Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
Twig is an apologist for child rape.
Damn...another expensive irony meter snaps a needle. This from the bloke who has spent half this thread ignoring catholic priests raping children, and when he finally acknowledged it, thinks those who cover up child rape aren't evil.ChrisGB said:
Twig, I don't think I need to debate with you ever again. Goodbye.
Is that a promise? Thank f
k for that. anonymous said:
[redacted]
br d said:
That's a point I've made on this and other threads. Prince Charles once said to Richard Dawkins "you science fellows are very good and explaining how things happpen, but you never ask why." To which Dawkins replied "that is because Sir, with the greatest of respect, it's a bloody stupid question."And he was spot on. Why are we here? Utterly pointless question. And no more important that asking why does a nail go rusty outside? We know how it happens, oxidisation of ferrous metal and all that, but why? What's the point? What's the purpose? I don't know and I don't care. And I'm not about to waste my life looking for a reason. It just does, process explained, move on.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That's a point I've made on this and other threads. Prince Charles once said to Richard Dawkins "you science fellows are very good and explaining how things happpen, but you never ask why." To which Dawkins replied "that is because Sir, with the greatest of respect, it's a bloody stupid question."
I think, to some people, the how doesn't even interest them, but the why for some reason seems more important. It seems to me to be a way of putting down those with a scientific bent, because they "have the secret answer that scientists don't".Looks as if two thread (or further) bans were made, looking at the lack of retorts directed toward me.
ChrisGB said:
I would say:
No religious person follows the dictates of natural law if he murders, so no religion following natural law can do evil in itself. On the contrary, the teachings share some commonality - doing good to others, for example.
But it is the members of the religion, who like all other humans, will do good and evil in their life. Other guides to life outside religion may be of themselves less good - existentialism will for example have you thinking about suicide in a way no mainstream religion would.
So far so rational?
But now Twig says that religion is evil because if the religious are murdered by an atheist, religion has played the major role in this event. That's right - it's not the anger and violence and hatred of the killer - it's religion.
You would have to say then that if no one murdered the religious, religion would be morally neutral. And if people liked religion, religion would be morally good.
And it gets worse: If I kill someone because he is an idiot, the victim's idiocy, not my contempt, has caused the death.
If a celebrity rapes a child because the child is beautiful, Twig would have to say on this line that the beauty of the child played the major role.
Twig is left in an unfortunate position:
Either murdering religious is NOT caused by the religious, or raping children IS caused by the children.
Because your ideas are so totally indefensible in terms of reason and evidence Twig, and you insist on repeating them when challenged, they amount to lies.
But surely all human activity is part of one of your essentially ordered causal series (or whatever) and as you so frequently point out must therefore be sustained by a prime mover who you claim to be god. No religious person follows the dictates of natural law if he murders, so no religion following natural law can do evil in itself. On the contrary, the teachings share some commonality - doing good to others, for example.
But it is the members of the religion, who like all other humans, will do good and evil in their life. Other guides to life outside religion may be of themselves less good - existentialism will for example have you thinking about suicide in a way no mainstream religion would.
So far so rational?
But now Twig says that religion is evil because if the religious are murdered by an atheist, religion has played the major role in this event. That's right - it's not the anger and violence and hatred of the killer - it's religion.
You would have to say then that if no one murdered the religious, religion would be morally neutral. And if people liked religion, religion would be morally good.
And it gets worse: If I kill someone because he is an idiot, the victim's idiocy, not my contempt, has caused the death.
If a celebrity rapes a child because the child is beautiful, Twig would have to say on this line that the beauty of the child played the major role.
Twig is left in an unfortunate position:
Either murdering religious is NOT caused by the religious, or raping children IS caused by the children.
Because your ideas are so totally indefensible in terms of reason and evidence Twig, and you insist on repeating them when challenged, they amount to lies.
Edited by ChrisGB on Thursday 15th May 15:17
Does this not make god the source and prime mover of all evil everywhere?
Yes it does, but I don't think you'll get a verbose and circular response from Chris anymore.
There's been a lot of talk on creation/god and not much on evolution, now's probably a good time to shift focus. I've read a few books on evolution but never Darwin's own, I think when I'm done with my current Alistair Reynolds I'll start On the Origin of Species.
On this subject, I don't suppose anyone knows if Dawkins' original Biomorph code is available to download? I may have asked before and missed a reply.
There's been a lot of talk on creation/god and not much on evolution, now's probably a good time to shift focus. I've read a few books on evolution but never Darwin's own, I think when I'm done with my current Alistair Reynolds I'll start On the Origin of Species.
On this subject, I don't suppose anyone knows if Dawkins' original Biomorph code is available to download? I may have asked before and missed a reply.
rxtx said:
Yes it does, but I don't think you'll get a verbose and circular response from Chris anymore.
There's been a lot of talk on creation/god and not much on evolution, now's probably a good time to shift focus. I've read a few books on evolution but never Darwin's own, I think when I'm done with my current Alistair Reynolds I'll start On the Origin of Species.
On this subject, I don't suppose anyone knows if Dawkins' original Biomorph code is available to download? I may have asked before and missed a reply.
I'd be interested, too. There's an on-line version at http://www.codecarnival.com/biomorphs.svg, but I have always fancied the idea of writing some sort of artificial life program. Years ago there I had a simulation game called SimEarth that was interesting but didn't really work well enough on the PCs of the day so I don't think anything became of it.There's been a lot of talk on creation/god and not much on evolution, now's probably a good time to shift focus. I've read a few books on evolution but never Darwin's own, I think when I'm done with my current Alistair Reynolds I'll start On the Origin of Species.
On this subject, I don't suppose anyone knows if Dawkins' original Biomorph code is available to download? I may have asked before and missed a reply.
Edited by Gaspode on Friday 16th May 08:36
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff