Translation: "RETREAAAATTTT!"
Seriously, why can't you just admit he made a point that blows your half-assed "theory" out of the water?
Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
Translation: "RETREAAAATTTT!"
Seriously, why can't you just admit he made a point that blows your half-assed "theory" out of the water?
well ask him that question ...does it?
Aqueous completely went all defensive and misinterpretted my posts. [ see the record ]
Balerion goes totally offensive to ensure obsfucation. [ not even understanding the issue and does not contribute to the discussion]
Cole Grey , accepts that there is a possible issue to consider.
Spidergoat is open minded enough to at least take the contention seriously.
Balerion considers it a theory when in fact it is only an approach to clarify why this issue of evolution vs religion is even being discussed at all.
Balerion is so busy trying to defend "science" that he can't even do science.. nor think scientifically...and so to is Aqueous ID all trying to defend something so strongly that they can't think scientifically ... which I find rather sad actually.
You guys really need to work out your strategy when dealing with stubborn old farts like me... maybe next time you hold your strategic meetings, over in "critical thinking land" you can apply a bit of consideration to how silly your approach is in attempting to silence any legitimate contra to your pov.
Possibly Balerion you woud like to tell the board exactly what theory you are refering to ... you know.. explain the theory that you are rejecting off hand....and prove you are just not acting as someones puppet...
you can't so I shall repeat the "yet to be fully developed contra for you:
essentially the arguement I am attempting to clarify is thus:
How does the process of natural selection stack up against the evolution of "human values" as compared to "lesser animal" values....
Why did that cave man value painting his hand on a cave wall? What natural selection would require this "value" [ not "abiity" but "value"] as it fails to be a necessity for survival.
As far as I can tell at this early stage is that it doesn't stack up well at all... and that is why this thread and millions of other theads like it are happening and will continue to happen.
And you will have to repeat your opposition to doing science ad nauseum...until you do learn to do some science.
No he didn't. Aqueous has integrity. I know it's a foreign concept to you, so look it up.
Was I obsfucating? Is that what I was doing? Obsfucating? Dang me and my obsfucating ways.
Cole Grey just acts like a better-educated version of you--evading, projecting, double-talk--and like you, he fails to make a case for his position.
Says who? He gave a flippant answer to the "how long" question, and asked for clarification on the rest. You consider that as being taken seriously?
You're so full of it your eyes are brown. You are trying to make a claim without actually making the claim. Hence all the rhetorical questions.
Two things I love about this part. First, you actually consider it an insult to call someone a "critical thinker." Two, you consider your position (but wait, I thought it wasn't a position at all? :eyeroll
to be a "legitimate contra." What a joke. These matters have already been discussed. Rather than admitting you aren't qualified to hang in with the discussion and asking for a layman explanation, you pretend that people who are providing answers you can't understand are being mean to you. Grow up.
@Balerion,
Just think of the opportunity... to learn how to deliver another "killer punch" against the irrationality of religious thought. [ another value system ...yes]
You could even, once completed, add it to you "hit" file so that you can copy and paste it in any time you wish to "fight the fight" so to speak.
and you may even distribute it around the world wide web and become a hero for open mindedness and critical thought...to your scientific evangelist buddies..
In fact if I come up with a contra to my own contra I might sell it to you.....or do you want to do the work yourself?
Just think of the opportunity... to learn how to deliver another "killer punch" against the irrationality of religious thought. [ another value system ...yes]
You could even, once completed, add it to you "hit" file so that you can copy and paste it in any time you wish to "fight the fight" so to speak.
and you may even distribute it around the world wide web and become a hero for open mindedness and critical thought...to your scientific evangelist buddies..
In fact if I come up with a contra to my own contra I might sell it to you.....or do you want to do the work yourself?
Last edited:
you gotta do better than that... try again.. as I know you willNo he didn't. Aqueous has integrity. I know it's a foreign concept to you, so look it up.
Was I obsfucating? Is that what I was doing? Obsfucating? Dang me and my obsfucating ways.
Cole Grey just acts like a better-educated version of you--evading, projecting, double-talk--and like you, he fails to make a case for his position.
Says who? He gave a flippant answer to the "how long" question, and asked for clarification on the rest. You consider that as being taken seriously?
You're so full of it your eyes are brown. You are trying to make a claim without actually making the claim. Hence all the rhetorical questions.
Two things I love about this part. First, you actually consider it an insult to call someone a "critical thinker." Two, you consider your position (but wait, I thought it wasn't a position at all? :eyeroll
These matters have already been discussed. Rather than admitting you aren't qualified to hang in with the discussion and asking for a layman explanation, you pretend that people who are providing answers you can't understand are being mean to you. Grow up.
@Balerion: You don't even know what the contra is do you?
or,
Maybe you can explain it better than me... your defensiveness indicates that you know exactly what the contra is and you are deliberately trying to prevent it being discussed because you HAVE NO defense... is that it?
"I have no defense so I must attack the man instead of play the ball" what a cowardly way to live Balerion...
"If sound reasoning and the proper use of critical thought fails all that is left for the human moron to use is the "call to authority", discreditation, the force of intimidation and violence in pursuit of his agenda" another non-evolutionary value system yes?
Challenge for Balerion:
Explain the contra I am proposing and then after successfully completing this apsect,
propose a scientific explanation as to why that contra fails.
Do you accept the mission, Lord Balerion!!!!?
or,
Maybe you can explain it better than me... your defensiveness indicates that you know exactly what the contra is and you are deliberately trying to prevent it being discussed because you HAVE NO defense... is that it?
"I have no defense so I must attack the man instead of play the ball" what a cowardly way to live Balerion...
"If sound reasoning and the proper use of critical thought fails all that is left for the human moron to use is the "call to authority", discreditation, the force of intimidation and violence in pursuit of his agenda" another non-evolutionary value system yes?
Challenge for Balerion:
Explain the contra I am proposing and then after successfully completing this apsect,
propose a scientific explanation as to why that contra fails.
Do you accept the mission, Lord Balerion!!!!?
Last edited:
No, I was asking what would that Buddhist (non-)concept about God be.
IOW, I am requesting for a reference to the Pali Canon about this.
While there are some concepts about God in modern Buddhism, I can't think of any in what is usually accepted to be what the Buddha taught, namely, the Pali Canon.
Which makes the word "god" useless. People take a word and try to find a definition for it. That's totally backwards.
Interesting. A moment ago, you claimed to be proposing nothing, and merely asking questions. Now you admit this was a lie. So I was right about that.
As for exactly what you're proposing, I can't say. You are, after all, proposing it in question form. What I've gathered is that you seem to think creativity is evidence of some "other" kind of evolution, and that the only reason this isn't already in all the textbooks is because science is dogmatic in its rejection of ideas that do not conform. The latter is the only bit you've come out directly and said; the rest has only been suggested through your many rhetorical questions. I assume you take this posture so you can't be tied down to any one position. In other words, by remaining vague, you can talk a lot without ever actually saying a fucking thing.
Am I near the mark? Oh, wait, let me guess: You're going to deny while remaining vague.
what claim are you refering to ... link please?
so you believe that the text books are correct... why is that?
"If a million flies eat shit then it must taste good"..well.... does it taste good?
Gosh Balerion, you really don't get it do you.
Even if I was a successful it is still not a position persee. It is merely an further understanding of the issues that need to be resolved if that is even possible.
This is the nature of discussion... no real need to prove anything to no one... just chatting you know, chewing the fat, uhmm.. talking about issues that appear to be present...
The evolution of a value system for humans that defies current and conventional text book ideology.
example: Do you value your freedom?
Why would you spend 3 billion years to evolve to do that? What is the biological need to seek and maintain and value freedom above everything else?
Let me parse that to show you how it appears to me:
Is that essentially what you mean?
My reaction to a statement like this, taking into consideration your prior remarks, is that it seems to actually say
If your idea reduces to this, then I think we can get to the connection with biology by talking about empathy as a genetically conferred trait.
Everett:
there is not a single story about the ancient past told by any Piraha other than bits and pieces of Tupi and Portuguese stories (not always acknowledged as such). When pressed about creation, for example, Piraha say simply, “Everything is the same,” meaning that nothing changes, nothing was created.
Boas:
to primitive man the world is filled with objects of superhuman power and with agencies which may harm man at the slightest provocation; that the careful treatment of such objects and attempts to avoid conflict with these powers dictate the innumerable superstitious regulations. The impression is given that the habits and opinions of primitive man have been formed by conscious reasoning. It seems evident, however, that this whole line of thought would remain consistent if it were assumed that the processes arise without conscious reasoning from the classification of sense experience. Even if so considered the important function played in their formation by emotional drives would fail to receive its proper weight.
Imagines.... Darwins Finches getting down on their knees praying to a God... just to prove that Darwinist Evolution is in need of a few minor adjustments...
As far as they were concerned, Darwin had the only plausible answer as to their origins. Without adjustments.
Additional insights into evolution since Darwin's time do not change his explanation for the species he saw on Galapagos. The newer information merely expands Darwin's explanation.
the peanut gallery said
First off it is hard to even discuss my position when somebody wants to have a different conversation and we never even get to it, which is the case in this thread.
Secondly,i don't remember getting a straight answer at the end of the last discussion we had. See the seven essene mirrors for an interesting version of a map of the world (of consciousness). http://newconnexion.net/articles/index.cfm/2000/11/essene.html
A less religious view, (I am not an essene), would say your consciousness finds things it understands and gravitates to them so you can point them out. So always look at what you point at twice, once to see out there and once for yourself. It reminds me of whoever (freud or jung i think) said something to the effect of, "everyone in your dream is you".
Also, I would have to say that, unlike my case, aqueous doesn't seem to be misinterpreting Quantum, just arguing with him. But I do think that it is cool that QQ at least tries to say something new, because it is pretty useless to have one group of people sitting around agreeing with each other. You guys should be thankful for QQ and have a better attitude, I'm not saying don't attack his ideas, but really, without people like him and whoever started this thread, nobody would even have a chance to put their opposition down anywhere.
no, humans are humans no matter what they do or think or say. We have come too far, and seen too much to require humaneness - it wouldn't be a functional request historically speaking. However, biology as it stands today, is not sufficient to offer a MORAL viewpoint. For that we require PHILOSOPHY.
Also, about the diversity thing - again, i am just playing around with this idea, i am not sure how it would connect with anything at all, just providing information that QQ will have something to jump on. haha
I am remembering a study about green eyed flies and red eyed flies where, if there were 1,000 red eyed ones and 100 green eyed ones in a jar, the female would prefer the green eyed ones, but i can't find it online. Here is some guys thing online that mentions rarity preference though - http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Frost_06.html
even assuming that anybody even knows what they mean by what they say to us, that is just one group. You could ask modern buddhists and they wouldn't have a god either, per se, while many of their contemporaries do. Also, just as another possibility, the high level shaman may not not be telling us his real thoughts anyway. I do understand you are making the point only about that people group and not the whole prehistoric world, but i am not sure that it relates to my ideas, because i am not one of those fundies that requires religion for morality to exist anyway. We could have a perfectly functional secular humanist morality for all i am concerned. Not because science gives us a functional morality though, philosophy is required for that.
The same people group? so this basically disproves the idea they didn't have religion. Gods, God, spirits whatever, metaphysical powers are the realm of religion, we don't call them their scientific beliefs, even if it was all some other people group had for cosmogony, for example. We don't even call those beliefs their philosophy, although i only need to go that far and not even take it to the dreaded "religion" point, to show that these people had some philosophy and continue onward toward my point.
Last edited:
Challenge for Balerion:
Explain the contra I am proposing and then after successfully completing this apsect,
propose a scientific explanation as to why that contra fails.
Do you accept the mission, Lord Balerion!!!!?
"you know...the one you are rejecting as half arsed theory...."
you can start by googling two key words, Darwinism and Values, see what you can dig up...
Explain the contra I am proposing and then after successfully completing this apsect,
propose a scientific explanation as to why that contra fails.
Do you accept the mission, Lord Balerion!!!!?
"you know...the one you are rejecting as half arsed theory...."
you can start by googling two key words, Darwinism and Values, see what you can dig up...
i was just thinking of it as the buddha-mind, or maybe dharma or Tao-like thing, so a non-concept of God, not God like theists think about. Probably better to say a concept of something else, but what is one word for the buddha mind, the tao, and the dharma, and all similar non-presonal ground-of-being concepts. A Gob? haha. I don't even know what ground of being means, is it like the tao or dharma or buddha-mind/nature?The pali canon (for hindus who have more of a right to it than the buddhists do maybe) has a similar concept as perhaps the egyptians did, in that there were many gods who were all just some reference to the supreme being that cannot be named, or whatever. I would guess that the egyptians and hindus differ somewhat on this, but i am not deeply informed about them.
and the word "love" is useless too by this reasoning. Let's toss that one too, along with all the rest of the useless words that people have different definitions for so we can just
If you are responding to my saying god can be whatever, i am merely pointing out that i am willing to change my mind if given a good enough reason. I haven't heard one yet. Of course my version consists of a lot of negations of concepts and only a very few assertions. Basically "God is good, God is great" covers about all my assertions.
Peanut butter is good, chocolate is great.
Seriously, there are so many concepts and definitions of the word god that I've had to take to asking people to define the word when and if they ask me if I believe. I usually get, "you know - GOD".
You still haven't provided an actual reference to the Pali Canon. I am still requesting one.