Polytheism and monotheism

Does God exist? Is Allah God? Creation vs. evolution.
Is Religion needed? Logic vs. faith. Morality and ethics.
Post Reply
crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by crazymonkie_ »

BlacKStaR wrote:They can never ever understand the concepts and relationship between the mind and consciousness.
Actually- yes, 'they' can. There's a lot more to learn, but these are the basics: The mind is a construct of the human brain. It's what we use to make sense of how things seem to be, to make order out of a series of discrete events. Past and future are just two of the many constructions that the brain makes and which we call, collectively, 'mind.' It is not, and cannot be, separate from the brain; when the brain is harmed or is incomplete or improperly formed, the 'mind' is off-kilter. If the brain is permanently damaged, so too is the mind.

'Consciousness' is the emergent property of certain types of brains which involves the construct of the mind. It requires a certain complexity of thought, but is not unique to humans by any means. Even so, it is even MORE prone to issues of error than the mind-construct. Hence why 'pure reason' hasn't been a valid ontology for almost 300 years in the West. That Aristotelian garbage was *finally* destroyed by Kant.
Sages meditated and died for this cause.
Sages were human and thus prone to the same errors that all humans made. That they died for their causes only shows that they believed in it. So did the Stoics; so did the Dionysians; so did the Orphic mystery cultists; so did the followers of Isis.... and so on. Belief strong enough to die for only proves beliefs are strong enough to die for. I don't laugh at that, I don't sneer at it- I pity those who would die for beliefs, for those who would suffer for something with such light proof.
Atheists are like barking dogs,the more you throw rocks at them , the more they will bark. Just let them be. It is easy to say " NO " to everything. A baby can do that.
You'd be right if we didn't keep asking for proof that you can't provide. If there was a 'true religion' or 'true spirituality,' it would be followed by everyone. If there was conclusive proof of a god, we wouldn't be asking 'is there a god?' but rather, 'how shall we worship/honor this god?' It wouldn't be 'what's god like?' it would be 'what aspect of god do you like?'

Spirituality may have enriched your life immensely, and possibly have given you some moral direction or something like that- so, credit where credit's due; not ALL spiritual belief is bad, by any means. However, the anti-intellectualism and far lower standards of truth allow for FAR too much abuse for me to let it go. It's a thin line between the tolerance of most 'spiritual' people, and the fascistic (if not outright genocidal) intolerance of those who would use spirituality for personal or political gain. That you, or anyone else, thinks they're not 'true'...whatever you may be... is irrelevant. It happens; it can happen; and it will happen, IF this goes unchallenged.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

debunker wrote:Oh logic is something gullible people like us don't care much for except when we're dealing with science in our own respective fields...

For gullible people like me, the fact that life is so amazingly complex is no coincidence. The fact that life is found only on earth is no coincidence. The fact that the earth is at the right distance from the sun for it to be inhabitable is no coincidence. The fact that the moon stabilizes the spin of the earth is no coincidence. The fact that the earth's core contains enough iron to create a magnetic field strong enough to protect us from the solar wind is no coincidence The fact that the atmosphere shields the earth from meteors is no coincidence. The fact that man is a million times more intelligent than all other life forms and is able to speak is no coincidence. I can keep going but I'm afraid it'll take me forever counting the non-coincidence.
You're just making more of the same type of arguments, but you still haven't come close to answering my question.

My question is pretty simple - even if we assume that those things can't happen by coincidence, how does that automatically mean there must be some sort of god who makes them happen?

To reach your desired conclusion, you have obviously presumed that all things must either (A) happen by chance, or (B) they are works of god. But wait, before you go any further, you need to prove, or at least give a rational explanation, that no other possibilities can exist at all. I don't see how you can prove something like that, but failing to do so would mean that your entire belief system is based on the logical fallacy of bifurcation.

For example, I'd say we might one day discover a previously unknown natural law which would explain how the formation of life could occur with reasonable probability under certain conditions. Why is that impossible? Or are you so arrogant to think that we already know every natural law there is in our physical world? People used to wonder how snowflakes could form into such uniform shapes, but today we know it has to do with water's molecular structure. Now, who's to say we're not in a similar situation here regarding the formation of life?

Image
A snowflake's uniform shape suggests that its
formation is not random. Does that mean there
must be a creator who makes snowflakes?

debunker wrote:As for you, you can always wait for evidence (as if all this is not evidence enough), keep waiting.
We all need evidence to ensure that our answers are right. Without supporting evidence, all you have is the mere belief that you know the answer instead of actually knowing it.

But I do understand - many god worshipers have trouble distinguishing between belief and knowledge.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
THHuxley
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by THHuxley »

debunker wrote:Oh logic is something gullible people like us don't care much for except when we're dealing with science in our own respective fields...
Why ruin it and use logic in your respective field? Since you seem to consider it a worthless intellectual exercise, how do you account for it working so well in signal processing?
debunker wrote:For gullible people like me, the fact that life is so amazingly complex is no coincidence. The fact that life is found only on earth is no coincidence.
It's also not something that we have any good reason to believe is true. It's very convenient when the "evidence" for your position is something that you have essentially just made up. Not very compelling, but convenient.
debunker wrote:The fact that the earth is at the right distance from the sun for it to be inhabitable is no coincidence.
No it's not. Its an artifact of the law of incredibly large numbers. It happens all the time.
debunker wrote:The fact that the moon stabilizes the spin of the earth is no coincidence.
As if a stabilized spin is necessary for life?
debunker wrote:The fact that the earth's core contains enough iron to create a magnetic field strong enough to protect us from the solar wind is no coincidence
I'm starting to detect a pattern here.
debunker wrote:The fact that the atmosphere shields the earth from meteors is no coincidence.
Ah yes... it's very clear now. There are several basic failures in your reasoning here.

The first is that you seem to think that our particular biology is the only possible form of "life." But that's only because you have no exposure to any other biology than the one we have here on this one planet in this one solar system in this one galaxy. That would be like trying to understand all of world literature while having access to only a single volume of Harry Potter.

Second, you have cause and effect exactly backwards. Life has adapted to the circumstances of the Earth, not the other way around. We have adapted to this particular distance from the sun, this particular sized moon, this particular density of atmosphere and this particular magnetic field. If they were different, we would be different.

Third, the law of incredibly large numbers requires any and all configurations to exist somewhere, multiple times and in multiple places. Right now as we speak, "Xork the Debunker" is reading an identical post elsewhere in the universe.

Lastly, the hubris you demonstrate by suggesting all of this is "purposeful" is rather easily demonstrated to be absurd. If it is your contention (as it appears to be) that the universe was purposefully designed so that humans might live in it, I would merely point out that since humans are hosts to tapeworms, it is equally valid to assert that the entire universe (humans included) was purposefully designed so that tapeworms might live in it. This is all the creation of the "God of the Tapeworms" who, in his benevolence and transcendent love of parasites created humans as food for his favored species.
debunker wrote: The fact that man is a million times more intelligent than all other life forms and is able to speak is no coincidence.
More than "no coincidence" it is a demonstration of the remarkable sense of humor of God. He designed an entire universe to include species that are superior to his beloved tapeworms in almost every respect, just for the tapeworms.

This is completely comparable to the idea that the largest things on the planet were purposefully designed so we could boil them down into lubricating oil, cosmetics and pet food.
The moral absolutist has no doubt concerning the righteousness of the blood on their blade.

Idesigner
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by Idesigner »

BlacKStaR wrote:
debunker wrote:
Now come back to my demands, can science create a being? I am not asking scientists to come up with anything fantastically big, all i need is something as big as a fly.
Wow! Blackstar! You're asking for too much! I really think they can't even create a bacterium (starting from the most basic building blocks, atoms).
:D Yep. Realizing this, many scientists today are also spiritualists.
Dear Debunker,

Science already had created bacterium from scratch. I quoted one study.

In old forum we discussed this at length . Creationist like Piggy refused to belive.

Well I have a challange for creationists, Intelligent designer , belivers and others. I will give them all chemicals they want . They should produce a living thing just by praying to their god, better if they can produce life out of thin air. This was the challange I gave to a Harekrishna devotee who was telling scientists to make a mosqueto from chemicals.

By the way life's building block is not atom but DNA molecule. Scientist have also made artifical elements i.e. about half a dozen heavy radioactive atoms. DNA were found and made in lab long time ago.

Idesigner

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

debunker wrote:First, please see my definition of God above. Now, you, me and all of humanity are an absolute zero compared to this God. Is it tyrannical if this God chose to throw this zero in an everlasting Hell? I don't think so. The very fact that He chose to care about us enough to save some of us under certain conditions is a great sign of infinite mercy on His part. Only when you accept the fact that you are infinitely small and insignificant compared to His infinite majesty, will you able to accept that Him throwing all of us in Hell is justice and Him saving some of us is mercy.
I guess if our almighty creator asks you to carry out genocide on a certain group of people, you won't even hesitate to do it?

After all, orders from our almighty creator are infinitely more important than the insignificant lives of those "zeroes", right? Oh and don't forget to praise Him for such mercy on His part after you're done with the killings.

:worthy:

(P.S. - now I think I have a better understanding of the mindset of Muslim terrorists.)
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

sword_of_truth
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:36 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by sword_of_truth »

Second time I've seen this. I can't let this go unchallenged.
debunker wrote:First, please see my definition of God above. Now, you, me and all of humanity are an absolute zero compared to this God. Is it tyrannical if this God chose to throw this zero in an everlasting Hell? I don't think so. The very fact that He chose to care about us enough to save some of us under certain conditions is a great sign of infinite mercy on His part. Only when you accept the fact that you are infinitely small and insignificant compared to His infinite majesty, will you able to accept that Him throwing all of us in Hell is justice and Him saving some of us is mercy.
This just makes it worse. It makes the God even more petty. As Ali Sina says, it's like getting angry because some ants in your back yard won't worship you. If we were really zeroes, Allah wouldn't care to create us in the first place. Why bother? And why bother with putting us in hell, even if He doesn't like us? It's not even worth the trouble to punish us. So, Allah not only gets pissed, like some spoiled child, that some ants in his backyard don't worship him, but then goes out and takes the trouble to build this big torture chamber and goes out of his way to inflict as much harm on them as he can, fully aware of their capacity for pain, being all-knowing. If you were aware that the ants in your back yard were capable of experiencing the most excruciating pain, would you go out and torture them for not worshipping you?

No. There is simply no excuse for hell. It is morally indefensible. All arguments in favor of hell can only be cognitive tricks to silence our normal sense of morality. End of story. Hell-advocates lose the argument right from the very beginning--no if's, and's, or but's, just as clearly as 1+1=2. This may seem dogmatic, but it's the truth. If somebody tells me Australia doesn't exist or the world is flat, I'm going to be just as dogmatic about it, and it's justified because this is a very extreme case of self-deception. The greatest moral absurdity imaginable is being waved away by the most transparent excuses.

They have the common sense to understand this. That's not the issue. The issue is that they are lying to themselves in order to waive away the difficulty. I don't blame them. If hell was real, then it might be a good idea to lie to yourself about it to make it feel better. But the problem is deeper than that. They can even understand the fact that they are lying to themselves, but then they lie to themselves, yet again that they are not really lying to themselves because it feels to them as if they are just using normal thought processes. To an extent, they are right. They are using normal human brain processes to come to these conclusions. However, what they don't seem to grasp is that they are actually MIS-using normal human brain processes. If some guy went out and kidnapped some girl and tortured her to death for not worshipping him, they recognize that it's a crime. Somehow, magically, the fact that the guy is a lot bigger and more powerful and he created her and warned her in advance that she would have to worship him, MAGICALLY, makes this moral dilemma SOMEHOW disappear. Or is it just a tad more likely that they are not really being honest with themselves?

Gee. I wonder.
"...if you want my personal preference say I found out that my wife was cheating with me flogging would be too good a punishment."

--fudgy

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by debunker »

Hux,

You made me break a promise to myself but here goes:
No it's not. Its an artifact of the law of incredibly large numbers. It happens all the time.
You kept mentioning the law of large numbers and I never really understood what does this law have to do with anything we're discussing. I thought you were talking about this law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it turnes out you were talking about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Truly_Large_Numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I see the earth with all its special conditions as too outrageous an event to be one of the possible outcomes of a random experiment.
As if a stabilized spin is necessary for life?
No, it's not necessary. But it's far much more convenient.
Life has adapted to the circumstances of the Earth, not the other way around. We have adapted to this particular distance from the sun,
Hmmmmm... Is this why life couldn't adapt to conditions on Mars? Or Venus?
this particular sized moon, this particular density of atmosphere and this particular magnetic field. If they were different, we would be different.
As for the atmosphere, do you think if it wasn't thick enough, meteors would have become less frequent and far less dangerous all because the earth had an unprotective atmosphere? And what about the solar wind? Would the sun simply behave itself and stop spewing its anger towards the earth because poor little earth didn't have a strong enough magnetic field?
Third, the law of incredibly large numbers requires any and all configurations to exist somewhere, multiple times and in multiple places.
What makes you think the existence of planets/configurations is part of some random experiment with possible outrageous outcomes?
Lastly, the hubris you demonstrate by suggesting all of this is "purposeful" is rather easily demonstrated to be absurd. If it is your contention (as it appears to be) that the universe was purposefully designed so that humans might live in it, I would merely point out that since humans are hosts to tapeworms, it is equally valid to assert that the entire universe (humans included) was purposefully designed so that tapeworms might live in it. This is all the creation of the "God of the Tapeworms" who, in his benevolence and transcendent love of parasites created humans as food for his favored species.
I never claimed that this life is perfect. Disease (viruses, bacteria, parasites, cancer, diabetes, etc) is part of the imperfection of this life.
More than "no coincidence" it is a demonstration of the remarkable sense of humor of God. He designed an entire universe to include species that are superior to his beloved tapeworms in almost every respect, just for the tapeworms.

This is completely comparable to the idea that the largest things on the planet were purposefully designed so we could boil them down into lubricating oil, cosmetics and pet food.
This is by far the most flawed argument you ever made. Man takes advantage of all creatures around him, not the other way around, and tapeworms infestations are only some of the inconveniences of this life which is no where near as dangerous as diabetes or cancer, but even if it were then it still falls within the category of disease which is only one imperfection (not to mention poverty, wars, seemingly random sufferings, etc).
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

debunker wrote:Man takes advantage of all creatures around him, not the other way around, ...
And a shark would claim that swimmers only exist for the purpose of being eaten by sharks. ;)
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
THHuxley
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:55 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by THHuxley »

debunker wrote:You kept mentioning the law of large numbers and I never really understood what does this law have to do with anything we're discussing. I thought you were talking about this law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it turnes out you were talking about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Truly_Large_Numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I see the earth with all its special conditions as too outrageous an event to be one of the possible outcomes of a random experiment.
And the law of (in Wikipedia's version) "truly large numbers" establishes that you are not seeing clearly.

As outraged as you may find yourself, the earth's "special conditions" are not special in the least.
debunker wrote:
As if a stabilized spin is necessary for life?
No, it's not necessary. But it's far much more convenient.
And you would know that.... how exactly? You do not give life very much credit do you. Spend a little time in a deep sea submersible around a hydrothermal vent where the water is poisonous and the temperatures are around 400 degrees Celsius... and get a load of how life flourishes in such "inconvenient" places. Life adapts to its environment... not the other way around. It doesn't give a fig for "convenience."
debunker wrote:Hmmmmm... Is this why life couldn't adapt to conditions on Mars? Or Venus?
Again... how would you pretend to know with any certainty that there is not life on Mars? Or in the depths of one of the gas giants? Or on Europa?

You are getting ahead of your own knowledge.
debunker wrote:As for the atmosphere, do you think if it wasn't thick enough, meteors would have become less frequent and far less dangerous all because the earth had an unprotective atmosphere? And what about the solar wind? Would the sun simply behave itself and stop spewing its anger towards the earth because poor little earth didn't have a strong enough magnetic field?
Life would simply adapt to those circumstances. It have survived meteors before, you know... really big ones. It adapted. For example, we know from past impacts that large size is a disadvantage when the sky is falling. So if there were more meteors, then there would necessarily be fewer "elephants" and more hyraxes. Life would proliferate in areas that were protected by meteors or the solar wind, such as under water or under ground. Take a look at some of the hostile environments where life flourishes. In thermal pools in Yellowstone. Deep beneath the Antarctic ice. Hypoliths. Piezophiles or organisms that are radioresistent.

You seem to think life is fragile. It's not.
debunker wrote:What makes you think the existence of planets/configurations is part of some random experiment with possible outrageous outcomes?
It doesn't matter one way or the other. It is simply true that, given the size of the universe, the configuration we have on this planet is inevitable and common, whether it is purposeful or not.

Your argument (commonly called the "gee whiz argument") is simply meretricious.
debunker wrote:This is by far the most flawed argument you ever made. Man takes advantage of all creatures around him, not the other way around, and tapeworms infestations are only some of the inconveniences of this life which is no where near as dangerous as diabetes or cancer, but even if it were then it still falls within the category of disease which is only one imperfection (not to mention poverty, wars, seemingly random sufferings, etc).
Your myopia on this issue is amusing. It is (as I already noted) pure hubris. But that's okay, because I'm certain that God finds it amusing too. Since he has created the entire universe solely for the pleasure of his beloved tapeworms, your insistence that "it's all about you" is quite the joke to him. Beef cattle think it's all about them too, all the time they are being led up the ramp into the abattoir.

You write that "Man takes advantage of all creatures around him." That is all part of God's plan, because he needs to feed the tapeworms. It's all part of the great cosmic plan... the sun releases light that falls on the Earth where plants grow like corn, to feed the pigs, to feed the people, to feed the tapeworms. You may think it's all about you... and the three foot long tapeworm in your intestine is perfectly happy for you to think that. Just keep sending him food and keeping him warm and protected.

I mean, after all... it would be outrageous that this were just a random accident. The Universe gives every appearance of having been perfectly tuned so that tapeworms could exist and flourish.

You religious types are always so concerned about the purpose of life. Well there you go. That's God's great purpose for humanity.

Worm's meat.
The moral absolutist has no doubt concerning the righteousness of the blood on their blade.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

THHuxley wrote: You religious types are always so concerned about the purpose of life. Well there you go. That's God's great purpose for humanity.

Worm's meat.
According to your very shallow and simplistic understanding. And thats where the difference ends. You are worm's meat afterall, completely meaningless and no purpose in life.
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:
THHuxley wrote: You religious types are always so concerned about the purpose of life. Well there you go. That's God's great purpose for humanity.

Worm's meat.
According to your very shallow and simplistic understanding. And thats where the difference ends. You are worm's meat afterall, completely meaningless and no purpose in life.
If you didn't quote that out of context on purpose, you'd desperately need to improve your reading comprehension.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

What would an atheist see compared to a spiritualist. Both are the same picture, how would you fella's view it?


What can a atheist see here?
Image

1. It's a peacock
2. It is just another species of bird and like humans, it doesnt have a purpose and will become worm meat when it dies. Also it is nice to eat.
3. It evolved from earlier dinosaurs
4. Nice colors
5. Lives in Asiatic regions
6. It is a male
7. Care to add more......



What would a spiritualist see here?
Image

1. It is a peacock.
2. Grandeur of creation and evolution
3. The splendour of nature at its grandest with spectacular colors
4. The show of works from an omnipotent creator
5. Sharing the same spirit of god in all beings
6. Humans learning to appreciate all the creations of god from a single colorful animal as a good example
7. Viewing all life as divine and purposeful.
8. Care to add more......
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:
THHuxley wrote: You religious types are always so concerned about the purpose of life. Well there you go. That's God's great purpose for humanity.

Worm's meat.
According to your very shallow and simplistic understanding. And thats where the difference ends. You are worm's meat afterall, completely meaningless and no purpose in life.
If you didn't quote that out of context on purpose, you'd desperately need to improve your reading comprehension.
Oh! So any of you can completely misinterpret our writings and come up with your own understanding of things according to your own whims and fancies and WE Can't or Don't have the right to do so??????????
gupsfu wrote:
debunker wrote:Man takes advantage of all creatures around him, not the other way around, ...
And a shark would claim that swimmers only exist for the purpose of being eaten by sharks. ;)
Jokers.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww C'monnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...........
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:Oh! So any of you can completely misinterpret our writings and come up with your own understanding of things according to your own whims and fancies and WE Can't or Don't have the right to do so??????????
I take it that you're admitting your lack of reading comprehension skills here.

And you also need to distinguish the difference between people not understanding what you write and people not agreeing with your religious fantasies.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:Oh! So any of you can completely misinterpret our writings and come up with your own understanding of things according to your own whims and fancies and WE Can't or Don't have the right to do so??????????
I take it that you're admitting your lack of reading comprehension skills here.

And you also need to distinguish the difference between people not understanding what you write and people not agreeing with your religious fantasies.
What are you babbling about?? The one with problems of not understanding simple english here is YOU.

Let me recap again at your own first class babblings and accusations at others for putting things out of context .

gupsfu wrote:

debunker wrote:Man takes advantage of all creatures around him, not the other way around, ...


And a shark would claim that swimmers only exist for the purpose of being eaten by sharks. ;)
You know very well debunker didnt mean that, yet out of sheer scarcity of ideas you came out with this gem!

:roflmao: :roflmao:
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:You know very well debunker didnt mean that, yet out of sheer scarcity of ideas you came out with this gem!
Of course he didn't. The point is to show that his assertion of humans being the center of all things is no more valid than my joke, or the one with tapeworms posted by Hux.

Well let's hope debunker is smarter than you.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
BlacKStaR
Posts: 491
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 1:46 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by BlacKStaR »

gupsfu wrote:
BlacKStaR wrote:You know very well debunker didnt mean that, yet out of sheer scarcity of ideas you came out with this gem!
Of course he didn't, but his assertion that humans are the center of all things is no more valid than a joke - one that I posted.

You obviously need to improve your reading comprehension, desperately.
Oh yes, it is no more valid than a joke FOR YOU. But for debunker, he has given his views and he was not "Joking" or intending to equal it to a " Joke". Learn to debate properly and seriously.

Dont worry about my reading comprehension,you are probably MORE educated than i am. :roflmao:
/Islam. I am the chill in the air.

User avatar
gupsfu
Posts: 549
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 8:32 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by gupsfu »

BlacKStaR wrote:Oh yes, it is no more valid than a joke FOR YOU. But for debunker, he has given his views and he was not "Joking" or intending to equal it to a " Joke". Learn to debate properly and seriously.
Speak for yourself. I bet debunker is smarter than you.
BlacKStaR wrote:Dont worry about my reading comprehension,you are probably MORE educated than i am.
That's why I said you need to improve. You were clueless about what we were getting at before this post. May be you still are.
"Is there anybody out there? Just nod if you can hear me." ~ Roger Waters

User avatar
IoshkaFutz
Posts: 1431
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by IoshkaFutz »

Ciao Blackstar,

I particularly enjoyed Huxley, palming himself off as an Alien from outer space to Debunker.
“The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer - German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. 1906-1945

antineoETC
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:53 am

Re: Polytheism and monotheism

Post by antineoETC »

debunker wrote:Hux,

You made me break a promise to myself but here goes:
No it's not. Its an artifact of the law of incredibly large numbers. It happens all the time.
You kept mentioning the law of large numbers and I never really understood what does this law have to do with anything we're discussing. I thought you were talking about this law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it turnes out you were talking about this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Truly_Large_Numbers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But I see the earth with all its special conditions as too outrageous an event to be one of the possible outcomes of a random experiment.
As if a stabilized spin is necessary for life?
No, it's not necessary. But it's far much more convenient.
Life has adapted to the circumstances of the Earth, not the other way around. We have adapted to this particular distance from the sun,
Hmmmmm... Is this why life couldn't adapt to conditions on Mars? Or Venus?
this particular sized moon, this particular density of atmosphere and this particular magnetic field. If they were different, we would be different.
As for the atmosphere, do you think if it wasn't thick enough, meteors would have become less frequent and far less dangerous all because the earth had an unprotective atmosphere? And what about the solar wind? Would the sun simply behave itself and stop spewing its anger towards the earth because poor little earth didn't have a strong enough magnetic field?
Third, the law of incredibly large numbers requires any and all configurations to exist somewhere, multiple times and in multiple places.
What makes you think the existence of planets/configurations is part of some random experiment with possible outrageous outcomes?
Lastly, the hubris you demonstrate by suggesting all of this is "purposeful" is rather easily demonstrated to be absurd. If it is your contention (as it appears to be) that the universe was purposefully designed so that humans might live in it, I would merely point out that since humans are hosts to tapeworms, it is equally valid to assert that the entire universe (humans included) was purposefully designed so that tapeworms might live in it. This is all the creation of the "God of the Tapeworms" who, in his benevolence and transcendent love of parasites created humans as food for his favored species.
I never claimed that this life is perfect. Disease (viruses, bacteria, parasites, cancer, diabetes, etc) is part of the imperfection of this life.
More than "no coincidence" it is a demonstration of the remarkable sense of humor of God. He designed an entire universe to include species that are superior to his beloved tapeworms in almost every respect, just for the tapeworms.

This is completely comparable to the idea that the largest things on the planet were purposefully designed so we could boil them down into lubricating oil, cosmetics and pet food.
This is by far the most flawed argument you ever made. Man takes advantage of all creatures around him, not the other way around, and tapeworms infestations are only some of the inconveniences of this life which is no where near as dangerous as diabetes or cancer, but even if it were then it still falls within the category of disease which is only one imperfection (not to mention poverty, wars, seemingly random sufferings, etc).
I told you you'll never leave

Post Reply