Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian/Creation PB followers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cori, don't make assumptions about divinity. There's a plethera of different ideas conerning the nature of the divine, but we know we're not merely "exhibiting higher brain functions." We have abstract thought, creativity, logic... Are you going to pretend that you really don't see the difference between Humans and other animals, or other niche species?

    Really, all that needs to be said to make the point is that humans are the only species to have religion(or art, or technology, or civilizations...).

    Originally posted by Grok View Post
    You have no idea why Neanderthals went extinct, and neither do I.
    Exactly, so your entire assumption H. sapien genocided Neanderthals, or that they were peaceable, is completely unfounded and quite contradictory to your "OMG! Science explains all, lolz!" approach. What we know is modern man and Neanderthals interbreed, that we likely fought one another for resources, and the entire environment changed around Neanderthals as they died out, meaning it's a complete conjecture to assume we just up and killed them all for being pacifists.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
      I agree we have a responsibility to steward nature, but not out of some reverence to animal rights. The loss of species are only tragedies insomuch as our relationship to them, and nature, might suffer..
      Hi Figlio -

      Would you rephrase this for me, please? I think I know what you are saying, but I am not absolutely sure, so I'm asking for further clarification before I make assumptions...
      I have a mantra that I have spouted for years... "If I eat right, I feel right. If I feel right, I exercise right. If I exercise right, I think right. If I think right, I eat right..." Phil-SC

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
        The natural course of extinction and creation of new species is all well and fine; but we are, by your own admission, in a unique and unprecedented position of power over all life on this planet. We have the ability to kill off every large plant and animal on the surface of the Earth today, if we so choose (including ourselves, of course). With that godlike power comes a certain responsibility, both to ourselves and all life, not to exercise it; and I believe it is a mark of an enlightened person that he will regret any harm he has done to others through either malice or negligence, even if born out of ignorance, and always endeavor to heal it when possible or, where it is not, to avoid such mistakes in the future. And perhaps we can recognize that any animal of sufficient development will likely have some consciousness and sense of values, even if they cannot articulate them as we can; and that it is therefore wrong of us to unnecessarily deny other beings the natural expression of their own values. I'm not necessarily arguing that the loss of the Dodo was an unforgivable tragedy. But maybe we can admit that humans are not the sole and rightful arbiters of value for all life, even if we are currently the only ones who can have a conversation about it.
        This is beautiful - you write well.
        I have a mantra that I have spouted for years... "If I eat right, I feel right. If I feel right, I exercise right. If I exercise right, I think right. If I think right, I eat right..." Phil-SC

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
          Cori, don't make assumptions about divinity. There's a plethera of different ideas conerning the nature of the divine, but we know we're not merely "exhibiting higher brain functions." We have abstract thought, creativity, logic... Are you going to pretend that you really don't see the difference between Humans and other animals, or other niche species?

          Really, all that needs to be said to make the point is that humans are the only species to have religion(or art, or technology, or civilizations...).
          I have no assumption about divinity... it has never been proven to exist therefore IMO it's an invisible Unicorn.
          Some people BELIEVE in it, but that doesn't make it part of reality.

          Also... Neanderthals had art/creativity... and likely primitive religious beliefs.
          There are birds who problem solve, use tools, and decorate their environment.
          I would argue that certain insects build civilizations MUCH more successful than our own.

          I'm not pretending anything... I genuinely see humans as an extension of evolution and nothing more. Not everything about humans is so great. I think if there were some sort of 'divinity' within humans that they would all be loving and peaceful, and helpful to their fellow man. This is not the case. Just like in any primate troop there are individual personalities in humans... some meek and cowering, some placid and unflappable, some always stirring up drama, and some that are very aggressive not only with outsiders, but even with their only family members. When there is loss they grieve, when there is abundance they celebrate. Given the opportunity they are lazy and become fat. Very human like.
          I do not see any proof of divinity in human behavior at all, anything that makes us substantially 'different' or 'special'.
          Only the trappings we create for ourselves through the advantage of a higher functioning brain separates us.
          Remove all of those trappings and see how divine humans appear to be...
          I see humans as primates with highly developed brains, because that is what verifiable facts support.
          “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
          ~Friedrich Nietzsche
          And that's why I'm here eating HFLC Primal/Paleo.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
            Exactly, so your entire assumption H. sapien genocided Neanderthals, or that they were peaceable, is completely unfounded and quite contradictory to your "OMG! Science explains all, lolz!" approach. What we know is modern man and Neanderthals interbreed, that we likely fought one another for resources, and the entire environment changed around Neanderthals as they died out, meaning it's a complete conjecture to assume we just up and killed them all for being pacifists.
            We don't know that they interbred. There is evidence to suggest they did, but it's not conclusive evidence as far as I understand.

            All I'm saying is that it would be premature to assume that we are here today because of some plan by some almighty being up in the heavens who created modern man in his own image.

            Once you assume that, then people start thinking that God is a certain race, and then you have wars over race and wars over religion.

            I don't take a science explains all approach either. I don't rule out the possibility of a God, or something that has physical properties entirely different than anything in this universe which created the universe. Perhaps there is no concept of time outside of our universe and entities can create themselves in a timeless environment because without time there is no concept of before and after and you don't have a paradox of what created the creator. But I would never assume that such a being created me or my race or my species or my genus in their image. I would never be so arrogant to make that assumption.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Grok View Post
              We don't know that they interbred. There is evidence to suggest they did, but it's not conclusive evidence as far as I understand.
              Yes, we do- early after h. sapien entered the middle east, in fact. 4% of DNA in Europeans and Asians are from Neanderthals.

              All I'm saying is that it would be premature to assume that we are here today because of some plan by some almighty being up in the heavens who created modern man in his own image.
              Which has nothing to do with anything I said- I asked if another member could not see a spark of divinity in man, never did I make a statement about how it got there.

              Once you assume that, then people start thinking that God is a certain race, and then you have wars over race and wars over religion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                Which has nothing to do with anything I said- I asked if another member could not see a spark of divinity in man, never did I make a statement about how it got there.
                You said (paraphrasing) that modern humans are different than any other animal on the face of the Earth, and I called you out on it because you were only considering present day animals and not other species which are now extinct.

                There were plenty of other species which once roamed this planet with characteristics seen in modern day humans which you do not see in any other animals today.

                Just because we are the only extant species which still has these characteristics, does not in any way mean that there is a spark of divinity within us.

                Comment


                • Figlio, you can equivocate all you want about what you mean by the "spark of divinity", but if what you mean is "the ability to appreciate art and beauty" or "a sense of the mystical and transcendent", or even "self-aware consciousness", then there is no evidence whatever to suggest that this is anything but a set of evolved characteristics of human brains, ultimately explicable through purely naturalistic means, even if it is not yet well-understood because it is extremely complex. If you actually mean something mystical, then there's no evidence such traits exist at all and they certainly shouldn't be used in the pursuit of a rational ethics.

                  There is no scientific reason to believe that human beings are anything but a species of primate who has evolved a unique brain structure and way of living (heavily influenced by cultural inheritance, which is a key part of our success and our complexity), and become very successful because of it.

                  Originally posted by Crabbcakes View Post
                  This is beautiful - you write well.
                  Thank you.
                  Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                  My Primal Journal

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Grok View Post
                    You said (paraphrasing) that modern humans are different than any other animal on the face of the Earth, and I called you out on it because you were only considering present day animals and not other species which are now extinct. There were plenty of other species which once roamed this planet with characteristics seen in modern day humans which you do not see in any other animals today.
                    Those other species were either human, or close relatives. I fail to see your point, how does other forms of sapient life change the unique nature of sapience itself?

                    Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                    Figlio, you can equivocate all you want about what you mean by the "spark of divinity", but if what you mean is "the ability to appreciate art and beauty" or "a sense of the mystical and transcendent", or even "self-aware consciousness", then there is no evidence whatever to suggest that this is anything but a set of evolved characteristics of human brains, ultimately explicable through purely naturalistic means, even if it is not yet well-understood because it is extremely complex. If you actually mean something mystical, then there's no evidence such traits exist at all and they certainly shouldn't be used in the pursuit of a rational ethics.
                    In other words, "if it's natural, then there can't be anything supernatural about it; if it's supernatural, it can't be at all natural."

                    Again, how's this at all relevent to anything I've said? You're assuming my position, or even the relevence of it, on the origins of this "spark" in humanity. What matters is that sapience itself provides us with something different from mere non-sapient life, the fact you choose to ignore the prospect of divinity or even the seperateness of this numen from anima doesn't really concern me.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                      Those other species were either human, or close relatives. I fail to see your point, how does other forms of sapient life change the unique nature of sapience itself?
                      In the middle stone age period there was very little of anything that distinguished homo sapiens from other species of the genus Homo like Neanderthals or homo erectus.

                      This "unique nature of sapience" only started to occur about 50,000 BP.[1]

                      [1] Behavioral modernity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      Comment


                      • Uh... you never did well in lit courses, did you? /facepalm

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by cori93437 View Post
                          Facts are facts... I obviously don't accept "I believe" as Fact...
                          Things which are real and can be proven are good.
                          Because a book says so... not so good.
                          Science is pretty good at this sort of thing, though not infallible... which is why I'm open to believing new things when there is factual evidence... even when it debunks previously held theories.

                          This about covers it...
                          Fact   [fakt]
                          noun
                          1.
                          something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact if you are afraid of being abducted by aliens.
                          2.
                          something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
                          3.
                          a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
                          I don't know how it can be more clear than the example of scientists gathering facts... but see #4 also.

                          These two are a bit more sketchy...
                          4.
                          something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
                          This one might need some explanation...

                          Some declarations of experience are easily accepted as a fact based on several things...
                          (Do I know/trust this person, is the declaration of fact reasonable, could evidence of the declaration be gathered to either verify or falsify the claim)
                          For instance you tell me you have a cat.
                          Ok, I'll probably take that as a 'fact' of your life although you could be making it up because it's a pretty general thing
                          However, why would you? Also... if I knew you personally I could gather evidence to verify or falsify the claim.
                          Cat hair on clothing? Evidence of a cat at your house (food, kitty litter etc)? Actually seeing the cat at your home?
                          Your family members also talking about your pet cat? And so on...
                          So sure, "you have a cat"... but I don't have Faith in your cats existence in any meaningful way. It either exists in reality or it doesn't and I'm not invested in that personally.

                          On the other hand someone could tell me that they have an invisible Unicorn that follows them everywhere.
                          This is not a normally real thing that exists... I'm not buying it.
                          Furthermore there is no evidence at all that can be gathered to either falsify or verify the existence of the Unicorn.
                          There are no FACTS to support that this is indeed a real thing, and thus I do not call that a reliable statement of experience.
                          I don't have Faith in your invisible Unicorn's existence because it's a ridiculous assertion. It either exists in reality or it doesn't exist.

                          5.
                          Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.
                          And this isn't about law... although the term "alleged" may come up I suppose...
                          Wow! That's what it's all about! 'We could have some fun with this.' For example, beginning with number 1:something that actually exists; reality; truth... What is the reality of your existence? What is the reality of your reality? What is the reality of truth?

                          In all seriousness, I could take all of the above five points to show that Muslims have a reasonable basis for stating that what they believe are facts. This is not meant as a boast or a challenge but an indication that Muslims have nothing to 'fear' from an open and reasoned discussion of the facts. Of course, from a rational basis for belief to belief is a relatively large step.
                          Last edited by pdjesson; 06-30-2012, 05:24 PM.
                          All the best!

                          PDJ

                          The quieter you become the more you're able to hear.

                          Mawlana Jalaludin Rumi

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Figlio di Moros View Post
                            Those other species were either human, or close relatives. I fail to see your point, how does other forms of sapient life change the unique nature of sapience itself?

                            In other words, "if it's natural, then there can't be anything supernatural about it; if it's supernatural, it can't be at all natural."

                            Again, how's this at all relevent to anything I've said? You're assuming my position, or even the relevence of it, on the origins of this "spark" in humanity. What matters is that sapience itself provides us with something different from mere non-sapient life, the fact you choose to ignore the prospect of divinity or even the seperateness of this numen from anima doesn't really concern me.
                            If you choose to use loaded terms like "divine", you have to expect that people will assume you mean something supernatural or mystical. And if you prefer vague platitudes to clear explanations then you can't expect anyone to telepathically grasp the nuances of your position.

                            I am claiming that I don't think there is anything uniquely special about humans that make us the center of the moral universe, just to make that clear. I think we have an overdeveloped set of the same social instincts that our close genetic relatives have, as well as an evolved capacity for complex language that allows our culture to become enormously intricate. Nothing in my experience suggests that any of our traits make us candidates for any special status other than "animal most prone to invention of the Internet".
                            Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                            My Primal Journal

                            Comment


                            • Dear MDA posters,
                              It's me, God. Um, I haven't butted-in like this in a long time, but, well, why are you bothering posting on this thread? I designed you to have sex. SEX! I, God, I am getting bored. Log-off and go have sex. My guests are getting restless, I'm beginning to think my whole God-cam was a waste. Thanks, mates.
                              Cheers,
                              God

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pdjesson View Post
                                Of course, from a rational basis for belief to belief is a relatively large step.
                                I'm glad you added that last line in your edit. With the Latter-day Saints the opening salvo is "What is Truth?". I thought I felt a "Truly thinking people become Muslims" thing slowly happening. Or perhaps I am just touchy.
                                I have a mantra that I have spouted for years... "If I eat right, I feel right. If I feel right, I exercise right. If I exercise right, I think right. If I think right, I eat right..." Phil-SC

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X