"The mind is proof of god's existence."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-02-2013, 04:05 PM
AW: RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 03:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There is no proof of what you're saying otherwise ID and Creation would be dead, old issues.
That's probably one of the most poorly reasoned non-sequitur arguments I have ever heard.

Reductio ad absurdum:

There is no proof of the heliocentric model, otherwise the geocentric model would be a dead, old issue.

There is no proof of a spherical earth, otherwise the view of earth as a flat disk would be a dead, old issue.

There is no proof of a spinning earth, otherwise the view that the earth stands still would be a dead, old issue.

There is no proof of the Holocaust, otherwise Holocaust-denial would be a dead, old issue.

There is no proof of the moonlanding, otherwise moonlanding conspiracies would be a dead, old issue.

etc. pp.

That aside, Creationism and ID are dead, old issues within the scientific community. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial was merely of the many nails in ID's coffin. Take a guess why ID is mostly popular in countries with poor public education systems.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
The reason creation and ID are alive is because a) followers of them do not understand evolution and other processes of the natural world, and b) the leaders who possibly (but not necessarily) do understand make an awful lot of money from lying to people.

Calling evolution and natural selection facts is not bias, it is a case of looking at the overwhelming evidence and coming to a logical conclusion. If you do not accept this, then you either do not understand them or you are in denial.

Mutations happen all the time. Pretty much everyone has a few mutated genes in their structure. The overwhelming majority of mutations do fuck all. Some are bad. Every so often one comes along that is helpful, and these usually get passed on.

Bear in mind that this process takes place over millions of years. A lot of things happen in millions of years. Things that have a very low chance of occurring happen a lot of times in millions of years simply because of the time span involved. The longer the timespan, the greater the chance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 04:08 PM
RE: AW: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 04:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  That aside, Creationism and ID are dead, old issues within the scientific community. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial was merely of the many nails in ID's coffin. Take a guess why ID is mostly popular in countries with poor public education systems.
Like Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisiana?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-02-2013, 04:10 PM
AW: RE: AW: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 04:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 04:05 PM)Vosur Wrote:  That aside, Creationism and ID are dead, old issues within the scientific community. The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial was merely of the many nails in ID's coffin. Take a guess why ID is mostly popular in countries with poor public education systems.
Like Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisiana?
I don't know what you're trying to say with this. Care to elaborate?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: AW: AW: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 04:10 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 04:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  Like Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and Louisiana?
I don't know what you're trying to say with this. Care to elaborate?

Joke about 'countries with poor education systems'. Big Grin

Fuckin' German needs a humor transplant. Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 04:26 PM
AW: RE: AW: AW: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 04:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 04:10 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't know what you're trying to say with this. Care to elaborate?

Joke about 'countries with poor education systems'. Big Grin

Fuckin' German needs a humor transplant. Yes
[In a mechanical voice] You are wrong. The joys of life, humor and happiness, lie within the domain of emotions and feelings. My thoughts are governed by pure logic, restricted by my program.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 04:30 PM
RE: AW: AW: AW: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 04:26 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 04:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  Joke about 'countries with poor education systems'. Big Grin

Fuckin' German needs a humor transplant. Yes
[In a mechanical voice] You are wrong. The joys of life, humor and happiness, lie within the domain of emotions and feelings. My thoughts are governed by pure logic, restricted by my program.
Well, that certainly explains it. Yes
They forgot the irony module. We will need to return you for a service update as it is not downloadable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 05:08 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 02:12 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 11:24 AM)Impulse Wrote:  It's interesting that you introduced those terms into the discussion in order to make a point even though you think they are subjective and arbitrary. Consider

When you brought them up, it was in the context of punishment and common good. From that, I infer a moral context. While rape and theft might be "good" in terms of advancing one's kind in the evolutionary process, they are not morally "good".

I don't understand. You are a materialist, a naturalist? How did you arrive at a set of morals? Please tell me where your moral code comes from.
From being a human being who lives on this earth. From a combination of compassion, empathy, altruism, society, family, and common sense. Can you honestly tell me that, if you learned beyond any doubt today that there really is no god, you suddenly wouldn't know right from wrong? Honestly?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
05-02-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 03:51 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your lack of understanding of biology is not evidence against evolution. Your lack of knowledge that prevents you from seeing how mutation MIGHT create and selection MIGHT preserve change does not make anything "irreducibly complex".
Correct. Now, where's that irreducible complexity you're talking about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: "The mind is proof of god's existence."
(05-02-2013 03:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Rape is possibly an evolutionary advantageous trait, as in the past a rapist would be more likely to pass on their genes through many offspring. Is it a necessity? Not at all, most of us are born without rape, so it's not necessary for our survival. Does that make rape moral or ethical? Not at all. Why not? Subjectively, it violates the rights and desires of the victim. Objectively, it causes more net suffering than not raping, and is therefore objectively worse than not raping.
Yes, subjectively, the rights and desires of the victim. From whence does a person's rights derive? What are the evolutionary rights of a person? From whence do you get whether rape is moral or ethical or not moral or ethical? From whence do you get the notion that "net suffering" is an evolutionary issue?



I know what you're trying to do here. You're going to try and do everything you can to disparage subjective morality in an effort to try and prove objective morality, and then use that as proof for the existence of the one thing you think can give us objective morality, your iron-age desert war god Yahweh.


Net suffering is not an 'evolutionary issue', nor did I ever claim it was, so we'll leave it there for now.


For a scientific grounding of objective morality, we need set of a criteria. The suffering of conscious creatures is not arbitrary starting point. A universe consisting only of rocks would have no ethical concerns, rocks are not conscious nor do they suffer. It is also apparent that we value the lives and feelings of our fellow apes over the lives of insects, because it appears that they have a greater capacity for conscious experience. Now we could be wrong here about the inner lives of insects, but everything we know so far leads us to believe that conscious experience is directly related to biological complexity. This is why the suffering of conscious creatures will be the barometer of morality.


Now we need a base line, something from which to gauge everything else. Sam Harris calls this the "worst possible misery for everyone", in which "everything living thing suffers as much as it can for as long as it can". If anything is bad and worth avoiding, it's the worst possible misery for everyone. Every move away from that baseline is an improvement, in objective moral terms.


With these guidelines now established, is rape objectively wrong? Yes, not because Yahweh says so (in fact he's perfectly okay with rape), but because it adds to the net suffering of conscious creatures. Rape gets us closer to the worst possible misery for everyone, not raping gets us farther away.


There is also evidence and reasons to believe that many of our ethical behaviors are products of evolution, because we see them elsewhere in the animal kingdom. Many mammal species will die protecting their young, chimpanzees have been documented dying trying to save fellow members of their clan from drowning. Chimpanzees also show sexual jealousy, and an innate sense of fairness (watch them distribute food, and see what happens if the distribution isn't fair). Among the other great apes we can see similar emotions, from happiness and laughter, to anger and fear.


Did your god give chimpanzees emotions but no 'soul'? Or are chimpanzees products of evolutionary process, much like ourselves? I would posit that the later is far more likely, not only because it has a mountain of evidence behind it, but also because it makes less assumptions (Occam's Razor).

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: