Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
Sorry I haven't visited this thread in awhile. (Losing track of all the posts...)_


Can you find any inherent problems with the way in which subjective morality explains how the world functions?  I don't want to hear your personal feelings toward it.  I want to know what part of how the world functions is not explained through the subjective morality theory.

Abortion. (e.g.)

An absolute morality demands "thou shall not murder"
A subjective morality finds a 'frame' for this decision to suit the person and the circumstance. The most popular frame right now is 'pro-choice'. That means my right to choose trumps your right to life - in a world where there is no objective morality.

yes I would, I have done so on many occasions, altho I would not call myself a habitual lier.


Eh, you said truth is the most important thing. When you tell a lie, for whatever reason, you are sacrificing truth for some other objective. How is this coherent.

If truth is the highest value, the ONLY value, then there should never be any justifiable reason to tell a lie, EVER.

It doesn't matter what reasons a person has. It doesn't matter what's at stake. If any person in any situation lies, they are violating the highest value, the only value. A lie is never justified.

Next question: Do you think people should be put to death for the sake of truth?

dam I thin k you got me, I am in pieces, my whole life is a fraud, what to do now.

I must leave this forum and never to return, I will wander the desert until I find truth again.

........I just lied.

I don't understand. First you say the thread is too confusing but then when i try to simplify it you patronize me.
Evolution & Creationism / Re: inner Life of a single cell
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:26:18 PM »
Just took my Bio AP exam. Got an A in that class. I think I'm well enough qualified to talk about this. :)

Do you know what DNA is?
Do you know how it replicates?
Do you know how it controls and codes for basically all the components of a cell?
Do you know why it has the knooks and cranies? JUST to ensure that the DNA itself is passed on indefinitely.

Why? Hell if I'd know. As far as I know, we don't have a solid theory on why exactly it "wants" to "live" on. Quotes because DNA itself is not alive, and therefore doesn't want anything. If anyone knows, please correct me.

I'm assuming your "looks random" was sarcastic. Guess what? It still is.

All sorts of atoms are constantly flying around. Sometimes because of environmental conditions, they bond in a certain way.

When this happens, you have what are called "emergent properties". These are new properties of the molecule as a whole that atoms individually don't have.

Then the chain just goes down. Randomness seemingly turns into specific instructions. Then you have things like phospholipids. These babies make up the membranes of the cells; wanna guess their emergent property? Selective permeability. They can react to certain molecules and ions, and react accordingly to either let them in, or keep them out. This is all the random bumping of atoms everywhere. Either it bonds to something and does something, or it doesn't.

DNA codes for it; it makes proteins and such that react to specific things, things that other proteins may not react to. This way, it seems like a cell is "instructed" to do something by sheer intelligence. Nope. Simple cause and effect, whose variety is powered by randomness, allowing a cell to do seemingly endless tasks, as if intelligently instructed.

Beautiful example: Photo respiration. In plants, there is this little enzyme called Rubisco. In the Calvin cycle, it is essential in carbon fixation. Anywho, sometimes it randomly picks up O2 (oxygen), instead of the usual CO2 (this actually happens more than you think). What does this do? Waste one ATP and one NAD(PH). Just a waste.

Why? Because oxygen fits into the enzyme too. Instruction? Randomness.

My favorite part is the motor protein. Power by ATP and pulling the vesicles all throughout the cell to make sure it stays alive.

Why? To pass on DNA.

It wasn't. Smiley face because it lacked a tongue-in-cheek smiley face.

I actually posted the video because it is amazing/cool...
Evolution & Creationism / Re: inner Life of a single cell
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:24:05 PM »
looks pretty random :)
Actually, it looks like you posted the link wrong.

It does seem so, not sure how. But I will try to do better next time - sorry
General Religious Discussion / Re: 10 Atheist Commandments
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:22:52 PM »
"(I have a heap of threads to respond to, so I don't want to pick a fight here with this one as it addresses too many topics. All of the comments I make I have already made elsewhere, so I won't keep regurgitating old arguments. Having said that, I am keen to see you comments...)"

I like the way dennis builds in his standard disclaimer, ie in so many words;

here is my opinion, I won't argue for it, because it's right, because it's my opinion, therefore is right, because it's my opinion......

I will just be insulting and pretend I don't know I am being insulting and  I won't respond to any comments because I have already given my opinions that are right, because they are my opinions.

what a jerk.

Allow me to edit that:

here is my opinion, I won't argue for it, , because it's my opinion, because I think it's right therefore is right, not because it's my opinion...... but because I thought about it.

I will just be insulting and pretend I don't and you will know I am being insulting and  I won't may not respond here to any comments because I have already given my opinions that are right elsewhere on the forum, because they are my opinions I don't want waste your time by repeating stuff.

There you go. Thank me later.
Chatter / Re: Analogy for searching for evidence
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:15:11 PM »
Non-analogous.  We can't feel around the unlit places.  We can only imagine them.  That doesn't help us find anything.

Aah. but you are wrong. You can feel.... trust me on that.
Chatter / Re: Analogy for searching for evidence
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:12:46 PM »
Old jokes work best as old jokes. "But the light's better here, officer!" is the thinking of a person who wants an easy answer (religion) and is in too bad a shape to seek anything else. It is science that peers in to the dark, looking. And so far, no supernatural stuff has shown up.

I trust instruments far more than I trust my human mind when it comes to exploring. I need my mind, but I want something else to do some of the measuring, some of the peering in to the unknown, because we humans have a long track record of making stuff up. Like where to best look for keys.

By the way, I now have a bluetooth tag on my keys, and can find them with my iPhone. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, religion.

Whilst it is true that I am stretching an old joke, the analogy is explores the idea that (in your world) evidence is only admissible that meets predetermined criteria (can be seen, implies natural).

Whilst you peer into the dark from the light, you refuse to go there because you can't see. (For that would take faith :))

BTW: Hope you enjoy the BT tag - isn't science great?

I wonder if anyone on the forum is going to ridicule you for using it? Unless you are a specific type of engineer/scientist, then presumably like the vast majority of us you don't really know how it works, who invented it etc.?  You simply trusted that it would work as advertised? Because of your past experience with gadgets you have good reason to continue to accept these claims without studying the underlying science first, right?

Chatter / Re: Analogy for searching for evidence
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 07:04:18 PM »
This appears to be a new low for our theist friend. &)  He has taken a very old joke about an Irish drunk and tried to use it for his god.

Drunks for god, Unite!!

I am not allowed to stretch a joke? See Andy...for instance.
Testimonials / Re: A Testimonial to Old Church Guy
« Last post by eh! on Yesterday at 06:59:20 PM »
ok break this up you lot, it is starting to get icky.
General Religious Discussion / Re: Frequent Obejctions
« Last post by dennis on Yesterday at 06:57:56 PM »
That's about right, Eh!. The last century saw a number of people go out to the holy land to try and find archaeological evidence for the bible. Sure they found some wall fortifications that seem to match some that Solomon is said to have done but, really, there's not a lot. So far as I know no one has managed to find the town of Jericho - the one with walls falling down which ought to be obvious from the archaeology.  For later stuff no one has found any of the places Paul claims to have created large churches - at least there may be churches there but much later that Paul.

Whilst the basic geography is right and some of the leaders and invaders are about right this is exactly what one would expect for an historical novel and what one would not expect if the stories were fact. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls were probably placed there no long before the Romans kicked everyone out of Jerusalem and probably came from the Temple library. Yet not a mention of Jesus or anything like it is found among them. Everyone one turns it seems that people either ignored Jesus and his disciples or Jesus and his disciples were just not there to be noticed. For a religion based on historical events this is a serious position.

Textus Recepticus, used by the King James translators in 1611, were virtually identical to these ancient Dead Sea Scrolls. After carefully comparing the manuscripts they discovered that, aside from a tiny number of spelling variations, not a single word was altered from the original scrolls in the caves from the much copied A.D. 1100 manuscripts used by the Authorized King James Version translators in 1611.

In 1991 the world was astonished to hear that one of the unpublished scrolls included incredible references to a "Messiah" who suffered crucifixion for the sins of men
So this wikipedia article: based on a book written in 1977

At the very least, they provide evidence that the information contained in the books of the Bible has been handed down accurately.The scrolls enhance one's faith rather than undermine it.

No New Testament figure is mentioned (yet the existence of every figure in the NT is not in question) the scrolls show the debate over apocalypticism and messianism etc.... These were topical because...?

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10