Are you convinced?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Itseemstome, Nov 2, 2006.

  1. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Cris


    Such a definiton would not cater for the notion of self - by logic, if all the mind is,is an array of push/pull forces or electrons and neurons, on what basis would a person beheld responsible for their actions - what would be the basis for reward and punishment? If a man hijacks a plane and flies it into a building how could that be designated as "bad", or alternatively, if the gov't forms a new watchdog commitee to address legislative corruption and bribery in the court system, how could that be designated as "good", if in both instances the ultimate cause is push/pull forces of inert matter?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Ahh I see. Why didn't you say that earlier. Clearly you don't understand how complexity can form from simpler building blocks. These issues are fairly subtle but also straightforward but you will need to study many basics before you understand correctly.

    I suggest you begin by reading "The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins" which will elliminate most if not all of your confusion.

    Come back to me when you've read it and we can continue with your new more enlightend outlook.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    If you can't or won't represent the ideas you advocate it tends to work against one's cause in discussion or debate.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    The debate can't operate very well when you don't have sufficient understanding of the issue you are criticizing. Like I said there are a number of basics you are missing and I am not motivated to spend time teaching you something you can obtain more effeciently by reading a book.
     
  8. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    You act as if dawkins has dilineated a universal truth of objective reality - something like einstein's theory of relativity - obviously this is not the case - he has just presented an ideological premise for a body of evidence - if you cannot or will not present that ideology then you are at the end of your tether in a debate forum (after all I could just say "well why don't you read jiva gosvami's treatment of the 4 tattva's in his sandarbhas" in an equally prententious clamour for authority)
     
  9. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    These are general ideologies that surface in the ebb a nd flow of numerous discussions on this site - I don't see any specific connection betweenthese sites and my original statement

    Such a definiton would not cater for the notion of self - by logic, if all the mind is,is an array of push/pull forces or electrons and neurons, on what basis would a person beheld responsible for their actions - what would be the basis for reward and punishment? If a man hijacks a plane and flies it into a building how could that be designated as "bad", or alternatively, if the gov't forms a new watchdog commitee to address legislative corruption and bribery in the court system, how could that be designated as "good", if in both instances the ultimate cause is push/pull forces of inert matter?

    This is a philosophical notion on the basis of mind (thinking, feeling, willing - ie free will) existing since to deny it would be to deny very rudimentary principles (like discrimination). If you assert that the push/pull forces of atoms dtermines everything, then there is no scope for the mind, which gives a very strange picture of reality.

    (roger penrose)
     
  11. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    LG,

    Looks like you are grossly oversimplifying the issue. You want an explanation that goes from forces, atoms, molecules, organelles, cells, structures, neural networks, other issues of neurology, emergent properties that arise from complexity, to issues of morality.

    I don’t see any problem. Just go through all the many layers of increasing complexity that arise in biology and neurology.

    Like I have stated already you need to study how we can progress from simple building blocks to complex ones. Go read Dawkins.

    There is no problem once you understand how we progress from simple building blocks to the more complex. Go read Dawkins.
     
  12. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    You have the tact of a bible basher - either you understand the ideology of dawkins and can intellibly discuss it or you are just a flock in the crowd of enthusiasts bereft of philosophical know-how?

    Actually I think it is more likely that you are tired and just can't be bothered.

    maybe you should just go to bed or just reply to comments that you have the time, intelligence and energy to elaborate on
     
  13. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,199
    Lg,

    In a nutshell then the complexity you seek arises from layers of simpler stages and simpler building blocks with each increasing in complexity.

    Why do you have a problem with that?
     
  14. Shaitan lord of hades Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    44
    Cris my hat goes of to you, I dont know why you bother with LG.
    you made it so clear an ameoba can understand it.

    and please dont reply to me, LG I have'nt got the time or the inclination, to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
     
  15. Fire Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    238
    May I remind you that Einsteins theories of gravity and relativity, are theories... before you call natural selection 'just a theory'. As far as I can tell, natural selection is still a universally held theory on 'objective reality'. Maybe someone will refine the theory jsut as Einstein did to Newton's theory of gravity. But it is not dogma, it is a theory to describe the fact of evolution, and you have obviously not read up anything RE evolution, except pseudoscience by creationists.

    If you had the same emotional reaction to gravity as you did biology, then perhaps you would be refuting Newton's and Einsteins theories.
    Please at least show some signs that you have educated yourself on evolution. So far you have nothing to base your objections on because you don't actually know what it is you're objecting to. I don't think it is stupidity, more ignorance... a true theist stereotype.
     
  16. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,151
    Just because you don't understand it does NOT make it illogical.

    If you think it is not logical - please go through your stages of thinking, one by one, and either we'll highlight where your current thinking is deficient - or the rest of us might learn our own errors.

    Unless you can do that, merely stating that (you think that) it is not logical is pointless and irrelevant.
     
  17. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Einsteins theory of gravity and relativity are wrong.
     
  18. Kron Maxwell's demon Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    339
    Proof please.
     
  19. Kendall ......................... ..... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    358
    I wonder how Natural selection holds up to human interference, like does natural selection hold up when a human sticks his nose in things, say we were hunting for the best of a species would the underdog suddenly have the upperhand causing the opposite of natural selection?
     
  20. Fire Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    238

    You mean like 'artificial selection', like farm animals or breeding pedigree dogs?
     
  21. Kendall ......................... ..... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    358
    Sort of, but more like if humans were killing every strong, healthy creature of a certain species for food, then there would be only the less strong and healthy to breed the next generation. How natural are humans ?
     
  22. Shaitan lord of hades Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    44
    kendall: when humans hunted it was usually the weakest that got caught, not the strongest, however there must have been a few strong ones that were caught, which would then make them the weakest, thus natural selection, continues.
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,151
    If you're talking about the "Survival of the Fittest" method of natural selection then don't confuse "Strongest" etc with "Fittest".

    Fit is with regard to survivability within ones environment.
    If the environment changes (e.g. a new predator comes onto the scene) and you are unable to survive as you had once done, then you are no longer "fit" for the new environment.
     

Share This Page