Maybe.I understand there's a major priest shortage. Perhaps he was a rush job.
If that is what the priests response was, he should go back to seminary school.
You know how it is: Vacation in Vegas, have one too many, wake up ordained.
Every command given to my kids includes four key components:
Task
Purpose
Conditions
Standards
Abbreviated TPCS for School Night Repose
Task: Go to bed at 2030
Purpose: In order to be reseted and reenergized for school the next day
Conditions: Given a reasonably comfortable bed, clean bedclothes, a temperature-neutral environment with semi-darkened to darkened lighting; one Disney Princesses plastic sipper of water; wake-up is managed by parental units.
Standards: Sleep cycle initiates no later than 2030 with an expected entry to Alpha sleep no later than 2110, and subsequent entry to REM cycle no later than 2200.
By the time we get halfway through this process the kids are begging me to just leave them alone and let them go to bed.
Do this a few times, with different events, and all you have to do when they give you grief is threaten to review the TCPS for the event...
I grew up with a single mother who would sit me down most times and tell me why she would make a decision. Truth be known I wish I would do that more often with my kids. My oldest however will try to spend an hour debating on the whys instead of doing something simple and it wears on my nerves much more then when I did it to my mother.A piece of advice I got from an atheist parent:
Give the "order" (go to bed, clean your room, etc). If asked why, give a sensible reason for the command. If the child continues to try to debate, the proper response is "I gave you the task, and I gave you the reason. Now you need to do what you've been told."
There's a difference between legitimately questioning a chore and simply stalling to get out of it.
Please note I'm not trying to tell you how to parent your kids - my daughter hasn't figured out walking or talking yet, so I'm sure you have more experience than I do. I just really liked that tip when I first heard it, wanted to pass it along.
I do this already. My 'gifted' son just likes pushing boundaries at times. He makes parenting 'fun'. Not as much as my pervert nephew who is lamenting the fact that he can't keep a girl except for a little tramp who cheats on him.
You know how it is: Vacation in Vegas, have one too many, wake up ordained.Maybe.I understand there's a major priest shortage. Perhaps he was a rush job.
If that is what the priests response was, he should go back to seminary school.
I am sure it does not work that way. Though meant in jest I would very much like this to remain civil and ask that you refrain from such comments.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Someone else will see this and think "convergent evolution."Evolution, yes. The ability to cooperate with a group would certainly be an advantageous trait. "Convergent evolution," no, not at all. That's when like, for example, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have similar body shapes even though they're not related that closely.
C'mon, if I can quote scripture with you, the least you can do is look up your science words! ;P
Yeah, I looked it up, and it was the closest thing I could find to the concept for which I can't remember the word. I learned about it in martial arts, where disparate styles developed similar moves without any kind of cultural cross-pollination. Swords are the same way... nearly every culture with a lick of metallurgy has hit on the idea of a long piece of sharp metal with a handle at one end as a weapon. Such an argument can be made for the similarities of ethical beliefs across cultures.
Yeah, I looked it up, and it was the closest thing I could find to the concept for which I can't remember the word. I learned about it in martial arts, where disparate styles developed similar moves without any kind of cultural cross-pollination. Swords are the same way... nearly every culture with a lick of metallurgy has hit on the idea of a long piece of sharp metal with a handle at one end as a weapon. Such an argument can be made for the similarities of ethical beliefs across cultures.Someone else will see this and think "convergent evolution."Evolution, yes. The ability to cooperate with a group would certainly be an advantageous trait. "Convergent evolution," no, not at all. That's when like, for example, dolphins and ichthyosaurs have similar body shapes even though they're not related that closely.
C'mon, if I can quote scripture with you, the least you can do is look up your science words! ;P
Except with martial arts the cross-pollination has actually happened in most cases.
I am sure it does not work that way. Though meant in jest I would very much like this to remain civil and ask that you refrain from such comments.
*sigh*
No promises, but the joke's been made so I'm unlikely to revisit the same theme again in the near future.
|
|
I am sure it does not work that way. Though meant in jest I would very much like this to remain civil and ask that you refrain from such comments.*sigh*
No promises, but the joke's been made so I'm unlikely to revisit the same theme again in the near future.
I thought it was funny.
Here's a great film I watched last night--everyone here should check it out.
5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer
Writing more or less as I watch, and leaving aside his rather deplorable style of delivery.
Before we hit a question he's demanding we have answers that make intuitive sense. Why? Our intuitions may be handy on occasion, but we should not expect reflexive, emotive responses to tell us much about the universe unless we have already assumed it was designed for our benefit. Surely it is always better for us to make empirical and logical sense. These two will tell us if our emotions are mistaken or if they are right. So what use is intuition then? I think he's trying to smuggle irrationality in the back door before he even starts. That's unpromising.
1) No. Randomness is not the same as positing an intelligence directing affairs. He went completely off the deep end about the time he said "Darwinism".
2) Why is there something rather than nothing?
Question assumes there is actually some kind of intentional reason for that to be the case. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why not? How is this an issue? An honest question, one not trying to smuggle a deity in the back door, would not be to assume that there is a why but rather to determine how things came to exist. If there is a man behind the curtain, investigation will reveal him and then we can start asking questions about for what purpose he constructed things in a particular way. Before that, he is asking us to be theists and then justify our atheism without contradiction. It's absurd. I see no problem at all with a blind, purposeless universe.
Then he gets worse. The world "seems to be fixed somehow to make life possible"? This is putting the cart before the horse. Life is going to evolve given the constraints of the environment. The world isn't fixed for life. Life is fixed for the world, since it grew up there.
Shameless doubletalk too. "I'm not saying life is intelligently designed. I'm saying it bears the mark of an intelligent designer." This is dishonest to the point of parody. If I wrote that, I'd be getting complaints about how I'm making a straw man believer up just so I can mock him.
"The world has something called moral order." It does? What's moral order? Where can I find it? He's simply asserting. Ok, he's a liar. If he can assert without evidence, so can I.
3) Whence cometh morals?
I get 'em the same place everyone else does: empathy, culture, intellectual investigation, selection of survival strategies for a highly social species.
4) How did morals evolve?
Last item on previous answer. Morals are just social structures like any others. One may as well ask how shelter evolved. Neither requires a man behind the curtain.
He goes on to anthropomorphize evolution, which is silly. Then he insists that its goal is our survival as a species. Evolution doesn't have goals. It's not a person. It has no agenda, no plans, no forethought. Evolution has exactly as many goals as a lump of rock.
5) Intelligent design BS all over again. His defense of ID, as they all do, amounts to assuming that it must invariably be true. He's even got the typical codewords about specified complexity. Yet he can't think of a test that would reveal it to us if we lacked prior knowledge, always rigging the game by giving examples of known designed objects instead of those with ambiguous or unknown status to sort through.
For a fellow who claims to be trying to intelligently engaging atheists, he seems to have categorically misunderstood the relevant science. He seems to have an extremely poor grasp on atheism on top of it. And just to complete the package, his every bit of reasoning is tightly circular. He believes that there is a man behind the curtain who created everything purposefully. Thus of course there must be a reason for it. Without this assumption, which he makes no effort to justify, the question is meaningless. He assumes everything bears the mark of a designer, which he assumed exists, gives us no reason for either, and then demands to know why we don't see it.
Also this response, aside some deplorable music, is good. I wouldn't be listening to it at work, though. Oh right...and it's not civil. Honest, though.
|
|
5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answerWriting more or less as I watch, and leaving aside his rather deplorable style of delivery.
Before we hit a question he's demanding we have answers that make intuitive sense. Why? Our intuitions may be handy on occasion, but we should not expect reflexive, emotive responses to tell us much about the universe unless we have already assumed it was designed for our benefit. Surely it is always better for us to make empirical and logical sense. These two will tell us if our emotions are mistaken or if they are right. So what use is intuition then? I think he's trying to smuggle irrationality in the back door before he even starts. That's unpromising.
1) No. Randomness is not the same as positing an intelligence directing affairs. He went completely off the deep end about the time he said "Darwinism".
2) Why is there something rather than nothing?
Question assumes there is actually some kind of intentional reason for that to be the case. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why not? How is this an issue? An honest question, one not trying to smuggle a deity in the back door, would not be to assume that there is a why but rather to determine how things came to exist. If there is a man behind the curtain, investigation will reveal him and then we can start asking questions about for what purpose he constructed things in a particular way. Before that, he is asking us to be theists and then justify our atheism without contradiction. It's absurd. I see no problem at all with a blind, purposeless universe.
Then he gets worse. The world "seems to be fixed somehow to make life possible"? This is putting the cart before the horse. Life is going to evolve given the constraints of the environment. The world isn't fixed for life. Life is fixed for the world, since it grew up there.
Shameless doubletalk too. "I'm not saying life is intelligently designed. I'm...
Very nicely done, Samnell.
|
Ok 10 questions an intelligent christian must answer .
Also about the moral question, mammals are often pack animals, we develop packs and family groups because it makes survival easier than being alone. Hence even wolves develop a pack "moral" system, anything that threatens the civility of the pack, is in essence a threat to your survival. Hence morals developed beyond this. Basically if you are going to kill your neighbor and steal all his stuff it makes it hard to have a neighbor now doesn't it. Humans learned that early enough that family groups needed to work together without the threat of murdering each other. Mind you we have renamed these "family groups" over the years into communities and nations, more individuals = better survival.
Also this response, aside some deplorable music, is good. I wouldn't be listening to it at work, though. Oh right...and it's not civil. Honest, though.
Actually, I found Th1sWasATriumph's to be a better response.
Every atheist/skeptic must watch this!
So, either the author of John was completely honest and correct or we have to throw out all of history? I am willing to bet you throw out the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon, so we can agree people are capable of making up things without having to toss all of history.
Not to mention, a healthy skepticism of history is a good thing in my opinion.
Also this response, aside some deplorable music, is good. I wouldn't be listening to it at work, though. Oh right...and it's not civil. Honest, though.Actually, I found Th1sWasATriumph's to be a better response.
That is a better one.
"Forget Jesus" The Stars Died For Us - Lawrence Krauss
Can we start a new cult? One that uses a star or our sun as its symbol?
|
|
"Forget Jesus" The Stars Died For Us - Lawrence Krauss
Can we start a new cult? One that uses a star or our sun as its symbol?
Sol Invictus, The Unconquered Sun!
5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer
Wow a lot of things to write about. I am on a lot of pain meds so if what I write does not make sense I apologize up front.
1) Not starting off very well are we. While I do believe that there is more to this life then chance. Your darwinism attack does not really cut the mustard. You are essentially mixing two different ideas here. Creationism, which is poor theology and worse science. As well as the 'Goldilocks paradox.' I also feel the 'Goldilocks paradox' does not hold much water. While I do not feel that having life on other worlds is a cut and dried refutation of my faith, neither do I feel that the universe will be teeming with it the way some do.
I do feel the chances are too high for all of the universe to be just happenstance. This is however neither proof nor contradiction.
2)Another attempt at talking about the 'Goldilocks paradox' without actually saying it out right.
I think many people go through life without a purpose. I feel that is a shame. I feel there is a purpose in life and a 'higher calling' for many but this is a crappy argument for it.
3)Morals, I know the answer most atheists will give for this 'game theory' and while I do not accept all aspects of this, honestly who cares. In the end is not just as well that people do in fact have morals? Even if a person does not believe they have no excuse not to act with decency, compassion and ethics.
4)Sad to use the very wording of that which you are trying to refute. While I do not feel morals were evolved, at least not on an individual basis, they can be manipulated and do change on a society level.
5)Nice catch words and catch phrases. It still does not manage to accurately capture what you are trying to ask. Which is basically why do you not believe in intelligent design? maybe because Evolution is good science and your lack of real faith can't handle that.
I will go onto the 10 questions later. I think they are about as silly as this first guys though.
Ok 10 questions an intelligent christian must answer .
That's more like four questions. There's a very easy answer to cover them all, though.
1) God exists.
2) God does not and never has intervened in the universe.
This only requires dismissing every religion of consequence as false, which I'm comfortable with.
Ok 10 questions an intelligent christian must answer .That's more like four questions. There's a very easy answer to cover them all, though.
1) God exists.
2) God does not and never has intervened in the universe.This only requires dismissing every religion of consequence as false, which I'm comfortable with.
I think it would be fairly simple yet slightly different.
1) God Exists, yet rarely intervenes.
5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answer
Jack Vance put it best: "Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question; it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists."
5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answerJack Vance put it best: "Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question; it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists."
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
I think it would be fairly simple yet slightly different.1) God Exists, yet rarely intervenes.
That just leaves you with all the problems from the video. One can't really have any kind of interventionist deity and avoid theodicy, so far as I can tell.
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
It's not arrogant to dismiss a transparent argument ad populum. In fact, it's responsible critical thinking.
That just leaves you with all the problems from the video. One can't really have any kind of interventionist deity and avoid theodicy, so far as I can tell.
I think it would be fairly simple yet slightly different.1) God Exists, yet rarely intervenes.
Did we not already have that discussion?
It's not arrogant to dismiss a transparent argument ad populum. In fact, it's responsible critical thinking.
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
Yet to dismiss a valid concern held by people is nor an argument ad populum. in fact to do so lacks any critical thinking because you do not ask yourself why people would care. You have in fact stated before that you don't care.
|
|
Yet to dismiss a valid concern held by people is nor an argument ad populum. in fact to do so lacks any critical thinking because you do not ask yourself why people would care. You have in fact stated before that you don't care.It's not arrogant to dismiss a transparent argument ad populum. In fact, it's responsible critical thinking.
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.
CJ,
And it still begs the question. "Is there a purpose to the universe?" Only if the answer to that question is yes, does why become at all significant. By asking "Why do we exist?" you presuppose a purpose without evidence for one. Hence, begging the question.Also, the definition of argument ad populem is "lot's of people feel this way so it's true". That's exactly what you're doing at the moment "Lots of people think this is important so it is." Well, why is it important? Why does the universe having a purpose matter to you? How would it change your life, or theirs, if the universe did not have a purpose?
Did we not already have that discussion?
Several times, since it's an unconquerable obstacle to belief in any omnimax interventionist deity. But the video raised it in about five different ways. I am constrained by the material.
Yet to dismiss a valid concern held by people is nor an argument ad populum. in fact to do so lacks any critical thinking because you do not ask yourself why people would care. You have in fact stated before that you don't care.
I do have an interest in why people make elementary errors of cognition, especially when they do so on a massive scale. But that interest is strictly confined to etiology and epidemiology. What else would be relevant?
Yet to dismiss a valid concern held by people is nor an argument ad populum. in fact to do so lacks any critical thinking because you do not ask yourself why people would care. You have in fact stated before that you don't care.It's not arrogant to dismiss a transparent argument ad populum. In fact, it's responsible critical thinking.
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.CJ,
And it still begs the question. "Is there a purpose to the universe?" Only if the answer to that question is yes, does why become at all significant. By asking "Why do we exist?" you presuppose a purpose without evidence for one. Hence, begging the question.Also, the definition of argument ad populem is "lot's of people feel this way so it's true". That's exactly what you're doing at the moment "Lots of people think this is important so it is." Well, why is it important? Why does the universe having a purpose matter to you? How would it change your life, or theirs, if the universe did not have a purpose?
I disagree Paul. I think that why is a very valid question, and does not lead to an easy answer. Nor do we all agree with that answer. I feel the very nature of several questions on this thread are from people who though they do not agree with my answers still feel that Why is a valid answer. It would be different if I said that, the majority of the planet agrees with me so that my answer to why must be the correct one. The answer to Why could simply be, because. I believe some people posting on this thread would in fact give that answer. I do not. But dismissing the question simply because some feels it is not worth answering is the height of hubris in my opinion.
Did we not already have that discussion?Several times, since it's an unconquerable obstacle to belief in any omnimax interventionist deity. But the video raised it in about five different ways. I am constrained by the material.
Only, in my opinion to a lax mind, unwilling to accept others views.
I do have an interest in why people make elementary errors of cognition, especially when they do so on a massive scale. But that interest is strictly confined to etiology and epidemiology. What else would be relevant?
Yet to dismiss a valid concern held by people is nor an argument ad populum. in fact to do so lacks any critical thinking because you do not ask yourself why people would care. You have in fact stated before that you don't care.
Many things.
As an aside I think many people make more then just elementary lapses of cognition. Much worse in fact. It also seems to be getting more pronounced as time goes by. I am not making this as an attack or directed at anyone on this thread. Just people seem down right more ignorant as time goes by.
Only, in my opinion to a lax mind, unwilling to accept others views.Did we not already have that discussion?Several times, since it's an unconquerable obstacle to belief in any omnimax interventionist deity. But the video raised it in about five different ways. I am constrained by the material.
In two posts you've called me arrogant, lazy, and dogmatic. Do you want to keep showing me how to be civil?
Many things.
I do have an interest in why people make elementary errors of cognition, especially when they do so on a massive scale. But that interest is strictly confined to etiology and epidemiology. What else would be relevant?
Ok. Like what?
As an aside I think many people make more then just elementary lapses of cognition. Much worse in fact. It also seems to be getting more pronounced as time goes by. I am not making this as an attack or directed at anyone on this thread. Just people seem down right more ignorant as time goes by.
I observe the exact opposite. Human knowledge has been on a steady upward trend for centuries. How many extrasolar planets did we know about in the year 1000?
And yet to many, if not a majority of the world, it is the most important question of all. Only arrogance would cause a person to dismiss it entirely.5 Questions every intelligent atheist must answerJack Vance put it best: "Of all questions, why? is the least pertinent. It begs the question; it assumes the larger part of its own response; to wit, that a sensible response exists."
I wish I had the rest of that paragraph handy, 'cause it's both funny and contextual. Anyway, my point is the youtuber's argument by 'why?' is ridiculous.
To say that something exist, therefore there must be a reason it exists is equivalent to saying that something exists therefore it must have a creator.
Once we establish that your supernatural entity of choice is the creator, we still have the question of who created said supernatural entity. Ergo, once we establish your supernatural entity as 'why?' the universe exists, we still have the question of 'why?' your supernatural entity exists.
At some point you have to accept that things just are. This isn't an attack on religion, it's an attack on bad logic.
Jack Vance put it best
Ow! Someone stepping on my toes there...
|
|
As an aside I think many people make more then just elementary lapses of cognition. Much worse in fact. It also seems to be getting more pronounced as time goes by. I am not making this as an attack or directed at anyone on this thread. Just people seem down right more ignorant as time goes by.
Generally speaking, are you talking about combined knowledge of our species? Are you talking about collaborative knowledge and the exchange of ideas and science? I have a feeling you're talking about philosophical or theosophical reasoning, and if that's the case, I'd not be so harsh with people in general.
Generally speaking, are you talking about combined knowledge of our species? Are you talking about collaborative knowledge and the exchange of ideas and science? I have a feeling you're talking about philosophical or theosophical reasoning, and if that's the case, I'd not be so harsh with people in general.
As an aside I think many people make more then just elementary lapses of cognition. Much worse in fact. It also seems to be getting more pronounced as time goes by. I am not making this as an attack or directed at anyone on this thread. Just people seem down right more ignorant as time goes by.
No, as to both posts responding to this, I am not talking about the overall knowledge of us as a species.
Has anybody watched the Jaywalking segments on the tonight show. If you have lets just say I run into people who fit that profile all too often. Not even reasoning ability but brain power in general. Just an observation.
In two posts you've called me arrogant, lazy, and dogmatic. Do you want to keep showing me how to be civil?Only, in my opinion to a lax mind, unwilling to accept others views.Did we not already have that discussion?Several times, since it's an unconquerable obstacle to belief in any omnimax interventionist deity. But the video raised it in about five different ways. I am constrained by the material.
I have not been ignoring this. I have been trying to figure out a reasonable response here. I would guess that the only thing I can do is to quote CF.
"Srsly?"
"Srsly?"
Yes. I'm a serious-minded person. It's not that I don't get a kick out your getting caught with a cookie in your mouth, one in your hand, and the other hand buried to the elbow in the cookie jar as you piously declare not a crumb has passed your lips... Well actually it's exactly like that. You pull this all the time.
It is entirely possible I am misunderstanding the question here, but I generally believe 'why' to be a valid question. For anything. But, I do not automatically assume that 'why' supposes intent. So 'it is' can be a valid answer. Certainly there are many theists that believe god to be the great 'I am' a valid answer.
The problem I see is that theists are arguing that the universe can not simply be but god can. It seems to me they argue that the universe can not break this 'law' and then turn around and create an entity which can. In my view, once you create that exception, the universe can use it as well. Therefore, the existence of the universe does not prove a creator.
It is entirely possible I am misunderstanding the question here, but I generally believe 'why' to be a valid question. For anything. But, I do not automatically assume that 'why' supposes intent. So 'it is' can be a valid answer. Certainly there are many theists that believe god to be the great 'I am' a valid answer.
You were one that I was in fact thinking of. I did not wish to call you out on it for fear I was missreading you again. Why is a valid question even if someone, say yourself, comes up with a different answer.
Yes. I'm a serious-minded person. It's not that I don't get a kick out your getting caught with a cookie in your mouth, one in your hand, and the other hand buried to the elbow in the cookie jar as you piously declare not a crumb has passed your lips... Well actually it's exactly like that. You pull this all the time.
"Srsly?"
Please link to where this is at because you have me dumbfounded.
Please link to where this is at because you have me dumbfounded.Yes. I'm a serious-minded person. It's not that I don't get a kick out your getting caught with a cookie in your mouth, one in your hand, and the other hand buried to the elbow in the cookie jar as you piously declare not a crumb has passed your lips... Well actually it's exactly like that. You pull this all the time.
"Srsly?"
The most recent time is when you declared that you were not making an argument ad populum while making such a perfect one that you might as well have copied it from a textbook.
As for the more blatant rudeness, I quoted some of it last post.
You were one that I was in fact thinking of. I did not wish to call you out on it for fear I was missreading you again. Why is a valid question even if someone, say yourself, comes up with a different answer.
I believe the objection to 'Why is the universe here?' is that it is being used to imply there was an intent behind it. That the question somehow assumes an intelligence created it.
I do not quite read it that way, but then I do not believe the existence of the universe proves First Cause either.
You were one that I was in fact thinking of. I did not wish to call you out on it for fear I was missreading you again. Why is a valid question even if someone, say yourself, comes up with a different answer.I believe the objection to 'Why is the universe here?' is that it is being used to imply there was an intent behind it. That the question somehow assumes an intelligence created it.
I do not quite read it that way, but then I do not believe the existence of the universe proves First Cause either.
Fair enough.
Please link to where this is at because you have me dumbfounded.Yes. I'm a serious-minded person. It's not that I don't get a kick out your getting caught with a cookie in your mouth, one in your hand, and the other hand buried to the elbow in the cookie jar as you piously declare not a crumb has passed your lips... Well actually it's exactly like that. You pull this all the time.
"Srsly?"The most recent time is when you declared that you were not making an argument ad populum while making such a perfect one that you might as well have copied it from a textbook.
As for the more blatant rudeness, I quoted some of it last post.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.