I’m currently reading Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works. Very interesting book.
I thought this section quoted below on the gene-centred theory of evolution is enlightening. Many people interpret this idea wrongly. I know I did for 30 years – as I refused to read Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene thinking it was a justification fro a selfish society (see Dealing with Dawkins).
This is particularly relevant to the discussion of purpose.
But almost everyone misunderstands the theory. Contrary to popular belief, the gene-centered theory of evolution does not imply that thepoint of all human striving is to spread our genes. With the exception of the fertility doctor who artificially inseminated patients with his own semen, the donors to the sperm bank for Nobel Prize winners, and other kooks, no human being (or animal) strives to spread his or her genes. Dawkins explained the theory in a book called The Selfish Gene, and the metaphor was chosen carefully. People don’t selfishly spread their genes: genes selfishly spread themselves. They do it by the way they build our brains”. “By making us enjoy life, health, sex, friends and children, the genes buy a lottery ticket for representation in the next generation, with odds that were favorable in the environment in which we evolved. Our goals are subgoals of the ultimate goal o£ the genes, replicating themselves. But the two are different. As far as we are concerned, our goals, conscious or unconscious, are not about genes at all, but about health and lovers and children and friends.
The confusion between our goals and our genes’ goals has spawned one muddle after another. A reviewer of a book about the evolution of sexuality protests that human adultery, unlike the animal equivalent, cannot be a strategy to spread the genes because adulterers take steps to prevent pregnancy. But whose strategy are we talking about? Sexual desire is not people’s strategy to propagate their genes. It’s people’ strategy to attain the pleasures of sex, and the pleasures of sex are the genes’ strategy to propagate themselves. If the genes don’t get propagated, it’s because we are smarter than they are. A book on the emotional life of animals complains that if altruism according to biologists is just helping kin or exchanging favors, both of which serve the interests of one’s genes, it would not really be altruism after all, but some kind of hypocrisy. This too is a mixup. Just as blueprints don’t necessarily specify blue buildings, selfish genes don t necessarily specify selfish organisms. As we shall see, sometimes the most selfish thing a gene can do is to build a selfless brain. Genes are a play within a play, not the interior monologue of the players.
This is very fascinating although I never confused Dawkins gene-centric theory with a possible extension in the social sphere!
This is usually the strategy of misinformed religious lunatics claiming God gives us our objective morals otherwise it is just our nature to be selfish and violent…
[Warning: a biologist warbles on… its all very pointless, but seeing I’ve written it you lot can suffer it! 🙂 ]
I’ve always thought it the “right” way, for a bunch a reasons, but have never read The Selfish Gene. (I do have a copy somewhere, but I’ve got too much else to do…)
I suspect a part of the reason is that I spend a lot of time dealing with molecular interactions. The evolution of any one protein only reflects the things that it directly interacts with (and some broader things like the pH of the environment, the energetics of folding the protein, etc., but you can call them direct interactions in their own way). Even the “next step up”, molecular pathways, show elements of “emergent behaviour” (but isn’t clean-cut, as the individual molecules in any one pathway often [usually] associate to form molecular complexes.) But certainly by the time you get “up” to interacting pathways, any one protein or complex is just “doing it little thing”, catalysing one reaction or a (portion of a) pathway, without any direct connection to the overall impact of this on the rest of the organelle or cell, never mind the organ or body or any higher functions. There are feedback loops in various forms, of course, but the individual protein/complex only reacts to direct interaction with the molecules acting in feedback: it has no “connection” to where these molecule(s) originated from nor what other processes brought those molecules into proximity nor what its substrates go on to effect.
The upshot of all this is that the evolution of the “blueprint” (gene) for a protein that, say, phosphorylates a particular molecule, and interacts with a co-factor that regulates that phosphorylation, only reflects those direct interactions, not whatever impact the phosphorylation might have on the organelle, cell, organ or body.
One way to conceptualise this is to think of levels of indirect reference, as a computer programmer might. But maybe I’ve waffled enough for one night. I’ll come back to this if anyone feels a need to expose themselves to more of my terrible waffling… 🙂 I have to admit this probably a complete waste of time, as I’ve written it in a biologist’s terms, rather than that of a general audience: preaching to the choir, etc., etc…
Another thing I find fun to think about in this context is the role of transposons in evolution (and gene regulation), as these are an evolutionary “unit” consisting of more-or-less just a few genes and some flanking regulatory sequences. I suspect Dawkins will have something to say on these.
A technical question about blogs: Would you have to ask author’s permition to quote part of his book as you did here?
I intent to have a blog about my readings in a similar pattern, so i’d like to know about. Thanks.
My understanding is that quoting from a book for review or illustrative purposes doesn’t require any special permissions. It goes on all the time.
The question of permission might arise if a whole book, or article, was quoted.
Use of images might be a situation where permission could technically be required. In practice it probably depends on use – selling something, for example, might raise the whole issue of permission and royalties. But simple use on a blog probably doesn’t cause a problem (although technically it could).
I know artists will often check to see where their images are being used – although watermarks help to prevent usage where money is involved.
I don’t get it: why must we have a purpose in life? To be living is an extraordinary situation but I do not see why we must be here to fulfil a purpose. Just live your life as best you can. I certainly do not see why anyone would want to waste time glorifying Santa Claus instead of doing something more productive or interesting. But that’s just me I guess…
I don’t get it: why must we have a purpose in life? To be living is an extraordinary situation but I do not see why we must be here to fulfil a purpose. Just live your life as best you can.
Yes you live your life your way and Hitler his way. You both end up the same – dust…
Nothing assumed at all.
You troll.
That’s confirmed by simple observation.
Over multiple threads and over several months.
(shrug)
“So what is your purpose in life Cedric? To take up space until it’s time to feed the worms?”
Even if this is true, how does this help you?
You invoke your brand-name god?
No.62 again?
Doesn’t work.
Why not try No.236?
No.236: ARGUMENT FROM THE MEANING OF LIFE (I)
(1) What’s the meaning of life?
(2) [Atheist gives her answer.]
(3) That’s not what I believe.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
“Yes you live your life your way and Hitler his way.”
No.544: ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (I)
(1) If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin were never punished for the evil that they did.
(2) There would be no Divine Justice for them, and this is not acceptable.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
“You both end up the same – dust…”
Ah yes, dust.
No.354: ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate destiny and my destiny is dust.
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Do you have any more cookie-cutter arguments to share with us?
🙂
Perhaps “What is the purpose of our genes” might be a better title? Might not hit the point Ken was making, but it might avoid the “life’s purpose” (or purposeless) thing that some people try attach to this?
I guess my earlier post was a waste of time after all… oh, well… I did write about the purpose of genes, in and off themselves, which is sort-of limiting. And I wasn’t exactly writing for a non-specialist either…
“Yes you live your life your way and Hitler his way. You both end up the same – dust…”
I have decided to just ignore James from now on (or perhaps ridicule him, like Cedric) since he never actually replies to any of the questions posed here, and his arguments go over endless circles without contributing anything significant to the discussions.
So my (half-honest) question (as in #10) obviously still remains: why must we have a purpose in life?
I don’t want it to help me, you still don’t get it. I just want you to be honest and admit that your life (and the human race in general) is ultimately meaningless. I want you to stop feigning moral outrage at simple acts of nature like the stoning of young women, I want you to stop claiming that humans beings have “dignity.” I want you to stop claiming that human beings have “rights.” I want you to stop claiming that human beings have more inherent worth than a common housefly, etc, etc, etc…
You see, James?
This is all you’re worth. You have a gift for making people think badly of you.
Stavros, you tried your best. Nobody can blame you.
You were reasonable. You were patient.
You carefully explained yourself again and again.
To no avail.
James is here to troll.
Treat him like a troll.
Have some fun doing it.
🙂
Yes, I made my point. I want you to be honest. Consistent. I want you to stop pretending that your moral sense is somehow more correct or valid than the Muslim’s or the murdering Stalinist. I want you to agree that you have no more inherent worth or diginity than a housefly. I want you to agree that all your reasoning is the slave to the underlying non-rational forces of nature. I want you to stop using terms like “free will.” I want you to admit that your end (everyones end) is dust and that dust is meaningless. I want you to stop trying to force theistic concepts like free will, moral objectivity, universal human rights, and human diginity into a materialistic framework where they have no ultimate meaning or grounding.
Yes, I made my point. I want you to be honest. Consistent. I want you to stop pretending that your moral sense is somehow more correct or valid than the Muslim’s or the murdering Stalinist. I want you to agree that you have no more inherent worth or diginity than a housefly. I want you to agree that all your reasoning is the slave to the underlying non-rational forces of nature. I want you to stop using terms like “free will.” I want you to admit that your end (everyones end) is dust and that dust is meaningless. I want you to stop trying to force theistic concepts like free will, moral objectivity, universal human rights, and human diginity into a materialistic framework where they have no ultimate meaning or grounding.
Par for the course, James simply ignores the past weeks and blithely regurgitates his usual talking points as if nothing was ever said. Which, in his alternate reality, probably was not. Depressing and pitiful at the same time…
Really Iapetus? Do human beings have inherent diginity? Are moral opinions more than subjective? Is there ultimate meaning? Are there “universal” human rights?
James? Hello? James?
I’m asking you what your point is.
Saying “Yes, I’ve made my point” does not actually help much. Yeah?
So, what is your point?
James said..”I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah…’
James, why should we care what you want?
Do you have anything important to say?
An argument, perhaps?
As Iapetus has mentioned, you are ranting.
James, the ranting troll.
You’re very funny.
🙂
P.S.
“I want you to stop pretending that your moral sense is somehow more correct or valid than the Muslim’s or the murdering Stalinist.”
No.544: ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (I)
(1) If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin were never punished for the evil that they did.
(2) There would be no Divine Justice for them, and this is not acceptable.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
“I want you to admit that your end (everyones end) is dust and that dust is meaningless.”
There’s that word again, dust.
(giggle)
No.354: ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate destiny and my destiny is dust.
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
(3) Therefore, God exists
James, why should we care what you want? Do you have anything important to say? An argument, perhaps?
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
Yes Cedric, my prayer and hope is this, at least for the lurkers, something inside of him will rise up against this materialistic view of man kind. That he senses that he is something more. So sue me…
As far as an argument goes – sure, as soon as you give me a non-arbitrary definition of “evidence” and prove to me that you are rational. Provide a objective ground for human rationality.
Until then I might as well try and prove the color red to a man born blind.
“…something inside of him will rise up against this materialistic view of man kind. That he senses that he is something more. So sue me…”
Him, eh?
This is probably news to you, but women use the Internet too.
Welcome to the 21st century.
“So sue me…’
I have a better idea.
I’ll continue to do what I have been doing.
Having fun with you.
🙂
Showing you up for being the silly, repeditive, troll that you are.
Something tells me that Stavros and Iapetus will be happy to join in.
(Who could blame them after the juvenile way you’ve treated their attempts to be civil to you.)
What kind of reasonable, intelligent, normal person would want to join your special little world?
The more you talk, the more you turn people off.
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
Invite them. Ask their opinion.
“as soon as you give me a non-arbitrary definition of “evidence” and prove to me that you are rational.”
When I want a definition of the word “evidence” I look in this thing called a…dictionary.
It’s a book. Read it.
Non-arbitrary definiton? Huh? Whatever.
(shrug)
“…prove to me that you are rational.”
Wha..? What brought this on?
On second thoughts, does anybody really care?
(yawn)
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
I guess the answer to your questions “why must we have a purpose in life?” must be to agree – at least in a conscious way we don’t have to. Pinker’s point was to show that a persons purpose is not the same as the gene – as people like James and the creationist industry like to say (or misrepresent the non-religious viewpoint). James and Stuart actively push this simple dishonest and arrogant misrepresentation.
However, we can have a conscious purpose – and many people do. And it can be different for different people. I am sure most people who comment here do see a purpose in their life – and most of them would be far higher than “To Glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.” The religious purpose, which usually condenses down to submission, is really pathetic – especially as for some religious people they feel the need to impose their purpose on other people who are leading a far more purposeful and productive life.
Thanks for the answer and for sharing your views on quotes in blogs.It’s a great help to me.
Supposing “What’s your purpose in life?” to be an open question, as a christian, my views are somehow similar to James’s one here or Ellen White’s one: The purpose of life is to honor God and bless our fellow men.
“I have seen that those who live for a purpose, seeking to benefit and bless their fellow men and to honour and glorify their Redeemer, are the truly happy ones on the earth, while the man who is restless, discontented, and seeking this and testing that, hoping to find happiness, is always complaining of disappointment. He is always in want, never satisfied, because he lives for himself alone. Let it be your aim to do good, to act your part in life faithfully.” EGW
There are plenty of people who live for a purpose, seeking to benefit others (or more ordinarily “just” contribute to the larger scheme of things) who don’t need to do this via some religious figure: the religious angle isn’t a requirement for purpose or happiness. Your quote tries to merge purposefulness, happiness and religion, but religion does not imply the others, nor is a requirement for them.
Likewise, there are also people who are (or seem to be!) quite happy to live pretty basic lives without feeling that they have to have some “grand plan”. In a curious way, I admire them for not needing an ambition in order to be happy.
In my experience, some of the best “helpers of others” are those whose helping others is not distracted or distorted by religion. I find that many of the religious who try “do good”, when you look closer, are often doing it as either a form of self-justification of themselves or their religion, or along with helping others insist that gives them a right/obligation to push their religion on others.
Pinker’s point was to show that a persons purpose is not the same as the gene – as people like James and the creationist industry like to say (or misrepresent the non-religious viewpoint). James and Stuart actively push this simple dishonest and arrogant misrepresentation.
Ken show me exactly where I misrepresentated the atheist’s view:
From Dawkins “River Out of Eden” chapter four:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference…DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music”.
“DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Where is the misrepresentation?
James said…”How about you try reading Cedric, then come back to all of us with a non-arbitrary definition of evidence…”
That’s all you’ve got?
POSTING A LINK?
🙂
An argument is beyond you, it seems.
How sad.
What is the point you are trying to make about “non arbirary definiton of evidence”?
Who knows?
(sigh)
So James…
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
James said…”How about you try reading Cedric, then come back to all of us with a non-arbitrary definition of evidence…”
That’s all you’ve got?
POSTING A LINK?
Yes, I fiured it’s about time you got a clue and read something that pertains to the discussion.
argument is beyond you, it seems.
How sad.
What is the point you are trying to make about “non arbirary definiton of evidence”?
Who knows?
(sigh)
What is really sad Cedric is that you don’t have a clue. That you ask for a argument yet you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence. Read the link Homer, and get back to us… School yourself for once…
James said…”Yes, I fiured it’s about time you got a clue and read something that pertains to the discussion.”
By posting a link?
Wow.
(slow hand clap from the studio audience)
James said…”That you ask for a argument yet you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
You have yet to offer an argument.
I have not demanded evidence from you.
“Non-arbitrary” or otherwise.
If you want to engage in an argument that is related to to this thread, then go for it.
Evidence?
Read any good dictionary. Follow the definition.
I’m sure we’ll all be happy with that.
Nobody around here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition. That’s just those voices inside your own head.
(shrug)
James said…”Read the link Homer,…”
Homer? What do you mean, Homer.
I thought I was your “Bro”.
Has the love gone already, James?
“… and get back to us…”
Who is this “us”, James?
It’s just you. Honest.
Or are you including the voices in your head?
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
James said…”Yes, I fiured it’s about time you got a clue and read something that pertains to the discussion.”
By posting a link?
And this from some one who constantly cuts and pastes other peoples work! Could you be more hypocritical? Yes read the link, then try and figure out what “evidence” is before you ask for an “argument.”
If you want to engage in an argument that is related to to this thread, then go for it.
Evidence?
Read any good dictionary. Follow the definition.
I’m sure we’ll all be happy with that.
Nonsense, dictionaries are good for simple defintions – not for this one. So again, give me a non-arbitrary definition of “evidence” – since this would be necessary before any argument could be made. If you can’t you are just spouting inane requests.
Nobody around here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition. That’s just those voices inside your own head.
You really are clueless. Get educated, read the link.
You provide a cookie-cutter argument, I provide the index number.
Saves a lot of time and shows everybody how much of a tool you are.
It’s very effective.
It get’s under your skin so much that you’ve tried to copy it.
Only it doesn’t work so well for you because…you are forced to just make stuff up.
Not much impact from that.
🙂
James said…”Nonsense, dictionaries are good for simple defintions – not for this one.”
You have provided no definition, remember?
Oops!
Cedric previously said…”Nobody around here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition. That’s just those voices inside your own head.”
James gets snarky…”You really are clueless. Get educated, read the link.”
Doesn’t change the fact that nobody here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition of evidence.
Nobody.
Certainly not me.
Go ahead and show me the thread where I asked you for one?
Good luck with that.
Who’s talking about a non-arbitrary definition of the word evidence, James?
Can you guess?
Is it perhaps…you.
Or perhaps…other people?
Remember this?
James said…“… and get back to us…”
Who is this “us”, James?
It’s just you. Honest.
Or are you including the voices in your head?
Reveal who is this mysterious “us”.
(giggle)
……………………………………………………….
So James…
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
Doesn’t change the fact that nobody here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition of evidence.
No Cedric, you asked for an “argument.” But no argument is possible without “evidence.” So if you have no idea what “evidence” is then you have no idea what would constitute an “argument.”
In other words Cedric, and try to follow the logic, if you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition for “evidence” then you have no right to ask for an argument. You have no idea what an argument is… That too would be arbitrary…
James said…So if you have no idea what “evidence” is then you have no idea what would constitute an “argument.”
James, go ahead and dance around the mulberry bush to your heart’s content.
I don’t mind, honest.
Somebody wants to engage in an argument and offer evidence?
Fine.
You have a bee in your bonnet about “non-arbitrary evidence” then…great.
Give us the definition that you are so worked up over and proceed with the arguement proper!
I am not demanding “non-arbitrary evidence” or whatever.
Plain old-fashioned evidence in a plain old-fashioned argument will do just fine.
The sort of argument that people have in civil society all the time.
The sort of evidence that people use in educated discourse all the time.
Nothing mysterious about it.
No need for any more fretting or nail-biting on your part.
This is really an extraordianary song and dance you are making.
If YOU have a burning desire to make an argument yet are concerned about “non arbitrary evidence” then…YOU resolve the problem and GET ON WITH IT.
I don’t have to do anything.
Understand now?
James said previously…“… and get back to us…”
Who is this “us”, James?
It’s just you. Honest.
Or are you including the voices in your head?
Reveal who is this mysterious “us”.
(giggle)
……………………………………………………….
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
You are our own Internet version of Brother Micah. http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=EdPaouPz2yY
Plain old-fashioned evidence in a plain old-fashioned argument will do just fine.
The sort of argument that people have in civil society all the time.
The sort of evidence that people use in educated discourse all the time.
Nothing mysterious about it.
No need for any more fretting or nail-biting on your part.
LOL,”plain old-fashioned evidence?” That is all you could come up with? If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?
There is no such thing as “plain old-fashioned evidence” and the fact that you suggested that just proves how clueless you are.
Give us the definition that you are so worked up over and proceed with the arguement proper!
There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence. Are you really this slow? What one considers evidence is subjective and person dependent. So arguments are useless to those who do not want to be convinced by them…
Did my whole recent debate with Iapetus go right over your head? If a man can deny the certainty of his own existence he can deny anything.
Did you ever get that book on Philosophy – did you read it? Understand it?
I can understand people finding/creating a purpose in their lives for many different reasons. I am just saying that it is not a mandatory condition, it doesn’t come pre-packaged with humans.
I am glad you posted this (and your comment) as it gave me the opportunity to stop and think about this a bit longer. Even though, as I mentioned before, I never felt confused about this, consciously realizing the differences between the objectives of our genes and our own objectives was particularly fulfilling. So, thanks.
James said…”If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?”
Evidence for what?
Think about it.
You have several choices here if you want to run with anecdotal evidence for a god.
Naturally, all of the choices are bad.
There’s No.43, No.69, No.79, No.86, No.110 and No.111.
If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced Mithra, would that be evidence?
If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced Skywoman, would that be evidence?
If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced Baal, would that be evidence?
People claim to have lots of religious experiences.
Lots of civil societies.
Lots of different experiences. Lots of different gods.
Thousands and thousands of them.
The majority of human beings in a civil society?
Why do you only count them?
What’s wrong with a solitary experience that that everybody else has no idea about and doesn’t give a damn about and never catches on in wider society?
Or are you going to judge “experience with god” (whatever that may mean) by the same standards as TV ratings for the game show Wheel of Fortune?
No.19: ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists. http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Trust me, James. Don’t go there.
James said…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
There now.
Don’t you feel better?
You finally managed to spit it out.
Took you long enough but I’m a patient person.
However, there is this small problem you have.
James said…”In other words Cedric, and try to follow the logic, if you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition for “evidence” then you have no right to ask for an argument.”
By your own logic, you therefore have no right to OFFER an argument.
(…awkward silence…)
Sounds like a dead end to me.
Perhaps, if we’re going to have an argument, we should just follow convention?
Just go along with what people normally do when they want to have an argument?
1)Read the dictionary.
and 2) Humbly accept the definition assigned therein and move on.
Otherwise, things will get rather quiet around here.
Just sayin’.
“What one considers evidence is subjective and person dependent. So arguments are useless to those who do not want to be convinced by them…”
And yet, people argue.
Effectively.
(Not you, of course. Your arguments blow chunks but…)
I mean, NORMAL people argue well all the time.
Lawyers, politicians, scientists, business people, everybody.
They engage, they pursuade, they interact.
People, even if they have vested interests and an entrenched mentality, can be brought around.
Oh and just a couple more things while you’re here…
“What one considers evidence is subjective and person dependent.”
No. 83: ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
“So arguments are useless to those who do not want to be convinced by them…”
No.81: ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won’t bother to tell you what it is because, being atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
James said…”In other words Cedric, and try to follow the logic, if you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition for “evidence” then you have no right to ask for an argument.”
By your own logic, you therefore have no right to OFFER an argument.
Perhaps, if we’re going to have an argument, we should just follow convention?
Just go along with what people normally do when they want to have an argument?
1)Read the dictionary.
and 2) Humbly accept the definition assigned therein and move on.
Otherwise, things will get rather quiet around here.
Just sayin’.
Again, perhaps if I write more slowly you will understand. You can say anything you like, it has no bearing – no meaning. And why is “convention” binding or correct? Who says? Did you come up with a non-arbitrary definition yet? In other words, what you consider good or compelling evidence is completely subjective and has no force or bearing on any question or the truth. Why should I consider you rational? Can you prove that you are? Based on what?
Evidence for what?Think about it.
No you think about it. Your response has no meaning. You just assert and assert… You have no idea who is experiencing what or why. Perhaps they all experience something very similar but call it by a different name. You have no idea what you are talking about Cerdic, you never did. You just cut and paste other people’s works, and pretend…
Did you ever get that book on Philosophy – did you read it? Understand it?
“Did you come up with a non-arbitrary definition yet?’
There isn’t one according to you.
Remember this?
James said…”…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
Go figure.
………………………………………………..
“In other words, what you consider good or compelling evidence is completely subjective and has no force or bearing on any question or the truth.”
No. 83: ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
(shrug)
James said…”Why should I consider you rational? Can you prove that you are? Based on what?”
You don’t have to if you don’t want to.
So what?
What is the point that you’re trying to make?
“You just assert and assert…”
I haven’t asserted anything.
You said…”…”If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?”
To which I responded…”Evidence for what?”
See? No assertion here.
It’s just a request for clarification.
James said…”You have no idea who is experiencing what or why.”
Huh? I never claimed that I did.
What is your point?
James said…”Perhaps they all experience something very similar but call it by a different name.”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Or rather, maybe? But then again…
(shrug)
James, where are you going with this?
“You have no idea what you are talking about Cerdic, you never did.”
Actually, I’m just trying to find out what you are talking about.
So far you just seem to be talking uselessly in circles.
Please don’t that stop you, though.
You more you reveal how trite and contrary you are, the better I like it.
You come across as somebody who had too much fun in ’68.
Heavy, man. Like, wow!
🙂
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
(Come on, James. What weirdo cult do you belong too?)
Did you come up with a non-arbitrary definition yet?’
There isn’t one according to you.
Remember this?
James said…”…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
Go figure.
That’s the problem Cedric, you can’t figure it out. There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence. So you can’t come up with one, and my asking is ramming the point home. And what does that tell us? Try thinking it through…
No. 83: ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
Did I say this or even suggest it? No, so why did you cut and paste it? Can you do more than parrot other peoples work?
James said…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
Wonderful.
So?
“So you can’t come up with one…”
I didn’t offer one.
Dictionaries? Remember?
I’m happy with those.
You however….
(shrug)
James said…”…and my asking is ramming the point home.”
What point?
The suspense! Oh the suspense.
Reveal your point already.
(yawn)
“And what does that tell us? Try thinking it through…”
You’re the one that is so het up over something or other.
Skip the foreplay.
Say something. Finally.
…………………………………………………
“Did I say this or even suggest it?”
James?
You are ranting about subjectivity.
You know and I know that sooner or later you want to conclude your babbling with your god.
It’s all you ever do. You’re here to preach.
So do it already.
…”If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?”
which goes onto….
“You have no idea who is experiencing what or why. Perhaps they all experience something very similar but call it by a different name.”
which takes us to…
“In other words, what you consider good or compelling evidence is completely subjective and has no force or bearing on any question or the truth.”
So we will eventually get to No.83?
Yes?
No?
What?
(shrug)
……………………………………………
“Can you do more than parrot other peoples work?”
James, you produce the cookie-cutter arguments.
I respond by providing the index number.
Godlessgeeks is a resource.
It was set up to catalogue the nonsense that your type pass off as proofs for your brand-name god.
So far, in the various threads here, you have used at least 24 of them.
The people at Godlessgeeks clearly knew that you were coming.
😮
As near as I can tell, there’s not a single argument documented there that you are not prepared to use.
No argument too lame, no argument too hackneyed, no argument too mindbogglingly silly.
Why should I re-invent the wheel?
You certainly don’t.
You serve up an argument that well past it’s use-by date.
I time-stamp it.
Saves a lot of effort.
Iapetus and Stavros and Ken and Alison and Matty and Damian have all tried to engage you with reasoned discussion.
You’ve just acted like a troll and spat at them in the face.
You have alienated them all completely.
No sensible person is going to talk to you civilly.
It doesn’t work with your type.
(At best, they might talk past you to reach the lurkers.)
Yet, you’ll always have me, James.
Always.
It’s better that way.
🙂
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
(Come on, James. What weirdo cult do you belong too?)
James, you produce the cookie-cutter arguments.
I respond by providing the index number.
Godlessgeeks is a resource.
It was set up to catalogue the nonsense that your type pass off as proofs for your brand-name god.
Grow up Cedric…
ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
1.There is a website that successfully argues for the non-existence of God.
2.Here is the URL.
3.Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
1.Everything is subjective.
2.No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
3.Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that nothing is subjective then, perforce, 4.God isn’t subjective, is false.
5.Therefore, God (objectively) doesn’t exist.
“ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY”
“ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY”
James?
James?
Over here. Focus, James.
Focus.
There, that’s better…
First, you have to wait for somebody to actually, y’know, try and prove that your god doesn’t exist.
Nobody has claimed that.
Not me.
Not Ken.
Not anybody.
If you’ll look real hard, you’ll also find that nobody around here has claimed to prove that Bigfoot/Pink Unicorns/The Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist either.
Now when somebody actually DOES make this claim, then you have a catalogue you can quote at them.
Good for you.
Up until that time, however, it won’t do you much good.
(shrug)
Nice try at imitation, however.
I appreciate the compliment.
I really do.
🙂
“There you go again making claims without proof.”
“Proof”?
What do you mean by proof?
This is one of those deep and meaningful “non-arbitrary” definition games, right?
(giggle)
So James…
Or perhaps, “Bro”?
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
(Come on, James. What weirdo cult do you belong too?)
So far, in the various threads here, you have used at least 24 of them.
The people at Godlessgeeks clearly knew that you were coming.
Are you completely clueless? I never said that my arguments proved God. All I said was that if there is no God then… And not one of those arguments was off or wrong.
I have no intention of proving God except for mentioning that creation proves a creator. I have no need to prove God since all men already knows He exists:
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.While claiming to be wise, they became fools.
Men suppress this truth by wickedness, which means they have become fools – i.e. without sense, irrational.
You funny, feckless, feeble-minded freakaziod.
You delightfully lovable wierdo.
In what drug-induced purple haze are any of your arguments worth a damn?
James said…”I have no intention of proving God except for mentioning that creation proves a creator.”
Oh, that’s the argument you want to go with?
This is the biggie you’ve been saving up for a rainy day?
Got it covered.
Let’s do it.
“I have no intention of proving God except for mentioning that creation proves a creator.”
No.98: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Let’s continue with…
“I have no need to prove God since all men already knows He exists.”
No.105: ARGUMENT FROM NON-CONFRONTATION
(1) I am not here to argue with you atheists.
(2) But come on, God obviously exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget…
“Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.While claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
No.118: ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS
(1) The Bible says atheists are fools.
(2) I don’t want to be a fool.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Pony up.
Which church have you been getting your material from?
You know, the material that is by no means offered as arguments proving your god.
(smirk)
Do a little advertising.
Where can people go to learn how to be a REAL Christian just like you?
Which denomination has your back?
Cedric, you haven’t said anything. My argument is that creation proves God and you already know that God exists. I have nothing to prove – what don’t you get?
Which church have you been getting your material from?
“My argument is that creation proves God…”
“I have nothing to prove”
Spot the disconnect.
Read it slowly.
“My last quote came from scripture…’
I asked you about your church, James. Church.
Your denomination?
Why so coy?
How oddball can it be?
Ok, it could be very oddball.
Such as… http://www.godhatesfags.com/
They use scripture too, James.
They just LOVE quoting scripture at people.
If it’s scripture, and it’s quoted by somebody who claims to be a real Christian then…it’s all good, yeah?
I’ve never talked about my knowledge or lack thereof on any god/gods existence.
You don’t have to. Scripture makes it clear that all men know their Creator.
That’s an assertion.
Then prove it wrong – prove that you don’t know God.
My response was to your comment on scripture.
Scripture doesn’t need my comment, it was quite clear:
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.While claiming to be wise, they became fools.
“Scripture makes it clear that all men know their Creator.”
No.13: ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Previously Cedric said…”That’s an assertion.”
James doesn’t get it…”Then prove it wrong – prove that you don’t know God.”
No.109: ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(shrug)
James, is there some special reason why you don’t feel comfortable sharing with us about your church?
You do belong to a particular denomination, right?
I’m currently reading Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works.
Open Parachute 
This is very fascinating although I never confused Dawkins gene-centric theory with a possible extension in the social sphere!
This is usually the strategy of misinformed religious lunatics claiming God gives us our objective morals otherwise it is just our nature to be selfish and violent…
Now, let me put the book in my Amazon wish-list…
LikeLike
[Warning: a biologist warbles on… its all very pointless, but seeing I’ve written it you lot can suffer it! 🙂 ]
I’ve always thought it the “right” way, for a bunch a reasons, but have never read The Selfish Gene. (I do have a copy somewhere, but I’ve got too much else to do…)
I suspect a part of the reason is that I spend a lot of time dealing with molecular interactions. The evolution of any one protein only reflects the things that it directly interacts with (and some broader things like the pH of the environment, the energetics of folding the protein, etc., but you can call them direct interactions in their own way). Even the “next step up”, molecular pathways, show elements of “emergent behaviour” (but isn’t clean-cut, as the individual molecules in any one pathway often [usually] associate to form molecular complexes.) But certainly by the time you get “up” to interacting pathways, any one protein or complex is just “doing it little thing”, catalysing one reaction or a (portion of a) pathway, without any direct connection to the overall impact of this on the rest of the organelle or cell, never mind the organ or body or any higher functions. There are feedback loops in various forms, of course, but the individual protein/complex only reacts to direct interaction with the molecules acting in feedback: it has no “connection” to where these molecule(s) originated from nor what other processes brought those molecules into proximity nor what its substrates go on to effect.
The upshot of all this is that the evolution of the “blueprint” (gene) for a protein that, say, phosphorylates a particular molecule, and interacts with a co-factor that regulates that phosphorylation, only reflects those direct interactions, not whatever impact the phosphorylation might have on the organelle, cell, organ or body.
One way to conceptualise this is to think of levels of indirect reference, as a computer programmer might. But maybe I’ve waffled enough for one night. I’ll come back to this if anyone feels a need to expose themselves to more of my terrible waffling… 🙂 I have to admit this probably a complete waste of time, as I’ve written it in a biologist’s terms, rather than that of a general audience: preaching to the choir, etc., etc…
Another thing I find fun to think about in this context is the role of transposons in evolution (and gene regulation), as these are an evolutionary “unit” consisting of more-or-less just a few genes and some flanking regulatory sequences. I suspect Dawkins will have something to say on these.
LikeLike
To Glorify God, and enjoy Him forever…
LikeLike
Ken,
A technical question about blogs: Would you have to ask author’s permition to quote part of his book as you did here?
I intent to have a blog about my readings in a similar pattern, so i’d like to know about. Thanks.
LikeLike
James said…”To Glorify God, and enjoy Him forever…”
And what better way to do that but troll?
(giggle)
LikeLike
And what better way to do that but troll?
Another assumnption. So what is your purpose in life Cedric? To take up space until it’s time to feed the worms?
LikeLike
@ Darjo – December 8, 2008 at 4:13 am
My understanding is that quoting from a book for review or illustrative purposes doesn’t require any special permissions. It goes on all the time.
The question of permission might arise if a whole book, or article, was quoted.
Use of images might be a situation where permission could technically be required. In practice it probably depends on use – selling something, for example, might raise the whole issue of permission and royalties. But simple use on a blog probably doesn’t cause a problem (although technically it could).
I know artists will often check to see where their images are being used – although watermarks help to prevent usage where money is involved.
LikeLike
@ James – December 8, 2008 at 3:12 am
I am flattered to realise that you see your contributions here as “To Glorify God, and enjoy Him forever…” – winning brownie points in heaven!
Personally, I wouldn’t waste my time. But if it makes you feel useful.
LikeLike
Didn’t Dawkins have a good name for that sort of behaviour. Auditioning, I think he called it.
LikeLike
I don’t get it: why must we have a purpose in life? To be living is an extraordinary situation but I do not see why we must be here to fulfil a purpose. Just live your life as best you can. I certainly do not see why anyone would want to waste time glorifying Santa Claus instead of doing something more productive or interesting. But that’s just me I guess…
LikeLike
I don’t get it: why must we have a purpose in life? To be living is an extraordinary situation but I do not see why we must be here to fulfil a purpose. Just live your life as best you can.
Yes you live your life your way and Hitler his way. You both end up the same – dust…
LikeLike
James said…”Another assumnption.”
Nothing assumed at all.
You troll.
That’s confirmed by simple observation.
Over multiple threads and over several months.
(shrug)
“So what is your purpose in life Cedric? To take up space until it’s time to feed the worms?”
Even if this is true, how does this help you?
You invoke your brand-name god?
No.62 again?
Doesn’t work.
Why not try No.236?
No.236: ARGUMENT FROM THE MEANING OF LIFE (I)
(1) What’s the meaning of life?
(2) [Atheist gives her answer.]
(3) That’s not what I believe.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
“Yes you live your life your way and Hitler his way.”
No.544: ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (I)
(1) If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin were never punished for the evil that they did.
(2) There would be no Divine Justice for them, and this is not acceptable.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
“You both end up the same – dust…”
Ah yes, dust.
No.354: ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate destiny and my destiny is dust.
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Do you have any more cookie-cutter arguments to share with us?
🙂
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
LikeLike
10:
Perhaps “What is the purpose of our genes” might be a better title? Might not hit the point Ken was making, but it might avoid the “life’s purpose” (or purposeless) thing that some people try attach to this?
I guess my earlier post was a waste of time after all… oh, well… I did write about the purpose of genes, in and off themselves, which is sort-of limiting. And I wasn’t exactly writing for a non-specialist either…
LikeLike
“Yes you live your life your way and Hitler his way. You both end up the same – dust…”
I have decided to just ignore James from now on (or perhaps ridicule him, like Cedric) since he never actually replies to any of the questions posed here, and his arguments go over endless circles without contributing anything significant to the discussions.
So my (half-honest) question (as in #10) obviously still remains: why must we have a purpose in life?
LikeLike
Even if this is true, how does this help you?
I don’t want it to help me, you still don’t get it. I just want you to be honest and admit that your life (and the human race in general) is ultimately meaningless. I want you to stop feigning moral outrage at simple acts of nature like the stoning of young women, I want you to stop claiming that humans beings have “dignity.” I want you to stop claiming that human beings have “rights.” I want you to stop claiming that human beings have more inherent worth than a common housefly, etc, etc, etc…
LikeLike
“I don’t want it to help me.”
Well, you’re in luck.
It doesn’t.
(giggle)
“I just want you to be honest and admit that your life (and the human race in general) is ultimately meaningless.”
Why?
What’s it to you? Why such…passion?
Suppose it’s all true.
Life is meaningless? Really? Ok, let’s say it is.
So what?
Do you have a point to make?
LikeLike
“…or perhaps ridicule him, like Cedric.”
You see, James?
This is all you’re worth. You have a gift for making people think badly of you.
Stavros, you tried your best. Nobody can blame you.
You were reasonable. You were patient.
You carefully explained yourself again and again.
To no avail.
James is here to troll.
Treat him like a troll.
Have some fun doing it.
🙂
LikeLike
Do you have a point to make?
Yes, I made my point. I want you to be honest. Consistent. I want you to stop pretending that your moral sense is somehow more correct or valid than the Muslim’s or the murdering Stalinist. I want you to agree that you have no more inherent worth or diginity than a housefly. I want you to agree that all your reasoning is the slave to the underlying non-rational forces of nature. I want you to stop using terms like “free will.” I want you to admit that your end (everyones end) is dust and that dust is meaningless. I want you to stop trying to force theistic concepts like free will, moral objectivity, universal human rights, and human diginity into a materialistic framework where they have no ultimate meaning or grounding.
Simple really…
LikeLike
Do you have a point to make?
Yes, I made my point. I want you to be honest. Consistent. I want you to stop pretending that your moral sense is somehow more correct or valid than the Muslim’s or the murdering Stalinist. I want you to agree that you have no more inherent worth or diginity than a housefly. I want you to agree that all your reasoning is the slave to the underlying non-rational forces of nature. I want you to stop using terms like “free will.” I want you to admit that your end (everyones end) is dust and that dust is meaningless. I want you to stop trying to force theistic concepts like free will, moral objectivity, universal human rights, and human diginity into a materialistic framework where they have no ultimate meaning or grounding.
Simple really…
LikeLike
Wow, what a rant.
Par for the course, James simply ignores the past weeks and blithely regurgitates his usual talking points as if nothing was ever said. Which, in his alternate reality, probably was not. Depressing and pitiful at the same time…
LikeLike
Really Iapetus? Do human beings have inherent diginity? Are moral opinions more than subjective? Is there ultimate meaning? Are there “universal” human rights?
LikeLike
James is confused…”Yes, I made my point.”
James? Hello? James?
I’m asking you what your point is.
Saying “Yes, I’ve made my point” does not actually help much. Yeah?
So, what is your point?
James said..”I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah, I want blahblahblah…’
James, why should we care what you want?
Do you have anything important to say?
An argument, perhaps?
As Iapetus has mentioned, you are ranting.
James, the ranting troll.
You’re very funny.
🙂
P.S.
“I want you to stop pretending that your moral sense is somehow more correct or valid than the Muslim’s or the murdering Stalinist.”
No.544: ARGUMENT FROM NEGATIVE DIVINE JUSTICE (I)
(1) If there is no God, then Hitler and Stalin were never punished for the evil that they did.
(2) There would be no Divine Justice for them, and this is not acceptable.
(3) Only God could give us Divine Justice.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
“I want you to admit that your end (everyones end) is dust and that dust is meaningless.”
There’s that word again, dust.
(giggle)
No.354: ARGUMENT FROM DESTINY
(1) Without God, there is no no ultimate destiny and my destiny is dust.
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
(3) Therefore, God exists
LikeLike
James said…”Really Iapetus?”
Yep. Really.
🙂
LikeLike
James, why should we care what you want? Do you have anything important to say? An argument, perhaps?
(2) I can’t accept that because I want more.
Yes Cedric, my prayer and hope is this, at least for the lurkers, something inside of him will rise up against this materialistic view of man kind. That he senses that he is something more. So sue me…
As far as an argument goes – sure, as soon as you give me a non-arbitrary definition of “evidence” and prove to me that you are rational. Provide a objective ground for human rationality.
Until then I might as well try and prove the color red to a man born blind.
LikeLike
“…something inside of him will rise up against this materialistic view of man kind. That he senses that he is something more. So sue me…”
Him, eh?
This is probably news to you, but women use the Internet too.
Welcome to the 21st century.
“So sue me…’
I have a better idea.
I’ll continue to do what I have been doing.
Having fun with you.
🙂
Showing you up for being the silly, repeditive, troll that you are.
Something tells me that Stavros and Iapetus will be happy to join in.
(Who could blame them after the juvenile way you’ve treated their attempts to be civil to you.)
What kind of reasonable, intelligent, normal person would want to join your special little world?
The more you talk, the more you turn people off.
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
Invite them. Ask their opinion.
“as soon as you give me a non-arbitrary definition of “evidence” and prove to me that you are rational.”
When I want a definition of the word “evidence” I look in this thing called a…dictionary.
It’s a book. Read it.
Non-arbitrary definiton? Huh? Whatever.
(shrug)
“…prove to me that you are rational.”
Wha..? What brought this on?
On second thoughts, does anybody really care?
(yawn)
LikeLike
Young Skywalker – resist the dark side! Rage against the machine!
LikeLike
“Young Skywalker – resist the dark side! Rage against the machine!”
Neither Obi Wan nor Yoda actually said that in any of the movies or books.
Once again, you’re just making stuff up.
Get a clue.
LikeLike
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
LikeLike
@ Stavros – December 8, 2008 at 11:43 pm
I guess the answer to your questions “why must we have a purpose in life?” must be to agree – at least in a conscious way we don’t have to. Pinker’s point was to show that a persons purpose is not the same as the gene – as people like James and the creationist industry like to say (or misrepresent the non-religious viewpoint). James and Stuart actively push this simple dishonest and arrogant misrepresentation.
However, we can have a conscious purpose – and many people do. And it can be different for different people. I am sure most people who comment here do see a purpose in their life – and most of them would be far higher than “To Glorify God, and enjoy Him forever.” The religious purpose, which usually condenses down to submission, is really pathetic – especially as for some religious people they feel the need to impose their purpose on other people who are leading a far more purposeful and productive life.
LikeLike
Ken,
Thanks for the answer and for sharing your views on quotes in blogs.It’s a great help to me.
Supposing “What’s your purpose in life?” to be an open question, as a christian, my views are somehow similar to James’s one here or Ellen White’s one: The purpose of life is to honor God and bless our fellow men.
“I have seen that those who live for a purpose, seeking to benefit and bless their fellow men and to honour and glorify their Redeemer, are the truly happy ones on the earth, while the man who is restless, discontented, and seeking this and testing that, hoping to find happiness, is always complaining of disappointment. He is always in want, never satisfied, because he lives for himself alone. Let it be your aim to do good, to act your part in life faithfully.” EGW
LikeLike
Darjo,
There are plenty of people who live for a purpose, seeking to benefit others (or more ordinarily “just” contribute to the larger scheme of things) who don’t need to do this via some religious figure: the religious angle isn’t a requirement for purpose or happiness. Your quote tries to merge purposefulness, happiness and religion, but religion does not imply the others, nor is a requirement for them.
Likewise, there are also people who are (or seem to be!) quite happy to live pretty basic lives without feeling that they have to have some “grand plan”. In a curious way, I admire them for not needing an ambition in order to be happy.
In my experience, some of the best “helpers of others” are those whose helping others is not distracted or distorted by religion. I find that many of the religious who try “do good”, when you look closer, are often doing it as either a form of self-justification of themselves or their religion, or along with helping others insist that gives them a right/obligation to push their religion on others.
LikeLike
When I want a definition of the word “evidence” I look in this thing called a…dictionary.
It’s a book. Read it.
How about you try reading Cedric, then come back to all of us with a non-arbitrary definition of evidence:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/
I’ll be waiting.
LikeLike
Pinker’s point was to show that a persons purpose is not the same as the gene – as people like James and the creationist industry like to say (or misrepresent the non-religious viewpoint). James and Stuart actively push this simple dishonest and arrogant misrepresentation.
Ken show me exactly where I misrepresentated the atheist’s view:
From Dawkins “River Out of Eden” chapter four:
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference…DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music”.
“DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Where is the misrepresentation?
LikeLike
James said…”How about you try reading Cedric, then come back to all of us with a non-arbitrary definition of evidence…”
That’s all you’ve got?
POSTING A LINK?
🙂
An argument is beyond you, it seems.
How sad.
What is the point you are trying to make about “non arbirary definiton of evidence”?
Who knows?
(sigh)
So James…
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
LikeLike
James said…”How about you try reading Cedric, then come back to all of us with a non-arbitrary definition of evidence…”
That’s all you’ve got?
POSTING A LINK?
Yes, I fiured it’s about time you got a clue and read something that pertains to the discussion.
argument is beyond you, it seems.
How sad.
What is the point you are trying to make about “non arbirary definiton of evidence”?
Who knows?
(sigh)
What is really sad Cedric is that you don’t have a clue. That you ask for a argument yet you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence. Read the link Homer, and get back to us… School yourself for once…
LikeLike
James said…”Yes, I fiured it’s about time you got a clue and read something that pertains to the discussion.”
By posting a link?
Wow.
(slow hand clap from the studio audience)
James said…”That you ask for a argument yet you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
You have yet to offer an argument.
I have not demanded evidence from you.
“Non-arbitrary” or otherwise.
If you want to engage in an argument that is related to to this thread, then go for it.
Evidence?
Read any good dictionary. Follow the definition.
I’m sure we’ll all be happy with that.
Nobody around here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition. That’s just those voices inside your own head.
(shrug)
James said…”Read the link Homer,…”
Homer? What do you mean, Homer.
I thought I was your “Bro”.
Has the love gone already, James?
“… and get back to us…”
Who is this “us”, James?
It’s just you. Honest.
Or are you including the voices in your head?
LikeLike
So James…
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
LikeLike
James said…”Yes, I fiured it’s about time you got a clue and read something that pertains to the discussion.”
By posting a link?
And this from some one who constantly cuts and pastes other peoples work! Could you be more hypocritical? Yes read the link, then try and figure out what “evidence” is before you ask for an “argument.”
If you want to engage in an argument that is related to to this thread, then go for it.
Evidence?
Read any good dictionary. Follow the definition.
I’m sure we’ll all be happy with that.
Nonsense, dictionaries are good for simple defintions – not for this one. So again, give me a non-arbitrary definition of “evidence” – since this would be necessary before any argument could be made. If you can’t you are just spouting inane requests.
Nobody around here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition. That’s just those voices inside your own head.
You really are clueless. Get educated, read the link.
LikeLike
James said…”And this from some one who constantly cuts and pastes other peoples work!”
No I don’t.
I leave that to you.
The only cutting and pasting I ever do is from…
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
You provide a cookie-cutter argument, I provide the index number.
Saves a lot of time and shows everybody how much of a tool you are.
It’s very effective.
It get’s under your skin so much that you’ve tried to copy it.
Only it doesn’t work so well for you because…you are forced to just make stuff up.
Not much impact from that.
🙂
James said…”Nonsense, dictionaries are good for simple defintions – not for this one.”
You have provided no definition, remember?
Oops!
Cedric previously said…”Nobody around here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition. That’s just those voices inside your own head.”
James gets snarky…”You really are clueless. Get educated, read the link.”
Doesn’t change the fact that nobody here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition of evidence.
Nobody.
Certainly not me.
Go ahead and show me the thread where I asked you for one?
Good luck with that.
Who’s talking about a non-arbitrary definition of the word evidence, James?
Can you guess?
Is it perhaps…you.
Or perhaps…other people?
Remember this?
James said…“… and get back to us…”
Who is this “us”, James?
It’s just you. Honest.
Or are you including the voices in your head?
Reveal who is this mysterious “us”.
(giggle)
……………………………………………………….
So James…
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
LikeLike
Doesn’t change the fact that nobody here is demanding a “non-arbitrary” definition of evidence.
No Cedric, you asked for an “argument.” But no argument is possible without “evidence.” So if you have no idea what “evidence” is then you have no idea what would constitute an “argument.”
In other words Cedric, and try to follow the logic, if you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition for “evidence” then you have no right to ask for an argument. You have no idea what an argument is… That too would be arbitrary…
Again, I will be waiting…
LikeLike
James said…So if you have no idea what “evidence” is then you have no idea what would constitute an “argument.”
James, go ahead and dance around the mulberry bush to your heart’s content.
I don’t mind, honest.
Somebody wants to engage in an argument and offer evidence?
Fine.
You have a bee in your bonnet about “non-arbitrary evidence” then…great.
Give us the definition that you are so worked up over and proceed with the arguement proper!
I am not demanding “non-arbitrary evidence” or whatever.
Plain old-fashioned evidence in a plain old-fashioned argument will do just fine.
The sort of argument that people have in civil society all the time.
The sort of evidence that people use in educated discourse all the time.
Nothing mysterious about it.
No need for any more fretting or nail-biting on your part.
This is really an extraordianary song and dance you are making.
If YOU have a burning desire to make an argument yet are concerned about “non arbitrary evidence” then…YOU resolve the problem and GET ON WITH IT.
I don’t have to do anything.
Understand now?
James said previously…“… and get back to us…”
Who is this “us”, James?
It’s just you. Honest.
Or are you including the voices in your head?
Reveal who is this mysterious “us”.
(giggle)
……………………………………………………….
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
You are our own Internet version of Brother Micah.
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=EdPaouPz2yY
LikeLike
Plain old-fashioned evidence in a plain old-fashioned argument will do just fine.
The sort of argument that people have in civil society all the time.
The sort of evidence that people use in educated discourse all the time.
Nothing mysterious about it.
No need for any more fretting or nail-biting on your part.
LOL,”plain old-fashioned evidence?” That is all you could come up with? If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?
There is no such thing as “plain old-fashioned evidence” and the fact that you suggested that just proves how clueless you are.
Give us the definition that you are so worked up over and proceed with the arguement proper!
There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence. Are you really this slow? What one considers evidence is subjective and person dependent. So arguments are useless to those who do not want to be convinced by them…
Did my whole recent debate with Iapetus go right over your head? If a man can deny the certainty of his own existence he can deny anything.
Did you ever get that book on Philosophy – did you read it? Understand it?
LikeLike
@Ken
I can understand people finding/creating a purpose in their lives for many different reasons. I am just saying that it is not a mandatory condition, it doesn’t come pre-packaged with humans.
I am glad you posted this (and your comment) as it gave me the opportunity to stop and think about this a bit longer. Even though, as I mentioned before, I never felt confused about this, consciously realizing the differences between the objectives of our genes and our own objectives was particularly fulfilling. So, thanks.
LikeLike
James said…”If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?”
Evidence for what?
Think about it.
You have several choices here if you want to run with anecdotal evidence for a god.
Naturally, all of the choices are bad.
There’s No.43, No.69, No.79, No.86, No.110 and No.111.
If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced Mithra, would that be evidence?
If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced Skywoman, would that be evidence?
If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced Baal, would that be evidence?
People claim to have lots of religious experiences.
Lots of civil societies.
Lots of different experiences. Lots of different gods.
Thousands and thousands of them.
The majority of human beings in a civil society?
Why do you only count them?
What’s wrong with a solitary experience that that everybody else has no idea about and doesn’t give a damn about and never catches on in wider society?
Or are you going to judge “experience with god” (whatever that may mean) by the same standards as TV ratings for the game show Wheel of Fortune?
No.19: ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can’t all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Trust me, James. Don’t go there.
James said…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
There now.
Don’t you feel better?
You finally managed to spit it out.
Took you long enough but I’m a patient person.
However, there is this small problem you have.
James said…”In other words Cedric, and try to follow the logic, if you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition for “evidence” then you have no right to ask for an argument.”
By your own logic, you therefore have no right to OFFER an argument.
(…awkward silence…)
Sounds like a dead end to me.
Perhaps, if we’re going to have an argument, we should just follow convention?
Just go along with what people normally do when they want to have an argument?
1)Read the dictionary.
and 2) Humbly accept the definition assigned therein and move on.
Otherwise, things will get rather quiet around here.
Just sayin’.
“What one considers evidence is subjective and person dependent. So arguments are useless to those who do not want to be convinced by them…”
And yet, people argue.
Effectively.
(Not you, of course. Your arguments blow chunks but…)
I mean, NORMAL people argue well all the time.
Lawyers, politicians, scientists, business people, everybody.
They engage, they pursuade, they interact.
People, even if they have vested interests and an entrenched mentality, can be brought around.
Oh and just a couple more things while you’re here…
“What one considers evidence is subjective and person dependent.”
No. 83: ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
“So arguments are useless to those who do not want to be convinced by them…”
No.81: ARGUMENT FROM INEVITABILITY
(1) I have proof that God exists.
(2) I won’t bother to tell you what it is because, being atheists, you would be hostile to the conclusion anyway.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
LikeLike
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
LikeLike
James said…”In other words Cedric, and try to follow the logic, if you can not offer a non-arbitrary definition for “evidence” then you have no right to ask for an argument.”
By your own logic, you therefore have no right to OFFER an argument.
Perhaps, if we’re going to have an argument, we should just follow convention?
Just go along with what people normally do when they want to have an argument?
1)Read the dictionary.
and 2) Humbly accept the definition assigned therein and move on.
Otherwise, things will get rather quiet around here.
Just sayin’.
Again, perhaps if I write more slowly you will understand. You can say anything you like, it has no bearing – no meaning. And why is “convention” binding or correct? Who says? Did you come up with a non-arbitrary definition yet? In other words, what you consider good or compelling evidence is completely subjective and has no force or bearing on any question or the truth. Why should I consider you rational? Can you prove that you are? Based on what?
Evidence for what?Think about it.
No you think about it. Your response has no meaning. You just assert and assert… You have no idea who is experiencing what or why. Perhaps they all experience something very similar but call it by a different name. You have no idea what you are talking about Cerdic, you never did. You just cut and paste other people’s works, and pretend…
Did you ever get that book on Philosophy – did you read it? Understand it?
LikeLike
“Did you come up with a non-arbitrary definition yet?’
There isn’t one according to you.
Remember this?
James said…”…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
Go figure.
………………………………………………..
“In other words, what you consider good or compelling evidence is completely subjective and has no force or bearing on any question or the truth.”
No. 83: ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
(shrug)
James said…”Why should I consider you rational? Can you prove that you are? Based on what?”
You don’t have to if you don’t want to.
So what?
What is the point that you’re trying to make?
“You just assert and assert…”
I haven’t asserted anything.
You said…”…”If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?”
To which I responded…”Evidence for what?”
See? No assertion here.
It’s just a request for clarification.
James said…”You have no idea who is experiencing what or why.”
Huh? I never claimed that I did.
What is your point?
James said…”Perhaps they all experience something very similar but call it by a different name.”
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Or rather, maybe? But then again…
(shrug)
James, where are you going with this?
“You have no idea what you are talking about Cerdic, you never did.”
Actually, I’m just trying to find out what you are talking about.
So far you just seem to be talking uselessly in circles.
Please don’t that stop you, though.
You more you reveal how trite and contrary you are, the better I like it.
You come across as somebody who had too much fun in ’68.
Heavy, man. Like, wow!
🙂
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
(Come on, James. What weirdo cult do you belong too?)
LikeLike
Did you come up with a non-arbitrary definition yet?’
There isn’t one according to you.
Remember this?
James said…”…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
Go figure.
That’s the problem Cedric, you can’t figure it out. There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence. So you can’t come up with one, and my asking is ramming the point home. And what does that tell us? Try thinking it through…
No. 83: ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
(1) Everything is subjective.
(2) No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
(3) Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that if everything is subjective then, perforce, God is subjective, is false.
(4) Therefore, God (objectively) exists.
Did I say this or even suggest it? No, so why did you cut and paste it? Can you do more than parrot other peoples work?
LikeLike
James said…”There is NO non-arbitrary definition of evidence.”
Wonderful.
So?
“So you can’t come up with one…”
I didn’t offer one.
Dictionaries? Remember?
I’m happy with those.
You however….
(shrug)
James said…”…and my asking is ramming the point home.”
What point?
The suspense! Oh the suspense.
Reveal your point already.
(yawn)
“And what does that tell us? Try thinking it through…”
You’re the one that is so het up over something or other.
Skip the foreplay.
Say something. Finally.
…………………………………………………
“Did I say this or even suggest it?”
James?
You are ranting about subjectivity.
You know and I know that sooner or later you want to conclude your babbling with your god.
It’s all you ever do. You’re here to preach.
So do it already.
…”If the majority of human beings in a civil society said they experienced God, would that be evidence?”
which goes onto….
“You have no idea who is experiencing what or why. Perhaps they all experience something very similar but call it by a different name.”
which takes us to…
“In other words, what you consider good or compelling evidence is completely subjective and has no force or bearing on any question or the truth.”
So we will eventually get to No.83?
Yes?
No?
What?
(shrug)
……………………………………………
“Can you do more than parrot other peoples work?”
James, you produce the cookie-cutter arguments.
I respond by providing the index number.
Godlessgeeks is a resource.
It was set up to catalogue the nonsense that your type pass off as proofs for your brand-name god.
So far, in the various threads here, you have used at least 24 of them.
The people at Godlessgeeks clearly knew that you were coming.
😮
As near as I can tell, there’s not a single argument documented there that you are not prepared to use.
No argument too lame, no argument too hackneyed, no argument too mindbogglingly silly.
Why should I re-invent the wheel?
You certainly don’t.
You serve up an argument that well past it’s use-by date.
I time-stamp it.
Saves a lot of effort.
Iapetus and Stavros and Ken and Alison and Matty and Damian have all tried to engage you with reasoned discussion.
You’ve just acted like a troll and spat at them in the face.
You have alienated them all completely.
No sensible person is going to talk to you civilly.
It doesn’t work with your type.
(At best, they might talk past you to reach the lurkers.)
Yet, you’ll always have me, James.
Always.
It’s better that way.
🙂
So James…
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
(Come on, James. What weirdo cult do you belong too?)
LikeLike
James, you produce the cookie-cutter arguments.
I respond by providing the index number.
Godlessgeeks is a resource.
It was set up to catalogue the nonsense that your type pass off as proofs for your brand-name god.
Grow up Cedric…
ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
1.There is a website that successfully argues for the non-existence of God.
2.Here is the URL.
3.Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY
1.Everything is subjective.
2.No subjective proof can be superior to any other subjective proof.
3.Based upon my subjective opinion, your opinion, that nothing is subjective then, perforce, 4.God isn’t subjective, is false.
5.Therefore, God (objectively) doesn’t exist.
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html
LikeLike
Iapetus and Stavros and Ken and Alison and Matty and Damian have all tried to engage you with reasoned discussion.
There you go again making claims without proof. Please prove that you are rational…
LikeLike
“ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY”
“ARGUMENT FROM SUBJECTIVITY”
James?
James?
Over here. Focus, James.
Focus.
There, that’s better…
First, you have to wait for somebody to actually, y’know, try and prove that your god doesn’t exist.
Nobody has claimed that.
Not me.
Not Ken.
Not anybody.
If you’ll look real hard, you’ll also find that nobody around here has claimed to prove that Bigfoot/Pink Unicorns/The Flying Spaghetti Monster don’t exist either.
Now when somebody actually DOES make this claim, then you have a catalogue you can quote at them.
Good for you.
Up until that time, however, it won’t do you much good.
(shrug)
Nice try at imitation, however.
I appreciate the compliment.
I really do.
🙂
“There you go again making claims without proof.”
“Proof”?
What do you mean by proof?
This is one of those deep and meaningful “non-arbitrary” definition games, right?
(giggle)
So James…
Or perhaps, “Bro”?
🙂
What denomination are you exactly?
We know you’re no longer Catholic.
(Much to the relief of Catholics everywhere.)
Does your minster of religion approve of your antics?
Have you shown him/her how you are “Fighting the good fight” in the public eye?
How come we have not heard from them?
Hmm?
(Come on, James. What weirdo cult do you belong too?)
LikeLike
So far, in the various threads here, you have used at least 24 of them.
The people at Godlessgeeks clearly knew that you were coming.
Are you completely clueless? I never said that my arguments proved God. All I said was that if there is no God then… And not one of those arguments was off or wrong.
I have no intention of proving God except for mentioning that creation proves a creator. I have no need to prove God since all men already knows He exists:
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.While claiming to be wise, they became fools.
Men suppress this truth by wickedness, which means they have become fools – i.e. without sense, irrational.
LikeLike
“And not one of those arguments was off or wrong.”
Bwahahahahahahaha.
(pause for intake of breath)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
:):O:):O:):O:):O:):O:):O:):O:)
You funny, feckless, feeble-minded freakaziod.
You delightfully lovable wierdo.
In what drug-induced purple haze are any of your arguments worth a damn?
James said…”I have no intention of proving God except for mentioning that creation proves a creator.”
Oh, that’s the argument you want to go with?
This is the biggie you’ve been saving up for a rainy day?
Got it covered.
Let’s do it.
“I have no intention of proving God except for mentioning that creation proves a creator.”
No.98: ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN (II), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (II), a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (IV)
(1) Isn’t X amazing!
(2) I don’t understand how X could be, without something else (that I don’t really understand either) making or doing X.
(3) This something else must be God because I can’t come up with a better explanation.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Let’s continue with…
“I have no need to prove God since all men already knows He exists.”
No.105: ARGUMENT FROM NON-CONFRONTATION
(1) I am not here to argue with you atheists.
(2) But come on, God obviously exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Of course, we shouldn’t forget…
“Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.While claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
No.118: ARGUMENT FROM FOOLISHNESS
(1) The Bible says atheists are fools.
(2) I don’t want to be a fool.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
Come on, James.
You owe me.
Pony up.
Which church have you been getting your material from?
You know, the material that is by no means offered as arguments proving your god.
(smirk)
Do a little advertising.
Where can people go to learn how to be a REAL Christian just like you?
Which denomination has your back?
LikeLike
Cedric, you haven’t said anything. My argument is that creation proves God and you already know that God exists. I have nothing to prove – what don’t you get?
Which church have you been getting your material from?
My last quote came from scripture…
LikeLike
“My argument is that creation proves God…”
“I have nothing to prove”
Spot the disconnect.
Read it slowly.
“My last quote came from scripture…’
I asked you about your church, James. Church.
Your denomination?
Why so coy?
How oddball can it be?
Ok, it could be very oddball.
Such as…
http://www.godhatesfags.com/
They use scripture too, James.
They just LOVE quoting scripture at people.
If it’s scripture, and it’s quoted by somebody who claims to be a real Christian then…it’s all good, yeah?
LikeLike
“My argument is that creation proves God…”
“I have nothing to prove”
Is it all going right by you Cedric? Creation proves God, “I” have nothing to prove – Creation and your own knowledge of God’s existence does that.
If it’s scripture, and it’s quoted by somebody who claims to be a real Christian then…it’s all good, yeah?
And this changes the fact that you know God exists how?
LikeLike
“Creation proves God”
That’s an assertion.
Not very impressive at all.
Do you have anything more than hand-waving?
“…your own knowledge of God’s existence does that.”
I’ve never talked about my knowledge or lack thereof on any god/gods existence.
Are you claiming to be a mind-reader now?
“And this changes the fact that you know God exists how?”
Huh?
My response was to your comment on scripture.
Try reading it a little more carefully.
I asked you about your church, James. Church.
Your denomination?
Why so coy?
How oddball can it be?
LikeLike
I’ve never talked about my knowledge or lack thereof on any god/gods existence.
You don’t have to. Scripture makes it clear that all men know their Creator.
That’s an assertion.
Then prove it wrong – prove that you don’t know God.
My response was to your comment on scripture.
Scripture doesn’t need my comment, it was quite clear:
The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them.Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse;for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.While claiming to be wise, they became fools.
LikeLike
“Scripture makes it clear that all men know their Creator.”
No.13: ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Previously Cedric said…”That’s an assertion.”
James doesn’t get it…”Then prove it wrong – prove that you don’t know God.”
No.109: ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF DISPROOF
(1) You can’t prove God doesn’t exist!
(2) Therefore, God exists.
(shrug)
James, is there some special reason why you don’t feel comfortable sharing with us about your church?
You do belong to a particular denomination, right?
LikeLike
New policy. I’m closing off discussion on this post as it has deteriorated to irrelevant tit-for tats.
LikeLike