Existence of God; the philosophical debate.
- Thread starter Bishadi
- Start date
Yeah, that went unsaid but should be assumed. The modules wired in our brains are all the product of evolution and coded for in our DNA. Nature trumps nurture every time. The only way that nurture (environment) even works is in the manner that Nature (DNA) directs and allows.
Research begs to differ.
what research to contest that "people are not born idiots"
can you provide something, as i am interested.
(p/s ..... make sure it has a percentage to the global population in it)
not interested in autism, cleft palets or gay 'births'
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I couldn't agree more, especially with that last bit.
You're one of the very few (as far as I know) that agree with me on this though.. and I don't understand that at all as it seems too obvious to miss.
Last edited:
cool. Glad to here, there is evidence!
All that is left is submitting it thru rigorous analysis to find credibility.
Are you up for that to be considered 'evidence'?
what did he say?
anything that can help mankind?
then i asked Originally Posted by Bishadi
What reason do people observe the existence of God?
and your reply is
What 'it'?
The judgement, perhaps?
Now i am really curious. Are you implying existence creating itself?
Did God tell you that?
We're not as few as you might think.
swivel's point should be well noted; while it goes without saying that our (social) environment is certainly a contributing factor to how we shape our mindscape, the very nature of that structure itself is in itself 'hard-wired' (to coin the Chomskian phrase..).
In any case, if people would like to focus more on flogging the old "Nature vs. Nurture" horse, feel free to start a new thread, as I think we've gone a bit astray herein....
Excellent points.
We're not as few as you might think.
swivel's point should be well noted; while it goes without saying that our (social) environment is certainly a contributing factor to how we shape our mindscape, the very nature of that structure itself is in itself 'hard-wired' (to coin the Chomskian phrase..).
In any case, if people would like to focus more on flogging the old "Nature vs. Nurture" horse, feel free to start a new thread, as I think we've gone a bit astray herein....
and i opened a thread on your point
now we talking like human beings
Have you read Steven Pinkers book "Blank Slate"? If not, you should check it out. Also, Judith Rich Harris' "The Nurture Assumption".
All of this, of course, is on the topic of the OP's second question. The first question is an obvious "No". The third question is interesting, because even with the 100% "No" from question (1) we are still left with a slight possibility that we were all created from a higher intelligence, which we could label 'God'. There is no reason to suppose this, in fact it would be folly to assume it since the answer to (1) is a resounding "No", but logically we can not use this axiom to conclude either way on (3).
Besides, in light of (1) and the fact that most people seem to believe the second part of (3), (2) is the most interesting question. But then, since I have already answered (2) in my previous post, I guess this thread is pretty much wrapped up.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Good to knowWe're not as few as you might think.
swivel's point should be well noted; while it goes without saying that our (social) environment is certainly a contributing factor to how we shape our mindscape, the very nature of that structure itself is in itself 'hard-wired' (to coin the Chomskian phrase..).
Noted.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Bishadi. Go to NewScientist website. Search for "predisposed" to "God."
The article provides some interesting insight.
P.S I resent that you assume that I think cleft pallets, autism and homosexuality make us stupid. Quite the contrary with autism in some cases.
The article provides some interesting insight.
P.S I resent that you assume that I think cleft pallets, autism and homosexuality make us stupid. Quite the contrary with autism in some cases.
thanks....
opened up threads here, seems responsibility to my actions is what i like to stay focused on.The article provides some interesting insight.
Not the intent.
The intent was that the percentage is not enough to warrant validity other than share that a few are predisposed to the genetic flaw.
The examples were not demoted just elevated against the idea that folks are born bad.
Perhaps if you read a little freud you could actually say: it's all mom's fault!
But then we could understand where the psychosis came from but otherwise, most of what you suggest fails under questions and scrutiny (the socatic approach)
Never heard of the socatic approach.
I can't understand any of your post (don't read gibberish well). Do you think Freud was on to something, or full of shit?
an 'article' is not science
this thread is about the philosophy of the 'existence of God'
i state unequivocally, that people are not born bad, they learn it
And in Philosophy, there is no such thing as an 'unequivocal' statement.
Argument is the tool of philosophy.
That symbol of Jesus seems...a little weak to myself.
A defeated man who did nothing to fight back against his executioners...but a few words of acceptance...tied, tortured, starved, and finally killed...with a look of great suffering on his face.........am I suppose to look up to that person as a symbol...as a model....of how I should be? No thanks.
I like KALI more, she stands on a defeated demon or Shiva, depending on how she is depicted, she is almost naked and has no shame whatsoever, she's hot!!! She is confidence and way cooler then Jesus!!! She wouldn't turn the cheek, you couldn't even manage to get a scratch in...KALI KALI KALI!!!
And if that is too difficult for the faint hearted, then at least some sort of champion who stands with his or her arms raised victorious...not some suffering self-sacrificing matyr who hasn't even beating Satan...else we wouldn't need to "accept him" as our savior to save us from damnation in Satan's hell.
Please don't say...
"Read Dip-shit 6:9"
Answer in your own words with your own intellect, heart, and faith. Stand on your own feet!
A defeated man who did nothing to fight back against his executioners...but a few words of acceptance...tied, tortured, starved, and finally killed...with a look of great suffering on his face.........am I suppose to look up to that person as a symbol...as a model....of how I should be? No thanks.
I like KALI more, she stands on a defeated demon or Shiva, depending on how she is depicted, she is almost naked and has no shame whatsoever, she's hot!!! She is confidence and way cooler then Jesus!!! She wouldn't turn the cheek, you couldn't even manage to get a scratch in...KALI KALI KALI!!!
And if that is too difficult for the faint hearted, then at least some sort of champion who stands with his or her arms raised victorious...not some suffering self-sacrificing matyr who hasn't even beating Satan...else we wouldn't need to "accept him" as our savior to save us from damnation in Satan's hell.
Please don't say...
"Read Dip-shit 6:9"
Answer in your own words with your own intellect, heart, and faith. Stand on your own feet!
An article? Did you read it? It was written about original research, which is science, and even had a snippet from leading evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins. The research the article references to will be published in a peer reviewed journal... That is unmistakably science. I'd go as far to say that NewScientist is the leading perpetuator of knowledge for the British public, thank you very much. Unfortunately, it does supply evidence, as to whether we are prone to supernatural thoughts. I have no idea where you thought I said it made us born evil. Your posts are hard to decipher.
Sorry Bishadi, but you seem to have dodged my question. What was wrong with the NewScientist article, so it doesn't qualify as evidence?
All you seem to do is snipe at swivel, have tantrums, argue about trivial points and make silly arrogant comments. Why so much conflict?
All you seem to do is snipe at swivel, have tantrums, argue about trivial points and make silly arrogant comments. Why so much conflict?