Theism is Primitive Thinking

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by PsychoticEpisode, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    yes

    soooo
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Which is a belief- that is why I'm asking where are the fossils that have fossilized their belief/thoughts.... I wonder what frogs used to belief- I will be able to find that in the fossil record- right?

    Just realize that you screwed up.....no reason to drag this out

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    there is

    for example why would god , any god , allow fossil genes ?

    genes that over time degrade to the point of no return ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    um..there ya go stereotyping again...
    i don't care which came first,although i would have to agree with yur point about atheism being created because of theism..

     
  8. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    um..they have no genetic proof for evolution..
     
  9. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504

    so you deny the genetic evidence for fossil genes .....

    why so ?
     
  10. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    You were quick to jump all over thinking's post in order to relieve the pressure by steering the attention of primitive thinking towards chronology. I was not stereotyping.
     
  11. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Actually fossil genes decrease the probability of detrimental mutations- this as a obvious consequence of having more code than needed- so mutations have more possible code to screw around with- so the probability is distributed to the extra code, hence decreasing it per base unit. They're not as worthless as you think

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    having dna from fossil genes(i will assume human dna for this point) is different than having them completely mapped out and compared with humans as they exist today to see what differences they have that can be attributed to evolution..
     
  13. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504

    actually , take for instance the genetics of sight for instance

    while the genetics of sight has improved the genetics of the olfactory senses has degraded however
     
  14. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    um..did you miss your point?
     
  15. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Mod Hat,

    General warning to all: this is not a discussion of evolution.
    Get it back on topic or this thread will be closed.
     
  16. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504

    no

    shall we start a new thread Squirrel

    your call
     
  17. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Thoughts? Theism is 'belief in'- so technically no.

    Yes... because any belief that lacks connection to God is atheistic- there is no reason to think about God prior- say the thought of God existed at t= 4 and all the beliefs prior to it had no notion/idea/thought/belief from t=1-3 then all of anything prior to t=4 is by definition atheistic because all of them 'lacked God'

    Yes...the same example as above.

    There is no way to tell.... Or do you want me to make it up so that I can win some points :shrug:

    First you must be able to answer the above question... which you can't.... secondly if you are yourself defining anything that comes prior to in terms of time- then of course because that is your defined definition of primative- so this is kind of like pointless...


    If you're going to define it as such then of course-- but this is pretty stupid...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And again you can't answer the above question... but if we take the answer to the second question in which the atheistic thoughts can be prior to theistic then by that atheism would be primitive-

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2009
  18. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    I'm sorry, but you are as deluded as any pure theist. Inasmuch as there can be no proof currently in either direction, both sides should, if trying to be somewhat logical, allow for the possibility of the opposite being fact.

    I suppose one problem is that atheists think that science disproves theism. In reality, science should be neutral. A theist, when asked for evidence of a deity, can point to almost anything with the idea that"God caused it to be this way". On the other hand, an atheist can point to the same thing as evidence that,"There is no sign of God here".

    I suppose it's sort of like an arsonist setting fire to a house. The fire could have started without an arsonist, but if there is no real evidence that there was, only people's belief that it was arson, then both sides can claim their side is right until real evidence is shown.

    I am not addressing the "goodness" of theism or atheism. I think that is a seperate topic, one even less inclined to the application of reason.
     
  19. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    An example would be animals having consciousness. Monotheists and scientists, for a long time, thought animals were soulless or machines (respectively). IOW they could explain animal behavior without believing the animals were experiencers. In a sense both scientists and monotheists used Occam's Razor to deny what a pagan or most pet owners would say was rather obvious.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...nzees-grief-caught-on-camera-in-Cameroon.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2009
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,809
    There is no proof, but that isn't the standard in science. One only need show evidence that something is not true. Specific evidence about living things show that they were not designed, and that evolved things have qualities that reveal their origins.

    Studies of prayer show that there is no statistically relevent prayer effect.

    Studies of crime statistics show that believers are not more good than non-believers.

    So, although some abstract notion of a God that has no interaction with the physical world (or only did so at some distant time in the past) cannot be disproven, the most common conceptions of a personal God can be shown to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
  21. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    specific evidence shows that they weren't designed?
    What evidence are you calling upon?
    Much like studies of tape measures show that they are not statistically relevant to studying temperature.

    IOW if there are ample theistic arguments why prayer (at least as you frame it - ie positing god to serve the same purpose as gum ball machine) and why a "believer" may be more or less as susceptible to infringing tenets of social law as others, they hardly stand as effective means of validating the claim.

    common misconceptions, more likely ...
     
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,809
    For reference read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Designed things have specific qualities that evolved things do not.
     
  23. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Oh come on...
    1. You can't prove something wasn't made by a design by looking at its states. There's no claim that design was intended to make infallible beings. Perhaps if religion claimed it was possible to physically live for ever you're right.

    2. Origins lead to previous origins...so? When the first origin is found conclusively your argument may gain validity. Until then you're making a claim that's irrelevant, replications of 'primordial soup' have been used to create a form of life. So? Does that mean the specific chemical compounds under specific environments were conducive to life? What are the origins of those compounds?

    What were these 'studies' measuring?

    What kind of crimes? Can't anyone claim to be religious and be actually antithetical to their desired persona?

    No it can't. I can't prove that your statement isn't true though, if I could...there would be a valid test to prove the validity of the statement. There's not...so you shouldn't make it.
     

Share This Page