Quote:
What I said was that I believe the concept of Common Descent, right or wrong, is easily used as a backbone for a belief system based in the idea that our lives are meaningless, morality is pointless and we are no better than bugs because it's only random chance that we aren't.
I PREFER to believe in something else, or more to the point: disbelieve that. It's a very easy thing to do.
|
What you were responding to:
Quote:
|
Is your argument exhausted; in suspense because you feel it baulks your beliefs and related arguments?
|
Okay.
"I drive about 20 hours per week, and I work an additional 40 on average."
Quit logging on to tell me what you've been doing that kept you from responding and actually respond. Think, if you combined all that time together you could've posted lengthy articles in response to everyone. Pithyness is good on message board, I've heard. Apparantly it works well for busy people, too.
You've taken time to go completely off-topic to argue your beliefs, which is fine, but your beliefs don't matter in science- not even in government or economy. The beliefs of scientists don't even really matter. There is no belief, really. So can you put your beliefs aside, and examine the evidence as it is, in terms of science and evolution? Remember my detective analogy? Well, pretend you're a detective. And you're trying to solve a "Crime". Now, there's some "Evidence" that contradicts an "Alibi". What do you do?
This works for this conversation, the following, and just about all of the other conversations we have had:
Quote:
|
I would have loved to have spent this time talking about evolution or politics, but instead I've had to explain logical discussion to you.
|
Your basis of reality rests entirely on beliefs, to the point of allowing it to interfere with your capacity to analyze nature and reality outside of it. It's sad that the only reason you disagree with common descent is because some people use it to fuel their belief against your belief. That's certainly a solid foundation for logical decision making.
Another thing: Beliefs are illogical, you tart. Have you ever looked up the word logical? Especially in context of this entire argument. Why do you involve your personal beliefs into a logical discussion? I know we asked for it, but all the same, please try not to label it logical. It's atriciously retarded of you.
If you base your entire position in every argument based on your beliefs, it's somewhat commendable but absolutely retarded of you. People like you fuck up the world because they believe stupid shit will help, but since it is sometimes formed to be the opposite of reality it's not exactly going to work out properly. I assume you've heard of this retarded thing called GIGO, but i think it's appropriate here, "Garbage In Garbage Out".
Look, you've even implied here that science and religion are on opposite sides of the coin. I've implied that religion supplies more of a spiritual message(supernatural), with certain sociological systems of morality and purity, while science supplies knowledge on the "natural" and physical aspects of reality. You can't include ridiculously supernatural shit when talking about the physical. By your own admission they explain different sides of reality.
Common descent argues nothing against morality. That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. This is where you're wrong about how it's a sociological thing(which religion also is in this respect).
First off, let me clarify, nearly any concept can be considered "Sociological" just by analyzing the effects it has on society and culture. Which means, in this sense, religion has been VERY influential, especially when you consider the aspect of morality(which you mentioned). It is entirely possible that it may have guided us from being ravenous, retarded animals by supplying us with purpose and a system to keep us from being self-destructive.
Now on to the topic of evolution and sociology. Obviously you've never even heard of Richard Dawkins, who we've discussed before on this board. He says that cultures themselves can evolve, via "memes". Morals are considered a very large portion of culture, and society, because it allows it to be self-maintained without killing itself, which would be considered counter-productive as it would keep it from 'evolving'. Your body does it too, it's kind of like an "Immune system" of sorts to keep your body from getting diseased. That observation of morals is based on obvious sociological effects that can be seen by anybody. Don't you agree that morals themselves are a function to keep us running as a healthy organism, and without some system of control we would just be ravenous animals?
No purpose? Obviously if our culture can evolve, which is something we have a direct influence on since we are a part of it, then morals, and purpose, are still present concepts. You just see too many fields as contradicting eachother, instead of seeing that they are just describing different aspects. Sociology and evolution are not the same study. In some senses, they may overlap. Just like chemistry and biology aren't the same science, but they overlap.
I hope that has been interesting. I understand that I suggested religion has some physical effects, but that's through it's media of humanity, as science's sociological effect was through the human media. I've supplied you with reasons why your stance between the two is pointless in any logical sense. I seriously consider this argument over, but if you want to continue I can keep going.
One thing I'd like to ask you is if you agree that society itself has evolved?
If you really fear belief systems developing against your belief system, my previous observation of you as a paranoid neurotic was appropriate.
Sometimes I can't tell how hard you're playing the strawman. You're an enigma wrapped in a fruitloop.
Linear Mode
