Bodhitharta vs Stu

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,17:30)

Quote Would you let others be violent towards your loved ones without responding VIOLENTLY? If I could, yes.  Why wouldn't you? Quote Would you let others Oppress your your loved ones such as forbidding them to go to school or marry or own a business? I do not live in an islamic republic, so the problem has never arisen for me. Stuart

Then it is you that are far more violent. How do you justify your cowardice while your love ones suffer?

The fact is you are so afraid to die you would let others die because of some impotent philosophy you have? The fact is you are afraid to die.

Allowing Violence is far more violent than being violent to cease violence.

[Stu]

I said that I would NOT allow others to be violent to my loved ones. Did you see the NOT I wrote?

How do you conclude that I am afraid to die? How is that a 'fact'?

So your answer to violence is violence. What about all the non-violent answers?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,17:51)

I said that I would NOT allow others to be violent to my loved ones.  Did you see the NOT I wrote? How do you conclude that I am afraid to die?  How is that a 'fact'? So your answer to violence is violence.  What about all the non-violent answers? Stuart

I apologize our posts happened to fast to reconcile them.

So you do admit that you would be violent?

[Stu]

No I do not admit that I would be violent. What about all the non-violent answers?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,18:05)

No I do not admit that I would be violent.  What about all the non-violent answers? Stuart

Your not making yourself clear, do you believe in evolution or not? If you do isn't violence everywhere in nature?

Wouldn't you say that a lion is being natural when violently killing a Zebra?

You said you believe in natural selection and whatever it entails, if you don't believe in God everything must be going perfect because it would all be in our genes to do whatever where doing so why does that make you unhappy?

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 23 2009,04:14)

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,18:05) No I do not admit that I would be violent.  What about all the non-violent answers? Stuart Your not making yourself clear, do you believe in evolution or not? If you do isn't violence everywhere in nature? Wouldn't you say that a lion is being natural when violently killing a Zebra? You said you believe in natural selection and whatever it entails, if you don't believe in God everything must be going perfect because it would all be in our genes to do whatever where doing so why does that make you unhappy?

I do not believe in your strawman of evolution.

Where did I say I believe in whatever natural selection entails? It is not a belief system, it is the scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution. Can the religious actually understand that not everything one believes has to be taken to heart as a personal philosophy? Did you not see the bit where I said that evolution by natural selection does not contain the words 'should' or 'would be better if…'?

Natural selection is the ultimate reason why islamic suicide bombers calmly walk into a marketplace and kill innocent people in the name of islam, because there would be no humans without natural selection. You can appreciate the evolutionary aspect of the explanation without agreeing with the religious brutality that appears to have resulted from it.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 23 2009,06:49)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 23 2009,04:14) Quote (Stu @ Dec. 22 2009,18:05) No I do not admit that I would be violent.  What about all the non-violent answers? Stuart Your not making yourself clear, do you believe in evolution or not? If you do isn't violence everywhere in nature? Wouldn't you say that a lion is being natural when violently killing a Zebra? You said you believe in natural selection and whatever it entails, if you don't believe in God everything must be going perfect because it would all be in our genes to do whatever where doing so why does that make you unhappy? I do not believe in your strawman of evolution. Where did I say I believe in whatever natural selection entails?  It is not a belief system, it is the scientific theory that explains the fact of evolution.  Can the religious actually understand that not everything one believes has to be taken to heart as a personal philosophy?  Did you not see the bit where I said that evolution by natural selection does not contain the words 'should' or 'would be better if…'? Natural selection is the ultimate reason why islamic suicide bombers calmly walk into a marketplace and kill innocent people in the name of islam, because there would be no humans without natural selection.  You can appreciate the evolutionary aspect of the explanation without agreeing with the religious brutality that appears to have resulted from it. Stuart

If you appreciate the evolutionary aspect of the explanation how can you say it's brutal? Wouldn't it simply be Nature?

Do you call tigers brutal? Do you call all predators of nature Brutal and evil? You have to ask yourself are you being a hypocrite?

If you believe in God you believe in Justice and right and wrong but Nature is not based on right and wrong, Nature is Amoral.

[Stu]

Quote

If you appreciate the evolutionary aspect of the explanation how can you say it's brutal? Wouldn't it simply be Nature?

Of course it is, and the explanation has its own beauty, but my reaction as a member of the same species to the act of suicide bombing is that it is brutal and mindless.

Quote

Do you call tigers brutal? Do you call all predators of nature Brutal and evil? You have to ask yourself are you being a hypocrite?

Obviously the tiger has no specific intention of causing distress to its prey, except to the extent that it has to hunt to survive. We don't know that tigers do not regret the pain they do inflict. Even a cat playing with a mouse does not carry intent to cause distress because probably that cat has no identification with the pain of the mouse.

Do those who murder innocents in the name of their imaginary allah have intent to inflict suffering? Of course they do. Do they absolutely HAVE to kill people for their survival? Of course not.

Once again it is fascinating that human evolution could have produced this kind of extended phenotype, but that does not mean I have to like its effects. I'm not that keen on oncogenes either, for example.

Quote

If you believe in God you believe in Justice and right and wrong but Nature is not based on right and wrong, Nature is Amoral.

“Right and wrong” are human constructs, and morals have almost certainly existed for twenty times longer than Abrahamic mythological codifications of them have existed.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 27 2009,20:32)

Quote If you appreciate the evolutionary aspect of the explanation how can you say it's brutal? Wouldn't it simply be Nature? Of course it is, and the explanation has its own beauty, but my reaction as a member of the same species to the act of suicide bombing is that it is brutal and mindless. Quote Do you call tigers brutal? Do you call all predators of nature Brutal and evil? You have to ask yourself are you being a hypocrite? Obviously the tiger has no specific intention of causing distress to its prey, except to the extent that it has to hunt to survive.  We don't know that tigers do not regret the pain they do inflict.  Even a cat playing with a mouse does not carry intent to cause distress because probably that cat has no identification with the pain of the mouse. Do those who murder innocents in the name of their imaginary allah have intent to inflict suffering?  Of course they do.  Do they absolutely HAVE to kill people for their survival?  Of course not.   Once again it is fascinating that human evolution could have produced this kind of extended phenotype, but that does not mean I have to like its effects.  I'm not that keen on oncogenes either, for example. Quote If you believe in God you believe in Justice and right and wrong but Nature is not based on right and wrong, Nature is Amoral. “Right and wrong” are human constructs, and morals have almost certainly existed for twenty times longer than Abrahamic mythological codifications of them have existed. Stuart

There is no known Moral constructs that have occured without the belief in God but sense you seem to think so how is it you just admitted what I already stated that “Nature is Amoral”?

Therefore since you believe that morality is a human construct how do you find yourself being decieved saying something is “Wrong” knowing from your own belief it could not possibly actually wrong or right?

Like I said you have a problem here in that you have to be a hypocrite to function.

I can actually believe that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong and that Morality is absolute and certain but you are simply constructing a false reality and then pretend it has meaning.

How could you not be keen on oncogenes when destruction is part of evolution if and when organisms become too weak to be viable they will be eliminated through Natural selection.

My point here is there must be some reason you don't totally accept and believe in what you say you do, you seem to have these “God believing” traits bubbling right underneath your veil of “disbelief”

It's like I said before “thou protestest too much” If a person truly believed what you call “Scientific fact” you would find nothing wrong a mad bomber or anything else that occurs all the time across all cultures. You have murderers in your country too, you have thieves, liars, Adulterers..etc all residing in NZ

Therefore since these things occur worldwide it is either Natural or Evil. I call it evil because I God does not condone those actions but how could you call it evil?

And if you simply say they are your own personal constructs of right and wrong then the validity of your construct would not be anymore valid than any other construct.

I'm just trying to free your mind one way or the other because if you truly don't believe in God, “He” could not be Guilty of anything and if you truly did believe in God “He” could not be guilty of anything.

Do you consider yourself evil, good or neither?

[Stu]

BD

Quote

There is no known Moral constructs that have occured without the belief in God but sense you seem to think so how is it you just admitted what I already stated that “Nature is Amoral”?

We would then be arguing about the meaning of the word ‘nature’. There are no laws of physics that are absolute moral imperatives. Humans are products of natural selection, a ‘natural’ process, so if you are happy to set aside the word ‘artificial’, then all morals are indeed products of nature.

Ultimately the problem is you are trying to assert a ‘source of morals’ without explaining HOW they are divinely caused.

Quote

Therefore since you believe that morality is a human construct how do you find yourself being decieved saying something is “Wrong” knowing from your own belief it could not possibly actually wrong or right?

This nonsensical statement begs the question by assuming that I find myself deceived. How would that even be possible?

Quote

I can actually believe that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong and that Morality is absolute and certain but you are simply constructing a false reality and then pretend it has meaning.

Why false? This is what all of us must do, if Descartes has any relevance at all.

Do you believe that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong?

Quote

How could you not be keen on oncogenes when destruction is part of evolution if and when organisms become too weak to be viable they will be eliminated through Natural selection. My point here is there must be some reason you don't totally accept and believe in what you say you do, you seem to have these “God believing” traits bubbling right underneath your veil of “disbelief”

I am not keen on oncogenes because people will die of cancer as a result of them! Why we have oncogenes is an interesting question but that does not mean people getting cancer is desirable to me as a friend or family member of the sufferer. You don’t seem to have taken on board the idea that an explanation such as natural selection that explains the fact of evolution, can have beauty, yet have consequences that are unwanted to me as a human. Can you understand that not all we believe to be true is a personal philosophy of how the believer would like the world to be?

By the way, why did your god give people the opportunity to suffer miserably with cancer through accidents of their genetics? Are you a ‘fall’ believer? Do you also believe in an omnipotent and compassionate god?

Quote

It's like I said before “thou protestest too much” If a person truly believed what you call “Scientific fact” you would find nothing wrong a mad bomber or anything else that occurs all the time across all cultures. You have murderers in your country too, you have thieves, liars, Adulterers..etc all residing in NZ Therefore since these things occur worldwide it is either Natural or Evil. I call it evil because I God does not condone those actions but how could you call it evil?

Indeed I do not use the word evil, because it is such an impotent religious word.

Quote

And if you simply say they are your own personal constructs of right and wrong then the validity of your construct would not be anymore valid than any other construct.

Nor any less valid.

Quote

I'm just trying to free your mind one way or the other because if you truly don't believe in God, “He” could not be Guilty of anything and if you truly did believe in God “He” could not be guilty of anything.

Well if I don’t believe in a god then there is no question at all, is there? Even if I did want an Imaginary Friend, why can I not believe in an all-murdering, all-savage god who takes petulant vengeance and is the guilty of the guilty, to paraphrase Aquinas? After all that is the description given in the OT. Who are you to say that you are right and I am wrong?

Why is it me who needs my mind ‘freeing’? Why should you not have the opportunity to see the brutality of the god you believe in?

Quote

Do you consider yourself evil, good or neither?

No.

What you are trying to do is paint me as a Social Darwinist. Those who take the time to read what I have written will see that I am no such crackpot. I do not believe that evolution by natural selection is a blueprint for how humans SHOULD interact. That would be ridiculous. It may provide a good explanation for WHY humans interact in particular ways, and it may explain why SOME interactions are more successful for a particular purpose than others. Is it a system of ethical beliefs? No.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 28 2009,09:23)

BD Quote There is no known Moral constructs that have occured without the belief in God but sense you seem to think so how is it you just admitted what I already stated that “Nature is Amoral”? We would then be arguing about the meaning of the word ‘nature’.  There are no laws of physics that are absolute moral imperatives.  Humans are products of natural selection, a ‘natural’ process, so if you are happy to set aside the word ‘artificial’, then all morals are indeed products of nature. Ultimately the problem is you are trying to assert a ‘source of morals’ without explaining HOW they are divinely caused. Quote Therefore since you believe that morality is a human construct how do you find yourself being decieved saying something is “Wrong” knowing from your own belief it could not possibly actually wrong or right? This nonsensical statement begs the question by assuming that I find myself deceived.  How would that even be possible? Quote I can actually believe that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong and that Morality is absolute and certain but you are simply constructing a false reality and then pretend it has meaning. Why false?  This is what all of us must do, if Descartes has any relevance at all.   Do you believe that killing innocent people is absolutely wrong? Quote How could you not be keen on oncogenes when destruction is part of evolution if and when organisms become too weak to be viable they will be eliminated through Natural selection. My point here is there must be some reason you don't totally accept and believe in what you say you do, you seem to have these “God believing” traits bubbling right underneath your veil of “disbelief” I am not keen on oncogenes because people will die of cancer as a result of them!  Why we have oncogenes is an interesting question but that does not mean people getting cancer is desirable to me as a friend or family member of the sufferer.  You don’t seem to have taken on board the idea that an explanation such as natural selection that explains the fact of evolution, can have beauty, yet have consequences that are unwanted to me as a human.  Can you understand that not all we believe to be true is a personal philosophy of how the believer would like the world to be? By the way, why did your god give people the opportunity to suffer miserably with cancer through accidents of their genetics?  Are you a ‘fall’ believer?  Do you also believe in an omnipotent and compassionate god? Quote It's like I said before “thou protestest too much” If a person truly believed what you call “Scientific fact” you would find nothing wrong a mad bomber or anything else that occurs all the time across all cultures. You have murderers in your country too, you have thieves, liars, Adulterers..etc all residing in NZ Therefore since these things occur worldwide it is either Natural or Evil. I call it evil because I God does not condone those actions but how could you call it evil? Indeed I do not use the word evil, because it is such an impotent religious word. Quote And if you simply say they are your own personal constructs of right and wrong then the validity of your construct would not be anymore valid than any other construct. Nor any less valid. Quote I'm just trying to free your mind one way or the other because if you truly don't believe in God, “He” could not be Guilty of anything and if you truly did believe in God “He” could not be guilty of anything. Well if I don’t believe in a god then there is no question at all, is there?  Even if I did want an Imaginary Friend, why can I not believe in an all-murdering, all-savage god who takes petulant vengeance and is the guilty of the guilty, to paraphrase Aquinas?  After all that is the description given in the OT.  Who are you to say that you are right and I am wrong? Why is it me who needs my mind ‘freeing’?  Why should you not have the opportunity to see the brutality of the god you believe in? Quote Do you consider yourself evil, good or neither? No. What you are trying to do is paint me as a Social Darwinist.  Those who take the time to read what I have written will see that I am no such crackpot.  I do not believe that evolution by natural selection is a blueprint for how humans SHOULD interact.  That would be ridiculous.  It may provide a good explanation for WHY humans interact in particular ways, and it may explain why SOME interactions are more successful for a particular purpose than others.  Is it a system of ethical beliefs?  No. Stuart

It was you that stated that Morality was a human construct if that is your belief then you have admitted that according to your own beliefs there is no absolute morality and hence to call someone brutal is simply apart of your construct and has no basis in reality.

Do you eat meat? If you do how is it not brutal cutting up a piece of chicken or steak, surely you don't have to eat animals to survive.

Do you consider yourself good, bad or neither?

So what are your ethics based upon?

[Stu]

Quote

It was you that stated that Morality was a human construct if that is your belief then you have admitted that according to your own beliefs there is no absolute morality and hence to call someone brutal is simply apart of your construct and has no basis in reality.

Morality involves concepts of 'should'. Brutal is a subjective description. Your use of the word 'hence' commits the fallacy of the error of category.

Quote

Do you eat meat?

No.

Quote

If you do how is it not brutal cutting up a piece of chicken or steak, surely you don't have to eat animals to survive.

Hunting for mean is brutal. That is different from saying it is wrong. The Inuit diet is virtually exclusively a carnivorous one through necessity. Would brutality equate to wrong here? Again you have not made the link between brutality and morality for this example. Have you considered the tiger and the idea of intent to cause pain for the sake of causing pain which, while it is not the objective of the tiger, seems to be the driving force for violent islamists?

Quote

Do you consider yourself good, bad or neither?

No.

Quote

So what are your ethics based upon?

Genetics plus environment. Just like yours.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 28 2009,16:30)

Quote It was you that stated that Morality was a human construct if that is your belief then you have admitted that according to your own beliefs there is no absolute morality and hence to call someone brutal is simply apart of your construct and has no basis in reality. Morality involves concepts of 'should'.  Brutal is a subjective description.  Your use of the word 'hence' commits the fallacy of the error of category. Quote Do you eat meat? No. Quote If you do how is it not brutal cutting up a piece of chicken or steak, surely you don't have to eat animals to survive. Hunting for mean is brutal.  That is different from saying it is wrong. The Inuit diet is virtually exclusively a carnivorous one through necessity.  Would brutality equate to wrong here?  Again you have not made the link between brutality and morality for this example.  Have you considered the tiger and the idea of intent to cause pain for the sake of causing pain which, while it is not the objective of the tiger, seems to be the driving force for violent islamists? Quote Do you consider yourself good, bad or neither? No. Quote So what are your ethics based upon? Genetics plus environment.  Just like yours. Stuart

My ethics are based upon choosing to recieve the Guidance of God.

You are also quite wrong about tigers and animals in general because we all know they inflict pain on each other all the time, not for survival but for domination even the animals who do not eat other animals will have brutal fights sometimes to the death to become head of the pack.

Your body was designed to consume meat wasn't it?

Speaking of design versus evolution what possible reason would Man “evolve” into a hairless and as an infant “helpless” being. Since you believe we evolved from an apelike descendent what other Ape has so little strength and stays so dependent on their parent for survival so long?

Man also has always historically shown the same intelligence and the technology and invention of today rests on the collective accumulation of intelligence

[Stu]

Quote

My ethics are based upon choosing to recieve the Guidance of God.

…which entails reading a book of dictation of the oral tradition invented by an illiterate man, based on his claim that he was told these things by an angel, and finally settled as a book after his death.

Mohammad was not deluded? The angel actually existed? The angel was not a liar?

I don’t think it is unreasonable to disagree with you. Most of the ethics common to the two of us had to have existed in human thought long before anyone believed in the Abrahamic god. Up to 175,000 years before.

Quote

You are also quite wrong about tigers and animals in general because we all know they inflict pain on each other all the time, not for survival but for domination even the animals who do not eat other animals will have brutal fights sometimes to the death to become head of the pack.

You have missed the point: they are not doing this specifically to inflict pain, which is the action of the violent islamist. There is not much pain to be had by the suicide bomber, or her family because they are duped to believe it was a great act (I'm sure not all of them) and yet there might be scores of casualties who do not die and suffer much pain, and further scores of mourners for the innocent dead. Was a greater purpose being paid for by such pain? Try removing the challenges for alpha status in animal herds and see how they fare survival-wise. I think probably not very well. Are they essential adaptations? Natural selection ‘finds a way’ to survival, and has the effect of making the way it finds more efficient, but sometimes it goes past the point of no return where a dumb system of group survival cannot be reversed.

An anatomical example of this stupidity (natural selection is no intelligent designer!) is the vagus nerve in the giraffe. In other animals, the nerve routes down through the neck, into the chest and round the aorta and back up into the part of the neck it enervates. That is fine for most animals being only a slighly bizarre piece of wiring. In giraffes, as you can imagine, it is ridiculous: all this unnecessary looping makes the vagus nerve 4.5 metres long. Of course once you have something fundamental like that pattern of nerve development it is virtually impossible to undo it without going back to the drawing board. Of course you could use this as evidence of a lazy designer, or an incompetent one. There are many more examples that show exactly the kind of process we expect from either natural selection, or an incompetent engineer.

Quote

Your body was designed to consume meat wasn't it?

No, of course it wasn’t.

Quote

Speaking of design versus evolution what possible reason would Man “evolve” into a hairless and as an infant “helpless” being. Since you believe we evolved from an apelike descendent what other Ape has so little strength and stays so dependent on their parent for survival so long?

There are no other apes like us in those regards, although there may have been tens of thousands of years ago. These are characteristics of humans. I must commend you for including humans as great apes: there are christian fundies here who eject onto their keyboards a kind of nervous, incredulous rejection of that biological classification (one designated by a creationist, Linnaeus, no less!).

What are the advantages of being hairless and helpless as an infant? One explanation I like for the hairless bit is that it is much easier to see that your potential mate is free of tics and other parasites, and maybe the absence of other diseases can be seen in ‘good skin’. This is sexual selection and would be dependent on probably females having big brains to realise this. I am not an anthropologist, but I understand the dependence of children for so long is to allow development of our complex brains, and in particular complex language. As you say, we are physically weak but our great adaptation is brain power and what it allows us to do. As we are a social, tribal species, the cost of collectively nurturing our young for such and extended period is a price to pay for the advantage we get.

Quote

Man also has always historically shown the same intelligence and the technology and invention of today rests on the collective accumulation of intelligence.

Yes, modern humans are virtually identical to those living in primitive tribal conditions 35,000 years ago. I would say that most of our technological accumulation begins with the agricultural revolution some 10,000 years ago. In the views of some creationists, that’s 4,000 years before the earth was created.

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,07:41)

Quote My ethics are based upon choosing to recieve the Guidance of God. …which entails reading a book of dictation of the oral tradition invented by an illiterate man, based on his claim that he was told these things by an angel, and finally settled as a book after his death. Mohammad was not deluded?  The angel actually existed?  The angel was not a liar? I don’t think it is unreasonable to disagree with you.  Most of the ethics common to the two of us had to have existed in human thought long before anyone believed in the Abrahamic god.  Up to 175,000 years before. Quote You are also quite wrong about tigers and animals in general because we all know they inflict pain on each other all the time, not for survival but for domination even the animals who do not eat other animals will have brutal fights sometimes to the death to become head of the pack. You have missed the point: they are not doing this specifically to inflict pain, which is the action of the violent islamist.  There is not much pain to be had by the suicide bomber, or her family because they are duped to believe it was a great act (I'm sure not all of them) and yet there might be scores of casualties who do not die and suffer much pain, and further scores of mourners for the innocent dead.  Was a greater purpose being paid for by such pain?  Try removing the challenges for alpha status in animal herds and see how they fare survival-wise.  I think probably not very well.  Are they essential adaptations?  Natural selection ‘finds a way’ to survival, and has the effect of making the way it finds more efficient, but sometimes it goes past the point of no return where a dumb system of group survival cannot be reversed.   An anatomical example of this stupidity (natural selection is no intelligent designer!) is the vagus nerve in the giraffe.  In other animals, the nerve routes down through the neck, into the chest and round the aorta and back up into the part of the neck it enervates.  That is fine for most animals being only a slighly bizarre piece of wiring.  In giraffes, as you can imagine, it is ridiculous: all this unnecessary looping makes the vagus nerve 4.5 metres long.  Of course once you have something fundamental like that pattern of nerve development it is virtually impossible to undo it without going back to the drawing board.  Of course you could use this as evidence of a lazy designer, or an incompetent one.  There are many more examples that show exactly the kind of process we expect from either natural selection, or an incompetent engineer. Quote Your body was designed to consume meat wasn't it? No, of course it wasn’t. Quote Speaking of design versus evolution what possible reason would Man “evolve” into a hairless and as an infant “helpless” being. Since you believe we evolved from an apelike descendent what other Ape has so little strength and stays so dependent on their parent for survival so long? There are no other apes like us in those regards, although there may have been tens of thousands of years ago.  These are characteristics of humans.  I must commend you for including humans as great apes: there are christian fundies here who eject onto their keyboards a kind of nervous, incredulous rejection of that biological classification (one designated by a creationist, Linnaeus, no less!).   What are the advantages of being hairless and helpless as an infant?  One explanation I like for the hairless bit is that it is much easier to see that your potential mate is free of tics and other parasites, and maybe the absence of other diseases can be seen in ‘good skin’.  This is sexual selection and would be dependent on probably females having big brains to realise this.  I am not an anthropologist, but I understand the dependence of children for so long is to allow development of our complex brains, and in particular complex language.  As you say, we are physically weak but our great adaptation is brain power and what it allows us to do.  As we are a social, tribal species, the cost of collectively nurturing our young for such and extended period is a price to pay for the advantage we get. Quote Man also has always historically shown the same intelligence and the technology and invention of today rests on the collective accumulation of intelligence. Yes, modern humans are virtually identical to those living in primitive tribal conditions 35,000 years ago.  I would say that most of our technological accumulation begins with the agricultural revolution some 10,000 years ago.  In the views of some creationists, that’s 4,000 years before the earth was created. Stuart

You seem to keep focusing on suicide bombers as though it is condoned in Islam which it is not in-fact the Quran forbids that one kill themselves or kill those who are innocent and non-combatants in war so your incessant talk of suicide bombers is quite foolish indeed.

What do you mean Natural selection “finds a way” you keep speaking of Natural selection as if it is a being with purpose. You don't believe in God yet you keep trying to assert there is some sort of Purpose.

You have to believe that you live and then you die there is no afterlife or any Guidance that should be followed the meaning of life to you must be that life essentially is meaningless and devoid of purpose. That is your belief, right?

[Stu]

Quote

You seem to keep focusing on suicide bombers as though it is condoned in Islam which it is not in-fact the Quran forbids that one kill themselves or kill those who are innocent and non-combatants in war so your incessant talk of suicide bombers is quite foolish indeed.

And who are the ‘innocent’? Those who are believers? Who are the non-combatants in jihad? There aren’t any!

The koran is self-contradictory, and all the hadiths that some believe in and some don’t, which also contradict aspects of the sura, just add confusion to unclear words. This gives license to the likes of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to take out a few ‘enemies of god’. He can justify what he attempted to do in terms of the koran. You claim that the koran says he should not be doing that, and I am sure he knows those arguments, yet that did not stop him. He knows who the enemies of god are, and the koran says to slay them where he finds them.

Religion of peace my backside.

Quote

What do you mean Natural selection “finds a way” you keep speaking of Natural selection as if it is a being with purpose. You don't believe in God yet you keep trying to assert there is some sort of Purpose.

Even you put it in speech marks yourself. “Finds a way” is a figure of speech. There is nothing inconsistent in what I have written with natural selection being just a blind process that is little more than the obvious requirement to ‘survive and reproduce or die’. There is no foresight there.

Quote

You have to believe that you live and then you die there is no afterlife or any Guidance that should be followed the meaning of life to you must be that life essentially is meaningless and devoid of purpose. That is your belief, right?

No. I agree that you live, and die and there is no afterlife. From the personal perspective life has no specific, inherent meaning, but you can seek whatever guidance you want in determining what the purpose of your own life will be. You have done the same kind of yourself thing by deciding to adopt a religious meaning. I have chosen to think for myself.

Stuart

[Stu]

…transpose yourself with thing in that last sentence…

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,09:46)

Quote You seem to keep focusing on suicide bombers as though it is condoned in Islam which it is not in-fact the Quran forbids that one kill themselves or kill those who are innocent and non-combatants in war so your incessant talk of suicide bombers is quite foolish indeed. And who are the ‘innocent’?  Those who are believers?  Who are the non-combatants in jihad?  There aren’t any! The koran is self-contradictory, and all the hadiths that some believe in and some don’t, which also contradict aspects of the sura, just add confusion to unclear words.  This gives license to the likes of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to take out a few ‘enemies of god’.  He can justify what he attempted to do in terms of the koran.  You claim that the koran says he should not be doing that, and I am sure he knows those arguments, yet that did not stop him.  He knows who the enemies of god are, and the koran says to slay them where he finds them. Religion of peace my backside. Quote What do you mean Natural selection “finds a way” you keep speaking of Natural selection as if it is a being with purpose. You don't believe in God yet you keep trying to assert there is some sort of Purpose. Even you put it in speech marks yourself.  “Finds a way” is a figure of speech.  There is nothing inconsistent in what I have written with natural selection being just a blind process that is little more than the obvious requirement to ‘survive and reproduce or die’.  There is no foresight there. Quote You have to believe that you live and then you die there is no afterlife or any Guidance that should be followed the meaning of life to you must be that life essentially is meaningless and devoid of purpose. That is your belief, right? No.  I agree that you live, and die and there is no afterlife.  From the personal perspective life has no specific, inherent meaning, but you can seek whatever guidance you want in determining what the purpose of your own life will be.  You have done the same kind of yourself thing by deciding to adopt a religious meaning.  I have chosen to think for myself. Stuart

I don't read or study Hadiths because they are here say

but I have something to ask you, how can a mind conceive of something that does not exist? It's impossible to create a non-existing concept.

Go ahead just try to think of something that doesn't exist.

[Stu]

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 29 2009,14:18)

I don't read or study Hadiths because they are here say but I have something to ask you, how can a mind conceive of something that does not exist? It's impossible to create a non-existing concept. Go ahead just try to think of something that doesn't exist.

It is fine for you that you do not accept hadiths, and frankly it is no skin off my nose, but you are not acknowledging that this is a major problem for your argument that some people are misrepresenting islam, because to them YOU are misrepresenting it, and meantime islamists are using their EQUALLY VALID interpretations to maim the enemies of god and cause untold misery. In your name, no less.

Things that do not exist that I can hold in my head as a concept that do not actually exist:

the Abrahamic god
an honest creationist
the angel Gabriel / Jibrail
the afterlife

You yourself have conceived of those same things that do not exist. Why should it present a problem to me? I'm sure you can have a concept of these non-existent things too:

Zeus
papal infallibility
Jesus's divinity
fiscal accountability for bankers

Surely you are not telling me you can conceive of an Abrahamic god that you cannot possibly know anything about with any confidence, while you cannot conceive of Zeus about which you cannot possibly know anything with any confidence. Setting aside mythological descriptions, what is the difference between them?

Stuart

[bodhitharta]

Quote (Stu @ Dec. 29 2009,21:24)

Quote (bodhitharta @ Dec. 29 2009,14:18) I don't read or study Hadiths because they are here say but I have something to ask you, how can a mind conceive of something that does not exist? It's impossible to create a non-existing concept. Go ahead just try to think of something that doesn't exist. It is fine for you that you do not accept hadiths, and frankly it is no skin off my nose, but you are not acknowledging that this is a major problem for your argument that some people are misrepresenting islam, because to them YOU are misrepresenting it, and meantime islamists are using their EQUALLY VALID interpretations to maim the enemies of god and cause untold misery.  In your name, no less. Things that do not exist that I can hold in my head as a concept that do not actually exist: the Abrahamic god an honest creationist the angel Gabriel / Jibrail the afterlife You yourself have conceived of those same things that do not exist.  Why should it present a problem to me?  I'm sure you can have a concept of these non-existent things too: Zeus papal infallibility Jesus's divinity fiscal accountability for bankers Surely you are not telling me you can conceive of an Abrahamic god that you cannot possibly know anything about with any confidence, while you cannot conceive of Zeus about which you cannot possibly know anything with any confidence.  Setting aside mythological descriptions, what is the difference between them? Stuart

You didn't understand what I was asking you to do, what I was asking you to do was to think up a “concept” that does not exist not concepts you dont believe are valid.

In other words “God” is a concept no matter what god or gods you are talking about, honesty, angels are all concepts I am asking you to conceive of something new without using any previous concepts and you cannot do it , I promise you you cannot do it.

Example: If you say something like “pink unicorn” pink and unicorn already exist so therefore it is conceivable

Example: If you say something like 7 headed human made out of crystals, all those concepts already exist 7, head, human, crystals

What I am asking you to do is to conceive something out of nothing, no previous concept and you will not be capable of doing it.

Now after you find out that it cant be done try to understand that the concept of God has always been around and could not be conceived out of nothing, even if someone didn't understand nature they would not be able to conceive of a God as the cause. God is an original concept given to man by his creator, just prove me wrong and create a new concept.

[Author]

Posts