Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 106 of 139 (536128)
11-19-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Arphy
11-19-2009 10:27 PM


Re: More creationist pap
As for your "fossil data" and "genetic data", this article wasn't written as an in depth analysis of these points. it was commenting on Prothero's claims. Keep looking round creation.com for articles that do go into these points in more depth.
I've read a lot of those articles, particularly in the fields of radiocarbon dating and fossil man, two areas with which I am familiar.
I've seen some real whoppers passed off to the willfully ignorant as TRVTH. One prime example:
quote:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel (Source).
Now I can go into the details if you wish, but among other gems this little paragraph has macroevolution, which creationists deny occurs, happening several hundred times faster than paleontologists propose and in reverse! And then, for some unknown reason, stopping abruptly and all traces of these critters suddenly burrowed down into geological layers tens to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years too old.
This kind of writing and thinking bears no relation to science, and is flatly contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence. The creationists who peddle this are willfully ignorant, having lied to themselves to sustain their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This may be good apologetics, but it is not science. And its not truthful.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:27 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Coyote has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4706 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 107 of 139 (536129)
11-20-2009 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Arphy
11-19-2009 9:19 PM


What Grade are You In?
Great, what is wrong with anarchy?
Anarchy is unstable.
There are those among us who would use force of arms to establish their own self-serving standards as universals. They usually attribute these standards to some kind of higher authority to make them appear a bit less arbitrary. They lie and kill and pray. All for the greater good, of course.
Then there are those who recognize that if they do not sacrifice some of the freedoms of anarchy they will lose all of their freedoms to the apostles of power. They, more or less willingly, join together in a common cause. They, more or less, accept that the greater good can most readily be achieved through cooperation and fair play. It's not perfect, but it's better then the alternative.
there is nothing in atheism that would make it wrong for a person to do harm.
You're right, there isn't. There is nothing in basket weaving that would make it wrong for a person to do harm either. Are you going to call them on it? Atheism is not a moral stance. It's a recognition that gods are a delusion.
Are you really unable to grasp that morals are not best handed down from on high? Would you rape Suzy? You don't have much of a choice if your morals are set by the OT God. If your force is not the greater force why should you not submit?
Recognizing that I must be responsible for what I believe, I have a choice. Do my part to make the would a better, kinder place, where me and mine can find peace and comfort; or, grab what I can when I can in a raucous, unending struggle wherein my survival is incumbent on how well I oppress my fellows.
There will probably be someone on the planet who thinks it would be "neat" if the world destroyed itself in a nuclear war tomorrow.
Most likely for religious reasons.
Because it is "nice"?
Yes. Because it's nice.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that all atheists are anarchists or that if you are an atheist that you should consider becoming an anarchist, I'm just stating that there is nothing in atheism that would make it wrong for a person to do harm.
And I'm not suggesting that you have an inordinate eye for little boys. Pretty big of me, ain't it? You can thank me later.
So what is wrong with an atheist choosing a rule that lying is ok if you don't get caught and it benefits you?
Character.
Is it hypocritcal?
No; smart.
If you have some influence or power over a weaker opponent, you can become quite successful.
When did we change the topic to fundamentalism?
I don't think it is possible to make the claim that atheists are "restricted" to telling the truth.
Neither are basket weavers. Go get 'em, Tiger opps! Lion. Hum‽

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 9:19 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:17 AM lyx2no has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 108 of 139 (536130)
11-20-2009 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by lyx2no
11-20-2009 12:44 AM


Is morality based on an opinion vote?
Recognizing that I must be responsible for what I believe, I have a choice. Do my part to make the would a better, kinder place, where me and mine can find peace and comfort; or, grab what I can when I can in a raucous, unending struggle wherein my survival is incumbent on how well I oppress my fellows.
YES!!! Finally!!! You have a CHOICE you are not RESTRICTED in atheism.
So I ask again, what makes a choice as in "grab what I can when I can in a raucous, unending struggle wherein my survival is incumbent on how well I oppress my fellows" "wrong"? Is it simply your opinion that it is wrong? Or maybe morality is just based on an opinion vote? But wait, isn't everyone allowed to form their own opinions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2009 12:44 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2009 9:57 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 125 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2009 11:49 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 109 of 139 (536131)
11-20-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Coyote
11-19-2009 11:50 PM


Re: More creationist pap
"Now I can go into the details if you wish, but among other gems this little paragraph has macroevolution, which creationists deny occurs (depends on what you are defining as macroevolution. Anyway, I think the point of the article was to show that the Homo species would be better classified as one species), happening several hundred times faster than paleontologists propose and in reverse! (YES!!!!) And then, for some unknown reason, stopping abruptly and all traces of these critters suddenly burrowed (eh?? never heard of that) down into geological layers tens to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years too old (they aren't that old)."
But I guess this belongs elsewhere on the forum.
Edited by Admin, : Change colored text to a readable color.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 11:50 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:43 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2009 4:42 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4799 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 110 of 139 (536132)
11-20-2009 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Arphy
11-20-2009 1:17 AM


Re: Is morality based on an opinion vote?
And theists don't have a choice?
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:17 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:48 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4799 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 111 of 139 (536133)
11-20-2009 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Arphy
11-20-2009 1:32 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Arphy writes:
depends on what you are defining as macroevolution. Anyway, I think the point of the article was to show that the Homo species would be better classified as one species
They can say whatever they want. Where's the research that shows that a genus can suddenly be treated as a species? When the peddlers of creationism circumvent the scientific method to make wild assertions, that's pretty much equivalent to lying.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:55 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 112 of 139 (536134)
11-20-2009 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Meldinoor
11-20-2009 1:32 AM


Re: Is morality based on an opinion vote?
Hi Meldinoor
I've been away for a while, but will hopefully be hanging round here a bit more in the next while. Good to see you are still here. haven't read any of your latest posts but as far as I remember your posts tended to be quite good, so am happy to see you here.
As has been pointed out, christians have the bible which tells us what we should not do. So no, we don't really have a choice, unless we decide to disregard the bible. Also, sometimes we don't live up to the morals, however this doesn't mean that we don't try to live by them.
Respectfully as well,
Arphy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:58 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 126 by subbie, posted 11-20-2009 12:52 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 113 of 139 (536135)
11-20-2009 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Meldinoor
11-20-2009 1:43 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Where's the research that shows that a genus can suddenly be treated as a species?
Not just any genus. Have a look at the link coyote provided for an example.
When the peddlers of creationism circumvent the scientific method to make wild assertions, that's pretty much equivalent to lying.
eh?? Please don't make wild assertions . Back it up with a example at least, preferably with some sort of reference as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 1:43 AM Meldinoor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 2:15 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4799 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 114 of 139 (536136)
11-20-2009 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Arphy
11-20-2009 1:48 AM


Re: Is morality based on an opinion vote?
Hi Arphy,
Thank you and likewise.
Arphy writes:
As has been pointed out, christians have the bible which tells us what we should not do. So no, we don't really have a choice, unless we decide to disregard the bible. Also, sometimes we don't live up to the morals, however this doesn't mean that we don't try to live by them.
While we're really way off-topic at this point, I will respond to the quoted excerpt. You are right that we Christians do have the Bible as a guideline, however, as you pointed out, we have a choice to live by it or disregard it. Likewise, an atheist with a set of morals (God-given or no) can choose to follow these or disregard them.
The fact that we see spiritual consequences from our actions, rather than just immediate earthly ones doesn't change the fact that both atheists and theists have choices to make.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:48 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4799 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


Message 115 of 139 (536137)
11-20-2009 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Arphy
11-20-2009 1:55 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Arphy writes:
Not just any genus. Have a look at the link coyote provided for an example.
I noticed that the fact that Neanderthal's had similar teeth was one of the reasons they wanted to group them with Homo Sapiens as a species. I saw a very simplistic table comparing australopithecines and hominids, that carefully avoided using any actual data.
There were other things I didn't like about the article, but as I am feeling very tired at the moment, I'm not going to give a detailed review of the article.
Arphy writes:
eh?? Please don't make wild assertions . Back it up with a example at least, preferably with some sort of reference as well.
Very well.
quote:
Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors.
That was easy Same page by the way.
Respectfully (as always)
-Meldinoor
PS. I apologize for the brevity and possible rudeness of my posts tonight. I recently got back from a poker night and feel I may have imbibed enough beer to compromise my ability to write as coherently as usual. I'll be back right as rain tomorrow, I hope. See you then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:55 AM Arphy has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 116 of 139 (536142)
11-20-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Arphy
11-19-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Yes, there are many systems in place especially duplication which help in keeping standards. However, this doesn't mean that it is foolproof.
So what man-made system is perfect and foolproof? Indeed, one of several reasons why I cannot accept fundamentalism (its gross hypocracy and dependence on outright lies being others) is that I cannot accept the concept of human infallibility.
However, if you have ever learned anything at all, you should know that there is not one supremely perfect answer for each real-world problem, but rather there are sets of solutions, some of which work reasonably well. Let's say you have a problem that needs solving. While there is maybe one solution that will work the best, there are also about a dozen that will work reasonably well. If you had perfect knowledge, you would of course choose the best solution. But with our imperfect knowledge, even if you chose a less optimal solution, your problem would still get solved.
You are wanting to claim that if we cannot find the absolutely perfect solution, then we might as well give up. I'm saying that as long as we find a working solution, then we've solved the problem.
A couple quotes if I may:
quote:
Douglas Adams:
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
(BTW, Douglas Adams, who would be my age if he were still alive, is the radio-playwrite and author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything is ... 42. Share and enjoy!)
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
No, science is not foolproof. But it is workable. It is a system that has been put into place to try to reach a goal. And it is vastly superior to an attitude of "WTF! Nothing is foolproof, so let's accept any absolutely crazy idea any drunk off the street has to offer!" (The "any drunk off the street" was one programmer's standard for a user-friendly program) No, science is not foolproof. And some errors could conceivably slip by for longer that it should. But at least some kind of system is in place to try to keep that from happening. Which is still a helluva lot more (practically infinitely more) than what the creationist community has in place.
Nor does it mean that it stops some results being promoted at the exclusion of others, for example.
Though in the vast majority of such cases, what is being excluded is pure crap anyway. We don't need to re-consider geo-centric astronomical models anymore. Nor do we need to re-consider the Caloric Theory of Heat.
Now, if the offended party really does think that his idea has merit, then he is perfectly free to do actual science (Gee! What a weird concept! No creationist would ever think of such a thing!). He is perfectly free to research his idea and build a case for it. After all, most of the currently accepted ideas were once weird ideas that nobody could accept.
Whats'a'matta? Your creationism can't do science? Well, there's probably a very good reason for that!
Nor does it mean that it stops some results being promoted at the exclusion of others, for example.
Every so-far-unaccepted idea has the same chances as any other so-far-unaccepted idea.
Please stop and think for a moment (hopefully, this is not too radical an idea for a creationist -- you know, actually thinking).
And as I said before, even if a scientist lies and he is found out, s/he may have already caused considerable damage, where their ideas persist even though it has been shown to be wrong.
Yes, that is true. And yet from the moment that that lie is revealed, science rejects that lie. Indeed, the only people who continue to use that lie are the creationists, as we can readily see from the continued use of "Nebraska Man" and "Piltdown Man", even though there's no mention of either from science since the 1930's or the 1940's. Duh?????
When an scientific idea is disproven, it is banished. Duh?????
What part of that do you not understand?
Now revisit creationist claims. A claim is disproven and what happens? It continues to be used unabated!!!Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Over!!! OK, what's the difference? In science, the truth matters. In creationism, to hell with the truth! Just give me something that sounds convincing!!!!!
And as I said before, even if a scientist lies and he is found out, s/he may have already caused considerable damage, where their ideas persist even though it has been shown to be wrong.
Uh, no, that doesn't happen. If an idea has been discredited, then it does not persist.
If you disagree, then please present some specific examples.
dwise1 writes:
The primary goal of the creationist community has nothing to do with learning the truth
You are coming at it from the angle that truth is unknowable.
Uh, no! What I was saying is exactly what I was saying! The creationist community has absolutely nothing to do with learning the truth. They think that they know the Truth beforehand, but they don't!
Also, the truth is indeed knowable. Which is how we know that you don't know it!
We KNOW that the bible is true, therefore we trust it, and we gain more confirmation of this every day as more scientific discoveries, historical corroboration, and supernatural experiences show that the bible is trustworthy.
Sorry, but bullshit! You only believe that it is true. And scientific discoveries do absolutely nothing to confirm it. And just what exact "supernatural experiences" are you talking about? I must demand absolutely verifiable "supernatural experiences", you understand.
IOW, complete and utter bullshit!
Men wrote the Bible! Your theology may demand that the Bible is completely true and trustworthy, but prove it!
So, yes, we continue to work at bringing down the "evidences" for evolution, because many people feel that it has been "proven" that evolution is true, and find it hard to let go of the "mountains of evidence". If we can destroy the "mountain" with good science and logic, well....
So why can't you do it? Try it! You can't, can you? Believe it or not, that is exactly what I have been imploring creationists to do for about 3 decades now (are you even that old yourself?). Don't use lies. Don't use deceptions. If you honestly believe that you have a valid case to make, then make it!!! Nobody's stopping you!!! Make your frakin' case!!!
Here, basically, is what I've been telling creationists for a few decades now. Make your case. Don't rely on lies, because that will only destroy your case. Don't try to deceive us, because that will only work against you. If you really think that you have a case, then make it! Lies and deception will only work against you, so don't resort to that.
Guess what? No creationist has ever made his case! Instead, those creationists have viciously attacked me. Clearly, the truth has no meaning for them.
And as for that "mountains of evidence", you do still need to deal with it.
As for just using "convincing-sounding" arguments for the sake of sounding convincing is also wrong, as far as i am aware. Feel free to convince me otherwise, this is the place to do so.
Sorry, but that is all that "creation science" gives you. False "convincing-sounding" claims and arguments that only sound convincing to those who don't know anything.
Here's one. Moths that had evolved into a new species, but the creationist exclaims, "But they are still moths!!!" The stupid idiot! That "but they are still moths!!!" may sound convincing to a creationist who has no idea how evolution works, but it is complete and utter nonsense to anyone who has half a brain to work with.
Sorry, but that is all that your stupid "creation science" has to offer you. A complete and utter deception that you're too stupid to realize.
Here's a stupid question for you: why are there mountains of evidence FOR evolution, and yet none FOR creation? That should be telling for anyone who's actually paying any attention.
As for just using "convincing-sounding" arguments for the sake of sounding convincing is also wrong, as far as i am aware. Feel free to convince me otherwise, this is the place to do so.
Oh, I completely agree! But then, that is all that the creationists have!
The arguments sound convincing because they are convincing!!!
TGhe arguments are complete and utter nonsense. I have already offered you one.
If you actually believe one to be true, then please offer it for consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2009 11:26 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 117 of 139 (536143)
11-20-2009 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Arphy
11-20-2009 1:32 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Cleaned up for language.
It was my reaction to Arphy having used colors that made his message physically unreadable.
It was way late, I was way tired and in a bad mood. I sincerely apologize for the wording I had used.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2009 5:40 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 118 of 139 (536150)
11-20-2009 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by dwise1
11-20-2009 4:42 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Easy there wise one.
Just highlight the text with your mouse and you can read it just fine.
But yes, he should've used a different colour. And yes, it's a load of crap.

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2009 4:42 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 119 of 139 (536152)
11-20-2009 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Arphy
11-18-2009 11:19 PM


Hi Arphy -- welcome back. Things here had become rather too tame in your absence, IMHO.
Thanks for the link to the printed debate. I think it's an ample demonstration of everything that dwise1 laid out in such painstaking detail: we see the YEC propensity to
  • misrepresent the assertions of theory, the facts of evidence, and the very nature of scientific inquiry;
  • repeat tiresome arguments against an old earth and an older universe, in spite of repeated and detailed refutations that have gone unanswered; and
  • most remarkably, declare both a willingness to "adjust their models ... to accommodate new data" and a stubborn insistence that their singular interpretation of scripture must be TRUE (i.e. cannot be false, is unfalsifiable by mandate) while failing to acknowledge (or comprehend) this obvious self-contradiction.
Arphy writes:
As for christians who have lied. Yes, it most certainly happens, but doing so is in conflict with their belief (while it isn't a conflict of beliefs for an atheist, as far as i know, feel free to convince me otherwise)
The Christian notion of belief plays no role in an atheist's decisions for day-to-day behavior. There is a very different notion of "belief" used by atheists, which is really more of a "working hypothesis" based on incomplete information: previous experience, common sense, and a set of reasonable assumptions about how other people behave, will lead a person to choose whether or not to be honest in a given interaction -- "based on what I know/expect/can figure out, it'll be better to (not) lie right now." Actually, I'm inclined to think that this pretty well describes what everybody does, regardless of the theist/atheist divide, and regardless of the particular religion held by a theist.
But there is an important difference, which has to do with personal intention and motivation.
For a scientist (whether theistic or atheistic), the primary intent is "I want to understand how this works / how it came about / how it will be in the future." Some part of the endeavor will always depend on the "atheist notion of belief" -- the working hypothesis -- which will sometimes be wrong but will always be amended when mistakes are noted. In this case there's no incentive for dishonesty. When it's a matter of understanding disease, earthquakes, dangerous weather systems, etc, the consequences make dishonesty entirely self-defeating and pathetically stupid.
For a YEC, the intent is "I want to get other people to have the same faith I have, believe what I believe, and accept my Bible as the ultimate authority or sole basis for establishing truth in all matters." This is a requisite property of the YEC's "Christian notion of belief" -- the dogma -- which can only be wrong in the eyes of an unbeliever. Well, the inescapable result in this case is that all views contradicting this one must be denied, even when that denial is dishonest. The victims of such dishonesty will, in the worst case, opt for a religious schism; the only positive result, in my view, is when they opt for agnosticism.
It is a curious paradox that the YEC advocate, professing to be a Christian who believes that lying is a sin against God, must nonetheless lie in order to profess the YEC belief.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 11:19 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


(1)
Message 120 of 139 (536160)
11-20-2009 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Arphy
11-19-2009 9:19 PM


Arphy writes:
Does it really matter that civilisation and the earth remain for another 100 years? After you are dead you supposedly won't care anyway, because, well, you supposedly no longer exist. Why does society need to continue to exist even after you have died? You might think that it would be "neat", especially when thinking of all technological advances that humans could make in the future. But hey, you won't experince them anyway, if you're dead.
And if your religion is true and there is an afterlife, you still won't experience the progress of society, because you will be somewhere else, won't you. So why should you care?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 9:19 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-20-2009 11:03 AM Parasomnium 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