Bingowings said:
It is human arrogance to assume humans are especially special.
really? I don't know of any other kind living thing that is capable of having this sort of discussion over an internet that kind of living thing invented.
I heard this in a movie once "man is only species that knows, and knows that it knows".
Cetaceans, insects and trees can communicate information over similar distances and to similar levels of complexity and relevance to the individual.
Remember most of the internet is junk or trivia.
Bingowings said:
Cetaceans, insects and trees can communicate information over similar distances and to similar levels of complexity and relevance to the individual.
really?
the first vote at the conclave has been taken: black smoke, no Pope.
Oh yes.
Human interference in Cetacean communication networks is almost as much of a problem as over hunting.
Besides it's arguable that the internet is merely an extension of the same evolutionary process.
Mrebo said:
And Leonardo, I'm glad you don't believe that God doesn't exist.
Yes, I don't believe that God doesn't exist. In my view of the world, there is no God, cause there is no place for a God.
first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?
Warbler said:
first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?
Yes.
huh?
Warbler said:
huh?
<not translated>
TheBoost said:
Bingowings said:
Mrebo said:
Thusfar I'm agreeing with the heathens. As per Bingo's explication, I think the method isn't the important part.
Really?
It's something humans are very close to being able to do themselves.
The implications have ramifications.
Would they be playing God, emulating God or would they be God or at least God's remote control?
If God is implicit in the process surely actuating the process has very interesting religious considerations?
Reminds me of when Kirk Cameron said the banana was proof there is a god. When it was pointed out to him that the banana is a highly modified, and selectively bred mutation that would not exist except for man's influence, he responded with "well, that proves God gave us those tools."
I think Kirk's answer is fine. The important part IS that God was the force that determined that we would be.
The blue elephant in the room.
A blow from the mallet does not guarantee art from the chisel.
Warbler said:
Bingowings said:
It is human arrogance to assume humans are especially special.
really? I don't know of any other kind living thing that is capable of having this sort of discussion over an internet that kind of living thing invented.
I heard this in a movie once "man is only species that knows, and knows that it knows".
See, this is why I don't come into this thread, because then I start agreeing with Warbler and that is against the rules.
^joke
I'll leave it to the lions, insects and crustaceans to arrogantly assume they are special. It's not arrogant to recognize the uniqueness of human beings as identified by Warbler.
Leonardo said:
Mrebo said:
And Leonardo, I'm glad you don't believe that God doesn't exist.
Yes, I don't believe that God doesn't exist. In my view of the world, there is no God, cause there is no place for a God.
And another reason I stay out of religious discussions - so as not to insult the atheists too much. It's a distinction without a difference.
The blue elephant in the room.
Belief and knowing are two different things. As an agnostic, I believe everyone else is wrong, but I don't know it. ;-)
TV's Frink said:
Belief and knowing are two different things. As an agnostic, I believe everyone else is wrong, but I don't know it. ;-)
Good.
Warbler said:
first you say "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" then you say "there is no God" which is it?
Look closely. I put the verb "believe" in italics.
As Frink said, belief and knowledge are two different things. I don't believe there is no God, but then again I don't believe the Earth goes around the Sun. I know the Earth goes around the sun.
Yes there can be a difference between "believing" and "knowing" - but in your sentence, it is a distinction without a difference. You can't possibly know that God doesn't exist so to say he doesn't must be a belief.
I do believe the Earth goes around the sun. I also know it - insofar as I can know it. Belief and knowledge aren't as separate as you claim.
The blue elephant in the room.
See, this is subjective. That's why we all have different point of views, because the value we attribute to words is not always the same. In my personal view of the world I exclude any metaphysics, therefore there is no God. Anybody else's view of the world, none of my business. It is their view, not mine.
The thing about a theist's view of the universe is that it puts metaphysics first, as a given, and then everything else should follow. That's why I understand it is hard to picture the point of view of a person like me. It's topsy turvy.
Look at Daffy here:
http://youtu.be/tL6LAl1JfJI?t=5m6s
Daffy: Now what?!
Daffy: What are you doing down there?
Daffy: Down here? What are you doing up there? (to audience) Down here...!
Which one's up? Which one's down?
Leonardo said:
Which one's up? Which one's down?
Duck!
Rabbit!
Exactly.
Mrebo said:
Yes there can be a difference between "believing" and "knowing" - but in your sentence, it is a distinction without a difference. You can't possibly know that God doesn't exist so to say he doesn't must be a belief.
I do believe the Earth goes around the sun. I also know it - insofar as I can know it. Belief and knowledge aren't as separate as you claim.
And how can you possibly know that God does exist? That's a belief too.
They are alone. They are a dying race. We should let them pass.
There is an inherent advantage for the believers when using the word 'know' in debate. The atheist holds that in order for something to be true, it must be demonstrable through observation and scientific experimentation. A falsifiable experiment is necessary to actually disprove something. From Wikipedia.
"Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it can be shown false by way of some conceivable observation practically possible to achieve....
"By the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as 'All swans are white,' yet it is logically possible to falsify it, as by observing a black swan. Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonym to testability....
"In falsificationism, an unfalsifiable and thus unscientific theory is not intrinsically false or inappropriate, however, as metaphysical theories might be true or contain truth, and are required to help inform science or structure scientific theories. Simply, to be scientific, a theory must predict at least some observation potentially refutable by observation."
Simply put, it is impossible to scientifically prove anything as universally true, but it is possible to provide a scientific test that in theory might prove something as false. All the scientific testing in the world cannot prove God does exist, nor is it possible to falsify his existence. The hypothesis "God exists" is not scientific, nor is "God does not exist."
For this reason, I can see where the agnostic comes from, but not the atheist. The agnostic does not believe God exists, yet reserves ultimate judgment. The atheist on the other hand feels that they can somehow disprove God's existence, though such is scientifically impossible. In other words, they are contradicting the only source of truth they even accept: scientific experimentation.
Something I have noticed, and it's just an observation and may not be correct, but I feel that more atheists tend to have a chip on their shoulders than agnostics. It seems that because 'Mom sent me to Catholic school' or 'Bible-thumpin' George W. Bush started a crusade against Islam' or 'Evangelicals won't accept homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle,' therefore 'because I disagree with what some religious individuals have done to ruin my life or poison the world, God cannot possibly exist.' One may use this as evidence in their personal quiver, but still cannot actually disprove God. They may only support their theory, but they cannot 'know' that God does not exist.
Religious persons on the other hand are liberated in this sense. Their sources of knowledge are not limited to the scientific method (though they may be limiting themselves in other ways). They believe that God can prove his existence to them, and that they can 'know' he is real. The scientist may dispute this method, but the very fact that it is accepted on faith and not on scientific proof allows for a claim to knowledge, even if the non-believer disputes the reality of that knowledge.