Creationists

[newpolitics]

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God?? Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26

If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.

Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.

Psalm 139 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—
when I awake, I am still with you.

You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.

Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.

Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).

 

[ima]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

Same can be said for your designer

 

[ima]

That's Salinas, CA, for you. Glad I no longer work there. Love the guys I went through the academy with who are still there.

Southern California, ironically, is far less guns-up and violent that Salinas ever was.

Thankful for the dues I paid, though.

Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?

Police officer.

Not smart enough to be an investigator?

 

[mjollnir]

Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?

Police officer.

Not smart enough to be an investigator?

LOL! Go back and read the original post. It was my first week of duty.

Not smart enough to follow simple posts?

 

[newpolitics]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

Same can be said for your designer

A truly futile attempt to project the empty and unsupported conclusions you make about there being a designer onto those on the other side of the debate. Naturalism is not our designer, because it has no ontology, which precludes this very possibility of it being a "designer". Naturalism is an idea that potentially describes the universe. Stop projecting your silliness onto the other side because it makes you feel better to shrug off the burden of your own irrationality.

 

[newpolitics]

Were you a Police Officer or an investigator?

Police officer.

Not smart enough to be an investigator?

That's a little rude.

 

[mjollnir]

Police officer.

Not smart enough to be an investigator?

That's a little rude.

Trust me, I deal with rudeness at work all the time.

It's the stupidity that gets to me over time.

 

[newpolitics]

Not smart enough to be an investigator?

That's a little rude.

Trust me, I deal with rudeness at work all the time.

It's the stupidity that gets to me over time.

I can only imagine. People are idiots, especially when being selfish (not referring to anyone here).

 

[newpolitics]

Intuitive Thinking May Influence Belief in God

Perfect timing for this study to come out:

As I was saying..

"Intuition may lead people toward a belief in the divine and help explain why some people have more faith in God than others, according to research published by the American Psychological Association.
In a series of studies, researchers at Harvard University found that people with a more intuitive thinking style tend to have stronger beliefs in God than those with a more reflective style. Intuitive thinking means going with one’s first instinct and reaching decisions quickly based on automatic cognitive processes. Reflective thinking involves the questioning of first instinct and consideration of other possibilities, thus allowing for counterintuitive decisions."

"The test had three math problems with incorrect answers that seemed intuitive. For example, one question stated: “A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?” The automatic or intuitive answer is 10 cents, but the correct answer is 5 cents. Participants who had more incorrect answers showed a greater reliance on intuition than reflection in their thinking style.

"Participants who gave intuitive answers to all three problems were 1 ½ times as likely to report they were convinced of God’s existence as those who answered all of the questions correctly. That pattern was found regardless of other demographic factors, such as the participants’ political beliefs, education or income. “How people think -- or fail to think -- about the prices of bats and balls is reflected in their thinking, and ultimately their convictions, about the metaphysical order of the universe,” the journal article stated."


In other words, those who relied on an intuitive style, got the problem wrong, because they didn't want to think it through. Sounds familiar, and this is EXACTLY what YWC and UR are doing when looking at the universe. Jumping to the first conclusion that seems intuitive, without questioning it, or probing deeper.

"In another study, with 373 participants, the researchers found they could temporarily influence levels of faith by instructing participants to write a paragraph describing a personal experience where either intuitive or reflective thinking led to a good result. One group was told to describe a time in their lives when intuition or first instinct led to a good outcome, while a second group was instructed to write about an experience where a good outcome resulted from reflecting and carefully reasoning through a problem. When they were surveyed about their beliefs after the writing exercise, participants who wrote about a successful intuitive experience were more likely to report they were convinced of God’s existence than those who wrote about a successful reflective experience.

"These studies suggest a causal link between intuitive thinking and a belief in God, but the researchers acknowledged the opposite may also be true, that a belief in God may lead to intuitive thinking. Future research will help explore how cognitive styles are influenced by genes and environmental factors, such as upbringing and education, Rand said."

....


In other words, intuition is demonstrably faulty. Yet, this is the basis for your conclusions, YWC and UR. The rest of your process is trying to justify this initial intuitive process. Perhaps try a little reflective thinking for a change.

 

[newpolitics]

part 1
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5h0DdcyTA&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_295083]"Reasons for accepting atheism" - The Atheist Experience #668 - YouTube[/ame]


Watch and weep you evil creationists.


part 2

 

[UltimateReality]

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.

 

[newpolitics]

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

I always think it is such a joke when they say life happened by accident. Even with our massive technology, we can't take amino acids and proteins and using microscopes and micromachines build a working cell. This is even with intelligent input!!! Yet, were are expected to believe that something we can't even reverse engineer just happened by chance and self assembled itself.

This is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. Our ability or inability to reproduce a living cell has nothing to do with how those cells were created in the first place.

 

[UltimateReality]

You're damn right, you piece of shit. I'm anti-fur over caring about unborn fetus' that don't even know they are alive. Animals skinned for fur, sometimes have their fur ripped off of them, while they are fully conscious. Yet, somehow, just because a fetus is human, we should care more? No, thanks. This is where religious morals are skewed and completely fucking retarded. Try watching the truth, instead of being ignorant and a dick...

Animals are Skinned Alive on Chinese Fur Farms - YouTube

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.

We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.

No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.

Mark 12(NIV):

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.


Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.

 

[UltimateReality]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??

 

[newpolitics]

Your designer is naturalism.

I will stop it when you provide evidence of your engineer.

Let's talk about your designer.

Let's see who is suffering from delusions. What is your evidence that Enzymes evolved the ability to do what we have discussed ?

We don't have evidence of this period of history. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are the one making an argument from ignorance, not us. Stop trying to switch the burden of proof. You are the worst! And UR...

That is exactly right and why your side should back off being so arrogant. I am not the one arguing from the stand point of ignorance that would be you. I can and did provide evidence for what I believe. Anytime you fellas run out this ignorant argument well how do you know we won't find this or that you have just lost your credibility. You let me know when you find it

We are not talking about gaps concerning your theory,we are talking gaping holes. Life by design definitely possesses more credibility. I said it once, I don't need to present the creator to you he has already done that. I don't need to prove God exist's all i have to do is prove design. Really it was not me it was many that have proved design I am just one who is not ignorant when it comes to this subject and I agree with the ones who say life just simply didn't come in to existence through naturalism.

You just put your foot in your mouth. You did not provide any evidence for you claims about there being a designer. I realize that what you see if evidence of your own claims, but this is not evidence to anyone else. It is mere interpretation by your part, and confirmation bias. For the last time, scientists don't claim to know how life came about. So, i'm not sure what you are babbling about. On the other hand, YOU DO CLAIM to know how life came about, even though we are all ignorant to how it happened. Hence, a fucking ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

Stop trying to fend off this accusation with your silly appeals to ridicule. Your position is ripe with logical fallacy because you HAVE NO EVIDENCE. Therefore, it is your only option to employ logical fallacy after logical fallacy to try and convince yourself that your position is objectively valid when it isn't. What's laughable is how you haven't met your burden of proof with respect to any scientific claims about there being a designer. This is the arrogance of your side.

 

[newpolitics]

So, has anyone spotted this "ID" person yet? Is he still invisible?

to us. He exists outside of space, matter, time and energy. This Being predates the Big Bang so how do you think you would be able to see him??

In other words, by definition, he doesn't exist. Nothing predates the big bang. Time was created at its inception. Therefore, there was no time before it. How does something exist without time, space, matter, or energy? Care to explain? Do you know ANYTHING about the being you are proposing somehow "exists"?

 

[UltimateReality]

I find it hilarious that you think our lack of compassion for animals is caused by our "distance from god" when the holy shitbook says this:

"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." Gen. 1:26

If anything, it is because of religious adherence that people exhibit speciesist mentalities. Atheism frees one from this doctrine, and allows you to see that animal pain is the same as human pain. They possess a central nervous system, just as we do. The ability to add 2+2 has nothing to do with pain detection.

Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.

Psalm 139 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—
when I awake, I am still with you.

You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.

Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.

Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).

Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.

Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!

Also, I am not arguing unborn babies should be protected because they are self aware. I am arguing they should be protected because they are humans!!!

 

[newpolitics]

Yep, you just confirmed you are one sick pig. While I agree that is disturbing and inhumane, what do you expect from a nation that has abandoned God like atheistic China?? Horrible atrocities are a sure thing with the brutality that accompanies the loss of compassion which comes from God. Along with your unnatural affection for other men, you also have an un-natrual disdain for the sanctity of human life. Who was it that claimed atheists don't worship the creation?? This is the same type of thinking that allowed the Nazi's to gas men, women and children like they were insignificant pieces of garbage. And this is no doubt what happens when men abandon logic and embrace the law of the jungle that materialism espouses.

Gee whiz. It's a Jim Jones / David Koresh wannabe.

We should explain to the cult member that Nazi'ism was deeply rooted in christianity but that might push him over the edge.

No one is falling for your revisionist propaganda regarding the Nazi's, Nazi. This comes from your ignorant view that just because someone is labeled Christian by their families church affiliation, that makes them a Christian. It does not. To be a Christian you must follow the teachings of Christ.

Mark 12(NIV):

28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”

29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him.


Of course you are self-loathing enough to want to destroy your own life so I can see you escorting Christians into the gas chamber.

No True Scotsman fallacy. You are not one to determine who is a "true" christian or not, because you do not exemplify a standard, because the standards change from interpretation to interpretation, and you can not possibly claim to have the right interpretation. The bible contradicts itself constantly, so a "correct" interpretation is logically impossible, on matters as basic as salvation.

 

[UltimateReality]

Police officer.

Not smart enough to be an investigator?

That's a little rude.

Ha!! Now this is funny!! Ima mistakenly thought your new buddy was a Creationist. Since he isn't, you quickly came to his defense.

No, you're not bias!!!!

 

[newpolitics]

Wrong!! Except for some primates, most animals are not self aware and do not experience the psychological aspect of pain like humans do. They don't have the "I feel" experience. So how did you translate "rule over" in the Bible as being on par with skinning a live animal? God says even a sparrow doesn't fall but that he is there to care. But the Bible also teaches animals are for food as well. And it definitely teaches human life is sacred, and that includes unborn humans.

Psalm 139 (NIV)

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to me are your thoughts,[a] God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand—
when I awake, I am still with you.

You just demonstrated my point for me,entirely. You are unable to take into account, the pain of animals, because of some bullshit excuse you give yourself about self-awareness, and the justification you receive from the bible. Here's the bullshit: First of all, you can't positively know the phenomenological experience of animals, despite self-awareness tests we may have done. Most farm animals are very social creatures, with rights to life just as much as the dogs or cats we bring into our home (in the Western World- I realize China eats dogs). Pigs are smarter than dogs, yet we love dogs and subject pigs to institutional torture and death? Cows are also very social animals too, that want to live.

Really though, intelligence has nothing to do with pain detection. It is an entirely different system in the brain. You are using Descartes argument or William Lane Craig's argument, where he says the animal isn't able to feel pain because it isn't self-aware. This is impossible to establish as a fact, because despite any tests we do, we will never know their subjective experience of the world and of themselves. The only thing that is important, is whether they can feel pain. This is demonstrably, yes. Also, animals have interests of their own, and we completely ignore them for our own. This is selfish, and narcissistic, and what's worse are the bullshit justifications such the ones you just provided.

Unborn babies certainly are not self-aware, so any argument that supports your justification for eating animals could also be applied to babies before they are around 2 years old, when they become self-aware. Your position is based on speciesism, plain and simple. It is special pleading that babies be taken into our moral account, even though most farm animals are smarter than babies and more self-aware. Obviously, I am not advocating we start eating babies, but any argument you try to provide that shows preference for the interests of human babies over adult animals is special pleading. You have no justification to do so, other than the "might makes right" fallacy (appeal to Ad Baculum: appeal to force).

Leave it to you to Strawman this. I did not say animals did not feel pain or discomfort. I said they don't experience it the same way someone who is self aware does.

Maybe you should outlaw lions on the African plain. Those sickos kill and start to eat other animals while they are still alive!!! And your designer made it this way!!!

Leave it to you to falsely accuse me of a strawman. I never said that you said that animals don't feel pain. What you said is that, because they are not as self-aware (according to you), they don't possess awareness enough to know they are feeling pain. In other words, they effectively, aren't able to feel pain. There is no distinction, because it would lead to the same conclusion: to disregard their pain. So, where did I straw man you? Don't back away from your own untenable position. Just own up to the fact that it is bullshit.