100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Disturbing, but something we should all know | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 10/29/09 09:08 AM
|
|
Now let me see if I can simplify this a little bit.
All of the “motivation” could be summed up as “desire to further survival goals” – the survival of oneself or one’s group(s). (Familial, political and religious are the groups that are pertinent to the discussion at hand). In other words, anything anyone does is fundamentally an attempt at “increasing survival potential of self or group”. I can think of numerous examples which deny the conclusion. To state an absolute like that requires only one example to the contrary to prove the conclusion fales. In order for this to be true, all actions must be geared at a conscious goal. That isn't how it works. We are just recently(in historical terms) beginning to identify natural selection, and those selections are not always consciously made. Natural selection does not invoke a survival goal. I think this is the source of discreprancy which leads away from the facts at hand. It does on the large scale of life in general. You are looking at the individual. We have a lot of unconscious actions that are designed for our survival.... designed by what or whom is the big question. What or whom orchestrates this design? And why? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those who have not or cannot view the video, it is about 1 hour and 17 minutes long, so a summary would not be very easy to compose.
The presentation itself is only about 55 minutes. The rest is introductions and acknowledgements before, and Q&A period after that main presentation Here is the last minute or so of the presentation, quoted almost verbatim (only stammers, verbal fumbles and other obvious irrelevancies were corrected or left out, and my own evaluation of reasonable punctuation and italicization has been added.) “That brings me to the conclusion. The basic argument here is, that if we want to understand suicide terrorism, at a fundamental level – at it’s most basic level – then we have got to face the horrors of our evolutionary history, and the murderous legacy it has left in all men. And we have to acknowledge the capacity for suicide that resides in all of us – men and women. And most importantly, we have to face the fact that religion is a man-made phenomenon. A dangerous man-made phenomenon. That because of [religion]’s very design, it is the most powerful ideology, that can hijack these capacities for lethal raiding, murder and suicide. Thank you very much.” (end of presentation) Now my own conclusion about the video are this: There are two main points 1) Evolution is the cause of the potential for violence 2) Religion is the most dangerous factor in the precipitation of violence. First off, #1 one simply sweeps aside any and all considerations of everything having anything to do with spiritual concerns. It effectively denies the existence of anything spiritual at all. (Or at the very least, it denies that anything spiritual can have any effect on human behavior.) And then #2 proceeds to generalize “Religion” as a group phenomenon, which by its very nature is not true. All religious have at there core, a very personal significance. They are never oriented toward a group. They are always oriented toward individuals. “Churches” and “Political Parties” are group phenomena, but Religion is not – at least no more than “personal beliefs” are a group phenomenon. So personally, I see #1 as a denial and #2 as a misrepresentation, the combination of which leads to a false conclusion. The curious thing is seems to be trying to place Religion outside the confines of evolution – as if it were caused by something other than evolution. Which to me is the most flagrant of all contradictions. But then, it is given from the viewpoint of a psychiapriest, whose entire reason for being are based on the concept of mind control in the truest sense of the word – so I’m really not surprised. Just stirring things up a little.  
Edited to add: So in light of the title of this thread, yes, I consider this something disturbing that we all should know. Thanks as I live in the sticks and downloading would take days---As a Chridtian (me)-- it seems like you hit it right. Don't know your religion and don't care. But sounds like you thought it was worldly at best-- thanks again! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old 'Creation must have a creator' stance/argument.
There is no evidence of a 'designer'. No designer doea not equal accident either. An accident is had when there exists some difference in a result and the intention. There is no evidence of intention. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 10/29/09 09:30 AM
|
|
The old 'Creation must have a creator' stance/argument. There is no evidence of a 'designer'. No designer doea not equal accident either. An accident is had when there exists some difference in a result and the intention. There is no evidence of intention. You can't see the forest for the trees. No evidence of a designer? Its everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. There is no where the evidence is not. I even design my whole life. You are a designer too. Thoughts are the designer. We live in a thought designed universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't see the forest for the trees. No evidence of a designer? Its everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. There is no where that the evidence is not.
Fail. Ad hominem. What you think about me has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and beside the point. The universe exists does not equal evidence of a designer of this universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no evidence of intention.
Sorry Creative, but you are blind. That is the only explanation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The old 'Creation must have a creator' stance/argument. There is no evidence of a 'designer'. No designer doea not equal accident either. An accident is had when there exists some difference in a result and the intention. There is no evidence of intention. You can't see the forest for the trees. No evidence of a designer? Its everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. There is no where the evidence is not. I even design my whole life. You are a designer too. Thoughts are the designer. We live in a thought designed universe. As a Christian-- I would agree with this! Just the outside designer part though-- 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can't see the forest for the trees. No evidence of a designer? Its everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. There is no where that the evidence is not.
Fail. Ad hominem. What you think about me has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is therefore irrelevant, immaterial, and beside the point. The universe exists does not equal evidence of a designer of this universe. It has nothing to do with 'what I think about you.' You are too full of yourself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fail. Ad hominem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As an observer, I see evidence of a designer everywhere. I see evidence of intention. It is everywhere and in everything. You have to step back and look at the big picture to see how obvious this is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fail. Ad hominem. Failure to communicate. Failure to see. Failure to think. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer? The design. The programs. Its really not up for debate. Its self evident. Some people can see it, some refuse to. Simple as that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because life is labeled as a 'design' does not make it so. More importantly, this is the kind of lack of evidence that supports the suicide bombers as well. There evidence has the same grounding and unshakable hold on their cognitive processes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer? If you put metal parts in a box and shake it----How long will it take to become a watch??? answer never---You need a disigner--sorry lady--you are wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer? If you put metal parts in a box and shake it----How long will it take to become a watch??? answer never---You need a disigner--sorry lady--you are wrong. Creative is no lady. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 10/29/09 10:02 AM
|
|
Because life is labeled as a 'design' does not make it so. More importantly, this is the kind of lack of evidence that supports the suicide bombers as well. There evidence has the same grounding and unshakable hold on their cognitive processes. There is no "lack of evidence." Just some people's lack of ability to see it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer? If you put metal parts in a box and shake it----How long will it take to become a watch??? answer never---You need a disigner--sorry lady--you are wrong. Creative is no lady.
Oh Oh--then she is mad at me---sorry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creative wrote:
There is no evidence of a 'designer'. That's certainly a personal opinion. The universe is clearly orderly enough to have consistent and dependable laws of physics, mathematics, and to have formed countless stars, galaxies, planets and solar systems in ways that are so predicable we can even model them. Where's the evidence for happenstance? There is none. If the universe had been happenstance it would be totally chaotic with no dependable laws of physics, mathematics, and even biology that can evolve into living conscious beings. Clearly this universe was designed. There can be no question about that whatsoever. Not only is there absolutely no evidence for happenstance, but like Jeanniebean said, the evidence for design is everywhere we look without fail, from the furthest reaches of the cosmos to the tiniest quantum world, all we see is very well-organized structure. If that's not evidence for design then what would be evidence? 
Clearly this universe was designed very meticulously. It's obviously not happenstance. There is no evidence for happenstance anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Connect the dots between life and a designer of that life. Unsupported assertions are just that. What is the evidence that logically leads to the conclusion that there must be a designer? If you put metal parts in a box and shake it----How long will it take to become a watch??? answer never---You need a disigner--sorry lady--you are wrong. same can be said about all the elements in the universe--shake em till the cows come home and you end up with a bunch of elements in a box all mixed up! still need a designer! This aint mumbo jumbo--its fact! |
|
|
|
|
