Dwalin2010
-
Posts
277 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dwalin2010
-
-
thanks, i get a lot of religious people talking down to me because they feel offended that i accurately claim that not all of them are equally devout in their religion.
It's not with the part of them not being equally devout in their religion that I disagree with, but with the statement "i don't care a whit if you or anyone else is personally offended ".
-
faith (if we take faith to strictly mean belief without evidence) isn't compatible with science, which requires evidence for a claim to be true.
We can't prove the existence of aliens or any kind of life in other universes and other planets. Does it necessarily mean they don't exist? Not everything can be proven by science at this point, not by you certainly.
-
i don't care a whit if you or anyone else is personally offended
"Claps". Really, what a good example of humility and education.....
-
Yes, I know that, since Neanderthals lived in the Middle East/Europe while we're from Africa. It was just an example that shouldn't be taken seriously. As far as I know, it seems we've evolved from Homo erectus but it's unclear what exactly happened.
Dwalin's argument is even worse if we evolved from Homo erectus, since it's unlikely that they had linguistic capabilities enough to understand Lucifer or God or whatever. They would be completely out of place in the story since they were quite literally idiots.
Well, science rejects the existence of spirits.
As for Homo Erectus, if they were so "idiotic" as you say, then religion doesn't apply to them I guess. And you said yourself that we don't know what happened in between Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens, which stages are considered intelligent enough.
But why does science reject the existence of spirits? It's something that can't be either proven true or proven false. Here, it's a matter of faith only.
And even from the scientific point of view, we don't know what point exactly we have reached in "science". Maybe most "scientific" arguments that people make now will be considered quite rudimentary and simple and be common knowledge even among uneducated people in the far future. Science evolves too.
-
It does undermine things. Suppose Adam and Eve were Neanderthals. Since Neanderthals were made in God's image, why did we evolve? Are we better than God or what? Why did we evolve the ability to speak rather than sign? I could go on for ages. All these indicate that God is not perfect at all.
I don't know honestly. Maybe Adam and Eve existed only as spirit entities before the creation of the physical world and therefore were neither like us nor Neanderthals, but existed only as spirits. I don't want to make things up. But one thing is sure, that we are NOT better than God. Nobody says THIS stage of evolution we are in is "perfection". As Naughx pointed out, we will be very different in 10 millions of years. Considering what happens on the planet or what happened before (World War II, Middle Ages etc), this surely isn't what God had in mind. We surely have to evolve more.
-
Aren't Adam and Eve supposed to be humans just like us? So according to the Bible, Neanderthals wouldn't be considered human. If you think Neanderthals are human, and religion says that Adam and Eve were the first humans, this undermines your attempts to reconcile the two.
It's unlikely but not impossible that Neanderthals even had the ability to converse with one another (due to the skeletal structure of their neck bones, it's more likely that they were capable of sign language if they had linguistic capabilities like us). So if Adam and Eve were Neanderthals, they probably communicated with each other using sign language. Doesn't this undermine the entire story in the Bible?
I think it doesn't undermine anything. Probably Adam and Eve are represented like us because that way we would understand the allegory and the bond with God better. Who knows what kind of way to God Neanderthals would have, had they survived? Maybe the Bible wouldn't have been written that way at all if both species still existed on the planet. And, if somewhere there is a civilization of aliens who have tentacles, wings and 4 genders instead of 2, they surely have a different type of "Bible" if they aren't an atheistic society.
-
You can keep trying, but it honestly won't work. According to the theory of evolution, there are no "newly formed humans." This evolution is very very gradual. There was a point at which humans were like chimpanzees, and a point at which humans are as we know it today, and several million years of a middle ground.
There were creatures which had very very very slight differences from Adam and Eve, so why weren't they considered human too?
What do you mean, they weren't considered human? Neanderthal people for example were human in my book; for that matter, any alien civilization (if they exist) are equal to humans from the religious point of view as I take it. And of course evolution is gradual, whatever existed before the formation of the physical universe is supposed to be on a purely "spirit" plane, like Paradise and Hell aren't supposed to exist in any "physical" point of the universe.
-
Why can't God give us free will despite the fact that we were created instantly?
Again, I can only make allegations: in the Bible Adam and Eve were banished from Paradise for their sins and had to start a new life. Maybe the whole long evolution thing is something that was symbolically needed for a sort of "purification" or "starting over" for the newly formed humans. I know, it probably sounds like nonsense, I am just trying to make a hypothesis how it's possible to be religious without denying the obvious fact that evolution took place.
-
Why take 4 billion years rather than do it instantly? God is omnipotent.
Well, I am not an expert and can only express my personal opinion, but I take it that God supposedly wants humans (and all nature for that matter) to have freedom to act and develop without being forced by anything and limited his personal intervention to the minimum by only introducing basic physical laws. Theoretically, God can do as he pleases, but doesn't want a universe full of dependent obedient puppets/zombies without free will. Don't know, I think maybe some of God's reasons we can't understand (at least yet): to make a relatively rough comparison, it's like trying to interact with an alien civilization 100000000000000 bilions of years ahead of us.
-
Religion says that God instantly created us by snapping his fingers.
Science says that we were created in a period of around 4 billion years in a very gradual process of natural selection.
An instance vs 4 billion years. There is no way to reconcile these two statements.
I take the "instantly created" (in the Bible it actually is several days) part as an allegory, that God just determined the physical laws, not that everything appeared out of nowhere like in a computer game. Those "days" may have actually been billions of years. The Bible is full of allegories that I don't think are supposed to be interpreted literally. As for other religions, I can't say, not being familiar with them enough.
-
It's just sad to see that some people refuse to accept change :/
I don't really want to be involved in this discussion, I am too much hostile to incest because in my opinion proclaiming it as "normal" and educating new generations under this concept would kill such sublime things as platonic love between relatives, and there is no way nor necessity to change my opinion. I prefer just reading the other people's comments, but I still would like to say 1 thing about this quote:
"Change" isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if it's just for the sake of "changing" and "shaking up" the allegedly "stale" and "monotonous" world. "Change" and "progress" aren't necessarily synonyms.
-
i know it depends on the point of view, and i acknowledged that. some opinions are less defensible than others. if someone made a post that justified maltreatment of women or the slaughter of ethnic minorities, i do not want to be told that i have to respect that opinion. if you seriously think that sort of opinion deserves respect, maybe you should re-evaluate your moral code.
Here people are talking about pornography being ok or not, I don't really get the comparison with women abuse and crimes against humanity. I mean, you may disagree with me, but I am sure you understand me from our previous discussion and wouldn't suspect me of being ok with violence. I may be leaning towards prohibiting things that people may consider not deserving being prohibited, but surely I wouldn't support the opposite: legalization of things like the ones you named.
-
my opponent is free to deny respect to what he perceives as bad ideas, but i'm well-equipped to make him look stupid if that's what he wants to do.
Depends on the point of view though. There isn't any supreme authority that would confirm it's them and only them that look stupid.
I am saying this only because in my opinion both you and the opposite side would make excellent points from different points of view, but when somebody presents themselves as "superior", it does only ruin the point made. Some people say the attitude doesn't matter, somebody can make a point even in cases like while being enraged and while cursing, I completely disagree with this. Personal attacks are always pointless.
-
i don't respect bad ideas. why should i?
Then why shouldn't they say the same about you? Just saying it's "bad" and therefore "unworthy of understanding" isn't rational, even though I think you suggested in your previous posts you try to reason rationally.
-
3. This is related to the previous two points. Christian ethics is really freaking disgusting, and we intuitively do not want it to have anything to do with our ethics. It encourages a lot of things that any modern, rational person would not encourage. There's no animal rights in the Bible. Incest and homosexuality are prohibited. And so on. "Secular" ethics had to come up with all those things by challenging the disgusting morality espoused by the Bible in some bits.
I promise this would be the last off-topic on my part, but why did you put the prohibition of incest in the allegedly "disgusting" part of the Christian ethics? I don't remember ever meeting anyone who thinks incest can be ok from any point of view (except for people who don't care about any rules at all, even though I am not saying you necessarily are such a person).
-
Dondon, just a curiosity: why are you always insulting people who disagree with you in this topic, calling them "ignorant", what they say "nonsense" etc? I won't bother anyone with what I previously said, but the condescending attitude always amazes me, is mutual respect not a norm according to you? After all, the opposite side never really insulted you with such words, nor myself previously, nor others lately.
Sorry for this small off-topic.
-
I don't know, you're probably being selective. Rats have a very poor image in the western world, just look at some of the online dictionary descriptions for one:
1. a person regarded as despicable, especially a man who has been deceitful or disloyal.
2. desert one's party, side, or cause.
3. Slang. a scoundrel.4. rats, Slang. (an exclamation of disappointment, disgust, or disbelief.)In childrens stories I can't even remember how many had rats taking the role of sneaky/suspicious/villainous characters when I was a kid. But it was certainly a lot, lol!Well, rats maybe not. But mice surely are portrayed as good, at least in stories I watched or read. It's not like I am being selective on purpose, but maybe I have seen/read too few such works of fiction to be able to portray a global picture. But even after all those years I am still annoyed how Tom defeated Jerry in only ONE episode (with his doppleganger cousin)! In all the rest the annoying rodent gets his triumph.
On the other hand I remember a Russian cartoon series "The cat Leopold" about a good cat who wants to be everyone's friend and 2 mice (one grey and one white) who try to annoy him but always end up victims of their own traps.
-
Ok, but why mice and other rodents are portrayed as "good" then? Just because they are the ones who get eaten by cats, being weaker? But by that logic, dogs often attack cats and usually win, yet nobody portrays them as "bullies" who torment the poor cats.
-
Have been thinking lately: why are cats usually portrayed as "bad guys" in opposition to mice and dogs in children's fiction? Just because mice are weaker and dogs are obedient to humans? Unfair, in my opinion.
-
does it matter if i accept? at least it's an explanation.
look at the top of this page: right under the calendar/chat buttons. that is why i'm here, and that's why i care. also, i really, really don't appreciate being treated like the bad guy for wanting to understand perspectives that differ from mine. i've never met anyone that sees that as a bad thing before.
I will stop posting if that will be the only way to stop annoying people like Rehab suggested, but the fact that you want to understand my perspective never made you the bad guy in my mind. Also, when I say that I can't give an answer you would accept doesn't mean that I have some secret reason that I don't want to reveal, it only means that there probably isn't one, at least according to what you consider as "reason". On the contrary, I am grateful you are at least interested in understanding me, but I can't explain my view on morality logically or scientifically. I simply grew up in a setting with a determinate set of morals. It's simply a matter of taste. Explaining WHY for me is not easier that for example, say why do I like the green color more that the red color. Don't know if I explain myself. I simply am very touched by romantic things, sex without love seems gross to me. When I say it's immoral, it's for "my personal" set of values, I don't claim it's the "absolute" one, others are free to do what they want.
-
i have yet to insult your point of view. my previous request is not due to the way you think or who you are, but because of how you're behaving in this particular topic.
the null hypothesis is in fact the default position, unless some [valid] correlation is found between poor health and casual sex, there is no reason to believe it is unhealthy. it is not, however, "factual evidence." it is not meant to be evidence. i think you are misunderstanding what we mean by the null hyopthesis.
what is particularly wrong with non-romantic sex? i understand that you would feel guilty about it, but why? i feel that murder is immoral because i think that every man and woman has a right to life once born, and that no one should have the authority to forcibly take it away. so why is casual sex wrong?
I can't give you an explanation you would accept. If we put everything on the abstract philosophical point of view, then I guess I would agree with what you say. The problem is that I don't like to look at the world from that perspective. I just follow my heart.
Just being curious, why do you care about what I think? I already wanted out of the discussion, but you keep talking to me. I could stop answering, but still, why does the understanding of my point of view matter to you at all?
-
"I no longer view casual sex as immoral" would probably do the trick.
Here's the thing: it can still be "not for me" without being "immoral." A large part of calling something immoral is making a value judgement. Again, that pisses people off. If you stick to calling your view more moral than its opposite, you're not really trying to end the discussion on even terms, you're asking people to be fine with you thinking of yourself as better than them. It's kind of a pointless thing to ask.
Then I guess it can't end in a peaceful way. I don't view myself as better than them, but I still don't view casual sex as normal. Sure, I can say that I do, but then I wouldn't be honest about what I feel. According to their morality, it's normal. According to mine, it's not. We probably follow different sets of morals. Again, I don't want to part on bad terms, but if the only way to do so is to say that I don't view casual sex as immoral, then I guess unfortunately it's not possible.
-
If the 2 viewpoints are the complete opposite, they can't just be split down the middle, but my initial point was that you shouldn't insult the points of view of others even if they are completely different from yours. I completely disagree with you, but I wouldn't even dream of forcing you to change it or change your way of living even if I had the possibility. You, on the other hand, have a rather convenient position of labeling people who disagree as "conservatives" (as if being conservatives was a position not worthy of existing) and calling what you yourself say "factual evidence" by default. If I interpreted you wrong again, I am sorry, but I personally can't help but get the impression that you perceive people who disagree (not just me) as "inferior" in their points of view.
It's the attitude that bothers me, not your point of view.
EDIT: is there any way we can conclude the discussion peacefully? If you or Phoenix Wright feel personally offended by what I previously said, I apologize for that except for my phrase that it was childish to call FionordeQuester's view "conservative nonsense". Even though I am maintaining that I won't change my views on the moral part of the issue, but I am in no way trying to force you to change yours. The world is big enough for different points of view. I realize I am not good at debating, I just don't like it when people who agree with me at least partially get insulted.
-
please stop acting like a child.
What's worse: acting allegedly like a "child", or elevating yourselves above whoever doesn't agree with you? Because you and especially Dondon151 put it that way: it's either "agree with everything we say or don't say anything at all". The possibility of a compromise isn't even considered by the 2 of you.
Is science incompatible with religion?
in Serious Discussion
Posted
Can't you simply understand by your own "logic" and "rationality" that being rude to people who are not rude to you isn't necessary at all? It only distracts the conversation from any point.