Sorry about the large font and color change, but I really need sciencelovesgod's attention. My curiosity must know ...
I really must ask you SLG .... where did you get this quote in your signature and what does it mean???

Sciencelovesgod Wrote:Are we essentially evolved spacesuits stupidly assembled by no other reason than to produce more of the same stupidly assembled spacesuits that will eventually cease to exist?

How is a spacesuit assembled by no other reason?

Are spacesuits supposed to be humans in this little word puzzle?

A spacesuit, like many things made by mankind, may likely have an indefinite lifespan. Most things cease to exist, but comparing things that last for centuries and likely millenia are usually not good comparisons to humans.

Why spacesuits?

What makes a spacesuit "stupidly assembled?" vs. well manufactured?????

How does a spacesuit (which is required to be worn) assemble other spacesuits????


I'm really being genuine here. I'm very perplexed by this quote and would appreciate it if you could clear up my confusion.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:18 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 12:00 am)genkaus Wrote: I realize what you are talking about, I'm simply pointing out that your position is baseless. You haven't given any arguments as to why we should believe that "there is such a thing as objective morality". You haven't justified you position. Further, morality is a mental phenomenon, not a physical one, thereby making it more likely to be subjective. As for your metaphor, its an invalid demonstration for the existence of objective morality. The question presumes the existence of such a thing as "sound", the same way your argument assumes such a thing as "objective morality".

I am assuming you don't believe in objective morality, correct?

I do. But my position is irrelevant to the discussion of the failings in yours.

---

(May 28, 2012 at 1:08 am)elunico13 Wrote: Relativism, cultural relativism, emotivism, utilitarianism, etc. These philosophical theories don't provide any authority of what a person should or shouldn't do morally. One person or a group of people do not have authority over each other to say what is right or wrong. There has to be a transcending authority above humanity to give a moral law. If there is such a thing as evil, then there is such a thing as good. If there is good and evil then there has to be a moral law to differentiate the difference between the two. If there is a moral law then there has to be a moral law giver. Personal opinion can't have authority for a moral code, but the transcendent moral law giver does. Our Lord who has revealed himself through the Bible has made us in his image and written that moral code on our hearts.

A fine example for argument from consequence. Let me counter this by reductio ad absurdum.

If there is such a thing as distasteful food, then there is such a thing as delicious food. If delicious and distasteful food exist, then there has to be a taste law to differentiate between the two. If there is a taste law, then there is a taste law giver. Personal opinion does not have the authority to determine what is tasty and what is not, but a transcendent taster does.

Your argument fails for the very same reason this one does. Good and evil, like beauty and ugliness, taste or distaste, aromatic or odorous are may very well be matters of personal/collective preferences and subjective judgment and not require any transcendent authority to determine.

---

(May 28, 2012 at 1:13 am)elunico13 Wrote: So lets start there. I like that. How do you know that what you perceive is reality???
I know because God has made me in his image and given me a brain that can reason logically like he does and senses that can be trusted.

And how exactly do you "know" that? How do you know that your senses can be trusted, that there is a god who looks like you?

I won't ask you about thinking logically because.. well, you don't.

(May 28, 2012 at 1:52 am)Cinjin Wrote: Sorry about the large font and color change, but I really need sciencelovesgod's attention. My curiosity must know ...
I really must ask you SLG .... where did you get this quote in your signature and what does it mean???

Sciencelovesgod Wrote:Are we essentially evolved spacesuits stupidly assembled by no other reason than to produce more of the same stupidly assembled spacesuits that will eventually cease to exist?

How is a spacesuit assembled by no other reason?

Are spacesuits supposed to be humans in this little word puzzle?

A spacesuit, like many things made by mankind, may likely have an indefinite lifespan. Most things cease to exist, but comparing things that last for centuries and likely millenia are usually not good comparisons to humans.

Why spacesuits?

What makes a spacesuit "stupidly assembled?" vs. well manufactured?????

How does a spacesuit (which is required to be worn) assemble other spacesuits????


I'm really being genuine here. I'm very perplexed by this quote and would appreciate it if you could clear up my confusion.

I used "spacesuits" as a metaphor for our bodies, because technically we are in space.

"stupidly assembled" means these bodies were "assembled" without an intelligent assembler.

"by no other reason than to produce.." is based on natural selection, in which species of the "fittest" will reproduce more effectively, according to their surroundings. It seems the reason why there is cognitive life is to continue to create more of the same species, then there is a positive mutation in the DNA, and then the altered life-form will continue to do the same thing until the universe burns up, "that will eventually cease to exist", due to the entropy of the universe.

Get it?

(May 28, 2012 at 2:02 am)genkaus Wrote: I won't ask you about thinking logically because.. well, you don't.

I started where you wanted to but you couldn't hold yourself to the same standard. Atheism can't account for standards even though you try to impose them on others. Intolerant

---

(May 28, 2012 at 2:28 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 1:52 am)Cinjin Wrote: Sorry about the large font and color change, but I really need sciencelovesgod's attention. My curiosity must know ...
I really must ask you SLG .... where did you get this quote in your signature and what does it mean???


How is a spacesuit assembled by no other reason?

Are spacesuits supposed to be humans in this little word puzzle?

A spacesuit, like many things made by mankind, may likely have an indefinite lifespan. Most things cease to exist, but comparing things that last for centuries and likely millenia are usually not good comparisons to humans.

Why spacesuits?

What makes a spacesuit "stupidly assembled?" vs. well manufactured?????

How does a spacesuit (which is required to be worn) assemble other spacesuits????


I'm really being genuine here. I'm very perplexed by this quote and would appreciate it if you could clear up my confusion.

I used "spacesuits" as a metaphor for our bodies, because technically we are in space.

"stupidly assembled" means these bodies were "assembled" without an intelligent assembler.

"by no other reason than to produce.." is based on natural selection, in which species of the "fittest" will reproduce more effectively, according to their surroundings. It seems the reason why there is cognitive life is to continue to create more of the same species, then there is a positive mutation in the DNA, and then the altered life-form will continue to do the same thing until the universe burns up, "that will eventually cease to exist", due to the entropy of the universe.

Get it?

It sure shows how illogical evolution is. Keep the sig! What do you think about mine?

(May 28, 2012 at 2:36 am)elunico13 Wrote: I started where you wanted to but you couldn't hold yourself to the same standard. Atheism can't account for standards even though you try to impose them on others. Intolerant

---

Intolerant? That's right. I don't tolerate irrational and illogical arguments. And since you don't address my questions, I can only assume you don't have any rational answers to give.

As for standards, no, atheism doesn't account for any standards - it is not expected to. Atheism is not an axiomatic position, it is a consequent one, dependent upon the very same standards of rationality and logic.

(May 28, 2012 at 2:28 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: I used "spacesuits" as a metaphor for our bodies, because technically we are in space.

"stupidly assembled" means these bodies were "assembled" without an intelligent assembler.

"by no other reason than to produce.." is based on natural selection, in which species of the "fittest" will reproduce more effectively, according to their surroundings. It seems the reason why there is cognitive life is to continue to create more of the same species, then there is a positive mutation in the DNA, and then the altered life-form will continue to do the same thing until the universe burns up, "that will eventually cease to exist", due to the entropy of the universe.

Get it?

Well, sort of ... technically everything is in "space," but I spose I can make the jump with you to spacesuits. Although the correlation is still exceptionally weak since one, a suit is designed by an intelligent being for another living being to put on. It has no function on its own. Two, there is absolutely nothing connecting a spacesuit to DNA mutations and the THEORETICAL end of the universe ... you might as well have posed the question: Are we merely apple trees making more apple trees which will cease to exist. At least apples are alive and function without interference and they cease to exist rather quickly - much like a human.

All this being said, I do appreciate you making an attempt to clear that up for me. You're welcome to have any quote you wish in your signature box ... that one just really caught me off guard - as it is an exceptionally poor metaphor.

(May 28, 2012 at 2:36 am)elunico13 Wrote: Keep the sig! What do you think about mine?

No one said he had to change his signature. The two of you are welcome to display whatever ridiculous concoction you come up with.

(May 28, 2012 at 11:15 am)Cinjin Wrote:

(May 28, 2012 at 2:28 am)ScienceLovesGod Wrote: I used "spacesuits" as a metaphor for our bodies, because technically we are in space.

"stupidly assembled" means these bodies were "assembled" without an intelligent assembler.

"by no other reason than to produce.." is based on natural selection, in which species of the "fittest" will reproduce more effectively, according to their surroundings. It seems the reason why there is cognitive life is to continue to create more of the same species, then there is a positive mutation in the DNA, and then the altered life-form will continue to do the same thing until the universe burns up, "that will eventually cease to exist", due to the entropy of the universe.

Get it?

Well, sort of ... technically everything is in "space," but I spose I can make the jump with you to spacesuits. Although the correlation is still exceptionally weak since one, a suit is designed by an intelligent being for another living being to put on. It has no function on its own. Two, there is absolutely nothing connecting a spacesuit to DNA mutations and the THEORETICAL end of the universe ... you might as well have posed the question: Are we merely apple trees making more apple trees which will cease to exist. At least apples are alive and function without interference and they cease to exist rather quickly - much like a human.

All this being said, I do appreciate you making an attempt to clear that up for me. You're welcome to have any quote you wish in your signature box ... that one just really caught me off guard - as it is an exceptionally poor metaphor.

(May 28, 2012 at 2:36 am)elunico13 Wrote: Keep the sig! What do you think about mine?

No one said he had to change his signature. The two of you are welcome to display whatever ridiculous concoction you come up with.

Well sir, you are definitely entitled to your opinion.

Quote:Cold-blooded murder is wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of life.

In the middle ages your supposedly heroically xtian knights were able to slaughter the commons at will. But it wasn't only xtians, Japanese Samurai had the same "rights."

For that matter, your church and you churchie bastards are among the most grievous of cold-blooded murderers history has ever shown us, especially when you were trying to force people to believe in your stupid god.

Try again.

The church saw nothing wrong in torture or murder.

(May 28, 2012 at 12:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Cold-blooded murder is wrong. This is not my opinion, this is a fact of life.

In the middle ages your supposedly heroically xtian knights were able to slaughter the commons at will. But it wasn't only xtians, Japanese Samurai had the same "rights."

At least samurai are frickin' awesome.