Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
[Republican] Evolution is Lies Straight From The Pit Of Hell
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Prenj wrote:
I think you should do some mushrooms.


I think you're late to the party, that ship sailed a long time ago...


Consider the meaning of the phrase "I think" in your sentence. Thats where the problem lies.

Check this instead:

S James Gates Interview

Listen to the podcast.


Last edited by Prenj on Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:35 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bogamol wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
bogamol wrote:
whether the uncaused cause is a thinking entity or an uncaused random event is not something we can currently answer and while you might not be interested in solving the unsolveable, I think others are. Further, this problem is a factor which has guided our path since the beginning of human history and as such I think it is a question worth keeping on the back burner until (if ever) we are able to answer it definitively. That said, where religious people can be shown to be wrong eg its ok to stone women to death because when they were raped, they were asking for it (a religious argument against self determinism btw). or that the world is 6k years old when we can empirically show that it is ~11 billion years old...proponents of the demonstrably wrong idea should be told about it.


I suggest not calling it "solving the unsolveable", if it's unsolveable, how can you solve it?

Occam's razor tell us that we should go with the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, that hypothesis creates more problems than it solves. That's not to say it shouldn't be tested, the day it can be tested, i'm sure it will be. But, until that day comes, why assume it is true, or even valid, if we have no way of testing its validity?


I think it makes less assumptions to say that an ordered universe was created by an organized being than it does to say that order erupted out of chaos...randomly.


You're not only assuming how the universe became what we see today, you're assuming an organized being did it. That's one more assumption that the big bang theory. That's not to say the countless things you're assuming about that organized being (like being organized).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bogamol
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Posts: 84
Location: Detroit, Michigan - The Home of Rock and Roll

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

come on now, using occams razor the way you are would indicate to you that chicken soup on my stove is more likely a cosmic accident than it is made by a creator simply because it makes an extra assumption that a creator exists and further has some plan involving eating chicken soup.

saying that i think there is a prime actor is no more or less rational than saying i think there is no prime actor. saying we dont know and therefore it shouldnt trouble us is a cop out answer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bogamol wrote:
saying that i think there is a prime actor is no more or less rational than saying i think there is no prime actor. saying we dont know and therefore it shouldnt trouble us is a cop out answer.


++ exactly.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bogamol wrote:
come on now, using occams razor the way you are would indicate to you that chicken soup on my stove is more likely a cosmic accident than it is made by a creator simply because it makes an extra assumption that a creator exists and further has some plan involving eating chicken soup.

saying that i think there is a prime actor is no more or less rational than saying i think there is no prime actor. saying we dont know and therefore it shouldnt trouble us is a cop out answer.


By the grace of Odin, you cannot be serious anymore.

What reason do you have to believe there is a "prime actor" in the first place? Also, note that i'm not saying there is no "prime actor", i'm just saying there's no reason for me to believe there is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
What reason do you have to believe there is a prime mover in the first place?


What is your explanation? Two branes colliding? The question of what initiated the big bang is essentially a metaphysical question... not a question of physics, unless one ventures into territory like M theory.

The real bottom line is clear. Belief in what initiated the big bang is just that, belief.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
What reason do you have to believe there is a prime mover in the first place?


What is your explanation? Two branes colliding? The question of what initiated the big bang is essentially a metaphysical question... not a question of physics, unless one ventures into territory like M theory.

The real bottom line is clear. Belief in what initiated the big bang is just that, belief.


I don't have an explanation, but i'm not gonna make up one just so i can feel cozy.

What is your reason for believing there is/was a prime mover?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Muso wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
What reason do you have to believe there is a prime mover in the first place?


What is your explanation? Two branes colliding? The question of what initiated the big bang is essentially a metaphysical question... not a question of physics, unless one ventures into territory like M theory.

The real bottom line is clear. Belief in what initiated the big bang is just that, belief.


I don't have an explanation, but i'm not gonna make up one just so i can feel cozy.

What is your reason for believing there is/was a prime mover?


I don't. I'm agnostic on the issue. But I do admit that prime mover wins the William of Ockham's razor test vs "random chance".


I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prenj
n00b
n00b


Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.


++

It's a kinda evolution of atheism, sort of growing up. We're done with resisting cultural monotheism, but let's see what else is there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prenj wrote:
Muso wrote:
I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.


++

It's a kinda evolution of atheism, sort of growing up. We're done with resisting cultural monotheism, but let's see what else is there.


Precisely
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.


Why does there have to be anything as the prime mover? Why does there have to be anything before the big bang?
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1565
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
I don't have an explanation, but i'm not gonna make up one just so i can feel cozy.

Why not? Lacking intellectual curiosity? Comfortable with ignorance? Lack the capacity?

It's not about "feeling cozy"; it's about interacting effectively with reality. How can you interact effectively with reality if your understanding of it is woefully limited or distorted?

Besides, you probably believe lots of made up stuff, such as the universe being a certain size, that there was "nothing" before the big bang, that there is something called "dark matter" or "superstrings, or that a bear both shots and does not shit in the woods until someone observes it.
_________________
pjp wrote:
I didn't misquote you, I just misunderstood you.


Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sugar wrote:
Muso wrote:
I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.


Why does there have to be anything as the prime mover? Why does there have to be anything before the big bang?


There doesn't. But using an explanation of the initiation of an event 15 billion years ago is not a horrible thought crime. If it were, you would jail Edward Witten.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
Muso wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
What reason do you have to believe there is a prime mover in the first place?


What is your explanation? Two branes colliding? The question of what initiated the big bang is essentially a metaphysical question... not a question of physics, unless one ventures into territory like M theory.

The real bottom line is clear. Belief in what initiated the big bang is just that, belief.


I don't have an explanation, but i'm not gonna make up one just so i can feel cozy.

What is your reason for believing there is/was a prime mover?


I don't. I'm agnostic on the issue. But I do admit that prime mover wins the William of Ockham's razor test vs "random chance".


I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.


Yeah, it's really intellectually dishonest to say i don't know but ask someone what is their reason for believing there is/was a prime mover.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ball is in your court, GabrielYYZ. My position is that I do not know. Being that I do not know, I do not assume that those who think there is a prime mover have a more or less valid position than those who disagree. You have taken a position of claiming knowledge of the unknowable, and are judging those who do not agree with your teleportations in logic.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
I don't have an explanation, but i'm not gonna make up one just so i can feel cozy.

Why not? Lacking intellectual curiosity? Comfortable with ignorance? Lack the capacity?

It's not about "feeling cozy"; it's about interacting effectively with reality. How can you interact effectively with reality if your understanding of it is woefully limited or distorted?

Besides, you probably believe lots of made up stuff, such as the universe being a certain size, that there was "nothing" before the big bang, that there is something called "dark matter" or "superstrings, or that a bear both shots and does not shit in the woods until someone observes it.


None of the above.

How can you interact effectively with reality if, instead of evaluating reality according to what you can understand, you make stuff up and believe it without a valid reason to do so? If i had an explanation, i would make sure to at least have a sound argument for it. At the very least, i would give the reason(s) i have for believing it when someone asks me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
The ball is in your court, GabrielYYZ. My position is that I do not know. Being that I do not know, I do not assume that those who think there is a prime mover have a more or less valid position than those who disagree. You have taken a position of claiming knowledge of the unknowable, and are judging those who do not agree with your teleportations in logic.


Did you not read what i posted? when have i claimed knowledge of anything in this thread? i specifically said i don't know but i wanna know the reason(s) bogamol has for believing there is/was a prime mover.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Muso wrote:
The ball is in your court, GabrielYYZ. My position is that I do not know. Being that I do not know, I do not assume that those who think there is a prime mover have a more or less valid position than those who disagree. You have taken a position of claiming knowledge of the unknowable, and are judging those who do not agree with your teleportations in logic.


Did you not read what i posted? when have i claimed knowledge of anything in this thread?


You have been attacking those who think there is a prime mover, while assuming that there is no prime mover... which requires, actually, slightly more faith.

My post on page 1 has been ignored by you. I wish you would address it because it really is more on topic than all of these derailments.
_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
Deists, by definition, are "Creationists". Yet a deist believes the "big bang theory" as much as your nearest atheist does. The difference lies only with the idea of a prime mover. That's it. The variation is between 100% chance 15 billion years ago and something else, 15 billion years ago, setting the same phenomena into effect.

Being that politicians are not burdened with the responsibility of creating a universe, what difference does it make on how they believe it came into existence?


because the members that sit on the science committee should be both realists and objective. If they are not, then what's the point of a science committee?

Would you rather we used post-modern deconstructivism to debate public health?
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
Muso wrote:
The ball is in your court, GabrielYYZ. My position is that I do not know. Being that I do not know, I do not assume that those who think there is a prime mover have a more or less valid position than those who disagree. You have taken a position of claiming knowledge of the unknowable, and are judging those who do not agree with your teleportations in logic.


Did you not read what i posted? when have i claimed knowledge of anything in this thread?


You have been attacking those who think there is a prime mover, when assuming that there is no prime mover requires, actually, slightly more faith.

My post on page 1 has been ignored by you. I wish you would address it because it really is more on topic than all of these derailments.


Asking for a reason why someone believes something is not attacking them. If you think it is, then there's really no use for this conversation at all. Also, I don't assume there's no prime mover, but i'm not going to magically start believing in one without a good reason to do so.

As for your first post, i don't see anything in it that requires my response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Asking for a reason why someone believes something is not attacking them. If you think it is, then there's really no use for this conversation at all. Also, I don't assume there's no prime mover, but i'm not going to magically start believing in one without a good reason to do so.


++
_________________
Jesus Could Be Their Candidate and the Republicans Would Still Lose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 656
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Asking for a reason why someone believes something is not attacking them. If you think it is, then there's really no use for this conversation at all. Also, I don't assume there's no prime mover, but i'm not going to magically start believing in one without a good reason to do so.


So explain this :

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Creanionists, or believers in the hypothesis (to be polite) of "intelligent design", believe the world was created by a supernatural entity, +/- 6000 years ago over the course of 7 days. So, unless you're using a different definition of creationist, the fundamental belief on which they base everything is in conflict with science. Alse, while it's probably true that there are Democrats that share this view/belief, the ones that like to talk about supporting and believing this nonsense seem to be overwhelmingly Republicans.

_________________
http://howdovaccinescauseautism.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GabrielYYZ
n00b
n00b


Joined: 03 May 2012
Posts: 17
Location: Dominican Republic

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
GabrielYYZ wrote:
Asking for a reason why someone believes something is not attacking them. If you think it is, then there's really no use for this conversation at all. Also, I don't assume there's no prime mover, but i'm not going to magically start believing in one without a good reason to do so.


So explain this :

GabrielYYZ wrote:
Creanionists, or believers in the hypothesis (to be polite) of "intelligent design", believe the world was created by a supernatural entity, +/- 6000 years ago over the course of 7 days. So, unless you're using a different definition of creationist, the fundamental belief on which they base everything is in conflict with science. Alse, while it's probably true that there are Democrats that share this view/belief, the ones that like to talk about supporting and believing this nonsense seem to be overwhelmingly Republicans.


What is it that you can't comprehend? You can either read it and try to understand or tell me something specific that you have a problem with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
But I do admit that prime mover wins the William of Ockham's razor test vs "random chance".

Why would it? 'Random chance' happens all the time, we observe it happening trillions of times a second, and given a long enough time scale, of billions, or even trillions of years, 'random chance' gets to do some extraordinary things on the grand cosmic stage, including evaporating the contents of our entire universe.

If you invoke some magic sky fairy, you have to answer what created God, and by what mode of operation does God work. And if God just always existed, then the universe can just always exist. If his mode of operation is unknowable, then we can cut out a middle man by just saying the origin of the big bang is unknowable. The exact reason why God fails Ockham's razer, is because it only 'answers' by not answering at all, but adds a mystical element.

Muso wrote:
I am not theistic, but I am not so intellectually dishonest to the point of saying that I know they are wrong about the origin of the big bang.

We might not "know they are wrong", but that's the ass-end way of looking at it. They never had the evidence to make the assertion in the first place. The burden of proof rests on those making the claim.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
McGruff
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 147

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bogamol wrote:
come on now, using occams razor the way you are would indicate to you that chicken soup on my stove is more likely a cosmic accident than it is made by a creator simply because it makes an extra assumption that a creator exists and further has some plan involving eating chicken soup.


People used to say that about the chicken. And then we discovered evolution, and organic chemistry*. This is commonly called an argument from ignorance but it's equally an argument from arrogance. It states that simply because we don't understand how something could have occurred naturally it must have had a creator but the assumption that all natural phenomena are pretty much already all understood, or even capable of being understood within current cultures of knowledge, is extremely arrogant and complacent, and manifestly incorrect. Throughout history we've been reliably ignorant about all kinds of natural phenomena. It wasn't just that we did not know: there was no possible way we could know, given the intellectual culture and technology of the time.

After thousands of years of civiisation, it should be obvious by now that learning requires patience, humility and relentless struggle to get at the truth. One of the great evils about religion is that it instead embeds arrogance and complacency about knowledge and learning into our culture.

But OK, we're not talking about chickens. Or chicken soup. We're talking about the Universe. 42. The big bang. The giant cosmic fart of space-time. The trouble with "God did it!" is that it's just another accident waiting to happen for religion, like every other time they try to comment on the physical world. You can only get away with that for so long. Eventually our understanding catches up forcing them into an ignominious retreat. In the face of muscular, modern science, "god of the gaps" arguments are just about the most hare-brained PR disaster you could imagine. Religion lost its fight with Darwin, for example, and hurt itself badly in the process.

As for Occam's razor, however unimaginably complex and impossible it may seem that the universe could occur naturally, a creator capable of bringing this unimaginably complex phenomenon into being must be even more unimaginably complex and impossible. This gets you precisely nowhere. All you have done is replace one difficult question with an even harder one: who created god? By posing this question we haven't increased our level of understanding, we've increased our level of ignorance. That's a "code smell" if ever there was one.

----------------------------------------------------------------
*Note that Darwin himself did not speculate about the origin of life, just the origins of species. However, Darwin's theory took us all the way back to the first, self-replicating organic molecules. Coming from the other direction, we know that complex organic compounds - such as alcohol, amino acids, etc - are naturally-occurring and fairly common in the universe (if anything can be called "common" in this vast desert of largely empty space). The gap between the two is not great and not difficult to fill. We certainly do not need to invoke a creator.


Last edited by McGruff on Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:19 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 4 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum