|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: In defense of nihilism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
[And P.S. Rejecting the ToE is not rejecting science as the last thing the ToE is is science.] Well then since you feel you can define what is and isn't science without credentials, you should move to Kansas and join the school board. They also think that they can redefine science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
careful talking about alcohol. schraf might think you're a social parasite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It's still a test. One makes a choice--oneself or God. It's possible to pass or fail the test. Okay, lets call it a test. A test where God passes it for you (and you get the diploma) or you fail it yourself (and don't get the diploma). A very unique test would be a better description perhaps
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It seems in my part of the world that if someone claims to be an eyewitness to something then, bar some good reason to think otherwise, the witnesses testimony is considered valid. On the principle of innocent until proven guilty I suppose.
So on what basis do you think these eyewitness accounts are fabrications?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Well then since you feel you can define what is and isn't science without credentials Which field of science by itself provides independant (ie: unaided by other areas of science) support for ToE as it exists today. And do you have a qualification in that area allied with the level of expertise that would be required to evaluate the data and conclusions that are drawn from it - for yourself. If multiple overlapping areas of science for the basis for ToE, do you have qualification/experience to evaluate the data in all the areas which lend support to the theory Or is it that you have faith in those who inform you. Just like those that believe in God have.. This message has been edited by iano, 13-Dec-2005 07:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Most reasonable people understand the difference between faith and science. It appears you don't and I'm not about to try and teach you. Go troll for somebody else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You know, honestly, it doesn't take all that much to establish that the theory of evolution is a funamentally accurate, at least generally, description of the history of life on Earth. For instance a simple experiment performed at home can easily demonstrate the power of random mutation and natural selection to effect species change.
The only people who require more are those who, because of a prior intellectual committment to an ideology that can only be true if certain obvious scientific conclusions are false, have raised their requirement of evidence so high that it becomes an invincible barrier of ignorance. Now, getting into details - sure, the more detailed into evolutionary history you'd like to go, the more qualifications you'll need to assess arguments and evidence. The qualifications, after all, are simply a representation of how much you've already learned. But in regards to coming to the general understanding that random mutation and natural selection are creative forces with more than enough ability to produce novelty and information to be the explanation for the diversity of life we observe, no, that doesn't take a CV as long as your arm. It takes an open mind to facts and the intelligence to draw conclusions from them. No faith required; just open eyes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I wouldn't be suprised that if one looked up the definition of "blind faith" that her picture would be there. Her posts are so berift of logic and reasoning that it is a wonder she is still allowed her. and you think that ad-hominems help this how?
As far as the bible comments being uncalled for, who the heck are you to tell me that I can't criticise religion. To me religion is a fantasy and reasonable adults would be better off without it. criticism and potshot one-liners are different games entirely. if you want to debate whether or not the bible is a fictional account, be my guest. but do it in another thread, and in such a way where you actually intend to defend your position with more than personal opinion. criticize religion or the bible all you want. i do it quite regularly here. but namecalling and insults are not citicism.
we're still killing each other and justifying it with religion.
All the more reason to leave religion behind. so what you're basically claiming is that YOU, not all of us, are more advanced? you're claiming that you not being religious makes you better somehow? religion being used as a justification for killing people doesn't say anything about religion. ever hear of "social darwinism?" do you think eugenics and genocide justifies overturning darwin's theory of evolution? because that's the standard you're flippantly using here. you're putting the cart before the horse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
criticism and potshot one-liners are different games entirely. if you want to debate whether or not the bible is a fictional account, be my guest. but do it in another thread, and in such a way where you actually intend to defend your position with more than personal opinion. I hate to be the one to tell you this but any position about the validity or not of any religion is only personal opinion.
so what you're basically claiming is that YOU, not all of us, are more advanced? you're claiming that you not being religious makes you better somehow? Where they hell did I ever say that?! I would appreciate you not making things up. You were the one that brought up people killing each other in the name of religion and I replied. I also don't think it's a good idea to kill people in the name of nationalism either.
so what you're basically claiming is that YOU, not all of us, are more advanced? you're claiming that you not being religious makes you better somehow? Here again you make up stuff about what I'm claiming. I do think that religion is a holdover the past and that it currently causes more problems than it solves. I don't consider it a positive thing. I never claimed this makes me better though.
religion being used as a justification for killing people doesn't say anything about religion. ever hear of "social darwinism?" do you think eugenics and genocide justifies overturning darwin's theory of evolution? because that's the standard you're flippantly using here. you're putting the cart before the horse. Rant on, you brought up religion and killing, not me. I'm not fond of religion even if people aren't killing each other in it's name. I never said anything about overturning anything or banning anything or whatnot. I just think we are better off without it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I hate to be the one to tell you this but any position about the validity or not of any religion is only personal opinion. not so. we could look at the bible objectively, determine its sources, influences, and contructions, and make EDUCATED pronouncements about its validity. we can do this other texts too, no matter what our personal opinion is on them.
so what you're basically claiming is that YOU, not all of us, are more advanced? you're claiming that you not being religious makes you better somehow? Where they hell did I ever say that?! I would appreciate you not making things up. You were the one that brought up people killing each other in the name of religion and I replied. I also don't think it's a good idea to kill people in the name of nationalism either. follow the logic. premise: 2000 years agoe people used religion to justify genocide.premise: people still use religion to justify genocide. your conclusion: people would be better without religion. premise: people would be better without religion.premise: you are not religious my conclusion: therefore, you are better than people with religion. it's the logical implication of what you said.
so what you're basically claiming is that YOU, not all of us, are more advanced? you're claiming that you not being religious makes you better somehow? Here again you make up stuff about what I'm claiming. I do think that religion is a holdover the past and that it currently causes more problems than it solves. I don't consider it a positive thing. I never claimed this makes me better though. you certainly implied with the things that you did say, didn't you?
Rant on, you brought up religion and killing, not me. I'm not fond of religion even if people aren't killing each other in it's name. I never said anything about overturning anything or banning anything or whatnot. I just think we are better off without it. you said that the violence was another reason why we'd be better off without it. i don't think the excuse bears much effect on the cause. i was just pointing out that people today are NOT more advanced. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-13-2005 06:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
typo dear. people with religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
it's the logical implication of what you said No it's not! Those are not my premises, they are yours. I can make anyone look pretty bad if I get to make up their premises for them and then make a conclusion based on those premises. Stop putting words in my mouth that I did not say.
people today are NOT more advanced. Unfortunately that is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1375 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
No it's not! Those are not my premises, they are yours. you wrote:
quote: you are obviously advocating an anti-religious viewpoint. am i wrong to assuem that you are not religious? do you fail to see how this can be condescending?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Okay, lets call it a test. It's also a very unfair test. How are we supposed to know if God exists or not? Because of some ancient scribblings of Hebrew goatherders? This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-14-2005 10:47 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
How can a test be unfair when your given the answers to the questions everytime there a question is posed. If you fail it it is simply because you refused to accept the answer that was handed to you on a plate. Either fill in the answer given to you (allowing God to lead you (even if you don't see it as God leading) when he tells you via conscience, what is right) or fill in the answer given to you (acknowledging that God was in fact right when you refused to do what your conscience told you was right ("acknowledgment" comes in the form "why on earth did I do that" exasperation, frustration, even guilt, wishing that you could stop doing it - even though you can't stop doing it. It doesn't involve actually acknowledging God directly. A person doesn't believe in God at this stage)
Like, it's not that God doesn't make it as easy as possible: either way of filling in the answers handed to you will result in you being drawn closer. Or fill in the wrong answers - the ones you make up yourself Not believing the Bible to be his word is not a wrong answer. God hasn't provided you with evidence that it is his word - he is not so unreasonable as to expect you to believe something you have no evidence for. (Although it must be said that anyone who attempts to thread together the finely assembled argument of the bible and comes to the conclusion that it was assembled by a bunch of Hebrew sheepherders certainly isn't thinking straight). But God is well aware that his call of conscience, though a quiet one ("this is what you ought to, not must, do")is as clear as a bell. He knows that the call he makes is being deliberately denied. It is interesting to note that conscience doesn't insist. Whilst it might emerge from being "a still, small voice" and eventually start to put up all kinds of arguments as to why one shouldn't do what is wrong, it doesn't go so far as to prevent the behaviour. Free choice is always available. Our free choice. Observe it. Though our hearts are hardened and we all justify wrong actions, there is (I imagine) sufficient in you to observe. A situation will occur. Your conscience will say what you ought to do, you'll know it is the right thing to do. But you won't do it. You'll do what you know is wrong. A person may decided to hide behind the fact that they believe in nihilism and that there are no absolutes (which is an absolute statement) - but that is only a philosophy - they have no evidence that that is the case - no particular reason to believe it. A person who believes in nihilism without concrete evidence sails in the same creaking, listing vessel that a person who believes in God without concrete evidence does. All everyman can be sure of - when he creeps Wizard of Oz-like out from behind the facade of philosophy - is that something is telling us what we ought to do. Failing any concrete way of knowing what the source of it is, it would seem like a sensible choice to pay attention to it. And if he does, he will arrive in some way shape or form at the man in Romans 7. The only way to avoid arriving at that point is denial. This message has been edited by iano, 14-Dec-2005 05:52 PM This message has been edited by iano, 14-Dec-2005 05:59 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024