- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 15 2011,18:23) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 15 2011,06:12) Did you ever consider that bad association spoils useful habits, Princess? There is a reason God forbade the Israelites from marrying the daughters of the other nations, right? Even Solomon, the most wise man in the world, was not immune to the minions of the Adversary. Why would you think YOU would be?
Perhaps God has given this revelation of how your beliefs have changed as a warning?
peace,
mike
And you Mike? What is your response in situations where there is an apparent contradiction between the beliefs you have held and facts that are self-evident?My memory of our last encounter was that you retreated, all the time pointing your gun back, and shouting “bang”.
But I should not prejudge your answer. Perhaps you too have changed.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Wow, that's funny, I have personally witnessed
you do that when I confront you with facts about God.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.Quote (Stu @ Aug. 25 2011,19:13) If natural selection kept aesthetics as a high priority then the biological world would be a very different place. It is functionality that wins every time. I think this might be as good an argument as any against the Judeo-christian Imaginary Friend. So many creationists wax lyrically about the elegance of the (apparent) design of the universe and of life, but if one cares to look a bit closer it is all very inelegant, a hotch-potch of kneejerk reactions and making do with the nearest solution to hand no matter how crazy it would appear to an engineer. If by some absurdly remote chance there is a creator god, it certainly is not IHVH.
Stuart
Prince,Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I am most certain that the scientific mind can find beauty in the biological world.
Your conclusion for the design of the universe reminds of what was said when the platypus was discovered. At least now we have a remote chance that a creator may be a concept to consider.
Quote (princess @ Aug. 25 2011,22:56) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 25 2011,19:13) If natural selection kept aesthetics as a high priority then the biological world would be a very different place. It is functionality that wins every time. I think this might be as good an argument as any against the Judeo-christian Imaginary Friend. So many creationists wax lyrically about the elegance of the (apparent) design of the universe and of life, but if one cares to look a bit closer it is all very inelegant, a hotch-potch of kneejerk reactions and making do with the nearest solution to hand no matter how crazy it would appear to an engineer. If by some absurdly remote chance there is a creator god, it certainly is not IHVH.
Stuart
Prince,Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I am most certain that the scientific mind can find beauty in the biological world.
Your conclusion for the design of the universe reminds of what was said when the platypus was discovered. At least now we have a remote chance that a creator may be a concept to consider.
Why even bother with it? It means nothing.Stuart
Prince
I read an article today that a person stated that 'the difference between a agnostic and a atheist is the hate'. Do you really think atheist have a hate for religions?
Remember you suggested that I strip away everything, and only deal with the crucial things in life, then rebuild from there. Well, I had placed thought in this, and took the task to heart. Now mind you before you stand up and start beating your chest, I have not become a atheist. However, I have come to a peace in my life that I have never had before. My crucial elements in life of course are a bit different, as you deal with the physical, I am more prone to spiritual, love, kindness, reason. I have easy surpassed the blood sport and blame game, the rituals, traditions, manuals, the do as I say not as I do nonsense.
However, I am still left with 'how did it all get here', I know you see many mistakes in the world and with the human body. I still believe in showing humanity that we are a unique species. Perhaps it is a bit of roman thinking, trying to seperate humans from animals, however, even though everything is connected some way, human thoughts & actions have more impact to either do better or worse for the world them any other organism.
So no matter how hard pressed you are to think of yourself as only an ape, I cannot tell you how much you are a Prince.
Dear Stuart,
Of all the ones that I have met on HN, you my friend have impacted my life the most. I do hope we met each other some day. You had given me the courage to step out and really ask questions, to research what I believed and what it meant; we each learn from another in some way, even if it is not what we intended.
I am now considered what HN calls a skeptic, and most assured I am fine with that. However, even though I do not believe as a christian should, I have still not stop believing in something more then us, and not alien in nature. I have come to believe that what has been taught in religion is so full of chaos that ones head hurts from trying to discuss the matter.
I remember one of our first conversations ending with my reply 'perhaps we will find the answer together'. I do not think we did find the answer to that question, however I can admit I find a few with other ones.
You are a good man Stuart, with a good heart, at times a bit too secular for me, however, tis your own. However, I have been chastised for when a great opportunity would come to be able to use the chrisitian text toward are conversation and I did not, and this is something I see no apology is needed. One thing you have me convinced is not to reply with platitudes, does nothing to help on with the conversation at hand, and I do hope, that you do not use dawkings as your number one go to guy anymore, he is just as deluded as the ones he protest.
Well Prince will leave it at that for now, will check in tomorrow to see if you read the post I had written to you, and would be most honored to hear your response.
Take Care Prince, hope to talk with you tomorrow.
Princess
Thank you for your thoughts. Many issues…
We are not ONLY apes! We are human apes, existing in the full glory of that state, as much as it has glories and limitations. It is true that we are having a major effect on the earth, although that has been going on for several thousands of years now, but it is not true that live exists and operates by our assent, far from it. “Dominion” over other animals is a joke concept thought up by ignorant mythological writers, who perhaps had the excuse that they didn't know enough about ecology, but those who put store in their words today are celebrating ignorance.
Your elevation to skeptic is a cause for celebration. Whether people are god believers or not, all should have a skeptical attitude. It is the only intellectually honest position to take. The lack of popularity of the concept amongst the religious is just a function of religious belief: dogma is shown up for the nonsense it usually is by those who inquire. Therefore inquiry is discouraged. Just read the writings of the con artist formerly known as Saul of Tarsus for examples of this discouragement.
As an atheist I don't feel there is any value in “hate”, and I do not feel that emotion towards religious mythology. After all, I should feel as much hatred for the polytheism of ancient Rome and Greece as for any other mythology, and that would be absurd. Atheism is not a doctrine of hate, it is just the single belief that the gods claimed by others do not exist. I don't really like the label “atheist”, it defines me in terms of others' delusions. I just think of atheists as “normal”! Agnosticism is the accurate description of every person on the planet, whether or not they like the label or not. A christian who does not like wearing the label “agnostic” is one who must have scant regard for the concept of faith.
Christianity is a cult, and it sucks people in, and it is the victims of this for whom I feel. It is not a matter of hatred, but a matter of hope that people blighted with beliefs in nonsense might be able to attain for themselves a worldview that does not demand blind acceptance of things that just are not possible, and one that is even slightly more ethical that the immoral and miserable attitudes of christianity. Jesus would probably spin in his grave at what has been done in his name, if he existed.
Just as your recent thought concerned atheists and agnostics, mine concerned christian apology and science. I decided that science is about eliminating things that are wrong, while christian apology is the art of defending that which is wrong. Not very snappy, I know, but that was my thought!
Richard Dawkins is not so much a go to person, but a person who has articulated his views on religion, and the views of others with whom he agrees. I understand that what he says has merits and limitations, but no one here has ever been able to identify a mistake he has made when considering his writings on their own terms. He is a go-to guy when it comes to evolutionary biology: it is his professional field of academic expertise and he has made significant contributions to that field. Unlike some of the go-to people that some christians rely upon, for example the supreme bozo that is Lee Strobel, Dawkins would insist that no one take him on his word. After all he is an esteemed member of an organisation that has a motto which translates as Take no one's word for it. Dawkins insists on evidence, not personality cults. I agree with him 100% there.
So, here we are, African apes living on a planet orbiting a medium-small star in a spiral arm of a not too spectacular galaxy, the result of a Big Bang that produced all the matter and energy, and evolution that is the product of the environment working on variation through the remarkable chemistry of the element carbon. Even though we may not live in the most fashionable part of the universe, that's pretty thrilling for me, I have to say. It is of passing interest that some of our species have invented Imaginary Friends to worship. It's only a shame when it causes them to hurt others or to live less than the fullest possible existence in this fleeting segment of time each of us has to exist and think for ourselves.
Stuart
Stu, you missed your calling.
You should have been a writer, an author.Dawkins, Hawking nor Mary Tyler Moore could have said it more eloquently.
Tim
Quote (princess @ Sep. 06 2011,12:38) Dear Stuart, Of all the ones that I have met on HN, you my friend have impacted my life the most. I do hope we met each other some day. You had given me the courage to step out and really ask questions, to research what I believed and what it meant; we each learn from another in some way, even if it is not what we intended.
I am now considered what HN calls a skeptic, and most assured I am fine with that. However, even though I do not believe as a christian should, I have still not stop believing in something more then us, and not alien in nature. I have come to believe that what has been taught in religion is so full of chaos that ones head hurts from trying to discuss the matter.
I remember one of our first conversations ending with my reply 'perhaps we will find the answer together'. I do not think we did find the answer to that question, however I can admit I find a few with other ones.
You are a good man Stuart, with a good heart, at times a bit too secular for me, however, tis your own. However, I have been chastised for when a great opportunity would come to be able to use the chrisitian text toward are conversation and I did not, and this is something I see no apology is needed. One thing you have me convinced is not to reply with platitudes, does nothing to help on with the conversation at hand, and I do hope, that you do not use dawkings as your number one go to guy anymore, he is just as deluded as the ones he protest.
Well Prince will leave it at that for now, will check in tomorrow to see if you read the post I had written to you, and would be most honored to hear your response.
Take Care Prince, hope to talk with you tomorrow.
Hi Princess,
My heart skipped upon reading your post to Stu.
Welcome to the road to enlightenment. It took courage for you to express an open mind in regards to your religious beliefs.To be a skeptic in the eyes of HN does not mean that you do not believe in God. It merely means that you do not believe in the holy bible as interpreted by T8. I came to the conclusion that most of the believers in reality worshipped the bible.
Most of the folks in the believers section are skeptical of the biblical interpretations of the other believers. Just read the debates between the trinitarians and the Jehoveh witnesses.
And yet they are not relagated to the skeptics corner.
However Bod, who is a devout believer in God, is not permitted to post in the believers section because of his lack of belief in the bible.Keep searching, and most importantly questioning, princess.
I would immensely enjoy hearing about your discoveries.Tim
Quote (princess @ Sep. 06 2011,02:52)
However, I am still left with 'how did it all get here', I know you see many mistakes in the world and with the human body. I still believe in showing humanity that we are a unique species. Perhaps it is a bit of roman thinking, trying to seperate humans from animals, however, even though everything is connected some way, human thoughts & actions have more impact to either do better or worse for the world them any other organism.
That human beings are a unique species on this planet is not a radical observation, but trying to put that observation in context is extremely difficult. If you have a prefabricated worldview, (e.g. Christian, Muslim, etc.), the story is already written for you, but if you are skeptic – if you have the audacity to ask questions and not simply make tradition or peer pressure your guide – then you have a genuine mystery on your hands. Here is my take.Human beings are the only species on the planet to making lasting advances from one generation to the next. The way that we interact with each other and the environment around us is different today than it was even a decade ago. It was different a decade ago than it was a century ago, and it was different a century ago than it was a millennium ago. Human society itself seems to have a life of its own that grows and changes with time, getting more advanced and more mature as we go.
For example, we can mark the different periods of time by studying the specific culture of that time, (e.g. the “roman thinking” that you referred to is but one example). By contrast, we don't speak of different periods of cow culture, or dolphin culture. As a species, their behaviors may change over time as the environment around them changes, but there doesn't appear to be any “society wide” changes in animals. It is as if there is no social memory. They may fashion tools or find a unique way of obtaining food, but the following generation does not build on those finds to create something even greater. They simply retain the behaviors, or they don't.
To me, this is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We create. We advance. We remember.
Likely due to my background being raised as a Christian, I see spiritual implications in this. I see a consciousness that goes beyond the individual that connects our species as a whole. You might think of this transcendent consciousness as God. However, (as I am sure Stu will point out), it can just as easily be called something else, and be entirely explainable as a physical phenomenon. Personally, I believe that there is more to life than just the physical, but that's my opinion and certainly not an indisputable fact.
Welcome to the wonderful world of mystery. It's a frightening and beautiful place.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 07 2011,01:48) Quote (princess @ Sep. 06 2011,02:52)
However, I am still left with 'how did it all get here', I know you see many mistakes in the world and with the human body. I still believe in showing humanity that we are a unique species. Perhaps it is a bit of roman thinking, trying to seperate humans from animals, however, even though everything is connected some way, human thoughts & actions have more impact to either do better or worse for the world them any other organism.
That human beings are a unique species on this planet is not a radical observation, but trying to put that observation in context is extremely difficult. If you have a prefabricated worldview, (e.g. Christian, Muslim, etc.), the story is already written for you, but if you are skeptic – if you have the audacity to ask questions and not simply make tradition or peer pressure your guide – then you have a genuine mystery on your hands. Here is my take.Human beings are the only species on the planet to making lasting advances from one generation to the next. The way that we interact with each other and the environment around us is different today than it was even a decade ago. It was different a decade ago than it was a century ago, and it was different a century ago than it was a millennium ago. Human society itself seems to have a life of its own that grows and changes with time, getting more advanced and more mature as we go.
For example, we can mark the different periods of time by studying the specific culture of that time, (e.g. the “roman thinking” that you referred to is but one example). By contrast, we don't speak of different periods of cow culture, or dolphin culture. As a species, their behaviors may change over time as the environment around them changes, but there doesn't appear to be any “society wide” changes in animals. It is as if there is no social memory. They may fashion tools or find a unique way of obtaining food, but the following generation does not build on those finds to create something even greater. They simply retain the behaviors, or they don't.
To me, this is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We create. We advance. We remember.
Likely due to my background being raised as a Christian, I see spiritual implications in this. I see a consciousness that goes beyond the individual that connects our species as a whole. You might think of this transcendent consciousness as God. However, (as I am sure Stu will point out), it can just as easily be called something else, and be entirely explainable as a physical phenomenon. Personally, I believe that there is more to life than just the physical, but that's my opinion and certainly not an indisputable fact.
Welcome to the wonderful world of mystery. It's a frightening and beautiful place.
Hi What is True,Excellent Post!
One should keep an open mind,
unlike the close-minded proposals of atheists.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 07 2011,01:48) Human beings are the only species on the planet to making lasting advances from one generation to the next. The way that we interact with each other and the environment around us is different today than it was even a decade ago. It was different a decade ago than it was a century ago, and it was different a century ago than it was a millennium ago. Human society itself seems to have a life of its own that grows and changes with time, getting more advanced and more mature as we go. For example, we can mark the different periods of time by studying the specific culture of that time, (e.g. the “roman thinking” that you referred to is but one example). By contrast, we don't speak of different periods of cow culture, or dolphin culture. As a species, their behaviors may change over time as the environment around them changes, but there doesn't appear to be any “society wide” changes in animals. It is as if there is no social memory. They may fashion tools or find a unique way of obtaining food, but the following generation does not build on those finds to create something even greater. They simply retain the behaviors, or they don't.
To me, this is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We create. We advance. We remember.
Might it be that we do not speak of different periods of dolphin culture because we don't know much about it? Dolphins do have culture, they teach their young how to make tools, and they behave altruistically towards other species.Orangutans have culture and language too. They make and keep tool kits that contain different apparatus for different jobs, mostly to do with the extraction of food.
The difficulty of categorisation about which you write is a real one because all this is on a sliding scale. To humans, it has been humans that have most obviously developed extended phenotypes like cars, houses and iPads. But orangutans did not just appear magically in with their abilities at tool making, they too must have developed that technology in the context of a culture with education for their young. Maybe what took us decades took them centuries. Natural selection of such characteristics does depend on the existence of an environment in which those traits are advantageous.
Humans are unquestionably unique, if not for anything more than the simple reason that we are the only species of the genus homo. However giraffes are unique too.
Stuart
Stu wrote:
Quote Might it be that we do not speak of different periods of dolphin culture because we don't know much about it? Dolphins do have culture, they teach their young how to make tools, and they behave altruistically towards other species. It certainly might be. (How's that for conviction!) I am just not personally aware of any such evidence. As I said in my original post, I am aware of animal tool making, etc., but it doesn't appear to me that such behavior becomes “part of the culture” and then expanded from one generation to the next. If you know of any such studies, I would certainly like to know about them as well.
Stu wrote:
Quote But orangutans did not just appear magically in with their abilities at tool making, they too must have developed that technology in the context of a culture with education for their young. They “must have”? Are you sure?
Again, as far as I am aware, tool making and development is extremely limited among animals to the point where it wouldn't take much more than mimickery – not explicit education of the young – to explain the passing on of that information from one generation to the next.
Stu wrote:
Quote Maybe what took us decades took them centuries. I don't even see evidence that individual “animal cultures” are different today than they were a thousand years ago, so I first need to see that an individual “animal culture” has in fact changed over time. Do you know of any evidence of such changes?
Stu wrote:
Quote Humans are unquestionably unique, if not for anything more than the simple reason that we are the only species of the genus homo. However giraffes are unique too. By that usage of the word “unique”, all animals are unique in some way. My point was that humans seem uniquely to have a yearning to create, to advance, and to remember who we are – a seeming transcending consciousness that goes beyond mere individual existence. (Yes, I know that “transcendent consciousness” is a meaningless term that I have just made up to describe something that can not otherwise be described in concrete terms.) If there's another species that does something similar, then I would certainly love to know about it.
Prince
Matter and energy need a host, what is that host?
To concur that we are human apes is dualism in humanity, which is separation that we are not really humans, but some form of a mutant ape. The instinct of each species is not the matter at hand, tis how far the species instinct can take them, humans seem to feel that there is no limit to what they can do, others species are most satisfied at where they are at and do not feel the need to make any further advances in their life.
Every creature has a place in this world, each has a duty of sort that contributes to another. However, humanity has the most impact on the changes of this. What was created to substain this world and keep balance, humanity has only tip the scales to the worse to destroy what is to keep us alive. What other species in this world can do this purposely? Not one. So humanity is unique in many ways good and not so good.
The thoughts and actions of ones who believe in the 'blood god' are in full force in this day and age, are they really fighting for their god, or are they really fighting for what they believe their god wants.
You want proof of god, then take a look around the world and there is your proof that god does exists, in the minds of individuals. That can and has been proved time and time again. Stuart, you need to look at the spiritually side of things at times for your proof. Just because it cannot be seen does not mean it is not there, in some form of thought or action. That is what god is.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 08 2011,01:45) Stu wrote: Quote Might it be that we do not speak of different periods of dolphin culture because we don't know much about it? Dolphins do have culture, they teach their young how to make tools, and they behave altruistically towards other species. It certainly might be. (How's that for conviction!) I am just not personally aware of any such evidence. As I said in my original post, I am aware of animal tool making, etc., but it doesn't appear to me that such behavior becomes “part of the culture” and then expanded from one generation to the next. If you know of any such studies, I would certainly like to know about them as well.
Stu wrote:
Quote But orangutans did not just appear magically in with their abilities at tool making, they too must have developed that technology in the context of a culture with education for their young. They “must have”? Are you sure?
Again, as far as I am aware, tool making and development is extremely limited among animals to the point where it wouldn't take much more than mimickery – not explicit education of the young – to explain the passing on of that information from one generation to the next.
Stu wrote:
Quote Maybe what took us decades took them centuries. I don't even see evidence that individual “animal cultures” are different today than they were a thousand years ago, so I first need to see that an individual “animal culture” has in fact changed over time. Do you know of any evidence of such changes?
Stu wrote:
Quote Humans are unquestionably unique, if not for anything more than the simple reason that we are the only species of the genus homo. However giraffes are unique too. By that usage of the word “unique”, all animals are unique in some way. My point was that humans seem uniquely to have a yearning to create, to advance, and to remember who we are – a seeming transcending consciousness that goes beyond mere individual existence. (Yes, I know that “transcendent consciousness” is a meaningless term that I have just made up to describe something that can not otherwise be described in concrete terms.) If there's another species that does something similar, then I would certainly love to know about it.
I'm sorry to say that I don't think you have grasped my meaning. I feel that I have addressed your objections already.Stuart
Quote (princess @ Sep. 08 2011,01:51) Prince Matter and energy need a host, what is that host?
To concur that we are human apes is dualism in humanity, which is separation that we are not really humans, but some form of a mutant ape. The instinct of each species is not the matter at hand, tis how far the species instinct can take them, humans seem to feel that there is no limit to what they can do, others species are most satisfied at where they are at and do not feel the need to make any further advances in their life.
Every creature has a place in this world, each has a duty of sort that contributes to another. However, humanity has the most impact on the changes of this. What was created to substain this world and keep balance, humanity has only tip the scales to the worse to destroy what is to keep us alive. What other species in this world can do this purposely? Not one. So humanity is unique in many ways good and not so good.
The thoughts and actions of ones who believe in the 'blood god' are in full force in this day and age, are they really fighting for their god, or are they really fighting for what they believe their god wants.
You want proof of god, then take a look around the world and there is your proof that god does exists, in the minds of individuals. That can and has been proved time and time again. Stuart, you need to look at the spiritually side of things at times for your proof. Just because it cannot be seen does not mean it is not there, in some form of thought or action. That is what god is.
This time I can only agree with your third paragraph, princess. The rest leaves me cold I'm sorry to day.“Host”? What is that?
“Human ape” is not dualism, it is tautology.
Every living species is a mutant form of an ancestor species.
I don't pretend to know what ambitions occur to other species. How could anyone? Maybe neuroscientists might in time.
What is the “place in this world” and the “duty” of the gunea worm? It is a human parasite that slowly and painfully burrows its way out from lesions in the skin. What duty are you ascribing to that?
Photosynthetic algae had the biggest impact of any living species when they polluted the atmosphere with oxygen, hundreds of millions of years ago. We will never do anything that drastic to the planet. I do take your point that we are changing our own environment, of course, but we are not unique in that regard.
You advise me to consider my spirituality for “proof” of a god. Actually it is my spirituality that tells me belief in gods is absurd, and ugly. Is this a new definition of god you are now proffering? A god is something that, just because it cannot be seen does not mean it is not there?
So a god is an electron. Or an honest politician? Or both.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2011,18:41) So a god is an electron. Or an honest politician? Or both. Stuart
We know for a fact that electrons do exist.
God must be an honest politician.Tim
Stu wrote:
Quote I'm sorry to say that I don't think you have grasped my meaning. I feel that I have addressed your objections already. I believe that I understood your explanation just fine. What I am asking for now is actual evidence. If you don't have any, that's fine. It just renders your point of view to be as much an opinion as mine is, (i.e. your guess is as good as mine).
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 09 2011,01:18) Stu wrote: Quote I'm sorry to say that I don't think you have grasped my meaning. I feel that I have addressed your objections already. I believe that I understood your explanation just fine. What I am asking for now is actual evidence. If you don't have any, that's fine. It just renders your point of view to be as much an opinion as mine is, (i.e. your guess is as good as mine).
I was pointing out to you that, since animals do not appear suddenly with all their technology developed that it is self-evident it was developed over time. You would have to be a bozo of a creationist to take an alternative view to that, I would have thought. I don't think you are, by the way!You made as many truth claims as I did, why is it that I'm supposed to have all the evidence and no one else is??!
Anyway, dolphins teaching their young tool use is here, and many other places too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id….e-tools
Orangutan culture:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030107073934.htm
I have not cited primary sources here, I think we can trust the secondary reportage of them.
Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 08 2011,21:46) Quote (Stu @ Sep. 08 2011,18:41) So a god is an electron. Or an honest politician? Or both. Stuart
We know for a fact that electrons do exist.
God must be an honest politician.Tim
What about honest electrons? Heisenberg demonstrated how devious they are.Stuart
Stu,
Great links!
I think that my response may have been more strong than I intended it to be. You don't have to have all the answers. I certainly don't claim to have them.
I did want to clarify one thing though.
I have said all along that I am aware of animals using tools. The critical distinction for me is going from making a simple tool – what I would call a first generation tool – and expanding on that tool to make something more complex. Both links refer to behaviors that appear to me like first generation tools. They may get passed down within specific groups, but they don't appear to ever be used as the foundation for new, more advanced tools. That's where I think that humans are unique.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
