“Ignorant of what, exactly, since this would be an issue -both- religion and Darwinism would agree on?”
ZincKidd on Mar 9, 2012 at 14:09:38
“For one, that "natural" does not equate to "should." And "unnatural" similarly doesn't equate to "shouldn't." Is it "natural" for someone to dye their hair a different color? To be born with Asperger's or Klienfelter's or Down's and choose to make the best of it? Should we declare it would be unnatural for the sterile to procreate, so they should not be allowed to marry (anyone)?”
Donnerskinde on Mar 8, 2012 at 18:31:50
“Actually Darwinism directly disagrees with saying homosexuality is unnatural. See unlike the abrahamic religions, science trys to explain what actually exists rather then just ignoring things that it feels aren't applicable. So when evolutionary biologists look at the prevalence of homosexual behavior within nature ('cause it abounds) they look at the reason why natural selection hasn't weeded it out as "non-productive" ie doesn't produce offspring, and have found that in nature ( including in society) the prevalence of homosexuals stabilizes the population and contributes to the successful survival and developement of a specific genetic family, so although not producing offspring themselves, thier contribution to the genetic sucess of thier family make them a great contributor to the survival of genetic groups. No I know you obviously will not understand any of this being an ignorant bigot, without even a rudimentary understanding of how science works, perhaps some of the other readers will see this information and be able to take something helpful away.”
LisaLore on Mar 8, 2012 at 18:20:47
“What the hell does "Darwinism" have to do with it? Much less that it "agrees with religion". For that matter, religion doesn't agree with (your) religion either. Different religions have different positions on homosexuality, from openly hateful and violent to fully accepting.”
“"Want to" is not synonymous with "should". Same as one might remove 1% of a population with Mad Cow Disease to enhance the survival of the other 99%, as a responsible farmer. Please don't tell me the analogy doesn't apply; since you are apparently not a theist, you have Darwinian Naturalism an alternative, and in that context the situation is -precisely the same-, just another animal species that's under discussion. I assume you think that evolution culling a subset of a population for the ongoing survival of thousands or millions of years of future descendants, is clearly practically beneficial?”
“"Beings who make few to no errors" are best described as "automatons". Try to get serious and read some Leibnitz here. There is (intentionally) no possible criteria you'd accept as being "good", not because you actually think that's reasonable, but because you want to set logically-impossible criteria to satisfy your ulterior motivation of rejecting theism regardless of the merits of any arguments presented. In fact, if we wish to retain Free Will and a human-like consciousness, errors and learning from those errors is an absolute necessity. Of course, you'll happily demand both sides of a mutually-contradictory set of "good" attributes... okay, just understand your demand doesn't matter at all, to anything. What is at hand is "good" from a -logically possible- perspective.”
“Still milking the Middle Ages? Sorry, in terms of actual recent data, Stalin as an atheist implementing an explicitly atheist agenda, killed more people (including atheists) in a decade than religion has -across all of history-.
In reality, the underlying factors here are not what the religion states, but human motivation for power and territory and wealth being forwarded by claims to a religion, in contradiction to that religion. If any political or philosophical position explicitly says "don't do X" and I do "X", typically we (and you, for any other case than religion) ascribe the blame to the person who did "X", not the recommendation to "don't do X". But, this is religion we are talking about--since that's what's under discussion, I'm not really insisting on a non-hypocritical evaluation from you.”
There is no "problem with religion". Your problem with "explaining it" is that you are, unfortunately, rather rabidly irrational. And I indeed "needn't try" with you, as your position could not even be theoretically of value to me, or others, by your own statements. "Not-X", where "X" is religion or -anything else whatsoever- has no value to provide. A negation is not a thing. You can check the Reification Fallacy to correct your thinking on this. And, of course, I "needent try" also because simply by waiting, I automatically win when you get Naturally Deselected. Make no mistake: 100% of all POSSIBLE value of any discussion with you comes from the OTHER person. Not only because I say so, but because YOU say so. Sure, you'd deny that in contradiction to your own position, but again... that's just your "rabidly irrational" thing again.”
“No, sorry, that you want to make up your own unique notions of how terms and categories have to work, in no way obliges me to follow them.
Try this: Ice, liquid water, and steam are all H2O. If one states this (scientifically factual) position, do they then believe there are "three waters"? No. They are distinct in one sense (hence separate terms), yet have the same underlying "substance" and are the "same" in another sense. Not really difficult for someone who is capable of dealing with basic abstractions.
We have no reason to conclude they are "keeping secrets", though if they were, there are plausible and justifiable reasons for that, much like a parent might in some cases withhold certain information from a child until an opportune time. Personally, my view would be that since Jesus was incarnate at that point, he would have a physical brain with finite capacity, and thus would know "in summary" what the Father knows, but would not naturally retain "in detail" the totality of knowledge of an omniscient being. In any case, it's irrelevant as stated. A question is not an argument, though you'd do well to understand the distinction for any kind of aspiration to serious philosophical debate.”
“No. The position of the Trinity is "neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Substance", all the way back to Athanasius. Despite what atheists (and Mormons, incidentally) want to claim as a straw-man misrepresentation of the position, Christianity has never claimed they are the "same"--rather, that they share the same divine "essence".”
LynneE on May 27, 2011 at 11:38:54
“Really! Wow, I am so lucky I read your post instead of the Bible!
I and the Father are One.
According to you then, you don't worship one god, you are a polytheist? And if your imaginary gods share the same "divine essence" then how (and why) would they keep secrets from one another?
The problem with religion is explaining its idiocy. You needn't try with me...as a former catholic of 50 years and a current atheist, I've heard it before.”
“"If you are indeed a scientist, you will easily be able to prove that god exists."
"If you are indeed a scientist and a Democrat, you will easily be able to prove that Democrat political positions are the right ones."
Some domains are amenable to scientific "proof", some are not. Yes, you already knew this. Yes, you special-case religion in contradiction to yourself, because you are intellectually dishonest.”
LynneE on May 27, 2011 at 11:26:39
“Anyone who postulates what Richard Ruhling did in his post is not using the scientific process. He offered nothing but his opinion that the bible explains the creation of matter without any scientific proof that it is correct. THAT is intellectually dishonest.
Even domains that aren't as amenable to scientific proof as others still have a theory or basis for the hypothesis. There is no more scientific proof that your god created the world or humans than there is than a giant pink bunny with roller skates did...neither can be proved or disproved. If you don't believe that a giant pink bunny with roller skates created the earth, then show me your proof.”
“Hint: That atheists have no valid differentiating characteristic (per Aristotle) from animals is not theists' problem. Our differentiator? "The soul", of course.
What's yours? A -unique- characteristic without reference to any non-material or metaphysical concepts, please. The closest you have is "we wear strips of fabric", which is quite inadequate. Language? Reason? Well, Koko the gorilla has you covered there.
That you can't differentiate yourself, is, unalterably, a devastating show-stopper for your position, not simply from the perspective of theism, but from the entirely of Western philosophy, reason, and logic. That you're ignorant of this fact, or nobody has pointed it out to you, changes nothing. There's literally nothing you can do, other than change your premises, that can prevent your own brain from forming the obligatory inescapable logical implications of your own metaphysical stance.”
shieldvulf on Jun 4, 2011 at 00:54:30
“Aw, ya big monkey!”
John C75 on May 19, 2011 at 22:27:34
“How would you define a soul? There is an energy that all living being emit that when we die goes away. But that's ALL LIVING things, not just humans. Religion claims that humans are somehow are creators favorite creations. Considering the massively vast universe I think that is a little conceded of man to think that. So how do you define a soul?”
beninabox1 on May 17, 2011 at 10:25:23
“the idea that man has a soul and animals don't is what scientists call an unfalsifiable proposition - there's no way to prove it or disprove it. It's ill defined and there's no way to test it. It's not like we can ask the animal what it thinks or dreams. btw we used to think animals didn't feel pain.”
“This is one example, of many to come. Another one? You cannot validly claim any "rights" beyond what you granted to that hamburger you ate for lunch. That you are temporarily insulated from the necessary conclusions of your own stance is merely a matter of social convention, originally derived from a theistic stance, that you cannot validly do anything other than reject in toto, and hope theists refuse to agree with you on the self-definition you chose, in terms of our practical actions. The implication of your stance is you yourself reject any validity to a claim by yourself to any "rights". Yes, at least some theists have been well aware of this for some time.
Welcome to philosophical accountability. While you're here, note that the Linnaean Taxonomy is, simply, just some guys naming stuff. Nothing was "discovered", reality changed none whatsoever. Simply, one more system of categorization, out of many, was formulated. Convenient as it may be, even with the added authoritative aura of using Latin, nothing happened other than people categorized and named biological forms in a useful way, based on crude distinctions of subjective physical characteristics. It isn't what's "really real", and you can take this model being superseded by Cladistics, at this very moment, as a science-only demonstration of that fact.”
hdrinehart on May 17, 2011 at 07:33:38
“And please don't forget that this whole issue hinges on the "accepted" legal definition of a Human versus the "accepted" legal definition of an animal. . .
The problem is that ANY legislation that does not SPECIFICALLY differentiate between the two--and this one does not--is open to other interpretations as the "accepted" legal definition changes--and it will. "Accepted" legal definitions change every time an ideologue with an axe to grind garners enough support to force his or her definition on the legal process, usually beginning in a single area and then potentially moving on to larger and larger areas, with the potential of becoming national. Then THAT definition becomes the "accepted" legal definition until some other motivated group forces their opinion on the legal system. . .
LILLYPUTT on May 16, 2011 at 23:45:11
“Perhaps we do not exist at all,maybe it's a dream.”