Research on Belief in God

[Eshnar]

Speak for yourself. Ants are worthy of mercy, and I would certainly think there is something wrong with someone who goes around stepping on ants just cos, and I would consider someone mentally unwell if they thought it was ok to cause them pain.

So do you obsessively walk watching down in fear of hurting an ant?
I didn't express myself properly. By "not worthy of mercy" I meant that if we step on an ant the average reaction is "so what".

 

[rhubroma]

I'm aware of Echoes views, Chesterton I'd have to look into and I'm aware of Shaw (Fabian Society) but based purely on what is written as it is written I'm missing what you're seeing.

oh well...

I still have "the truth is superior to provability" rolling around in my head so I'm reading it through that lens I suppose.

The formal aspect has little to do with rhetorical affinities, which, aesthetically, even before ideologically, arise form a metaphysical syncretism.

http://www.robertfulford.com/Chesterton.html


http://www.secondspring.co.uk/economy/chesterton-anti-semitism.html

 

[RetroActive]

The formal aspect has little to do with rhetorical affinities, which, aesthetically, even before ideologically, arise form a metaphysical syncretism.

http://www.robertfulford.com/Chesterton.html


http://www.secondspring.co.uk/economy/chesterton-anti-semitism.html

Which formal aspect are you referring to? Chesterton sounds like a complicated man in a complicated time, not the worst rogue in a gallery of rogues. At least he would change his mind. We have a pretty good idea how Echoes would use the highlighter, I would use it very differently I'm sure.

I read what Echoes wrote in his post to refer to a wholistic, generalist worldview as opposed to the specialisation we're experiencing. I didn't bother importing all the rest of the baggage into what I was reading.

 

[The Hitch]

So do you obsessively walk watching down in fear of hurting an ant?
I didn't express myself properly. By "not worthy of mercy" I meant that if we step on an ant the average reaction is "so what".

That's a different thing. My reaction probably would be one of regret and hope that it was a quick death.

Personally as a kid I always tried to discourage others from stepping on spiders though unfortunately most thought it was great fun, or as an adult I've tried to discourage drunk friends behaving like kids from doing the same to cockroaches or spiders.

 

[hrotha]

Eshnar's line of reasoning is kinda funny when you remember one of the clichéd ways of showing a kid's a psycho in popular media is to have him burn an ant nest.
edit: or tear off the wings of a fly.

 

[Eshnar]

Eshnar's line of reasoning is kinda funny when you remember one of the clichéd ways of showing a kid's a psycho in popular media is to have him burn an ant nest.
edit: or tear off the wings of a fly.

Yeah I repeat I didn't mean to voluntarily harm those animals you know.

 

[Netserk]

That's a different thing. My reaction probably would be one of regret and hope that it was a quick death.

Personally as a kid I always tried to discourage others from stepping on spiders though unfortunately most thought it was great fun, or as an adult I've tried to discourage drunk friends behaving like kids from doing the same to cockroaches or spiders.

So if a mosquito bites you, will you just do nothing, wave it away or kill it?

I'd do the latter, and I don't think that makes me a bad person.

 

[rhubroma]

Which formal aspect are you referring to? Chesterton sounds like a complicated man in a complicated time, not the worst rogue in a gallery of rogues. At least he would change his mind. We have a pretty good idea how Echoes would use the highlighter, I would use it very differently I'm sure.

I read what Echoes wrote in his post to refer to a wholistic, generalist worldview as opposed to the specialisation we're experiencing. I didn't bother importing all the rest of the baggage into what I was reading.

Indeed, but that's the point. Wholistic, generalist is a nice way to frame things in absolutist way.

 

[RetroActive]

Indeed, but that's the point. Wholistic, generalist is a nice way to frame things in absolutist way.

It certainly can be but what can't? I'm a big fan of zoom in and zoom out. When applying the paint zoom in, when looking at the composition zoom out - flip it upside down etc.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

I can't say that I know/remember why this discussion started, but it seems to me self evident that one does not inflict harm unto other animals unless it is necessary (example food, even though I am a vegetarian I do understand people that wants to eat meat).

That this is even a subject worth debating is redicolous

 

[Jspear]

My faith has a million times more proof to back it up than yours.

And the crucial difference, my faith is not burnt in. Atheists are open minded to having their mind change the second their beliefs are challenged by proof.

You guys on the other hand, continue to believe the exact same version of what happened, even when it is proved that it is absolutely impossible.

Lets be honest.....you are not open to the evidences I bring up. Check out Answers In Genesis(just google it), and you'll see myriads of facts supporting the creationist position. If you really want to be opened minded check it out. If you don't want to check it out, just be honest your not open minded.

 

[Jspear]

No, I have doubt.

I too have doubt....Doubt that evolution is accurate and true.

 

[hrotha]

Lets be honest.....you are not open to the evidences I bring up. Check out Answers In Genesis(just google it), and you'll see myriads of facts supporting the creationist position. If you really want to be opened minded check it out. If you don't want to check it out, just be honest your not open minded.

Have you tried looking up pro-evolution (soccer! I keed) sites like TalkOrigins?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Lets be honest.....you are not open to the evidences I bring up. Check out Answers In Genesis(just google it), and you'll see myriads of facts supporting the creationist position. If you really want to be opened minded check it out. If you don't want to check it out, just be honest your not open minded.

Do you have a education in the field of biology or the like?
If not (like me) one should atleast let the concenus have a very big vote when you decide what to take as fact, and what to take as junk science. And when there is no serious secular (or religious for that matter) man in science left in this world who belives in creaton, it should atleast be worriesome shouldn't it?

 

[Jspear]

Have you tried looking up pro-evolution (soccer! I keed) sites like TalkOrigins?
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

No I have never heard of this website. I briefly started looking around just know.(I don't live online, so I'll look through it when I have time.) I just want to address one thing based off this quote I read on the website. Here is the quote:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Creationist believe that things change. There are many many variations in dogs, or cats, or birds. We don't deny this, we embrace this. But you will never ever see a cat become a dog, or a dog become a bird. It has never happened(there is zero proof), and It never will.

 

[Echoes]

[...]
I read what Echoes wrote in his post to refer to a wholistic, generalist worldview as opposed to the specialisation we're experiencing. I didn't bother importing all the rest of the baggage into what I was reading.

Why do you feel the need to justify having seconded one of my posts? Am I an outcast? Which of my views are you aware of?

Chesterton was not a Fascist - showed by the links posted here - and disqualifying him because of seemingly anti-Semitic remarks is hypocrit since the huge majority of authors, artists, philosophers, political leaders or army officer from long before AD until 1945 (and even beyond in some cases) that are still praised today can be accused of anti-Semitism as well. From Ovid to George Orwell. From Cicero to Sir Winston Churchill, passing by Flaubert, Erasmus, Goethe, etc. etc.

Read Chesterton and make your opinion! By the way thanks for your interesting link ! This criticism of Sixties rebels/avant-guarde, just love it !

 

[Jspear]

Do you have a education in the field of biology or the like?
If not (like me) one should atleast let the concenus have a very big vote when you decide what to take as fact, and what to take as junk science. And when there is no serious secular (or religious for that matter) man in science left in this world who belives in creaton, it should atleast be worriesome shouldn't it?

You are simply mistaken. There are serious christian(religious) scientist who believe in creationism. Look at the video I posted earlier of John Lennox debating Christopher Hitchens. Many of Answers In Genesis' staff are scientist...men with degree's in biology, geology, ect. The man who invented the MRI machine(his name escapes me at the moment) is a creation scientist.

 

[RetroActive]

No I have never heard of this website. I briefly started looking around just know.(I don't live online, so I'll look through it when I have time.) I just want to address one thing based off this quote I read on the website. Here is the quote:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Creationist believe that things change. There are many many variations in dogs, or cats, or birds. We don't deny this, we embrace this. But you will never ever see a cat become a dog, or a dog become a bird. It has never happened(there is zero proof), and It never will.

...but a chicken can become a rooster and surprise everyone.
Sex-Change Chicken: Gertie the Hen Becomes Bertie the Cockerel
http://www.livescience.com/13514-sex-change-chicken-gertie-hen-bertie-cockerel.html

 

[RetroActive]

Why do you feel the need to justify having seconded one of my posts? Am I an outcast? Which of my views are you aware of?

Chesterton was not a Fascist - showed by the links posted here - and disqualifying him because of seemingly anti-Semitic remarks is hypocrit since the huge majority of authors, artists, philosophers, political leaders or army officer from long before AD until 1945 (and even beyond in some cases) that are still praised today can be accused of anti-Semitism as well. From Ovid to George Orwell. From Cicero to Sir Winston Churchill, passing by Flaubert, Erasmus, Goethe, etc. etc.

Read Chesterton and make your opinion! By the way thanks for your interesting link ! This criticism of Sixties rebels/avant-guarde, just love it !

I feel no need to justify agreeing with that particular post particularly in light of the context it was applied. I'm also aware that you tend to turn hard right and I had some awareness of where rhub. was coming from. That post was a good one, imo.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

You are simply mistaken. There are serious christian(religious) scientist who believe in creationism. Look at the video I posted earlier of John Lennox debating Christopher Hitchens. Many of Answers In Genesis' staff are scientist...men with degree's in biology, geology, ect. The man who invented the MRI machine(his name escapes me at the moment) is a creation scientist.

1. So genesis shall be taken literaly now suddenly, most christians have fallen back on it only being figurativley.
2. Why don't you watch his debates with such people as Lawrence Krauss or Dawkins (or harris for that mather) and come back to me. Hitchens is a author, polemicist, debater, public intelectual and a journalist, not a scientist in any way or form. It is not his field of expertise.

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac

Bart Ehrman vs William Lane "the king of strawmen" Craig

Interesting to watch if anyone is interested.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I'll proceed on the assumption that you meant to say "reprehensible".

Yes, that is was a pretty ugly mistake in my English, thanks for pointing it out!

Everybody agrees that those things are morally reprehensible today. The moral zeitgeist has evolved and keeps evolving. What is now considered immoral was a perfectly accepted view just decades ago.

The philosopher Jeremy Bentham made this very same point very eloquently more than 200 years ago (...)

That's an intresting quote by Bentham. I didn't know he extended his utilitarianism to animals.
I guess another reason this ideal couldn't have been very succesful earlier, is that we need a degree of wealth and some of the modern technological advancements to be able to live a lifestyle that doesn't 'exploit' animals. I guess it would be difficult to meet some nutritional needs without animal products, if we couldn't produce that stuff artificily nowadays in supplements. I suppose in ages past in certain contexts it might have been a bit difficult to get food and clothes from animals and it might still be for some people. At least such a lifestyle in certainly a whole lot easier in the modern western world. Would you consider it immoral to kill an animal for food if you're in a situation where you're struggling to get enough food to survive?

Can we be friends? Now you now a naturalistic atheist that doesn't wear leather shoes or drinks milk. And as you know, I'm not the only one.

Sure
You know, I often get annoyed by this atheist rhetoric of religious people being arrogant because they would feel humans are somehow the centre of the universe, when in my experience the average atheist lives just as if he shares such a conviction with us religious folk. But I guess I will have to be a bit more thoughtful about the fact that there are people who really do try to live according to the idea that humans and animals are equally worthy, as has been illustrated by you and others in this thread. I guess I'm going to have to concede the right to such people, including you, to call me arrogant because I feel humans are superior to animals and feel free to blaim the religious doctrine that gives me a rationale for that conviction!

You should read some books on evolutionary behavioral science. A lot of this is biology.

Basically human action is driven by the will to expand his gene pool. The best way of doing that is reproducing, and creating the best possible condition of your offspring to survive. But than also altruism is partly based on that: there is always a chance that other people share some of the same genes as you. Of course this is more obvious for a family member than for a total stranger, and there's a bigger chance people with the same ethnic roots have common genes.
And then there's different species, that are definitely unrelated to you. This is one of the reasons cannibalism is so uncommon for almost all animals, including humans.

That's about the eating. Exploiting on the other hand, is just a part of daily life for all humans.

Right, but I believe in human freedom. Obviously a lot of human behaviour can be explained in a certain perspective through biology, but I don't think biology 'forces' an individual to do something in a given moral dillema. I guess some people in a naturalistic worldview wouldn't leave any room for such free choice, but at that point we can stop discussing morality as far as I'm concerned. Without human freedom there can be no morality in my opinion. Anyway, that's not necissarily very relevant, let's move on!

So yes, I think biology can give an intresting perspective on human behaviour, but there's still a need, in my opinion, for individuals to think about why they act like they act from an ethical point of view. So what I'm intrested in is the ethical reasoning of naturalistic atheists, who treat humans very differently from animals, when they claim they believe humans are really just another species of animals.

 

[hrotha]

Creationist believe that things change. There are many many variations in dogs, or cats, or birds. We don't deny this, we embrace this. But you will never ever see a cat become a dog, or a dog become a bird. It has never happened(there is zero proof), and It never will.

Don't be ridiculous, that's not how evolution is supposed to work. Give that site a chance, it will refute anything you can throw at it.

 

[The Hitch]

So if a mosquito bites you, will you just do nothing, wave it away or kill it?

I'd do the latter, and I don't think that makes me a bad person.

Are you being facetious? No I don't think it makes you a bad person to kill a mosquito and I don't see how anything I said could lead you tk that conclusion. I'm not preaching pacifism here. It's the pointless interfering with another creature simply because you can that I'm talking about and have done from the get go.

 

[Jspear]

Don't be ridiculous, that's not how evolution is supposed to work. Give that site a chance, it will refute anything you can throw at it.

I'm not being ridiculous. That's not what you believe? That we evolved from monkey's. I thought that you believed something along those lines....I'm saying there's no proof for anything like that. But, I will look at the site and see if they provide any. Got to go for know. I'm at church right now waiting for my praise band to get here....leading worship tonight.