Rock Beyond Belief

[vbnautilus 48]

Thanks for ending a wonderful dialogue opportunity.

You've admitted you were intentionally antagonizing me, and then you complain when you don't get a serious response? If you want to engage in discussion, don't antagonize and troll. It takes a lot of effort to think about and develop a response to some of these questions and if I am doing it as part of someone's plan to bother me, I'm not doing it. p.s. if you are going to troll, take a lesson from BG and at least be funny about it.

But does it surprise you it was able to happen so quickly?

Perfect example right here. Should I really answer this or are you ****ing with me again? Three and half billion years is quick? Then what would slow be?

I got an "A" in Stat 101. FACE!

Might want to go back over your notes.

[brvheart 1,752]

You've admitted you were intentionally antagonizing me, and then you complain when you don't get a serious response? If you want to engage in discussion, don't antagonize and troll. It takes a lot of effort to think about and develop a response to some of these questions and if I am doing it as part of someone's plan to bother me, I'm not doing it. p.s. if you are going to troll, take a lesson from BG and at least be funny about it.

This might be fair. I have always seen your discussion in this particular forum as very off-putting and condescending, and not at all in the faux condescension "I'm better than everyone" way Spade does it, but more in the "I have a PhD and I'm better than you" way. That being said, that was just my first impression of your many discussions with BG and I could be off base, which led to my preemptive hostility toward you. Sorry if that wasn't fair. Also, I wasn't trying to be funny or "joke" with you, I was trying to push your buttons.These were my original impressions of the atheists in the religion forum:Spade - Good (But I love his sense of humor. Most of my RL friends are hyper-intelligent people like him that Base - Neutral (but very condescending to BG... or maybe that was me, I don't remember, but anyway, I have a generally favorable feeling toward Base)VB - Mean spiritedRandy - Likes to write REALLLLY long posts (which I try to get through, but often fail) and is a hard-core promoter of Atheism. Also feels that Atheists are being actively tortured or something.

[vbnautilus 48]

Who had the under on how long it would take him to go ad hominem?Arrogant, maybe. Mean-spirited? That's way off. If you are someone who is concerned with mean-spiritedness, you might want to reconsider calling everyone "retarded", especially in light of you intention to provide counseling for the mentally disabled.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

calling VB "mean-spirited" is one of the stupider things brvhrt has ever said. and that's saying something.

[brvheart 1,752]

Who had the under on how long it would take him to go ad hominem?Arrogant, maybe. Mean-spirited? That's way off. If you are someone who is concerned with mean-spiritedness, you might want to reconsider calling everyone "retarded", especially in light of you intention to provide counseling for the mentally disabled.

I wasn't attacking you in my latest post, and my first impression labels wasn't the thing I felt you were going to respond to. The paragraph before that is where I actually explain that you tend to be condescending in a way that differs from others. If you want to label that difference as arrogance, instead of mean-ness, then that's fine. It was just my initial impression.I was attempting to explain my initial feelings toward the atheists in the religion forum, and I even mentioned that I might be wrong. As for counseling mentally disabled people, I guess that would take a lot of precise defining, because I have no desire to counsel mentally disabled people. I am going toward marriage counseling or drug counseling, but you could probably make a case that both of those groups have mental disabilities.I have zero negative feelings toward you in any other section of the forum and in fact enjoy your posting immensely. I apologize again for not being clear.

[Spademan 94]

I don't recall if Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle is mentioned in the video or not, but I'd have that at the top of reading list along with A History of God.

[vbnautilus 48]

Elaborate. (To spell the question out for people who aren't used to asking or answering questions in a intellectually honest, critically minded fashion: I'm him asking why does he think this and what does he base his understanding of the issue upon.)

Allright, but let me preface this that its basically a mishmash of speculations and conjectures. A lot of it revolves around the fact that once organisms develop mental states, it becomes a selective advantage to be able to interpret those mental states and to reason based on intentions and goals as the causes of behavior. Psychologists call this theory of mind which is not a great term, but it has stuck. Monkeys have a rudimentary theory of mind, chimps even more, and adult humans of course are experts at this. However, when we are young, before it becomes refined, we tend to overgeneralize this kind of interpretation to the point that children display animism, effectively treating everything as if it were alive. According to the old adage "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" the development of an organism mirrors its evolution. In other words, there was probably a time earlier in our evolutionary history where our theory of mind was unrefined to the point that we attributed intention and agency to various aspects of nature. We were animists. ( i'm not even saying that we were wrong, but this was a way of interpreting nature that has advantages and disadvantages ). So you see various aspects of nature being personified and treated as intentional agents. This is basically the way it works in polytheistic religions like hinduism. Shiva is the destructive force of nature. Western interpretations of these things often phrase it as "The God or Goddess of X" but that is really subtly changing things to imply that there is a separate entity which governs those things, when back in the earliest primitive cultures it seems pretty clear to me that they were agentic descriptions of the natural forces themselves. The shift to treating god/gods as separate from nature was probably one of the biggest "mistakes" of human culture.

[vbnautilus 48]

I have zero negative feelings toward you in any other section of the forum and in fact enjoy your posting immensely.

Yeah, I mean I thought we had a pretty good mutual respect going which was why I was kind of put off by the recent events. Maybe I took some extra leeway in ribbing you since I thought we were cool, so I apologize if I went too far. Part of the issue is that I really have difficulty in discerning when you are being serious from when you are not.

[Spademan 94]

Allright, but let me preface this that its basically a mishmash of speculations and conjectures. A lot of it revolves around the fact that once organisms develop mental states, it becomes a selective advantage to be able to interpret those mental states and to reason based on intentions and goals as the causes of behavior. Psychologists call this theory of mind which is not a great term, but it has stuck. Monkeys have a rudimentary theory of mind, chimps even more, and adult humans of course are experts at this. However, when we are young, before it becomes refined, we tend to overgeneralize this kind of interpretation to the point that children display animism, effectively treating everything as if it were alive. According to the old adage "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" the development of an organism mirrors its evolution. In other words, there was probably a time earlier in our evolutionary history where our theory of mind was unrefined to the point that we attributed intention and agency to various aspects of nature. We were animists. ( i'm not even saying that we were wrong, but this was a way of interpreting nature that has advantages and disadvantages ). So you see various aspects of nature being personified and treated as intentional agents. This is basically the way it works in polytheistic religions like hinduism. Shiva is the destructive force of nature. Western interpretations of these things often phrase it as "The God or Goddess of X" but that is really subtly changing things to imply that there is a separate entity which governs those things, when back in the earliest primitive cultures it seems pretty clear to me that they were agentic descriptions of the natural forces themselves. The shift to treating god/gods as separate from nature was probably one of the biggest "mistakes" of human culture.

I think "mishmash of speculation and conjuncture" is selling your post a little short, rhetorically. Suffering from "intellectual honesty", however, it must be phrased this way. Thanks for spelling that out. When it comes to earlier attribution (x is y verses x causes y) I am of the same opinion. I was looking for this clarification, including the reason behind this clarification, leading to our modern "cause/effect" construct and what may have lead up to this construct. (This is muddled, as was the post you were responding to. I've been drunk on both occasions. Fuck you, I'm still better than you.)

Yeah, I mean I thought we had a pretty good mutual respect going which was why I was kind of put off by the recent events. Maybe I took some extra leeway in ribbing you since I thought we were cool, so I apologize if I went too far. Part of the issue is that I really have difficulty in discerning when you are being serious from when you are not.

This is a matter of Poe's law.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I didn't realize that Spade believes that everything was created from an infinitely big Unicorn. I wouldn't have thought that.

[brvheart 1,752]

This is a matter of Poe's law.

Certainly it's some of that, but my humor is such that I am often accused of this same thing even when not discussing religion with you idiots.

[vbnautilus 48]

This is a matter of Poe's law.

Yeah I looked this up when you mentioned it the first time but forgot to comment on it. It's a very funny insight.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Randy - Likes to write REALLLLY long posts (which I try to get through, but often fail) and is a hard-core promoter of Atheism. Also feels that Atheists are being actively tortured or something.

Well, to be honest I was really confused by you actually even posting anything in here and though I suspected you were trying to kid around, it wasn't that obvious from what you wrote. It actually seemed like you were short on time and randomly posted a few snippets without much thought into what you were saying. I mean, I never remember you actually having an intellectual conversation in this forum to be honest, so it's hard to take you serious.I also could have predicted your attitude toward the athiest posters in this forum since that is how your general attitude comes off- arrogant and dismissive. Had I not known you my opinion would have likely been more like vb's response. It actually feels a little awkward that I tried to post in response to you and realize (as I suspected originally) that you simply have no interest or intention to hold a rational conversation in the first place. So please, if you see a long post from me, simply skip it, or any for that matter. I can't be expected to keep everything short simply because you're from Iowa.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

So please, if you see a long post from me, simply skip it, or any for that matter. I can't be expected to keep everything short simply because you're from Iowa.

snap!

[timwakefield 68]

Second'ofly: Is 4 billion years really long enough for evolution to have occurred from single cell to human?

I'm gonna read the whole thread later and possibly get into the discussion, but I came across this while skimming and felt like responding. VB's response of, "evidently," is pretty definitive, but I'm gonna expand on it. First of all, it seems that you're looking at the problem through a falsely-narrow lens. Yes humans did evolve from single-celled organisms into homo sapiens, but if you try to consider how unlikely that is then you are looking at it backwards. If we roll a million-sided die, should we be surprised when that die lands on 352,108? Well if we had secretly predicted that outcome then yes, it would be a shocking coincidence. But if we had not predicted that number beforehand, then we shouldn't be the least bit surprised at the outcome. Here is a great quote:

"... rarity by itself shouldn't necessarily be evidence of anything. When one is dealt a bridge hand of thirteen cards, the probability of being dealt that particular hand is less than one in 600 billion. Still, it would be absurd for someone to be dealt a hand, examine it carefully, calculate that the probability of getting it is less than one in 600 billion, and then conclude that he must not have been dealt that very hand because it is so very improbable." --John Allen Paulos

What I'm trying to say is, your example of a single-cell into a human being is unreasonably specific. You're looking at the outcome and then trying to figure how it's possible, since it's so drastically unlikely. But as in the bridge hand, you're looking at it backwards. Your question would be more scientifically acceptable if it said something like, Is 4 billion years really long enough for an intelligent multicellular species to emerge from what was once a single-celled species? But even then your question still echoes the bridge hand fallacy, because we already know the outcome. We know that life has evolved over billions and billions of years and that humans now exist, just as the bridge player knows what 13 cards he was dealt and should realize that it's absurd to question the fact of those cards simply because it is an extremely unlikely combination.

[brvheart 1,752]

Well, to be honest I was really confused by you actually even posting anything in here and though I suspected you were trying to kid around, it wasn't that obvious from what you wrote. It actually seemed like you were short on time and randomly posted a few snippets without much thought into what you were saying. I mean, I never remember you actually having an intellectual conversation in this forum to be honest, so it's hard to take you serious.I also could have predicted your attitude toward the athiest posters in this forum since that is how your general attitude comes off- arrogant and dismissive. Had I not known you my opinion would have likely been more like vb's response. It actually feels a little awkward that I tried to post in response to you and realize (as I suspected originally) that you simply have no interest or intention to hold a rational conversation in the first place. So please, if you see a long post from me, simply skip it, or any for that matter. I can't be expected to keep everything short simply because you're from Iowa.

GEEZ! I wasn't trying to be mean. Just break up your thoughts a little. Your posts are just way way too long. Like this post is right on the edge of longish.... and it's about 1/8 the size of some of your posts. It's just impossible to respond to everything in a post that long. I tried to pick out one or two things and respond, but I don't have the time or patience to respond to 100 things.

[Spademan 94]

I didn't realize that Spade believes that everything was created from an infinitely big Unicorn. I wouldn't have thought that.

As will you lest YOU FACE THE BLOODY AND FEARSOME WRATH OF HIS... his.. horn? Is that right, would it be a horn or... what. Wait, it's uniCORN, like one corn, right? But that doesn't make any sense. Corn can't be right. wtf

[timwakefield 68]

On a narwhal it's called a tusk.

[Spademan 94]

On a narwhal it's called a tusk.

I almost said tusk, then I realized it isn't a UNITUSK... so how about you stop blaspheming by calling The Supreme Shat a NAME LIAR.

[Roll the Bones 74]

GEEZ! I wasn't trying to be mean. Just break up your thoughts a little. Your posts are just way way too long. Like this post is right on the edge of longish.... and it's about 1/8 the size of some of your posts. It's just impossible to respond to everything in a post that long. I tried to pick out one or two things and respond, but I don't have the time or patience to respond to 100 things.

How's this. I actively feel like an athiest being tortured because I have to watch Christians and muslims go at it on a daily basis murdering each other because of their ignorance. Who burnt a Koran today? Who murdered UN workers?

[Roll the Bones 74]

Let me fix your sig-“The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is the bible"

[brvheart 1,752]

How's this. I actively feel like an athiest being tortured because I have to watch Christians and muslims go at it on a daily basis murdering each other because of their ignorance. Who burnt a Koran today? Who murdered UN workers?

This doesn't have anything to do with me. Both of your examples are crazy people.

[vbnautilus 48]

This doesn't have anything to do with me. Both of your examples are crazy people.

If you were wrong about god/jesus/etc wouldn't that make you some kind of crazy? It would be like you had an elaborate delusion.

[brvheart 1,752]

If you were wrong about god/jesus/etc wouldn't that make you some kind of crazy? It would be like you had an elaborate delusion.

That might be true, but the pastor in Florida already agrees with me on that, and yet he's obviously insane to yet a higher degree.

[BaseJester 1]

This doesn't have anything to do with me. Both of your examples are crazy people.

I agree with you, but why do you think that burning Korans is bad? Is there a biblical mandate for religious tolerance? Should we uphold people's right to worship a golden calf? This book is causing people to go to Hell, right? An extreme reaction seems warranted given that premise.