Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GOD is still SUPREME!
Originally posted by tiassa
I think Tony1's protestations have at least settled the notion of whether religion is independent of thought.
As well as the notion of whether thought is independent of religion.
Originally posted by tony1
Recycling old crap isn't what I like to do, that's your specialty what with being an evolutionist.
That's swell. So, you call both the physical evidence and the theoretical basis of evolution crap even while at the same time refusing to explain yourself. That's somewhere around the level of a preschooler, methinks. Seems like I'll have to stoop yet lower to reach your level:
Your mama.
Well, it IS a species, but just not a "true" species.
Riiiight.
Yes, just like you are a moron, but just not a "true" moron. Ahh, the fun we can have with dictionaries...
I'll drop you a big fat hint though. Since we were discussing taxonomy (within the context of evolution), you might care to stick to the definition prescribed by taxonomy. I know, that means skipping over all the other possible definitions. Hope that doesn't turn off your bubbling intellect.
I thought your point was that they didn't go extinct because of
genetic drift?
The point is that many do go extinct. The ones that don't are lucky to have been able to cope. Life (other that intelligent life, obviously) cannot and does not plan ahead for future disasters; evolution is not purposeful. The best life can do is be prepared for the future disasters by the virtue of having survived similar past disasters (and thus whatever couldn't survive isn't around any longer, while whatever did survive is likely to survive again.)
Ah, so you're back to yet another version of the "true" scotsman.
It IS hanging, but just not "truly" hanging.
It seems in your lingo, "true scotsman" is synonymous with "correctness". Well yes, I would indeed expect you to use the correct terminology as appropriate within the context. Since the Earth is not truly hanging, then either you say that it is hanging metaphorically speaking, or you don't say that it's hanging at all.
I guess you may be right, they are suspended because being suspended just looks so darn cool.
The fact that they fly is only incidental in the large context of the carnival.
The point, dear, is that they fly because they are "suspended" by those "ropes" that hold them up; they aren't suspended purely due to the fact that they are flying. If that were so, you should be able to dive off a skyscraper and become "suspended". Not that I recommend you try it.
*When one claims there is such and such an object, then to disprove the claim all we have to do is look and see if the object is indeed there. So -- show me the pillars.*
There is that teeny flaw in your argument.
Do you have a brain?
Yes. I even have an MRI image of it.
The verse I quoted is from the Bible, making it a religious thing, but just not a "true" religious thing.
No. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's automatically a religious thing. Butter is obtained from milk by "churning" regardless of the Bible. The portions of the Bible that are religious (as opposed to scientific, historical, or pedagogical), are the ones that talk about supernatural beings and/or the accomplishments thereof.
I do not -- and neither does any reasonable atheist -- discard the entire Bible as worthless. It is a priceless cultural artifact, no less priceless than the glyphs painted on Egyptian tombs (and even more than that, due to its contemporary effects.) It gives insight into the culture and history of a region and subsequently the world ranging from thousands of years in the past and up to this day.
*Lovely. Of course, you will reason that it is truth because it's in the Bible. The Bible, of course, is truth because that's in the Bible too. Most insightful.*
Still miles better than what you're offering.
A circular argument much better than what I am offering? Now what, I wonder, could I be offering that could be worse than a circular argument?
You reason that science is (place adjective here) because it doesn't have all the answers.
You argue that evolution is true because of science, which is still working on the answers.
Your fellow atheists argue that they, and you, don't know anything at all.
Your best approach to truth is to ask, "what is truth?"
I reasong that science is (place adjective here) because it has many of the answers already, and is a sure route to more answers.
I argue that evolution (the record) is true because of science, which pretty much already has all the answers. I argue that evolution (the body of theories explaining the record) is very promising as the explanation, and likely contains many of the components of the final answer.
My fellow atheists argue that they, and me, know much more than some religious geek who imagines he's got all the answers.
My best approach to truth is to question and investigate a mystery in order to arrive at answers.
Your best approach to truth is to look up the word "truth" in the dictionary.
Veeeerrrrry insightful, indeed.
You be the judge, competent as you are by your own admission.
Duplicating does not equal increasing.
You are just hoping I will fall for the old "it's incomprehensible" argument.
...
Very large numbers are, oh, so incomprehensible.
Actually, much of the human DNA's junk is indeed self-replicating segments of DNA. They continue to bloat the size of the genome to this day (albeit undetectably so, as far as phenotype is concerned.)
Much of the rest of the junk are broken duplicates of existing genes or of viral or bacterial genes.
Several human chromosomes have been shown to have formed by a duplication of an entire chromosome (that's more than 5% of present genome in one shot.)
You probably think that because you said so, I will actually believe that cells are like little PCR machines cranking out huge quantities of DNA, magically creating 3 billion base pairs where there were none before.
Well, cells aren't like that; they duplicate DNA more or less identically to what was there already.
Let's conduct a very simple calculation. Your typical gene is 1000 base-pairs long (actually, longer than that on average, but we'll ignore that.) If you duplicate one of the genes once every, oh say 1,000 years -- how many new base pairs would you have added in 4 billion years? Let's see here: 4,000,000 * 1000 = 4,000,000,000. That's more than the modern human genome (bloated with useless junk as it is.) That's, of course, without ever duplicating entire chromosomes or entire sections of a chromosome, and also ignoring gene infusions from viruses and bacteria.
If very large numbers could be achieved very quickly then bacteria would have demonstrated such a process a long time ago.
Oops, that just plays into your "incomprehensibility" argument.
Let's say that bacteria would be demonstrating that as we speak, and they aren't.
Actually, they
are demonstrating that. Modern bacteria readily swap genes across species; they even have a special mechanism for doing so. Modern amoebae have a genome larger than human.
Though keep in mind that modern microorganisms are much more highly fine-tuned and optimized than we are -- they've had many orders more generations than us. It follows that in most cases, introducing a random new gene into a bacterium should actually hurt the bacterium's fitness more frequently than for organisms like humans.
It looks just as seemingly valid to me as it does to you.
You simply lack the critical thinking it takes to critique what you respect.
That, coming from the master of critical thinking as you have already emerged while I'm around. Yeah, I can imagine it:
Tony (thinking silently): "Hmmm. Interesting, interesting. Why, this might even be right. Oh wait, what am I saying? I can't let myself be deceived by this anti-Christian propaganda. This is crap, crap, crap..."
That is worse.
You are now arguing morality by the calendar.
Even an atheist is going to find it difficult to justify using a calendar as the basis for morality after rejecting a book which is avowedly considered a basis for morality.
When did morality come into this? Churning milk->butter. Twisting nose->blood. Animosity->strife. None of that's about morality. Matter of fact, it's bleeding buttery obvious.
But if you want to discuss morality, then wrong again. Morality is historically based on common sense and on emotions, not on religious edicts or doctrines. And neither is common sense, nor are emotions, subject to the calendar -- nor to the Bible.
Of course these days one expects an educated person to have internally ratified, as it were, his/her own moral code based on all the past parental wisdom and all the present lessons that are available (in the forms of law, history, sociology, one's perceived place in the world, etc.)
I was attempting to highlight the fact that most of my textbooks were either not current at the time I received them or didn't last to the end of the year.
Well guess what, your textbooks weren't making claims that cannot be invalidated. That makes them scientific. Of course, you cannot textbook now or ever that is so outdated that nothing it says is true. The progress of science is incremental, and while the older books may fail to include the latest findings and contain invalidated theories, any reproducible experimental setups and outcomes they do contain still continue to apply.
The parts of the Bible that did attempt to express the worldly wisdom of the day are also subject to invalidation. For example, the creation accounts come to mind. Another example are the various descriptions and references to astronomical, atmospheric or geological phenomena and facts.
On the other hand, the parts of the Bible that are making prima facie unverifiable, undisprovable claims about the supernatural of course cannot be validated or invalidated by definition. That makes them vacant of any substance. Their main worth is in terms of insight into the historical effects of this religion on the world's societies and civilizations. Their secondary worth is in terms of insight into the human psyche, which is merely complementary to the insight offered by all the other religions.
You only want what is real enough for you, and I want what is real.
The difference between the two being...?
You will tolerate any falsehood, any scam, any wool over your eyes, in fact, anything at all, as long as it appears real enough to fool you.
You will tolerate any falsehood, any scam, any wool over your eyes, in fact, anything at all, as long as it appears real enough to fool you.
Of course in your case the threshold of gullibility is waaaay lower. But as long as you keep struggling with yourself to keep that threshold where it is, you should have no problem remaining delusional.
*We apply the same litmus test to all beliefs.*
The atheist mantra.
You leave out the last part, "except your own."
Ok, I'll add the last part: "including our own." (Though it's pretty much implicit when I say "all beliefs".)
*Sounds like normal everyday thought process to me.*
It would, except it isn't.
Paying attention is undirected thought. The object of your attention determines your thoughts, which means you don't.
The opposite is not thinking at all.
You did mention reading a book as one of your examples of "directed thought". I think you just shot down your own example.
You are unable to be impartial at all.
In fact, you are forced to reject Christianity.
Your thoughts about that are merely a rationalization after the fact.
Spoken like someone who thinks that Christianity is the real impartial starting point. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Christianity is by definition a set of beliefs -- so you can't base your view on it to the exclusion of all other views and still claim to be impartial.
Which, incidentally, is another reason behind the separation between church and state. It helps the judicial branch stay unbiased (though of course it can't in itself guarantee impartiality.)
In other words, you are completely incapable of objective thought.
All of your reasoning is based on assuming your conclusion as your premise.
Spoken like someone who assumes his conclusion of a Christian God as his premise.
It is obvious that your view of the world is rather heavily filtered by assuming your conclusions as your premise.
What conclusions?
That any claim, which cannot be confirmed or disproven, is most likely confabulated bunk? Yeah, I'll stand by that as my premise (though certainly an a priori assumption.) It is indeed the only way to remain sane.
Or perhaps you mean my conclusion that every single religious metaphysical theory in the world is entirely too childish and anthropomorphic to even approach reality (which is certainly not anthropomorphic)? Yes, I'll stand by that one as well -- though it's not a prior assumption but indeed a conclusion following some analysis.
Or maybe you are talking about the conclusion that "explaining" the universe and humanity and the self by postulating yet another higher "self" of a different "humanity" within an encompassing "universe" as the prime cause and source of everything is plain blithering ludicrous since it explains nothing at all? Yes, I'll accept that -- but it is not a prior assumption but indeed a conclusion following some analysis.
Or are you questioning my unwillingness to close my eyes to demonstrable claims and facts just so that I could coerce myself into joining one of the world's religions? Well, I already did say that I cherish my sanity.
Sorry bud, but it is you who is "heavily filtering". Take off your religious blindfold.
Not if the belief is recognition of God.
Refusing to entertain that belief, which cannot be demonstrated as true, is a guaranteed way to delusion.
I have indeed entertained that belief. I found it ridiculous. I do not entertain it much any longer, since I find it even more ridiculous now.
Why?
If you insist on objective proof for a subjective matter, you cannot demonstrate the validity of that belief, either.
According to your statement, the proper course of action would be to refuse to entertain such a belief.
That in turn necessitates abandoning the insistence on objective proof, which is the basis for your world-view.
After a few loops of that, you will be/are deluded.
Then you should try "a few loops of that" on the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. Or the ancient Innuits. Or pick your favorite delusion. Or is there something wrong with your logic (as quoted above)? I know what it is, but I want to give you a chance to figure it out yourself.
It is the atheist insisting that he/she is going to bet on the falsehood of all beliefs unless proven true.
To make a bet like that, you would have to accept that belief before it has been proven true.
What "that" belief? What you quoted is a strategy, not a belief. The corresponding belief would be that indeed of all prior beliefs that have not been substantiated the overwhelming majority (if not entirety) have turned out to be false (and I speak of personal life experience as a child, even before one learns of history.) It is not so much a belief as a conclusion -- and a very well-grounded in reality one at that (even before one entertains the mathematical notions of sets and probabilities.)