I think that Enrico is talking about the unproven silly idea of re-incarnation. But is failing at communicating this.
He does not seem to realise that we have no need for that hypothesis.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote: Eh, don't be silly.
You created this collective evolution as a dogma and now you don't even know what it is?

I didn't create collective evolution, neither did any atheist. Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. I understand it fine, the reason you think it is a dogma is because you don't understand the scientific method or evolution. The scientific method prevents things from becoming a dogma as it questions things. That doesn't sound like a dogma to me.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote: By the way you got something in common with religious people.
Both of you believe that is not necessary to evolve as INDIVIDUAL in lower form of life first and step by step reach human life.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Besides, you don't get to tell me what I believe, only I can do that.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote: you also believe that human evolve as a collective form of evolutionary development deny individual development through reincarnation.

Ok you are going to have to define collective evolution at some point, because I did biology at A-level and I have never heard that term before. And of course we don't believe in reincarnation, there is no evidence for it. But if you have some, please go right ahead.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote: This sort of thinking goes against any logic as it is not explaining why some people born with problem while other born in a positive environment, why some born healthy while other born sick, why some are prone to do the wrong thing while other tend to do the right thing and so on.

Have you ever considered that those things don't need explaining?

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote:

(August 23, 2013 at 7:11 am)Rationalman Wrote: What the hell is collective evolution? Is this something you or another theist made up? Cause I have never heard of this before.

Eh, don't be silly.
You created this collective evolution as a dogma and now you don't even know what it is?
By the way you got something in common with religious people.
Both of you believe that is not necessary to evolve as INDIVIDUAL in lower form of life first and step by step reach human life.
Religious people believe that God create man (women) just like that without passing through the process of reincarnation and you also believe that human evolve as a collective form of evolutionary development deny individual development through reincarnation.
This sort of thinking goes against any logic as it is not explaining why some people born with problem while other born in a positive environment, why some born healthy while other born sick, why some are prone to do the wrong thing while other tend to do the right thing and so on.
As religious people you got blind faith in this dogma that does't make any sense and is illogical.

You are equivocating on the word "evolution" again. Nobody said an individual cannot improve himself in his lifetime. The evolution of species and the quest for personal improvement, which you want also to call "evolution," aren't the same thing, so stop pretending anybody ever said they were.

As for being born sick or healthy, there's a really good explanation for that: luck. There doesn't have to be any underlying meaning to either good luck or bad.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote:

Got to hand it to you. From where you live, ordinary reality must be really funny. And yet we laugh at you. We must be the most ridiculous of insects to lofty you.

(August 24, 2013 at 4:25 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think that Enrico is talking about the unproven silly idea of re-incarnation. But is failing at communicating this.
He does not seem to realise that we have no need for that hypothesis

Hypothesis come in handy when after a long long sleep you try to understand why you born in a good situation while other people born in the sewer.

(August 25, 2013 at 3:50 am)enrico Wrote:

(August 24, 2013 at 4:25 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I think that Enrico is talking about the unproven silly idea of re-incarnation. But is failing at communicating this.
He does not seem to realise that we have no need for that hypothesis

Hypothesis come in handy when after a long long sleep you try to understand why you born in a good situation while other people born in the sewer.

Hypothesis comes in handy when the purple space monkey zabbleblorts your boobledy-boo.

(August 24, 2013 at 6:59 am)Rationalman Wrote: I didn't create collective evolution, neither did any atheist. Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution. I understand it fine, the reason you think it is a dogma is because you don't understand the scientific method or evolution. The scientific method prevents things from becoming a dogma as it questions things. That doesn't sound like a dogma to me.

Darwin did a lot of interesting work.
Unfortunately he did not take in consideration the fact that as soon as reason take over from instinct and instinct play a secondary role (when animal become human) then singularities and individuality create their own destiny in good or bad and the law of karma take effect.
Darwin work is based on the physical aspect of life and that is ok but as far as the essence of life within each and every creature he said nothing about it so his theory is lacking in the most important aspect of life.
When you say............The scientific method prevents things from becoming a dogma as it questions things. That doesn't sound like a dogma to me............you do not take in consideration that beside the physical aspect there is also the spiritual aspect that create the individual therefore you automatically create a dogma by refusing to look at only part of the whole.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote: By the way you got something in common with religious people.
Both of you believe that is not necessary to evolve as INDIVIDUAL in lower form of life first and step by step reach human life.

Quote:I honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. Besides, you don't get to tell me what I believe, only I can do that.

I do not tell you what you believe.
It is you that tell me what you believe when you say that Darwin theory is a scientific method and therefore is good.
The day that you will prove that human being are only physical creature then i will agree that Darwin theory is 100% correct.

Quote:Ok you are going to have to define collective evolution at some point, because I did biology at A-level and I have never heard that term before.

Believing that you came on this earth just because the evolutionary cycle of the species pop you here by pure luck is absurd.
Mother nature does not work in this way.
If your progress from small consciousness to big consciousness allow you to fit in this mosaic of humanity then all good but in no way you can get a human form out of pure luck while other creatures have to undergo the lower form of lives first (bad luck).
There is no such a thing as good luck or bad luck in nature as there is no pop up of humanity out of evolutionary cycle that have not gone through the hard work and evolve from lower species so this popping up as a human being by pure luck can be termed as collective evolution.

Quote:And of course we don't believe in reincarnation, there is no evidence for it. But if you have some, please go right ahead.

When you can show me that it make sense that you born in a positive situation and other people born in a sewer then we can star talking about reincarnation.
Not only that but you also should explain how is natural that a rapist or a murderer can get away with his crimes and how a person doing good work can never be reward.
Again are we talking about good or bad luck?
Can we really get away with murder?
Can the universe get away with imbalances?
Even physical science tell us that every action has got to have an equal and opposite reaction.

(August 24, 2013 at 3:51 am)enrico Wrote: This sort of thinking goes against any logic as it is not explaining why some people born with problem while other born in a positive environment, why some born healthy while other born sick, why some are prone to do the wrong thing while other tend to do the right thing and so on.

Quote:Have you ever considered that those things don't need explaining?

Bad luck, good luck?
Hummmm, is frightening to think that in the next few minutes our planet can be hit by a huge meteor and we all die.

Oh dear, someone else please take this, I don't have the patience to deal with idiots of this calibre

(August 25, 2013 at 5:18 am)enrico Wrote: Hummmm, is frightening to think that in the next few minutes our planet can be hit by a huge meteor and we all die.

Tough. That's what you get for living in a cosmos that isn't even aware of your existence and wouldn't give a flying fox even if it was.

And it's 'meteorite', not meteor, in the context you're using. Meteors originate from cometary debris and are totally harmless, being the term for the flash of light as they burn up in the atmosphere. Meteorites are chunks of rock and iron originating principally from asteroids, or less commonly from other rocky planets. The two words are not interchangeable; though since you've a proven track record of distorting every other combination of scientific terms in a hideously Frankenstein fashion, I can't say I'm surprised at this point.