 302 (455256)
02-11-2008 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Blue Jay
02-11-2008 1:12 PM


Creationists sad need to feel superior
BlueJay writes:
But, most of them don't do that. And, that's why I find that creationists have a superior, condescending attitude.
But the real secret is in a post of mine early on in the thread. Religious people who regard their particular interpretation of their particular religion as the one and only basis for truth inevitably regard themselves as superior to others. They and only they will be going to heaven/paradise, or getting reincarnated further up the socio-economic class structure, or whatever. And it's easy for anyone who's good at lying to themselves to feel this kind of false superiority, and to feel more valued (a word used in the O.P.) by God. All you need is to have faith.
The creationism we deal with here is all really based on various versions of the Abrahamic God as creator, and some creationists on this site express sectarian contempt for their fellow creationists, as well as for the infidel "evolutionists" (and that includes evolutionists who are self-described Christians).
Part of the appeal of following any "true" religious sect may be the feeling of righteousness and superior value it offers. Perhaps the bigger the inferiority complex of an individual, the more likely he or she is to escape from the slings and arrows of reality by adopting fierce adherence to a "true" religion, and the more sectarian they are likely to be.
So there's a bit of unintentional irony in the original post in this thread, because creationists are people who seem to require this delusional feeling of being the elite, valued above others by the God that they worship, and any follower of a "true" religious interpretation of the universe is automatically and by definition claiming superiority over the rest of the world.
It goes with the territory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 1:12 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 02-11-2008 6:25 PM bluegenes has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 219 of 302 (455264)
02-11-2008 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by bluegenes
02-11-2008 5:58 PM


Re: Creationists sad need to feel superior
quote:
Perhaps the bigger the inferiority complex of an individual, the more likely he or she is to escape from the slings and arrows of reality by adopting fierce adherence to a "true" religion, and the more sectarian they are likely to be.
Maybe.
People used to believe that children who bullied other children or who break rules did so becasue they had low self-esteem.
We now understand that what was generally thought of before that theory was pretty much correct; bullies and rule breakers have very high-self esteem. Too high, in fact. They belive they have every right to bully and to break rules. They believe the rules apply to other people but not them.
I believe the same thing is going on with a lot of Creationists when they believe themselves to be "special" or "chosen" or "saved" or "born again".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2008 5:58 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by bluegenes, posted 02-11-2008 7:26 PM nator has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 220 of 302 (455274)
02-11-2008 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Blue Jay
02-11-2008 1:12 PM


yes your post is long and I tried to take it all in. However I was drawn to this statement again and again............
Therefore, your feelings and your beliefs are worthless, while the evidence is irreplaceable.
.........................
If feelings and beliefs are worthless, then are you saying the only value we have is our intelligence?
I cannot agree. I believe your feelings and beliefs are invaluable, if only to you, which they are not.
I think you have assumed I am a creationists but I don't restrict myself with labels. regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 1:12 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 10:11 PM pelican has replied
 Message 228 by Larni, posted 02-12-2008 1:35 PM pelican has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 221 of 302 (455282)
02-11-2008 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by nator
02-11-2008 6:25 PM


Re: Creationists sad need to feel superior
nator writes:
Maybe.
I did say "perhaps" on that part, which is the same thing, and that part of the post is certainly speculative, I agree.
However, the main point stands, and is my repeated reply to the O.P.
People who believe they're part of an elite destined for heaven, by definition, are guilty of believing that they are of more value than others. I think that's irrefutable, and if we're going to get more threads with character attacks on "evolutionists" of the type in the O.P., something inevitable when there's complete absence of evidence for any of the various forms of creationism, then I think that my point is the best way of illustrating the obvious hypocrisy.
The author of the thread, in all the posts he's made, hasn't offered a counter-argument to this point, which I made way back near the beginning of the thread, and that's because it's impossible to do so.
It's partly because of this delusional belief of superiority on the part of creationists that I feel, quite rationally of course, superior to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nator, posted 02-11-2008 6:25 PM nator has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 222 of 302 (455334)
02-11-2008 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by pelican
02-11-2008 7:06 PM


Therefore, your feelings and your beliefs are worthless, while the evidence is irreplaceable.
If feelings and beliefs are worthless, then are you saying the only value we have is our intelligence?
I cannot agree. I believe your feelings and beliefs are invaluable...
I meant "worthless" in terms of proving stuff, Paula Rose. If you think that your feelings are important, I will not argue with you. However, if anybody thinks that their feelings should be given equal standing with verifiable physical evidence, I will complain very loudly until the administrators drag me away. And my complaints will follow the lines of the two long posts I have provided previously in this very thread.
In terms of this debate, the only things of value are physical evidence and the intelligence to understand it. You may cherish your feelings as much as you'd like, but don't bring them into a scientific debate (partly because they'll make you make stupid assumptions, and partly because they're likely to get hurt).
I think you have assumed I am a creationists but I don't restrict myself with labels.
Everyone wants to take everything I say personally. You are not the only one reading my posts, and you're not the only intended audience (at least half a dozen other people are avid readers and responders on this thread), so don't assume that everything I write is aimed specifically at you. Always assume that "you" is used in a generic second-person voice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 7:06 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 11:12 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 223 of 302 (455345)
02-11-2008 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Blue Jay
02-11-2008 10:11 PM


Ooops. I did assume you assumed I was a creationist like many others. You didn't actually mean me personally. This 'you' is meant in the singular but I will read 'you' as in the plural from here on. Thanks for that. It was bugging me.
I meant "worthless" in terms of proving stuff, Paula Rose. If you think that your feelings are important, I will not argue with you. However, if anybody thinks that their feelings should be given equal standing with verifiable physical evidence, I will complain very loudly until the administrators drag me away. And my complaints will follow the lines of the two long posts I have provided previously in this very thread.
OK you didn't actually say what you meant. I believe my life experiences are verifiable, physical, evidence that only I can know, but maybe others can relate to.
This thread is a result of a challenge to prove my belief without using scientific or religious dogma. I won't use it and I won't dispute it because it is irrelevent to the intention.
Hope this clarifies the position. regards Paula Rose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Blue Jay, posted 02-11-2008 10:11 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 7:04 AM pelican has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 224 of 302 (455370)
02-12-2008 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by pelican
02-11-2008 11:12 PM


quote:
I believe my life experiences are verifiable, physical, evidence that only I can know, but maybe others can relate to.
Evidence that "only you can know" cannot also be "verifiable".
By definition, for evidence to be verifiable, anyone must be able to observe it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by pelican, posted 02-11-2008 11:12 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by pelican, posted 02-12-2008 10:21 AM nator has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 225 of 302 (455395)
02-12-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by nator
02-12-2008 7:04 AM


We meet again. I hope you know you are feeding a troll. Watch out for the troll guards. They might say you are one by assiciation. However,
Evidence that "only you can know" cannot also be "verifiable".
By definition, for evidence to be verifiable, anyone must be able to observe it.
The evidence would be verifiable with others having the same experiences or very similar and correlating the experiences to draw a conclusion. How many would we need?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 7:04 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 5:54 PM pelican has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024