:'( I'm thinking like a christian scientist :'(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shai Gar
  • Start date Start date
S

Shai Gar

:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:

In my search to understand the insects I hate the most* I'm starting to think telelogically.

"What is the purpose of x Creature?" instead of,
"What ecological function does it perform?"

For instance, the cockroach family, cockroaches and termites help to break down dead vegetation so that it can work as compost for developing and future vegetation. It fills a niche market.

I've started to apply that damned philosophy, if something exists it has a purpose. But purpose implies creation. Creationism denies Evolution.

And "Magic Sky Daddy" isn't the best possible argument.

My head hurts.



*Cockroaches, Flies, Mosquitoes, ticks, fleas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't cry, or give yourself a headache. This isn't such a bad thing. I believe in Creationism... there's a lot about it that pisses me off and gives me a headache as well.

But yeah, don't cry.
 
Creationism is retarded*, as it's based on logical inconsistencies and an inability to prove or even show the working out for the thing it hinges on the most.








*as are its adherents.
 
Shai Gar said:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:

In my search to understand the insects I hate the most* I'm starting to think telelogically.

"What is the purpose of x Creature?" instead of,
"What ecological function does it perform?"

For instance, the cockroach family, cockroaches and termites help to break down dead vegetation so that it can work as compost for developing and future vegetation. It fills a niche market.

I've started to apply that damned philosophy, if something exists it has a purpose. But purpose implies creation. Creationism denies Evolution.

And "Magic Sky Daddy" isn't the best possible argument.

My head hurts.



*Cockroaches, Flies, Mosquitoes, ticks, fleas.
Click to expand...


You must be punished for this transgression. Guards! Take him. Throw him in the dungeon. Make him suffer.
 
Oh, suck it up. :D​

Finding the proposed purpose of a creature's existence does not explicitly imply creation. In order to survive, all creatures must find a niche in which they can specialise so they can find as much food as possible with as little danger as possible. This process of specialisation can seem like a purposeful positioning (and maybe it was if you go into Determinism), but it is not, nor is it solely arbitrary. Perhaps you are finding issues because you are placing values upon creatures that are inherently valueless.​

However, I don't see how creationism is retarded or its adherents retarded. Are all the people of the past retarded? Because they believed in some sort of creation myth for ages. Just another way of viewing the world.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
If you think about it enough, things will appear to have a purpose to life, and things will start looking like teleology. Then, as you look even deeper you'l realize how wrong you were. Its like a disease that has to get worse before it gets better. therefore, I prescribing plenty of bed rest and clear liquids, with a heavy dosing of research.


note:everything said above is pure conjecture.
 
I met with the board of directors of Christian Science last Saturday. They liked me. I could help you get on good grounds :eyebrows:
 
Creationism is not retarded. Being so narrow-minded is what's retarded - not to imply that YOU are, but there are many that are so. I firmly believe the most open-minded "feature" is that of faith. And so many people claim that those that have faith are narrow-minded...Some, of course, are. But not all of them.
 
I find Wicked Pods avatar mesmerizing. Hatchetface has always held a special place in my heart.
 
WickedPod said:
Creationism is not retarded. Being so narrow-minded is what's retarded - not to imply that YOU are, but there are many that are so. I firmly believe the most open-minded "feature" is that of faith. And so many people claim that those that have faith are narrow-minded...Some, of course, are. But not all of them.
Click to expand...

I can think of nothing more closed than "faith", it is closed by definition.
 
Shai Gar said:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:
:m142::m142::m142::m142::m142::m142:

In my search to understand the insects I hate the most* I'm starting to think telelogically.

"What is the purpose of x Creature?" instead of,
"What ecological function does it perform?"

For instance, the cockroach family, cockroaches and termites help to break down dead vegetation so that it can work as compost for developing and future vegetation. It fills a niche market.

I've started to apply that damned philosophy, if something exists it has a purpose. But purpose implies creation. Creationism denies Evolution.

And "Magic Sky Daddy" isn't the best possible argument.

My head hurts.



*Cockroaches, Flies, Mosquitoes, ticks, fleas.
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's that there was a niche in the ecology that, if filled, would make it easy on the organism that filled it to survive enough to pass on young.

In otherwards, roaches evolved because that ecological niche was supplied by an abundance of newly dead material...all that was needed was an animal to break it down, and because there is dead material in enough abundance, the environment is conducive to the survival of such an animal.


It isn't necessarily that the roach "has a purpose" only that it "has a food supply."
 
Last edited:
Quinlan said:
Unwaveringly closed in the face of persuasion, reason, new ideas and evidence.

If it weren't closed it wouldn't be faith.
Click to expand...
What about faith that adapts with science and reasoning but is used to fill in the blanks that science cannot currently prove?
 
Quinlan said:
Unwaveringly closed in the face of persuasion, reason, new ideas and evidence.

If it weren't closed it wouldn't be faith.
Click to expand...
I care to disagree. I have faith in what I believe, but I can still be persuaded by arguments, which lead me to re-evaluate my beliefs, develop better ideas, and thereby make my belief stronger. I feel that the strength of my belief comes from my ability to listen to both my intuition and reason, and to reconcile the differences.

BTW, I define my morals by what I feel is best from what I observe and feel, and it just so happened that Wicca mirrors those morals.
 
if your "common" definition is the christian definition (as viewed by general non-christians [the blind faith version]), then no, its not faith. However, I still believe that which can not be scientifically proven (nor disproven, but I know scientist don't like trying to disprove the existence of something), and therefore must hold faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top