What Do You Follow?

[eclipse]

Not sure who that was directed at, but I don't think it's impolite at all. Since anyone that's reading these comments should be willing to argue their point, but also listen to the opinion of others. It's bloody annoying when you don't want to be there, don't want to be involved and you're being forced to (Eg Door Knocking)

But you've already stated that you're willing to judge people negatively based on religion, and that you don't like God. Sounds like you've already made up your mind.

As for ranting, I've never actually seen you provide any decent argument/discussion, so maybe if you'd make more valid posts then it'd be worth contacting you?

I'll talk about religion, but I will NOT argue it (so if I see anything about proving/disproving points, I'll ignore it). I feel it's like trying to convince someone that their favorite color is bad.

[Meteor]

You say that like you choose not to argue it, but really you can't. Religion is all about faith, which by definition has no logic supporting it.

[Phoenix Wright]

My point is that intelligence is not necessarily evolutionarily advantageous, not that it's the wrong way. Brains require much more nourishment than, I do believe, any other part of the body, so to be successful an animal should have as small a brain as possible. That's not to say that being stupid is evolutionarily advantageous, because it's not, but a species that invests in intelligence has an uphill struggle to keep that brain running and survive.

I disagree. Without our intelligence, we wouldn't even be at the top of the food chain. We wouldn't be near it. Stating that intelligence isn't advantageous overall because it makes an organism need more food is just false. Intelligence, in my opinion, is one of the most important factors in aiding an organism's survival.

Intelligence is the key to not rely on instinct, as the shark does. Intelligent organisms can deal with changing situations whereas instinctual organisms can't (or can but to a much lesser degree).

That last line, based on human behavior, is just wrong. Look at how intelligent we are; we're overeating as far as your example is concerned. We have single-handedly found countless ways to consume food and energy. We store it all extremely well too.

As for the second part, yes, I phrased that wrong and stated something that was incorrect, but my point was that sharks have been very successful and aren't that intelligent. Sharks have been around for a long time and if I am under the correct impression then the predatory presence of the shark was one of several reasons why organisms took the risk to migrate to land but I do retract that it was the sole reason organisms moved to land and apologise for any ire I caused.

Many animals are technically not intelligent creatures and have survived. However, my point is is that if these creatures were even two-times more intelligent than they are now, they would survive in the wild much more easily and efficiently than if they had just kept a tiny brain.

[Byte2222]

I disagree. Without our intelligence, we wouldn't even be at the top of the food chain. We wouldn't be near it. Stating that intelligence isn't advantageous overall because it makes an organism need more food is just false. Intelligence, in my opinion, is one of the most important factors in aiding an organism's survival.

Intelligence is the key to not rely on instinct, as the shark does. Intelligent organisms can deal with changing situations whereas instinctual organisms can't (or can but to a much lesser degree).

That last line, based on human behavior, is just wrong. Look at how intelligent we are; we're overeating as far as your example is concerned. We have single-handedly found countless ways to consume food and energy. We store it all extremely well too.

This debate has gone in a counterproductive way because you're using humans as a example and I'm trying to say that they're an exception. If you look at other species that could be described as intelligent (or relatively intelligent) like dolphins or chimps then very few of them are at the top of the food chain. A species needs to invest a lot of evolution in intelligence before it becomes profitable and they can use tools to outfox their predators and until then they have to find much more food to feed a larger brain, so it's an uphill struggle to become an intelligent species.

[Anouleth]

I disagree. Without our intelligence, we wouldn't even be at the top of the food chain. We wouldn't be near it. Stating that intelligence isn't advantageous overall because it makes an organism need more food is just false. Intelligence, in my opinion, is one of the most important factors in aiding an organism's survival.

?

There is no 'advantage' to being at the top of the food chain. Lions are not 'doing better' than gazelles because they are the ones eating the gazelles. Gazelles are the ones doing better since there are more gazelles. Bacteria, which have no nervous system at all, are fantastically successful. The number and variety of bacteria in the world vastly exceeds that of even all plant and animal species put together. When we discover a new place, bacteria have been there for millions of years. When we die, they will still be here. Intelligence has 'worked' for humans. But in the past, it did not 'work'. Early humans did not have large numbers. And from what we can see, it did not 'work' for other species in the past. We are not the most recent in a long succession of eras dominated by highly intelligent organisms. Intelligence is in fact, something that has only very recently come into existence on this planet. If intelligence is so important, then why did it not arise earlier? Why don't we find the traces of ancient dinosaur civilisations?

You also say that without our intelligence, we wouldn't be at the top of the food chain. You probably say this because a human is actually pretty weak and unresourceful on its own. Except that much of what we are is built around our intelligence. The reason we have nimble hands without sharp claws is so we can make tools. The reason we stand on two legs instead of four is to free up our arms. The reason that we like meat and generally prefer it to vegetables is because meat generally contains the fat required to build a brain. The reason that we don't have a great digestive system is because we're intelligent enough to find good, high-nutrient food rather than having to constantly eat leaves or grass. I could go on. Intelligence is not something that you can just evolve. You need a body that is almost completely designed with intelligence in mind.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Mr. Know-it-all-Anouleth

[Meteor]

Um, what? Being at the top of the food chain is extremely advantageous. It has allowed us to dominate the planet, and at a simpler level, given us very high odds of passing on our genes. What other species has a life anywhere near as luxurious as us?

Why should intelligence have come about earlier? It had to start somewhere, and what do you know, we happen to have it. I feel like this is glaringly obvious.

Why couldn't a body have evolved into its current form? How do you explain hominids of lesser intelligence? As our brains improved, our bodies lost unnecessary functions. Voila.

[Phoenix Wright]

This debate has gone in a counterproductive way because you're using humans as a example and I'm trying to say that they're an exception. If you look at other species that could be described as intelligent (or relatively intelligent) like dolphins or chimps then very few of them are at the top of the food chain. A species needs to invest a lot of evolution in intelligence before it becomes profitable and they can use tools to outfox their predators and until then they have to find much more food to feed a larger brain, so it's an uphill struggle to become an intelligent species.

Yes, I agree.

There is no 'advantage' to being at the top of the food chain. Lions are not 'doing better' than gazelles because they are the ones eating the gazelles. Gazelles are the ones doing better since there are more gazelles. Bacteria, which have no nervous system at all, are fantastically successful. The number and variety of bacteria in the world vastly exceeds that of even all plant and animal species put together. When we discover a new place, bacteria have been there for millions of years. When we die, they will still be here. Intelligence has 'worked' for humans. But in the past, it did not 'work'. Early humans did not have large numbers. And from what we can see, it did not 'work' for other species in the past. We are not the most recent in a long succession of eras dominated by highly intelligent organisms. Intelligence is in fact, something that has only very recently come into existence on this planet. If intelligence is so important, then why did it not arise earlier? Why don't we find the traces of ancient dinosaur civilizations?

I never stated being at the top was an "advantage." It's what you said in the paragraph I cut out: we're they're because we're intelligent.

You both make good points that I can't argue against. Maybe because I'm not an expert. :(

However, I will ask this: If intelligence isn't as important as you think, why did it arise at all?

Um, what? Being at the top of the food chain is extremely advantageous. It has allowed us to dominate the planet, and at a simpler level, given us very high odds of passing on our genes. What other species has a life anywhere near as luxurious as us?

Those are some of the reasons why we're at the top. Being at the top isn't advantageous, per se, but the reasons why we're up there is.

Why should intelligence have come about earlier? It had to start somewhere, and what do you know, we happen to have it. I feel like this is glaringly obvious.

My argument is that intelligence is extremely important to evolution, so that question is valid, in my opinion. However, I'm getting the sense that you're arguing something a little different from what I think.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Meteor]

Those are some of the reasons why we're at the top. Being at the top isn't advantageous, per se, but the reasons why we're up there is.

My argument is that intelligence is extremely important to evolution, so that question is valid, in my opinion. However, I'm getting the sense that you're arguing something a little different from what I think.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, unless you're arguing semantics? Being at the top has certain implications. What it implies are good, so it itself is good. I guess I could have listed everything individually but I thought this was understood.

The way I interpreted their posts, they appear to think human intelligence is a sign of god. We are the only ones with his 'gift.' I'm saying it is purely coincidental that we happened to be born in a time period where this is true. Assuming a trend of increasing intelligence among animals, it was inevitable that one species broke the lower limit of necessary brain power to have sentience. It just so happened to be us first. We're not special. If our species hadn't become intelligent, we couldn't even be having this conversation; someone else would be, or no one else would be and there'd be no one to care.

I should also mention, I don't see the connection that intelligence -> god.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Meteor

[Defeatist Elitist]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying, unless you're arguing semantics? Being at the top has certain implications. What it implies are good, so it itself is good. I guess I could have listed everything individually but I thought this was understood.

The way I interpreted their posts, they appear to think human intelligence is a sign of god. We are the only ones with his 'gift.' I'm saying it is purely coincidental that we happened to be born in a time period where this is true. Assuming a trend of increasing intelligence among animals, it was inevitable that one species broke the lower limit of necessary brain power to have sentience. It just so happened to be us first. We're not special. If our species hadn't become intelligent, we couldn't even be having this conversation; someone else would be, or no one else would be and there'd be no one to care.

Importantly, if another species had developed intelligence and was having this conversation, some of them would probably be saying "look how intelligent we are isn't that special", just like if a completely different kind of sentient life developed on a completely different planet, they would probably be saying "GEE WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THAT LIFE WOULD DEVELOP LIKE THIS".

[eclipse]

You say that like you choose not to argue it, but really you can't. Religion is all about faith, which by definition has no logic supporting it.

Who says I care whether or not it's logical? If that's what makes you tick, that's fine. I don't always work like that.

[Kanami]

You say that like you choose not to argue it, but really you can't. Religion is all about faith, which by definition has no logic supporting it.

Who says I care whether or not it's logical? If that's what makes you tick, that's fine. I don't always work like that.

Uhh, did you read Meteor's post? Your reply doesn't really contest his statement.

Choosing not to argue it, and not being able to argue it isn't about how you "work" but what evidence or theories you can provide to support your claims, Meteor says due to it being "faith" which can't be supported with logic.

[eclipse]

Uhh, did you read Meteor's post? Your reply doesn't really contest his statement.

Choosing not to argue it, and not being able to argue it isn't about how you "work" but what evidence or theories you can provide to support your claims, Meteor says due to it being "faith" which can't be supported with logic.

Faith and logic aren't supposed to share the same space. I think trying to defend faith like a scientific thesis is like trying to explain quantum physics to a group of toddlers. You either believe, or you don't.

[Phoenix Wright]

Faith and logic aren't supposed to share the same space. I think trying to defend faith like a scientific thesis is like trying to explain quantum physics to a group of toddlers. You either believe, or you don't.

That's what's so pointless in believing.

Did you know that I am God in physical form? I am perfect. Contest against me, and you shall be banished from my Kingdom.

Do you believe me?

[eclipse]

That's what's so pointless in believing.

That's how you feel. I don't feel that way.

Did you know that I am God in physical form? I am perfect. Contest against me, and you shall be banished from my Kingdom.

Do you believe me?

You are in high school, and have a lawyer as an avatar. I think I'll be quite content to NOT be a part of your kingdom.

[Phoenix Wright]

You are in high school, and have a lawyer as an avatar. I think I'll be quite content to NOT be a part of your kingdom.

I told you, I am God in physical form. What you see doth not matter, for I am here!

[Meteor]

Faith and logic aren't supposed to share the same space. [...] You either believe, or you don't.

That was basically my point. Faith is a decision, an opinion -- one made without reason. That is a pretty shaky foundation to be making choices upon.

For people who do not have this gut feeling, does god not exist, or are they simply wrong? What determines whether or not this feeling is a fluke?

You are in high school, and have a lawyer as an avatar. I think I'll be quite content to NOT be a part of your kingdom.

Do you have an actual reason for not having faith? Or are you saying you know what god is like better than he does, and that's why you're resorting to ad hominem arguments?

[eclipse]

I told you, I am God in physical form. What you see doth not matter, for I am here!

God in physical form, arguing against religion. Something doesn't add up. Perhaps if you did this before opening your mouth. . .

That was basically my point. Faith is a decision, an opinion -- one made without reason. That is a pretty shaky foundation to be making choices upon.

For people who do not have this gut feeling, does god not exist, or are they simply wrong? What determines whether or not this feeling is a fluke?

Does it matter? It makes about as much sense as a favorite color, and I don't see any holy wars over that!

Do you have an actual reason for not having faith? Or are you saying you know what god is like better than he does, and that's why you're resorting to ad hominem arguments?

You took that way too seriously. Relax a little!

[Meteor]

It only matters for people less open minded about their religions than you. Ones who take their holy books so seriously that they abandon common decency, all on a gut feeling. Examples:

- opposing gay marriage

- protesting abortions

- pushing for teaching creationism

- opposing sex education

Those all bug the shit out of me, and for 99% of people, it's religiously motivated. They can't even accept the possibility that they might be wrong. Many of them don't even read their scripture, I'm sure. They just use it as a scapegoat for being hateful and ignorant.

It didn't come across as calm through text, but I was and am. It seemed like a cop out which is why I called you out on it; I just wanted to see what your real response to his claim would be.

[eclipse]

It only matters for people less open minded about their religions than you. Ones who take their holy books so seriously that they abandon common decency, all on a gut feeling. Examples:

- opposing gay marriage

- protesting abortions

- pushing for teaching creationism

- opposing sex education

It CAN be taken that seriously. There's a whole range of religious people out there, from the very relaxed to the very controlling (I got to talk to the child of one of those. . .) The very controlling types would probably try to mold the world in their own image, even if they weren't religious.

I'd put creationism as a footnote in biological history, much the same way medical leeches are mentioned in history books. The rest. . .meh, not interested in discussing it here (wrong topic).

Those all bug the shit out of me, and for 99% of people, it's religiously motivated. They can't even accept the possibility that they might be wrong. Many of them don't even read their scripture, I'm sure. They just use it as a scapegoat for being hateful and ignorant.

Instead of going against religion, why not hit the root of the cause - willful ignorance? Religion is a means to justify it. If they weren't religious, do you think they'd suddenly transform into nice, caring people?

That kind of blind hatred also goes against one of Jesus' commandments to his followers: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." I won't hold you to the other one.

It didn't come across as calm through text, but I was and am. It seemed like a cop out which is why I called you out on it; I just wanted to see what your real response to his claim would be.

I figured it was a flippant question, so it deserved an equally flippant response.

[Zanarkin]

Instead of going against religion, why not hit the root of the cause - willful ignorance? Religion is a means to justify it. If they weren't religious, do you think they'd suddenly transform into nice, caring people?

\

If they weren't religious they wouldn't care about teaching creationism, sex education, or abortions. He's not saying they are rude people, he's saying those religious ideals are wrong.

Edited October 27, 2010 by SlayerX

[Phoenix Wright]

God in physical form, arguing against religion. Something doesn't add up. Perhaps if you did this before opening your mouth. . .

I cannot test my own followers? Any argument I make against myself is just me being facetious.

Guess what: This can go on forever and you'll still never be able to disprove my statement. Unless of course God itself showed up, which I doubt. But wait, I am God so...

I figured it was a flippant question, so it deserved an equally flippant response.

How can God, yours truly, ask a flippant question?

Edited October 27, 2010 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

I cannot test my own followers? Any argument I make against myself is just me being facetious.

Guess what: This can go on forever and you'll still never be able to disprove my statement. Unless of course God itself showed up, which I doubt. But wait, I am God so...

Yeah, but here's the problem. While it is impossible to factually deny that you are God, it is equally impossible to factually confirm it too. In fact, this rings true for almost any scientific "proof" that exists.

Scientist: The reason that we still exist on this earth is because the carbon cycle allows us to. Any air that we breath in gets recycled by plants which in turn creates more breathable air. God does not have a hand in this system.

Me: Oh yeah? Prove it.

Scientist: *rushes into a long winded explanation of the carbon cycle*

Me: You still haven't proved anything. You've only given me an explanation of why it COULD be possible that God doesn't do anything.

Who determines which facts of science are correct? We do but it's only from what we perceive. We can say something like "the sky is blue for x, y and z reason" but the truth of the matter is that we are only going off what we can perceive, even after experiments.

My point is that people shouldn't mention the word "proof" with regards to philosophy. Ever. Nothing can be proven and nothing can be disproven. Including science. And you should probably drop that little argument of yours.

[Kanami]

Yeah, but here's the problem. While it is impossible to factually deny that you are God, it is equally impossible to factually confirm it too. In fact, this rings true for almost any scientific "proof" that exists.

Scientist: The reason that we still exist on this earth is because the carbon cycle allows us to. Any air that we breath in gets recycled by plants which in turn creates more breathable air. God does not have a hand in this system.

Me: Oh yeah? Prove it.

Scientist: *rushes into a long winded explanation of the carbon cycle*

Me: You still haven't proved anything. You've only given me an explanation of why it COULD be possible that God doesn't do anything.

Who determines which facts of science are correct? We do but it's only from what we perceive. We can say something like "the sky is blue for x, y and z reason" but the truth of the matter is that we are only going off what we can perceive, even after experiments.

My point is that people shouldn't mention the word "proof" with regards to philosophy. Ever. Nothing can be proven and nothing can be disproven. Including science. And you should probably drop that little argument of yours.

A complete oversimplification, there's a difference between attributing an idea with tests and making an educated guess. And being a blind follower. God exists because god exists is not intelligent in any sense. While the logic behind carbon cycling, can be explained by modern science. Sure it could be wrong, but it could equally be right. In the case of God, you might argue it's equally likely to be right/wrong, but that's like saying Frodo Baggins could/couldn't have existed. Edited October 28, 2010 by Kanami

[Meteor]

Instead of going against religion, why not hit the root of the cause - willful ignorance? Religion is a means to justify it. If they weren't religious, do you think they'd suddenly transform into nice, caring people?

That kind of blind hatred also goes against one of Jesus' commandments to his followers: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." I won't hold you to the other one.

I also dislike any form of ignorance, like horoscopes and supremacy groups. Religion is just a facet of that, which seems especially concerned with what people do in their personal lives. At least those others I listed don't try to sell themselves as a divine source of morality.

No, I don't think they'd all become better people instantly. After living in ignorance for so long, I wouldn't be surprised if they fell for any number of other ignorant practices. However, it would thin the herd. I know plenty of mostly rational people whose logic goes out the window if you try to touch a subject that conflicts with their faith, like evolution. "Oh I don't believe that." Losing their faith would allow them to reconsider those things they rejected before.

Whose hatred are you talking about? Mine of religion?

Who determines which facts of science are correct? We do but it's only from what we perceive. We can say something like "the sky is blue for x, y and z reason" but the truth of the matter is that we are only going off what we can perceive, even after experiments.

Repeatable tests prove scientific theories. What other proof could you possibly ask for?

... Just because you can't disprove that Santa brings toys to good boys and girls on Christmas most certainly does not count as evidence. We reject his involvement entirely unless there's an actual reason to consider him. Just like we reject the idea that God has any hand in the carbon cycle when there is no need for a supreme being to control it.

Here's a fun little exercise: Prove that it's impossible to prove something.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Meteor

[Life]

A complete oversimplification, there's a difference between attributing an idea with tests and making an educated guess. And being a blind follower. God exists because god exists is not intelligent in any sense. While the logic behind carbon cycling, can be explained by modern science. Sure it could be wrong, but it could equally be right. In the case of God, you might argue it's equally likely to be right/wrong, but that's like saying Frodo Baggins could/couldn't have existed.

You're absolutely right. However, I've got problems with the way that you're stating your view. It's like the "sun will rise tomorrow argument". It seems to me that you'll firmly believe that the sun will rise since modern sciencce has "proved" it. So what happens to that science if the sun were to not rise?

Repeatable tests prove scientific theories. What other proof could you possibly ask for?

Here's a fun little exercise: Prove that it's impossible to prove something.

Repeatable tests don't prove scientific theories. You can make an educated guess saying that "if I turn the temperature up to 100*C, this pot of water will boil" if you've done the test 15 times. But what if the 16th test says differently? Even doing the test 1000 or 1000000 times doesn't guarantee that you get the same result if you were to do it one more time. Unless you're absolutely psychic, it is impossible to predict without a shadow of a doubt that you will get the same result the next time you do the test. You can be pretty sure that you know what will happen but never 100% certain.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Sue Sylvester