To arkathon:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
An attempt at a little humor was lost on you there.
Your pathetic attempt to pass off ignorance as humour was not lost on me.
Who is "we".
I use "we" to denote myself and the scientific community on the topic of "Display of love in animal behaviours". If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is find a respectable science paper that reveals "love" in animal behaviours. Note that the terms are specific - "love-like" is not acceptable.
Wasn't Nietze a respected man by the shrink types? Maybe I should have taken some meat, put it on a stick, and feed it to the poor demented guy in the last part of his life, when, I read, he was crawling around on all fours, even barking like a dog!
Your ignorance and naivety appear to know no bounds.
Mathematician John Nash suffered from Schizophrenia, yet he was respected and praised by the world for his achievements and contributions in Mathematics and Economics.
Abraham Lincoln suffered from severe depression (occasionally suicidal), yet he was respected and praised for the emancipation of slaves in USA.
Issac Newton and Ludwig von Beethoven suffered both from manic depression, yet they were respected and praised for their contributions to and genius in the field of Physics and Music respectively.
Winston Churchill, and Theodore Roosevelt were both manic depression sufferers also, yet they were respected and recognised for their charismatic leadership in World War II.
I can go on but I think the point is made. You have undermined the achievements of an individual due to his psychological disorder. You have insulted the profession of Psychology and Psychiatry through gross ignorance and prejudice. To top it off, you have ridiculed and satirized the misfortunes and sufferings of a fellow human being.
You call yourself a Christian? You, sir, disgust me.
I wasn't actually trying to make a federal case out of that, I broght it up, like love, to try to find a few examples of things you can't really see, or touch, that you might believe in. All with the point of comparing it to spiritual things, you also can't really see most of the time.
And as I have demonstrated, the fact that love and thoughts are intangible (possessing no physical form) does not rule out the evidence for their existence. You have demonstrated a very shallow knowledge of all aspects of science.
OK good enough, you say there is evidence, good enough for me. I actaully didn't need any, as I have lots of thoughts, as most people I ever met do!
So why were you arguing against the notion that ideas contrary to physical evidence constitute falsehood? It is foolish to argue against a notion you agree with.
They were not thinking of asteroids when they were developed! They were designed to kill men en masse.
So? The fact that evil items can be used for good, and items meant for good can be used for evil means that your definition of good/evil objects/knowledge/science is entirely useless. Please don't embarrass yourself any further.
I vote yes!
Gee doc, I used to hate my father about 60 years ago!
Your comments abide by the Rule of Ignorance fully: When challenged, make no sense.
And I didn't know that? Those Mkultra lobotomy types give me the creeps.
Are you going to push conspiracy theories around all day long? I am sorry but your paranoia is not the least bit amusing and your ignorance is apparent even without further evidence. If you insist on using arguments even toddlers would frown upon, I suggest you peddle your pathetic "theories" to an audience with a lower intellectual capacity. Try plants, I heard they're not renown for critical thinking.
*********************************************************************
Huh? Cut the dirty questions already! You must have been on a misunderstanding binge again!
Well! It's fairly difficult to misunderstand the implications when you answered...
See the cars on the road? See the tap on the sink? See the wealth of knowledge on the internet? These are the indirect consequences of scientific progress/discoveries, and they make our lives more convenient. This is how science "helps" us.
...with...
So what? You saying it's all good and helpful? Porn, air pollution, war? There is both good and evil.
I was discussing the consequences of scientific progress and discoveries, and you suggested "Porn, air pollution, war" as examples of "evil" consequences of science. I simply asked the most direct question that came to mind: How is porn a consequence of science? Please show how I have misunderstood. Or perhaps you're just being deceitful?
*********************************************************************
promise not to slink away, and I tell you.
It tells us how long exactly it took. It tells us what He did each day. He tells us why. He tells us where it ends. Now as far as every detail how He did it, we weren't, and maybe even aren't yet ready to understand, or He might tell us. Hey, maybe He is trying, but people don't listen?
That is a process? OK.
Recipe to bake a cake: It takes 45 minutes. I poured, then mixed, then baked. I baked because I love to. It's done when I come and eat it. Does that sound like "how" to you?
And anyway, my initial point was that science focuses on the "how" of things while religion focuses on the "why". If you agree that the Bible didn't tell us the "how":
Now as far as every detail how He did it, we weren't, and maybe even aren't yet ready to understand, or He might tell us.
then why did you argue against my point? Are you just bitter and twisted and needed to argue for the sake of arguing even though you agree with the point presented?
Patiently awaiting your reply.
"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"
*edit typos.
™ Version 4.2