Disbelief is not a choice

She also speaks at autism conferences. She's very interesting.
 
No kidding, she's brilliant. She lists biochemistry was one of her hobbies.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I don't even know to respond to this....I've never thought I would ever hear anyone say that cows fool humans into maligning them with abuse and stressful conditons (that would give a wild animal a nervous breakdown) for sake of keeping their offsprings alive.
Click to expand...

You have to remember, it's in the gene's best interest to spread itself around and replicate. The genes don't really care how themselves spread itself around even at the expense of their host's despair.

For the chimps, they cannot survive on their own as individuals. They need to care for their own family and friends to survive as a group. It's in the genes' best interest for the troops to care about each others and for the elders to teach the next generation the key to survival.

For us humans, we acknowledge if we don't stop ourselves from destroying the environment and overpopulating, our future generations won't survive. It's in the genes' best interest for mankind to realize not everyone is going to reproduce.

And so on.

If we start seeing ourselves as vessels of our genes, it really change how we define ourselves.
 
souggy said:
But yes, you can't recreate old types because the environment they used to live in are no longer the same.


It's like with foxes. Red foxes are tiny in North America because wolves and coyotes eat them. In Germany, they are absolutely huge because there is no predation other than humans with hounds and terriers; because they virtually humans hunted wolves to extinction on the continent. So, they will never be small again unless there is a reason for them to be so.
Click to expand...

Right. People fail to account for natural adaptation based on environmental factors.
 
Steinhauer said:
I gotta agree with her. There is design in nature.
Click to expand...

It would be more appropriate to call them designoids. They LOOK designed.

Since we spent eons crafting tools, smithing weapons, inventing things, we live in a self-centric world just because we have been given a giant brain to have foresight to develop technology, we think everything must had been designed.

However that is the limitation of the human brain. We can create a virtual world in our head. Because of our ability to build stimulations based on abstract thoughts in our mind, we are the creator our own imaginary microcosms, it is only logical for the brain to conclude there must be a Designer who is capable of doing the same.

The problem is: this shoots itself in the foot. If the designer can create something, then something must had created the designer which would require an even bigger designer.

And so on.
 
DeafCaroline said:
I don't even know to respond to this....I've never thought I would ever hear anyone say that cows fool humans into maligning them with abuse and stressful conditons (that would give a wild animal a nervous breakdown) for sake of keeping their offsprings alive.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see where you're having problems.

I am looking at it from the perceptive of a dog.

Some breeds such as coonhounds get kennel madness if they stay inside all day long; they want to hunt all day long. Others such as Pekingese are content being inside all day.
 
souggy said:
...The problem is: this shoots itself in the foot. If the designer can create something, then something must had created the designer which would require an even bigger designer.

And so on.
Click to expand...
There is no problem if one isn't limited to the natural realm. The supernatural Designer is beyond those limitations and our comprehension. That can be hard for human pride and dependence on human abilities to accept.
 
Reba said:
There is no problem if one isn't limited to the natural realm. The supernatural Designer is beyond those limitations and our comprehension. That can be hard for human pride and dependence on human abilities to accept.
Click to expand...

Yes, Hindi and Native Americans have an interesting way of circumverting the designer fallacy. They believe everything always was, everything always is and everything always was in the manner a universe cycles end, then a new one begins. It's infinite. There is no need for a designer for them.

The conflict between Christian doctrines and other religious doctrines is precisely why I want to avoid debating what the scriptures have to say.
 
souggy said:
Yes, Hindi and Native Americans have an interesting way of circumverting the designer fallacy. They believe everything always was, everything always is and everything always was in the manner a universe cycles end, then a new one begins. It's infinite. There is no need for a designer for them.

The conflict between Christian doctrines and other religious doctrines is precisely why I want to avoid debating what the scriptures have to say.
Click to expand...
Note that in my last post that you replied to, no mention of them. :)
 
Reba said:
Note that in my last post that you replied to, no mention of them. :)
Click to expand...

And? The idea of a supernatural being is a spiritual one.

If we really to take the supernatural out of the equation, we would fall back on the debate about whether or not the Big Bang is a single event, or if it's a part of a cycle.
 
But we live in North America. More than half follows the Christian doctrine; about 20% identify themselves are non-religious or secular give or take a few depending on the survey.

If we were living in India, we wouldn't have the Intelligent Design debate because the concept doesn't exist among the majority of their citizens.
 
souggy said:
But we live in North America. More than half follows the Christian doctrine....
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that. That's not even true for the Bible Belt Southern state that I live in.
 
Wirelessly posted

One gotta be really naïve to believe Christians don't make up the majority or extremely self-centric to think only a few branches is allowed to call themselves Christian. There are a number of surveys done:


http://religions.pewforum.org/reports




http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf




https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html#us
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

One gotta be really naïve to believe Christians don't make up the majority or extremely self-centric to think only a few branches is allowed to call themselves Christian. There are a number of surveys done:

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html#us
Click to expand...
Calling oneself a Christian and actually being a born-again Christian are two different things. Some Americans consider themselves "Christians" by default simply because they are Gentiles or because their ancestors were Christians.

If that high a percentage is actually Christian, where are they? How many do you run into every day? How many are posting here?
 
Back
Top