@knowwaie You did not make any point about Pantheism. Actually, you did not make a single point about anything. Your disjointed ramblings read like they were written by a goldfish, aimlessly wandering from irrelevance to irrelevance with no recollection of anything beyond the past few moments.
" I wasn't even arguing that pantheism explains "evil" " - You
" The 'reason' for the idea of Pantheism was to explain 'evil' " - You again.
So you're arguing that Pantheism was created in order
Is there something wrong with you? I didn't say pantheism explains evil. I said the reason for it in history was intended to explain the existence of evil. With the same argument that you just used. The existence of evil with a omnipotent and omniscient god is not possible. You actually validated my comparison in your own words then you're arguing with me about my comparison..
Why can't you stay on subject? I'm not even defending Plato. He was wrong. I'm saying this is how thought has changed.
continued: and (2) names of sciences or departments of study. As the words of the last-mentioned class have always a n. for their first element, and o is the combining vowel of all declensions of Greek ns., the ending of these compounds is in actual use always -ολογία, becoming -ology comb. form in English.
From the ODE: the ns. in -λογία usually denote the character, action, or department of knowledge proper to the person who is described by an adj. or n. in -λόγος, meaning either ‘(one) who speaks (in a certain way)’, or ‘(one) who treats of (a certain subject)’. Hence the derivatives in -λογία are of two classes, (1) those which have the sense of ‘saying or speaking’, examples of which are the words anglicized as battology, brachylogy, cacology, dittology, eulogy, palillogy, tautology;
"qualify on the grounds that they rely on tangible evidence and analysis of data. Philosophy, however, does not."
Are you really saying that philosophy didn't take into account physical tangible objects?.. That is absolutely ridiculous. Philosophy is the means of reasoning data.
In reality, your scientists are mystics. They believe that there is a special insight into physical data that you have to be taught. Philosophy was the ability of the average person to reason independently.
@knowwaie Before science, philosophy made an enormous number of erroneous assumptions which were taken to be axiomatic. For example, the notion that nothing can be in two places at once, or that there is an intangible 'aether' which fills space. It is absolutely pathetic for you to mock science using a device whose existence is the product of centuries of scientific progress and which is testament to science's supremacy amongst the human means of learning about the world we occupy.
@knowwaie Eulogy is a felicitous example of my point that -logy does not simply mean 'logic'. In its case -logy means 'speech, discourse'. Furthermore, any dictionary containing an entry for '-logy' will inform you that it denotes a science or body of knowledge.
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
You're ridiculous... "Ologies" are science(s). My assertion is absolutely correct. This is the English language. If the definition given by some random user of Wikipedia contradicts the English language then which do we accept?
I'll tell you again, this is how the English language works. We have this general category called Science or knowledge. Then we have sub categories called science(s), studies or logics. Are you going to change the English language? Is linguistics not a science either? Hm
Oh, so you were too retarded to do your homework so i had to double check your research.
In the same paragraph: "An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained"
Remember what i was saying about logic?.. You're so retarded that i can't even be proud of ruining your argument. Case closed moron.
So in what part of science do we find logic? It's philosophy. But philosophy isn't a science in you view. Human reason is not a science. Psychology is well on it's way to becoming a non-science. The point here is there are hundreds of sciences and many of them are not physical sciences. Language, history, sociology, philosophy, economics. This is why you're all liberal progressive socialist peddling psychiatric drugs. You don't understand the philosphy of science.
"Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, "science" and "philosophy", were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language."
"However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic"
"In modern use, "science" is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge"
@knowwaie Philosophy is not a science because in modern usage 'science' refers to the search for knowledge by means of the 'scientific method', which is empirical and requires experimentation and/or gathering concrete data. History, sociology etc may qualify on the grounds that they rely on tangible evidence and analysis of data. Philosophy, however, does not. That does not mean that philosophy is useless - remember that mathematics is not itself a science but dependent only on pure reason.
Philosophy is logic. All of the sciences that have 'logy' suffix are logics. Why do you think we call it bio'logical'. The logic of bio chemistry. There would be no science without philosophy. Your 'science' is a philosophy. So you would call it natural logic or the logic of nature. But by the logic of natural science there is no such thing as logic, which is why you say philosophy is not a science.. Strange isn't it?
@knowwaie You clearly have no understanding of how etymology works. Bio'logical' does not refer to the 'logic of life(bio)'. This is a risible fallacy which all of your arguments employ. Let me illustrate your error: 'pertinent' means 'relevant'. However 'impertinent' does not mean 'irrelevent'. Instead it means something close to 'impudent'. See how the origin of the words does not directly determine their meaning? Ancient Greek 'λόγος' = 'word, speech, discourse, reason', not just 'logic'.
I'm glad you know how to use copy and paste.. I'll try that next time.
Yes, logy did mean logic. We're talking about the ancient use, not the modern use. I know the meaning has changed today.
Philosophy used to be 'the science'.. It still is. The only difference is now one philosophy is being promoted over another in the guise of 'natural science'. Which is no different from ancient Pantheism. It is still philosophy, people are brainwashed to think that it isn't.
@knowwaie "copy and paste", i.e. actually citing a reputable source instead of baldy asserting nonsense like you do. Not only did I immediately discern your error and not only was I immediately able to spontaneously indicate exactly why you are wrong, but a subsequent cursory search which I performed for completeness yielded several esteemed sources which all contradict your idiocy and comport with my corrections.
You're a moron... I wasn't even going to bother because responding to people who copy and paste is as good as arguing with myself, which i do all the time anyway...
What you said about the ancient use of the word logic is completely wrong. The word meant to 'think, say, acknowledge etc. I always simplify it as 'to think' since, it makes the most sense in the atheist context. And we already know that atheists can't think so it seems to be the most reasonable use of the word.
@knowwaie Did you notice how my "copy and paste" was just another source which reiterated what I had ALREADY said in order to demonstrate its credibility? Evidently not, but that's hardly surprising given your obviously feeble observational skills, not to mention your other intellectual shortcomings. My argument did not in the least rely or hinge on any of what I copied to you;
@knowwaie I told you that your definition was wrong, gave a correct one and then accompanied it with a dictionary entry which agreed with me. There is nothing remotely objectionable about ANY of that. Your attempt to focus on it to distract from your own complete lack of a cogent reponse is pathetic.
On the meaning of the word 'logy' as a suffix. I have repeatedly and incontrovertibly shown you the original meaning of the word in Ancient Greek and early English.
@knowwaie Furthermore, you are again wrong: the ancient use of logy is the one with which I furnished you: λόγος = oration, reason, speech, word. You can independently verify this in any dictionary of Ancient Greek, the source language, or etymological dictionary of English.
Science is not a philosophy. Science is a practical endeavour. There is a philosophy of Science which is another matter altogether, but one does not need to philosophically analyse the results of empirical experiments
@knowwaie in order to be able to apply that data to achieve consistent, predictable and measurable results.
Science is the antithesis of 'ancient Pantheism', which required no evidence or experimentation and allowed its adherents to simply posit whichever untestable hypothesis about some vague notion of God that they wished. Science on the other hand has built a society and technology beyond the comprehension of our superstitious ancestors.
The 'reason' for the idea of Pantheism was to explain 'evil'. So there was no reason for evidence or experiment. They did this by saying that ALL (the meaning of the word Pan) is god. Pantheism means that everything in nature is god. But if you ask one of them they will tell you that they don't believe there is a god.
Ready, lets see how smart you are.. Pantheism today is natural selection ('evil' catastrophe) and random mutation ('good' survival). Evil is good. Correct?
@knowwaie From all of this dross which you have spewed over the course of this 'discussion', I have determined that you are an ignorant mystic who is incapable of even understanding the philosophical beliefs which you spout. Arguing with you is like debating Kantian metaphysics with a four-year old. Anything I say goes fathomless depths over your head. You seem to espouse philosophy yet are incapable of grasping even its rudiments.
Are you missing the point on purpose?.. Just skimming through all this nonsense and you've completely changed the argument..
You missed the point about Pantheism, then in the very next response you're confirming the point that i had made about it. If there is a god then he can't have the theistic characteristics according to your view..
Look, i know you're having trouble following a thought don't blame that on me. It's because you have nothing but hate propaganda in your head.
The word logos, the current use of the word logic and all the branches of science being suffixed as logic is all sound. You're right that the word it does have all these other meanings but they are all relative to the the 'reason'. It could be said to be the cause. The sequence, system, statement. It could be paralleled to our use of the 'first cause' or first reason. I've been saying for years that Dawkins use of the word reason is illegitimate. Without A reason there is no reason. Just chaos.
I should also point out, i'm not arguing for theology or philosophy, only the shift in thought over the past thousand years. Logic is limited and flawed but it is still a real thing. Philosophy only goes so far. The physical sciences fall even shorter. This is the entire point of what we've all been saying to you. You promote one logic or thought over another then enforce it through hierarchical, generally state funded, dictation of knowledge. Which is actually mysticism by the way.
@knowwaie The mental world of concepts is just an imperfect representation of truths which inhere in the physical world.
Natural selection entails the death of innumerable organisms. If death is theologically 'evil', then it is evil. However death is not the consequence of natural selection: natural selection is the result of death. However this is immaterial because death is an observable fact. Dead organisms could enter an afterlife without this affecting the process of natural selection.
"no one has ever revealed how exactly 'A reason' gives rise rationality"
Duhhh i can demonstrate that for you right now. It's actually quite easy when you're able to think. And here is an example of conceptual thought. Which is just as, if no more, capable of determining truth.
Compare dog reason with human reason. Is one naturally superior to the other? No.. Without a reason all reason is reasonable. Even my reasoning is reasonable if there is no reason other than what i choose... Dummy.
@knowwaie "Compare dog reason with human reason. Is one naturally superior to the other? No.. Without a reason all reason is reasonable"
No. This absurd, meaningless babble is utterly devoid of any sense or substance whatsoever. Reason is the process whereby the corollaries of axiomatic premises are attained. It does not matter who it is that reasons so long as their reasoning is sound. Reason is absolute: it is perfectly independent of anything outside of itself.
@knowwaie No. I'm a non-theist. Whether or not I'm an 'atheist' depends on which particular concept of god is under consideration. With respect to most, I'm agnostic. However, I categorically reject God concepts which make some specific demonstrably false claim about his nature. So, to be precise, while I completely reject Theism, I am neutral with respect to Deism.
I want an response from you one this. You immediately called it absurd and meaningless but i think you over looked the point.
Is human reason better than dog reason by the logic of evolution? The answer is no. If there is no other reason other than survival then we are no better than bacteria.
Reason is absolute and independent? Sounds like an argument for the soul.
At one time thinking the earth was flat was sound reasoning.
You really don't know much about this do you? It's ok.
@knowwaie I've heard that lunacy a great many times.
'Dog logic' is not inferior to human logic because humans are naturally superior. 'Dog logic' is inferior to human logic because dogs are incapable of dialectic. If a dog formulates a reasoned argument (the probability of which is infinitesimal) it is equally valid to the same argument made by a human. If the set of conclusions follows from the premises, then the logic is sound regardless of these extraneous details.
I'm sure you've heard it but for some reason you'll never bother to understand it. The point is that you have no basis for demanding adherence other then popular opinion.
I was just saying a few days ago that the evolution of cognition is never addressed. Instead all of history is just primitive superstition and lies, yet, we all developed cognition from it. All conceptual words which give us the ability to think were developed out of "irrational" primitive superstition. Isn't that right?
@knowwaie Evolution explains why humans developed such advanced cognitive functioning. Evolution has no unique logic of its own: it is the result of the application of universal logic to specific data.
The earth was believed to be flat by much of the population of history due to the absence of contravening data. Indeed, the earth was known to be spherical by Greek scholars in the 3rd century B.C. after they observed (i.e. empirically obtained) physical proof.
@knowwaie However the knowledge of the Earth's shape never percolated to the wider population because of their lack of education.
"Reason is absolute and independent? Sounds like an argument for the soul."
The laws of reason inhere in the nature of existence. However the ability of humans to access and wield reason is decidedly imperfect: I am not arguing for the perfection or independence of the human mind.
@knowwaie Others have already addressed the absurdity of your first question. As for the bacteria, we are not "better" than bacteria as far as reproduction is concerned. There are billions of bacteria in one handful of soil. They outnumber us by the trillions. Nobody said that there was a reason for life in the first place and there isn't really any evidence to say whether or not we are here just to reproduce anyway.
No one has addressed it. You're missing the point and dumbing down the question. I'm not talking about bacteria being physically more fit. I'm saying they're surviving without any beliefs or rationale so any reasoning which leads to survival is correct reasoning. I also gave the example of dogs. You can use any animal you want, or any person.
By whose logic is your reasoning better than mine? Is a murderer irrational? Not if he's surviving, by your logic. If survival is the only rational.
@knowwaie I find it ironic that your assumption that any reasoning that leads to survival is correct reasoning, is in fact, quite incorrect and illogical reasoning itself. Murder is an act. Acts don't neccessarily have anything to do with rationality or reason. Nobody said survival was the only rationale. You're just making things up now.
When you say 'nobody said' you're saying 'no one has reasoned'. So by whose reasoning is anything rational? Someone with special insight rather than just common thought? Then that is mysticism.
I'm making things up?.. You can read any philosophical work before WW2 and find this subject. But none of you knows about it because current thought dismisses it. You are already influenced by rationale that isn't your own.
@knowwaie No, I'm saying "nobody said". Learn the difference. If you don't understand the basic fundamentals of logic and reasoning, that's your problem. It's not my job to extinguish your personal ignorance and I'm sure the other 5 people responding to your idiotic comments would agree. You're resorting to slinging petty assumptions now that are either completely irrelevent or untrue altogether. I suppose it's my fault for expecting someone who doesn't understand reason to be able to debate.
@Frostbite864 Wrong. When you said 'nobody said' you were attempting to consult some mystical third party. As if someone saying so changes the brute reality of logical thought..
No one has to say that survival is the only rationale.. The very fact that someone would have to 'say' differently ruins your case for rationality. Now you are only talking about opinion. So i have to wait for you to have an opinion on a subject before i can think rationally about it? Brilliant...
@knowwaie Mystical third party? Like I said, you really are just pulling things out of your ass now. What I meant was that nobody in the comments section said that. You can look it up for yourself. Nothing mystical about it, dumbass. My point was that you were arguing a topic that nobody brought forth. From what we've been listening to over the last few days or so, all of your faux-rationality is opinionated bullshit. I'm done with you. Go crawl back into your hole or bother somebody else.
Would you really argue that the majority must be right? Are you aware of this fallacy?
Look kid, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am describing things that serious sciences and you are absolutely clueless about their existence. Any knowledgeable person would imediately recognize what i'm talking about.
I'm not even the first to say this. I'm actually quite flattered that you think i'm 'making it up'.. Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche existentialism. Learn something today
@knowwaie You must be more mentally impaired than I originally thought you were. I know about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. I'm a molecular biology major for fucks sake and what we were arguing about was not centered around science in the slightest. Didn't I tell you to fuck off already? Guess I'll have to block you.
@knowwaie You're such a liar. I don't see any source cited for your bullshit. Crying like a little bitch on the internet definitely isn't helping your cause either.
Yeah, i'm just a bitter old man.. You little whipper snappers will drive me up a tree..
I'll throw it out there again.. As old as my wrinkled ass is my memory is still good..
By your logic there is no real rational other than survival. Eat, shit, masturbate then die. If you imagine some fantasy reason for existence then it is only your opinion with no real rationality other than your emotions. Existentialism is what i cited.
@knowwaie When did I ever say that our only reason for existence was survival? When? What were my exact words? Look it up dumbass. Go ahead. And quoting existentialism doesn't prove anything contrary to the imaginary point you claim that I made. There are a multitude of philosophical views on the meaning of life aside from existentialism (i.e. nihilism, pragmatism, absurdism etc.) There are so many because we don't have any proof or significant evidence to hold one up higher than the rest.
I didn't say you did. That's why the word logic is so important.. Logic is logic no matter what someone says..
The logic of atheism has no rationale...
We could just make stuff up if we wanted to. It doesn't really matter.
The point i had made, and i'm not the first to make, is that there is no thought superior to another. In fact, no thought at all is the most naturally defensible...
Never mind, i thought i was talking to someone who cared about consistency. You can think whatever you want
@knowwaie You implied that I have made clear a certain logistical opinion on the matter when I have not. Therefore, you're making an unsubstantiated assumption about me and all atheists in general. If you're trying to say that all atheists think that the meaning of life is mere survival then you are wrong. If you're trying to say that you know for certain that there is a particular meaning to life and you don't have any evidence to support it then you are an idiot.
I was saying that atheism, naturalism, has no rationality or logic...
Look, you're just retarded. I can't help you. Every time you respond you have your head in your own ass.. I'm not talking about you.. I repeat, i am not talking about you.. I'm talking about the naturalist philosophy which you are defending. So you can be a cluster fuck of misconceptions, that's not what we're talking about... Never mind, this is ridiculous.
@knowwaie No. You're trying to claim that I am defending "naturalist logic" (even though you have not defined any clear definition of such a thing) even though I never said anything to support or defend it. You're so fucking stupid that you think that atheism and naturalism are synonymous and that they have a set "rationality" that can be disproven. You really are an embarrassment.
You're right, atheism and naturalism don't necessarily have to be synonymous. Mysticism is also a common result.
You're so clueless about such simple concepts.. Atheism means the disbelief in the 'super natural' so if there is no 'super natural' then what's left dumb fuck? The natural right? So only the natural world exits. That is naturalism.
You might not want to get cocky. You're clearly new to the the subject. Take the time to learn these words. Your ignorance is disgusting.
@knowwaie You're the fucking clueless one. Atheism only denotes a disbelief in deities, not the supernatural. You can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts or stupid shit like that. Every single concept you've thrown out so far has been blatantly flawed. You don't even understand the basic definition of Atheism. You're the one who should learn these words. They're all over the internet and in every dictionary. Try not to be such a worthless cretin next time.
"You can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts or stupid shit like that."
Hah. The irony. I must have said hundreds of times that Britain, which is said to be the most atheistic, are also the most prone to believe in the paranormal. And people argue with me about it... You're agreeing with me. Wonderful.
It's funny how you're repeating some of my own argument that tend to be attacked.. So i rightly called all those people retarded. I'm right again. Go me.
@knowwaie I'm not sure whether you realise that evolution doesn't state that humans are unique in sentience. It would hold that other animals are equally likely to be conscious as humans (presuming we reject solipsism). The evolution of reason was a survival adaptation: the ability to recognise and manipulate a chain of cause and effect, to engage in discourse with others and to learn are all greatly beneficial in an evolutionary sense. And it's ludicrous to suggest that all thought was
@knowwaie 'superstitious' or 'primitive superstition'. For one thing, superstition has never composed all of human thought. Moreover it was (and is) evoked to explain the gaps in our understanding: that which reasoning failed to elucidate.
Furthermore, murder is not in any sense illogical. It is immoral, which is another thing entirely.
There is no such thing as 'murder'.. If an animal kills another it's not murder. Yes, morality is a different thing, a nonexistent thing in your view.. Though, i wouldn't call it morality. An animal is Justified in killing another animal. Humans are justified in killing other humans because killing is natural.
Whatever you want to call it.. Rational thought came out from religion. In fact, without the words we wouldn't think. Conceptual thought requires conceptual words.
@knowwaie "Humans are justified in killing other humans because killing is natural."
"Natural" is not germane to "moral". This is called the 'Naturalistic Fallacy': the association of Right with Nature is baseless. It is an elementary failure of logic.
"Rational thought came out from religion. In fact, without the words we wouldn't think."
And what basis do you have for claiming that speech had its origins in religion? Again, none.
...This is just silly.. I'm not the one saying that nature is equal to moral. You are. Are you saying that this rationale is false? Then it is your own fallacy... Which is exactly what i was saying. Nature has no way of being good or bad, moral or immoral..
Hah. Any historian can tell you that abstraction and conception are, not just used by religion, but derive from it. There are people who actually know the languages. You dismiss all of history with postmodern thought. Google 'postmodernism'
So i have to substantiate the claim that language, speech and thought derive from theological precepts? Is this a joke?.. That is like saying the derivation of the English language from England requires substantiation. Or atheism resulting in naturalistic thought requires substantiation..
You already know these concepts. Evil is one of them. Are you arguing that the concept of evil did not derive from religious dogma? What a necessary concept it is. Judicial rulings would be trite without it.
@knowwaie Do you honestly believe that words first arose to describe abstract religious concepts before concrete things and more palpable abstract ideas (e.g. emotion, causation, number, etc)? Not only do you have no evidence to substantiate this, but it is patently improbable in the extreme.
Furthermore, the progenitors of philosophy, the early Greek philosophers, were characterised by varying levels of rejection of established religion and were grounded in their reasoning, not mystical.
This whole debate is beat.. You're calling me a mystic when you are admittedly relying upon some special interpretation. Or you yourself claiming some knowledge unattainable. So we all line up to spend thousands at universities who teach this 'hidden knowledge'.
Notice the practicality of what i've said. There is nothing mystical here. Are you denying that thought has shifted in the way i had stated? It's clear as day. I'm not the first to say it. It's the same argument but in different terms.
@knowwaie to explain evil, but that it was inadequate for this purpose. I'm going to assume that is your contention and that you didn't unwittingly contradict yourself there.
As for Plato and his belief in the supremacy of the 'intelligible realm' and the mind's ability to access it, and his disdain for the 'world of becoming' (the 'imperfect' physical world), he was demonstrably wrong. The material world does not comprise imperfect likenesses of eternal Forms: the inverse is true.
@knowwaie However the claim that death is 'evil' is just another baseless dogma. I would argue that eternal life is intrinsically evil.
"You say there is no evil" - You
At no point did I make this claim.
"Without A reason there is no reason" - You
Again, no one has ever revealed how exactly 'A reason' (i.e a purpose or cause) gives rise to reason and rationality. This dogma is just flatly asserted, and no effort is ever made to demonstrate how reason is not self-sufficient.
But i'd rather get back to this stupidity about the omniscience and omnipotence of your science bureaucracy. Do they really have the power to control past history? Or is that just in your head?
It's so sad how ignorant you are on this subject.. The mechanisms and codes of the computer were made by Christians under a capitalist system. It was politicized and controlled the same way you are, by socialized science in Nazi Germany. You can rightfully take responsibility for the latter.
@knowwaie The fact that many Christians were involved in the discovery of the scientific facts which compose our current knowledge and the deduction of their theoretical basis doesn't invalidate any of their efforts. It just compounds the absurdity of claiming that science is some sort of ideology. It isn't: it's a method of ascertaining the truth.
Science is the application of reason to observable, testable, quantifiable facts, nothing more. This is why it is so singularly successful.
@knowwaie Nazi Germany was Christian. Each German soldier had 'Gott mit uns' ('God with us') engraved on his belt buckle. Hitler believed that he was "acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" and "fighting for the work of the Lord" (both direct quotes). It is absolutely despicable of you to impute any blame to me or secularists for his abominations.
@knowwaie You abject little fool, to impugn the validity of science. Tell me, how do your words reach me? What about the chemistry and physics that govern the operation of this computer, its countless transistors and components, the electricity grid which powers it, the internet, the satellites in orbit reflecting electromagnetic radiation back to earth and the monitor displaying each letter you type? By what means do they function if science is faulty? You can't answer this question honestly.
I have always said, when one of you says this then i know i'm talking to a person who has never really learned anything.
You're saying the current science establishment. The publicly funded dictation of knowledge is what invented everything? You're a brainwash victim. No question at this point..
The contributes to the invention of the computer were mostly Christians. Charles Babbage was the most notable. Know who else also contributed? That's right Adolf Hitler was you computer scientist.
The stupidity involved in what you said, and commonly parroted, is baffling. To use this line of "Science(tm) invented everything" you don't even realize that you've just done a double back flip through history in mental gymnastics... Did this 'Science department' also invent fire arms?
You're brainwashed by socialized knowledge. It's pure dictation of thought, you know full well that's what it is, and you love it. Soon you will be saying our Science department invented water.
Think before parroting this nonsense. When i mentioned pantheism you immediately jumped to the typical parrot talk of 'no evidence, repeated experimentation or observation'. No kidding, i was paralleling the idea to make the point. Pantheism is a way of thinking. Atheism is also. These are philosophical interpretations and neither are evident, experimental of observable. It requires human reason. Philosophers knew this. You kids today gave up your ability to reason for authoritarian dictation.
@knowwaie I would link you to sources but you'd doubtless begin bleating again about 'copy and paste' without taking even the most fleeting moment to think about what you're saying. I will also point out that we were debating the meaning of '-logy', not logic.
@knowwaie "When you said philosophy was limited because reasoning is flawed..."
That is not what I said. I said philosophy was limited because it made assumptions about the material world. The reason it was forced to do this is that the concept of experimentation to test hypotheses had not yet crystallised. It is not that their reasoning was flawed, but that specific claims of theirs were be made with no basis.
@knowwaie And no, pantheism is not natural selection. Natural selection does not require that nature be conscious. In no way does the notion of nature as being a sentient entity necessarily apply to the theory of natural selection. Your explanation of pantheism envinces an utter lack of understanding of the basic pertinent concepts.
@knowwaie "Natural selection ('evil' catastrophe)" - this is an utterly absurd, meaningless piece of text. Natural selection is not 'evil', it is simply a process which occurs as a result of any given set of physical laws which govern the behaviour of self-replicating systems.
"Random mutation ('good' survival)" - Random mutations are not at all linked to survival. Survival is determined by fitness, which is determined by genetics. In order for a population to evolve, it need not mutate.
@knowwaie For example, if 0.1% of an animal population are immune to a fatal disease, and then the population is infected, the ratio of immune animals will greatly increase. This is a simple example of natural selection.
@knowwaie I have never at any point claimed that science can furnish the answer to everything. I agree on the necessity of philosophy in delving into deep questions relating to existence. But to dismiss Science is absolutely absurd, because of the comprehensive, colossal, staggering and irrefutable weight of evidence which it possesses.
I am more of a philosopher than a scientist in any case, though I am literate in both fields, and it is through philosophy that I arrived at atheism.
The theist claim that a God can be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent simultaneously is risible. The presence of evil in the world (call it the 'absence of God' and it merely disproves God's omnipresence) is a pellucid proof of either his nonexistence or his evil, and the concept of free will, in addition to being inherently nonsensical, is further invalidated by the existence of an all-knowing being.
Pantheism is no better at explaining the existence of evil than traditional theism, since even in traditional Theism god is responsible for the state of everything in the universe. Accepting the proposition that " 'good' = 'evil' " is completely incoherent and does not follow from Pantheism. If this is what you understand of theology, ethics and metaphysics, then even talking to you is futile: you comprehend nothing whatsoever.
Philosophers in ancient Greece emphasized the mind over the material body. They believed that the bodily senses and natural world were flawed in the same way that you think the mind is flawed. Platonic Dualism.
Science today has done a complete turn and said that the mind is flawed by the body and the natural world are the only truths.
The thought that was spoken of by philosophers they called the logos which is the ability to reason. You deny this ability.
I took the time to read through all this thoroughly..
I wasn't even arguing that pantheism explains "evil". I was saying it was in opposition to theism, and by the same logic. There are plenty of Hindu's arguing the 'god paradox'. Something else you have in common is the idea of an explosion creating everything.
Which brings us to natural selection.. It is something that would be theologically categorized as evil. Death is 'evil'. You say there is no evil. So all is good? Isn't that right?
@knowwaie How pathetic your uneducated babble next to the majesty of human accomplishment and the knowledge gleaned by centuries of effort by curious, insightful individuals who each contributed to the vast tapestry of our current understanding.
And all of that notwithstanding, philosophy itself is handily capable of disproving the existence of God. Epicurus did it centuries before the birth of Christ.
Philosophy, logic, which was science or "knowledge" meant to think about something. All the other meanings you cited, oration, reason, speech, word immediately follow. I think, I reason, I say.. Nothing you've said has shown me wrong.
When you said philosophy was limited because reasoning is flawed.. By the same fucking reasoning you can say science is limited because reasoning is flawed.. Which is exactly the reason why you talk about evidence. But evidence is also reasoned isn't it? Dumbshit.
I know none of this will help you now but maybe when you get a little smarter you'll get the picture.
In the past they emphasis not the 'ability' to reason, but the fact that something was reasoned. This was understood to mean that everything required our ability to think about it. But lunatics like you say, 'no, there is no reason to think, science (matter) tells us everything!'. But little do you retards know, it is STILL philosophy, only this time, you're not allowed to think on your own.
@knowwaie Poring through dictionaries to find historical (id est obsolete) uses of the word 'science' achieves nothing. Philosophy without science is debilitated and impotent, and will perforce reach erroneous conclusions. Claiming that the scientific methodology is 'dogmatic' is risible when you do so on a device (a computer) which is the result of a myriad of scientific discoveries: chemistry and physics which allow for transistor operation, LED function, electrical circuitry etc.
@knowwaie You cannot surmount the fact that regardless of whether science is actually obtaining 'truth', it is arriving at physical models which, under any number of repeated experiments or observation, yield predictable and consistent results. Science works. There absolutely no way for you to circumvent this incontrovertible point. The society you live in and its way of life owes its very existence to the rational scientific method.
The problem here is that you are speaking as a fascist. That was the importance of the fact that there is a general "Science" within which there are many fields and methodologies. It is only you who is confining science to only the physical. Is philosophy a science? Logic?
I personally don't see any Science as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Not even Theology. Theocratic government is impossible. The way you think is the equivalent to being theocratic but reversed. Tyrannical science.
Then i recommend a basic linguistics lesson. This is the way we have intended the suffix 'ology' in our language. You're not arguing with me you're arguing with the English language. Which might be difficult.
You're on such horrible ground i'm surprised you're still trying to argue. I could go either way with this and you would still be wrong. If astrology is not a science then it is no longer studied. Then it's not a science.. Your point is so null in so many ways this is just silly..
Logic is not a physical science. Now notice how within the word 'biological' we find the word "logical".. So i could argue that all 'ologies' or logics are not science on the basis of the fact that logic is not a physical science.
You might want to pack up your bullshit and leave at this point. To you there isn't even a such thing as logic until it has been verified by your leaders and propagated.
Your ability to use your own reasoning is the science i'm defending.
This is depressing.. Are you really that brainwashed?
I mean, you honestly think that because you don't believe something then it's not true. It's one thing to have an actual argument against something but you don't even bother with that.. In the time that you've been confused about basic use of language and how we categorize knowledge i've written a whole essay on the sociological roots of the sciences you're attempting to refute. But you can't even do so by any other reasoning than denial.
Ridiculous. These are false comparisons to begin with. I explained how these things are not related to theology. The very fact that there are two different words "theology" and mythology" should immediately negate your intended point. Astrology does not relate to theology. What is your comparison between these things other than your own ignorance and rejection of them.
We also have a field of science called linguistics. It's the study of language. Which is also important to this subject.
Astrology and mythology are sciences. This was your original argument and i can crush it with ease. I'm not denying either of these things. Just like if there were a real study of geocentricism it would also be a science but there is nothing to study. Notice there is no such thing as evolutionology.
It's comical how you think you're succeeding here. I've only been granting your premise. That all these studies are the same. They're not.
This isn't complicated. A science is whatever is studied.
I agree with mythology in that it portrays abstract principles. Which was it's intended purpose. You don't like mythology because you don't have the intelligence to understand it.
Astrology had strong roots in history because of the months and seasons. Our modern version would simply be astronomy so not to confuse the perversions from heathen. Usually by emphasizing the natural over the conceptual. Oddly enough..
And penguins. Wait, you're asking why they have genes for teeth.. Isn't the more important question if they have the genes for wings? If they still have the genes for wings then these are birds that have lost flight and not reptiles that are gaining it...
This is so stupid.. Everything mentioned in this video is detrimental to the evolution theory. It's all understandable by any other reasoning other than natural self selection.
Both creationist & evolutionist see the same evidence...we just interpret it differently. One sees through biblical lenses the other sees through evolutionary lenses.
If you we're a con man...would you want to be found out? If you were the greatest bank robber, would you want to exist? Such is our gods, such as these myths....we praise and raise into a light of nothing but the smartest Cheater....only the one in this video we are questioning cheated his way into a mass religion.
When younger, I was a believer, went to a Christian school. Since then, I have read The Bible, the Koran (and both literary critiques), numerous works by Hitchens, Dawkins, Lane Craig, as well as studied in some biological courses at university.
I'm telling you icr.org is complete rubbish, in the way it presents its claims. I know because I did a course on philosophy of science.
I've got a science degree and you're telling me to explore? Ha
"The elasticity of DNA must fall within a limited range. If it were too stretchy, it would deform so much that essential proteins would not be able to latch on to or even recognize it. If it were too brittle, it would snap under the constant stresses of cellular life.
Thus, not only does the information on DNA demand an intelligent source, but so does the very construction of this remarkable molecule."
Again with the arguments from ignorance "prooving" an unrelated idea.
@ieatpiestoday "[mainstream science is] also bias and will always refute intelligent design when there is proven information to suggest otherwise." No scientists refute intelligent design as a baseless claim that is unable to be tested, is not useful (hasn't made a prediction yet), is not falsifiable, is not progressive (does not refine previous theories), is not correctable (modified in the light of evidence that does not support it) and is not provisional (that it does not assert certainty).
@ieatpiestoday "People have felt an experienced a tangable presense and even spoken to God." As I've said, I don't doubt their sincerity, but at the same time, the human perception system is not a reliable source of evidence, being riddled with inaccuracies.
You don't begin looking for peer reviewed journals on a website lol...
@ieatpiestoday Creationist and scientist are two words that do not go hand in hand. Because evolution is lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects, you assume intelligent cause.
Basically, that is an 'argument from ignorance'. The unexplained is not unexplainable, and "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science.
You don't even know the meaning of science. Theology is a science, hence the 'ology' suffix.
Don't you contend that there is no creator because we have no knowledge of it? Therefor, our ignorance of a creator is the basis for your argument. Isn't that right? Hypocrisy.
Your 'exploration' is worthless if you don't have the mental capacity to assimilate the information. So far you've only parroted thoughtless propaganda. If you could think, you'd have seen in advance your logic used against you
I'm glad you didn't bother to look it up before responding... Though you shouldn't even have to. It can actually be reasoned by any intelligent person. The suffix applies to fields of science... You at least know that sicence has many 'fields' or 'studies'....!!! Holy shit you're stupid.. Why did you feel the need to respond?
"-λογία f (-logía)
Suffix denoting the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline."
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge""
I thought you would figure it out on your own. You really need help with this?..
Science is a general term. Biology is a field of science. Therefore the fields of study ARE science.. I don't really have to break this down further for you do i? .
Astrology?.. Yeah, i would say the months and the season cycles are a science... Whatever strange folk lore your atheist ancestors gave to them are not my jurisdiction. Putz.
You're scaring me now.. Mythology is the study of myth. Theology is the study of god. It is only you who is interjecting that these are the same. Any person who is not brainwashed knows they are not. I need only point you to the simple fact that Plato wrote both "mythology" and 'The Republic'.
So if you weren't such a fascist you might know how to better define science by it's function and not by some hierarchical government dictator of what qualifies as an acceptable study.
Get out of here you clown. If you could see how ridiculous your attempt is you wouldn't be surprised by my impulse to lash out at you.
"Science has been proven wrong over and over." One of the core concepts of science is that newer theories be proposed over time to explain phenomena.
"choose to believe it all came from a big explosion millions of years ago," Firstly, not belief, but acceptance of verified and testable evidence (star speed measurements, radiometry, cosmic radiation etc), which is open to change, though, very unlikely.
"Its not that you can't believe its that you refuse." Because of evidence as I said.
@ieatpiestoday icr.org is not science because of bias, unsupported claims, contradictions and plainly incorrect information (I have had a good read lol).
Get a BSc (I have) or stop arguing about what you are obviously unable to comprehend regarding scientific matters.
@ieatpiestoday "Chickens do actually have very minute tiny teeth to get out of the egg shell," actually they have what is called an (ie; one) "egg tooth" which is not a tooth at all, but named so for simplicity.
If you search Google for "panda's thumb" you get a load of rubbish. If you search scholar.google you get the real deal.
@ieatpiestoday It's quite interesting how there is no mention of Von Neumann architecture or SyNAPSE in there, makes me wonder if it is really a well thought out article...
@ieatpiestoday The obvious answer is because the Neumann architecture of a processor is not even remotely similar to any animal brain, and the fact that an algorithm would simply not be 'compatible' with current computer systems.
There are however efforts by IBM to create SyNAPSE, which is basically the replication of neuron layout on silicon.
This is only a new foray in science research, and there is no reason to not assume newer efficient algorithms will soon be imagined.
@ieatpiestoday The obvious answer is because the Neumann architecture of a processor is not even remotely similar to any animal brain, and the fact that an algorithm would simply not be 'compatible' with current computer systems.
There are however efforts by IBM to create SyNAPSE, which is basically the replication of neuron layout on silicon.
This is only a new foray in science research, and there is no reason to not assume newer efficient algorithms will soon be imagined.
@ieatpiestoday Further to that, I am not 'angry' with believers, just intrigued why they so often hold their beliefs (often indoctrinated during childhood) so closely, without question, when there is so much to question about the very nature of 'faith'.
I dislike the chicken 'story' as you so brilliantly put it, because of the obvious lack of academic credibility and fundamental misconceptions of basic biological concepts. No doctor wrote that, I don't care what the footnote said.
@ieatpiestoday Both 'belief' and 'faith' are resilient to change, evidence isn't. An 'eye-witness' account, by the way, is the lowest form of scientific evidence, due to all humans innately skewed perception of reality.
I try not to believe in anything on blind faith, I 'agree' with the evidence. If there came about convincing, widely-accepted evidence of a personal God, then I would only doubt that evidence as much as I doubt the method in which it was gathered.
@ieatpiestoday Both 'belief' and 'faith' are resilient to change, evidence isn't. An 'eye-witness' account, by the way, is the lowest form of scientific evidence, due to all humans innately skewed perception of reality.
I try not to believe in anything on blind faith, I 'agree' with the evidence. If there came about convincing, widely-accepted evidence of a personal God, then I would only doubt that evidence as much as I doubt the method in which it was gathered.
@ieatpiestoday Wait, wait the 'faith based' magazine article with no links to peer reviewed studies. If you pointed me to a peer reviewed scientific article, maybe I would trust it. The fact is that science is innately sceptical, therefore no hidden agenda exists to distort judgement.
I've read the article and again, pick very simple faults that no 'doctor' would make lest they have suffered from a brain injury.
But I digress, I was clearly talking about the chicken article, not the panda one.
@ieatpiestoday How ridiculous, the whole idea of a pandas thumb being different was first brought up in a book titled "The Panda's Thumb" by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
"The title essay discusses the paradox that poor design is a better argument for evolution than good design, as illustrated by the anatomy of the panda's "thumb"—which is not a thumb at all—but an extension of the radial sesamoid."
The fundies had to make some crap up and post it in a 'magazine' website. Bullshit
@ieatpiestoday No no, I was talking about the chicken article. You're missing the point about the panda's thumb, in that it is a functional thumb, yes, but it is a different bone structure to all other animals with a thumb, ie; convergent evolution.
The point is that intelligent design does not "explain the facts" eg: panda thumb, chicken teeth, it merely dodges them by saying "God did it". How stupid.
@ieatpiestoday Actually, I don't believe a real doctor could have written that article, firstly because I could pick out complete errors having only passed high school biology.
Why do you guys think the universe has to be perfect in order for God to exist? Who says God is all powerful? Who says God didn't create a incredible, beautiful, universe to the best of his ability? Have any scientists created an entire universe? Let alone create a single grain of sand?
@SanityIsSuchADrag Nothing sucks more than your god of the gaps argument, especially since you have no proof of anything that is a god, just your ignorance to explain stuff.
I'm surprised I've never heard a creationist say that we wouldn't be created any more perfect because that would make things easier. No, we're only pretty perfect.
@MunkyDrag0n How can I agree more? By stating we are, if anything, our own "imperfect gods", we can point our "design" flaws, but we can't fix them for good? xD
@knowwaie You did not make any point about Pantheism. Actually, you did not make a single point about anything. Your disjointed ramblings read like they were written by a goldfish, aimlessly wandering from irrelevance to irrelevance with no recollection of anything beyond the past few moments.
" I wasn't even arguing that pantheism explains "evil" " - You
" The 'reason' for the idea of Pantheism was to explain 'evil' " - You again.
So you're arguing that Pantheism was created in order
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Is there something wrong with you? I didn't say pantheism explains evil. I said the reason for it in history was intended to explain the existence of evil. With the same argument that you just used. The existence of evil with a omnipotent and omniscient god is not possible. You actually validated my comparison in your own words then you're arguing with me about my comparison..
Why can't you stay on subject? I'm not even defending Plato. He was wrong. I'm saying this is how thought has changed.
knowwaie 2 months ago
continued: and (2) names of sciences or departments of study. As the words of the last-mentioned class have always a n. for their first element, and o is the combining vowel of all declensions of Greek ns., the ending of these compounds is in actual use always -ολογία, becoming -ology comb. form in English.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
From the ODE: the ns. in -λογία usually denote the character, action, or department of knowledge proper to the person who is described by an adj. or n. in -λόγος, meaning either ‘(one) who speaks (in a certain way)’, or ‘(one) who treats of (a certain subject)’. Hence the derivatives in -λογία are of two classes, (1) those which have the sense of ‘saying or speaking’, examples of which are the words anglicized as battology, brachylogy, cacology, dittology, eulogy, palillogy, tautology;
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
"qualify on the grounds that they rely on tangible evidence and analysis of data. Philosophy, however, does not."
Are you really saying that philosophy didn't take into account physical tangible objects?.. That is absolutely ridiculous. Philosophy is the means of reasoning data.
In reality, your scientists are mystics. They believe that there is a special insight into physical data that you have to be taught. Philosophy was the ability of the average person to reason independently.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Before science, philosophy made an enormous number of erroneous assumptions which were taken to be axiomatic. For example, the notion that nothing can be in two places at once, or that there is an intangible 'aether' which fills space. It is absolutely pathetic for you to mock science using a device whose existence is the product of centuries of scientific progress and which is testament to science's supremacy amongst the human means of learning about the world we occupy.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie Eulogy is a felicitous example of my point that -logy does not simply mean 'logic'. In its case -logy means 'speech, discourse'. Furthermore, any dictionary containing an entry for '-logy' will inform you that it denotes a science or body of knowledge.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."
odinata 2 months ago
You're ridiculous... "Ologies" are science(s). My assertion is absolutely correct. This is the English language. If the definition given by some random user of Wikipedia contradicts the English language then which do we accept?
I'll tell you again, this is how the English language works. We have this general category called Science or knowledge. Then we have sub categories called science(s), studies or logics. Are you going to change the English language? Is linguistics not a science either? Hm
knowwaie 2 months ago
Oh, so you were too retarded to do your homework so i had to double check your research.
In the same paragraph: "An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that found for example in Aristotle, whereby "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained"
Remember what i was saying about logic?.. You're so retarded that i can't even be proud of ruining your argument. Case closed moron.
knowwaie 2 months ago
So in what part of science do we find logic? It's philosophy. But philosophy isn't a science in you view. Human reason is not a science. Psychology is well on it's way to becoming a non-science. The point here is there are hundreds of sciences and many of them are not physical sciences. Language, history, sociology, philosophy, economics. This is why you're all liberal progressive socialist peddling psychiatric drugs. You don't understand the philosphy of science.
knowwaie 2 months ago
It's funny how the Wiki page proves my case.
"Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the two words, "science" and "philosophy", were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language."
"However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic"
"In modern use, "science" is a term which more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge"
In other words dogmatic methodology.
knowwaie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie
Its funny how your own quotations show how you are an idiot.
Not one of them confirms your bullshit assertion that adding "ology" to the end of a word turns it into a science.
Or that ""A science is whatever is studied."
Idiot.
odinata 2 months ago
@knowwaie Philosophy is not a science because in modern usage 'science' refers to the search for knowledge by means of the 'scientific method', which is empirical and requires experimentation and/or gathering concrete data. History, sociology etc may qualify on the grounds that they rely on tangible evidence and analysis of data. Philosophy, however, does not. That does not mean that philosophy is useless - remember that mathematics is not itself a science but dependent only on pure reason.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Philosophy is logic. All of the sciences that have 'logy' suffix are logics. Why do you think we call it bio'logical'. The logic of bio chemistry. There would be no science without philosophy. Your 'science' is a philosophy. So you would call it natural logic or the logic of nature. But by the logic of natural science there is no such thing as logic, which is why you say philosophy is not a science.. Strange isn't it?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie You clearly have no understanding of how etymology works. Bio'logical' does not refer to the 'logic of life(bio)'. This is a risible fallacy which all of your arguments employ. Let me illustrate your error: 'pertinent' means 'relevant'. However 'impertinent' does not mean 'irrelevent'. Instead it means something close to 'impudent'. See how the origin of the words does not directly determine their meaning? Ancient Greek 'λόγος' = 'word, speech, discourse, reason', not just 'logic'.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
I'm glad you know how to use copy and paste.. I'll try that next time.
Yes, logy did mean logic. We're talking about the ancient use, not the modern use. I know the meaning has changed today.
Philosophy used to be 'the science'.. It still is. The only difference is now one philosophy is being promoted over another in the guise of 'natural science'. Which is no different from ancient Pantheism. It is still philosophy, people are brainwashed to think that it isn't.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie "copy and paste", i.e. actually citing a reputable source instead of baldy asserting nonsense like you do. Not only did I immediately discern your error and not only was I immediately able to spontaneously indicate exactly why you are wrong, but a subsequent cursory search which I performed for completeness yielded several esteemed sources which all contradict your idiocy and comport with my corrections.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
You're a moron... I wasn't even going to bother because responding to people who copy and paste is as good as arguing with myself, which i do all the time anyway...
What you said about the ancient use of the word logic is completely wrong. The word meant to 'think, say, acknowledge etc. I always simplify it as 'to think' since, it makes the most sense in the atheist context. And we already know that atheists can't think so it seems to be the most reasonable use of the word.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Did you notice how my "copy and paste" was just another source which reiterated what I had ALREADY said in order to demonstrate its credibility? Evidently not, but that's hardly surprising given your obviously feeble observational skills, not to mention your other intellectual shortcomings. My argument did not in the least rely or hinge on any of what I copied to you;
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie I told you that your definition was wrong, gave a correct one and then accompanied it with a dictionary entry which agreed with me. There is nothing remotely objectionable about ANY of that. Your attempt to focus on it to distract from your own complete lack of a cogent reponse is pathetic.
On the meaning of the word 'logy' as a suffix. I have repeatedly and incontrovertibly shown you the original meaning of the word in Ancient Greek and early English.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie Furthermore, you are again wrong: the ancient use of logy is the one with which I furnished you: λόγος = oration, reason, speech, word. You can independently verify this in any dictionary of Ancient Greek, the source language, or etymological dictionary of English.
Science is not a philosophy. Science is a practical endeavour. There is a philosophy of Science which is another matter altogether, but one does not need to philosophically analyse the results of empirical experiments
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie in order to be able to apply that data to achieve consistent, predictable and measurable results.
Science is the antithesis of 'ancient Pantheism', which required no evidence or experimentation and allowed its adherents to simply posit whichever untestable hypothesis about some vague notion of God that they wished. Science on the other hand has built a society and technology beyond the comprehension of our superstitious ancestors.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
You're clueless.
The 'reason' for the idea of Pantheism was to explain 'evil'. So there was no reason for evidence or experiment. They did this by saying that ALL (the meaning of the word Pan) is god. Pantheism means that everything in nature is god. But if you ask one of them they will tell you that they don't believe there is a god.
Ready, lets see how smart you are.. Pantheism today is natural selection ('evil' catastrophe) and random mutation ('good' survival). Evil is good. Correct?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie From all of this dross which you have spewed over the course of this 'discussion', I have determined that you are an ignorant mystic who is incapable of even understanding the philosophical beliefs which you spout. Arguing with you is like debating Kantian metaphysics with a four-year old. Anything I say goes fathomless depths over your head. You seem to espouse philosophy yet are incapable of grasping even its rudiments.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Are you missing the point on purpose?.. Just skimming through all this nonsense and you've completely changed the argument..
You missed the point about Pantheism, then in the very next response you're confirming the point that i had made about it. If there is a god then he can't have the theistic characteristics according to your view..
Look, i know you're having trouble following a thought don't blame that on me. It's because you have nothing but hate propaganda in your head.
knowwaie 2 months ago
The word logos, the current use of the word logic and all the branches of science being suffixed as logic is all sound. You're right that the word it does have all these other meanings but they are all relative to the the 'reason'. It could be said to be the cause. The sequence, system, statement. It could be paralleled to our use of the 'first cause' or first reason. I've been saying for years that Dawkins use of the word reason is illegitimate. Without A reason there is no reason. Just chaos.
knowwaie 2 months ago
I should also point out, i'm not arguing for theology or philosophy, only the shift in thought over the past thousand years. Logic is limited and flawed but it is still a real thing. Philosophy only goes so far. The physical sciences fall even shorter. This is the entire point of what we've all been saying to you. You promote one logic or thought over another then enforce it through hierarchical, generally state funded, dictation of knowledge. Which is actually mysticism by the way.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie The mental world of concepts is just an imperfect representation of truths which inhere in the physical world.
Natural selection entails the death of innumerable organisms. If death is theologically 'evil', then it is evil. However death is not the consequence of natural selection: natural selection is the result of death. However this is immaterial because death is an observable fact. Dead organisms could enter an afterlife without this affecting the process of natural selection.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
"no one has ever revealed how exactly 'A reason' gives rise rationality"
Duhhh i can demonstrate that for you right now. It's actually quite easy when you're able to think. And here is an example of conceptual thought. Which is just as, if no more, capable of determining truth.
Compare dog reason with human reason. Is one naturally superior to the other? No.. Without a reason all reason is reasonable. Even my reasoning is reasonable if there is no reason other than what i choose... Dummy.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie "Compare dog reason with human reason. Is one naturally superior to the other? No.. Without a reason all reason is reasonable"
No. This absurd, meaningless babble is utterly devoid of any sense or substance whatsoever. Reason is the process whereby the corollaries of axiomatic premises are attained. It does not matter who it is that reasons so long as their reasoning is sound. Reason is absolute: it is perfectly independent of anything outside of itself.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Exactly. Are you a deist?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie No. I'm a non-theist. Whether or not I'm an 'atheist' depends on which particular concept of god is under consideration. With respect to most, I'm agnostic. However, I categorically reject God concepts which make some specific demonstrably false claim about his nature. So, to be precise, while I completely reject Theism, I am neutral with respect to Deism.
What about you? What are your particular beliefs?
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
I want an response from you one this. You immediately called it absurd and meaningless but i think you over looked the point.
Is human reason better than dog reason by the logic of evolution? The answer is no. If there is no other reason other than survival then we are no better than bacteria.
Reason is absolute and independent? Sounds like an argument for the soul.
At one time thinking the earth was flat was sound reasoning.
You really don't know much about this do you? It's ok.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I've heard that lunacy a great many times.
'Dog logic' is not inferior to human logic because humans are naturally superior. 'Dog logic' is inferior to human logic because dogs are incapable of dialectic. If a dog formulates a reasoned argument (the probability of which is infinitesimal) it is equally valid to the same argument made by a human. If the set of conclusions follows from the premises, then the logic is sound regardless of these extraneous details.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
I'm sure you've heard it but for some reason you'll never bother to understand it. The point is that you have no basis for demanding adherence other then popular opinion.
I was just saying a few days ago that the evolution of cognition is never addressed. Instead all of history is just primitive superstition and lies, yet, we all developed cognition from it. All conceptual words which give us the ability to think were developed out of "irrational" primitive superstition. Isn't that right?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Evolution explains why humans developed such advanced cognitive functioning. Evolution has no unique logic of its own: it is the result of the application of universal logic to specific data.
The earth was believed to be flat by much of the population of history due to the absence of contravening data. Indeed, the earth was known to be spherical by Greek scholars in the 3rd century B.C. after they observed (i.e. empirically obtained) physical proof.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie However the knowledge of the Earth's shape never percolated to the wider population because of their lack of education.
"Reason is absolute and independent? Sounds like an argument for the soul."
The laws of reason inhere in the nature of existence. However the ability of humans to access and wield reason is decidedly imperfect: I am not arguing for the perfection or independence of the human mind.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie Others have already addressed the absurdity of your first question. As for the bacteria, we are not "better" than bacteria as far as reproduction is concerned. There are billions of bacteria in one handful of soil. They outnumber us by the trillions. Nobody said that there was a reason for life in the first place and there isn't really any evidence to say whether or not we are here just to reproduce anyway.
Frostbite864 2 months ago
No one has addressed it. You're missing the point and dumbing down the question. I'm not talking about bacteria being physically more fit. I'm saying they're surviving without any beliefs or rationale so any reasoning which leads to survival is correct reasoning. I also gave the example of dogs. You can use any animal you want, or any person.
By whose logic is your reasoning better than mine? Is a murderer irrational? Not if he's surviving, by your logic. If survival is the only rational.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie I find it ironic that your assumption that any reasoning that leads to survival is correct reasoning, is in fact, quite incorrect and illogical reasoning itself. Murder is an act. Acts don't neccessarily have anything to do with rationality or reason. Nobody said survival was the only rationale. You're just making things up now.
Frostbite864 2 months ago
"Nobody said survival was the only rationale."
When you say 'nobody said' you're saying 'no one has reasoned'. So by whose reasoning is anything rational? Someone with special insight rather than just common thought? Then that is mysticism.
I'm making things up?.. You can read any philosophical work before WW2 and find this subject. But none of you knows about it because current thought dismisses it. You are already influenced by rationale that isn't your own.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie No, I'm saying "nobody said". Learn the difference. If you don't understand the basic fundamentals of logic and reasoning, that's your problem. It's not my job to extinguish your personal ignorance and I'm sure the other 5 people responding to your idiotic comments would agree. You're resorting to slinging petty assumptions now that are either completely irrelevent or untrue altogether. I suppose it's my fault for expecting someone who doesn't understand reason to be able to debate.
Frostbite864 2 months ago
@Frostbite864 Wrong. When you said 'nobody said' you were attempting to consult some mystical third party. As if someone saying so changes the brute reality of logical thought..
No one has to say that survival is the only rationale.. The very fact that someone would have to 'say' differently ruins your case for rationality. Now you are only talking about opinion. So i have to wait for you to have an opinion on a subject before i can think rationally about it? Brilliant...
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Mystical third party? Like I said, you really are just pulling things out of your ass now. What I meant was that nobody in the comments section said that. You can look it up for yourself. Nothing mystical about it, dumbass. My point was that you were arguing a topic that nobody brought forth. From what we've been listening to over the last few days or so, all of your faux-rationality is opinionated bullshit. I'm done with you. Go crawl back into your hole or bother somebody else.
Frostbite864 2 months ago
@Frostbite864 You're clueless.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie The entire consensus of the comments section in this video would agree that you're the clueless troll here.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
Would you really argue that the majority must be right? Are you aware of this fallacy?
Look kid, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am describing things that serious sciences and you are absolutely clueless about their existence. Any knowledgeable person would imediately recognize what i'm talking about.
I'm not even the first to say this. I'm actually quite flattered that you think i'm 'making it up'.. Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche existentialism. Learn something today
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie You must be more mentally impaired than I originally thought you were. I know about Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. I'm a molecular biology major for fucks sake and what we were arguing about was not centered around science in the slightest. Didn't I tell you to fuck off already? Guess I'll have to block you.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
Talk a walk putz.
knowwaie 1 month ago
... Take* a walk..
You have no idea what you're doing. Just go block everything that you don't understand.
knowwaie 1 month ago
Seriously.. Just scroll down and look over the conversation again..
You told me i was making stuff up.. But i wasn't.. I cited the source and now you have nothing to say...
Get the fuck out of here. You've got to be kidding me.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie You're such a liar. I don't see any source cited for your bullshit. Crying like a little bitch on the internet definitely isn't helping your cause either.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
Yeah, i'm just a bitter old man.. You little whipper snappers will drive me up a tree..
I'll throw it out there again.. As old as my wrinkled ass is my memory is still good..
By your logic there is no real rational other than survival. Eat, shit, masturbate then die. If you imagine some fantasy reason for existence then it is only your opinion with no real rationality other than your emotions. Existentialism is what i cited.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie When did I ever say that our only reason for existence was survival? When? What were my exact words? Look it up dumbass. Go ahead. And quoting existentialism doesn't prove anything contrary to the imaginary point you claim that I made. There are a multitude of philosophical views on the meaning of life aside from existentialism (i.e. nihilism, pragmatism, absurdism etc.) There are so many because we don't have any proof or significant evidence to hold one up higher than the rest.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
I didn't say you did. That's why the word logic is so important.. Logic is logic no matter what someone says..
The logic of atheism has no rationale...
We could just make stuff up if we wanted to. It doesn't really matter.
The point i had made, and i'm not the first to make, is that there is no thought superior to another. In fact, no thought at all is the most naturally defensible...
Never mind, i thought i was talking to someone who cared about consistency. You can think whatever you want
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie You implied that I have made clear a certain logistical opinion on the matter when I have not. Therefore, you're making an unsubstantiated assumption about me and all atheists in general. If you're trying to say that all atheists think that the meaning of life is mere survival then you are wrong. If you're trying to say that you know for certain that there is a particular meaning to life and you don't have any evidence to support it then you are an idiot.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
Forget about yourself for the moment..
I was saying that atheism, naturalism, has no rationality or logic...
Look, you're just retarded. I can't help you. Every time you respond you have your head in your own ass.. I'm not talking about you.. I repeat, i am not talking about you.. I'm talking about the naturalist philosophy which you are defending. So you can be a cluster fuck of misconceptions, that's not what we're talking about... Never mind, this is ridiculous.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie No. You're trying to claim that I am defending "naturalist logic" (even though you have not defined any clear definition of such a thing) even though I never said anything to support or defend it. You're so fucking stupid that you think that atheism and naturalism are synonymous and that they have a set "rationality" that can be disproven. You really are an embarrassment.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
You're right, atheism and naturalism don't necessarily have to be synonymous. Mysticism is also a common result.
You're so clueless about such simple concepts.. Atheism means the disbelief in the 'super natural' so if there is no 'super natural' then what's left dumb fuck? The natural right? So only the natural world exits. That is naturalism.
You might not want to get cocky. You're clearly new to the the subject. Take the time to learn these words. Your ignorance is disgusting.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie You're the fucking clueless one. Atheism only denotes a disbelief in deities, not the supernatural. You can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts or stupid shit like that. Every single concept you've thrown out so far has been blatantly flawed. You don't even understand the basic definition of Atheism. You're the one who should learn these words. They're all over the internet and in every dictionary. Try not to be such a worthless cretin next time.
Frostbite864 1 month ago
"You can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts or stupid shit like that."
Hah. The irony. I must have said hundreds of times that Britain, which is said to be the most atheistic, are also the most prone to believe in the paranormal. And people argue with me about it... You're agreeing with me. Wonderful.
It's funny how you're repeating some of my own argument that tend to be attacked.. So i rightly called all those people retarded. I'm right again. Go me.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie Your ignorance is disgusting. That's all I have to say.
CaioUranus 1 month ago
@CaioUranus I know everything.
knowwaie 1 month ago
@knowwaie I'm not sure whether you realise that evolution doesn't state that humans are unique in sentience. It would hold that other animals are equally likely to be conscious as humans (presuming we reject solipsism). The evolution of reason was a survival adaptation: the ability to recognise and manipulate a chain of cause and effect, to engage in discourse with others and to learn are all greatly beneficial in an evolutionary sense. And it's ludicrous to suggest that all thought was
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie 'superstitious' or 'primitive superstition'. For one thing, superstition has never composed all of human thought. Moreover it was (and is) evoked to explain the gaps in our understanding: that which reasoning failed to elucidate.
Furthermore, murder is not in any sense illogical. It is immoral, which is another thing entirely.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
There is no such thing as 'murder'.. If an animal kills another it's not murder. Yes, morality is a different thing, a nonexistent thing in your view.. Though, i wouldn't call it morality. An animal is Justified in killing another animal. Humans are justified in killing other humans because killing is natural.
Whatever you want to call it.. Rational thought came out from religion. In fact, without the words we wouldn't think. Conceptual thought requires conceptual words.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie "Humans are justified in killing other humans because killing is natural."
"Natural" is not germane to "moral". This is called the 'Naturalistic Fallacy': the association of Right with Nature is baseless. It is an elementary failure of logic.
"Rational thought came out from religion. In fact, without the words we wouldn't think."
And what basis do you have for claiming that speech had its origins in religion? Again, none.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
...This is just silly.. I'm not the one saying that nature is equal to moral. You are. Are you saying that this rationale is false? Then it is your own fallacy... Which is exactly what i was saying. Nature has no way of being good or bad, moral or immoral..
Hah. Any historian can tell you that abstraction and conception are, not just used by religion, but derive from it. There are people who actually know the languages. You dismiss all of history with postmodern thought. Google 'postmodernism'
knowwaie 2 months ago
So i have to substantiate the claim that language, speech and thought derive from theological precepts? Is this a joke?.. That is like saying the derivation of the English language from England requires substantiation. Or atheism resulting in naturalistic thought requires substantiation..
You already know these concepts. Evil is one of them. Are you arguing that the concept of evil did not derive from religious dogma? What a necessary concept it is. Judicial rulings would be trite without it.
knowwaie 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie Do you honestly believe that words first arose to describe abstract religious concepts before concrete things and more palpable abstract ideas (e.g. emotion, causation, number, etc)? Not only do you have no evidence to substantiate this, but it is patently improbable in the extreme.
Furthermore, the progenitors of philosophy, the early Greek philosophers, were characterised by varying levels of rejection of established religion and were grounded in their reasoning, not mystical.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
This whole debate is beat.. You're calling me a mystic when you are admittedly relying upon some special interpretation. Or you yourself claiming some knowledge unattainable. So we all line up to spend thousands at universities who teach this 'hidden knowledge'.
Notice the practicality of what i've said. There is nothing mystical here. Are you denying that thought has shifted in the way i had stated? It's clear as day. I'm not the first to say it. It's the same argument but in different terms.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie to explain evil, but that it was inadequate for this purpose. I'm going to assume that is your contention and that you didn't unwittingly contradict yourself there.
As for Plato and his belief in the supremacy of the 'intelligible realm' and the mind's ability to access it, and his disdain for the 'world of becoming' (the 'imperfect' physical world), he was demonstrably wrong. The material world does not comprise imperfect likenesses of eternal Forms: the inverse is true.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie However the claim that death is 'evil' is just another baseless dogma. I would argue that eternal life is intrinsically evil.
"You say there is no evil" - You
At no point did I make this claim.
"Without A reason there is no reason" - You
Again, no one has ever revealed how exactly 'A reason' (i.e a purpose or cause) gives rise to reason and rationality. This dogma is just flatly asserted, and no effort is ever made to demonstrate how reason is not self-sufficient.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
But i'd rather get back to this stupidity about the omniscience and omnipotence of your science bureaucracy. Do they really have the power to control past history? Or is that just in your head?
It's so sad how ignorant you are on this subject.. The mechanisms and codes of the computer were made by Christians under a capitalist system. It was politicized and controlled the same way you are, by socialized science in Nazi Germany. You can rightfully take responsibility for the latter.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie The fact that many Christians were involved in the discovery of the scientific facts which compose our current knowledge and the deduction of their theoretical basis doesn't invalidate any of their efforts. It just compounds the absurdity of claiming that science is some sort of ideology. It isn't: it's a method of ascertaining the truth.
Science is the application of reason to observable, testable, quantifiable facts, nothing more. This is why it is so singularly successful.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie Nazi Germany was Christian. Each German soldier had 'Gott mit uns' ('God with us') engraved on his belt buckle. Hitler believed that he was "acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator" and "fighting for the work of the Lord" (both direct quotes). It is absolutely despicable of you to impute any blame to me or secularists for his abominations.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie You abject little fool, to impugn the validity of science. Tell me, how do your words reach me? What about the chemistry and physics that govern the operation of this computer, its countless transistors and components, the electricity grid which powers it, the internet, the satellites in orbit reflecting electromagnetic radiation back to earth and the monitor displaying each letter you type? By what means do they function if science is faulty? You can't answer this question honestly.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
I have always said, when one of you says this then i know i'm talking to a person who has never really learned anything.
You're saying the current science establishment. The publicly funded dictation of knowledge is what invented everything? You're a brainwash victim. No question at this point..
The contributes to the invention of the computer were mostly Christians. Charles Babbage was the most notable. Know who else also contributed? That's right Adolf Hitler was you computer scientist.
knowwaie 2 months ago
The stupidity involved in what you said, and commonly parroted, is baffling. To use this line of "Science(tm) invented everything" you don't even realize that you've just done a double back flip through history in mental gymnastics... Did this 'Science department' also invent fire arms?
You're brainwashed by socialized knowledge. It's pure dictation of thought, you know full well that's what it is, and you love it. Soon you will be saying our Science department invented water.
knowwaie 2 months ago
Think before parroting this nonsense. When i mentioned pantheism you immediately jumped to the typical parrot talk of 'no evidence, repeated experimentation or observation'. No kidding, i was paralleling the idea to make the point. Pantheism is a way of thinking. Atheism is also. These are philosophical interpretations and neither are evident, experimental of observable. It requires human reason. Philosophers knew this. You kids today gave up your ability to reason for authoritarian dictation.
knowwaie 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie I would link you to sources but you'd doubtless begin bleating again about 'copy and paste' without taking even the most fleeting moment to think about what you're saying. I will also point out that we were debating the meaning of '-logy', not logic.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie "When you said philosophy was limited because reasoning is flawed..."
That is not what I said. I said philosophy was limited because it made assumptions about the material world. The reason it was forced to do this is that the concept of experimentation to test hypotheses had not yet crystallised. It is not that their reasoning was flawed, but that specific claims of theirs were be made with no basis.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie And no, pantheism is not natural selection. Natural selection does not require that nature be conscious. In no way does the notion of nature as being a sentient entity necessarily apply to the theory of natural selection. Your explanation of pantheism envinces an utter lack of understanding of the basic pertinent concepts.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie "Natural selection ('evil' catastrophe)" - this is an utterly absurd, meaningless piece of text. Natural selection is not 'evil', it is simply a process which occurs as a result of any given set of physical laws which govern the behaviour of self-replicating systems.
"Random mutation ('good' survival)" - Random mutations are not at all linked to survival. Survival is determined by fitness, which is determined by genetics. In order for a population to evolve, it need not mutate.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie For example, if 0.1% of an animal population are immune to a fatal disease, and then the population is infected, the ratio of immune animals will greatly increase. This is a simple example of natural selection.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
@knowwaie I have never at any point claimed that science can furnish the answer to everything. I agree on the necessity of philosophy in delving into deep questions relating to existence. But to dismiss Science is absolutely absurd, because of the comprehensive, colossal, staggering and irrefutable weight of evidence which it possesses.
I am more of a philosopher than a scientist in any case, though I am literate in both fields, and it is through philosophy that I arrived at atheism.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
The theist claim that a God can be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent simultaneously is risible. The presence of evil in the world (call it the 'absence of God' and it merely disproves God's omnipresence) is a pellucid proof of either his nonexistence or his evil, and the concept of free will, in addition to being inherently nonsensical, is further invalidated by the existence of an all-knowing being.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Pantheism is no better at explaining the existence of evil than traditional theism, since even in traditional Theism god is responsible for the state of everything in the universe. Accepting the proposition that " 'good' = 'evil' " is completely incoherent and does not follow from Pantheism. If this is what you understand of theology, ethics and metaphysics, then even talking to you is futile: you comprehend nothing whatsoever.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
I'll put it out there again.
Philosophers in ancient Greece emphasized the mind over the material body. They believed that the bodily senses and natural world were flawed in the same way that you think the mind is flawed. Platonic Dualism.
Science today has done a complete turn and said that the mind is flawed by the body and the natural world are the only truths.
The thought that was spoken of by philosophers they called the logos which is the ability to reason. You deny this ability.
knowwaie 2 months ago
I took the time to read through all this thoroughly..
I wasn't even arguing that pantheism explains "evil". I was saying it was in opposition to theism, and by the same logic. There are plenty of Hindu's arguing the 'god paradox'. Something else you have in common is the idea of an explosion creating everything.
Which brings us to natural selection.. It is something that would be theologically categorized as evil. Death is 'evil'. You say there is no evil. So all is good? Isn't that right?
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie How pathetic your uneducated babble next to the majesty of human accomplishment and the knowledge gleaned by centuries of effort by curious, insightful individuals who each contributed to the vast tapestry of our current understanding.
And all of that notwithstanding, philosophy itself is handily capable of disproving the existence of God. Epicurus did it centuries before the birth of Christ.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Philosophy, logic, which was science or "knowledge" meant to think about something. All the other meanings you cited, oration, reason, speech, word immediately follow. I think, I reason, I say.. Nothing you've said has shown me wrong.
When you said philosophy was limited because reasoning is flawed.. By the same fucking reasoning you can say science is limited because reasoning is flawed.. Which is exactly the reason why you talk about evidence. But evidence is also reasoned isn't it? Dumbshit.
knowwaie 2 months ago
I know none of this will help you now but maybe when you get a little smarter you'll get the picture.
In the past they emphasis not the 'ability' to reason, but the fact that something was reasoned. This was understood to mean that everything required our ability to think about it. But lunatics like you say, 'no, there is no reason to think, science (matter) tells us everything!'. But little do you retards know, it is STILL philosophy, only this time, you're not allowed to think on your own.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie Poring through dictionaries to find historical (id est obsolete) uses of the word 'science' achieves nothing. Philosophy without science is debilitated and impotent, and will perforce reach erroneous conclusions. Claiming that the scientific methodology is 'dogmatic' is risible when you do so on a device (a computer) which is the result of a myriad of scientific discoveries: chemistry and physics which allow for transistor operation, LED function, electrical circuitry etc.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
Comment removed
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@knowwaie You cannot surmount the fact that regardless of whether science is actually obtaining 'truth', it is arriving at physical models which, under any number of repeated experiments or observation, yield predictable and consistent results. Science works. There absolutely no way for you to circumvent this incontrovertible point. The society you live in and its way of life owes its very existence to the rational scientific method.
PoolOfPeas 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"A science is whatever is studied."
Why don't the facts back you on this definition?
odinata 2 months ago
What's comical here is some dribbling buffoon is trying to assert that astrology is a science.....
odinata 2 months ago
The problem here is that you are speaking as a fascist. That was the importance of the fact that there is a general "Science" within which there are many fields and methodologies. It is only you who is confining science to only the physical. Is philosophy a science? Logic?
I personally don't see any Science as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Not even Theology. Theocratic government is impossible. The way you think is the equivalent to being theocratic but reversed. Tyrannical science.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
The problem here is you don't know what you are talking about.
Asserting that simply putting "-ology" at the end of a word defines it as a science is proof of that.
The fact that your very own quotes never mention the term "science" is the fatal blow to your idiocy.
Loser.
odinata 2 months ago
Then i recommend a basic linguistics lesson. This is the way we have intended the suffix 'ology' in our language. You're not arguing with me you're arguing with the English language. Which might be difficult.
You're on such horrible ground i'm surprised you're still trying to argue. I could go either way with this and you would still be wrong. If astrology is not a science then it is no longer studied. Then it's not a science.. Your point is so null in so many ways this is just silly..
knowwaie 2 months ago
You have no chance here..
Logic is not a physical science. Now notice how within the word 'biological' we find the word "logical".. So i could argue that all 'ologies' or logics are not science on the basis of the fact that logic is not a physical science.
You might want to pack up your bullshit and leave at this point. To you there isn't even a such thing as logic until it has been verified by your leaders and propagated.
Your ability to use your own reasoning is the science i'm defending.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
I don't need any chance.
I have already shown that your assertion that "ology" means "science is false.
Perhaps you really do believe that scientology is a science.
I'm not as dumb as you.
odinata 2 months ago
This is depressing.. Are you really that brainwashed?
I mean, you honestly think that because you don't believe something then it's not true. It's one thing to have an actual argument against something but you don't even bother with that.. In the time that you've been confused about basic use of language and how we categorize knowledge i've written a whole essay on the sociological roots of the sciences you're attempting to refute. But you can't even do so by any other reasoning than denial.
knowwaie 2 months ago
ASTROLOGY
: the divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects
--MERRIAM WEBSTER
...Who is this dipshit?
odinata 2 months ago
Ridiculous. These are false comparisons to begin with. I explained how these things are not related to theology. The very fact that there are two different words "theology" and mythology" should immediately negate your intended point. Astrology does not relate to theology. What is your comparison between these things other than your own ignorance and rejection of them.
We also have a field of science called linguistics. It's the study of language. Which is also important to this subject.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
Its really very simple, idiot.
You made an assetion--that anything with the suffix "ology" is a science.
That assertion is total bullshit.
You lose.
Take a hike, loser.
odinata 2 months ago
I made the assertion in jest to humor you.
Astrology and mythology are sciences. This was your original argument and i can crush it with ease. I'm not denying either of these things. Just like if there were a real study of geocentricism it would also be a science but there is nothing to study. Notice there is no such thing as evolutionology.
It's comical how you think you're succeeding here. I've only been granting your premise. That all these studies are the same. They're not.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
"I made the assertion in jest to humor you."
Then you admit your failure.
You are excused.
I just gave you the definitions of astrology and mytholgy.
They apparently AREN'T science--according to Merriam Webster.
But then, you already admit you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
odinata 2 months ago
This isn't complicated. A science is whatever is studied.
I agree with mythology in that it portrays abstract principles. Which was it's intended purpose. You don't like mythology because you don't have the intelligence to understand it.
Astrology had strong roots in history because of the months and seasons. Our modern version would simply be astronomy so not to confuse the perversions from heathen. Usually by emphasizing the natural over the conceptual. Oddly enough..
knowwaie 2 months ago
"Holy shit you're stupid.."
"Suffix denoting the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline."
YOur own definition even says nothing about science.
You lose .
odinata 2 months ago
And penguins. Wait, you're asking why they have genes for teeth.. Isn't the more important question if they have the genes for wings? If they still have the genes for wings then these are birds that have lost flight and not reptiles that are gaining it...
This is so stupid.. Everything mentioned in this video is detrimental to the evolution theory. It's all understandable by any other reasoning other than natural self selection.
Death is bad design or bad development?
You're Retarded
knowwaie 3 months ago
Both creationist & evolutionist see the same evidence...we just interpret it differently. One sees through biblical lenses the other sees through evolutionary lenses.
newj34 3 months ago
If you we're a con man...would you want to be found out? If you were the greatest bank robber, would you want to exist? Such is our gods, such as these myths....we praise and raise into a light of nothing but the smartest Cheater....only the one in this video we are questioning cheated his way into a mass religion.
SmD71nG 4 months ago
When younger, I was a believer, went to a Christian school. Since then, I have read The Bible, the Koran (and both literary critiques), numerous works by Hitchens, Dawkins, Lane Craig, as well as studied in some biological courses at university.
I'm telling you icr.org is complete rubbish, in the way it presents its claims. I know because I did a course on philosophy of science.
I've got a science degree and you're telling me to explore? Ha
krandaman1 4 months ago
From ICR:
"The elasticity of DNA must fall within a limited range. If it were too stretchy, it would deform so much that essential proteins would not be able to latch on to or even recognize it. If it were too brittle, it would snap under the constant stresses of cellular life.
Thus, not only does the information on DNA demand an intelligent source, but so does the very construction of this remarkable molecule."
Again with the arguments from ignorance "prooving" an unrelated idea.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday "[mainstream science is] also bias and will always refute intelligent design when there is proven information to suggest otherwise." No scientists refute intelligent design as a baseless claim that is unable to be tested, is not useful (hasn't made a prediction yet), is not falsifiable, is not progressive (does not refine previous theories), is not correctable (modified in the light of evidence that does not support it) and is not provisional (that it does not assert certainty).
krandaman1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ieatpiestoday "People have felt an experienced a tangable presense and even spoken to God." As I've said, I don't doubt their sincerity, but at the same time, the human perception system is not a reliable source of evidence, being riddled with inaccuracies.
You don't begin looking for peer reviewed journals on a website lol...
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday Creationist and scientist are two words that do not go hand in hand. Because evolution is lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects, you assume intelligent cause.
Basically, that is an 'argument from ignorance'. The unexplained is not unexplainable, and "we don't know yet" is a more appropriate response than invoking a cause outside science.
krandaman1 4 months ago
You don't even know the meaning of science. Theology is a science, hence the 'ology' suffix.
Don't you contend that there is no creator because we have no knowledge of it? Therefor, our ignorance of a creator is the basis for your argument. Isn't that right? Hypocrisy.
Your 'exploration' is worthless if you don't have the mental capacity to assimilate the information. So far you've only parroted thoughtless propaganda. If you could think, you'd have seen in advance your logic used against you
knowwaie 3 months ago
@knowwaie
"ology" doesn't mean science.
It means "study of.
odinata 2 months ago
I'm glad you didn't bother to look it up before responding... Though you shouldn't even have to. It can actually be reasoned by any intelligent person. The suffix applies to fields of science... You at least know that sicence has many 'fields' or 'studies'....!!! Holy shit you're stupid.. Why did you feel the need to respond?
"-λογία f (-logía)
Suffix denoting the study of something, or the branch of knowledge of a discipline."
"Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge""
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
"ology" doesn't mean "science", and it doesn't mean that the prefix it is attached to is a science.
Theology isn't a science.
Look up those words if you don't believe......
odinata 2 months ago
Wow..
I thought you would figure it out on your own. You really need help with this?..
Science is a general term. Biology is a field of science. Therefore the fields of study ARE science.. I don't really have to break this down further for you do i? .
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
Wow.
So you think Astrology is a science.
And Mythology.
How are you able to breath without help?
odinata 2 months ago
Astrology?.. Yeah, i would say the months and the season cycles are a science... Whatever strange folk lore your atheist ancestors gave to them are not my jurisdiction. Putz.
You're scaring me now.. Mythology is the study of myth. Theology is the study of god. It is only you who is interjecting that these are the same. Any person who is not brainwashed knows they are not. I need only point you to the simple fact that Plato wrote both "mythology" and 'The Republic'.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
"Yeah, i would say the months and the season cycles are a science."
Yeah, and that's why I would say you are a dumb ass who doesn't have his facts straight.
.....
odinata 2 months ago
@knowwaie
"MYTHOLOGY
1.: an allegorical narrative "
-Merriam Webster
Fail.
odinata 2 months ago
So if you weren't such a fascist you might know how to better define science by it's function and not by some hierarchical government dictator of what qualifies as an acceptable study.
Get out of here you clown. If you could see how ridiculous your attempt is you wouldn't be surprised by my impulse to lash out at you.
knowwaie 2 months ago
@knowwaie
I'm just showing that your assertions are false.
Why the pooty mouth and the bad attitude.
If you don't like your ass getting kicked, stop talking out of it.
odinata 2 months ago
I'm sorry you don't know better.
Go goose step in formation with your leaders. Science can't rule the earth without your effort to enforce it.
knowwaie 2 months ago
"Science has been proven wrong over and over." One of the core concepts of science is that newer theories be proposed over time to explain phenomena.
"choose to believe it all came from a big explosion millions of years ago," Firstly, not belief, but acceptance of verified and testable evidence (star speed measurements, radiometry, cosmic radiation etc), which is open to change, though, very unlikely.
"Its not that you can't believe its that you refuse." Because of evidence as I said.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday icr.org is not science because of bias, unsupported claims, contradictions and plainly incorrect information (I have had a good read lol).
Get a BSc (I have) or stop arguing about what you are obviously unable to comprehend regarding scientific matters.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday "Chickens do actually have very minute tiny teeth to get out of the egg shell," actually they have what is called an (ie; one) "egg tooth" which is not a tooth at all, but named so for simplicity.
If you search Google for "panda's thumb" you get a load of rubbish. If you search scholar.google you get the real deal.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday It's quite interesting how there is no mention of Von Neumann architecture or SyNAPSE in there, makes me wonder if it is really a well thought out article...
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday The obvious answer is because the Neumann architecture of a processor is not even remotely similar to any animal brain, and the fact that an algorithm would simply not be 'compatible' with current computer systems.
There are however efforts by IBM to create SyNAPSE, which is basically the replication of neuron layout on silicon.
This is only a new foray in science research, and there is no reason to not assume newer efficient algorithms will soon be imagined.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday The obvious answer is because the Neumann architecture of a processor is not even remotely similar to any animal brain, and the fact that an algorithm would simply not be 'compatible' with current computer systems.
There are however efforts by IBM to create SyNAPSE, which is basically the replication of neuron layout on silicon.
This is only a new foray in science research, and there is no reason to not assume newer efficient algorithms will soon be imagined.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday Further to that, I am not 'angry' with believers, just intrigued why they so often hold their beliefs (often indoctrinated during childhood) so closely, without question, when there is so much to question about the very nature of 'faith'.
I dislike the chicken 'story' as you so brilliantly put it, because of the obvious lack of academic credibility and fundamental misconceptions of basic biological concepts. No doctor wrote that, I don't care what the footnote said.
krandaman1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ieatpiestoday Both 'belief' and 'faith' are resilient to change, evidence isn't. An 'eye-witness' account, by the way, is the lowest form of scientific evidence, due to all humans innately skewed perception of reality.
I try not to believe in anything on blind faith, I 'agree' with the evidence. If there came about convincing, widely-accepted evidence of a personal God, then I would only doubt that evidence as much as I doubt the method in which it was gathered.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday Both 'belief' and 'faith' are resilient to change, evidence isn't. An 'eye-witness' account, by the way, is the lowest form of scientific evidence, due to all humans innately skewed perception of reality.
I try not to believe in anything on blind faith, I 'agree' with the evidence. If there came about convincing, widely-accepted evidence of a personal God, then I would only doubt that evidence as much as I doubt the method in which it was gathered.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday Wait, wait the 'faith based' magazine article with no links to peer reviewed studies. If you pointed me to a peer reviewed scientific article, maybe I would trust it. The fact is that science is innately sceptical, therefore no hidden agenda exists to distort judgement.
I've read the article and again, pick very simple faults that no 'doctor' would make lest they have suffered from a brain injury.
But I digress, I was clearly talking about the chicken article, not the panda one.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday How ridiculous, the whole idea of a pandas thumb being different was first brought up in a book titled "The Panda's Thumb" by Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould.
"The title essay discusses the paradox that poor design is a better argument for evolution than good design, as illustrated by the anatomy of the panda's "thumb"—which is not a thumb at all—but an extension of the radial sesamoid."
The fundies had to make some crap up and post it in a 'magazine' website. Bullshit
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday A scientific theory explains all of the facts in detail, therefore intelligent design is not science or a scientific theory.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday No no, I was talking about the chicken article. You're missing the point about the panda's thumb, in that it is a functional thumb, yes, but it is a different bone structure to all other animals with a thumb, ie; convergent evolution.
The point is that intelligent design does not "explain the facts" eg: panda thumb, chicken teeth, it merely dodges them by saying "God did it". How stupid.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday Actually, I don't believe a real doctor could have written that article, firstly because I could pick out complete errors having only passed high school biology.
krandaman1 4 months ago
@ieatpiestoday I read the article about the chicken, what a load of bullshit!
krandaman1 4 months ago
Why do you guys think the universe has to be perfect in order for God to exist? Who says God is all powerful? Who says God didn't create a incredible, beautiful, universe to the best of his ability? Have any scientists created an entire universe? Let alone create a single grain of sand?
Think about that atheists.....
SanityIsSuchADrag 4 months ago
@SanityIsSuchADrag Nothing sucks more than your god of the gaps argument, especially since you have no proof of anything that is a god, just your ignorance to explain stuff.
bobster451 4 months ago
Judging by your age (if that is you in the video) you will have all the answers to your questions within 50 years.
wiebek5 5 months ago
I'm surprised I've never heard a creationist say that we wouldn't be created any more perfect because that would make things easier. No, we're only pretty perfect.
MaestroAlvis 5 months ago
This is a beautiful song. Does anyone know the name?
Science35 5 months ago
God uses Photoshop!
arialzaffir 6 months ago
If God is trying to send messages with his design , then here's what I can deduce:
1. He is lazy (by using similar parts for vastly different creatures)
2. He is careless (by giving creatures useless parts)
3. He is imperfect (by making so many specialized creatures that can be wiped out fairly easily)
4. He hates us (by making us probably the weakest natural competitors out of all creatures)
MunkyDrag0n 6 months ago 3
@MunkyDrag0n How can I agree more? By stating we are, if anything, our own "imperfect gods", we can point our "design" flaws, but we can't fix them for good? xD
ATDOINFERNO 5 months ago
great video
Zag118 7 months ago
This video have made a very good point!
Cacacos 7 months ago
If he's this stupid, then can't we all fool him and get into heaven?
centralAthiest 8 months ago