Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by garbonzo, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    People who resort to the kind of metaphysical monism as QQ is here tend to have unresolved personal problems.

    I've seen many a modern Buddhist, New Ager and the like resort to the "we're all one, the separate self is merely an illusion" stance - and these were people coming out of a difficult divorce, dysfunctional family, drug or financial problem and such.

    In hardship, it sometimes seems easier to just dismiss the whole notion of an actually existing separate self, because that way, what was once "my problems" loses the possessive pronoun ("if there is no me, then there are also no problems that would be mine") and seems to help the person get some much needed distance from their hardship.
    How productive such distancing is, however, is another matter.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    so do you wish to discuss the nature of "tending" to have personal problems or would you care to be more specific?
    People, such as wynn tends to demonstrate, who make comments veiled as deserving serious consideration when in fact are merely wishing to inflict harm upon someone else to benefit their own personal esteem issues need to seek assistance to deal with their serious and no doubt, debilitating, sense of inadequacy.

    see ......it aint hard to do as a monkey does....[chuckle]
    and as science states you are just a walking talking bunch of hormones so why would I take you seriously... yeah go figure, I am actualy writing a response to a bunch of hormones...I must be daft....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Sep 15, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    and so the "fixation to the label: God" is like a craw in your head.....


    and what pray tell about the evidence you have yet to discover?
    or do you believe all the evidence you need has already been discovered?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    ok, just to zoom out here and kind of re-orient on this whole religion is not science thing, I would like to propose a question -
    - child is adopted from china, has needs met by other parents, goes back to china and meets other parents, feels x and y and z things about the experience. What does science say?
    - child had evidence the parents abandoned her and didn't want her, turns out the father never wanted to let the girl go but the mother thought she would be better off in a family in another town rather than starving along with the rest of the family. Evidence would clearly say, had she never found out, that both parents wanted to ditch her so they could get a boy.
    If girl is pissed off at birth parent, what does science have to say about it, that her genes got mad for being helped through to the sexual phase of the genetic purpose cycle by someone other than biological parent? If girl loves birth parents as well, what does science have to say about it? If adoptive parents love adopted girl, i suppose that is just them fulfilling the biological purpose of sustaining the human race as a whole, and nothing more?

    There is so much going on in that one story, much less on this planet, that can't be covered by pure science. The story isn't even about only justice, or only love, or only national pride, or altruism, or sensitivity, or pragmatism, or imagination, or rationality, or the lack of truthfulness of some of the assumed information - it is all those elements feeding back into each other in such an incredibly complex way that the story can't even get labeled with "positive" or "negative". Anyone who thinks they can run a tester over that story and filter it through the science machinery we have available today is deeply out of touch with reality. You can talk all day long describing the events down to the last protein ingested in each meal of each person over 14 years, but you won't be talking about what the story means or what the feelings mean. You can talk all day about what feelings look like chemically, but you can't talk about what they mean until you apply meta-analysis. You MUST apply philosophy somewhere to make sense out of that story and our lives. That is what i mean by mechanistic "denigration", lack of meta-analysis and lack of meaning... nice, deep, powerful, untestable meaning.
  8. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    because you can quantify to some degree assent to a principle, you can say "do you believe in a God? Answer only yes or no." It is very difficult to set the boundary for actions necessary to express belief. Theologically i agree with your statement, logically speaking i disagree, because it is too sloppy.
    definitely a mix of where will i get my food/clothes/whatever else you mentioned the prisoner thinks about and also, "Why does God let this happen? Does God exist at all?"
    well you said that there was some precision needed to qualify for belief. I agree they need some idea of God to believe in it. It is easier for some types of people to visualize jesus walking down the beach with them, or an elephant-headed man who pushes away their problems, i guess. Others say, "my science detector 2012 never saw an elephant-headed man so those people are stupid".
    perhaps it is easier for people who are already in theologically deep water, like a priest or scholar, to move on to that type of wordless idea without becoming zombies, i don't know. I was just defending the concept as a valid religious experience.
    I honestly think people are supposed to fulfill some sort of being-in-themselves and walk their own path. You are different than I am (this is a bit idealistic) because you were born to be that way. There are gazillions of different people and only one highest power, or highest being. If God doesn't intervene in such a way that a type of person can see something going on that interests them about the idea, i blame God. If God is standing at the door knocking, maybe it is the person's fault, but if the person is knocking at the door and God isn't answering, again I blame God. Your situation is fairly unique because people who don't believe in something usually don't attach such a promise to knowing something that they believe is false. That in itself is like a koan. The fenced ox longs for the yoke, what is mu?
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Why should I or any one else take you seriously if all you are is what science has considered you to be? Merely an evolved form of some sort of chemical...?

    In simplistic terms,
    Why should I take a bunch of hormones seriously?
    Why should you take a bunch of hormones seriously?
    What is it about "hormones" that grants them a value beyond mere hormones and a few other chemicals etc. do you think?
    Why is life so precious if all it is is a bunch of hormones?
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I still see nothing in here that would verify that there exists a multiplistic ego, when the behaviour you describe can also be attributed to a mere a collection of individual egos that, through similar upbringing and experiences, operate in similar ways. There is nothing in what you have exampled that necessitates or verifies a multiplism under a single banner.
    Now you're arguing from personal belief rather than from anything that can be verified.
    You think so... I think not. A multiplistic ego, unless I am misunderstanding what you mean, is simply not a requirement to describe the observations.
    Is there a collective ego that you can actually verify, other than "I think so..."?
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I agree with you actually that there is no way that a "collective ego" can be empirically evidenced other than by statistical survey of some sort of vague kind.
    I do not know of any test that could possibly quantify something like a collective ego... Impossible....at this time in our collective evolution.

    By the same token it can not be refuted either for the very same reasons therefore this topic will always be in discussion for some daft reason.....The historical statistics of human behaviour individually and collectively provide some evidence however which I guess is why this topic exists and can never be resolved conclusively.
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    Why must they?

    Please explain why?

    You've managed to use a good few words without saying anything relevant, just like you attempt at explaining where the actual fact of darwinian
    evolution is. What i'd like is an an actual explanation. Do you think you can do that?


    People sniff stuff out, not methodologies. Right now, science appears to have been hijacked by anti-godists, so it won't say anything of god while this is the case.

    Find out for yourself.

  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Because all religions (with literally one or two exceptions) purport the existence of a god or gods.

    I already have. Go back and read the post.

    Again, I've already given you one. If you aren't intelligent enough to understand it, that's your problem, not mine.

    How many theists do you know that don't belong to a religion?

    Methodologies make the sniffing possible. That's what science is--a method. And science hasn't been hijacked by "anti-godists," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. It has, however, been hijacked by ID idiots (IDiots?) and people like you, who aren't educated, aren't very intelligent, yet claim to know where its faults are. You're a lobbyist for faith, nothing more.

    Typical Jan Ardena cop-out. I'll take that to mean you can't answer the challenge.
  14. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    So what?
    Believing God exists does not you a theist make.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Then it obviously wasn't good enough.
    Explain it properly or there's no point in carrying on.

    As above.


    It means what it says. And it has.

    You really think you're intelligent because you have some bits of paper with grades on?
    Then why do you say such stupid things when it comes to religion?

    That's not a cop out. I'm doing you a favour (that is if you really want to know).

  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    My statement is that the thread revolves around a universal word "God" who (according to the OP) is in conflict with science. This has nothing to do with labeling and everything to do with discussing the fallacies of fundamentalist Christianity. You seem to have a penchant for strawmen.

    I say again, the title of this thread refers to "God". Staying on topic (i.e. referencing the meaning implied in the thread title) is not the same thing as "labeling".

    The problem that is the subject of this thread is the utter disavowal of best evidence by Christian fundamentalists, to the extent of discounting evolutionary biology as "wack", and by pretending that their definition of "God" is in conflict with the axioms of biology (and geology and a the rest of science).

    Your question about "evidence yet to discover" sounds like a strawman. How does it relate to this topic?

    That's absurd. I think if you read my posts more carefully, you'll notice that I'm generally referring to "best evidence". If you like, you can do a virtual paste of the word "best" in front of every occurrence of my use of "evidence" even if it leaves us discussing "best best evidence".

    Trying to mince what is meant by evidence, in terms if generalizing about the adequacy of evidence, is pointless. If you have some specific objection to a particular piece of evidence, then we have a point to center around. It's not clear to me why you keep raising general disavowals without ever wanting to be specific or to actually address the thread topic in terms of specific facts or evidence. If you like, I can restate the thread title more fully, to accentuate the points it raises:

    Christian fundamentlism is an anti-education, anti-science agenda, purporting to operate as Christianity but steeped in the most anti-Christian principles imaginable, namely, lies and propaganda, attacks on the facts and best evidence that comprise the aggregate of human knowledge, absurd and bizarre opinions dressed up as science, and craven and obsessive opinions about how the Bible came into existence and justifying an irrational argument stating that it is necessary for them to read it literally, as inerrant truth. From this extreme position of denial and dishonesty, comes statements like "Evolution is wack! God is the only way that makes sense!"
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    You seem to be asking about the biological origins of human emotions, and the way emotions integrate with the intellect to produce subjective meaning (e.g., why is this happening to me?) as opposed to the objective meaning (e.g., why is this happening?). The facts of chemistry address the question of the matrix upon which all experience lies. And without a doubt it is chemical, since, by reducing it chemically, such as in a bullet wound or stroke, the ideation completely disappears. I greatly oversimplified the actual chemistry, but that serves as a general backdrop.

    The search for meaning is evident in the Bible, if that's your anchor, but the findings are all wrong. People are not experiencing a quest for meaning because of a divine matrix, but because of the chemical one. To understand how behavior is imbued in the DNA, consider the imprinting of ducklings to the mother. By simply replicating her actions, they can learn to walk, swim, eat and avoid getting killed. On first blush you may say ducks have no emotion as we think of it. But if you've ever tangled with one, you would "sense" their anger upon being provoked.

    Darwin wrote of the mother gorilla who will defend her child to the death, rescue it and gently cradle it from a position of safety. (They also are known to adopt, in parallel with your story.) He even said he would prefer to think he had evolved from the gentleness of the gorillas rather than the "savage" nature of the Fuegian people (Argentina).

    The connection between a gentle nature and a savage one, to the chemical matrix, gets very complicated, because it involves understanding a lot of technical esoterica about the brain. In the evolution of our own species we see a gradual increase in the volume of the cranium over successive forms, and the most plausible explanation for this is that increased brain tissue confers higher levels of thinking, needed to survive. Invariably this also confers lower levels of thinking, since we are quite certain neither a duck nor a gorilla can attribute their existence to an ancient myth or superstition held by humans.

    Empathy is a fundamental behavior among animals. It's necessary to maintain a cooperative existence so that the species may survive. It's therefore an evolved behavior, meaning it tends to be favorably selected over the alternatives.

    Note, none of this remotely engages any supernatural cause, or any craven interpretation of the jumble of artifacts that led to the Bible and its later absurd fundamentalist incarnations.
  17. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Well, why should you?

    You were asking that question to yourself, not to me.
  18. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    It's not sloppy.
    It might be sloppy if you would posit a necessary set of externally observable behaviors the execution of which would count as definitive proof of the person's belief in God.

    But I'm not positing such a set, merely a principle by which a person can act and internally, subjectively know whether they are acting on their belief in God or not. This is completely doable. For example, a person may eat a particular kind of food as opposed to some other, with the justification that they do so because they believe in God - and be aware of all this as such.

    I don't understand??
    You said that you tended to believe in God, but questions about God's existence and character give you sleepless nights??
    How can that be?

    I never suggested that it wasn't a valid religious experience; just that I don't understand it.

    You blame God? Wow, that is bold!

    I don't believe that God is false. I just don't know. And not knowing is not a comfortable state to be in. People generally have the tendency to want to break out of uncomfortable states.

    And mu is what the ox says.
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Oh I agree with your sentiment totally however the thead title didn't make reference specifically to fundamentalism, or did it?
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    ok... had a think about it all over night and here is a contra that might be worth having some fun over...

    Science currently believes that mankind has evolved as a "meaningless", "valueless" pile of chemicals that somehow evolved a serious delusion that allows that "pile of hormones" a sense of value and purpose.
    Question: Why would evolution as a process suggested by science evolve a state of "value" delusion that is beyond bare necessity?

    there is certainly evidence [if one takes the clinical evolutionist perspective] that suggests strongly that a serious delusion of value has evolved... the question is why would it?
  21. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    That isn't entirely accurate. "Value" in science is restricted in meaning, it doesn't include a mechanism humans "normally" use to assign value to things (a sunset, say, or a Picasso); no, in science a variable in some system can have a value, but this value is a number, possibly a quantity of physical units.

    As to our perceived sense of worth, every animal "values" its own life because it tries to survive instinctively; the human "delusion" is an adaptive mechanism. Does that begin to answer your question?
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I guess it sort of starts in the right direction.
    For example we are having this discussion on an internet that is currently highly valued. According to science, a pile of Hormones is valueing [deluded] the internet and this discussion. The question is why would evolution find the necessity for such a delusion?
    It serves not survival mechanisim in fact it could be totally contra to the survival factor.
    another: Why evolve the deluded values applied to the abilty to generate mass existiction by usig WMD's? Surely this contra to the necessity of survival. Not the WMD's persee but the value we place in them.
    Why evolve the deluded values we place on "escapism" [ video games, sexual only gratification, sports, other challenges, and escaping into the www using online forums etc...deluded values...why?
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Effectively science appears to be saying that ALL values we attribute to anything other than survival are merely a state of hormonal delusion.

    Why would this state evolve ?

    What rational and reasoning can people come up with to satisfy the evolution of such a significant state of delusion. When no values other than survival would be all that is needed.
    Why evolve a delusion of a deluded Ego or personality when simple "personna cloning" would suffice for example? [same personna ID but different bodies - DNA diversity maintained]
    How does the deluded value of science investing over 8 billion Euro chasing after the Higgs boson so they can further their deluded desire to have control over the universe come to be evolved? When this delusion has nothing to do with mere survival.

    A bit of a can o' worms I think...deluded worms too I might add..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page