|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 27, 2013 8:43:04 GMT 10
Brain well and truly washed. An alternative afforded to those who own one. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 27, 2013 9:54:19 GMT 10
How would you know?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 1:11:49 GMT 10
Logic Lesson for slartibartfast:"A brain is requisite to it's own washing." (Note: * Slarti's need for further clarity strengthens the assertions proposed, but not outwardly stated, in my previous comment.*) ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 28, 2013 8:18:10 GMT 10
I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that I don't have one yet at the same time you are the one who believes in beings that just aren't there.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 12:16:39 GMT 10
I was referring to the fact that you seem to think that I don't have one yet at the same time you are the one who believes in beings that just aren't there. I made no mention of you at all, the assumed implication was all you. (Thanks for showing me your cards, though.) I wrote a general statement. It was you who decided to take it personally. ;D You tried to take a shot at Matty, and it backfired on you. You have no claim to the moral high ground here, slarti. So lick your wounds, and move on.And your latter remark is a distortion. I believe in the unseen, not the non-existent. If you understood that distinction, you'd be able to account for your thought processes. But instead you choose undermine your own argument, with self-refuting rhetoric, and prove yourself the greater fool. All hail the king!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 28, 2013 13:47:13 GMT 10
Unseen because it's non-existent. Pretty simple, really.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 28, 2013 23:52:35 GMT 10
Unseen because it's non-existent. Pretty simple, really. No, it's not pretty simple; but you are. Do you think simply because something is unseen it doesn't exist? Have you ever seen your brain? I guess it doesn't exist either then, eh? ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 29, 2013 7:18:29 GMT 10
It does for some, Earl. But they are more worried about the brains of those who can actually think through a logical process.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 30, 2013 22:43:21 GMT 10
But they are more worried about the brains of those who can actually think through a logical process. I worry about those who can't account for the logical process of their brains.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Apr 30, 2013 22:47:41 GMT 10
Belief in Gods does not make them real. Then we are agreed that God's existence doesn't depend on human perception. So you can stop asking for proof, now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Apr 30, 2013 23:30:19 GMT 10
But they are more worried about the brains of those who can actually think through a logical process. I worry about those who can't account for the logical process of their brains. I am deeply sympathetic to those who think that some invisible power is pulling all their strings. They need our help.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 2, 2013 1:07:06 GMT 10
I worry about those who can't account for the logical process of their brains. I am deeply sympathetic to those who think that some invisible power is pulling all their strings. They need our help. I agree. We ought to pray for them.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 2, 2013 16:42:31 GMT 10
They need more than prayers, they need real help.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2013 9:44:21 GMT 10
I am deeply sympathetic to those who think that some invisible power is pulling all their strings. They need our help. ..Isn't that an exact description of the evolutionary process? (Since it involves gradual mutations that involuntarily determine ones genetic tendencies?)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2013 9:46:10 GMT 10
They need more than prayers, they need real help. Fine. Real help AND real prayers. ;D And real help resulting from real prayers.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 3, 2013 22:18:10 GMT 10
I am deeply sympathetic to those who think that some invisible power is pulling all their strings. They need our help. ..Isn't that an exact description of the evolutionary process? (Since it involves gradual mutations that involuntarily determine ones genetic tendencies?) No, where do get that conclusion from? There is no-one pulling any strings in evolution. It just "happens".
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 3, 2013 22:43:11 GMT 10
..Isn't that an exact description of the evolutionary process? (Since it involves gradual mutations that involuntarily determine ones genetic tendencies?) No, where do get that conclusion from? There is no-one pulling any strings in evolution. It just "happens". Involuntarily. That means you are victim to natural forces--You have no say. Nature is pulling your strings.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 3, 2013 23:32:46 GMT 10
No, nature is just nature. There is no predetermined path. Things just happen. No strings attached. Anywhere!
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2013 9:53:20 GMT 10
No, nature is just nature. There is no predetermined path. Things just happen. No strings attached. Anywhere! Exactly. Which means you ought to have no reference on what is 'better' or 'correct'. Nature can only provide you with an 'is'.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2013 9:59:42 GMT 10
Yep, but if it makes a mistake, you'll never know it. You'd have no standard to determine you that your current state isn't faulty. (That would imply a design)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2013 10:02:36 GMT 10
Nuh-uh. No such thing as a 'mistake' in an unguided process.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2013 10:26:07 GMT 10
Nuh-uh. No such thing as a 'mistake' in an unguided process. That's why I borrowed your inverted commas. Let's just say that mutations or adaptations that don't suit the survival of an organism after a period of time result in extinction. Then ethically you couldn't validate moral outrage when a stronger organism removes a weaker one, right?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2013 12:01:10 GMT 10
I disagree. Our understanding of moral codes may differ, but that doesn't mean there is no absolute morality. I think there is a general consensus that things such as lying is almost always unethical and immoral.
Acting selflessly is always perceived as moral, while acting selfishly is always perceived as immoral. (This flies in the face of your "survival of the fittest" notion.)
--Can you provide me an example of when this is not so?
(p.s. If you are going to state there are no moral absolutes, you really can't back the notion that God is immoral for killing anyone, can you?) ;D
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on May 4, 2013 21:33:10 GMT 10
Oops, I see that you have just shot yourself in the foot. You are now saying your God is not following moral absolutes. ;D I don't see how, since I never made the assertion that all killing was wrong..only murder. (Which by definition, is the unjustified taking of human life, by another human.) I will still swat flies, and eat chicken. (Not in that particular order) But, I see that you've just shot yourself in the foot. You are using moral absolutes, to assert absolutely, that God is not moral. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on May 4, 2013 22:47:20 GMT 10
God most certainly commits Murder in the Bible.
|
|