- This topic is empty.
- Posts
t8!
Stuu: Saul of Tarsus smiles at your complete lack of questioning as you join him in this objectionable delusion. Like any puffing dictator he likes the way you have given up on critical thinking.
Quote Likewise, Darwin who has since crossed over would probably wonder at his following and how many disciples he has gained. I wonder if you could hear him now what he would say if he could speak to you? Why are you following me? Did you find all those missing links I mentioned? At least people questioned my theory, now you blindly accept it as if I was a prophet from God. Worse part is that there is no proof of course.
Indeed Darwin may have asked Social Darwinists why they tried to use his theory to justify inhumanity, or ‘follow him’. However, unlike Saul of Tarsus, Darwin would not expect everyone to preach the same as him or be accursed, and I doubt very much that Darwin would have called for the slaughter of homosexuals. Darwin would say something along the lines of asking what evidence had accumulated since his death regarding the origins of species. Would Paul ask you what new thinking has occurred in relation to your common brand of god-belief?Quote What about the rest of the dead? If you could hear from those who have experienced passing from this world, what might they say to you if they could speak to you? Perhaps it would be Duh!
Well that is an ‘if’ that is ridiculous. You are begging the question of what people would say if they could demonstrate that it is silly not to believe in the afterlife: there would have to be an afterlife for this to be possible in the first place.Duh! is certainly an appropriate response to your logical fallacy!
Quote Why have you thrown away your brain and common sense. All logic and pattern can never the result of nothing.
How can anything be ‘the result of nothing’? It can arise from nothing, but that is a very different statement.Quote How did people get to be so silly? All that technology and you have not one ounce of common sense.
Well as we discussed earlier, ‘common sense’ may not be the best method of finding out what is really going on. It certainly has not helped the god-deluded to see what does make sense.Quote Truly Stu, scripture has spoken about this time of unbelief.
The FSM has spoken about pirates and the resultant global warming. There is a lot of talk out there, isn’t there t8. Who is to say whose talk is the most absurd?Quote “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools”
The context here is about how men knew God, they didn't glorify him as God nor gave thanks to him. Their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. It is not too hard to see the next level after that, it is called unbelief which is a natural progression from here.
The last sentence does not follow the first two. Unbelievers are those who conclude there is NO god. This statement applies to those who know god(s) but reject them. As it is dangerously close to calling a believer a fool, perhaps we should ask Matthew his opinion on that!Quote You see, if men have understanding and ignore it, then they will foolishly replace that understanding with fables, and in doing so will lose that understanding that was imparted to them to begin with.
But the information ‘imparted to them’ was wrong.Quote “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;”
I am proud to be a biblical ‘fool’. That I am capable of discourse to a reasonable level is just another demonstration that scripture is just another dictator’s manifesto, preying on those without critical facilities and promising ridicule and brutal punishments for those who do not conform.What a loving god you worship.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 13 2009,04:14) Indeed Darwin may have asked Social Darwinists why they tried to use his theory to justify inhumanity,
Sorry Stu, but morality is from God, not from Darwin or the law of the jungle. In the survival of the fittest doctrine, anything goes. If you are fitter, then you are fitter to take from those who are less fit and occupy their ecosystem. i.e., you can take a lollipop from a child or take the food supply of a lesser human.Morality is from the law and the law is from God.
Hitler for example simply exercised his right to a dominant race of humans on earth as allowed in evolution. Where Hitler was deceived was not his understanding of evolution, but his lack of understanding pertaining to a righteous God who will judge all men according to what they have done.
t8
Quote Sorry Stu, but morality is from God, not from Darwin or the law of the jungle.
Sorry t8 but it comes from natural selection. I could provide the evidence for this, but as you provided no evidence I don’t really need to do so in return.Quote In the survival of the fittest doctrine, anything goes.
No, it is very precise: those who are best suited to surviving and reproducing in the current environment are more likely to pass on their genes. But you know this already from all the discussion and teaching about evolution that has happened here at Heavennet.Quote If you are fitter, then you are fitter to take from those who are less fit and occupy their ecosystem. i.e., you can take a lollipop from a child or take the food supply of a lesser human.
Maybe, but how would that increase the chances of you passing on your own genes?Quote Morality is from the law and the law is from God.
No it’s not. See above.Quote Hitler for example simply exercised his right to a dominant race of humans on earth as allowed in evolution. Where Hitler was deceived was not his understanding of evolution, but his lack of understanding pertaining to a righteous God who will judge all men according to what they have done.
I think Hitler was distributing the same kind of psychotic ‘justice’ when he exterminated 6 million Jews as your god was when he exterminated perhaps 30,000,000 people by drowning them. Of course the former is a tragic fact of human history: the deluded actions of an insane man who justified them in terms of any ideology that he could distort to suit his purposes, revenge against Jews for delivering up Jesus being one of them, while the second is brutal Judeo-christian fiction. If we are heading down the “Hitler was just carrying out evolution” route then please remember that he was doing artificial selection, not natural selection.If this counts as any kind of internet debate then I claim victory because you were the first to mention Hitler.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 13 2009,12:00) t8 Quote Sorry Stu, but morality is from God, not from Darwin or the law of the jungle.
Sorry t8 but it comes from natural selection. I could provide the evidence for this, but as you provided no evidence I don’t really need to do so in return.
Ha ha ha. Yeah right.It would make a good Tui billboard.
“Natural selection gave rise to morality. Yeah Right!”
Survival of the fittest is just that. If I am stronger than you, then I can take your resources and due to my strength, and I will most likely live longer resulting in reproducing my DNA more successfully. This is the essence of survival of the fittest. Go and ask a Neanderthal if you don't believe me.
I can only imagine how Evolutionists thought to themselves we need an explanation for morality as we want to separate ourselves from some evolutionists such as Stalin and Hitler. So the more imaginative ones came up with an explanation and you just swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Let me come up with a theory as to how evolution gave rise to morality. Something to do with being nice to others means that you get to survive longer due to having less enemies. Or maybe being nice to others means that you feel good about yourself and that makes you live longer. Ha ha. did I nail it?
“Natural selection gave rise to morality. Yeah Right!”
Funny. Really funny.
t8
Quote Survival of the fittest is just that. If I am stronger than you, then I can take your resources and due to my strength, and I will most likely live longer resulting in reproducing my DNA more successfully. This is the essence of survival of the fittest. Go and ask a Neanderthal if you don't believe me.
Well I must say it is marvelous progress for you to be getting into the real controversies by discussing the comparative importance of the various mechanisms of natural selection. You have come a long way in a couple of years t8!Quote I can only imagine how Evolutionists thought to themselves we need an explanation for morality as we want to separate ourselves from some evolutionists such as Stalin and Hitler. So the more imaginative ones came up with an explanation and you just swallowed it hook line and sinker.
I don’t even know what an ‘evolutionist’ really is, t8. I don’t think you have articulated it very well either. Evolution is just the fact of the change in species that has occurred over time. Would you call yourself a gravitationalist because you sink to the floor when your legs move from under you?Quote Let me come up with a theory as to how evolution gave rise to morality. Something to do with being nice to others means that you get to survive longer due to having less enemies. Or maybe being nice to others means that you feel good about yourself and that makes you live longer. Ha ha. did I nail it?
Not a complete hash. Cooperation is a survival tactic for a species as a whole, for mating and rearing and working together to maintain collective quality of life and increase life expectancy. But think more along the lines that, since we are one of the most spectacularly successful animals this high up the food chain, and we are evolving at probably the fastest rate in our brief history, what is it that we do from an ethical point of view today to secure our survival? We have a sense of fair play which means we tend to try and correct situations where someone benefits at the expense of someone who is already poor and getting poorer. Generally speaking we do not steal but we share, for example a national health system or a national system of food production and distribution. More basically we do not kill because to do so would raise the chances that someone else would kill us. We do not have to teach young children not to kill. That ethic is instinctual, and instinct is genetic, and genes are the product of natural selection.Name another!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 15 2009,18:43) Well I must say it is marvelous progress for you to be getting into the real controversies by discussing the comparative importance of the various mechanisms of natural selection. You have come a long way in a couple of years t8!
Thanks.
Quote (Stu @ June 15 2009,18:43) Not a complete hash. Cooperation is a survival tactic for a species as a whole, for mating and rearing and working together to maintain collective quality of life and increase life expectancy. But think more along the lines that, since we are one of the most spectacularly successful animals this high up the food chain, and we are evolving at probably the fastest rate in our brief history, what is it that we do from an ethical point of view today to secure our survival? We have a sense of fair play which means we tend to try and correct situations where someone benefits at the expense of someone who is already poor and getting poorer. Generally speaking we do not steal but we share, for example a national health system or a national system of food production and distribution. More basically we do not kill because to do so would raise the chances that someone else would kill us. We do not have to teach young children not to kill. That ethic is instinctual, and instinct is genetic, and genes are the product of natural selection.
Um.Think of the Moriori and the Maori.
The Moriori understood working together was beneficial and they believed in sorting out differences without killing each other.
The Maori a warrior race wiped them out.
Seems to me that survival of the fittest favors those who are willing to use violence to secure their dominance.
The law was given by God and our conscience witnesses to God's law. Thou shalt not murder, steal, etc is a guide to a standard of living that God wants man to live by.
Men without God tend to move away from such and end up not prospering. The righteous will inherit the earth and often the wicked are cut off.
If there was no God to bless righteousness and curse wickedness, it would most certainly be law of the jungle and the earth would belong to those who kill and are not killed.
Think of the word lawlessness. It is like anarchy.
No law and order is gone. God gave the law. Even modern law is based on the 10 commandments, even if it might be moving away from it.
t8
Quote Think of the Moriori and the Maori.
The Moriori understood working together was beneficial and they believed in sorting out differences without killing each other.
The Maori a warrior race wiped them out.
Seems to me that survival of the fittest favors those who are willing to use violence to secure their dominance.
Almost certainly, however the story is far more complicated than that. Humans are tribal. The Middle East, Rwanda, the Balkans, formerly Northern Ireland and the borders of many islamic countries are places where tribal disputes manifest themselves in a far bloodier manner. Nevertheless within those tribes cooperation is the prime means of survival of people and their genes. Think of the population of New Zealand. We do make up a kind of single tribal grouping, sometimes encouraged by the nationalistic aspects of supporting sports teams or rejection of nuclear weapons. Violence is perpetratred mainly by those for whom something personal has gone seriously wrong, or those who have established a sub-culture, a tribe within like criminal gangs are. Were the world to be united against a common alien enemy I am sure you would see people behaving as one worldwide tribe, following human-wide customs (with the occasional person losing control).On the wider question of the “survival of the fittest”, tell me why rabbits are so favoured if it is the dog-eat-dog model that you hold to be the important factor. You are looking at this through the eyes of a competitive ape. Tribal dominance may have been an important factor in great ape evolution but it has little to say on the same “survival of the fittest” going on with flowers that have cooperated with pollinating insects, by processes of natural selection.
Quote The law was given by God and our conscience witnesses to God's law. Thou shalt not murder, steal, etc is a guide to a standard of living that God wants man to live by.
I don’t think you will be able to sustain the involvement of your Imaginary Friend here. These things are a codification of ancient customs. They are also behaviours that are phenotypes, favourable to survival.Quote Men without God tend to move away from such and end up not prospering. The righteous will inherit the earth and often the wicked are cut off.
That is obviously not true in the Middle East.Quote If there was no God to bless righteousness and curse wickedness, it would most certainly be law of the jungle and the earth would belong to those who kill and are not killed.
And how do you reason that? I can only think of Stalin as a more efficient killer of humans than your god allegedly was.Quote Think of the word lawlessness. It is like anarchy.
Except it has more letters.Quote No law and order is gone. God gave the law. Even modern law is based on the 10 commandments, even if it might be moving away from it.
Dull, unadventurous religious assertion.I say you are wrong, giving exactly the same evidence that is, none.
Stuart
Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:41) Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,16:54) I am trying to figure out which ape avatar looks the most intelligent.
I think it might be thethinker coz Stu's cranium looks the smallest and his mouth is also the biggest in proportion to the back of the skull.
Stu's ape avatar also has the smallest ears. Ergo….thinker
Ya, but Stu's is funny because he posted it right after he received the “tile”. He was covering his eyes in shame. It was hiliarious, I thought.
Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,03:57) Quote (thethinker @ May 06 2009,03:41) Quote (t8 @ May 05 2009,16:54) I am trying to figure out which ape avatar looks the most intelligent.
I think it might be thethinker coz Stu's cranium looks the smallest and his mouth is also the biggest in proportion to the back of the skull.
Stu's ape avatar also has the smallest ears. Ergo….thinker
Ya, but Stu's is funny because he posted it right after he received the “tile”. He was covering his eyes in shame. It was hiliarious, I thought.
In shame, or in dismay?Let's hear from Stuart, assumptions are dangerous things!
The thinker thinks he is more intelligent, the Stu looks more intelligent. IMHO. I think the thethinker is thinking at his hardest in that pic.
I think my lush orange coat of fur is the real attraction here. It is a sod to keep shampooed but looks mighty.
As for shame or dismay, I seem to remember that photo captured my reaction to t8 posting that no blind designed computer program could possibly make architectually designed houses or buses and only a fool would believe that a banana could design a better 747 that an intelligent nothing from nothing.
Or something like that.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
