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: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My position explained
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 46 of 87 (170019)
12-20-2004 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
12-19-2004 7:15 PM


Re: Dawkins Deceived, AIG lies.
Yeah, that would do it for me.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2004 7:15 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 47 of 87 (170020)
12-20-2004 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
12-19-2004 7:15 PM


(delete: double post)
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-20-2004 03:34 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2004 7:15 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 48 of 87 (170030)
12-20-2004 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mike the wiz
12-19-2004 7:01 PM


Rrhain already answered this (quite excellently I might add) in almost identical fashion to the way I would. I'll try to throw in a few other elements.
a rare passage in Ecclesiastes outdoes the main message of Christ.
In no way have I said it undercuts anything Christ said. I said it undercuts what you said. I'll tell you what though, you find me quotes from Jesus that say something like what you proposed regarding animals, and I'll take my charge back.
Does abiogenesis and evolution and atheism paint a meaningful picture concerning the purpose of an individual circling a small apparently unimpressive sun?
Nothing like starting with a loaded question. Who said our sun is a small, apparently unimpressive one? Only from a galactic scale would one be able to start making such statements. From a human scale it is quite large and quite impressive.
I'll bet the best you get are quotes from people like Sagan, taken out of context. One can get a sense of humbleness and vulnerability (or preciousness) of life on earth (and one's own life) when thinking on galactic scales. It is not dissimilar to people humbling themselves when thinking of the completely fictional image of gods.
But as was pointed out, other than the picture of what processes may have taken place, abiogenesis and evolution aren't meant to paint meaningful pictures for human lives. Science is not moral philosophy. Once you grasp this fact, maybe you will come to peace with what is being said.
Could I not argue that if we are all a result of chance then there is no higher purpose save that of surviving.
You could be a theist and argue that position. As it is it stands quite close to the meaningful picture painted of earthly life in ecclesiastes.
But that would be your personal philosophy, not one that anyone else would have to agree with or share. In an absence of eternal life, or an eternal being that hand created you for some purpose, I do not see any logical argument that there are no other purposes (much less "higher" purposes) than survival.
It's silly that you think eternal life is equal in purpose to hunting and killing for a few years on a planet trying to muster some joy. The implications of atheism and hihilism etc...simply don't achieve the purpose in living forever - and actually being known - by name, by God - who created the universe - and despite our infinitely tiny size - actually intends on giving us life with him - forever.
This is called a circular argument. Not to mention ad hominem.
Atheism is not nihilism, and nihilism is not atheism. Theists can be potent nihilists as we have seen time and time again with Xian baby killers, suicide leaders such as Jim Jones, and the whole wave of militant islamic radicals.
Let us start fresh. Purpose is purpose. How you rank purposes as far as higher and lower is up to your personal viewpoint. There is no objective way of determining such a thing.
What can be said is that if there are gods that are eternal and have handpicked you for an assignment, and after death you continue to live forever for the purpose of the gods, then that purpose is longer lasting (eternal) and has an external source.
Atheists can have purposes come from outside, but they are all of limited duration.
It may be humbling to think that all purposes within life are short when viewed on a galactic timescale, but that does not lessen their immediate meaning. But perhaps that is the problem with theists. They are not content with being humble, and so must load their purposes with external and eternal merit, so they can lord it over others. And of course this requires them to convince themselves that purpose is objectively measured in degree of external eternal nature.
What you can't connect, is that if Dawkins is right, and we believers just need to "grow up", then we have infinitely less purpose in this universe, and basically - when your times up - that's it, your times up.
I think you have put a finger on the issue when you say "grow up".
Personally I cannot think of a mentality so immature and frail, that it requires one posit an eternal and omnipotent "invisible friend" in order to feel one actually has meaning in life. It appears more mature to me to deal with reality as it comes. If there is a God then fine. If there is not, then fine. Meaning and purpose simply shift from one source to another, or multiply from different sources/contexts.
That man won't come back to observe his works on earth - as he is done with the earth and might aswell ENJOY his work while on earth. Now Christ came to give life more abundantly.
I didn't ignore this message. Show me where I said this was put in dispute by any of my words. You know and I know at this point that I have shown you are wrong. My point was not to discredit the argument regarding what is an abundant life, only to show your hypocrisy in demanding following the letter of the Bible, and then defying the letter of the Bible. You have speculated on things which you cannot know.
Other than a book's promise to make life more abundant, and this comes from many different holy books (so what makes yours more real?), I have seen none of this in reality. I have seen no hint that it could be true. So how does it have any meaning, beyond anyone believing it is so, or should I say "feeling" that it is so.
An atheist could equally feel that their actions do have permanent effects on the world, as the flapping of a butterfly's wings may change the weather in another country. Or more importantly, one's life can have an effect on those they live with and will live after them.
But that is only if one feels that purpose must be grand scale in order to have greater meaning. For me, some of the greatest events, the one's that filled my life with meaning, have been quite short in duration.
If I thought my only purpose was as cog in a god machine, well that would suddenly make life seem very bleak. It would just be going through motions to ensure that I get a better afterlife, because no sweetness here would compare to the sweetness I am going to find in the grave.
as you can see - my thoughts go deeper than insulting people.
No, I see you unable to comprehend how condescendingly insulting your position is. It is as repulsive and insulting as the missionaries who on encountering other cultures deride how these people have lived for centuries not understand the true good. That the missionaries actually believe that those in the other culture have been suffering, despite their smiles and earthly happiness.
And of course in the name of true happiness, the people are then forced into true suffering. I mean come on, the whole way to happiness in Xianity (to be specific) is to dwell on the suffering of a guy nailed to a cross. Through his suffering, your life has meaning and you have to pay homage to it for all of your life.
That point should be dwelt upon as it was played out throughout much of the world. How many happy people, have become wretched in the name of gaining this eternal paradise you claim exists?
I would argue that people have lost purpose and wellbeing in that scenario. And missionaries (such as yourself) just don't get that they are insulting others, by ridiculing the idea that others can actually lead happy and purposeful lives all on their own.
It's like Einstein said - what can science say about music?
If you can understand this question, then why can you not understand you are wrong about what abiogenesis and evolution mean regarding purpose and happiness?
But I won't try and make anything science - because it's not my ultimate truth - nor do I need to try and exalt God to science when he is above it imo.
Anyone trying to use science to set their morality is wholly mistaken. Anyone using science to determine whether gods exist or not, are partially mistaken.
Science is used to construct a model of what we can say we know in the world. There is much we do not know. The existence of gods has neither been discredited nor proven.
A person may choose to believe or not. The only difference is that those that choose to believe (especially in an organized and specified set of deities) are positing the existence of things for which we have no evidence at all. That does not make them wrong, only not necessarily right. The more organized and specified the claims regarding earthly life, the more open it is to discrediting from science.
Morality and purpose are separate from both scientific world models and belief in gods. It comes from inside onesself, and if one has faith then one's feelings of how important it is to fulfill stated criteria for good standing. The man of gods may end up committing many incredibly socially unacceptable actions (immoral) due to this overriding set of criteria.
Indeed the Bible is filled with tests and commands which are on their face quite against common value systems. Obedience trumps internal moral imperatives.
This is where you keep making your mistake. You believe that for a scientist, their world model is the source of their morality and purpose, because that is where you feel you get yours. It is only partially true in your case, and almost completely untrue for atheists.
I am not accusing you, but for me - the nihilistic, atheistic and purposeless picture is unnaceptable for me - how's that an attack?
Given that atheism has no inherent connection to nihilism and purposelessness, yet you keep linking them together, that is an attack. It is an insult.
It would be the same if every time I talked about Xianity I would say "the hate-driven nihilistic, theistic, slavery and murder propagating picture is unacceptable to me".
it's an observation of adherents who come up with evolution having all the answers.
I want you to find me one prominent atheist evolutionary theorist who uses evolution to actually build their entire morality or sense of purpose. It certainly has not been used by Dawkins or myself to dictate any of our morality or purpose.
I won't even say evolution has provided all the answers to scientific questions regarding speciation, how on earth could it give me all the answers on how to live?
It's not name-calling, but it was a provocative statement
A provocative statement which is wholly inaccurate is known as name-calling. It is an insult. That is pretty objective.
The philosophy goes like this;
I saw no philosophy in the rambling that followed. But just to let you know, I believe there are some species with mouths and without bumholes.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 7:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 87 (170048)
12-20-2004 9:54 AM


FINAL POST ye murmurers
Holmes writes:
But perhaps that is the problem with theists. They are not content with being humble, and so must load their purposes with external and eternal merit, so they can lord it over others.
But we don't load anything. I didn't write the Gospel. I didn't make up Jesus Christ - though you'd love it if we had done.
Holmes writes:
Personally I cannot think of a mentality so immature and frail, that it requires one posit an eternal and omnipotent "invisible friend" in order to feel one actually has meaning in life. It appears more mature to me to deal with reality as it comes. If there is a God then fine. If there is not, then fine. Meaning and purpose simply shift from one source to another, or multiply from different sources/contexts.
That's perfectly fine. You're quite entitled to think this, and I have nothing to say. What? You're shocked I have nothing to say? ...It's not me who has taken the premise that everything you say will be a personal attack. In this quote, you give your position. In message one, I gave mine. The difference is - that you and Rrhain have invoked that I am suggesting atheists kill, that they have no purpose and that my position is a attack on atheists, because an atheist isn't a nihilist and vice versa. Well - I never said they were. Here's what I said, again *sigh*;
mike the wiz writes:
I am certainly against the traditional bleak and purposeless picture - evolutionistic, atheistic, nihilistics paint
So if you're not for a bleak purposeless and nihilistic existence which basically incorporates that we are all chance and that we don't mean anything as we are not intended, then I am not against the picture you paint. But what is correct, is that you don't have to take the position of being a painter of nihilism etc.., as I have not accused you of this. I might have cordially implied some things pertaining to an existence which ends in biological death.
"I am certainly against" means that I am not for this position. This doesn't attack anyone.
So - I am certainly not the equivelant of a racist, or a person who says atheists want to kill everyone. ( Oops. Edit to add; Holmes didn't suggest this, but Rrhain made comparisons).
Holmes writes:
It would be the same if every time I talked about Xianity I would say "the hate-driven nihilistic, theistic, slavery and murder propagating picture is unacceptable to me".
Erm - no Sherlock, a chance/random picture, with no mind intending your life, and your last breathe being the end, incorporates nihilistic views. Are you saying nihilists are mainly christian? Let's look at a definition of a nihilist;
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
So I guess I'd have to reject christian theories of morality yet be christian? Hmmmm.
Holmes writes:
But just to let you know, I believe there are some species with mouths and without bumholes.
Could a human survive like this? Or does our sytem require both orafices? Also, how could you get an intermediate system that could have a rear orafice or could not? If we evolve this system, how? How can you create an intermediate transitional system without thinking of what will be needed next? Syamsu made the point well; And evolution cannot "think" about what it will need if it is to provide a complete system. If we have a system that only works with many orafices and/or interacting parts, then how can they all be mutated at the same time? I want proper answers that will satisfy my intellect. I haven't had any yet that satisfy me. Oh sure - people have said "your refuted mike," or "mike - they blown you out of the water", and that's all good and proper - but mike still needs to be convinced if he is to change his mind. But why should he? This is just his personal position, and hes getting attacked a lot...Re-read message one, this was meant to be a reading thread of no debating intention, so why would I say that if I was attacking people? Sherlock would have observed that.
More things mikey noticed
Rrhain writes:
When did atheism become a synonym for nihilism? When did atheists become nihilists? When did nihilists become atheists?
A full explanation is above. I infact didn't say atheist is a synonym for nihilism, but I'm betting hihilists don't claim christianity.
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. If Dawkins is right, then your purpose becomes your responsibility. If you want it to be something lasting through the ages, then you had better work your butt off while you have the chance since when your time's up, your time's up.
Even Ecclesiastes says this, and I agree. What makes you think that I am saying good works aren't worthwhile? I agree with the bible, we should enjoy our work because we cannot come back to earth. But my point is, that on a universal scale we have infinitely less purpose if there is no God. And we are infinitely important with God - even outliving the universe.
Rrhain writes:
But you do. You expect science to tell you how to feel and what to do. It never has and it never will. And then you get pissed off because it doesn't. The sooner you stop trying to find philosophy in science, the better off you'll be.
This interests me because Holmes said previously - in a thread a while back - that science is philosophy. Why does he now disagree with himself, and support your claim? Why doesn't he attack Rrhain's personal position like he has mikey's?
Rrhain writes:
The only reason you are here is because of all the people who came before you. Life has been churning on this planet for billions of years. And here you are pissing on their gift.
A gift is an intended occurence. Something that is bestowed voluntarily and without compensation.
The act, right, or power of giving.
an intentional and gratuitous transfer of real or personal property by a donor with legal capacity who actually or constructively delivers the property to the donee with the intent of giving
This interests me Rrhain, because in a previous thread a while back, you said I am the result of someone's good time - my parents. And I said that we who believe have the power to become the sons of God, not by any intention of flesh - but by SPirit......Now if life is a gift from God, and he intends it - but you said that I was the result of an unintentional beginning..This is inconsistent, - have you changed your philosophy?
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. I don't have to be black to be offended by people insulting blacks by calling them "nigger." I don't have to be gay to be offended by "faggot." I don't have to be a woman to be offended when someone says, "She's such a cunt."
Quote where I have said anything as strong as this, in an account of my personal beliefs, as indicated by the topic title.
And no - it was Einstein, as omni-mike remembers correctly. However - I do think you are intelligent Rrhain - so I admitt that I think you are intelligent.
"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein
I agree with him strongly. Not everything should be looked upon scientifically. This is why, imo - Dawkins is illogical to have a strong basis of atheism based on science. So I feel he is far from taking the logically correct placing. This would belong to agnostics, who also base their beliefs on science only, yet still have a base of science pertaining to God's existence, which is the equivelant of describing symphony as wave pressure, or putting a religious experience down to post-hoc reasoning and confirmation bias. This scientific outlook on everything is wrongful, but this is just my humble opinion remember, whicxh happens to be similar to Einstein's.
Calm down take a stress pill and think things over.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-20-2004 11:18 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Silent H, posted 12-20-2004 2:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 12-20-2004 10:44 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 50 of 87 (170051)
12-20-2004 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by mike the wiz
12-19-2004 5:40 PM


Reading your reply, I don't think our positions are much compatible.
I think you should limit yourself in the creation vs evolution debate to what can be commonly accepted, by people of all, or most religious persuasions. So I think you should make a position for the creation vs evolution debate separate from how you believe organisms came to be.
Decisions / determinations can be accepted commonly, and it's something religions can build on. As illustrated in the Jim Carey movie "Bruce Almighty". In the end there, the miracles were something like a drunk giving up the bottle, and that sort of thing. Choices people make.
When people generally, or evolutionists, talk of chance, then besides saying it could have turned out differently, it also has an understood meaning that no intelligence is involved in the way it turned out. But I think this misunderstanding can be overcome by consistently naming the point where the chance changed, which would be named decision, or determination, or something like that.
The way language is now, it is quite different to say something happened through chance, then to say that something happened through many decisions / determinations, eventhough they should mean the same.
The word decision / determination points to intelligence, the word chance does not.
"Atheists", "materialists", exploit this difference, so to never name the point where a chance changes, or point out the basic equivalency of all concepts of decision, the equivelancy to human choice for instance. What would Dawkins' text look like if you replaced the word chance with decision, or like word? It would read entirely different in my opinion, entirely more friendly towards religion.
So in short, I think you should limit to what can be commonly accepted, and "decision" can be commonly accepted, and would give people sufficient room to build a meaningful religion, broadly in line with science.
I mean if you want to replace evolution with some idea that Jesus Christ personally created the organisms, or something like that, then obviously as a Muslim, I don't agree. So I ask you to limit your position to what can be commonly accepted.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2004 5:40 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 12-20-2004 10:35 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 12-20-2004 10:50 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 67 by PecosGeorge, posted 12-22-2004 8:36 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 87 (170052)
12-20-2004 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
12-20-2004 10:12 AM


I mean if you want to replace evolution with some idea that Jesus Christ personally created the organisms, or something like that, then obviously as a Muslim, I don't agree. So I ask you to limit your position to what can be commonly accepted.
I didn't know you were Muslim, I thought you were christian creationist...
But why would I seek commonly accepted evolution?
That puts me in a position of causing people to possibly sin. For example, if we all agree on evolution, then God becomes Occams razor, and people can conveniently replace him with modern atheism, secularist humanism - and so what have I encouraged? I've then encouraged people to infact endeavour to derive a conclusion of no-consciousness, that being an Occams razor addage. Which could cause them to think that they are not accountable for their actions on earth.
As for Bruce almighty - I couldn't finish watching it because I was offended spiritually, not intellectually. Intellectually I decided I was not going to be offended, but I was internaly offended because it mocked Jesus Christ.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-20-2004 10:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2004 10:12 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2004 2:02 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 52 of 87 (170055)
12-20-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Syamsu
12-20-2004 10:12 AM


Thats absurd codswallop Syamsu. Science has no problem acknowledging that the concept of choice exists, but it draws the line at ascribing choice to a rock which is simply obeying fundamental physical laws when it bounces. Well actually it draws the line not in inanimate objects but somewhere in living organisms at a point where neural complexity becomes fairly challenging to interpret since most people would probably consider plants not to be making active decisions to grow in certain ways although there are decisive factors which affect the plants growth.
You are effectively conflating the concept of decision with that of choice, although they are clearly distinct.
Decision does not neccessarily imply intelligence. Battles have decisive moments, are those monents when the battles soul decides which way to go? You are choosing your own loaded terms and then using them as a basis for your argument, that is never going to be a successful strategy in a debate, at least not a debate where the outcome having any relationship to reality is desirable.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2004 10:12 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2004 2:26 AM Wounded King has replied

  
AdminIRH
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 87 (170066)
12-20-2004 11:30 AM


Rrhain and Mike
I realised when I wrote my last post that there had been no significant name-calling... yet. I was worried that the discussion could have devolved into an "is too - is not" exchange with name-calling for good measure. I thought this thread was too interesting to allow it to implode due to people getting emotional; it is a thread about Mike's position, after all .
Now I see that I needn't have posted at all. You guys are having a good discussion, and I'm happy to say that you're polite and (mostly) on topic. Keep up the good posting, and please don't let me distract you (by which I mean you don't have to reply to this).
AdminIRH

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 12-20-2004 11:49 AM AdminIRH has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 87 (170070)
12-20-2004 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by AdminIRH
12-20-2004 11:30 AM


Re: Rrhain and Mike
One intention I had was to take the sting out of my more provocative topic - and show that my "change" isn't as major as people might think.. I certainly haven't gone back to being YEC, or the "old mike". People seem to have ignored that I've promoted the science findings of the Toe, as an honest endeavour. One that would have found out what Genesis means, by "God letting the earth bring forth".
I also have conceded this point to Sherlock, this can refer to abiogenesis.
I thought this thread was too interesting to allow it to implode due to people getting emotional; it is a thread about Mike's position, after all .
It is certainly a good point that mike is the hot topic right now, and that he is brilliant in every way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by AdminIRH, posted 12-20-2004 11:30 AM AdminIRH has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 55 of 87 (170152)
12-20-2004 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
12-20-2004 9:54 AM


But we don't load anything. I didn't write the Gospel. I didn't make up Jesus Christ - though you'd love it if we had done.
Notice you start with "we', and then switch to "I". The devil is in the details. "We" did write the Gospels, and "we" continue to practice them. This is to say that my potential criticism would have applied to the writers of the Gospels, and then to each group down through the ages, and finally to you.
I still have no idea if Jesus (the man) existed or not, and care neither one way or the other if he was made up. Why would I? I do believe however, that even if he had a connection to God and associated magickal powers, there is more than credible evidence that those who wrote about him borrowed actions from other deities to pump up his curriculum deitee.
So if you're not for a bleak purposeless and nihilistic existence which basically incorporates that we are all chance and that we don't mean anything as we are not intended, then I am not against the picture you paint.
You mentioned Dawkins as an example. Dawkins does not say the above. How can I know that you didn't mean Dawkins, or people with positions like him, when you did not say the above before and instead used Dawkins as an example?
a chance/random picture, with no mind intending your life, and your last breathe being the end, incorporates nihilistic views.
And then its back to the same old same old. What does evolution, or atheism have to do with a definitive moral mindset?
Are you saying nihilists are mainly christian?
No. Anyone can be a nihilist.
Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief... So I guess I'd have to reject christian theories of morality yet be christian?
First of all that is not the common definition, or not a complete common definition. But we will get to that in a second. Yes, Xians are able to give up all morals, including Xian morals. They are also capable of giving up religious belief.
The idea that you could believe that Xians can't staggers the imagination. What on earth was Jesus tried for? He was considered a nihilist, advocating throwing away all the laws if people simply worshipped him. He removed sin through his death.
And since then there have been plenty of Xian shisms which involved rejection of previous Xian morals, in order to set new ones. And as you have already said you basic mindset is nihilist... if there is no God then there is no morality or purpose. The atheist does not have to believe this at all, and evolutionary theorists come nowhere close to touching on that subject.
And I would add that you should take a second look at that definition you gave. Where in that does an atheist naturally incorporate into his philosophy? That there are no religious beliefs and values? Yes. But no moral values? No.
So I guess I'd have to reject the moral tenets of secular humanism, yet be a secular humanist? And what about Buddhists and Jainists who have to real Gods to speak of?
But lets look at some defs from merriam webster...
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths
I think we both understand you were going for 1 a. That would fit in with the bleak and purposeless commentary. Your original def did not really cover that aspect.
While an atheist may certainly feel that there are no objective, as in external pre-set, moral "truths", that does not inherently lead to a belief existence is senseless and useless, or that there are no objective truths (nonmoral) about the world.
That's where the rub is, the insult, the added dimension which atheism does not require or advocate. YOU see no meaning without a God, atheists usually do.
Could a human survive like this? Or does our sytem require both orafices?
Yes, but not for very long. We require a means of waste disposal. Your comment is that evolution means all beings need one opening and a separate exit. I was just pointing out that this is not the case... although I will admit I could be wrong. I just seem to remember having read about a creature without "bumholes".
If we have a system that only works with many orafices and/or interacting parts, then how can they all be mutated at the same time?
Perhaps you can give an example of such a thing that you know occured. Have citations please. As far as I can tell this is one of the common creationist strawmen.
I want proper answers that will satisfy my intellect. I haven't had any yet that satisfy me.
I wish you'd demand that from the biblical crowd, or the anti-evolutionary crowd. As it stands you seem to have bought (and perhaps repurchased) their bill of goods hook line and sinker.
I want a proper question that does not insult my intellect... or both our intellects as the case were. Asking how many systems all evolve at once because they "just have to" hardly qualifies.
so why would I say that if I was attacking people? Sherlock would have observed that.
I have already explained that you don't even seem to understand that you are doing so. You say that you are okay, and then say that I am not okay. You put words and perspectives into my philosophy, and my scientific model, while describing them.
Inaccurate statements that are meant to be generate excitement, are called insults.
This interests me because Holmes said previously - in a thread a while back - that science is philosophy. Why does he now disagree with himself, and support your claim? Why doesn't he attack Rrhain's personal position like he has mikey's?
It should be quite clear. I stated that science is a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy. Rrhain was obviously referring to moral or ethical philosophy. And he is right. You will not find moral philosophy within natural philosophy.
Quote where I have said anything as strong as this, in an account of my personal beliefs, as indicated by the topic title.
Consistently linking evolution and atheism to advocating an outlook on life with descriptors of bleak, purposeless, nihilist.
"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein
You just made rrhain's point and did 0 to advance your own. If you do not understand this, please stop quoting Einstein.
This scientific outlook on everything is wrongful, but this is just my humble opinion remember, whicxh happens to be similar to Einstein's
No it's not. I can't believe you are going to stoop to this level of appealing to authority.
Einstein certainly did believe that science should be used to build models of the world. It is from the evidence, viewed through the model that science provides, where a person can make judgements on theism/atheism. This is to say, one can start to judge if there are gods likely in the model... even if science has not detected any in a concrete form.
Dawkins is perfectly okay to say that since there is no reason to include gods in the model, and all professed religions have so far failed to make true statements about other things in the world, that it is more likely or easy to not believe in deities at all.
If Einstein really meant something similar to what you have taken from his comment, why then was he not a theist like you? At best he was a deist, but more or less just an agnostic that worshipped the universe as he saw it.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 12-20-2004 9:54 AM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Quetzal, posted 12-21-2004 9:39 AM Silent H has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 56 of 87 (170302)
12-20-2004 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
12-20-2004 9:54 AM


Re: FINAL POST ye murmurers
mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
When did atheism become a synonym for nihilism? When did atheists become nihilists? When did nihilists become atheists?
A full explanation is above. I infact didn't say atheist is a synonym for nihilism
Did you or did you not say the following:
I am certainly against the traditional bleak and purposeless picture - evolutionistic, atheistic, nihilistics paint
If you can't remember your own words, which you even quoted for your own edification....
quote:
What makes you think that I am saying good works aren't worthwhile?
By saying that without eternal life, they are meaningless. You said that unless you have eternal life with god, you have no purpose.
quote:
But my point is, that on a universal scale we have infinitely less purpose if there is no God.
Why. You are a link in the chain. The only reason you are here is because of everything that happened before. What happens after you is dependent upon what you do because you are part of the passage from the past to the future. You are a part of history and eternity.
That you won't be around to see it doesn't mean you aren't part of it.
quote:
And we are infinitely important with God - even outliving the universe.
You're assuming that there is something beyond the universe. Kinda contradicts the definition of "universe," doesn't it?
quote:
quote:
But you do. You expect science to tell you how to feel and what to do. It never has and it never will. And then you get pissed off because it doesn't. The sooner you stop trying to find philosophy in science, the better off you'll be.
This interests me because Holmes said previously - in a thread a while back - that science is philosophy.
You're not talking to holmes when you're talking to me. I don't recall holmes saying that but it is immaterial. You're talking to me and I have never, ever said that science is philosophy. I have always stated the direct opposite: Science is not philosophy. Science cannot tell you how to feel or what to do.
quote:
quote:
The only reason you are here is because of all the people who came before you. Life has been churning on this planet for billions of years. And here you are pissing on their gift.
A gift is an intended occurence.
There you go with the insistence that everything be consciously and deliberately activated. Is there nothing that happens on its own? Does everything require god?
quote:
Now if life is a gift from God, and he intends it - but you said that I was the result of an unintentional beginning..This is inconsistent, - have you changed your philosophy?
Non sequitur.
Just because something is a gift, why does that gift have to be from god? Is there nothing that happens without god? Is god responsible for everything?
And once again, you assume that you are incapable of creating your own person. You didn't just appear, zap-poof.
quote:
quote:
Incorrect. I don't have to be black to be offended by people insulting blacks by calling them "nigger." I don't have to be gay to be offended by "faggot." I don't have to be a woman to be offended when someone says, "She's such a cunt."
Quote where I have said anything as strong as this, in an account of my personal beliefs, as indicated by the topic title.
For at least the third time:
I am certainly against the traditional bleak and purposeless picture - evolutionistic, atheistic, nihilistics paint
If you can't remember your own words, words that you even quoted for your own edification....
quote:
And no - it was Einstein
No, the quote you gave was me. The quote you're now giving was Einstein.
quote:
Not everything should be looked upon scientifically.
No, not quite. Instead, not everything can be looked upon scientifically. Instead, everything that can be looked upon scientifically should be.
You seem to want to draw a line around life and declare it off limits to inquiry for fear of what it might mean to your theologic presumptions of The Way Things Ought to Be as if god cares what you think.
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think?
quote:
This is why, imo - Dawkins is illogical to have a strong basis of atheism based on science.
But he doesn't, so your entire line of reasoning fails.
Find another way to feel.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 12-20-2004 9:54 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 57 of 87 (170332)
12-21-2004 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by mike the wiz
12-20-2004 10:35 AM


Oh I would have thought it quite obvious I'm muslim, by my name, Mohammad......
I don't say you should accept evolution, you should only make it part of your position if you find it to be commonly acceptable. Generic common knowledge. I'm sure you have no problem with "micro" descent with modification. You can see an ancestor, and it's offspring, the offspring is different, therefore, descent with modification, evolution. Well, you may argue if evolution is the appropiate word for that, but it's still generic common knowledge. ( actually I do have many problems with micro natural selection, so I don't accept it, where most creationists do accept micro natural selection)
That decisions / determinations are what set a cause, the name of the point where a chance changes, is generic common knowledge. The name gives a pointer to intelligence, and that's about all that can be achieved commonly. Unless you want to start defining this intelligence it points to more precisely, but I have never seen any creationist do that. For instance did God create with his mind, or did he create with his heart, or both? It's not common knowledge.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by mike the wiz, posted 12-20-2004 10:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 58 of 87 (170334)
12-21-2004 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Wounded King
12-20-2004 10:50 AM


Thanks for demonstrating the validity of my viewpoint. I always have the problem that it is hard to believe that just a difference in emphasis on wordusage, from "cause and effect" or "chance" to "decision" or "determination", would make a lot of difference, so I'm happy you come along to demonstrate it.
The fundamental law of physics of letting fall a spinning disc which then bounces some direction, state that there is no law which determines the direction absolutely. It can go one way or another, in the event, or so I'm told. Also the planets that circle around the sun, don't circle in absolute set paths, but there is small scope of variance in their paths.
I prefer to use the word determination, in stead of decision, so as to say that I don't posit an imagination in a brain as the place where the determination occurred. It is just to name the precise point where before things could go one way or another, and after went the one way in stead of the other, the precise point at which the outcome was determined, the determination. That I use the word decision now, is only because as it is the word determinatin is relatively unknown for this concept.
Things going one way or another certainly does imply intelligence to me, and modern simulations of intelligence are also centrally based on the concept of decision / determination, as opposed to earlier simulations of intelligence being based on calculation.
I'm all for not using loaded terms in science, such as Darwinists commonly using goodness, selfish, superior and whatnot, and I think the recognition of determination within science would force evolutionists to choose words more clearly distinct from things which are matters of determination, rather then cause and effect.
But you are simply against science. It would be meaningful within science to ask for instance, at what point is it a relative certainty that there would be eyes. Well I think I can safely suggest that according to current knowledge, the main determination for the eye is very early in the universe. I'm suggesting it, but it needs further investigation. Investigation which you seem to block, for obvious reasons, the reason of your prejudice towards "cause and effect".
So battles don't have decisive moments? It is unrealistic to say that battles have decisve moments? I think common knowledge is much richer in terms of knowledge about decisions, then scientific knowledge. I think science is the unrealistic one, in not recognizing decisions fully.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Wounded King, posted 12-20-2004 10:50 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2004 4:53 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 59 of 87 (170341)
12-21-2004 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Syamsu
12-21-2004 2:26 AM


The fundamental law of physics of letting fall a spinning disc which then bounces some direction, state that there is no law which determines the direction absolutely. It can go one way or another, in the event, or so I'm told. Also the planets that circle around the sun, don't circle in absolute set paths, but there is small scope of variance in their paths.
Bobbins!!! You made exactly this same claim previously and provided absoloutely no evidence to support it. We may not be able to calculate the path due to an insufficient level of detailed knowledge but that doesn't mean that the path can't be calculated.
I'm all for not using loaded terms in science, such as Darwinists commonly using goodness, selfish, superior
Except in evoultionary science these things are used in a very strict limited sense with clear definitions for how they are judged. You on the other hand seem to impart maximum fuzziness to a term so you can use it however you wish.
Well I think I can safely suggest that according to current knowledge, the main determination for the eye is very early in the universe.
I think you can't safely say that at all unless you want to be a bit more detailed in just what you are trying to say. Obviously the first 'determinations' which allowed the development of the eye as we know it must have occurred early in the history of the universe, but the final determinations actually producing an eye would only have happened comparatively recently not only in terms of the history of the universe but of life on earth. If you have any science backing up your claim then feel free to provide it, or even some details of the 'common knowledge' you feel indicates it.
modern simulations of intelligence are also centrally based on the concept of decision / determination, as opposed to earlier simulations of intelligence being based on calculation.
I don't understand what you mean, are you suggesting that AI routines using neural networks are somehow not being run on computers or that the computers have suddenly stopped calculating and started doing something completely different?
Investigation which you seem to block, for obvious reasons, the reason of your prejudice towards "cause and effect".
I'm not blocking anything, if you want to work thorugh the mathematics of every shroedinger function for every particle in the universe for millenia to find out just when the probability for the eye occurring became 1 then you are welcome to, I just wouldn't personally waste my time on that approach.
So battles don't have decisive moments? It is unrealistic to say that battles have decisve moments?
Nice way to avoid answering the question Syamsu. I stated that battles do have decisive moments, the question was 'does this mean that battles are intelligent?'. A determination has been reached, where was the guiding intelligence that reached that determination?
You say
things going one way or another certainly does imply intelligence to me
So why not just say 'yes a battle is intelligent' if that is what you believe, all you have to do now is explain how and in what way a battle is intelligent.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2004 2:26 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 12-21-2004 6:57 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 60 of 87 (170344)
12-21-2004 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Wounded King
12-21-2004 4:53 AM


So what's the proper name for a change in probability? Actually it's so unbelievable that scientists wouldn't have a name for it, that I tend not to believe it myself that they don't have. It is basicly the same kind of thing as science not using the word "cause", it's like something from the twilight zone.
Both those claims mentioned about things going one way or another, were given to me by evolutionists, I lost reference. But I think we can simply discard your thesis that there is apparently no free behaviour in the universe as much meaningless philosphy.
I don't think the meaning of "change in a probability" is maximum fuziness, it's quite clear IMO. When rolling a die, you have 6 chances with equal probability, one of them get's realised. That point where this chance changes, it get's realised or not, I name the decision, determination. So the main determinatin for the eye, is the point from which on it was very likely that there would be an eye. That point is very early in the unverse, why Dawkins seems to imply it is, the way he writes about how very likely an eye is to occur.
And so with all organisms and attributes, we can perhaps trace them back to a few determinations, at which the origin of the major KINDS of organisms was set, with some variation left over to be determined in the future. The current state of knowledge points toward that being true.
It's astonishing how a little electron in a human brain, can have massive impact on it's surroundings. If the electron went another way then something entirely different might have happened. Well on first glance, there doesn't seem to be many of those massive controllingpoints for decisions in nature, except for the human brain. That is except of course, at the very beginning of the universe, when the universe was even smaller then a brain. Decisions there could easily control a lot of things, the whole universe even, as tiny as it was then.
I'm sure generals use a like-word to intelligence think meaningfully about decisive moments of the battle. Well they use the word "soul" you seem to imply. Perhaps if science about determinations get's developed, they would talk about a determination network, or structure, with manipulative controlling points and whatnot. I wouldn't know what words generals would use, but the word would be in the same class as intelligence.
So you see Mike, I think you should just be satisfied with getting a pointer towards intelligence accepted within science, in the form of science recognizing decision, then that you would want to bring in something like "intelligent designer", which is not generic common knowledge.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2004 4:53 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Wounded King, posted 12-21-2004 8:22 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024