Snakeystew
Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2,755
|
| | 08/22/09 at 09:48 PM | Reply with quote | #121 |
|
Quote: You mean like the Eskimos? That's a fictional account of people surviving for long winter months of snow and ice?
You know, it's a real shame that while you're more than eager to just ask and ask and ask, you haven't got the decency to answer so much as one of my questions - seemingly no matter how many times I point it out.
Once again kindly explain to me what it is you contend is "beautiful" about predation.
However, I don't get the point. Ok, so there are very rare and obscure places where people seemingly get along ok with less variety of foods than you and I do, (although they seem to die a lot quicker: http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-do-primitive-peoples-really-live-longer.html). What is your point?
It goes without saying that an environment less suitable for life will contain less life. Why yes, you would expect to find many more organisms in a rainforest than on an iceberg. Yes, you would expect to find most humans living in regions where life is quite abundant, (instead of on icebergs).
Living in life abundant regions might not be necessary - sure, perhaps you can scratch a living on an iceberg, but it certainly helps. If you think that living in such regions doesn't help, try a week in Death Valley. Of course, life that entails predation, seeks out other areas abundant in life with which to predate on.
Your point, if there is one, is bizarre at best. Quote: I don't know what you mean by subjective. Is scientific truths subjective? Yet, many scientists like Dirac felt that general relativity theory as beautiful. Are they just imagining things?
You should know what I mean by subjective - I'm not under the impression that such things are beyond your understanding. I don't quite understand why you've mentioned 'scientific truths', nor why you've mentioned Dirac or general relativity which, simply by saying something is 'beautiful', means the term is now some objective truth. Is he "imagining it", well - the supposed "beauty" of it certainly originates in his mind.
P.S Now can you answer my questions?
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/23/09 at 09:28 AM | Reply with quote | #122 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Snakeystew
Once again kindly explain to me what it is you contend is "beautiful" about predation.
As long as they live long enough to have healthy babies that are themselves able to live long enough to have healthy babies, why does it matter from a natural selection point of view? Which gets us back to my point: it is not necessary that humans have the wide variety of delicious and enjoyable foods and other ingredients that make life such a joyous experience who are in the fortunate position in history, circumstances, etc. to enjoy such variety and spices of life. Your argument seems to deny the whole notion of beauty, which I think is a weak argument given that I've already made the point that beauty contains objective features that are even found in mathematics.
I'm sure you will respond back with a novel, so it will once again be my responsibility to determine which of the dozen arguments/questions you ask which is the most critical to your point. I don't mind doing so, but then you criticize me for not responding to your entire novel.
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476
|
| | 08/23/09 at 01:26 PM | Reply with quote | #123 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by etiainen
...I was also considering tornado chasing in america but I think its going to prove to be too expensive...
I would stay away from the tornados. They don't sound like fun if you value your life and limbs.
In the week or so since I wrote that there have been tornadoes in various heavily populated areas of Southern Ontario. One person, an eleven-year-old boy, was killed and many hundreds of people are homeless. In one town, six hundred homes are damaged (missing roofs, etc.), and two hundred are beyond repair. Power is/was out.
Thousands of trees are splintered and need to be cleaned up. The storms came without warning, lasted about two seconds, and left all this havoc in their path. Noise--loud like a freight train, swirling debris, people coming out after the storm was over and feeling overwhelmed at the viewing the destruction of the neighbourhood--those at the things people talk about when asked to describe the experience.
Here are a few links to pictures and articles of the destruction:
- Toronto CTV (2nd and 3rd links on the right show damage from ground and air.)
If this is your idea of fun...just thought to mention this after what you wrote.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476
|
| | 08/23/09 at 01:38 PM | Reply with quote | #124 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartin
If "satisfaction" serves as a baseline for a "good enough answer," then I spent three hours proving that your "10 arguments" fail. In other words, not a single one of them is a satisfactory answer, or evidence for God's existence. And yes, I did understand your arguments. But they do not satisfy.
Whatever. I hope you are happy in lala land.
I am in Canada. As for lala land, I am told Disney World is in the States.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 08/23/09 at 01:44 PM | Reply with quote | #125 |
|
^ but God bless the man that sets one up in the UK! |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476
|
| | 08/23/09 at 02:08 PM | Reply with quote | #126 |
|
So we've gone NINE PAGES and Christians have neither:
- provided evidence for the existence of their god
- nor explained why they should not provide any
At the same time they insist, imply, and in every other way put out the message that not accepting their beliefs is insanely stupid. See posts and threads such as:
Post 114: That sounds like an argument from PETA!! (extremism)
Post 116: I hope you are happy in lala land. (implies total lack of accountability/responsibility)
How much do you have to hate someone?
(implies that anyone who resists the idea of evangelism promotes hate)
I predict that the Christians--if they respond at all to this post--will not respond to either of the bulleted points I listed, but to one or more of the proofs that I linked for what they do instead of answering. It's what they are raised and trained to do: Distract from real answers.
In so doing, they would only prove my point.
In not responding at all, they would also prove my point. How so? Because a real god would leave real evidence perceptible to real human beings. Those are the rules of logic and life. WLC claims faith is reasonable, i.e. logical. So do his followers. Neither WLC nor his followers get to change the rules of logic to suit their religion. The changes they institute are false witness and their religion forbids them to bear false witness.
They claim God exists and that this is obvious. Let them provide the evidence, or explain why they are exempt from providing such evidence.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
ibelcaniva
Registered: 05/22/08
Posts: 436
|
| | 08/23/09 at 02:15 PM | Reply with quote | #127 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinSo we've gone NINE PAGES and Christians have neither: - provided evidence for the existence of their god
- nor explained why they should not provide any
At the same time they insist, imply, and in every other way put out the message that not accepting their beliefs is insanely stupid. See posts and threads such as: Post 114: That sounds like an argument from PETA!! (extremism)
Post 116: I hope you are happy in lala land. (implies total lack of accountability/responsibility)
How much do you have to hate someone?
(implies that anyone who resists the idea of evangelism promotes hate)
I predict that the Christians--if they respond at all to this post--will not respond to either of the bulleted points I listed, but to one or more of the proofs that I linked for what they do instead of answering. It's what they are raised and trained to do: Distract from real answers.
In so doing, they would only prove my point.
In not responding at all, they would also prove my point. How so? Because a real god would leave real evidence perceptible to real human beings. Those are the rules of logic and life. WLC claims faith is reasonable, i.e. logical. So do his followers. Neither WLC nor his followers get to change the rules of logic to suit their religion. The changes they institute are false witness and their religion forbids them to bear false witness.
They claim God exists and that this is obvious. Let them provide the evidence, or explain why they are exempt from providing such evidence.
Take your own advice and prove that Christians --without using anecdotal evidence-- are "raised and trained" to avoid giving answers. I can find no dogma which supports this, nor any particular lessons I can go to to learn this particular habit.
I don't think God's existence is obvious. If it were, it would be self-evident and everyone would believe. That said, it's a curiously arrogant anthromorphization to claim that God should most certainly be self-evident, especially when you do not back up this statement.
|
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 08/23/09 at 02:44 PM | Reply with quote | #128 |
|
yes yes yes but why has no one built Disney World in the UK yet dammit???
|
| Loading... | |
harvey1
Registered: 12/04/07
Posts: 3,598
|
| | 08/23/09 at 02:47 PM | Reply with quote | #129 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by RSMartinSo we've gone NINE PAGES and Christians have neither: - provided evidence for the existence of their god
- nor explained why they should not provide any
At the same time they insist, imply, and in every other way put out the message that not accepting their beliefs is insanely stupid.
Complete rhetoric and inaccurate. You have the ability to type words, but you have not demonstrated the ability to use valid reasoning in your arguments. |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476
|
| | 08/23/09 at 04:04 PM | Reply with quote | #130 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by ibelcanivaQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartinSo we've gone NINE PAGES and Christians have neither: - provided evidence for the existence of their god
- nor explained why they should not provide any
At the same time they insist, imply, and in every other way put out the message that not accepting their beliefs is insanely stupid. See posts and threads such as: Post 114: That sounds like an argument from PETA!! (extremism)
Post 116: I hope you are happy in lala land. (implies total lack of accountability/responsibility)
How much do you have to hate someone?
(implies that anyone who resists the idea of evangelism promotes hate)
I predict that the Christians--if they respond at all to this post--will not respond to either of the bulleted points I listed, but to one or more of the proofs that I linked for what they do instead of answering. It's what they are raised and trained to do: Distract from real answers.
In so doing, they would only prove my point.
In not responding at all, they would also prove my point. How so? Because a real god would leave real evidence perceptible to real human beings. Those are the rules of logic and life. WLC claims faith is reasonable, i.e. logical. So do his followers. Neither WLC nor his followers get to change the rules of logic to suit their religion. The changes they institute are false witness and their religion forbids them to bear false witness.
They claim God exists and that this is obvious. Let them provide the evidence, or explain why they are exempt from providing such evidence.
Take your own advice and prove that Christians --without using anecdotal evidence-- are "raised and trained" to avoid giving answers. I can find no dogma which supports this, nor any particular lessons I can go to to learn this particular habit. I don't think God's existence is obvious. If it were, it would be self-evident and everyone would believe.
So the reason you provide no evidence for God's existence is because you think there is none to provide? Fair enough. That being the case, why you continue to promote your religion?
Quote: That said, it's a curiously arrogant anthromorphization to claim that God should most certainly be self-evident, especially when you do not back up this statement.
"Arrogant anthropomorphization"? I think you're getting lost in words too big for your mouth because anthropomorphization as a concept can hardly be arrogant. That aside, if God is not self-evident, then how come two billion humans say they know he exists? If they do not know he exists, then why do they arrange their lives as though he existed? For example, why do they perform special rites and rituals such as consume his (symbolic or real) flesh and blood and baptize people (of whatever age) in his name? The need to point out these things on a Christian forum seemed obviously superfluous but since you asked, here it is.
Other items include the great cathedrals, the images of the saints in some churches, the crucifix, the Crusades, the weekly (or more) worship services/masses, the parochial schools and publishing businesses to promote education, belief, and worship in God's name, the musical instruments and choirs, great classical works of art...the list goes on. All of these items require vast amounts of time and resources. One automatically arrives at the conclusion that Christians think God is self-evident. Not to mention that I have heard people say "I KNOW God exists. You just KNOW it!"
They always fail to explain HOW they know it--beyond pointing to nature and claiming life itself and the nature world proves it. The problem with that is that natural answers have been found for most of those things so that it is reasonable to think that answers will be found for the few remaining items. This being the case, yet religious people continue to cling to their beliefs despite all the odds, one is pushed to the conclusion that there must be evidence that Christians refuse to provide.
Where is it? Why don't you provide it?
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 08/23/09 at 04:09 PM | Reply with quote | #131 |
|
Quote: Where is it? Why don't you provide it?
where is Disney World... why wont they provide... :'(
Ok this is getting a bit silly now, I'm going to leave this thread to observe quietly from the sidelines :-P Sorry gentlemen and women, carry on!
|
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476
|
| | 08/23/09 at 04:23 PM | Reply with quote | #132 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by harvey1Quote: Originally Posted by RSMartinSo we've gone NINE PAGES and Christians have neither: - provided evidence for the existence of their god
- nor explained why they should not provide any
At the same time they insist, imply, and in every other way put out the message that not accepting their beliefs is insanely stupid. Complete rhetoric and inaccurate. You have the ability to type words, but you have not demonstrated the ability to use valid reasoning in your arguments.
Harvey, I realize that this is your position. I also realize that real teachers who have actual course content will take the time to clarify their material for students who have demonstrated a desire to understand. As you very well know, you have not shown in what way you think my argument is flawed; you have only stated your opinion of my reasoning capabilities. Since your opinion differs sharply with that of most people in my life, I feel at liberty to take it lightly.
When and if you are ready to discuss that post respectfully, you can post your response and see whether I am still interested. You will have to address what I consider to be the major flaw in your argument.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
rsmartin
Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 2,476
|
| | 08/23/09 at 04:30 PM | Reply with quote | #133 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by etiainenQuote: Where is it? Why don't you provide it? Ok this is getting a bit silly now, I'm going to leave this thread to observe quietly from the sidelines :-P Sorry gentlemen and women, carry on!
As I said, it's in the States. Look it up on the internet. I don't know why nobody builds one in the UK. The question appears totally off-topic to me. Start a new thread if you really want to know....Yes, I do find it silly.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. –Carl Sagan, Demon-Haunted World, p. 12 |
| Loading... | |
ibelcaniva
Registered: 05/22/08
Posts: 436
|
| | 08/23/09 at 04:44 PM | Reply with quote | #134 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by rsmartinQuote: Originally Posted by ibelcanivaQuote: Originally Posted by rsmartinSo we've gone NINE PAGES and Christians have neither: - provided evidence for the existence of their god
- nor explained why they should not provide any
At the same time they insist, imply, and in every other way put out the message that not accepting their beliefs is insanely stupid. See posts and threads such as: Post 114: That sounds like an argument from PETA!! (extremism)
Post 116: I hope you are happy in lala land. (implies total lack of accountability/responsibility)
How much do you have to hate someone?
(implies that anyone who resists the idea of evangelism promotes hate)
I predict that the Christians--if they respond at all to this post--will not respond to either of the bulleted points I listed, but to one or more of the proofs that I linked for what they do instead of answering. It's what they are raised and trained to do: Distract from real answers.
In so doing, they would only prove my point.
In not responding at all, they would also prove my point. How so? Because a real god would leave real evidence perceptible to real human beings. Those are the rules of logic and life. WLC claims faith is reasonable, i.e. logical. So do his followers. Neither WLC nor his followers get to change the rules of logic to suit their religion. The changes they institute are false witness and their religion forbids them to bear false witness.
They claim God exists and that this is obvious. Let them provide the evidence, or explain why they are exempt from providing such evidence.
Take your own advice and prove that Christians --without using anecdotal evidence-- are "raised and trained" to avoid giving answers. I can find no dogma which supports this, nor any particular lessons I can go to to learn this particular habit. I don't think God's existence is obvious. If it were, it would be self-evident and everyone would believe. Quote: So the reason you provide no evidence for God's existence is because you think there is none to provide? Fair enough. That being the case, why you continue to promote your religion? Certainly not! Rather, I mean that the existence of God is not something which speaks for itself, like, say, the sky being blue (not the best example of a SE truth, but close enough to what I mean). Quote: That said, it's a curiously arrogant anthromorphization to claim that God should most certainly be self-evident, especially when you do not back up this statement. "Arrogant anthropomorphization"? I think you're getting lost in words too big for your mouth because anthropomorphization as a concept can hardly be arrogant. That aside, if God is not self-evident, then how come two billion humans say they know he exists? If they do not know he exists, then why do they arrange their lives as though he existed? For example, why do they perform special rites and rituals such as consume his (symbolic or real) flesh and blood and baptize people (of whatever age) in his name? The need to point out these things on a Christian forum seemed obviously superfluous but since you asked, here it is. Other items include the great cathedrals, the images of the saints in some churches, the crucifix, the Crusades, the weekly (or more) worship services/masses, the parochial schools and publishing businesses to promote education, belief, and worship in God's name, the musical instruments and choirs, great classical works of art...the list goes on. All of these items require vast amounts of time and resources. One automatically arrives at the conclusion that Christians think God is self-evident. Not to mention that I have heard people say "I KNOW God exists. You just KNOW it!" They always fail to explain HOW they know it--beyond pointing to nature and claiming life itself and the nature world proves it. The problem with that is that natural answers have been found for most of those things so that it is reasonable to think that answers will be found for the few remaining items. This being the case, yet religious people continue to cling to their beliefs despite all the odds, one is pushed to the conclusion that there must be evidence that Christians refuse to provide. Where is it? Why don't you provide it?
I'm not really sure how any of those things indicate an asserted certainty in God's existence. Recall that faith refers to the "assurance of things hoped for and the conviction of things unseen." While it is, for an epistemological point of view, utterly impossible to definitively know 100% that God exists according to Christian doctrine, I think most people would suffice for a fair justification (say, a reasonable philosophical argument which at the very least establishes God as a reasonably likely possibility) and a personal revelation. I'm not really sure what you think of personal experiences of God, but many Christians I know find their certainty in those rather than in wordy philosophical arguments, because the former is certainly more of a human experience.
You hit the nail on the head when you say Christians act as if God existed, even if they have doubts. Again, this reflects Paul's definition of faith. Consider all the philosophy and apologetics we know to make up the category of "things hoped for." Faith is the act by which one realizes, usually through personal revelation, that though one may never be able to know for sure, they take a leap toward to positive (as Kierkegaard says-a "leap of faith").
I think that is why people devote so much to God: because they feel that though they cannot ever fully justify God's existence in a purely logical sense (which is to say, due to the limits on human reasoning, not that no cogent philosophical argument for God's existence exists) their personal experience gives them the assurance of that for which they hope.
|
| Loading... | |
etiainen
Registered: 07/15/08
Posts: 531
|
| | 08/23/09 at 05:22 PM | Reply with quote | #135 |
|
Quote: As I said, it's in the States.
Look it up on the internet. I don't know why nobody builds one in the UK. The question appears totally off-topic to me. Start a new thread if you really want to know....Yes, I do find it silly.
Yeah I agree, it is silly - it'd be really popular in the UK - loads of people would go! The States is like a promised land for Disney lovers! *sigh* oh Disney... when will you give your people answers? 
|
| Loading... | |
