Oh, well, if it's final and god really doesn't exist, I'm going to go out and start killing people randomly. Just kidding. I would never do it randomly.
@krasnaya
"I see, my friend (if i may take the liberty to call you that), that you are equally capable of the tone."
Feel free to take the liberty! I'm not sure I quite got that though. If you're reffering to the dark, sarcastic tone, then that's one of my specialities whenever I choose to use it :) I can annoy more Christians with it than the number of people God slaughtered in the old Testament.
"I see, my friend (if i may take the liberty to call you that), that you are equally capable of the tone."
Feel free to take the liberty! I'm not sure I quite got that though. If you're reffering to the dark, sarcastic tone, then that's one of my specialities whenever I choose to use it :) I can annoy more Christians with it than the number of people God slaughtered in the old Testament.
@havfanridindis said (#472):
> I'm not sure I quite got that though.
regarding my side remarks in #465 and #469:
"dark, sarcastic" is also referred to as "cynical", which comes from "κυνός" - dog. Diogenes Laertius, for instance, describes in "Antisthenes" a situation, where Alexander the Great says to the philosopher Diogenes "i am Alexander, the great king" and Diogenes answers "and i am Diogenes, the dog". The Korinthians would even set a marble dog onto his grave. Actually the "κυνισμός" is derived from the "κυνόσαργες", the gymnaseion dedicated to "untrue Athenians" (offspring from Athenians with non-Athenians) and named after Herakles Kynosarges but the philosophers of the school - see above - liked to play with the innuendo.
Yes, i resort to sarcastical remarks because i am convinced that to really make a difference it is not only necessary to point out the errors in the xtians arguments (they will just wait a few moments and then repeat them), but also to make them the laughing stock of the audience. I don't think i can hammer knowledge or even reason into their superstitious minds but i can at least prevent them from corrupting others brains.
krasnaya
> I'm not sure I quite got that though.
regarding my side remarks in #465 and #469:
"dark, sarcastic" is also referred to as "cynical", which comes from "κυνός" - dog. Diogenes Laertius, for instance, describes in "Antisthenes" a situation, where Alexander the Great says to the philosopher Diogenes "i am Alexander, the great king" and Diogenes answers "and i am Diogenes, the dog". The Korinthians would even set a marble dog onto his grave. Actually the "κυνισμός" is derived from the "κυνόσαργες", the gymnaseion dedicated to "untrue Athenians" (offspring from Athenians with non-Athenians) and named after Herakles Kynosarges but the philosophers of the school - see above - liked to play with the innuendo.
Yes, i resort to sarcastical remarks because i am convinced that to really make a difference it is not only necessary to point out the errors in the xtians arguments (they will just wait a few moments and then repeat them), but also to make them the laughing stock of the audience. I don't think i can hammer knowledge or even reason into their superstitious minds but i can at least prevent them from corrupting others brains.
krasnaya
@krasnaya
Ok, I'm pretty sure at this point you know more about ancient Greek philosophy and culture than I do XD
I do believe the ancient word for dog though is "Κύων". Fun fact: if you change the letter "υ" to "ι", it's pronounced the same but it now translates to "Κίων"= "pillar" You''d be right when it comes to modern Greek though. The suffix "-ος" is used for male gender nouns in modern Greek a lot, so the modern equivalent of dog could have been "Κύνος"(the one you said) if we had kept the same root. But it changed over the years and now we say "σκύλος".
Νow about the actual school of philosophical thought "Cynicism", doesn't that include lving a life withough conventional desires and free of material possessions like wealth etc? I'm probably not as well informed here as you, but if it requires all that, I personally wouldn't choose that for my life, lol.
"but also to make them the laughing stock of the audience"
The belief itself should be the laughing stock of the audience, not the believers, and hopefully that audience will keep growing larger and larger. The believers, I'm not exactly blaming or feel the need to make fun of. I mean I think about the way they were brought up and all. Indoctrination from a young age can corrupt the minds of even the most intelligent of people. It's important to demostrate how ridiculous their beliefs and their claims are but not to attack the people personally and make fun of them. As you said, even if they're never convinced, we can at least prevent others from being dragged into that unhealthy, fictitious mindset.
Ok, I'm pretty sure at this point you know more about ancient Greek philosophy and culture than I do XD
I do believe the ancient word for dog though is "Κύων". Fun fact: if you change the letter "υ" to "ι", it's pronounced the same but it now translates to "Κίων"= "pillar" You''d be right when it comes to modern Greek though. The suffix "-ος" is used for male gender nouns in modern Greek a lot, so the modern equivalent of dog could have been "Κύνος"(the one you said) if we had kept the same root. But it changed over the years and now we say "σκύλος".
Νow about the actual school of philosophical thought "Cynicism", doesn't that include lving a life withough conventional desires and free of material possessions like wealth etc? I'm probably not as well informed here as you, but if it requires all that, I personally wouldn't choose that for my life, lol.
"but also to make them the laughing stock of the audience"
The belief itself should be the laughing stock of the audience, not the believers, and hopefully that audience will keep growing larger and larger. The believers, I'm not exactly blaming or feel the need to make fun of. I mean I think about the way they were brought up and all. Indoctrination from a young age can corrupt the minds of even the most intelligent of people. It's important to demostrate how ridiculous their beliefs and their claims are but not to attack the people personally and make fun of them. As you said, even if they're never convinced, we can at least prevent others from being dragged into that unhealthy, fictitious mindset.
@krasnaya
Oh dont get me started on "kinds". What a joke, i do like to remind them that a bat is a bird when they talk of kinds. It has to be done to show them how ridiculous they are being when avoiding the use of the word "specie".
If they used the word specie and understood speciation (which they most likely do but cant admit it), then they would have to face the fact that we have a test for the theory of evolution. We have the example of isolated birds. As the birds can no longer reproduce with a specie of bird that would of been their ancestor then speciation has to have occured, those birds have EVOLVED into a whole new specie and this is solid evidence towards Darwins theory.
So they use the word "kinds" in arguments along the lines of "but a bird is a bird, they are the same "kind", a bird will never give birth to a different kind" or some other nonsense like that.
To see if i could get anywhere on the categorisation system that creationists use i thought i would take a look at their infamous website and i was genuinely shocked at the things they say. In my opinion this is one of the most lying, deceptfull, misinforming, unscientific websites you could waste you time to read, but read i did just to fair to both sides of the debate. The word irony does not get close to describing this little gem that they have wrote on their KINDS page:
"A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!"
The exclamation mark is was not added by me. I cant believe the fucking audacity of these people. Are they saying that that their "kinds" is not a man made classification system? They are literally pretending to children and the ignorant adults that science is trying to deceive them. They are lying and building strawman versions of a theory that has nothing but VALIDATION. All it would take to falsify the entire theory is to find the right fossil in the wrong layer strata. Find a rabbit fossil that was formed before the cambrian explosion for example, you get the idea! That site makes my blood boil, the blatant missleeding of people who know no better is infuriating.
Take this for example a direct quote from creation.com
" anyone who dares to question the prevailing evolutionary paradigm is denied a place of influence among the science fraternity. No scientist who wants to progress in academia will dare step out of line"
The above is complete BS. The best scientists are the ones that break new ground and find new theories. If you were to find evidence against evolution you would be GUARANTEED a grant to further your research because science wants the truth. New evidence is what excites and pushes us forward. The bottom line is that if you had evidence going against an established theory the you would be granted more not less. There is no cover up, no conspiracy, take off your tinfoil hat and read a real science journal. Just find out how science works to begin with, half of you dont know how the scientific method works yet you claim to know more then people who have spent their lives studying the evidence and following it wherever it leads!
It is no wonder that some have issues with the theory when it is being put forward to them as some kind of impossible magic but if they bothered to listen to a professor and not a con man then these poor children would realise the theory makes perfect sense. Okay, the in depth science of genes and DNA can be and is complicated, but you dont need to know that to understand natural selection, gene mutation.
As long as you can understand mutations that are beneficial live on, and that natural selection (basically survival of the fittest for those that are suited to their environment) then evolution makes perfect sense.
Species make sense - Not all winged animals are birds. A bat is not a bird and they can't reproduce with each other, this makes bats and birds a different specie. Real world obs show bats and birds not shagging!!!
Kinds make no sense - Not all winged animal are birds. A bat is not a bird yet they are the same "kind" according to the creationist lies. If bats and birds are the same kind then why cant a bird give birth to a bat? ................OH because you have an every blurring line of what a kind is, how bloody convenient!!!
If this comes out as angry then so be it. Creationists lie, NOT ALL but many. Most are just gullible and/or ignorant to actual science.
Sorry for another log winded post but reading answersingenisis was a very eye opening. The dishonest tactics used in the literature made me see how bad this problem really is. I am so thankful that religion is not a big deal and creationists like this are very rare here in the UK. This mess cannot be allowed to cross the pond and diminish our childrens braincells the UK.
Im all for free speech but im all against willful misinformation!
Stop lying for, the love of god JUST TOP IT!
Oh dont get me started on "kinds". What a joke, i do like to remind them that a bat is a bird when they talk of kinds. It has to be done to show them how ridiculous they are being when avoiding the use of the word "specie".
If they used the word specie and understood speciation (which they most likely do but cant admit it), then they would have to face the fact that we have a test for the theory of evolution. We have the example of isolated birds. As the birds can no longer reproduce with a specie of bird that would of been their ancestor then speciation has to have occured, those birds have EVOLVED into a whole new specie and this is solid evidence towards Darwins theory.
So they use the word "kinds" in arguments along the lines of "but a bird is a bird, they are the same "kind", a bird will never give birth to a different kind" or some other nonsense like that.
To see if i could get anywhere on the categorisation system that creationists use i thought i would take a look at their infamous website and i was genuinely shocked at the things they say. In my opinion this is one of the most lying, deceptfull, misinforming, unscientific websites you could waste you time to read, but read i did just to fair to both sides of the debate. The word irony does not get close to describing this little gem that they have wrote on their KINDS page:
"A species is a man-made term used in the modern classification system. And frankly, the word species is difficult to define, whether one is a creationist or not!"
The exclamation mark is was not added by me. I cant believe the fucking audacity of these people. Are they saying that that their "kinds" is not a man made classification system? They are literally pretending to children and the ignorant adults that science is trying to deceive them. They are lying and building strawman versions of a theory that has nothing but VALIDATION. All it would take to falsify the entire theory is to find the right fossil in the wrong layer strata. Find a rabbit fossil that was formed before the cambrian explosion for example, you get the idea! That site makes my blood boil, the blatant missleeding of people who know no better is infuriating.
Take this for example a direct quote from creation.com
" anyone who dares to question the prevailing evolutionary paradigm is denied a place of influence among the science fraternity. No scientist who wants to progress in academia will dare step out of line"
The above is complete BS. The best scientists are the ones that break new ground and find new theories. If you were to find evidence against evolution you would be GUARANTEED a grant to further your research because science wants the truth. New evidence is what excites and pushes us forward. The bottom line is that if you had evidence going against an established theory the you would be granted more not less. There is no cover up, no conspiracy, take off your tinfoil hat and read a real science journal. Just find out how science works to begin with, half of you dont know how the scientific method works yet you claim to know more then people who have spent their lives studying the evidence and following it wherever it leads!
It is no wonder that some have issues with the theory when it is being put forward to them as some kind of impossible magic but if they bothered to listen to a professor and not a con man then these poor children would realise the theory makes perfect sense. Okay, the in depth science of genes and DNA can be and is complicated, but you dont need to know that to understand natural selection, gene mutation.
As long as you can understand mutations that are beneficial live on, and that natural selection (basically survival of the fittest for those that are suited to their environment) then evolution makes perfect sense.
Species make sense - Not all winged animals are birds. A bat is not a bird and they can't reproduce with each other, this makes bats and birds a different specie. Real world obs show bats and birds not shagging!!!
Kinds make no sense - Not all winged animal are birds. A bat is not a bird yet they are the same "kind" according to the creationist lies. If bats and birds are the same kind then why cant a bird give birth to a bat? ................OH because you have an every blurring line of what a kind is, how bloody convenient!!!
If this comes out as angry then so be it. Creationists lie, NOT ALL but many. Most are just gullible and/or ignorant to actual science.
Sorry for another log winded post but reading answersingenisis was a very eye opening. The dishonest tactics used in the literature made me see how bad this problem really is. I am so thankful that religion is not a big deal and creationists like this are very rare here in the UK. This mess cannot be allowed to cross the pond and diminish our childrens braincells the UK.
Im all for free speech but im all against willful misinformation!
Stop lying for, the love of god JUST TOP IT!
@nuffsed81 said (#475):
> Take this for example a direct quote from creation.com
> " anyone who dares to question the prevailing evolutionary paradigm is denied a place of
> influence among the science fraternity. No scientist who wants to progress in academia
> will dare step out of line"
This is actually true. People denying evolution are looked down upon by serious biologists for the same reasons that people who think Elvis is alive and living on planet Kolob are looked down upon by historians and people who don't believe in the "gravitation theory" but "intelligent falling" instead are looked down upon by physicists.
The problem is: if you say you believe that Elvis is alive you immediately pay a price - try it at our next job interview. If you say you believe in an invisible friend who grants you wishes if you talk to him in a certain way you pay the same price. But say you are a christian and you like to pray - effectively the same - and you don't.
If someone says that women should be subordinate to men because this is what the bible (Ephesians 5:22ff) says we should take it the same way as if someone says that Elvis is alive and he told him that. We wouldn't discuss this "new interesting moral concept" but instead tell him to go away for the idiot he is.
@havfanridindis said (#474):
> I do believe the ancient word for dog though is "Κύων"
This is correct. Actually "Κύων" is nominative ("[the] dog") whereas "κυνός" is genitive ("[the] dogs [tail, etc.]"). The epithet "dog" was thrown at the cynics first as an insult (Diogenes and Antisthenes were both quite controversial figures) but they took it up and liked to play with the innuendo, see above. Perhaps along the same lines as some black people address one another as "nigger".
Living a live of poverty is probably not a desirable ideal but consciously differentiating between the things one needs and the things one wants is a worthwhile effort. I don't want to bore you with the philosophical implications but maybe - as a technician, if i got that right - you read RFCs, the standards documents of the internet. Now here is one, RFC 1925, "The Twelve Thruths of Networking":
> In protocol design perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there
> is nothing left to take away.
krasnaya
> Take this for example a direct quote from creation.com
> " anyone who dares to question the prevailing evolutionary paradigm is denied a place of
> influence among the science fraternity. No scientist who wants to progress in academia
> will dare step out of line"
This is actually true. People denying evolution are looked down upon by serious biologists for the same reasons that people who think Elvis is alive and living on planet Kolob are looked down upon by historians and people who don't believe in the "gravitation theory" but "intelligent falling" instead are looked down upon by physicists.
The problem is: if you say you believe that Elvis is alive you immediately pay a price - try it at our next job interview. If you say you believe in an invisible friend who grants you wishes if you talk to him in a certain way you pay the same price. But say you are a christian and you like to pray - effectively the same - and you don't.
If someone says that women should be subordinate to men because this is what the bible (Ephesians 5:22ff) says we should take it the same way as if someone says that Elvis is alive and he told him that. We wouldn't discuss this "new interesting moral concept" but instead tell him to go away for the idiot he is.
@havfanridindis said (#474):
> I do believe the ancient word for dog though is "Κύων"
This is correct. Actually "Κύων" is nominative ("[the] dog") whereas "κυνός" is genitive ("[the] dogs [tail, etc.]"). The epithet "dog" was thrown at the cynics first as an insult (Diogenes and Antisthenes were both quite controversial figures) but they took it up and liked to play with the innuendo, see above. Perhaps along the same lines as some black people address one another as "nigger".
Living a live of poverty is probably not a desirable ideal but consciously differentiating between the things one needs and the things one wants is a worthwhile effort. I don't want to bore you with the philosophical implications but maybe - as a technician, if i got that right - you read RFCs, the standards documents of the internet. Now here is one, RFC 1925, "The Twelve Thruths of Networking":
> In protocol design perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there
> is nothing left to take away.
krasnaya
@nuffsed81
When they use the word "kind" instead of "species", it's because "species" is strictly defined by biologists whereas they can play around with "kind" and change its definition arbitrarily to whatever suits them in each case.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yse5l5-s1KA
That video from 4:10 until 6:37 demostrates an example of exactly what you described. Equivocating terms and passing it as legitimate information. It just goes to show how dishonest and pretentious these people are.
When they use the word "kind" instead of "species", it's because "species" is strictly defined by biologists whereas they can play around with "kind" and change its definition arbitrarily to whatever suits them in each case.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yse5l5-s1KA
That video from 4:10 until 6:37 demostrates an example of exactly what you described. Equivocating terms and passing it as legitimate information. It just goes to show how dishonest and pretentious these people are.
@krasnaya
Oh, that's right. I didn't think about the genitive case. I'm surprised you know all that about ancient Greek actually, pretty impressive.
"but maybe - as a technician, if i got that right -" A techician? Lol, I am still an undergraduate student on my 3rd year. I have many years to go before I can call myself anything.
"consciously differentiating between the things one needs and the things one wants is a worthwhile effort."
You sound like a very interesting person to discuss philosophical concepts with. Contemplating over what one needs and what one wants is totally worthwhile, but saying that one is able to differentiate completely between them is kind of oversimplifying the concept. It's not as simple as two categories labeled "needs" and "desires" under which all human actions fall exclusively. Instead there's a whole spectrum of categories one could imagine, some maybe compatible with either word.
For example, there's a definite and undeniable need for the essentials of life (air, food, water etc) cause one can not live without them. That's clear enough. How about a roof or warm clothes for Winter or tools for personal hygiene? One could live without them but probably not for as many years. They'd die young, so that would probably be classified as a need too. Then how about social needs? We clearly have needs for making interactions with other humans and building relationships with them, no? It's built in us as a social species through millions of years of evolution. Plus, solitude can often be detrimrntal to one's mental health. Then you could dive more into the details of specifically what kinds of relationships those would be, sex, family, money to support families etc...
What I'm geting at is this: At which point does it stop being a "need" anymore and it's simply a desire? It's not as simple as it sounds. The more one thinks about it, the more they'll realize that there's no strict line of seperation between the two concepts. No matter where one broadly seperates the concepts according to his personal views, it's never sudden and strict. Instead, we find that the two concepts sort of blend together as we move away from the things we can undeniably label as "needs" or "desires" and towards the middle of the spectrum.
"In protocol design perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
That's a very interesting point of view. In my personal opinion, when it comes to humans, there's no way one could objectively achieve perfection, cause there's no way that everyone could agree on what perfection is, and what it means for a human. Protocol designs are kinda easier to deal with than humans when it comes to defining what perfection is. For example one might say "look how successful you are, you've reached your true potential" but how do you know what someone's potential is? How do you even define "ultimate potential" for each individual? One's lifestyle might be considered a success by one group of people or one culture and a failure by another. What maters at the end of the day is your own definition of what success is. If having earthly possessions makes you feel happy and complete, then pursue that. If solitude and abstinence makes you feel that, then pursue it. If your definition of success changes along the way, that's ok too. That's just life. Inner balance and acceptance of what you are and what you need/want is just as important as achieving it.
I know I went on a bit of a tangent here but I had too many thoughts concering this very interesting topic. To sum up, my basic life philosophy is as simple as it gets and it boils down to:
"
1) Find balance and accept who you are.
2) Identify what gives you happiness and fulfillment and what gives you pain
3) Take actions that maximize happiness and minimize pain while at the same time not
infringing on other people's ability to do the same"
Basically "live and let live". Or if you're a religious fundamentalist on a terrorist attack about to commit suicide: "die and let die".
Oh, that's right. I didn't think about the genitive case. I'm surprised you know all that about ancient Greek actually, pretty impressive.
"but maybe - as a technician, if i got that right -" A techician? Lol, I am still an undergraduate student on my 3rd year. I have many years to go before I can call myself anything.
"consciously differentiating between the things one needs and the things one wants is a worthwhile effort."
You sound like a very interesting person to discuss philosophical concepts with. Contemplating over what one needs and what one wants is totally worthwhile, but saying that one is able to differentiate completely between them is kind of oversimplifying the concept. It's not as simple as two categories labeled "needs" and "desires" under which all human actions fall exclusively. Instead there's a whole spectrum of categories one could imagine, some maybe compatible with either word.
For example, there's a definite and undeniable need for the essentials of life (air, food, water etc) cause one can not live without them. That's clear enough. How about a roof or warm clothes for Winter or tools for personal hygiene? One could live without them but probably not for as many years. They'd die young, so that would probably be classified as a need too. Then how about social needs? We clearly have needs for making interactions with other humans and building relationships with them, no? It's built in us as a social species through millions of years of evolution. Plus, solitude can often be detrimrntal to one's mental health. Then you could dive more into the details of specifically what kinds of relationships those would be, sex, family, money to support families etc...
What I'm geting at is this: At which point does it stop being a "need" anymore and it's simply a desire? It's not as simple as it sounds. The more one thinks about it, the more they'll realize that there's no strict line of seperation between the two concepts. No matter where one broadly seperates the concepts according to his personal views, it's never sudden and strict. Instead, we find that the two concepts sort of blend together as we move away from the things we can undeniably label as "needs" or "desires" and towards the middle of the spectrum.
"In protocol design perfection is reached not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
That's a very interesting point of view. In my personal opinion, when it comes to humans, there's no way one could objectively achieve perfection, cause there's no way that everyone could agree on what perfection is, and what it means for a human. Protocol designs are kinda easier to deal with than humans when it comes to defining what perfection is. For example one might say "look how successful you are, you've reached your true potential" but how do you know what someone's potential is? How do you even define "ultimate potential" for each individual? One's lifestyle might be considered a success by one group of people or one culture and a failure by another. What maters at the end of the day is your own definition of what success is. If having earthly possessions makes you feel happy and complete, then pursue that. If solitude and abstinence makes you feel that, then pursue it. If your definition of success changes along the way, that's ok too. That's just life. Inner balance and acceptance of what you are and what you need/want is just as important as achieving it.
I know I went on a bit of a tangent here but I had too many thoughts concering this very interesting topic. To sum up, my basic life philosophy is as simple as it gets and it boils down to:
"
1) Find balance and accept who you are.
2) Identify what gives you happiness and fulfillment and what gives you pain
3) Take actions that maximize happiness and minimize pain while at the same time not
infringing on other people's ability to do the same"
Basically "live and let live". Or if you're a religious fundamentalist on a terrorist attack about to commit suicide: "die and let die".
@havfanridindis said (#478):
> You sound like a very interesting person to discuss philosophical concepts with.
Thank you. The admiration is mutual. ;-)
@havfanridindis said (#478):
> Contemplating over what one needs and what one wants is totally worthwhile, but
> saying that one is able to differentiate completely between them is kind of
> oversimplifying the concept.
Ahem, i didn't say "completely" but "consciously". It is completely off-topic here, though, so i will open a new thread. This space here should be reserved for the complete and utter defacing of superstition of any kind.
krasnaya
> You sound like a very interesting person to discuss philosophical concepts with.
Thank you. The admiration is mutual. ;-)
@havfanridindis said (#478):
> Contemplating over what one needs and what one wants is totally worthwhile, but
> saying that one is able to differentiate completely between them is kind of
> oversimplifying the concept.
Ahem, i didn't say "completely" but "consciously". It is completely off-topic here, though, so i will open a new thread. This space here should be reserved for the complete and utter defacing of superstition of any kind.
krasnaya
@krasnaya
Yeah, I was really off topic here. But all the indoctrinated people have been quiet lately so I thought I'd say something different. But you're right, let's leave this thread dedicated to the annihilation of unsubstantiated claims.
Yeah, I was really off topic here. But all the indoctrinated people have been quiet lately so I thought I'd say something different. But you're right, let's leave this thread dedicated to the annihilation of unsubstantiated claims.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.