Amadd wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 12:16am:


You are not unusual.

I would even go so far, as to say that your opinion in this, is normal Amadd.

Me?   ....I'm definitely not 'normal'.      





Quote:


Absolutely.




Quote:


Absurd.




Quote:



Do you really, really, believe that humans are merely animals, knowing our capacity for art and science, and our unusual ability to apply what was once arcane knowledge, to the physical world ???

We are very special, we are very, very, gifted creatures.

We, mankind, are not mere animals - though many of us seek to justify our baser instincts and actions, by claiming that that is all that we are.



If we evolved from apes, who did apes evolve from???
....i.e. why are apes still with us?

Scientists have identified fossil ants and other insects, supposedly '200 million' years old - yet, those fossils are exact replicas of creatures living today.

Why didn't these common creatures evolve, OR, become 'surplus to requirements' by mother nature and go extinct???

The shark and the crocodile, are supposedly also hundreds of millions of years old.

Were their particular evolutionary lines [of sharks and crocodiles] impeded, halted?

How?

Why?



Evolution is a crock.

Scientific dating of the 'geologic layers' of the Earth is a crock.

Its based upon bad [falsified] science.



The petrification [fossilisation] of living organisms has been proved, to take place in tens of years - not millions of years, as is commonly taught, a teaching which directly supports the 'veracity' of the theory of evolution.

While the fact that the petrification of living organisms can take place in tens of years is never mentioned.

Why not???






Amadd,

You said,

Tell me that you believe in the value of learning about ourselves.

Do you???

Amadd wrote on Dec 20^th, 2009 at 2:40am:


You seem very adamant about that.          

And you probably have the numbers on your side, so you must be correct.            





Quote:



No, i won't.             

Yadda wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 11:31pm:


I thought everybody defined truth according to their own perceptions of reality. Truth and reality are essentially the same thing (are they not?) and perception is all we have to base it on. (cogito ergo sum)

Self-identifying atheists may choose to quote Descartes on this, Abu may prefer Ibn Tufal, and you'd prefer Thomas Aquinas no doubt. Of course all three shared such empiricist views, albeit within different contexts.

Christians define truth according to their own perceptions of reality too. They just happen to agree with other Christian about some, but obviously not all aspects) of their perception. Many perceive God as being real for example, while others perceive God thrugh faith (which I understand as a kind of extended perception.)  

Here are some kindred souls for you. They worship reality and they have a church. (They must be Americans LOL)

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

I find it quite amusing why anybody would bother with such a thing  

Pardon me for butting into your nice argument by the way. Please continue. It is very entertaining.

My contribution as always : de gustibus non est disputandum

(rough translation - whatever floats your boat/ whatever cranks your dial)

In all discussions of reality, we need to consider this equation (and every time you post a scriptural citation, I'm going to post an equation)

ΔxΔp >= h'/2

Ever since Shrõdinger, we've had to wave goodbye to reality as we know it, and Heisenberg wasn't too certain either  

Yadda wrote on Dec 21^st, 2009 at 1:14pm:


Well I obviously do not fit into your definition of an Atheist or a Humanist, because I take the view that nobody can view the entire universe from their own personal viewpoint, no matter how lofty it may be. Even if you're standing on the Eigar, you can't see what's behind the surrounding mountains. You have to rely on others to tell you.

I take the view that if I should close my mind to the views of others, I risk losing sight of the incredible things they can see but I don't. I actually find religions very interesting, especially when the proponents have a suitable degree of humilitas themselves. I think I might have said that before.

Your above comment would seem to me to be more appropriate for fundamentalists.

So to reassemble your phrase:

Basically, fundamentalist Muslims, Christians and Atheists define 'truth' according to their very own perceptions of reality, disallowing any possibility of any other reality, which they, themselves, do not perceive.

I'd argue that very few atheists and humanists are as rigidly scientific as you seem to imply. Most simply have never found anything that they consider to be evidence of a god or gods, and just don't worry themselves too much about what others believe. However, a  small minority get quite feral about it. Do you know who the "trouble makers" among the atheists are in my experience? They are ex-mormons or ex-fundamentalists. I could never understand why they bother. It's as if they can't seem to leave the zealotry behind.

As a scientist, I apply fairly rigid scientific principles to matters of science only. Spirituality is a much more malleable thing, as illogical as the human brain is, and rightly so.

Most of the rest of the post could have been written by me.

Reminds me of this quote by Albert Einstein:

Quote:

— Albert Einstein