 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 497 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh fucking christ, somebody tried to use the monkey argument? HAHA |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am going to eat dinner .. bbiab. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I would say accepting atheism as a philosophy is just as ignorant as claiming theism. The fact is, we really have very little idea of how life occured and to say that you are totally sure of one thing or another is presupposing too much based on too little knowledge. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I can't wait for someone to use the "Satan created the fossil record to confuse us" arguement. that's my personal favorite. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah, yeah. But my favorite is when they try to use science: "But evolution violates Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics!" For one, it doesn't, and secondly, doesn't a divine creation violate the fuck out of the second law? heh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't think we are that much smarter than monkeys anyway. we are just a lot more conceited. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh and a little less hairy ... in most cases. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Usually when I hear (or read rather since I never orally commuicate with anyone) conventional "religious arguments vs. evolution" debates I don't get interested or look forward to learning anything. It's not a valid meaningful debate. On one hand is a lost psychology and on the other side is reason. It's ok to be religious. Remember that the current religions are the ones that were successful information replicators... ha.. I think I know WHAT is replicating in memes now, it's information (binary information, 0s and 1s, depending on how the brain works though)... susan blackmore was trying to decide whether it was books or words or what.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
regarding the second law of thermodynamics: Romans 8:19-21 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Hey boys the bible taught it first ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Fleetmouse, it is actually interesting that I spent most of my teenage years and early 20s as either an atheist or some form of drug influenced panthiest. I became a christian not even two years ago. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Uh, might I say that I don't see how that in any way resembles the second law of thermodynamics. The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted. The second law was formulated after nineteenth century engineers noticed that heat cannot pass from a colder body to a warmer body by itself; it was not formulated by the Bible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am curious about the copy and paste ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
perhaps some insight into the relationship can be found |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
glasse: seems to me cognitive dissonance does a pretty good job of accounting for this type of debate. that goes for either camp! (or any camp in a more abstract sense) seems to me this type of debate often functions at the level of epiphenomenon ... just a thought |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh give me a break with your epistomological relativism - are you trying to tell me that as a naturalist/materialist, I'm so awed by the implications of theology that I'm driven to argue my point as a way of resolving the dissonance? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's not to suggest that we can or should account for the 1st order "phenomenon" ... it's more like a truism; crudely put, you always already have a point of view. if truth is the correlation between 1st and 2nd order, i think it already misses the point that you can't abstract the 1st order (the point of view) ... trying to account for it, always belies the fact that there is someone accounting for it with a point of view ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
When you say first order, do you mean experience? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cognative dissonance, the bible taught it first .. Romans 7:14-25 14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[3] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that last post was half intended as a joke, btw .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
maybe i shouldn't have used 'cognitive dissonance' : meant to work in a rather loose/metaphorical way .. so no fleetmouse, i don't think i can reduce your materialistic, or theistic or whatever position ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fleetmouse .. in a crude and broad sense .. yes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What are you experiencing? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So how does one go about determining objective truth? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
at least what we can collectively define as objective truth, assuming that there is such a thing ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Objective truth is that set of cognitions which is in accordance with reality. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
reality being the majority experience of humans? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No, truth is not a popularity contest. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hold on, I thought I knew what you meant - what is a "majority experience"? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh shit objective turth absolute truth god philosophy and the bible lets all make a song based on our craziest philosophical thought and then make a comp! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
come on fleetmouse, you can do better than that! do you think experience is entirely reducible to language? i'm not meaning to deny the usefulness of saying .. god damn the weather is hot etc .. but they all essentially amount to abstracted stories .. the real "event" is your incessant corporeal experience. just because you can't reduce it to language doesn't mean it is mythical .. its right in front of your nose etc. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I could not agree more, but considering the idea that we can only determine what is real based on experience we have to allow for the possibility that none of it is real. That is to say that we have to allow for the matrix/zen type of perception. Of course I believe in objective truth apart from experience ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You have somehow managed to completely invert the point of what I was saying, which is that there is a "there" there, and that it can be known to a degree that is useful in determining such things as separating truth from fantasy |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe you are a worm in a jar on Beta Largactil VII, hallucinating that you are a Christian. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What I was getting at was the idea that we all decide that brown is brown because most of us look at something that is brown and are able to identify it, using collective majority experience to validate our own. Of course, if you have seen the Matrix you are familiar with the concept that majority experience may not necessarily define truth. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
73% of all statistics are made up on the spot |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the "there" as you put it, is what i'd call corporeal experience .. but the "there" abstracted, put into words will always appear to be "somewhere" / "elsewhere" - and consequently, in some sense empty .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe that through a difficult to formalize process that involves a combination of experience, reason and communication, it is possible to know things about reality which are useful and are best, if not perfectly, collected under the umbrella term "truth". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I believe in the concept of objective truth apart from experience (if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it actually does make a sound) however that objective truth can be skewed when it passes through ones subjective perception. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this is an interesting rabbit trail ... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
there are things outside of your "self" scary isn't it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
so you guys are probably familiar with the one about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
...he stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yea that is the one .. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
come on fleetmouse .. i'm not advocating solipsism or scepticism ... yes, in some sense the way i've explicated experience is solipsistic. it's impossible for me to experience what you're experiencing innit? but there are things out there fo sho .. the world around me is part of what i experience, other people, trains planes and automobiles etc. and they are all meaningful! if you start from a descartes type stand point you will get yourself into a nasty knot, no question about it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You still don't see many subjectivists plunging their hands into the fire. Cos it's hot. Whether you believe in an objective reality or not, your behaviour is modified in relation to something you perceive as external. Which comes to much the same thing. I like conflicted people who use arguments against objective reality to deny the evidence of evolution, yet never choose to apply such arguments to a cultural artefact such as the bible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Actually my comments about subjectivity/objectivity were a complete rabbit trail and only a general relevance to the original topic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"Words mean things." - Rush Limbaugh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's wrong with rabbit trails? <---- Sigh, you humans. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You still don't see many subjectivists plunging their hands into the fire. Cos it's hot. Whether you believe in an objective reality or not, your behaviour is modified in relation to something you perceive as external. Which comes to much the same thing. exactly, that's why adhering to a descartes type subject/object distinction will get you into a knot! besides your born from what is external to "the subject" innit? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
not quite there yet .. but its starting to resemble a tohu va bohu :) nice |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
