| Author |
Message
|
| verzen |
 Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:24 am Post subject: The first beings to believe in the divine... |
 |
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 256
|
| The first being's to believe in a higher power were dyslexic dog worshipper's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 874
|
There’s a word for the worshipping of dogs: cynolatry. There, I bet you didn’t know that before. 
_________________
Did You Know?
Random Fact: Pablo Neruda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Harold14370 |
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 1668
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Reminds me of the agnostic, dyslexic, insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there was a dog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 100
|
Agnostics don't wonder. They simply give up wondering.
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 4804
Location: Scotland
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
| Agnostics don't wonder. They simply give up wondering. |
Sorry to turn serious for a moment, but  . What a peculiar statement - the exact opposite of reality. Was there a concealed joke? Perhaps you could explain.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 100
|
^ Oh I didn't mean it literally Just a comment I heard a while back from someone that agnosticism is an "intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth".
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 874
|
On the contrary, agnostics may have spent all their lives weighing up both sides of the argument and coming to their decision to suspend judgement because they have found no reasonable grounds to believe either side. That would actually make them the most intellectually hardworking of everybody. If you want intellectual laziness, try the creationists – they simply decide out of the blue to cling to one particular belief and do their utmost to ignore contradictory evidence.
_________________
Did You Know?
Random Fact: Pablo Neruda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| free radical |
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 521
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1209
Location: Norway
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
| ^ Oh I didn't mean it literally Just a comment I heard a while back from someone that agnosticism is an "intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth". |
You dare quote-mine me in this dishonest and slimy fashion? Such a fallacious way to misrepresent me, you should be ashamed.
I should report you to a moderator I should!
| JaneBennett wrote: |
| If you want intellectual laziness, try the creationists – they simply decide out of the blue to cling to one particular belief and do their utmost to ignore contradictory evidence. |
Indeed, which was closer to the context in which my quote was "mined" from. People who resort to the supernatural instead of scientific investigation was the people I refered to as "intellectual lazy people."
With this you've lost a lot of my respect, arkofnoah.
Your dishonest and fallacious misuse of my statement is as atrocious as a creationist quoting Gould to support their position.
I'm disgusted, but I'll remain my calm 
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| daytonturner |
| Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 1034
Location: Beautiful Pacific Northwest, USA
|
JaneBennet said:
| Quote: |
| they [creationists] simply decide out of the blue to cling to one particular belief and do their utmost to ignore contradictory evidence |
I am not so much a defender of creationism as I am an antagonist of certain aspects of evolution.
However, I am not convinced that creationists have decided "out of the blue" to prefer creationism as an explanation for biodiversity.
Nor can I see why it is improper for them to cling to their belief while it is proper for you to cling to yours. Why is it you insist on trying to impose your beliefs on me?
Nor do they do their utmost to ignore contradictory evidence. I dare say many of them have poured over the evidence more thoroughly and more completely than have evolutionists and they have found it lacking.
Don't forget than in any jury trial there is often disagreement among jurors who have heard the exact same evidence. And, even if the jury has a unanimous verdict, it is in the face of contradictory evidence. Just because they have rejected it, does no mean they have ignored it. Just because creationists are not conviced by the evidence of evolution does not mean they have ignored it to the utmost or least degree.
You don't win just by having a contradictory argument. You win by having a more convincing contradictory argument.
_________________
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -- Albert Einstein
If God DID do all of this, is He not the greatest scientist of all? -- dt, 2005 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 874
|
| daytonturner wrote: |
| However, I am not convinced that creationists have decided "out of the blue" to prefer creationism as an explanation for biodiversity. |
All right, maybe not “out of the blue”. How they came to believe in creationism is not that important; what matters more is that they cling on to their beliefs despite contradictory empirical evidence.
| daytonturner wrote: |
| You don't win just by having a contradictory argument. You win by having a more convincing contradictory argument. |
A argument is logically valid only if all its premises are consistent. One self-contradictory premise is all it takes to throw the spanner in the works – it doesn’t matter how many contradictory premises you have, or how “convincing” the contradictoriness of each premise.
In any case, even if what you say were true, it would be more applicable to the creationists’ argument than to the argument for evolution. There are far more convincing contradictory holes in the creationist argument than in the evolutionist argument.
_________________
Did You Know?
Random Fact: Pablo Neruda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 100
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| arkofnoah wrote: |
| ^ Oh I didn't mean it literally Just a comment I heard a while back from someone that agnosticism is an "intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth". |
You dare quote-mine me in this dishonest and slimy fashion? Such a fallacious way to misrepresent me, you should be ashamed.
I should report you to a moderator I should!
| JaneBennett wrote: |
| If you want intellectual laziness, try the creationists – they simply decide out of the blue to cling to one particular belief and do their utmost to ignore contradictory evidence. |
Indeed, which was closer to the context in which my quote was "mined" from. People who resort to the supernatural instead of scientific investigation was the people I refered to as "intellectual lazy people."
With this you've lost a lot of my respect, arkofnoah.
Your dishonest and fallacious misuse of my statement is as atrocious as a creationist quoting Gould to support their position.
I'm disgusted, but I'll remain my calm |
I'm just joking dude 
But then again you wrote this:
| Obviously wrote: |
| The definition of the supernatural is "unknown", an intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth. |
Nearly all agnostics, including me, define supernatural as either unknown or unknowable. Creationist on the contrary believe that supernatural is known or knowable (since they already use it to explain the origin of life). So... Oh well...
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Obviously |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 1209
Location: Norway
|
| arkofnoah wrote: |
I'm just joking dude
But then again you wrote this:
| Obviously wrote: |
| The definition of the supernatural is "unknown", an intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth. |
Nearly all agnostics, including me, define supernatural as either unknown or unknowable. Creationist on the contrary believe that supernatural is known or knowable (since they already use it to explain the origin of life). So... Oh well... |
Using an unknown to explain another unknown (as my quote roughly implies. I admit I formulated my statement badly, but what's done is done...) is intellectually lazy, in my opinion. I sincerely doubt all agnostics goes into that catagory.
Your supposed joke still misrepresented my position regardless of it being a joke. Be more "aware" in the future 
_________________
"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
-- Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
-- Albert Einstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| arkofnoah |
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 100
|
| Obviously wrote: |
| arkofnoah wrote: |
I'm just joking dude
But then again you wrote this:
| Obviously wrote: |
| The definition of the supernatural is "unknown", an intellectual lazy patch used by people who do not want or who doesn't care about the truth. |
Nearly all agnostics, including me, define supernatural as either unknown or unknowable. Creationist on the contrary believe that supernatural is known or knowable (since they already use it to explain the origin of life). So... Oh well... |
Using an unknown to explain another unknown (as my quote roughly implies. I admit I formulated my statement badly, but what's done is done...) is intellectually lazy, in my opinion. I sincerely doubt all agnostics goes into that catagory.
Your supposed joke still misrepresented my position regardless of it being a joke. Be more "aware" in the future |
Sorry about that then 
Oh and I'm not quite sure "using an unknown to explain another unknown" is what agnostics do. We don't try to explain anything per se. My position is that there is currently no coherent definition of God and supernatural (as evident by so much argument over how supernatural should be defined), and hence such discussions are somewhat meaningless. Frankly for me I'm quite apathetic towards any existence of supernatural (but that doesn't mean I'm lazy ).
_________________
₪ [size=75]Blog[/size] ₪ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
