Evolution

[Little Rik]

In all my honesty I gave you a friendly hand without knowing that you as a poison snake would pull it in trying to drag me down the cliff.

You have that backwards Rik she asked you a question . You coiled up . And she decked you before you struck .

Oh, well, I let her believe that she scored a point.  
In reality this is a point that goes in reverse and take her right down the mental sewer.      

---

Wrong once again yog.




Atheism and materialism go hand in hand but atheists forget that the matter like everything else in this universe is made of vibrations.

Yeah, the phrase "universe is made of vibrations" can mean any number of things, so until you specify exactly what you mean by this, I have no reason to believe your implied claim here, because it has no definite meaning.  Words without definite meaning are what we call 'nonsense'.

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conte...ration.pdf

Yeah, this is nothing more than a puree of pseudoscientific drivel.  Equivocating one moment, making unsound inferences the next, it's all over the map.  You need to be specific about what you're claiming or fuck off.

Vibrations are alive with a degree that vary from matter to the most alive entity in the universe.
Being alive clearly means that consciousness is there so all your BS that chemical reactions cause things to happen is just a load of steaming dung.  

Yeah, I have no fucking idea what you mean when you say that "Vibrations are alive" here.  Until you can supply some definite, specific meaning to your words here, it's just meaningless crap.  Nothing follows logically from meaningless crap.  I suspect that you're back in the territory of your earlier claim that the universe is a mental projection of God.  You backed off on that claim pretty fast once evidence was demanded.  Chemical reactions are well understood material phenomenon.  "Vibrations" are not.  Define your terms or the only steaming pile of dung here is your vapid rhetoric.

In the meantime, nothing you've presented challenges the example of what ordinary people refer to when they talk of "chemicals" as playing the explanatory role that what you claimed was necessarily filled by what you referred to as "consciousness."  If you're just playing a game of rotating definitions here, then your claims are nothing but meaningless equivocations.  As I recall, the whole business of plants experiencing pain was brought up to support your idea that everything is conscious.  So it seems you've argued full circle here, using the assumption that everything is conscious as evidence in support of the claim that everything is conscious.  That's nothing more than begging the question.  That's simply not how this works.  Plants were pointed to as an example of something that is not conscious.  You can't simply assume what you have set out to prove and use that as support for your claim.

I never finish to wonder how dumb you are yog.  
Every time you reach a new low.

Vibrations are called such because they vibrate.
Vibrate is moving and if something move on their own accord that means that within that entity that vibrate there is a consciousness.  

This goes back to your claim that if there are chemical reactions there is no need for any consciousness right?

In reality all or any compounds are made of vibrations and vibration means movement.
Movement on his own need consciousness therefore your argument that there is no need for consciousness is as I already said a load of steaming dung.  

Fail once again yog.  

---

Indeed. He brings us Karma claims, then when we point out that those claims apply to him to, he starts saying they don't, and we (Karma!?) are being hypocrites.

Or maybe Karma lets you do anything you want after someone called your mum a whore. But according to his own dogma, he must deserve that happening to him, so why's he complaining? Oh yeah, he doesn't believe his own shit again. If he can't even believe it, how can he expect us to?

He hasn't addressed either of these points as far as I'm aware, and I've counted another -20,000 karma points from him insulting everyone.

There is nothing to address Rob.
Of course I am not free from karma like everybody else.
If I would be I wouldn't be here inside this body but I would be free in the nirvana state of consciousness.

Of course like everybody else I do mistakes time by time however my so called insulting language in reality is not to offend but to shake off the fleas that try to jump on me.
I mean no harm to anyone.  

[robvalue]

From time to time? Virtually every post. "Shake off the fleas", is that another insult regarding your opinion of the people debating with you?

It's good you mean no harm, but for someone so convinced Karma is real, you're playing a pretty risky game here. If Karma doesn't agree with your judgement, you're in for a lot of trouble. I don't believe in Karma at all, but I try a lot harder to be nice to people than you do. If doesn't quite add up, does it?

[JackRussell]

I think LR was reincarnated into a plant, actually a weed.

Perhaps it's all true, unpleasant, repetitive life forms continue to plague the biosphere.

Or maybe exposure to agent orange in a previous 'life'.

[Angrboda]

Yeah, the phrase "universe is made of vibrations" can mean any number of things, so until you specify exactly what you mean by this, I have no reason to believe your implied claim here, because it has no definite meaning.  Words without definite meaning are what we call 'nonsense'.


Yeah, this is nothing more than a puree of pseudoscientific drivel.  Equivocating one moment, making unsound inferences the next, it's all over the map.  You need to be specific about what you're claiming or fuck off.


Yeah, I have no fucking idea what you mean when you say that "Vibrations are alive" here.  Until you can supply some definite, specific meaning to your words here, it's just meaningless crap.  Nothing follows logically from meaningless crap.  I suspect that you're back in the territory of your earlier claim that the universe is a mental projection of God.  You backed off on that claim pretty fast once evidence was demanded.  Chemical reactions are well understood material phenomenon.  "Vibrations" are not.  Define your terms or the only steaming pile of dung here is your vapid rhetoric.

In the meantime, nothing you've presented challenges the example of what ordinary people refer to when they talk of "chemicals" as playing the explanatory role that what you claimed was necessarily filled by what you referred to as "consciousness."  If you're just playing a game of rotating definitions here, then your claims are nothing but meaningless equivocations.  As I recall, the whole business of plants experiencing pain was brought up to support your idea that everything is conscious.  So it seems you've argued full circle here, using the assumption that everything is conscious as evidence in support of the claim that everything is conscious.  That's nothing more than begging the question.  That's simply not how this works.  Plants were pointed to as an example of something that is not conscious.  You can't simply assume what you have set out to prove and use that as support for your claim.

I never finish to wonder how dumb you are yog.  
Every time you reach a new low.

Vibrations are called such because they vibrate.
Vibrate is moving and if something move on their own accord that means that within that entity that vibrate there is a consciousness.  

Well, that's one theory. Another theory, favored by some Christians is that their God controls the movements of inanimate matter in such a way that the natural laws result. Another theory is that things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so, that it is a brute fact requiring no explanation.

How do you know that your theory is correct?

[Foxaèr]

So many theories.....

In the end, I prefer the scientific theory over the ID theory.

[Little Rik]

I never finish to wonder how dumb you are yog.  
Every time you reach a new low.

Vibrations are called such because they vibrate.
Vibrate is moving and if something move on their own accord that means that within that entity that vibrate there is a consciousness.  

Well, that's one theory.  Another theory, favored by some Christians is that their God controls the movements of inanimate matter in such a way that the natural laws result.  Another theory is that things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so, that it is a brute fact requiring no explanation.

How do you know that your theory is correct?

Wrong once again yog.  

Even if as you say.........things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so..........that would prove you dead wrong anyway.

Why?

Because plants are under the guide of mother nature or the so called instinct. (ever heard of?)  

So who suppose to be this mother nature?
Father Christmas?
Certainly no because to run this universe a mastermind is needed.
The entropy BS has already been rejected as the ultimate BS so is obvious that mother nature is an alive entity.

I guess you never thought about that yog, did you?  

---

From time to time? Virtually every post. "Shake off the fleas", is that another insult regarding your opinion of the people debating with you?

It's good you mean no harm, but for someone so convinced Karma is real, you're playing a pretty risky game here. If Karma doesn't agree with your judgement, you're in for a lot of trouble. I don't believe in Karma at all, but I try a lot harder to be nice to people than you do. If doesn't quite add up, does it?

Very good Rob.

You changed a lot since I know you.
Now you are a lot more soft and mild in your thinking.
What happen to you mate?

Are you giving up on your approach to atheism and allow reason to work?
Let us hope for the best.  

[The Grand Nudger]

You reckon a ball needs guidance from mother nature or from instinct in order to roll downhill?

Maybe it's none of that, and not gravity either.  Maybe balls roll the way they do because of karma.  You can't prove they don't.  Kick one dog..roll uphill.  Kick 10, roll downhill.  7 to the left 5 to the right.  1 forward 3 backwards.  Kick a million dogs and you won;t roll at all.

Never thought of that, did you.

[Angrboda]

Well, that's one theory.  Another theory, favored by some Christians is that their God controls the movements of inanimate matter in such a way that the natural laws result.  Another theory is that things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so, that it is a brute fact requiring no explanation.

How do you know that your theory is correct?

Wrong once again yog.  

Even if as you say.........things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so..........that would prove you dead wrong anyway.

I said that this was one of several competing theories that seek to explain the behavior of these so-called "vibrations."  Claiming that I said that "things behave the way they do because it is simply their nature to do so" is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.  Regardless, since the only thing that I asserted was that there were several competing theories that offer to explain these "vibrations," and did not offer my own opinion on the matter, it's a mystery as to what on earth you think I could be wrong about here?

Why?

Because plants are under the guide of mother nature or the so called instinct. (ever heard of?)  

According to Wikipedia, personification of nature dates back to the ancient Greeks, wherein they personified nature as a god or goddess.  Such personification of nature is not based on any reasoning or justification, and so is nothing more than a cultural convention.  The Greeks personified many inanimate and abstract entities as having personal natures.  Another example is the god Helios, whose traversal of the sky in a glowing golden chariot each day was the supposed explanation of the daily skyward journey of the sun.  It is no more reasonable to expect a god or goddess is behind nature on the basis of Greek mythology than it is to expect to see a golden chariot when we train our telescopes on the sun.  These are myths and stories, not an accounting of reality, and thus provide no support for your belief that your theory about vibrations and consciousness is correct.

As to your comment about instinct, it's worth noting that instinct typically refers to behaviors and inclinations that have a non-conscious or unconscious origin.  That certainly doesn't support your view.  Assuming instead that the word meant a behavior or inclination that has an origin in consciousness, it still wouldn't follow that this provides rational justification for believing that "vibrations" are a result of the effects of an inherent consciousness, as like personification above, the meaning of words is mere convention and doesn't imply any corresponding truth.  That we have the word "unicorn" meaning a horse-like creature with a single horn doesn't mean that our possessing such a word supports the belief that unicorns exist.

So neither the cultural meme of "Mother Nature," nor the meaning of the word instinct, provide any reason for believing your theory of the explanation of these "vibrations" over that of other explanations.

So you've yet to provide a good reason for believing that your theory is correct.

So who suppose to be this mother nature?
Father Christmas?
Certainly no because to run this universe a mastermind is needed.

Well, whether this universe needs a mind to run it is certainly the question of the day.  Merely asserting that it does so does nothing to further your arguments toward that end.  It is nothing more than a meaningless fart.  As noted above, the existence of a personifying mythos surrounding nature does nothing to support your belief that nature has such characteristics.  More to the point, as noted in my previous post, some Christians posit that there is a mind behind the behavior of matter in the universe, but the mind their religion refers to is not the same as the one which you propose, and for which, the universe is but a mental projection.  Thus with any support or evidence you provide, it is not sufficient that it support the existence of a generic, non-specific god, but that the support must lead inexorably toward your specific god and no other.

The entropy BS has already been rejected as the ultimate BS so is obvious that mother nature is an alive entity.

Not so fast.  You asserted that the energy to run the universe had to come from somewhere outside the universe.  I countered that entropy would do the job.  At which point you asserted that "universal" entropy did not exist because the universe is a mental projection of God.  At which point I noted that you were claiming the existence of God in order to support an argument for the existence of God, and that if you had evidence of God in the first place, you wouldn't need the energy argument.  At that point you made an abortive attempt to claim that mathematics and such provided evidence for the existence of God.  Upon asking for said evidence, you basically changed the subject and shut up about any such evidence.

So, you may have rejected the entropy argument, but a rejection based on nothing doesn't hold up.  So I'm still waiting for that evidence you claimed you had but didn't deliver.  Until you do, the question of whether the universe is a mental projection of God remains an open question.  Until you provide such evidence, the entropy explanation stands unanswered.

Regardless, I'm still without a credible answer as to how you know that your theory of these "vibrations" is correct?

[LadyForCamus]

You have that backwards Rik she asked you a question . You coiled up . And she decked you before you struck .

Oh, well, I let her believe that she scored a point.  
In reality this is a point that goes in reverse and take her right down the mental sewer.      

Aren’t you due for your Lithium?

[Little Rik]

Oh, well, I let her believe that she scored a point.  
In reality this is a point that goes in reverse and take her right down the mental sewer.      

Aren’t you due for your Lithium?