The thread that keeps on giving . . . where we get clear answers to deep philosophical questions and all done with empathy, tolerance and a respect for the other person's point of view.
. . . not!
Rooi, this is how it goes.
Statement...
"I always eat a steak on Friday evenings."
Reply...
"So you are saying that they should never made a sequel to the original Hangover movie? How dare you! ?"
You know he has a video series called Dr Ken - something like that. He gives medical advice.
Incidentally, one of the funniest things I've seen recently is...
"There is a Spiritual side to human existence regardless of what you believe"
There you go again with "regardless of what you believe".....
What and where is this spiritual side..... that apparently exists?
You state this as basically being factual..... to put forward your opinion or argument, yet you cannot prove anything at all that this spiritual side does exist...… not even remotely....so how can you state that this spiritual side in fact exists..... to you, maybe it does.... to thousands of others, maybe it does as well...… but to millions of others....maybe not
Don't get me wrong, in my opinion, there is nothing at all wrong with believing that it does exist...……...I am certainly open to the fact that it "could" exist..... but definitely not that it "does" exist..... and therein lies the difference
The whole quote: "Agreed, but from my POV, God is Love and all Love and what is Good are derived from Him, regardless of what you believe. There is a Spiritual side to human existence regardless of what you believe. Some people believe the Earth is flat, but satellites work and benefit them regardless of their belief."
"There you go again with "regardless of what you believe".....
"What and where is this spiritual side..... that apparently exists?
You state this as basically being factual"
I believe it to be factual, but I never said it can be proven as fact
".... to put forward your opinion or argument, yet you cannot prove anything at all that this spiritual side does exist...… not even remotely....so how can you state that this spiritual side in fact exists..... to you, maybe it does.... to thousands of others, maybe it does as well...… but to millions of others....maybe not
Don't get me wrong, in my opinion, there is nothing at all wrong with believing that it does exist...……...I am certainly open to the fact that it "could" exist..... but definitely not that it "does" exist..... and therein lies the difference "
That's where faith comes into the equation. From what I know and have experienced in my life, I believe very strongly that it's true. If I am right, it doesn't matter how many people believe I'm wrong, I will still be right. There are obviously some purely naturalistic reasons for feelings and emotions too, but that too, are steered by a "Higher Purpose". From my perspective evolution, life, the laws of physics and science were put into existence by God.
Like I said previously, not some old man on a cloud with a magic wand. A Being beyond our understanding and nothing points to His existence more than the Order in the universe we live in. It is simply too complexly ordered to be the result of a random explosion 13 odd billion years ago. Stupendous odds for it to be chance. We don't even begin to understand the universe and how everything fits together. Human Science is in it's infancy on a cosmic scale, but what is already clear is that there is almost perfect order in the universe. We must just figure out the pieces of the puzzle.
I fully agree that that is where your faith comes in, but that does not necessarily mean that you are correct, just like I may not be correct in my beliefs,...…..but it's a belief worth discussing or defending on both sides of the argument...
I prefer to not come across as stating facts, especially if it is my belief up for discussion..... because it is just that...... a inner personal belief, whereas some others come across as trying to post "facts", which don't exist..... it's merely a personal assumption on their behalf.
That is precisely why I believe that this whole bold statement that was made about love or affection being due to just evolution, is downright bullshit...….. and even the author of that very bold statement himself, believes that religion can teach love as well ...…. so that alone just illustrates how completely and utterly confused he is on the issue that he himself brought up
LMAO.... too funny...…. fucking hilarious
Hi-fucking-larious indeed.
1) The literal title of the thread is "Insulting atheists for a change"
In other words, attacking atheist on the basis of what they believe. Last I checked they don't believe in the metaphysical.
Yet this this from DA, who is still behind the game, still has not clicked and is still struggling.
"That is precisely why I believe that this whole bold statement that was made about love or affection being due to just evolution, is downright bullshit...….. and even the author of that very bold statement himself, believes that religion can teach love as well...…. so that alone just illustrates how completely and utterly confused he is on the issue that he himself brought up"
So lets try put together how DA makes logic...
1) Plum said atheists must accept that love is purely chemical.
2) Plum also said that he himself accepts God may exist and religion offers valuable lessons.
3) Therefore all atheists concede that God might be the source of love.
4) Ergo Plum is confused and this is all very funny.
The true hilarity is this statement...
"Love is a connection.... you immediately know when it happens..... it blindsides you..... it makes you think differently..... it makes you act differently...…. if love was evolutionary, you would behave like that with most fellow humans.... but you don't...….. why...…. because you don't love everyone equally and if love were evolutionary, you would...…. love is a choice."
Let's just ignore the absolute contradiction. That being that being that love blindsides you...IE you have not control over it yet "love is a choice".
Haha haha!
Note how he says love is instinct BUT not evolutionary.
Instinct, according to DA, is not the product of evolution.
The question is...and I can't believe I'm even asking this, is...what is instinct a product of?
What this says is that he does not believe love is the product of biology, and he is also saying that it is not the product of the metaphysical.
In summary, DA believes that life & emotions basically popped into existence, without being created and without having evolved either.
Here we now arrive at truly groundbreaking territory. That non-metaphysical place where evolution doesn't exist, and fully formed and sentient multicellular organisms appeared...somehow, without being created.
Well Plum ... if anything ... you have a habit of creating threads that go on forever.
You should try to find a way on how to earn a living doing this ... oh and when you do, remember your good friend Clean Cut.
"Let's just ignore the absolute contradiction. That being that being that love blindsides you...IE you have not control over it yet "love is a choice".
You look desperate Plum..... nothing new
It's hilarious watching you try and take my words out of context to try and prove some stupid point..... love does blindside you.... that is a fact.....meaning, you never know when it is going to happen, but when it does.... you know it is love..... like meeting your future wife for the very first time……..if that has not yet happened to you, then rather not try and explain it bro...… just like you cannot explain the love for your kids, if you have never had any kids.... there is no comparison to it...… you can read as many books as you want to Plum...….. study whatever the fuck you can......all day, every day...........go to the very best university in the world...…...earn the most money in the world...…. but you will never really know that feeling, so stop pretending to all of us, that you do...… we all know that you don't
If you have never been blindsided by love, that is sad dude.... and no, you don't consciously decide to get blindsided by love.... it just happens.....unexpectedly, it hits you right upside the head, and knocks you over...…..and it makes your heart thump in your chest......…..which makes it even more incredible...….you don't sit on the sidelines and think, ok, today I definitely want to finally feel what true love feels like...……. it just happens, but you do choose when it does happen, because only you can decide to accept and receive and feel that love...….and only you can decide where that love goes to from there...…
Tell me Plum..... do you love everyone equally?
Does every single person you meet, every day, qualify to receive the same amount of love from you?...…. do you love that complete stranger in the street to the same extent that you love your nieces?
No they don't...… and you know it......and everyone else here also knows it...…..because YOU choose what love you give, and what you receive, just as much as you choose how much love they receive from you...… but no..... you still say love is not a choice.
If love was not a choice at all, you would love everyone equally and unequivocally the same
You are the very confused one Plum
Fuck me you are trying everything to shift this discussion...…. you clearly have selective memory, just like you post selective "facts"...
You constantly tell everyone on this forum that love is due to evolution, and this is a "fact".....but at the same time, you also tell everyone on this forum that religion teaches you love...…… so make up your mind dude...….that's the sum of you Plum...…. for such a well read guy, you certainly are very confused on what you say and believe
"If love was not a choice at all, you would love everyone equally and unequivocally the same"
That's the hill you're gonna die on then?
That's probably because there is a whole host of things you haven't considered. Like, if love and other emotions are akin to currencies as biology textbooks will tell you. Currencies employed to buy behaviour from the individual. Economies used in the running of your machine. Everything is a currency, a factor, and in some way influences how your genes are passed on.
Here's a test...let's see by removing emotions one by one while at the same time asking if it would benefit the genes to do so...
Joy, excitement, surprise, sadness, anger, disgust, contempt and fear.
Were you to remove any of them, it would decrease your likelihood to propagate the species.
Now isn't that just a giant coincidence?
And, what when we extend the list of emotions to include love, lust, desire and envy?
Is love any more complex an emotion, chemically, than what fear or excitement might be?
Had you considered any or some of the above, you might re-consider making general sweeping statements of a chemical economy that you appear to understand very little about.
Why don't you just end your own utter misery Plum, since you have put forward two completely different statements on this forum already... regarding this exact same topic
Tell us once and for all Plum...… is it evolution, or is it a choice........can love be taught
Why not just settle it right here.... right now...…. because you are the completely confused idiot here, who is preaching both of these philosophies to this entire forum.... not me dude
For such a so called.... well read... intelligent guy, you sure don't seem to know what you are saying or even thinking....
Fuck me dude...… are you senile?
I could see how your failure to understand pretty simple things could make the world and people in it appear senile.
Here, maybe this will help;
Whether religion is the result of a metaphysical phenomenon or the product of genetics, makes no difference to either of these two statements...
Religion is good.
Religion is bad.
Unless you assume religion can only be good if God actually exists and religion is always bad when it's the product of biology. This would assume that you know God and/or his mind and also that you are fully aware of all the permutations of religion as a product of evolution devoid of metaphysical interference.
I know that you don't know either of those and so you have to accept that, anecdotes aside, a god might be good or evil. Natural selection is indifferent to anything other results and this might be subjectively good or evil/bad as perceived by the individual.
So can religion be a route to positive and negative emotions , 100% yes. Is this dependant on whether it is "real" or not...NO.
Still, you need to explain how emotions, being the result of instinct, fall outside of evolution.
It's an interesting corner you've painted yourself into.
What time is it?
Rip-cord time, DA
...now yank it like your life depends on it.
hahahaha
It is so incredibly clear for everyone to see Plum...… you are looking like the egotistical idiot, that most people on here already know you to be
You just won't answer the very very simple question.... will you Plum...…you made those bold statements to everyone on this forum dude.... not me... you did, so stop trying to shy away from them....take ownership of your own shit dude... and man up.
You clearly stated that love is a direct result of evolution..... but you also stated previously that love can be taught to humans by religion.....so don't try and confuse the issue with statements like "religion is a route to positive emotions" or "religion is good or bad" because I have never disputed any of that at all with you.... not once..... if I did, show me right here now...….post it...….I have specifically only disputed you stating as fact, on this forum, that love is only due to evolution..... so that is all I want an answer to Plum.... you really don't get it any easier than that
You have now fully realised what a clear fuck up you have made and what a complete and utter twat you look like right now, in front of the whole board...…. and now you are trying different tactics to move this discussion into another direction..... LMAO.... nice try.....but you won't fool many posters on here
So, back to the topic at hand...… if love is only the direct result of evolution, as you clearly stated.....in those exact words.....then how can religion also teach it to people?
You painted this corner you speak of...… and you are doing everything you can to try and confuse the topic, just to get away from it.....because as usual, it's like that hot kitchen that you always run away from... just like you did before with Cloudy...… it's inbred in you..... the decision to "flight" is first nature to you..... always has been...….we all know it..... and deep down inside, so do you...….don't deny it bro..... the whole fucking board saw what you did before...…. LMFAO...….. A leopard never.... blah blah blah
So come now Plum, no amount of R10 000 bets or wagers will save you any more face here now..... you have already shown us all what a shallow and deceitful individual you are...….. so no more surprises.... therefore no more pressure on your behalf.... we have already seen your true colours bro
So again Plum...… you say love is not a choice, it is due to evolution...… yet you also state that love can be taught to humans..... so man the fuck up and tell us which one you believe, because you.... and nobody else on this forum, has stated that..... so how about just one simple adult answer from you
Pull your own rip-cord Plum, because you are fucking sinking quickly dude...… and the ground is rushing up to meet you face first
Excellent work guys. I feel we're very close to resolving these issues once and for all . . . assuming the parachutes all open in time!
You find love when you give love...that's what I've learnt...yes there's a very special type of love you receive and feel from your offspring and spouse but it is enriched more and more when you give unconditionally.
I couldn't have said that any better myself seb, thank you
Shame..... poor Plum is probably desperately looking all over this forum, to find out where he openly stated that religion teaches you how to love...…
LMFAO
Too funny
So Db, since you involved yourself in this discussion, I have a question directly for you
Can anything in this world that we know..... only be a "direct result of evolution"...... but also be taught or teachable, at the same time
Yes or No
And here is your direct answer...since as I understand it, you're either an atheist or an agnostic.
Do religions exist? Yes.
Is religion, according to atheists and agnostics, a product of evolution? Yes.
Do phrases like "Love each another" exist in religious teachings? Yes?
Now, what part of that are you too stupid to understand?
Seriously, are you literally to dimwitted to understand how religion, in the absence of God, is a product of evolution?
Here's a wiki link to an evolutionary psychology page that summarises the existence of religion within the evolutionary framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
You plank.
And again, your question is so absolutely and ridiculously stupid because the cornerstone of learning, in most mammals, is mimicry.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Monkey is programmed by his genes, through evolution, to copy behaviour as an infant and then to display that behaviour as an adult for the purpose of it being copied by it's young.
So yes, teaching and learning fall side by side and neatly within the evolutionary framework.
LMFAO
Boy are you hopping around this topic Plum.... moving from pillar to post..... hahahaha
Then again, I am dealing with someone who tells another person who knows very little about fishing, that the closest thing to river fly fishing...… wait for it...…….. is deep sea fishing....
Eish man...… the more I converse with you Plum, the more the entire board gets to see just how monumentally stupid you genuinely are.... despite you trying incredibly hard to be intelligent
I've never heard or seen anyone getting seasick from river fly fishing..... you?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
You are fucking hilarious dude
"Is religion, according to atheists and agnostics, a product of evolution? Yes"
What complete and utter bullshit is this statement from you....
Tell me Plum, are you aware that Harvard University released a study which determined that only 12% of all Americans believe that evolution exists...…. so I have no choice or option but to believe that there are millions of atheists or agnostics in that remaining 88% of people who do not believe in evolution..... not so..... but you say that all atheists and agnostics believe in evolution...… post those facts here dude, I would really like to see this study...….
LMFAO
I am not even discussing other countries...… to keep it very simple for you...….only America
If you don't believe me, check it out, I am not doing your dirty work for you.
So please stop using these deceitful or dishonest facts to try and bolster your own futile argument dude, it makes you a coward, and you just look defeated and weak in front of the whole board bro
"Seriously, are you literally to dimwitted to understand how religion, in the absence of God, is a product of evolution?"
We have all come to realise and know that your ego is fantastically massive Plum, so forgive me if I rather believe the Harvard study..... over your own cowardly fabricated lies
Just FYI Plum
Are you also aware that in the 1960's, the US supreme court stopped or restricted any further teachings about evolution, purely because nothing could be conclusively proven, hence why some opposition to this ruling decided to start teaching about "intelligent design" instead of evolution, saying that life is too complex to not have had intervention from some "Devine Force"
Again, if you don't believe me, look it up chum
Plum, it was great teaching you this life lesson dude......although next time, please come a bit more well prepared.... and maybe cut down on the blatant lies...…
This was just waaaay too easy......… my work here is now done
"You plank"
You doos
Good bye Plum
"Excellent work guys. I feel we're very close to resolving these issues once and for all . . . assuming the parachutes all open in time!"
Only one parachute was utilised during the progression of this discussion...….. it was Plum in colour…..
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaha
Case closed
DA, you tit.
When comparing fly fishing to deep-sea fishing I was talking about how busy one is.
Hence, in the same post, I mentioned that normal river fishing just too boring.
"Fly fishing is the only thing that comes close to deep see fishing in my book. Regular river fishing requires too much booze to keep it interesting."
As usual, you entirely misunderstood the post and then jumped to the stupidest of conclusions. If you did intentionally then you'll know which of us is actually the doos.
But nah, you won't retract that comment above.
You'll just move on to the next nonsense for me to swat away.
This is becoming quite pathetic from you now.
Haha,
Ok, bye bye, DA,
I don't require your presence to dismantle your stupidity.
I should perhaps bullet-point your errors...
"Tell me Plum, are you aware that Harvard University released a study which determined that only 12% of all Americans believe that evolution exists, so I have no choice or option but to believe that there are millions of atheists or agnostics in that remaining 88%."
No, your belief is not the only option. In fact, it's not even a correct option.
In 1960's America, atheists made up only 1-2% of the population. Currently, atheists make up 4% with agnostics making up 3.1% of the population. How are you surprised that only 12% of Americans support evolution? Even in today's world, that number wouldn't be surprising.
See, you fucked up. You didn't care to find out what % of the population was religious. And now you look ever so silly.
But then you follow that up with what you think is a closer.
"So please stop using these deceitful or dishonest facts to try and bolster your own futile argument dude, it makes you a coward, and you just look defeated and weak in front of the whole board bro"
Only, now that the numbers are 100% in my favour...you'll come up with some other bullshit.
And here is a link to those numbers...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion_in_the_United_States
Go look it up, bro, I'm not doing you a dirty here.
Protestants and Catholics alone made up 91% of the population in the 1950s. 92% in the 1960s. That's before we add in the 4% of Jews and other minority faiths. All of them subscribing to creationism.
A context where +95% of the population were seeing their religious status-quo come under threat from a theory which contradicts creationism directly.
1953 DNA double-helix structure was resolved.
In the 1960s the very first experiments to determine the expression of genes began. This opened the door to one of the most complex and daunting scientific undertakings to date. That of mapping gene expression and sequencing DNA.
How much do we know today? Well, my ex, while doing a postdoc, accidentally discovered that knocking out genes responsible for autophagy in mice, also caused leukaemia. We know very little and much of what we do discover is done by accident or indirectly.
But, now that we've discussed the context, let's look at your court case for a moment...
"Are you also aware that in the 1960's, the US supreme court stopped or restricted any further teachings about evolution, purely because nothing could be conclusively proven, hence why some opposition to this ruling decided to start teaching about "intelligent design" instead of evolution, saying that life is too complex to not have had intervention from some "Devine Force"
1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine. (Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) 393 U.S. 97, 37 U.S. Law Week 4017, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed 228)
Please, tell me again, what was your point? Tell me how you are surprised that a largely religious population pressured courts into making rulings against scientific fields which were still in their infancy.
However, it took courts under a decade to invalidate that statute. Less than 8 years, actually.
Not surprising since beginning in the early 1960s, even the first results on gene expression were massive breakthroughs, and the results fell directly in line with the concept of natural selection.
In conclusion, yes I am aware. Very aware.
Maybe its time you had a squiz in the mirror and asked that weasel looking back at you how aware he is.
And now, are you finally going to tell me how instinct, in the absence of a creator, is not a product of evolution?
Back again we come...to that third option.
Spit it out man.
What is it?
"So Db, since you involved yourself in this discussion, I have a question directly for you
Can anything in this world that we know..... only be a "direct result of evolution"...... but also be taught or teachable, at the same time
Yes or No"
Everything is the result of progression through time, or "evolution". We learn and explore how things work and acquire knowledge. The knowledge is preserved and taught to the next generation to build and expand on...part of the evolutionary process. Some knowledge is instinctive and doesn't have to be taught...and some instinctive behavior is harmful to modern society and should be "untaught"...but that's a whole different can of worms.
Thanks for the reply Db
DA is running like hell, away from his statement that instinct and evolution are not linked.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
Just to conclude. God Himself calls atheists fools so who am i to disagree. But of course why would anybody disagree apart from the hapless dense atheists, a lunatic fringe group.
Every day the foolishness of atheists of in displayed and their penchant to espouse and support the dark side, rampant evil, is consi stent.
Their end is certain and they are marching headlong over a cliff. Very sad to see. Not long to go atheists and then forever.
Depends on the field of the Ph. D .
Hall Of Fame
31953 posts
Apr 30, 2020, 14:29Just to conclude. God Himself calls atheists fools so who am i to disagree. But of course why would anybody disagree apart from the hapless dense atheists, a lunatic fringe group.
Every day the foolishness of atheists of in displayed and their penchant to espouse and support the dark side, rampant evil, is consistent.
Their end is certain and they are marching headlong over a cliff. Very sad to see. Not long to go atheists and then forever.
n the Gospel of Luke chapter 10, the parable is introduced by a question, known as the Great Commandment:
Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself."
He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
But he, desiring to justify himself, asked Jesus, "Who is my neighbor?"
—?Luke 10:25–29, World English Bible
Jesus replies with a story:
Jesus answered, "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he travelled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.'
Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"He said, "He who showed mercy on him."
Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."
—?Luke 10:30–37, World English Bible
Hey StinkVissie...
Let me , by simple underlining, show you the error of your devious and disingenuous ways...
It's crazy the amount of entirely stupid PHDs I've met in my time. Scientists love to look down on religious people but in my experience they're often the dumbest people I've met. Had a braai with a math PHD once and the guy was, no bullshit, unable to turn a burger patty over. Prodded and poked at it with a fork until he was basically braaing mince meat. This same tit was telling me he ignores religious people because they're not worth his time.
And now, anybody can see the schoolyard tactics our Editor in idiocy attempts to make use of when he says...
Plump's original claim that he is smarter than most PHD's that he has met.
Yowers guy!
Desperation much?
Don't be upset Plum. You and Shark are almost on the same page. He thinks Oxford math professors are stupid if they are religious.
How many PHD's have you met? Do all the people flipping burgers at Mcdonalds have PHD's?
Quite a lot Shark...and about 10-20% weren't too bright. They were both failing in their fields and had little knowledge outside of that failed avenue. This is not an uncommon occurrence.
Have you lived in the world?
Tell me again...how many pop-ups can I buy for R10? Haha
Lol, how the hell did this tread pop up after going offline for a bit?