|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/14/2006 : 13:10:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
NS is concerned with the feelings of the species
(bill) So now NS, an immaterial mechanism driven by default, is concerned about the feelings of the species???????? NS is a immaterial object, yet it has concerns about feelings????? Do you realize the absurdity of this notion? I am sure you don't.
And here we have the intellectual dishonesty inherent in your posting style. You have decided to pick a part of a sentance out of context to construct a strawman. NS is a concept and methodology, not an object, Bill.
quote:
as it relates to longevity of the pairbonding in order to assist in child rearing.
(bill) So you say NS, in it's concern for feelings of the species, gives the gift of sexual pleasure apart from procreation, so that the "pair" may share a "pairbonding" experience and this will enhance their "bond", which in turn will prepare the "pair" to raise children, weather or not they are same sex and/or the baby is not theirs. I must say that NS, in all it's glory, is a very wise and planing creative agent.
So you chide me for assuming that because the results of NS, or the will of the deity, dictated that only man/women sexual relations produce offspring that man/man or women/women raising children was not in the grand scheme of things for NS, or the deity? Hmm, interesting....
Yet you yourself assume that because the deity, or NS, chose to use man and women (pair) for procreation that this, by default, means a "pair raising children" is the design intent, or the results of NS. Hence your injecting the word "pairbonding." Yet we see many examples in nature of social mammals where females raise the young on their own. So since you do not have the manual left behind by NS you are just assuming that "pairs raising children" is the intent of the results of NS, which makes the whole "pairbonding" thesis a justso story.
So what makes your assumptions supercede all others? I know, I know, your whole "prove to me that pink and white pokka dot elephants don't exist anywhere where in the universe" argument. (sigh)
Come up for air from that bong hit, Bill. What I have said is that the emotional ties forged by sex is beneficial to the raising of children as it provides the children with two adults to protect and provide for it. Pairbonding has definate health benefits as well. A recent British study has discovered that pairbonding in homosexual relationship acts the same as pairbonding in heterosexual relationships.
quote:
As pairbonding is adventageous to the species as a whole,
(bill) How do you know it was not the results of NS that the human females raise the young, like the lions, like the tigers, or the bears? Oh my.. Do you have the manual left behind by NS giving you this information? This whole "pairbonding" notion given as a gift from NS, to boost the feelings of the "pair", out of concern for the species is such load of crap, but rather humorous at the same time.
Human females have be socially relagated to that function due to their ability to produce milk for their young. Your assumption that it is a genetic predisposition that only females should care for young is bullshit as shown by physiatric studies. The pairbonding issue is a real issue of benefits that have been selected in by NS. NS, being a methodology and concept, is incapable of consciously doing anything.
quote:
it exists.
(bill) Says you...
Says scientific studies, Bill. Not that you put any research into any study that disagrees with you.
quote:
NS does not act differently in a same sex situation.
(bill) Really, NS gave opposite sex couples the ability to procreate while NS denied this ability to same sex couples. I'd say that is a little difference.
There you go again, Bill. You again focus on procreation as the single purpose of NS.
quote:
It is an effect which is consistant across the entire species, Bill. It doesn't differentiate between heterosexual or homosexual. The emotional pairbonding occurs in those couples which have selected mates (different sex or same sex).
(bill) Again with the "NS is concerned with the emotions of said species..." A completely materialist world and Val thinks the mechanism for NS is concerned about emotions of sovereign beings... This is a fairytale....
Comprehension was never your stong suit. The pairbonding that sex assists with is a species wide phenomenon and as it has benefit, the behavior was selected in.
quote:
That there is no procreation to support in the case of same sex pairings is immaterial.
(bill) If a man sticking his you know what into another man's you know where for the sole purpose of pleasure equals "pairbonding" and this prepares the "pair" to raise kids, then just think how much more "pairbonding" would occur in sexual relations when the result is a baby human from both parents genes. When the parents gaze on their new creation and realize that this little baby is flesh of their flesh then that is "pairbonding" to the infinite degree for the basis of family structure. If same sex couples were intend to raise children by the deity, or the results of NS, then why would they have been denied the true "pairbonding" experience of the heterosexual couple to produce an offspring together of their flesh and instead be given a far inferior "pairbonding" experience? Does not sound like NS is very concerned for the feelings of the same sex couple when it gave the opposite sex couple an infinitely greater "pairbonding" experience.
Now you're just being obtuse again. The pairbonding does not need contain a child. That you rail against this for homosexuals but not against sterile people says a lot about the reasons for your objection. None of it has to do with NS or a Creator's intent.
quote:
The drive for pairbonding is a species wide phenomenon which has certian benefits to child rearing.
(bill) I wonder why NS did not give the ultimate "pairbonding" experience to same sex couples if it was the intent of the results of NS was for same sex couples to r |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 13:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Kil said:
quote:
And since religion is inherently illogical, and even some of the more reasonable people who profess to a religion agree on that, what we have with Bill is a religiosity that really is dangerous. When the obvious can be denied in favor of that which is completely unsupportable in this realm of existence, and when so many people are of that mind, it might make sense to study, as one would any natural phenomena, what goes into making the Bill's of this world with an eye on taming this kind of creature rather than trying to change its mind…
So you DO agree that he qualifies as delusional! Ha!
Heh… You've been waiting for just such an opportunity to get me on this… 
I suppose I might in casual conversation. But I wouldn't call religious fundamentalist thinking a pathology.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 13:32:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Come up for air from that bong hit, Bill. What I have said is that the emotional ties forged by sex is beneficial to the raising of children as it provides the children with two adults to protect and provide for it. Pairbonding has definate health benefits as well. A recent British study has discovered that pairbonding in homosexual relationship acts the same as pairbonding in heterosexual relationships.
I think maybe he is not taking enough bong hits. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 15:00:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
NS is concerned with the feelings of the species
(bill) So now NS, an immaterial mechanism driven by default, is concerned about the feelings of the species???????? NS is a immaterial object, yet it has concerns about feelings????? Do you realize the absurdity of this notion? I am sure you don't.
And here we have the intellectual dishonesty inherent in your posting style. You have decided to pick a part of a sentance out of context to construct a strawman. NS is a concept and methodology, not an object, Bill.
quote:
as it relates to longevity of the pairbonding in order to assist in child rearing.
(bill) So you say NS, in it's concern for feelings of the species, gives the gift of sexual pleasure apart from procreation, so that the "pair" may share a "pairbonding" experience and this will enhance their "bond", which in turn will prepare the "pair" to raise children, weather or not they are same sex and/or the baby is not theirs. I must say that NS, in all it's glory, is a very wise and planing creative agent.
So you chide me for assuming that because the results of NS, or the will of the deity, dictated that only man/women sexual relations produce offspring that man/man or women/women raising children was not in the grand scheme of things for NS, or the deity? Hmm, interesting....
Yet you yourself assume that because the deity, or NS, chose to use man and women (pair) for procreation that this, by default, means a "pair raising children" is the design intent, or the results of NS. Hence your injecting the word "pairbonding." Yet we see many examples in nature of social mammals where females raise the young on their own. So since you do not have the manual left behind by NS you are just assuming that "pairs raising children" is the intent of the results of NS, which makes the whole "pairbonding" thesis a justso story.
So what makes your assumptions supercede all others? I know, I know, your whole "prove to me that pink and white pokka dot elephants don't exist anywhere where in the universe" argument. (sigh)
Come up for air from that bong hit, Bill. What I have said is that the emotional ties forged by sex is beneficial to the raising of children as it provides the children with two adults to protect and provide for it. Pairbonding has definate health benefits as well. A recent British study has discovered that pairbonding in homosexual relationship acts the same as pairbonding in heterosexual relationships.
quote:
As pairbonding is adventageous to the species as a whole,
(bill) How do you know it was not the results of NS that the human females raise the young, like the lions, like the tigers, or the bears? Oh my.. Do you have the manual left behind by NS giving you this information? This whole "pairbonding" notion given as a gift from NS, to boost the feelings of the "pair", out of concern for the species is such load of crap, but rather humorous at the same time.
Human females have be socially relagated to that function due to their ability to produce milk for their young. Your assumption that it is a genetic predisposition that only females should care for young is bullshit as shown by physiatric studies. The pairbonding issue is a real issue of benefits that have been selected in by NS. NS, being a methodology and concept, is incapable of consciously doing anything.
quote:
it exists.
(bill) Says you...
Says scientific studies, Bill. Not that you put any research into any study that disagrees with you.
quote:
NS does not act differently in a same sex situation.
(bill) Really, NS gave opposite sex couples the ability to procreate while NS denied this ability to same sex couples. I'd say that is a little difference.
There you go again, Bill. You again focus on procreation as the single purpose of NS.
quote:
It is an effect which is consistant across the entire species, Bill. It doesn't differentiate between heterosexual or homosexual. The emotional pairbonding occurs in those couples which have selected mates (different sex or same sex).
(bill) Again with the "NS is concerned with the emotions of said species..." A completely materialist world and Val thinks the mechanism for NS is concerned about emotions of sovereign beings... This is a fairytale....
Comprehension was never your stong suit. The pairbonding that sex assists with is a species wide phenomenon and as it has benefit, the behavior was selected in.
quote:
That there is no procreation to support in the case of same sex pairings is immaterial.
(bill) If a man sticking his you know what into another man's you know where for the sole purpose of pleasure equals "pairbonding" and this prepares the "pair" to raise kids, then just think how much more "pairbonding" would occur in sexual relations when the result is a baby human from both parents genes. When the parents gaze on their new creation and realize that this little baby is flesh of their flesh then that is "pairbonding" to the infinite degree for the basis of family structure. If same sex couples were intend to raise children by the deity, or the results of NS, then why would they have been denied the true "pairbonding" experience of the heterosexual couple to produce an offspring together of their flesh and instead be given a far inferior "pairbonding" experience? Does not sound like NS is very concerned for the feelings of the same sex couple when it gave the opposite sex couple an infinitely greater "pairbonding" experience.
Now you're just being obtuse again. The pairbonding does not need contain a child. That you rail against this for homosexuals but not against sterile people says a lot about the reasons for your objection. None of it has to do with NS or a Creator's intent.
quote:
The drive for pairbonding is a species wide phenomenon which has certian benefits to child reari |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 17:35:11 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: So now NS, an immaterial mechanism driven by default, is concerned about the feelings of the species???????? NS is a immaterial object, yet it has concerns about feelings????? Do you realize the absurdity of this notion? I am sure you don't.
Look, Bill, you obviously can use the Internet, so please bother to look stuff up before you criticize it. Otherwise you make yourself look like a fool. At this point it is quite clear that you didn't have a clue about what you were discussing with Val.
"Pair-bond, originating in 1940, is a generic term signifying a monogamous relationship or a socially monogamous relationship of either the human or animal variety, commonly used in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology."
That's from wikipedia's entry on human bonding. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are both accepted mainstream science, both have been around for a while, and both deal with applying evolutionary theory to human psychology and “feelings”.
And since you clearly don't know what natural selection really is, I invite you to read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Bill, I assume you put some stock in science. Or are you one of those flat earthers who thinks the moon landing was staged in Holly wood? Or perhaps a faith-healer who doesn't go to the doctor when they have a heart attack or cancer? Probably not. Hell, the fact that we're communicated over the Internet using computers shows that science often works pretty damn well.
Is science perfect? No. Sometimes human biases tarnish results. Sometimes we simply don't have enough information or data to be very sure. But science is the best thing he have for understanding the reality of the natural world. And decades of science say that yes, NS is involved in shaping human psychology – and psychology includes “feelings”. It is you, Bill, who is in fairyland. Or at least you are being highly ignorant of a topic you brought up.
Bill wrote: How do you know it was not the results of NS that the human females raise the young, like the lions, like the tigers, or the bears?
*drum roll* And now, for the…um 5th time: EVERYTHING HAPPENING IN THE WORLD – INCLUDING GAY COUPLES RAISING KIDS – IS THE RESULT OF NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is not interchangeable with your concept of God. Our worldviews are fundamentally different, Bill, and you have revealed over and over again that although you claim to understand the skeptical or materialist's point of view, you do not understand either at all.
And your lack of understanding largely has to do with your utter ignorance of most contemporary science regarding the human species. In your religious view, everything is black and white, right or wrong, this way or that way. But the natural world isn't that way at all. Things change and malfunction and are in flux all the time. Take your ridiculous round peg in a square hole analogy – if we look at nature, we see animals that have features that were once used for something else, but evolved for some other use. The fins on whales used to be legs for walking around. That means that at some point, some land creature could survive better in the water and was forced to use his legs as fins in order to survive. Over time the creatures with more fin-like legs survived the best, and after enough time you get a whale. All Val and I are saying is that in humans, sex has a purpose beyond mere procreation. That in humans, quality of relationships enhances our survival just as much as popping out kids. This is true of the bonobos, and that is why we see bonobos having gay sex just as much as they have straight sex. Even if we haven't completely figured out the why, homosexuality is part of the results of natural selection on humans. We know this because it exists.
Bill wrote: I know, I know, your whole "prove to me that pink and white pokka dot elephants |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/14/2006 17:36:55 |
|
|
|
nescafe
New Member
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 20:54:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In regards to both female orgasms and nipples on men, there is also the simple fact that male and female bodies are based on the same template in the womb, and males become males when the y chromosome causes testosterone and another hormone that I forget the name of to modify the embryo and make it turn out male.
Oddly enough, Elisabeth Lloyd posits the same origin for the female orgasm -- she found that
- There is no appreciable difference in the likelyhood of getting pregnant (if anything, anorgasmic women are very slightly more likely to get pregnant)
- The mechanisms that cause pairbonding (oxytocin release, sexual pleasure, etc.) function just fine
in orgasmic vs. inorgasmic women, and posits that, like the male nipple, the female orgasm is a consequence of something that is layed down very early in embryonic development that is essential for the opposite sex.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674017064/002-8376545-5838437 <-- The Case of the Female Orgasm (disclamer: I am only about halfway through the book, and so may be misrepresenting something) |
Insert witty saying here. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9691 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 21:25:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Nipples on men (some of which still work as far as producing milk is concerned) are outdated practically like the appendix.
No, nipples on men are placed there by God, to grow for those few men who goes through sex change. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/14/2006 : 22:41:11 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
quote:
Heh… You've been waiting for just such an opportunity to get me on this…
I suppose I might in casual conversation. But I wouldn't call religious fundamentalist thinking a pathology.
When it rises to the level of "dangerous" it is. I'm pretty sure that denial of reality, in the face of contradictory evidence, that is "dangerous" qualifies.
With the extreme religious nuts, like Bill, I don't see any other accurate description for them except delusional. From a casual descriptor to a way of describing their flawed conclusions (the ones they cling to and defend venemously, in spite of volumes of contradicting evidence), it is the best word for them.
I'm sure somebody will just say I'm being a jerk or being closed minded.... But I think we should have them all treated for mind-controlling parasites...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 05:22:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Kil said:
quote:
Heh… You've been waiting for just such an opportunity to get me on this…
I suppose I might in casual conversation. But I wouldn't call religious fundamentalist thinking a pathology.
When it rises to the level of "dangerous" it is. I'm pretty sure that denial of reality, in the face of contradictory evidence, that is "dangerous" qualifies.
With the extreme religious nuts, like Bill, I don't see any other accurate description for them except delusional. From a casual descriptor to a way of describing their flawed conclusions (the ones they cling to and defend venemously, in spite of volumes of contradicting evidence), it is the best word for them.
I'm sure somebody will just say I'm being a jerk or being closed minded.... But I think we should have them all treated for mind-controlling parasites...
No, no, here, I think, is the reason:
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
And here's a cross-species breeding:
But sir, I scarcly know you!
Showing that in nature, anything will fuck anything given suitable orfices and opportunity.
And then again, there's this:
Which is as good an illustration of a deity as any.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 08:05:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: So now NS, an immaterial mechanism driven by default, is concerned about the feelings of the species???????? NS is a immaterial object, yet it has concerns about feelings????? Do you realize the absurdity of this notion? I am sure you don't.
Look, Bill, you obviously can use the Internet, so please bother to look stuff up before you criticize it. Otherwise you make yourself look like a fool. At this point it is quite clear that you didn't have a clue about what you were discussing with Val.
"Pair-bond, originating in 1940, is a generic term signifying a monogamous relationship or a socially monogamous relationship of either the human or animal variety, commonly used in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology."
That's from wikipedia's entry on human bonding. Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are both accepted mainstream science, both have been around for a while, and both deal with applying evolutionary theory to human psychology and “feelings”.
And since you clearly don't know what natural selection really is, I invite you to read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Bill, I assume you put some stock in science. Or are you one of those flat earthers who thinks the moon landing was staged in Holly wood? Or perhaps a faith-healer who doesn't go to the doctor when they have a heart attack or cancer? Probably not. Hell, the fact that we're communicated over the Internet using computers shows that science often works pretty damn well.
Is science perfect? No. Sometimes human biases tarnish results. Sometimes we simply don't have enough information or data to be very sure. But science is the best thing he have for understanding the reality of the natural world. And decades of science say that yes, NS is involved in shaping human psychology – and psychology includes “feelings”. It is you, Bill, who is in fairyland. Or at least you are being highly ignorant of a topic you brought up.
Bill wrote: How do you know it was not the results of NS that the human females raise the young, like the lions, like the tigers, or the bears?
*drum roll* And now, for the…um 5th time: EVERYTHING HAPPENING IN THE WORLD – INCLUDING GAY COUPLES RAISING KIDS – IS THE RESULT OF NATURAL SELECTION. Natural selection is not interchangeable with your concept of God. Our worldviews are fundamentally different, Bill, and you have revealed over and over again that although you claim to understand the skeptical or materialist's point of view, you do not understand either at all.
And your lack of understanding largely has to do with your utter ignorance of most contemporary science regarding the human species. In your religious view, everything is black and white, right or wrong, this way or that way. But the natural world isn't that way at all. Things change and malfunction and are in flux all the time. Take your ridiculous round peg in a square hole analogy – if we look at nature, we see animals that have features that were once used for something else, but evolved for some other use. The fins on whales used to be legs for walking around. That means that at some point, some land creature could survive better in the water and was forced to use his legs as fins in order to survive. Over time the creatures with more fin-like legs survived the best, and after enough time you get a whale. All Val and I are saying is that in humans, sex has a purpose beyond mere procreation. That in humans, quality of relationships enhances our survival just as much as popping out kids. This is true of the bonobos, and that is why we see bonobos having gay sex just as much as they have straight sex. Even if we haven't completely figured out the why, homosexuality is part of the results of natur |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 11:23:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) I don't even waste my time with that request. A deity responsible for creation is required for moral absolutes to exist in that creation. If the audience does not even except the notion of a deity who is responsible for the reality in which we live then I am just wasting time trying convince them that MA's exist.
What deity might that be -- there's been and are scads of them, all with the moral and ethical rectitude of a d'Sade or a Tepes. Narrow it down a bit, please.
And what if one flatly refuses to blindly accept the existance of such a deity? Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 12:43:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) I don't even waste my time with that request. A deity responsible for creation is required for moral absolutes to exist in that creation. If the audience does not even except the notion of a deity who is responsible for the reality in which we live then I am just wasting time trying convince them that MA's exist.
What deity might that be -- there's been and are scads of them, all with the moral and ethical rectitude of a d'Sade or a Tepes. Narrow it down a bit, please.
And what if one flatly refuses to blindly accept the existance of such a deity? Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
What deity might that be -- there's been and are scads of them, all with the moral and ethical rectitude of a d'Sade or a Tepes. Narrow it down a bit, please.
(bill) Fair enough, but first let us get to the point where you would even would consider a deity as a possibility to explaining the creation we all share. What's the point of me trying to convince you who the deity is, when as an Atheist, you do not even accept the notion of any deity existing, let alone who he/she is?
And what if one flatly refuses to blindly accept the existance of such a deity?
(bill) Then morals remain relative and right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder. But if the deity does exist, and not only is the first cause, but remains the sustainer of all life, then would he not have the authority to set the standard(morals) of right and wrong for which he desires his creation to live by?
Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
(bill) I will assume that, as an Atheist, you subscribe to a completely materialistic universe. The universe is a material object that is fixed in time and space. Is it your belief that the universe is eternal? If not, then it had to have a point in time when it began to exist. What was the first cause which caused the universe, which previously did not exist, to begin to exist? This question could be asked of any, and all, known physical matter. Now remember, if you use any material objects in the explanation of how that which previously did not exist could begin to exist, then you must account for their existence as well. In other words, when on the topic of cosmology, I have been given many interesting thesis on the origin of the universe.
Example:
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Maybe strings had something to do with it?
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Ok, well maybe aliens put everything here?
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
etc... etc... etc... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 12:55:54 [Permalink]
|
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Ah, who the fuck cares we're here so let's make the most of it.
Bill: God will send me to Hell if I think the wrong thing.
Atheist: Well I don't have to worry because there is no God. |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 13:19:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Maybe strings had something to do with it?
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Ok, well maybe aliens put everything here?
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
etc... etc... etc...
ROFLMAO |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 13:20:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Ah, who the fuck cares we're here so let's make the most of it.
Bill: God will send me to Hell if I think the wrong thing.
Atheist: Well I don't have to worry because there is no God.
As I was saying,
1. Is the universe eternal?
2. If it had a point in time that it began to exsist then what was the first cause?
3. In a completely material universe how does that, which did exsist, begin to exsist? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
