My Son kinda converted me over a few years ago to use a "scientific mind" so to speak. Dawkins point is a great one if you use the scientific mind to understand & solve problems and gain new knowledge.To not be tied-down by dogma,ego & such allow one to discover new solutions easier by rejecting one solution for a better one without the stifling effects of ego & dogma.
Being "emotionally invested" can really limit your problem-solving ability. The more I learn of science, the more I like it.
who are your parents ? they was just a way for you to get here . so it took sperm to make you but who put life in that sperm ? isnt it like frankenstein ! you have the body but you need something to bring that body to life . so your parents gave you the body threw sperm . but were did the life come from ? so i think it,s finaly time to shut you down we ben at it to long . can science take a dead body and bring it back to life .NO .so were dose the life source come from . by !
@thinkalott33 No god made the human body. My answer is this- if you didn't exist (I'm guessing this what you're implying from this comment alone) then would you ever pose this question?
@BentOnTheCross everything in the world has a designer . a car has a designer . a house has a designer . why wouldnt the the human body also have a designer !
@BentOnTheCross you no what i like you i think were going to have fun . you say that evolution is a designer . but a designer first sketches out a plan . because a designer has for thought . meaning he has a mind and he is consents of what he is designing . according to science . Evolution is consent of nothing .
@BentOnTheCross IT IS CALLED a WITNESSES . in the court of law . facts can be proven if the credit of the witnesses are good . thats why God made sure that many men wrote in the book of God . that way you have many witnesses ! if only one man told the story of the bible . and there was only one disciple of jesus who would think it was the truth . thats why we no there is a God . because there are to many witnesses to the facts . and why do atheist fight the God of the bible the hardest ?
@thinkalott33 Witness does not equal fact. What if I told you I witnessed a flying spaghetti monster (FSM) and then several other people saw a way to make profit and exploit people from the FSM- they would claim they are also messengers for him. The Church of the FSM could be formed and people mind raped while the church makes profit. Oh, by the way, many 'witnesses' could all have motives to lie- look up the Salem Witch Trails, etc. The story makers of the bible aren't credible, nor in court.
@BentOnTheCross that flying spaghetti monster comment dont move me at all . it,s a little played out dont you think . AND HOW CAN SOMETHING CALLED THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER DROWN OUT THE TRUTH OF GOD . YOU CALL THAT SMART ! SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING A 4TH GRADER WOULD SAY . LOL
@thinkalott33 My point still stands, you sound a little upset. Why don't you address my point? And the FSM is alot more logical than your sky daddy, he is the true god you sinning infidel!
@BentOnTheCross wow the devil has blessed your tongue ! but let me tell you that the truth will always stand the test of time . just like the devil was tossed from heaven for his dirty lieing words . let every man that lie on God be tossed from the glory of life .
@thinkalott33 Translation: "I have nothing useful to say in my position's defense, so I'll just throw out some specious threat, take a dump on the game board, knock over the pieces, and run away declaring victory while wearing my underwear on my head"
Damn you're convincing, I can't believe anyone could possibly find your magical claims incredulous.
@thinkalott33 The only thing I might be afraid of is the fact that a developed country like the US still has semi-analfabetic imbeciles who think the world is designed.
@luminaeus AND YES YOU ARE RIGHT . WE ALL CAN FROM THE DIRT OF THE EARTH . AND WE ARE NOT COPYS . BECAUSE WE ALL DO NOT HAVE THE SAME D.N.A ! BUT GOD SAID I MADE MAN IN MY OWN ENMAGE . SO WE ARE NOT COPYS OF OUR SELFS . BUT WE ARE ALL COPYS OF GODS ENMAGE !
"in the light of intelligent criticism, Christians wilt like a salted snail". he he...
Joseph Priestly - the discoverer of Oxygen had his laboratory in Birmingham smashed and destroyed by a mob shouting for Church and King. fortunately he escaped and crossed the Atlantic to America, as did the great Thomas Pain, who wafted across on the same tide of ideas, innovation and free-thinking.
@upaste"in the light of intelligent criticism, scientificists/freethinkers wilt like a salted snail". he he...
I find that same is true for those who don't have a well thought out world view. this includes atheist, materialist, scientists, and the fact that those that champion scientifism too. i like science but for the most part it is god awfully boring work. those that claim that science is fascinating should try doing accounting or taxes some ppl find that fascinating too but most don't.
@theinquisitor love your intelligent and witty comments. religious belief systems become a barrier for their eyes. they cling to their faith because their feeble minds need answers even if those answers are absurd. let go and they will experience fear and uncertainty and they can't deal with that. their man-made fiction gives them consolation, opium. thank God I don't need that. until we outgrow this nonsense we have no hope of emancipating ourselves.
@upaste i hope you understand that atheism is a belief system like any other. it is your feeble mind that needs answers too. for instance, can you prove that there is no god, no, but yet you believe it anyway. that's faith good sir. you base the way you live and the way you think on something that you can't prove. you're not standing on shaky ground of faith are you? oh but you are, and this only goes to prove that you are just as much addicted to the opium that you deride.
@RedLetter... your comment to me is misguided. I'm not an atheist or a theist. I have no need to believe that God exists or not. in fact, I tend to believe there is a God due to all the intelligence I see in nature. the fact that I don't need answers is my freedom. I am not against Christians, I simply find most of their beliefs to be immoral. I believe in an underlying consciousness as the basis of existence, certainly not any of the pathetic, intellectually bankrupt notions of religion.
@upaste i apologize for my assumptions. i would disagree with you that christianity isn't moral but that's another conversation entirely. it's just that often when people agree with the pope (dawkins) they tend to be just as condescending and immature as he often is and i try to simply point out that their world view can and should be criticized just as strongly for the gaping holes that they blindly overlook to make their world view seem built proof. which it isn't. so again my apologies.
@RedLetter... no worries. nice to have a rational discussion. I've read the Gnostic gospels (the Nag Hammadi texts) and found them much more interesting than the bible. I think Jesus probably was a real person, and a man of immense insight into the spiritual world. I would like to explain what I find immoral about Christian beliefs but there is not enough space to write this on YT. when I reduced myself to emptiness I had a profound experience but its impossible to describe or share that.
@upaste the Nag Hammadi texts aren't necessarily gnostic texts. in the manor that gnostics of the day would understand gnosticism. there are people that love to call them as such but the Nag Hammadi collection was found in a library that had gnostic texts in it but that by no means makes the Nag Hammadi texts gnostic. just as there are books on teddy bear picnics and books on glass blowing in the same library it doesn't mean that they both are related. unless the teddy bears are blowing glass.
@upaste if you would like to drop me a line via personal message I would love to hear about your experiences and your conclusions. I'm not on youtube with any regularity. sometimes lots and then a month goes by and I'm like, hey, i should really check this or that out and then I'm back for a while but if you p.m. I promise to read what you send and respond. but I wont guarantee i'll reply within a short period but i'll try.
@RedLetterChristian you misunderstand the meaning of the term atheist. So does upaste. Everyone is either a theist, or they aren't. An atheist is someone who isn't a theist. That includes people who have a positive belief in the non-existence of god, and those who lack any belief or opinion or even knowledge of the concept of god. Saying not believing in god is a belief system is like saying not playing football is a sport. I don't believe god doesn't exist, I just don't believe god exists.
@theinquisitor you've been listening to the pope (dawkins)for too long. when one says that they are an atheist they are making a positive claim that they know that their is no God or gods. just a when one identifies them self as a theist they are making a positive claim that they know that there is a God or gods. atheism is a positive statement that simply means one believes that there is no god or not gods. agnosticism is the positiv position that you can't know there is or isn't a god or gods
@RedLetterChristian I tell you what I mean when I say I'm an atheist, and you respond with "no, that's not what you mean, what you mean is this..."
How am I supposed to respond to that? Tell what else I'm thinking.
Look, whatever label you want to put on the state of mind of finding all arguments and evidence for the existence of god that I've ever been presented with to be inadequate to justify those claims, that's my position. I'm not making a positive claim, I just don't accept your claim.
It also has roster with snake tail and satyr, Greek mythology character. I find Harry Potter and Narnia far more amusing. Less violence and discrimination too...
And I can cite several examples of the dogmatic proponents of SCIENTISM...
Anyone heard of Professor Barry Marshal?
He dared to oppose the accepted theory that peptic ulcers were caused by an over production of gastric acid. Rather they were infectious ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori bacteria. He was all but crucified by the scientific establishment that were heavily invested in the former theory.
His persecution included blackmail, slander, and even death threats...
@Hammersley1967, firstly that's not several that's one. And you didn't cite any sources. I did a google search for "Barry Marshall" "death threat" and found nothing except pages that contained these as unrelated phrases. Who sent these death threats and blackmail? Or is asking for evidence too SCIENTISMY?
However, isn't the scientific consensus now in favour of the bacterial explanation of stomach ulcers? So how is this a criticism of the scientific community? This is an example of it working.
Yes, in case you hadn't noticed, the comment boxes only allow for 500 characters. Just Wikipedia Barry Marshall. You'll be able to read the whole story. In the end he was so desperate for the blackballing to end that he infected himself and then cured himself.
The point is that their was a violent emotional reaction form those scientists that were heavily invested in the dominant paradigm against Marshall's hypothesis.
@Hammersley1967, I read the whole article and saw nothing about blackmail. Just that no-one believed him until he provided evidence of his theory. That's not a criticism of science. That's why it works. He provided the evidence, albeit through drastic methods, and the scientists changed their minds. Where is the blackmail and death threats? If the scientific consensus had failed to shift, that would be evidence of dogmatism, but it has shifted, so what is your criticism? I honestly don't get it.
"If the scientific consensus had failed to shift, that would be evidence of dogmatism, but it has shifted, so what is your criticism? I honestly don't get it."
And if the RELIGIOUS consensus had failed to shift, that would be evidence of dogmatism, but it has shifted, so what is your criticism? I honestly don't get it.
"Practitioners of gastroenterology and the pharmaceutical industry were both heavily invested in the theory that peptic ulcers were caused by emotional stress and stomach acids, and could only be treated with repeated courses of antacid medication ... The targets of his criticism soon sought to discredit HIM and his research. One prominent gastroenterologist dismissed him as "a crazy guy saying crazy things." "
@Hammersley1967, so one of his contemporaries called him crazy. Is that it? Scientists are brutal in their criticisms of other scientists. If the originator of that quote was asked today about Marshal's theory, he would be the one being marginalised if he refused to accept the new evidence. If he's still denying the facts AFTER the evidence emerges, then the scientific community will marginalise him for that. I'm still waiting for evidence of death threats and blackmail.
"However, isn't the scientific consensus now in favour of the bacterial explanation of stomach ulcers?"
However, isn't the religious consensus that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa? So how is Galileo's persecution a criticism of religion? Isn't this an example of religion working?
The fact is, those proponents of the dominant gastric acid paradigm were deeply, emotionally, and uncritically attached to their ideology.
@Hammersley1967, the religious consensus didn't change because of internal pressures. It changed because of external pressure from science. This is the church getting dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by the rest of society, not a positive aspect of the church itself.
How about the widespread religious resistance to evolution? I suppose you'll say religion deserves credit for being progressive when it's eventually embarrassed enough to admit it's mistake there too.
"religious consensus didn't change because of internal pressures. It changed because of external pressure from science"
External pressure from science? You speak as if science is a football team. Science is merely a method of investigation. The evidence mounted and eventually even the most ardent proponents of the old world view converted to the new paradigm. You could just as easily argue that scientific consensus (scientists) changes from the "external pressure from science".
@Hammersley1967, the fact that the geocentrism is false was revealed by the methods of science, not the methods of religion. That's what I mean when I say it wasn't religion that caused the shift in the religious consensus. Galileo's approach and those of later astronomers was not revelation or prayer, it was observation and hypothesis testing. Ergo, science changed the religious consensus, religion didn't. Everyone could see the church was wrong about geocentrism. It was an embarrassment.
@theinquisitor scientist can and do hang onto beliefs with as much religious fervor as "religious people" do. why is this?because we don't like having our worldview or presuppositions questioned. science can be petty b/c but it involves grant money, prestige, pride, ego, pet theories, might have to rethink everything, i'm rt and he's wrong b/c i don't like him/her, was their method/experiment wasn't sound,ky assumption is wrong, margin of error too big, data is based on antidotal evidence. ect.
No, religious people are the only ones that don't accept facts just because they don't like it and because it disproves their beliefs. Scientists are not like that, as you've just heard from Richard Dawkins...
@skadi87skadi "Scientists are not like that, as you've just heard from Richard Dawkins..." EXACTLY !!! Sure, there are intellectually dishonest people in all professions. But new understandings & knowledge do not come from the minds of those who cannot accept better theories.... they come from the minds of those who are NOT tied-down by dogma, faith-based beliefs and absolutes.....the scientific minded.
"However, isn't the scientific consensus now in favour of the bacterial explanation of stomach ulcers?"
However, isn't the religious consensus that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa? So how is Galileo's persecution a criticism of religion? Isn't this an example of religion working?
The fact is, those proponents of the dominant gastric acid paradigm were deeply, emotionally, and uncritically attached to their ideology.
Much more important than any aging-brain issue: science has to contend with the "Semmelweis reflex". I think physicist Richard Feynman saw this going on in his day and I think it's with us today as much as ever, particularly with regard to softer sciences. Maybe not "dogma", exactly, but anyone looking into it (I think anyone interested in science really should) would have to admit there are strong similarities. Sometimes change is painfully slow.
This is true but the process is often not that instant. According to Boorstin's "The Discoverers" there's actually a joke out there regarding older scientists--that at age 65 they should be shot, if I remember it correctly, because it becomes so much more difficult for them to accept new ideas. And these guys typically hold "power positions". I think even Darwin faced this difficulty with an older professor friend of his, though it worked out between them eventually. :)
Consider if you will, that the world can be divided into two very distinct groups. Those who believe in a supreme being, and those who seem to spend all of their time saying there isn't one.
@theinquisitor First we can look at all the artifacts, I understand artifacts that support the Bible are around the same number as what supports evolution, either they are both right or both wrong.
@daddyg321, considering just fossils, as I understand it, there are millions of them. A single university or museum could have thousands. There are tens of thousands of species of trilobyte fossils alone. And it's not just the fossils. Genetic evidence backs up evolution too. And it's been observed happening in bacteria and even some invertebrates (yes macroevolution). Nothing close to that exists to confirm the events in the bible. E.g. archaeologists find no evidence of the exodus from Egypt.
@theinquisitor In the time of King David Isreal two kingdoms joined forces to attack Isreal.The records from Isreal and the first kingdom were found ,the records of the second kingdom have recently been found, three supporting independent sources would be considered proof in any other case.In Egypt recently coins were found bearing Josephs name and pictures of grain and cows. Have you ever heard of the dead sea scrolls? There are thousands more ,the finding or artifacts seldom makes the news.
@daddyg321, that is evidence for those specific events, but only those specific events. Using sporadic examples to demonstrate the truth of the entirely of the book is not reasonable. The Spider-man comics mention New York city and we know there's a New York city, so there must be a Spider-man. That's obviously illogical. Coins of Joseph don't demonstrate the miracles of Jesus or anything about the bible that really matters to the demonstration of Christianity's metaphysics.
@theinquisitor And a few old bones doesn't prove evolution either, thats why evolution is considered a religion in non-Christian locations,and a double standard that bad looks ridiculous.
@daddyg321, as I said it's more than "a few old bones". It's millions of them located in the strata where they should be based on evolutionary predictions. And there's the evidence from genetics. Even if we had no fossils, the evidence from microbiology alone would be sufficient to demonstrate evolution. Your willful ignorance of the evidence isn't an argument against the facts. Also, most Christians accept evolution. You've been misled. Please read a non-creationist book about the subject.
@theinquisitor Please learn to read.In all my comments I never made an arguement against evolution,I claim science also supports the Bible. What most people think is irrelevent to the truth(flat earth, center of the solar system, center of the universe,no gorillas, no giant squid,sharks are harmless).I was a science and industrial arts major,now an electronic tech and so it seems you and those like you are willfully ignorant. How many books have you read that scientificly support the Bible?
@daddyg321, the point is that you are horrifyingly ignorant of evolution if you think it is a religion. I'll admit to a lack of much expertise about the bible, but the idea that it is scientifically supported is absurd. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I've somehow missed this in all the science news I read. Perhaps you could give an example of a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal that supports your claim. Or perhaps not.
@theinquisitor Again what comments have I made against evolution? And again examples of peer reviewed science,no gorillas,no giant squids, sharks are harmless,climategate,flat earth,earth as center or the solar system and the universe.Again I mentioned the deadsea scrolls, the coins showing Joseph, the records of the third kingdom in a war with Isreal. Now show me where I made a statement against evolution,which is not even the subject of my comments.
Man, you are lucky that theinquisitor takes the time to answer you...
Yes, the Bible is an historical fact, but it's still myth-based, like every other religious book.
You are an example of why evolution seems sometimes slow, especially for our short-life species : please, try to live in 2010, not in 1 BC... you deserve better than old myths and superstitions, even if they make sense to you.
Or at least, be agnostic about it : it's OK not to know.
Science is based on a method that cheers for updates and new discoveries. It allows change, it just want to be as objective as possible. Some scientists may be corrupted by money or their ego, but science will always adapt and evolve.
Only fools do not change their point of view, and I do not see what made you think I was one.
I'm an atheist/agnostic, I like Dawkins but I can still understand why you think he's a dork... because he can be so narrow-minded sometimes, like he's detached from his emotions. And the «Brights» thing is pure BS.
Still, science does NOT support the Bible, if you mean what the Bible says. It's quite the opposite!
@HalfFullYeah Hes narrow-minded,arrogant,rude,and knows little if anything about Christianity. Do a search for archaeological support for the Bible you will find many, many artifacts. If these artifactsdon't mean anything the fossil record must also be dismissed.
@daddyg321, what kind of artifacts can support the conclusion that the extraordinary events in the Bible occurred? Such as the miracles of Jesus or his virgin birth? I have no trouble believing that there was probably a man called Jesus who preached and had followers. But how would you demonstrate that he was divine or that he was resurrected etc?
@theinquisitor "Was probably a man named Jesus",ther are many many jewish and roman reports on Jesus,and His existence has never been doubted. If you don't know the subject any better than that go learn about before commenting. It is betterto keep one mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.
@daddyg321, so your response to my question is essentially: "shut up you're a fool". How could any report or artifact possibly demonstrate that someone was born of a virgin, performed miracles or was resurrected? Your evasion and insult betrays the fact that such a thing could not be demonstrated by mere reports and artifacts. We have contemporary reports of miracles being performed by supposed holy men. Why do such reports become so much more convincing when they come from the 1st century?
@theinquisitor Attempting any discussion with an atheist is like argueing with a spoiled five year old. You imply that you don't accept that Jesus was a true historical person, then when call on it ignore the on going arguement. Such behavior shows one to be ignorant and stupid,if someone points out a car speeding at you claiming it isn't real will not stop it from hitting you.Archaeology supports the Bible and evolution=both are true or both are false, grow up.
@daddyg321 I never said I didn't accept the historicity of Jesus. I'm just asking how reports or artifacts could demonstrate that he was divine and not just a man. Telling people they're stupid for not believing you is not a good way to witness. Aren't you supposed to draw people into your faith? Not alienate them by calling anyone who asks questions a child.
I'll ask again. How could any report or artifact demonstrate that Jesus performed miracles or was resurrected? Why won't you answer?
@theinquisitor Reviw back a few days,"there was PROBABILY a man named Jesus",implies you doubt. And thanks again for showing the world the mentality of atheists.
@daddyg321, is that supposed to be a criticism? You think doubt is a bad thing? Can you explain to me what is wrong with leaving room for the possibility that I might be wrong? You imply that I should be absolutely certain of my opinions and not even consider the possibility that I might be in error. Is that the position you hold? That it's impossible for you to be wrong about this issue? That's called closed mindedness. Please correct me if I misunderstood you. I could be wrong, could you?
@theinquisitor Like I said "it's like argueing with a spoiled five year old. To imply some thing then claim you did not directly say it is considered dishonest game playing, standard atheism,and refusing to deal with the archaeology arguement implies defeat on the point, ignoring the facts seems to be another atheist trait.
@daddyg321, what is it I supposedly said then backpedaled about? I've not been dishonest. I could have made a mistake. Where did I contradict myself? I'm asking to be shown where I'm wrong. I'm not ignoring the argument or facts, I'm asking you to explain it to me and show me the evidence.
You're the one ignoring my questions and refusing to provide any justifications for your argument beyond vague references to archaeology. You also ignored my question about the value of doubt.
u don't seem like u know how to read..he's not necessarily arguing that a man named jesus didn't exist..he's saying how can we know that he was resurrected, born of a virgin, and performed miracles?..this witnesses to his "miracles" were mostly superstitious peasants from thousands of years ago..this is enough for u to worship jesus as the son of god?
@itzahazylife I believe I remember him commenting a few times that there is no proof that Jesus ever existed,and often talks about this supposed Jesus, not this supposed savior, or supposed messiah. If he mis-speaks that often he can't be as smart as he puts on and neither can his followers.
Have you ever had a conversation about a fictional character?
It's quite possible to talk about the qualities and personalities of Harry Potter while simultaenously knowing that he never existed.
And this is the best attack you can come up with, that Dawkins doesn't explicitly reaffirm the non-existence of a main character in a work of fiction every time he talks about it?
@luminaeus As with all atheists documented facts that support other points of view aren't acknowledged, all while claiming to hold science dear. It would be laughable if atheist weren't so pushy.What happens when reality can't be denied?
I study language for a living. I think it's more likely that the breakdown in communication here can be blamed on your reading comprehension. English isn't your native language.
But I'll simplify for you.
You made a comment about atheists denying fact and reality. This is ironic, because it is fact and reality that lead people to atheism.
Then I asked you to provide examples of the 'facts' that I am supposedly denying.
Dawkins is describing the way science is supposed to work in an ideal world. In reality:
“. . . scientists also have feelings and biases which might influence their work, they may relish the prestige which publicity may bring, and they have been known to cheat and ‘fudge’ experimental results to make their work ‘look good,’ or to defend a failing theory.”
- Willard Young, “Fallacies of Creationism,” 1985, p. 119.
This is from an anti-creationist, folks. Reality's a bitch, ain't it?
@bestvalue, well he did explicitly state that this is the scientific *ideal*. Of course scientists have biases, but that's why there are methods like double blind trials, peer review and repeatability that allow scientific theories to be verified or disproven. Completely unlike religion, which is designed to be unfalsifiable. If science didn't have these methods of self-correction it wouldn't produce anything. As Carl Sagan said, science delivers the goods.
PS to Inquisitor: Richard Dawkins is not open to the possibility of God, therefore any results of any scientific proof of God would be dismissed by him ,unlike his revered professor.
@Keenan, that's not true actually. In "The God Delusion", he describes a 7 point scale where 1 is absolute certainty in the existence of a god, and 7 is absolute certainty in the non-existence of a god. On this scale, he ranks himself as a 6.
He is open to the possibility of the the existence of gods in the same sense that he is open to the possibility of the existence of leprechauns, goblins and dragons. The problem is the total lack of evidence for any of those things, or any gods.
@Keenan1923, I agree with theinquisiter, I don't see where you get that. The problem with a Christian or a Muslim god is there is so much contradictory evidence and proof against them that it basically is not possible for either of them to exist in the context that nearly any sect of Islam and Christianity would ever view that god as.
@Keenan1923 Just extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. For instance if you claim, that crocodiles can fly (levitate) you must show me a flying (levitating) crocodile as easy as that. Same things with religion, if you want to proof your god's existence you must show me your god. Explanations why you can't do that (special pleading) is not evidence, because you can proof even the most ridiculous claims this way (Sagan's dragon, Russells teapot, etc.).
science and math are equally man made tools, they are inherent qualities and ultimately extensions of our brains capabilities. Not the other way round. There is no proof of any differences in the brains of scientists and theologist.
Dawkins lacks the creativity of other great scientist, and therefore comes across as 2nd rate.(by his own admittance's) "he's no Newton!" not to mention boringly contradictory.
Dawkins is a dork, science does what humans are always doing anyway. We are always learning and developing technology. Science is just an extension of man, not the other way round. Scientific method is a philosophy. and dawkins is a bore at best.
"Good to use your head so that you don't get dudded but its also good to use your heart so that you don't go around stuffing people over"
I will never understand some peoples ridiculous posit that the heart is some sort of independent consciousness, having its own feelings, making its own decisions.
The "heart" just like the "soul" usually means the subconscious or putting it in terms of Cartesion logic the "mind" that is separate from the body. We all have it and acknowledge it in some form, some people say heart, others soul, others unconscious. It's that part of you we can't explain with physiology, your ability to think and feel. At least that's what intelligent people who use the term mean.
Your subconscious is located in the brain, so why not just say brain. And the mind is not separate from the body, all one need do is witness the results of brain injury to understand that. We are not more than the sum of our parts.
Lastly I'm not sure what existentialist crap you're into, however the mind can be explained through physiology and biology. The fact that we do not yet know "why" the mind works does not equate to not knowing "how" it works.
You can dislike the ideas all you want but that's what they are referring to. From your comment I got that you didn't get that, obviously you do but just don't accept it in any way, which is fine, but a little depressing. And don't insult me. It's rude.
Don't insult you? How exactly did I do that? Pointing out the obvious? Ever heard the saying "call a spade a spade"? Yes, I "got" your comment, and it's unintelligent to call something other than what it is. And whether your "intelligent people use the term" was directed at me or not, it's incorrect.
"what existentialist crap you're into" if that wasn't meant to be insulting than I might need to look the word up again. It's not misnaming something to be unintelligent, it's built into our language because that's how people have been talking for hundreds maybe thousands of years. People say heart and soul in the context I explained are what I meant by intelligent, people who actually think their heart feel go under unintelligent. heart is an artistic way of putting these things, not literal.
I guess you should look up the word again. Existentialism is a belief that our existence is based more on the ether than biology. It is that which I am referring as crap, or I guess a better word would be ridiculousness. But you can take it personally if you wish.
As you grow older you'll learn that majority opinion is not akin to correctness. Just because alot of people (and its less than you think) use a term, does not mean its right to do so.
You assuming I believe in something then calling it crap is an insult in my book but that doesn't matter. I never said the majority of people were correct so don't assume I'm naive. I put intelligent in quotes for a reason. Your first post seemed like you believed all people that used the term actually thought their heart felt. I was correcting that idea, whether existentialism is true isn't the concern here.
So basically your reply to my first post is exactly what you're accusing me of now. Assuming I believed something I don't. We call that being a hypocrite, that's a great word to look up, but not something you want to be.
My post was, and remains, the fact that people should not be nonsensical in their iterations. That is the concern here.
No my first post was only to inform you what people meant by heart didn't get to say it's used as an artistic expression And using it as an artistic expression for their beliefs existential or isn't not nonsensical It's perfectly sensible to assume people know you don't actually think your heart guides you. In the quote you used in your first post, the word heart is a reference to moral and ethical thinking, but instead of being boring they put some flare on it, nothing wrong with theatricality
No, your first post was to state that "Your first post seemed like you believed all people that used the term actually thought their heart felt. I was correcting that idea"
See that's the nice thing about a thread, you can always call people on their lies later on. I guess pointing out that people should be more intelligent in their speech is falling on deaf ears. For the record, if something tells me "their heart told them so" I think they're an idiot.
Ok, let me refine this since you seem not to get what I'm trying to say, from your first post, it seemed you thought people meant heart literally, I was just trying to explain what the smart ones who use the term actually mean. People can talk technically all they want but it puts you to sleep. No one intelligent who uses the word heart to mean feeling or moral guide actually mean their heart is a moral guide, they use it to convey thoughts of morality in an artistic sense.
@eurisko67 "We are not more than the sum of our parts"? that is like saying humans are no more or no less than other mammals. Then where are the monkey jets?... why would the universe evolve a creature to be conscious of its own random meaninglessness? if there was no meaning to contemplating why we are, then we would not be doing so...
@romney27: " why would the universe evolve a creature to be conscious of its own random meaninglessness?"
As Aristotle said "We are so desperate for meaning, we invent it".
Why are there no monkey jets? Because Monkeys don't eat red meat. Providing a vital protein responsible for the expansion and growth of the homo-sapien brain. Allowing the development of a larger cerebral cortex, increasing intelligence.
Ever picked up a book on evolution? You're an animal, a smart one, but an animal.
@eurisko67 " Aristotle said" meaning as a tool of introspection is unnatural? because? invention is inherent to the human condition and 100% natural, so by what authority is the observable getting it wrong?
Chimps eat red meat, so that can't be it...lol actually it's because we cook our food, but that's another story. Memes now days move quickly, so it might be hard for some to keep up.
humans are mammals yes, but there is more to us than being animals. maybe you should look around and see.
@romney27 Don't sweat it kid. Use whatever delusion makes you happy. 90% of the people on earth rely on the delusion that a supreme being makes their lives count for something, so you're not alone.
But if you look around, you'll see that at our base, we are no better than animals, and in some instances worse. Animals don't kill for pleasure, or land, or their beliefs. Watch someone beheaded because they don't believe in allah and tell me we're not animals.
@eurisko67 for one who can't distinguish human consciousness from animal consciousness, you still got some of it right. The 90% part. Only one thing, animals do rape and murder each other so that's not entirely correct. I'm not sure about their beliefs, but if they are just like us, as you say, then they must have them? At least your logic seems to suggest that. But none of this matters because it is all with in the realm of natural evolution. remember there's nothing to say that it's not...lol
You certainly make many incorrect assumptions. And please re-read my comments before making inane responses. Yes, animals rape and kill each other, they do not however, do it for pleasure as we do. They do it to procreate and eat to survive.
And I did not say animals are just like us, I said we are animals. Only a fool would try to assign one species behavior to another.
I agree we are animals, but obviously we dominate our environment in a very unique way. If there was no reason to become self conscious then evolution would not of evolved a creature to do so. Even if that creature is only conscious of itself. I'm not sure if you understand the power to manifest your own destiny, but for some of us, we give meaning to our own existence vs. just allowing life to happen to us randomly. try it sometime, it's fun...lol
"If there was no reason to become self conscious then evolution would not of evolved a creature to do so."
All you're doing is replacing word "god" with "evolution". Another theist tactic to try and sound intelligent. Like calling creationism "Intelligent Design". What will you people come up with next...
And always trying to justify man's brutality with nonsense. Raping dolphins huh? Lame.
@eurisko67 I think the grand canyon was created too, only I think it was do to the forces of water. But if you want to assume that you could imagine what I think, then go right ahead. I kinda like the image of a guy in a rob with a shovel. maybe I got you all wrong... you do have an active imagination...lol
@eurisko67 I'm replacing the scientific concept of the singularity of the big bang with the word god. You know the creationist story of the "Big Bang" don't you? It's similar to the omni potent force that created the everything, that the theist have. that sounds accurate to the bibles creationist story...lol you just can't catch a break, can you?
@holdenbane magic is for people who are confused by what they see... besides raping is a little harsh, I prefer to hump it a little till it fits into place.
just kidding, I just don't let life befuddle me so much, and choose to do my own deep thinking... hang in there, tricks are for kids...lo
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell :
no, that pretty much covers religion and the idea of deity. my point is god means god and not 'big bang'. you are just swapping words that don't at all have the same meaning or implications.
@holdenbane if you look deeper into the history of the big bang, you'll find that there was some catholic guy promoting the idea strongly from the beginning, because he felt that it was a perfect description of what religion had been saying all along. So one could say that the connection is very real, and not mine at all.... history isn't science either, but whatcha going to do?
@romney27 that doesn't really have anything to do with it. the word god still means magical deity and 'big bang' still refers to a mass expansion of our universe. not at all the same concept. the scientific theory in no way invokes the supernatural. history certainly is science if you have present day evidence of it.
@holdenbane besides you can believe that there is a magic guy in the sky and that he's looking down on you and loves you...ect ect..And if that brings one comfort in this life, then science already proves that there's a benefit to ones physiology, in that it has a positive effect on ones body... so clearly a god doesn't have to exist to benefit in believing that one does... I.e. why else would religion and beliefs in gods exist? also you're just wrong...lol
@romney27, I have to agree with holdenbane here, you keep equivocating. Even if it was true that religion had been demonstrated to make people happy, so have recreational drugs. It doesn't make the hallucinations caused by the drugs or the doctrines of the religion any closer to reality. Even if life was unbearable without belief in gods, that would do NOTHING to demonstrate the existence of any god. Do you act like any other belief in your life is true because it's comforting? Any other belief?
@theinquisitor I don't think comparing drugs, an external stimulant, to the minds own ability to make its own chemicals based on belief alone is a good comparison.
Funny you condemn religion on your own projections rather than any actual examples. I think the bible talks about not killing people, so by your logic this is a hallucination? Logic is pretty clear about "absolutes" as a fallacy.
or you can just answer the question as to why religions and beliefs in god exist.
@romney27 "I think the bible talks about not killing people, so by your logic this is a hallucination?"
nah, but i'm fairly sure unicorns, talking donkeys, talking snakes, dragons, angels, demons, magic etc are all hallucinations. sure, the bible has a few nice things to say, but most of it is just bat shit crazy.
@romney27, I was simply trying to point out the fact that something isn't true just because it would make you feel better if it was.
The fact that the bible condemns murder (sometimes) doesn't do anything to demonstrate it's truth value in it's other claims. If Batman condemns murder in a Batman comic, does that make the rest of the comic factual?
You can't make the case that the bible is entirely true because part of it can be shown to be true. Otherwise you could prove that Batman exists
@theinquisitor there is a difference in "true" and "truth".... my question would be what does living a rational life looks like? and what benefit would evolve from such a life?
love is not rational, yet as a component to sexual selection, it's right up there with natural selection...no one picks who their going to reproduce with based on a list of things that are rational, but how they feel about what is true... big difference.
@romney27, again, you conflate. Values are not facts. Of course rationality is not sufficient to lead a good life. We weren't talking about what we value, like love or justice or chicken soup. We're talking about facts. That is the domain of rationality. Whether a god exists is a matter of fact, not a matter of value. Whether you love this god, yeah that doesn't have to be rational, but the fact of it's existence does. You don't determine facts with your emotions, unless you're an idiot.
@theinquisitor emotions as idiocy is stupid...lol no way to separate emotion from rationality considering that the two areas of the brain where these qualities come from are literally connected. The grand canyon can inspire happiness of the appreciation of existence or it could just be a bitch of a big hole in the way....
a none existent god has been proven to change physiology, so in fact it doesn't matter if one exist. I think that is proof enough to explains it's existence.
Science requires that you address the observed as in religions and beliefs in gods exist. Atheism is just an opinion of why what is observed shouldn't be observed, which is not scientific at all, in fact it's an emotional appeal. Funny that you want to juxtapose the none existent with a claim of rationality. Atheism is ideology plane and simple... not to mention ironic.
or you tell me why religion exist and beliefs in gods... and if you can throw in some science that would be swell.
@romney27, I didn't say emotions are idiotic. I said using your emotions to determine FACTS is stupid.
You don't say "I'd be happy if I had a million dollars" and therefore determine that it is FACT that you have the money. You'd use your rationality and check the bloody ATM wouldn't you?
I will address your next statement about atheism and why religion exists as soon as you address this astonishingly simple point. You don't just believe whatever you want to be true? Do you?!
@theinquisitor lol... truth is subjective, it's just that simple. the glass is half empty or half full... if I believe one person good, that wouldn't mean that someone couldn't think them bad? what is truth in that situation?
the grand canyon doesn't experience you looking at it... so yes quite clearly it's up to the individual to choose how to look at it. there is the answer, you don't get how "free will" works?...lol apparently you have no idea.
@romney27, ah so you're a postmodernist. That explains why nothing you say is in the least bit coherent and seems to have nothing to do with my responses. Why don't you just make it your subjective truth that you can fly and jump off a building? I don't have time for postmodernists. It's such a pointless and lazy solipsistic way of dismissing everything. The grand canyon exists whether you look at it or not. If you disagree, then try crossing the street with your eyes closed.
@theinquisitor actually Im a conceptual transgressive.... that's just a fancy idea for "it's over your head...lol"
the grand canyon doesn't exist if no one is here to see it..... observation is required for existence... remember that's how science works too. Dose the infinite exist between the whole numbers if man wasn't here to conceptualize it? Or for that fact do the numbers exist if no one were here to count them? the list of examples are endless... ; )
"the grand canyon doesn't exist if no one is here to see it..... observation is required for existence"
Even if that was true, there is no possible way you could know it. It is by definition an untestable and baseless claim. You cannot have any possible reason to make this assumption. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Fuckin' illiterates.
uriituw 5 months ago
My Son kinda converted me over a few years ago to use a "scientific mind" so to speak. Dawkins point is a great one if you use the scientific mind to understand & solve problems and gain new knowledge.To not be tied-down by dogma,ego & such allow one to discover new solutions easier by rejecting one solution for a better one without the stifling effects of ego & dogma.
Being "emotionally invested" can really limit your problem-solving ability. The more I learn of science, the more I like it.
orangemod 6 months ago
That story is an inspiration. The real kind, not the kind of "inspiration" you hear about from most people, who just want to be made to feel good.
instereovideos 6 months ago
how can anyone believe in something that cant be proven true? i will never get that.
trampledone 7 months ago
only a scientist could not "give in", but acknowledge the better argument.
overether 8 months ago 13
This has been flagged as spam show
who are your parents ? they was just a way for you to get here . so it took sperm to make you but who put life in that sperm ? isnt it like frankenstein ! you have the body but you need something to bring that body to life . so your parents gave you the body threw sperm . but were did the life come from ? so i think it,s finaly time to shut you down we ben at it to long . can science take a dead body and bring it back to life .NO .so were dose the life source come from . by !
thinkalott33 10 months ago
@thinkalott33
didn't read much about biology and human life, didn't you ?
KLSeba 7 months ago
@KLSeba didnt have to . so let me ask you this what is science with out the human body . if God did not make the human body . what would you study ?
thinkalott33 7 months ago
@thinkalott33 No god made the human body. My answer is this- if you didn't exist (I'm guessing this what you're implying from this comment alone) then would you ever pose this question?
BentOnTheCross 7 months ago
@BentOnTheCross everything in the world has a designer . a car has a designer . a house has a designer . why wouldnt the the human body also have a designer !
thinkalott33 7 months ago
Evolution is a designer. Via variation and selection, it serves to favor reproduction and shape things according to environmental conditions.
If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?
Design comes forth by the natural laws that govern our universe.
BentOnTheCross 7 months ago
@BentOnTheCross you no what i like you i think were going to have fun . you say that evolution is a designer . but a designer first sketches out a plan . because a designer has for thought . meaning he has a mind and he is consents of what he is designing . according to science . Evolution is consent of nothing .
thinkalott33 7 months ago
@thinkalott33 "designer first sketches out a plan"
Nope.
Where did your designer come from and what evidence do you have for its existence.
BentOnTheCross 7 months ago
@BentOnTheCross IT IS CALLED a WITNESSES . in the court of law . facts can be proven if the credit of the witnesses are good . thats why God made sure that many men wrote in the book of God . that way you have many witnesses ! if only one man told the story of the bible . and there was only one disciple of jesus who would think it was the truth . thats why we no there is a God . because there are to many witnesses to the facts . and why do atheist fight the God of the bible the hardest ?
thinkalott33 7 months ago
@thinkalott33 Witness does not equal fact. What if I told you I witnessed a flying spaghetti monster (FSM) and then several other people saw a way to make profit and exploit people from the FSM- they would claim they are also messengers for him. The Church of the FSM could be formed and people mind raped while the church makes profit. Oh, by the way, many 'witnesses' could all have motives to lie- look up the Salem Witch Trails, etc. The story makers of the bible aren't credible, nor in court.
BentOnTheCross 7 months ago
@BentOnTheCross that flying spaghetti monster comment dont move me at all . it,s a little played out dont you think . AND HOW CAN SOMETHING CALLED THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER DROWN OUT THE TRUTH OF GOD . YOU CALL THAT SMART ! SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING A 4TH GRADER WOULD SAY . LOL
thinkalott33 7 months ago
@thinkalott33 My point still stands, you sound a little upset. Why don't you address my point? And the FSM is alot more logical than your sky daddy, he is the true god you sinning infidel!
BentOnTheCross 7 months ago
@BentOnTheCross wow the devil has blessed your tongue ! but let me tell you that the truth will always stand the test of time . just like the devil was tossed from heaven for his dirty lieing words . let every man that lie on God be tossed from the glory of life .
thinkalott33 7 months ago
@thinkalott33 Translation: "I have nothing useful to say in my position's defense, so I'll just throw out some specious threat, take a dump on the game board, knock over the pieces, and run away declaring victory while wearing my underwear on my head"
Damn you're convincing, I can't believe anyone could possibly find your magical claims incredulous.
belladonna5012 6 months ago
@BentOnTheCross "Designer" is a bad word to use as it implies an underlying intelligence, which is a claim unsupported by evidence.
trogdor20X6 6 months ago
@thinkalott33 False premise: by no means does everything have a designer, as not everything is designed.
belladonna5012 6 months ago
@belladonna5012 NAME ONE THING THAT DO NOT HAVE A DESIGN ? IM WAITING .....
thinkalott33 6 months ago
@thinkalott33 Humans. You're welcome.
belladonna5012 6 months ago
@thinkalott33 Damn, you must be one hell of an uneducated caveman.
joe80dmanizanerd 6 months ago
@joe80dmanizanerd i smell fear !
thinkalott33 6 months ago
@thinkalott33 The only thing I might be afraid of is the fact that a developed country like the US still has semi-analfabetic imbeciles who think the world is designed.
bye
joe80dmanizanerd 6 months ago 3
@joe80dmanizanerd thank you . and do me a favor tell the devil he did a good job on you . peace !
thinkalott33 6 months ago
@thinkalott33 "job on me" lol
joe80dmanizanerd 6 months ago
@thinkalott33
You don't have a design.
luminaeus 5 months ago
@luminaeus then why are there copys of me ? over a trillion people on earth . and are bodys are the same . sounds like a design to !
thinkalott33 5 months ago
@thinkalott33
Were you produced by cloning? No? Then you're not a copy.
luminaeus 5 months ago
@luminaeus AND YES YOU ARE RIGHT . WE ALL CAN FROM THE DIRT OF THE EARTH . AND WE ARE NOT COPYS . BECAUSE WE ALL DO NOT HAVE THE SAME D.N.A ! BUT GOD SAID I MADE MAN IN MY OWN ENMAGE . SO WE ARE NOT COPYS OF OUR SELFS . BUT WE ARE ALL COPYS OF GODS ENMAGE !
thinkalott33 5 months ago
@thinkalott33
What's an 'enmage'?
luminaeus 5 months ago
@luminaeus SPELLING CORRECTION . IMAGE !
thinkalott33 5 months ago
@thinkalott33 caps lock is cruise control for faggotry
BladedArrowTBGamer 5 months ago
@BladedArrowTBGamer
thinkalott33 5 months ago
"in the light of intelligent criticism, Christians wilt like a salted snail". he he...
Joseph Priestly - the discoverer of Oxygen had his laboratory in Birmingham smashed and destroyed by a mob shouting for Church and King. fortunately he escaped and crossed the Atlantic to America, as did the great Thomas Pain, who wafted across on the same tide of ideas, innovation and free-thinking.
upaste 10 months ago
@upaste"in the light of intelligent criticism, scientificists/freethinkers wilt like a salted snail". he he...
I find that same is true for those who don't have a well thought out world view. this includes atheist, materialist, scientists, and the fact that those that champion scientifism too. i like science but for the most part it is god awfully boring work. those that claim that science is fascinating should try doing accounting or taxes some ppl find that fascinating too but most don't.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@theinquisitor love your intelligent and witty comments. religious belief systems become a barrier for their eyes. they cling to their faith because their feeble minds need answers even if those answers are absurd. let go and they will experience fear and uncertainty and they can't deal with that. their man-made fiction gives them consolation, opium. thank God I don't need that. until we outgrow this nonsense we have no hope of emancipating ourselves.
upaste 10 months ago
@upaste i hope you understand that atheism is a belief system like any other. it is your feeble mind that needs answers too. for instance, can you prove that there is no god, no, but yet you believe it anyway. that's faith good sir. you base the way you live and the way you think on something that you can't prove. you're not standing on shaky ground of faith are you? oh but you are, and this only goes to prove that you are just as much addicted to the opium that you deride.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@RedLetter... your comment to me is misguided. I'm not an atheist or a theist. I have no need to believe that God exists or not. in fact, I tend to believe there is a God due to all the intelligence I see in nature. the fact that I don't need answers is my freedom. I am not against Christians, I simply find most of their beliefs to be immoral. I believe in an underlying consciousness as the basis of existence, certainly not any of the pathetic, intellectually bankrupt notions of religion.
upaste 10 months ago
@upaste i apologize for my assumptions. i would disagree with you that christianity isn't moral but that's another conversation entirely. it's just that often when people agree with the pope (dawkins) they tend to be just as condescending and immature as he often is and i try to simply point out that their world view can and should be criticized just as strongly for the gaping holes that they blindly overlook to make their world view seem built proof. which it isn't. so again my apologies.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@RedLetterChristian I meant bullet proof not built proof.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@RedLetter... no worries. nice to have a rational discussion. I've read the Gnostic gospels (the Nag Hammadi texts) and found them much more interesting than the bible. I think Jesus probably was a real person, and a man of immense insight into the spiritual world. I would like to explain what I find immoral about Christian beliefs but there is not enough space to write this on YT. when I reduced myself to emptiness I had a profound experience but its impossible to describe or share that.
upaste 10 months ago
@upaste the Nag Hammadi texts aren't necessarily gnostic texts. in the manor that gnostics of the day would understand gnosticism. there are people that love to call them as such but the Nag Hammadi collection was found in a library that had gnostic texts in it but that by no means makes the Nag Hammadi texts gnostic. just as there are books on teddy bear picnics and books on glass blowing in the same library it doesn't mean that they both are related. unless the teddy bears are blowing glass.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@upaste if you would like to drop me a line via personal message I would love to hear about your experiences and your conclusions. I'm not on youtube with any regularity. sometimes lots and then a month goes by and I'm like, hey, i should really check this or that out and then I'm back for a while but if you p.m. I promise to read what you send and respond. but I wont guarantee i'll reply within a short period but i'll try.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@upaste your a deist. there you go now you know what to call yourself
69upinu 7 months ago
@RedLetterChristian you misunderstand the meaning of the term atheist. So does upaste. Everyone is either a theist, or they aren't. An atheist is someone who isn't a theist. That includes people who have a positive belief in the non-existence of god, and those who lack any belief or opinion or even knowledge of the concept of god. Saying not believing in god is a belief system is like saying not playing football is a sport. I don't believe god doesn't exist, I just don't believe god exists.
theinquisitor 10 months ago
@theinquisitor you've been listening to the pope (dawkins)for too long. when one says that they are an atheist they are making a positive claim that they know that their is no God or gods. just a when one identifies them self as a theist they are making a positive claim that they know that there is a God or gods. atheism is a positive statement that simply means one believes that there is no god or not gods. agnosticism is the positiv position that you can't know there is or isn't a god or gods
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@RedLetterChristian I tell you what I mean when I say I'm an atheist, and you respond with "no, that's not what you mean, what you mean is this..."
How am I supposed to respond to that? Tell what else I'm thinking.
Look, whatever label you want to put on the state of mind of finding all arguments and evidence for the existence of god that I've ever been presented with to be inadequate to justify those claims, that's my position. I'm not making a positive claim, I just don't accept your claim.
theinquisitor 10 months ago
@RedLetterChristian
No, atheists do not claim that god does not exist, atheists only say that they do not BELIEVE in god. And that's all there is to it.
skadi87skadi 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RedLetterChristian
"i hope you understand that atheism is a belief system like any other."
That's like saying "not smoking" is a habit.
KLSeba 7 months ago
The bible has unicorns in it. I'm sorry- I cant take it seriously.
ProveItsReal 11 months ago
@ProveItsReal
It also has roster with snake tail and satyr, Greek mythology character. I find Harry Potter and Narnia far more amusing. Less violence and discrimination too...
KLSeba 7 months ago
And I can cite several examples of the dogmatic proponents of SCIENTISM...
Anyone heard of Professor Barry Marshal?
He dared to oppose the accepted theory that peptic ulcers were caused by an over production of gastric acid. Rather they were infectious ulcers caused by Helicobacter pylori bacteria. He was all but crucified by the scientific establishment that were heavily invested in the former theory.
His persecution included blackmail, slander, and even death threats...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967, firstly that's not several that's one. And you didn't cite any sources. I did a google search for "Barry Marshall" "death threat" and found nothing except pages that contained these as unrelated phrases. Who sent these death threats and blackmail? Or is asking for evidence too SCIENTISMY?
However, isn't the scientific consensus now in favour of the bacterial explanation of stomach ulcers? So how is this a criticism of the scientific community? This is an example of it working.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor
"firstly that's not several that's one."
Yes, in case you hadn't noticed, the comment boxes only allow for 500 characters. Just Wikipedia Barry Marshall. You'll be able to read the whole story. In the end he was so desperate for the blackballing to end that he infected himself and then cured himself.
The point is that their was a violent emotional reaction form those scientists that were heavily invested in the dominant paradigm against Marshall's hypothesis.
That's dogmatism.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967, I read the whole article and saw nothing about blackmail. Just that no-one believed him until he provided evidence of his theory. That's not a criticism of science. That's why it works. He provided the evidence, albeit through drastic methods, and the scientists changed their minds. Where is the blackmail and death threats? If the scientific consensus had failed to shift, that would be evidence of dogmatism, but it has shifted, so what is your criticism? I honestly don't get it.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor
"If the scientific consensus had failed to shift, that would be evidence of dogmatism, but it has shifted, so what is your criticism? I honestly don't get it."
And if the RELIGIOUS consensus had failed to shift, that would be evidence of dogmatism, but it has shifted, so what is your criticism? I honestly don't get it.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@theinquisitor
"Practitioners of gastroenterology and the pharmaceutical industry were both heavily invested in the theory that peptic ulcers were caused by emotional stress and stomach acids, and could only be treated with repeated courses of antacid medication ... The targets of his criticism soon sought to discredit HIM and his research. One prominent gastroenterologist dismissed him as "a crazy guy saying crazy things." "
SEE: "Academy of Acheivement: Barry Marshal M.D."
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967, so one of his contemporaries called him crazy. Is that it? Scientists are brutal in their criticisms of other scientists. If the originator of that quote was asked today about Marshal's theory, he would be the one being marginalised if he refused to accept the new evidence. If he's still denying the facts AFTER the evidence emerges, then the scientific community will marginalise him for that. I'm still waiting for evidence of death threats and blackmail.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor
"However, isn't the scientific consensus now in favour of the bacterial explanation of stomach ulcers?"
However, isn't the religious consensus that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa? So how is Galileo's persecution a criticism of religion? Isn't this an example of religion working?
The fact is, those proponents of the dominant gastric acid paradigm were deeply, emotionally, and uncritically attached to their ideology.
They were in NOT open-minded to the new evidence.
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967, the religious consensus didn't change because of internal pressures. It changed because of external pressure from science. This is the church getting dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by the rest of society, not a positive aspect of the church itself.
How about the widespread religious resistance to evolution? I suppose you'll say religion deserves credit for being progressive when it's eventually embarrassed enough to admit it's mistake there too.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor
"religious consensus didn't change because of internal pressures. It changed because of external pressure from science"
External pressure from science? You speak as if science is a football team. Science is merely a method of investigation. The evidence mounted and eventually even the most ardent proponents of the old world view converted to the new paradigm. You could just as easily argue that scientific consensus (scientists) changes from the "external pressure from science".
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
@Hammersley1967, the fact that the geocentrism is false was revealed by the methods of science, not the methods of religion. That's what I mean when I say it wasn't religion that caused the shift in the religious consensus. Galileo's approach and those of later astronomers was not revelation or prayer, it was observation and hypothesis testing. Ergo, science changed the religious consensus, religion didn't. Everyone could see the church was wrong about geocentrism. It was an embarrassment.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor scientist can and do hang onto beliefs with as much religious fervor as "religious people" do. why is this?because we don't like having our worldview or presuppositions questioned. science can be petty b/c but it involves grant money, prestige, pride, ego, pet theories, might have to rethink everything, i'm rt and he's wrong b/c i don't like him/her, was their method/experiment wasn't sound,ky assumption is wrong, margin of error too big, data is based on antidotal evidence. ect.
RedLetterChristian 10 months ago
@RedLetterChristian
No, religious people are the only ones that don't accept facts just because they don't like it and because it disproves their beliefs. Scientists are not like that, as you've just heard from Richard Dawkins...
skadi87skadi 10 months ago
@skadi87skadi "Scientists are not like that, as you've just heard from Richard Dawkins..." EXACTLY !!! Sure, there are intellectually dishonest people in all professions. But new understandings & knowledge do not come from the minds of those who cannot accept better theories.... they come from the minds of those who are NOT tied-down by dogma, faith-based beliefs and absolutes.....the scientific minded.
orangemod 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theinquisitor
"However, isn't the scientific consensus now in favour of the bacterial explanation of stomach ulcers?"
However, isn't the religious consensus that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa? So how is Galileo's persecution a criticism of religion? Isn't this an example of religion working?
The fact is, those proponents of the dominant gastric acid paradigm were deeply, emotionally, and uncritically attached to their ideology.
They were NOT open-minded to the new evidence...
Hammersley1967 1 year ago
It was written in God Dellusion :D nice book
mazrel2 1 year ago
Much more important than any aging-brain issue: science has to contend with the "Semmelweis reflex". I think physicist Richard Feynman saw this going on in his day and I think it's with us today as much as ever, particularly with regard to softer sciences. Maybe not "dogma", exactly, but anyone looking into it (I think anyone interested in science really should) would have to admit there are strong similarities. Sometimes change is painfully slow.
wunwuntew 1 year ago
This is true but the process is often not that instant. According to Boorstin's "The Discoverers" there's actually a joke out there regarding older scientists--that at age 65 they should be shot, if I remember it correctly, because it becomes so much more difficult for them to accept new ideas. And these guys typically hold "power positions". I think even Darwin faced this difficulty with an older professor friend of his, though it worked out between them eventually. :)
wunwuntew 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Consider if you will, that the world can be divided into two very distinct groups. Those who believe in a supreme being, and those who seem to spend all of their time saying there isn't one.
digital0707neo 1 year ago
Nice vid.
WJJ1968 1 year ago
And that coming from a "man" who dismisses more science( anything that diagrees with him) than he embraces.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, what science does he dismiss? (hint: ID isn't a science)
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor First we can look at all the artifacts, I understand artifacts that support the Bible are around the same number as what supports evolution, either they are both right or both wrong.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, considering just fossils, as I understand it, there are millions of them. A single university or museum could have thousands. There are tens of thousands of species of trilobyte fossils alone. And it's not just the fossils. Genetic evidence backs up evolution too. And it's been observed happening in bacteria and even some invertebrates (yes macroevolution). Nothing close to that exists to confirm the events in the bible. E.g. archaeologists find no evidence of the exodus from Egypt.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor In the time of King David Isreal two kingdoms joined forces to attack Isreal.The records from Isreal and the first kingdom were found ,the records of the second kingdom have recently been found, three supporting independent sources would be considered proof in any other case.In Egypt recently coins were found bearing Josephs name and pictures of grain and cows. Have you ever heard of the dead sea scrolls? There are thousands more ,the finding or artifacts seldom makes the news.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, that is evidence for those specific events, but only those specific events. Using sporadic examples to demonstrate the truth of the entirely of the book is not reasonable. The Spider-man comics mention New York city and we know there's a New York city, so there must be a Spider-man. That's obviously illogical. Coins of Joseph don't demonstrate the miracles of Jesus or anything about the bible that really matters to the demonstration of Christianity's metaphysics.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor And a few old bones doesn't prove evolution either, thats why evolution is considered a religion in non-Christian locations,and a double standard that bad looks ridiculous.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, as I said it's more than "a few old bones". It's millions of them located in the strata where they should be based on evolutionary predictions. And there's the evidence from genetics. Even if we had no fossils, the evidence from microbiology alone would be sufficient to demonstrate evolution. Your willful ignorance of the evidence isn't an argument against the facts. Also, most Christians accept evolution. You've been misled. Please read a non-creationist book about the subject.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Please learn to read.In all my comments I never made an arguement against evolution,I claim science also supports the Bible. What most people think is irrelevent to the truth(flat earth, center of the solar system, center of the universe,no gorillas, no giant squid,sharks are harmless).I was a science and industrial arts major,now an electronic tech and so it seems you and those like you are willfully ignorant. How many books have you read that scientificly support the Bible?
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, the point is that you are horrifyingly ignorant of evolution if you think it is a religion. I'll admit to a lack of much expertise about the bible, but the idea that it is scientifically supported is absurd. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I've somehow missed this in all the science news I read. Perhaps you could give an example of a peer reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal that supports your claim. Or perhaps not.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Again what comments have I made against evolution? And again examples of peer reviewed science,no gorillas,no giant squids, sharks are harmless,climategate,flat earth,earth as center or the solar system and the universe.Again I mentioned the deadsea scrolls, the coins showing Joseph, the records of the third kingdom in a war with Isreal. Now show me where I made a statement against evolution,which is not even the subject of my comments.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321
Man, you are lucky that theinquisitor takes the time to answer you...
Yes, the Bible is an historical fact, but it's still myth-based, like every other religious book.
You are an example of why evolution seems sometimes slow, especially for our short-life species : please, try to live in 2010, not in 1 BC... you deserve better than old myths and superstitions, even if they make sense to you.
Or at least, be agnostic about it : it's OK not to know.
Cheers man!
HalfFullYeah 1 year ago
@HalfFullYeah One who accepts only the science that supports his view, but then rejects the science that goes against it is the worst kind of fool.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321
Science is based on a method that cheers for updates and new discoveries. It allows change, it just want to be as objective as possible. Some scientists may be corrupted by money or their ego, but science will always adapt and evolve.
Only fools do not change their point of view, and I do not see what made you think I was one.
Cheers!
HalfFullYeah 1 year ago
@HalfFullYeah I know nothing about you, I do know science, and more about dorkins than I care to,and he is the one I was refering to.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321
I'm an atheist/agnostic, I like Dawkins but I can still understand why you think he's a dork... because he can be so narrow-minded sometimes, like he's detached from his emotions. And the «Brights» thing is pure BS.
Still, science does NOT support the Bible, if you mean what the Bible says. It's quite the opposite!
Cheers!
HalfFullYeah 1 year ago
@HalfFullYeah Hes narrow-minded,arrogant,rude,and knows little if anything about Christianity. Do a search for archaeological support for the Bible you will find many, many artifacts. If these artifactsdon't mean anything the fossil record must also be dismissed.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, what kind of artifacts can support the conclusion that the extraordinary events in the Bible occurred? Such as the miracles of Jesus or his virgin birth? I have no trouble believing that there was probably a man called Jesus who preached and had followers. But how would you demonstrate that he was divine or that he was resurrected etc?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor "Was probably a man named Jesus",ther are many many jewish and roman reports on Jesus,and His existence has never been doubted. If you don't know the subject any better than that go learn about before commenting. It is betterto keep one mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, so your response to my question is essentially: "shut up you're a fool". How could any report or artifact possibly demonstrate that someone was born of a virgin, performed miracles or was resurrected? Your evasion and insult betrays the fact that such a thing could not be demonstrated by mere reports and artifacts. We have contemporary reports of miracles being performed by supposed holy men. Why do such reports become so much more convincing when they come from the 1st century?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Attempting any discussion with an atheist is like argueing with a spoiled five year old. You imply that you don't accept that Jesus was a true historical person, then when call on it ignore the on going arguement. Such behavior shows one to be ignorant and stupid,if someone points out a car speeding at you claiming it isn't real will not stop it from hitting you.Archaeology supports the Bible and evolution=both are true or both are false, grow up.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 I never said I didn't accept the historicity of Jesus. I'm just asking how reports or artifacts could demonstrate that he was divine and not just a man. Telling people they're stupid for not believing you is not a good way to witness. Aren't you supposed to draw people into your faith? Not alienate them by calling anyone who asks questions a child.
I'll ask again. How could any report or artifact demonstrate that Jesus performed miracles or was resurrected? Why won't you answer?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Reviw back a few days,"there was PROBABILY a man named Jesus",implies you doubt. And thanks again for showing the world the mentality of atheists.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, is that supposed to be a criticism? You think doubt is a bad thing? Can you explain to me what is wrong with leaving room for the possibility that I might be wrong? You imply that I should be absolutely certain of my opinions and not even consider the possibility that I might be in error. Is that the position you hold? That it's impossible for you to be wrong about this issue? That's called closed mindedness. Please correct me if I misunderstood you. I could be wrong, could you?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor Like I said "it's like argueing with a spoiled five year old. To imply some thing then claim you did not directly say it is considered dishonest game playing, standard atheism,and refusing to deal with the archaeology arguement implies defeat on the point, ignoring the facts seems to be another atheist trait.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321, what is it I supposedly said then backpedaled about? I've not been dishonest. I could have made a mistake. Where did I contradict myself? I'm asking to be shown where I'm wrong. I'm not ignoring the argument or facts, I'm asking you to explain it to me and show me the evidence.
You're the one ignoring my questions and refusing to provide any justifications for your argument beyond vague references to archaeology. You also ignored my question about the value of doubt.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 5
@daddyg321
u don't seem like u know how to read..he's not necessarily arguing that a man named jesus didn't exist..he's saying how can we know that he was resurrected, born of a virgin, and performed miracles?..this witnesses to his "miracles" were mostly superstitious peasants from thousands of years ago..this is enough for u to worship jesus as the son of god?
itzahazylife 1 year ago
@itzahazylife I believe I remember him commenting a few times that there is no proof that Jesus ever existed,and often talks about this supposed Jesus, not this supposed savior, or supposed messiah. If he mis-speaks that often he can't be as smart as he puts on and neither can his followers.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321
Have you ever had a conversation about a fictional character?
It's quite possible to talk about the qualities and personalities of Harry Potter while simultaenously knowing that he never existed.
And this is the best attack you can come up with, that Dawkins doesn't explicitly reaffirm the non-existence of a main character in a work of fiction every time he talks about it?
Sad, sad, sad....
luminaeus 1 year ago
@luminaeus As with all atheists documented facts that support other points of view aren't acknowledged, all while claiming to hold science dear. It would be laughable if atheist weren't so pushy.What happens when reality can't be denied?
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321
Uh.. usually people become atheist because they care about facts and would rather not deny reality.
But I'll play along... do tell me what 'documented facts' you have to support your claim that your personal version of a god exists?
luminaeus 1 year ago
@luminaeus I understood the point to be about a proven historical figure. Have you been tested for ADHD?
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321
I study language for a living. I think it's more likely that the breakdown in communication here can be blamed on your reading comprehension. English isn't your native language.
But I'll simplify for you.
You made a comment about atheists denying fact and reality. This is ironic, because it is fact and reality that lead people to atheism.
Then I asked you to provide examples of the 'facts' that I am supposedly denying.
luminaeus 1 year ago
@luminaeus I take it you either a hitman of the English language, or ADHD still keeps you from the point.
daddyg321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@daddyg321
I've made my point. Instead of responding, you're pretending that you can't understand.
Really, how do you expect anyone to accept your side of the argument if you have to pretend to be stupid?
luminaeus 1 year ago
@luminaeus
I study language for a living. The breakdown in communication can be traced back to your own pitiful lack of reading comprehension.
You made a claim that atheists deny facts and reality. Wrong.
We became atheist because we care about facts. Unlike the religious, atheists would prefer not to deny reality.
Now if you're going to claim that atheists deny facts, then you must have examples of actual facts that atheists deny. Let's see them.
luminaeus 1 year ago
Dawkins is describing the way science is supposed to work in an ideal world. In reality:
“. . . scientists also have feelings and biases which might influence their work, they may relish the prestige which publicity may bring, and they have been known to cheat and ‘fudge’ experimental results to make their work ‘look good,’ or to defend a failing theory.”
- Willard Young, “Fallacies of Creationism,” 1985, p. 119.
This is from an anti-creationist, folks. Reality's a bitch, ain't it?
bestvalue 1 year ago
@bestvalue, well he did explicitly state that this is the scientific *ideal*. Of course scientists have biases, but that's why there are methods like double blind trials, peer review and repeatability that allow scientific theories to be verified or disproven. Completely unlike religion, which is designed to be unfalsifiable. If science didn't have these methods of self-correction it wouldn't produce anything. As Carl Sagan said, science delivers the goods.
theinquisitor 1 year ago
Comment removed
bestvalue 1 year ago
Right now, I am clapping my hands raw, in advance, that one day Dawkins will admit he was wrong when he wrote the God Delusion.
"every knee shall bow . . . every tongue shall confess" Romans 14:11
bestvalue 1 year ago
Obviously the only person smarter than Richard Dawkins is your preacher. Google Doe’s Account.
techbesst 1 year ago
PS to Inquisitor: Richard Dawkins is not open to the possibility of God, therefore any results of any scientific proof of God would be dismissed by him ,unlike his revered professor.
Keenan1923 2 years ago
@Keenan, that's not true actually. In "The God Delusion", he describes a 7 point scale where 1 is absolute certainty in the existence of a god, and 7 is absolute certainty in the non-existence of a god. On this scale, he ranks himself as a 6.
He is open to the possibility of the the existence of gods in the same sense that he is open to the possibility of the existence of leprechauns, goblins and dragons. The problem is the total lack of evidence for any of those things, or any gods.
theinquisitor 2 years ago 3
@Keenan1923, I agree with theinquisiter, I don't see where you get that. The problem with a Christian or a Muslim god is there is so much contradictory evidence and proof against them that it basically is not possible for either of them to exist in the context that nearly any sect of Islam and Christianity would ever view that god as.
hoboboxerjoe 1 year ago
@Keenan1923 Just extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. For instance if you claim, that crocodiles can fly (levitate) you must show me a flying (levitating) crocodile as easy as that. Same things with religion, if you want to proof your god's existence you must show me your god. Explanations why you can't do that (special pleading) is not evidence, because you can proof even the most ridiculous claims this way (Sagan's dragon, Russells teapot, etc.).
Kesc777 1 year ago
It was TRUTH being unveiled and the professor was humble enough to admit he was wrong.
Keenan1923 2 years ago 2
science and math are equally man made tools, they are inherent qualities and ultimately extensions of our brains capabilities. Not the other way round. There is no proof of any differences in the brains of scientists and theologist.
Dawkins lacks the creativity of other great scientist, and therefore comes across as 2nd rate.(by his own admittance's) "he's no Newton!" not to mention boringly contradictory.
romney27 2 years ago
Dawkins is a dork, science does what humans are always doing anyway. We are always learning and developing technology. Science is just an extension of man, not the other way round. Scientific method is a philosophy. and dawkins is a bore at best.
romney27 2 years ago
"Good to use your head so that you don't get dudded but its also good to use your heart so that you don't go around stuffing people over"
I will never understand some peoples ridiculous posit that the heart is some sort of independent consciousness, having its own feelings, making its own decisions.
Know what my heart tells me? Nothing.
eurisko67 2 years ago
The "heart" just like the "soul" usually means the subconscious or putting it in terms of Cartesion logic the "mind" that is separate from the body. We all have it and acknowledge it in some form, some people say heart, others soul, others unconscious. It's that part of you we can't explain with physiology, your ability to think and feel. At least that's what intelligent people who use the term mean.
Sydpart2 2 years ago
Your subconscious is located in the brain, so why not just say brain. And the mind is not separate from the body, all one need do is witness the results of brain injury to understand that. We are not more than the sum of our parts.
Lastly I'm not sure what existentialist crap you're into, however the mind can be explained through physiology and biology. The fact that we do not yet know "why" the mind works does not equate to not knowing "how" it works.
eurisko67 2 years ago
You can dislike the ideas all you want but that's what they are referring to. From your comment I got that you didn't get that, obviously you do but just don't accept it in any way, which is fine, but a little depressing. And don't insult me. It's rude.
Sydpart2 2 years ago
Don't insult you? How exactly did I do that? Pointing out the obvious? Ever heard the saying "call a spade a spade"? Yes, I "got" your comment, and it's unintelligent to call something other than what it is. And whether your "intelligent people use the term" was directed at me or not, it's incorrect.
eurisko67 2 years ago
"what existentialist crap you're into" if that wasn't meant to be insulting than I might need to look the word up again. It's not misnaming something to be unintelligent, it's built into our language because that's how people have been talking for hundreds maybe thousands of years. People say heart and soul in the context I explained are what I meant by intelligent, people who actually think their heart feel go under unintelligent. heart is an artistic way of putting these things, not literal.
Sydpart2 2 years ago
I guess you should look up the word again. Existentialism is a belief that our existence is based more on the ether than biology. It is that which I am referring as crap, or I guess a better word would be ridiculousness. But you can take it personally if you wish.
As you grow older you'll learn that majority opinion is not akin to correctness. Just because alot of people (and its less than you think) use a term, does not mean its right to do so.
eurisko67 2 years ago
You assuming I believe in something then calling it crap is an insult in my book but that doesn't matter. I never said the majority of people were correct so don't assume I'm naive. I put intelligent in quotes for a reason. Your first post seemed like you believed all people that used the term actually thought their heart felt. I was correcting that idea, whether existentialism is true isn't the concern here.
Sydpart2 2 years ago
So basically your reply to my first post is exactly what you're accusing me of now. Assuming I believed something I don't. We call that being a hypocrite, that's a great word to look up, but not something you want to be.
My post was, and remains, the fact that people should not be nonsensical in their iterations. That is the concern here.
eurisko67 2 years ago
No my first post was only to inform you what people meant by heart didn't get to say it's used as an artistic expression And using it as an artistic expression for their beliefs existential or isn't not nonsensical It's perfectly sensible to assume people know you don't actually think your heart guides you. In the quote you used in your first post, the word heart is a reference to moral and ethical thinking, but instead of being boring they put some flare on it, nothing wrong with theatricality
Sydpart2 2 years ago
No, your first post was to state that "Your first post seemed like you believed all people that used the term actually thought their heart felt. I was correcting that idea"
See that's the nice thing about a thread, you can always call people on their lies later on. I guess pointing out that people should be more intelligent in their speech is falling on deaf ears. For the record, if something tells me "their heart told them so" I think they're an idiot.
eurisko67 2 years ago
Ok, let me refine this since you seem not to get what I'm trying to say, from your first post, it seemed you thought people meant heart literally, I was just trying to explain what the smart ones who use the term actually mean. People can talk technically all they want but it puts you to sleep. No one intelligent who uses the word heart to mean feeling or moral guide actually mean their heart is a moral guide, they use it to convey thoughts of morality in an artistic sense.
Sydpart2 2 years ago
@eurisko67 "We are not more than the sum of our parts"? that is like saying humans are no more or no less than other mammals. Then where are the monkey jets?... why would the universe evolve a creature to be conscious of its own random meaninglessness? if there was no meaning to contemplating why we are, then we would not be doing so...
romney27 2 years ago
@romney27: " why would the universe evolve a creature to be conscious of its own random meaninglessness?"
As Aristotle said "We are so desperate for meaning, we invent it".
Why are there no monkey jets? Because Monkeys don't eat red meat. Providing a vital protein responsible for the expansion and growth of the homo-sapien brain. Allowing the development of a larger cerebral cortex, increasing intelligence.
Ever picked up a book on evolution? You're an animal, a smart one, but an animal.
eurisko67 2 years ago
@eurisko67 " Aristotle said" meaning as a tool of introspection is unnatural? because? invention is inherent to the human condition and 100% natural, so by what authority is the observable getting it wrong?
Chimps eat red meat, so that can't be it...lol actually it's because we cook our food, but that's another story. Memes now days move quickly, so it might be hard for some to keep up.
humans are mammals yes, but there is more to us than being animals. maybe you should look around and see.
romney27 2 years ago
@romney27 Don't sweat it kid. Use whatever delusion makes you happy. 90% of the people on earth rely on the delusion that a supreme being makes their lives count for something, so you're not alone.
But if you look around, you'll see that at our base, we are no better than animals, and in some instances worse. Animals don't kill for pleasure, or land, or their beliefs. Watch someone beheaded because they don't believe in allah and tell me we're not animals.
eurisko67 2 years ago
@eurisko67 for one who can't distinguish human consciousness from animal consciousness, you still got some of it right. The 90% part. Only one thing, animals do rape and murder each other so that's not entirely correct. I'm not sure about their beliefs, but if they are just like us, as you say, then they must have them? At least your logic seems to suggest that. But none of this matters because it is all with in the realm of natural evolution. remember there's nothing to say that it's not...lol
romney27 2 years ago
You certainly make many incorrect assumptions. And please re-read my comments before making inane responses. Yes, animals rape and kill each other, they do not however, do it for pleasure as we do. They do it to procreate and eat to survive.
And I did not say animals are just like us, I said we are animals. Only a fool would try to assign one species behavior to another.
eurisko67 2 years ago
@euri I think dolphins gang rape for pleasure.
I agree we are animals, but obviously we dominate our environment in a very unique way. If there was no reason to become self conscious then evolution would not of evolved a creature to do so. Even if that creature is only conscious of itself. I'm not sure if you understand the power to manifest your own destiny, but for some of us, we give meaning to our own existence vs. just allowing life to happen to us randomly. try it sometime, it's fun...lol
romney27 2 years ago
"If there was no reason to become self conscious then evolution would not of evolved a creature to do so."
All you're doing is replacing word "god" with "evolution". Another theist tactic to try and sound intelligent. Like calling creationism "Intelligent Design". What will you people come up with next...
And always trying to justify man's brutality with nonsense. Raping dolphins huh? Lame.
eurisko67 2 years ago
@eurisko67 I think the grand canyon was created too, only I think it was do to the forces of water. But if you want to assume that you could imagine what I think, then go right ahead. I kinda like the image of a guy in a rob with a shovel. maybe I got you all wrong... you do have an active imagination...lol
romney27 2 years ago
@eurisko67 I'm replacing the scientific concept of the singularity of the big bang with the word god. You know the creationist story of the "Big Bang" don't you? It's similar to the omni potent force that created the everything, that the theist have. that sounds accurate to the bibles creationist story...lol you just can't catch a break, can you?
romney27 2 years ago
@romney27 why change the meaning of words? can you not even conceive a way to invoke your magic man without raping the english dictionary?
holdenbane 1 year ago
@holdenbane magic is for people who are confused by what they see... besides raping is a little harsh, I prefer to hump it a little till it fits into place.
just kidding, I just don't let life befuddle me so much, and choose to do my own deep thinking... hang in there, tricks are for kids...lo
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27
Main Entry: mag·ic
1 a : the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b : magic rites or incantations
2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b : something that seems to cast a spell :
no, that pretty much covers religion and the idea of deity. my point is god means god and not 'big bang'. you are just swapping words that don't at all have the same meaning or implications.
holdenbane 1 year ago
@holdenbane if you look deeper into the history of the big bang, you'll find that there was some catholic guy promoting the idea strongly from the beginning, because he felt that it was a perfect description of what religion had been saying all along. So one could say that the connection is very real, and not mine at all.... history isn't science either, but whatcha going to do?
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27 that doesn't really have anything to do with it. the word god still means magical deity and 'big bang' still refers to a mass expansion of our universe. not at all the same concept. the scientific theory in no way invokes the supernatural. history certainly is science if you have present day evidence of it.
holdenbane 1 year ago
@holdenbane besides you can believe that there is a magic guy in the sky and that he's looking down on you and loves you...ect ect..And if that brings one comfort in this life, then science already proves that there's a benefit to ones physiology, in that it has a positive effect on ones body... so clearly a god doesn't have to exist to benefit in believing that one does... I.e. why else would religion and beliefs in gods exist? also you're just wrong...lol
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27, I have to agree with holdenbane here, you keep equivocating. Even if it was true that religion had been demonstrated to make people happy, so have recreational drugs. It doesn't make the hallucinations caused by the drugs or the doctrines of the religion any closer to reality. Even if life was unbearable without belief in gods, that would do NOTHING to demonstrate the existence of any god. Do you act like any other belief in your life is true because it's comforting? Any other belief?
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor I don't think comparing drugs, an external stimulant, to the minds own ability to make its own chemicals based on belief alone is a good comparison.
Funny you condemn religion on your own projections rather than any actual examples. I think the bible talks about not killing people, so by your logic this is a hallucination? Logic is pretty clear about "absolutes" as a fallacy.
or you can just answer the question as to why religions and beliefs in god exist.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27 "I think the bible talks about not killing people, so by your logic this is a hallucination?"
nah, but i'm fairly sure unicorns, talking donkeys, talking snakes, dragons, angels, demons, magic etc are all hallucinations. sure, the bible has a few nice things to say, but most of it is just bat shit crazy.
holdenbane 1 year ago
@romney27, I was simply trying to point out the fact that something isn't true just because it would make you feel better if it was.
The fact that the bible condemns murder (sometimes) doesn't do anything to demonstrate it's truth value in it's other claims. If Batman condemns murder in a Batman comic, does that make the rest of the comic factual?
You can't make the case that the bible is entirely true because part of it can be shown to be true. Otherwise you could prove that Batman exists
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor there is a difference in "true" and "truth".... my question would be what does living a rational life looks like? and what benefit would evolve from such a life?
love is not rational, yet as a component to sexual selection, it's right up there with natural selection...no one picks who their going to reproduce with based on a list of things that are rational, but how they feel about what is true... big difference.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27, again, you conflate. Values are not facts. Of course rationality is not sufficient to lead a good life. We weren't talking about what we value, like love or justice or chicken soup. We're talking about facts. That is the domain of rationality. Whether a god exists is a matter of fact, not a matter of value. Whether you love this god, yeah that doesn't have to be rational, but the fact of it's existence does. You don't determine facts with your emotions, unless you're an idiot.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 2
@theinquisitor emotions as idiocy is stupid...lol no way to separate emotion from rationality considering that the two areas of the brain where these qualities come from are literally connected. The grand canyon can inspire happiness of the appreciation of existence or it could just be a bitch of a big hole in the way....
a none existent god has been proven to change physiology, so in fact it doesn't matter if one exist. I think that is proof enough to explains it's existence.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27 Are you completely fucking stupid? Or just trolling?
mjhacker 1 year ago
@mjhacker you're mumbling chin nuts.... try talking with out gurgling cock. the drool skid is reaching the floor.... you might slip puddle mute.
romney27 1 year ago
Science requires that you address the observed as in religions and beliefs in gods exist. Atheism is just an opinion of why what is observed shouldn't be observed, which is not scientific at all, in fact it's an emotional appeal. Funny that you want to juxtapose the none existent with a claim of rationality. Atheism is ideology plane and simple... not to mention ironic.
or you tell me why religion exist and beliefs in gods... and if you can throw in some science that would be swell.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27, I didn't say emotions are idiotic. I said using your emotions to determine FACTS is stupid.
You don't say "I'd be happy if I had a million dollars" and therefore determine that it is FACT that you have the money. You'd use your rationality and check the bloody ATM wouldn't you?
I will address your next statement about atheism and why religion exists as soon as you address this astonishingly simple point. You don't just believe whatever you want to be true? Do you?!
theinquisitor 1 year ago
@theinquisitor lol... truth is subjective, it's just that simple. the glass is half empty or half full... if I believe one person good, that wouldn't mean that someone couldn't think them bad? what is truth in that situation?
the grand canyon doesn't experience you looking at it... so yes quite clearly it's up to the individual to choose how to look at it. there is the answer, you don't get how "free will" works?...lol apparently you have no idea.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27, ah so you're a postmodernist. That explains why nothing you say is in the least bit coherent and seems to have nothing to do with my responses. Why don't you just make it your subjective truth that you can fly and jump off a building? I don't have time for postmodernists. It's such a pointless and lazy solipsistic way of dismissing everything. The grand canyon exists whether you look at it or not. If you disagree, then try crossing the street with your eyes closed.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 12
@theinquisitor actually Im a conceptual transgressive.... that's just a fancy idea for "it's over your head...lol"
the grand canyon doesn't exist if no one is here to see it..... observation is required for existence... remember that's how science works too. Dose the infinite exist between the whole numbers if man wasn't here to conceptualize it? Or for that fact do the numbers exist if no one were here to count them? the list of examples are endless... ; )
romney27 1 year ago
"the grand canyon doesn't exist if no one is here to see it..... observation is required for existence"
Even if that was true, there is no possible way you could know it. It is by definition an untestable and baseless claim. You cannot have any possible reason to make this assumption. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
theinquisitor 1 year ago 16