We evolved from a great ape, now what?

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

Simple:

big bang theory seems just as 'mythical' as God. But since a scientist says it it must be true! lol humans

[xmas1997]

Simple:

big bang theory seems just as 'mythical' as God. But since a scientist says it it must be true! lol humans

It is just another widely accepted "theory", which basically is speculation, or an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another.
Or better yet, an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true.
Or it's an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events.
Or it could even be the general principals or ideas that relate to a particular subject.
That is what a "theory" is.
Anyone disagree?

[DMC]

Simple:

big bang theory seems just as 'mythical' as God. But since a scientist says it it must be true! lol humans

It would to someone who doesn't understand the implications of either nor the mechanisms involved. What you just said is akin to saying "someone smarter than me says it's true, but that's stupid".

[N0 LyF3 ScRuB]

It would to someone who doesn't understand the implications of either nor the mechanisms involved. What you just said is akin to saying "someone smarter than me says it's true, but that's stupid".

That "scientist" that is "smarter than me" has no idea what happens after life. So he can study all this , yet he really knows just as much as we do.

If my belief is wrong, that's it. No implications. I will not be punished or have any repercussions to my belief. But what if I'm right? Whatcha gonna say to the big creator when ya meet em face to face?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That "scientist" that is "smarter than me" has no idea what happens after life. So he can study all this , yet he really knows just as much as we do.

If my belief is wrong, that's it. No implications. I will not be punished or have any repercussions to my belief. But what if I'm right? Whatcha gonna say to the big creator when ya meet em face to face?

pascal's wager

What if the hadjis are right and you have to answer to allah after you die

[xmas1997]

That "scientist" that is "smarter than me" has no idea what happens after life. So he can study all this , yet he really knows just as much as we do.

If my belief is wrong, that's it. No implications. I will not be punished or have any repercussions to my belief. But what if I'm right? Whatcha gonna say to the big creator when ya meet em face to face?

The thing is, no one can prove that you are wrong in your belief, even though many on here will want to assert you are wrong simply because they do not believe the same as you do.
You may believe the way you do because you have subjective firsthand "experience."
That type of proof cannot be replicated by anyone else, nor in the same way.
Or it may be a matter of "faith", which is a purely subjective "feeling with conviction". That sort of thing cannot be proved or disproved either.

[RandomGuy]

That "scientist" that is "smarter than me" has no idea what happens after life. So he can study all this , yet he really knows just as much as we do.

If my belief is wrong, that's it. No implications. I will not be punished or have any repercussions to my belief. But what if I'm right? Whatcha gonna say to the big creator when ya meet em face to face?

Which creator?

I would point out that humans believe in a lot of diffent ones?

How do I know who not to piss off?
Do I have to believe in all of them?
What if belief in one contradicts belief in another, then what?

[RandomGuy]

The thing is, no one can prove that you are wrong in your belief, even though many on here will want to assert you are wrong simply because they do not believe the same as you do.
You may believe the way you do because you have subjective firsthand "experience."
That type of proof cannot be replicated by anyone else, nor in the same way.
Or it may be a matter of "faith", which is a purely subjective "feeling with conviction". That sort of thing cannot be proved or disproved either.

If it cannot be proved, the only logical thing is to withhold belief until it can be proved.

If you want to be irrational, and believe in something without proof, I guess that is your perrogative, as long as you admit that belief is irrational.

[xmas1997]

If it cannot be proved, the only logical thing is to withhold belief until it can be proved.

If you want to be irrational, and believe in something without proof, I guess that is your perrogative, as long as you admit that belief is irrational.

How can anyone accuse him of thinking irrationally?
What if he has had a subjective experience, or experiences?
In that case what he thinks is extremely rational to him, and it just "appears" to be irrational to everyone else.
Just pointing out the obvious truth of the matter.
However, if it is based purely on "faith" alone, then there is a much greater probability that it is irrational to someone who does nothing based on "faith", whereas it is perfectly rational to those who do.
It is simply a matter of who's perspective you are going on.

[DMC]

The thing is, no one can prove that you are wrong in your belief, even though many on here will want to assert you are wrong simply because they do not believe the same as you do.
You may believe the way you do because you have subjective firsthand "experience."
That type of proof cannot be replicated by anyone else, nor in the same way.
Or it may be a matter of "faith", which is a purely subjective "feeling with conviction". That sort of thing cannot be proved or disproved either.

You cannot prove it's wrong to rape and butcher children but we have a general consensus. Don't be a stick.

[RandomGuy]

You cannot prove it's wrong to rape and butcher children but we have a general consensus. Don't be a stick.

Note:
I can prove both are wrong.

If one can define wrong as "harm". It is very demonstrable, and observable that those actions cause harm.

[RandomGuy]

How can anyone accuse him of thinking irrationally?
What if he has had a subjective experience, or experiences?
In that case what he thinks is extremely rational to him, and it just "appears" to be irrational to everyone else.
Just pointing out the obvious truth of the matter.
However, if it is based purely on "faith" alone, then there is a much greater probability that it is irrational to someone who does nothing based on "faith", whereas it is perfectly rational to those who do.
It is simply a matter of who's perspective you are going on.

I didn't say I had a belief.

I said I withheld believing something until it is proven to some reasonable degree. That is fully the only rational thing to do with any given assertion.

Three-headed pink elephants are coming to trample everyone in your town.

By your definition this is a rational belief if just one person believes it is true.

We do not have to fully disprove such things exist in order to assign them a very low probability, or exclude that from the realm of plausibility.

Was 9-11 an inside job?

[xmas1997]

You cannot prove it's wrong to rape and butcher children but we have a general consensus. Don't be a stick.

Not really.
There was a time when the greater consensus believed the earth was flat.
Were they right simply due to their greater consensus?
Think about it.

[xmas1997]

I didn't say I had a belief.

I said I withheld believing something until it is proven to some reasonable degree. That is fully the only rational thing to do with any given assertion.

Three-headed pink elephants are coming to trample everyone in your town.

By your definition this is a rational belief if just one person believes it is true.

We do not have to fully disprove such things exist in order to assign them a very low probability, or exclude that from the realm of plausibility.

Was 9-11 an inside job?

Don't get me wrong, for the most part I tend to agree with you.
But I am unwilling to make a judgement call based solely on the evidence available to us right now.
I can understand his point of view, but I can also understand yours as well.
Yet we have to allow for exceptions, and the possibility, however remote it seems now, that what seems to be false now, may be shown to be true in the future, if we are being truly rational IMHO.

[Blake]

Yet we have to allow for exceptions, and the possibility, however remote it seems now, that what seems to be false now, may be shown to be true in the future, if we are being truly rational IMHO.

So you would allow for Santa Claus.

[DMC]

Not really.
There was a time when the greater consensus believed the earth was flat.
Were they right simply due to their greater consensus?
Think about it.

I said "general consensus". That means concepts with moral implications are agreed upon by most in a certain society. It doesn't have anything to do with a binary function. Afterlife is one of those. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, if it's real it will be real when you die, but if it takes death to know it, then no one here can say for sure that it's real. The fact that it's "death" is enough then to conclude that "afterlife" is a meaningless term concocted by those who feel they are too special to the multiverse to ever perish. However, fish and dogs and , they just die.

[xmas1997]

I said "general consensus". That means concepts with moral implications are agreed upon by most in a certain society. It doesn't have anything to do with a binary function. Afterlife is one of those. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, if it's real it will be real when you die, but if it takes death to know it, then no one here can say for sure that it's real. The fact that it's "death" is enough then to conclude that "afterlife" is a meaningless term concocted by those who feel they are too special to the multiverse to ever perish. However, fish and dogs and , they just die.

I see where you are going with this. And I tend to agree with you concerning death of the body, but even the body, as it rots and thus converts to a different form of matter, still possesses the make up of energy that formed it.
So who is to say that our spirit, that is, our discerning selves or en y that animated that inert body, does not do the same, that is, convert to energy?

[DMC]

I see where you are going with this. And I tend to agree with you concerning death of the body, but even the body, as it rots and thus converts to a different form of matter, still possesses the make up of energy that formed it.
So who is to say that our spirit, that is, our discerning selves or en y that animated that inert body, does not do the same, that is, convert to energy?

That energy was there before the body came into being. Do you recall those billions of years before you existed? I don't. I see no reason to think then that there will be recognizable thought process post mortem. It makes no sense. It might sound appealing, but it's a fantasy. The conservation laws don't really address it. If you think your conscious mind is merely chemistry and energy, then why add a deity?

[xmas1997]

That energy was there before the body came into being. Do you recall those billions of years before you existed? I don't. I see no reason to think then that there will be recognizable thought process post mortem. It makes no sense. It might sound appealing, but it's a fantasy. The conservation laws don't really address it. If you think your conscious mind is merely chemistry and energy, then why add a deity?

I can't rationally argue against any of your points, not even the last one.
But I can say that there should be some coherent reason/s for "why adding a deity, otherwise why would so many people have done it throughout the ages and up to the present day? Many of them were, and are, some of the greatest minds of their and our times.
Why would those argue for it, rather than against it? And some even waffle back and forth on the issue IMHO.

[DMC]

I can't rationally argue against any of your points, not even the last one.
But I can say that there should be some coherent reason/s for "why adding a deity, otherwise why would so many people have done it throughout the ages and up to the present day? Many of them were, and are, some of the greatest minds of their and our times.
Why would those argue for it, rather than against it? And some even waffle back and forth on the issue IMHO.

First you rail against argumentum ad populum then you lean on it?

You seem to only use the Socratic method when it suits you, and you abandon it when it goes against your wishful thinking. Get on or get off, either be a bubble headed theist or don't. Stop going in and out of it like it's a Gay closet.

[xmas1997]

First you rail against argumentum ad populum then you lean on it? Flat earth = wrong despite the numbers that believed it. The reason they believed it was ignorance. Same is true for the existence of a deity. Just because a lot of people believe it doesn't make it true. That is a binary function, not contingent upon consensus.

If you want to consider there must be a reason why large groups believe things, you must consider that for the flat earth era. Maybe there's truth to that as well? How about demonic possession? Muslims believe they'll have 70 virgins in heaven if they martyr themselves. There are millions of them. Must be something to it then, right?

See, that's the issue with debating anything with you. You don't stake out a position logically, your arguments appear to lack credibility because you don't hold to your own professed line of reasoning.

I try to keep an open mind about a lot of issues, but this issue is probably one of most contended of them all.
I am not debating this issue with you, I am discussing it with you, and that is why you cannot see the position I am taking.
If you had checked you would have seen my position.

For the most part I tend to accept the theory of evolution, and many other various theories as well. But I also remain open minded to the potentiality that there may be a God. I cannot prove nor disprove any of the above theoretical ideas, evolution, God, etc.
But here is the part I definitely "cannot" prove at this time: "my own 'subjective experiences' compel me to believe of His existence". This paragraph pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Is that a clear enough position for you?

You are welcome to assume it is illogical or irrational, but you have to have lived in my shoes and have had my experiences to know the truth as I feel it is. Those experiences are what motivates me to try and look on all sides of this great worldwide debate, and or "mystery".

I like discussing it because I always hope to get some illuminative clues in this regard, and you never know where that is going to come from. It is not cognitive dissonance either because if I lean toward the "does" side over the "doesn't," that merely tells me that there are many as of yet unanswerable questions surrounding it that needs to be explored.
This is also why I do believe that debating it is a fruitless endeavor, because neither side can refute the other with undoubted perfection.
The way I have stated this, does this seem logical enough to you?

[mouse]

I try to keep an open mind about a lot of issues, but this issue is probably one of most contended of them all.
I am not debating this issue with you, I am discussing it with you, and that is why you cannot see the position I am taking.
If you had checked you would have seen my position.

For the most part I tend to accept the theory of evolution, and many other various theories as well. But I also remain open minded to the potentiality that there may be a God. I cannot prove nor disprove any of the above theoretical ideas, evolution, God, etc.
But here is the part I definitely "cannot" prove at this time: "my own 'subjective experiences' compel me to believe of His existence". This paragraph pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Is that a clear enough position for you?

You are welcome to assume it is illogical or irrational, but you have to have lived in my shoes and have had my experiences to know the truth as I feel it is. Those experiences are what motivates me to try and look on all sides of this great worldwide debate, and or "mystery".

I like discussing it because I always hope to get some illuminative clues in this regard, and you never know where that is going to come from. It is not cognitive dissonance either because if I lean toward the "does" side over the "doesn't," that merely tells me that there are many as of yet unanswerable questions surrounding it that needs to be explored.
This is also why I do believe that debating it is a fruitless endeavor, because neither side can refute the other with undoubted perfection.
The way I have stated this, does this seem logical enough to you?

[silverblk mystix]

I try to keep an open mind about a lot of issues, but this issue is probably one of most contended of them all.
I am not debating this issue with you, I am discussing it with you, and that is why you cannot see the position I am taking.
If you had checked you would have seen my position.

For the most part I tend to accept the theory of evolution, and many other various theories as well. But I also remain open minded to the potentiality that there may be a God. I cannot prove nor disprove any of the above theoretical ideas, evolution, God, etc.
But here is the part I definitely "cannot" prove at this time: "my own 'subjective experiences' compel me to believe of His existence". This paragraph pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter. Is that a clear enough position for you?

You are welcome to assume it is illogical or irrational, but you have to have lived in my shoes and have had my experiences to know the truth as I feel it is. Those experiences are what motivates me to try and look on all sides of this great worldwide debate, and or "mystery".

I like discussing it because I always hope to get some illuminative clues in this regard, and you never know where that is going to come from. It is not cognitive dissonance either because if I lean toward the "does" side over the "doesn't," that merely tells me that there are many as of yet unanswerable questions surrounding it that needs to be explored.
This is also why I do believe that debating it is a fruitless endeavor, because neither side can refute the other with undoubted perfection.
The way I have stated this, does this seem logical enough to you?

Only one problem with this ^


Trolls have nothing to feel "superior" about.

They can't on you without looking stupid - so they try to label this ^ as "fence sitting" so they can attack something.

Sorry - not troll approved!

[xmas1997]

Only one problem with this ^


Trolls have nothing to feel "superior" about.

They can't on you without looking stupid - so they try to label this ^ as "fence sitting" so they can attack something.

Sorry - not troll approved!

I went ahead and edited it by putting my position in bold so there can be no doubts as to which side of this issue makes me the most comfortable.
But until a troll can become me, then they will not be able to understand "my subjective experiences" that have gotten me to this view. There have literally been miracles that have occurred in my lifetime.
Will there be more hopefully, who can say?
I have been extremely fortunate, maybe more than my share.
Maybe that is why I always see the bright side of things and believe the positive side of life is the predominant and best side.
I like to think as an idealist would, but with as much realism and practicality as I possibly can at any given moment.
And when I talk to and interact with people in a personal way, I always "see" and "imagine" their highest manifestation.
I look for the humor in everything and everyone.
It is impossible to be unhappy or upset, if and when you are laughing - Indisputable truth

[silverblk mystix]

I went ahead and edited it by putting my position in bold so there can be no doubts as to which side of this issue makes me the most comfortable.
But until a troll can become me, then they will not be able to understand my subjective experiences that have gotten me to this view. But there have literally been miracles that have occurred in my lifetime.
Will there be more hopefully, but who can say?
I have been extremely fortunate, maybe more than my share.
Maybe that is why I always see the bright side of things and believe the positive side of life is the predominant and best side.
I like to think as an idealist would, but with as much realism and practicality as I possibly can at any given moment.
And when I talk to and interact with people in a personal way, I always "see" and "imagine" their highest manifestation.
And I look for the humor in everything and everyone.

You can't make sense like this ^ it is crazy talk in here.

Listen - if I am full of hate and want to curse you, insult you, act superior to you/condescend you -

this stuff you are saying makes it hard!

What the is wrong with you having an informed outlook like that?

What will I do with all my pent up hate and all my pent up unhappiness from my ty life?

C'mon now...