New film tackles evidence for evolution

[noguru]

Are you through with the self-righteous superiority act yet?

That is fallacious as well. I do not claim self-righteousness. I claim a desire to accurately understand reality. that's it. And I think that is the most reasonable way to be, do you?

I have the courage to admit when I am wrong and progress, you do not seem to have that courage. You claim that your strict adherence to a static pre scientific interpretation of "divine revelation" somehow overrides the reality of science around you. So an honest and courageous person would ask themselves "Which one of them is really 'self-righteous'"?

I find it ironic however, that you have the audacity to claim I have a "superiority act" when you already claimed victory (without any evidence for such) in a previous post.

 

[resurrected]

I claim a desire to accurately understand reality

better start at the beginning

see if trad or zippy can help you out

 

[noguru]

better start at the beginning

see if trad or zippy can help you out

Oh, you want me to run the simplicity of reality through their convoluted philosophical illogical over analysis so that you can feel better about your opinions? Been there, done that. lain:

But since you seem to have a "sincere" opinion on the matter, let's hear your analysis of where you think I am wrong. I welcome accurate correction.

 

[kmoney]

Because then it is just opinion.

Things must be right or wrong because of a standard, or else what you call morality is just an illusion.


That's because evolutionists are accustomed to allowing words to mean anything. Fundamentalists stick to what is true and necessary. If you are going to define morality as something based on popular practice, you've just eliminated all need for the word.

Going on the evolutionary argument, I don't think morality would be simply another opinion or popular practice. I think it would be something stronger, an innate feeling and practice, not an opinion that you form at some point in your life or a practice that you choose to take on. There would be a standard applied, but perhaps not one that is coming down from completely outside. A level of what some would call moral behavior can be seen in animals. They aren't acting on opinions.

Even if you do think it's nothing more than an opinion or popular practice, I can still see some use in the word. It would be a subset of opinions and popular practice. Opinions and practices that operate and feel different than what kind of ice cream you like, for example.

 

[Stripe]

Going on the evolutionary argument, I don't think morality would be simply another opinion or popular practice. I think it would be something stronger, an innate feeling and practice, not an opinion that you form at some point in your life or a practice that you choose to take on. There would be a standard applied, but perhaps not one that is coming down from completely outside.

Is there some means to ensure everyone reaches a certain standard within this ethereal source of morality you posit?

A level of what some would call moral behavior can be seen in animals. They aren't acting on opinions.

That is because you can recognize a standard and hold even animals to it.

Evidence that a standard exists is not evidence that no standard exists.

Even if you do think it's nothing more than an opinion or popular practice, I can still see some use in the word. It would be a subset of opinions and popular practice. Opinions and practices that operate and feel different than what kind of ice cream you like, for example.

Words have meaning. If you are going to allow them to mean anything, there's no point discussing anything with you.

If there is no objective standard, morality is just an illusion -- a word made up to define a set of beliefs that happen to be popular.

 

[resurrected]

Go. A level of what some would call moral behavior can be seen in animals.

you've been watching the nature channel

i watched a gull take a ten inch gobie the other day and land on the dock right in front of my window

for the next five minutes i watched the gull eviscerate the gobie and eat it, still wriggling and alive

this is how animals behave

 

[noguru]

you've been watching the nature channel

i watched a gull take a ten inch gobie the other day and land on the dock right in front of my window

for the next five minutes i watched the gull eviscerate the gobie and eat it, still wriggling and alive

this is how animals behave

Yes, and some humans think (they may actually be happy about this - one never knows) people will burn for eternity if they have not accepted Jesus as their savior. The gull is eating for survival. What purpose do you think a person burning for eternity serves?

Also there are a few animals that exhibit altruistic behavior, though that is certainly not the norm. Kind of like there are some people who exhibit honest courageous behavior, though that is certainly not the norm.

 

[resurrected]

God's will :idunno:

 

[noguru]

God's will :idunno:

:up:

Now you are catching on. Anything that happens is pretty much God's will, whether directly or indirectly through tacit consent. Just because some animals are callous does not mean all humans want to be callous. In fact some animals behave better than some humans.

 

[Frank Ernest]

God's word

God's word

That is fallacious as well. I do not claim self-righteousness. I claim a desire to accurately understand reality. that's it. And I think that is the most reasonable way to be, do you?

I'm sure you have a desire to define reality in your own imaginings.

I have the courage to admit when I am wrong and progress, you do not seem to have that courage.

:darwinsm: Irony again.

You claim that your strict adherence to a static pre scientific interpretation of "divine revelation" somehow overrides the reality of science around you. So an honest and courageous person would ask themselves "Which one of them is really 'self-righteous'"?

You. I wait, with bated breath, your next attempt at self-promotion.

I find it ironic however, that you have the audacity to claim I have a "superiority act" when you already claimed victory (without any evidence for such) in a previous post.

God's word proclaims it. Have you ever read it?

 

[noguru]

I'm sure you have a desire to define reality in your own imaginings.

Nope, you got that wrong. I try to assess what all the evidence tells me about reality. And what do you claim for your attempts to define reality?

 

[noguru]

God's word proclaims it.

What are you claiming that God's word proclaims?

 

[noguru]

You. I wait, with bated breath, your next attempt at self-promotion.

Right, but when you slap the label of "divine revelation" on your opinions it is not "self-promotion". How convenient for you.

:rotfl:

 

[Frank Ernest]

Nope, you got that wrong. I try to assess what all the evidence tells me about reality. And what do you claim for your attempts to define reality?

Reality is, simply put, that which is. I don't have to define it. I just have to accept it.

 

[Frank Ernest]

What are you claiming that God's word proclaims?

What an unnecessarily convoluted way of asking someone to read the Bible to you!

Exodus 20:1-6 (KJV)

 

[Frank Ernest]

Right, but when you slap the label of "divine revelation" on your opinions it is not "self-promotion". How convenient for you.

:rotfl:

Please try to be coherent. I have no idea what you attempted to say here.

 

[gcthomas]

Please try to be coherent. I have no idea what you attempted to say here.

Is English your second language?

 

[noguru]

Please try to be coherent. I have no idea what you attempted to say here.

It is plain clear English. The meaning is very clear. Perhaps you have a learning disability, or there is something blocking you from understanding.

 

[noguru]

Reality is, simply put, that which is. I don't have to define it. I just have to accept it.

I agree with the highlighted part.

But to describe it accurately to others you do have to define it. Otherwise your understanding might not be accurate, another would never know.

 

[noguru]

What an unnecessarily convoluted way of asking someone to read the Bible to you!

Exodus 20:1-6 (KJV)

I have read the Bible and I have looked at all the available evidence. Based on that I can see, you have read the Bible, but are unwilling/incapable of grasping all the available evidence.

God's word also proclaims that we should seek an accurate view of reality, something you do not seem to do sincerely. But that is just my opinion based on what I have seen you post so far.

So would you say that your understanding of reality is based only on Exodus 20:1-6?

Do you think that someone would have a good understanding of reality from only reading Exodus 20:1 - 6, and not considering all the other evidence available that God has provided?