Jump to content

Biggest Lie You've Been Told


Perspektiv

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Why is it necessary to have meaning or purpose? In my opinion the need for one's life to have purpose is just a lack of humility, the universe cares nothing about the life of either a single human or the collective. 

We only have one life we know about, so if you need meaning why not just live a good life?

Well that’s the existentialist idea that there’s no inherent meaning or purpose in the universe except what you artifice, itself a self-deception.  That’s indeed the prevailing post-modern worldview that dominates modern philosophy from Sartre to Foucault to Derrida.  The problem with that premise is that with no belief in a soul or higher authority than the state, humanity becomes captive to it.  That’s the idea of the atheist materialist state we saw in the Soviet Union.  Sartre was a Marxist, but much of what is putting our freedom and democracy under threat is basically veiled Marxism or cultural Marxism.  It means that all that exist are groups vying for power in what is ultimately a class struggle (now in some cases with races tied to the oppressed-oppressor binary).

The solution offered up is some kind of collectivist redistribution scheme in a radical attempt to give everyone equal outcomes. It ignores human nature, pretends that utopia can be imposed, and tears apart the idea of individual liberty and self-determination inherent to democracy.  The notion of the sanctity of the individual is a spiritual notion, the idea that one has basic God-given natural rights that no state has the power to remove.

When you remove the notion of the sacred, anything becomes possible.  The moral collapse and self-destruction of Western civilization is very much tied to the devaluation of the individual.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

No sir , I asked you to define evolution in the way biologists do . You couldn't, therefore anything you say is the literal definition of ignorant.

Nonsense.  I defined it like anyone would with their own words.  There is no rule that says I must define evolution like a biologist would in order to dispute it or reject it.  Your line of reasoning is absurd to begin with.

You are just trying to play word games which is nonsense.  You don't convince anyone of anything that way.

Evolution is simply a theory of how life came to be what it is today.  It is unproven and has been rejected by many scientists.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

No sir , I asked you to define evolution in the way biologists do . You couldn't, therefore anything you say is the literal definition of ignorant.

How about defending your point of view instead of trying to play silly games?

quote

Are you created or evolved?

Since Charles Darwin first published his Origin of Species in 1859, the idea that everything just evolved by itself over millions and billions of years has come to dominate our public media and educational institutions. Evolution is often spoken of as ‘fact’.

So it surprises many that there are an increasing number of voices speaking out against evolution. They say we are not evolved, but created. It’s even more of a surprise to discover many of those voices are from leading scientists across a range of disciplines. Not only are they pointing out the flaws in evolutionary theory, but they’re also showing that the evidence around us fits with the Bible’s account of the past, not evolution.

What is this evidence for creation that these scientists are pointing to? There’s lots. Here’s just a taste.

The design of living things

If we look at even just one aspect of our bodies, such as the dexterity of our hand, wrist and fingers, it speaks of design, and therefore, a Designer. Robotics engineers are still striving to copy that dexterity!1 And our movements are controlled by our brains—no mean feat! The immense complexity of the human brain, its creativity and power of abstract reasoning, with capacities vastly beyond that required for sheer survival, is perhaps the most obvious evidence for intelligent creation.   unquote

Created or evolved (creation.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried to post a short video clip of the Kenesin motor which is a biological motor but had some trouble.

Will try again.   The Kenesin motor is an amazing biological motor that shows the complexity of a cell.  Only an intelligent designer creator could have made this.   This is something Darwin never knew anything about when he came out with theory of evolution in 1859.  This has been discovered by scientists in more recent times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2024 at 9:30 AM, Zeitgeist said:

Yes you do need it.  What is the meaning and purpose of your life?  If you say that you can see meaning as an atheist because your body feeds the worms that feed the food chain that perpetuates life, including human life, you’re assuming that there are higher and lower forms of consciousness, the higher being the whole point.  That demonstrates that there’s valuation at work, with wisdom at the centre (knowing how to use the information available to live life in the best way possible), which brings us health, ethics, and the search for greater meaning and purpose.  All arrows in this teleological thinking point to the idea of perfection or God, because though we may not be perfect, we can see better and worse ways of living, identify mistakes, learn from them hopefully, and strive to be better.  One must be able to conceive at least in a vague sense of the perfect to do this.  That’s what we mean when we talk about virtue, leading a moral life, being faithful, and making an effort to use our talents to achieve what we can.   Yes we fall short, but belief in a better life spurs the journey forward.  

I need it because you deem it so? Quite the self important type...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2024 at 7:04 PM, blackbird said:

You are lost in the biggest lie ever told.

You sound like a diehard Darwinist or atheist.

I would encourage you to get the book "Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing, Survival for Nothing" by Yan T. Wee.   Available on Amazon and many other bookstores.  Available at a lower price used at Alibris website.  Alibris has the book used for about $1.61 U.S. plus shipping.  You couldn't beat that price.  It is well worth it.   This is the link to Alibris:

Darwin's Universe - From Nothing, By Nothing, For Nothing - Survival for Nothing by Yan T Wee - Alibris

Part of the preface says:

"This book will walk us through cosmology, biology, philosophy, and end with theology, the queen of the sciences.  Empirical science buries Darwinism and resurrects Creationism.  We are more than cosmic orphans lost in an accidental, uncaring and dying Universe;  we are living souls, made in the image of God, and designed to have a wonderful relationship with an awesome Creator."

This book has a massive amount of food for thought.  If we accept your view, life has no purpose, no meaning, and we are just a cosmic accident that happened for a brief moment in time.  That means your thoughts are just a chemical reaction in your brain.  If there is no purpose or meaning to life, what is the point of existence?  That of course is completely contrary to scientific observation of the complexity of everything in the universe including the massive amount of DNA or genetic information in the simple cell, not to mention all the precise laws of physics which control how the universe functions.

I could spend hours quoting parts of the book to try to make you aware of some things, but I think it would make more sense for you to get a copy and learn for yourself.  There are countless facts that I cannot give you on here.  

It seems as if you need a security blanket. We are arguing about beliefs... beliefs are not empirical fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It seems as if you need a security blanket. We are arguing about beliefs... beliefs are not empirical fact. 

You appear incapable of discussing the theory of evolution versus creation.  You prefer insults.  Go for it if that's what turns you on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, blackbird said:

You appear incapable of discussing the theory of evolution versus creation.  You prefer insults.  Go for it if that's what turns you on.

I can say with certainty that neither of us can prove definitively our stance. We can opine, talk, hypothesize but neither of us has absolute reproducible proof. I know this and am ok with it. It appears that you do not. Its not an insult to call the sky blue if it is in fact... blue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Plenty of evidence exists that societies used this with no knowledge of the Bible, God, or Jesus. So how did they come to know about it?

You miss the point.  The universality of such ideas indicates that certain values are essential to our existence.  You don’t get to pick and choose anything at all without consequences.  That’s the foolish narcissistic arrogance so prevalent in our age, ignoring these essential values. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2024 at 12:43 PM, blackbird said:

There is no rule that says I must define evolution like a biologist would in order to dispute it or reject it.

You are just trying to play word games which is nonsense.  You don't convince anyone of anything that way.

It should go without saying however that if you expect to have a convincing discussion about anything with someone, that you share the same understanding of what the words and terms you use mean.

At least the people of Babel tried to get along with one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

It should go without saying however that if you expect to have a convincing discussion about anything with someone, that you share the same understanding of what the words and terms you use mean.

At least the people of Babel tried to get along with one another.

My opponent asked me to define evolution in my own words.  Did you actually read my response and definition, which was quite accurate.  If you are so smart, how would you answer him and define evolution in your own words.

It is pure nonsense to claim my definition was somehow fake or nonsense.  It was accurate.

You are one to talk about getting along with one another on the forum.  Seems to me you are constantly throwing barbs back and forth with people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Did you actually read my response and definition, which was quite accurate.  If you are so smart, how would you answer him and define evolution in your own words.

Sure it was accurate enough I suppose but because I'm not as expert, instead of my own words I'd direct people to a widely accepted dictionary or creditable biology text book on the topic.

I your case I'd ask you to quantify many where you claim the theory has been rejected by scientists and a comparison to how many who don't and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure it was accurate enough I suppose but because I'm not as expert, instead of my own words I'd direct people to a widely accepted dictionary or creditable biology text book on the topic.

I your case I'd ask you to quantify many where you claim the theory has been rejected by scientists and a comparison to how many who don't and why.

He asked me to give my own definition, not a dictionary definition.  So I answered him as he asked, and he rejected it.

He never asked for a study report on how many or why some scientists rejected it.  He was obviously not interested in a rational discussion.  Only interested in throwing an insult or two and walking away.

Incidentally truth is not determined by polls or numbers of people on one side or the other.  History proves that many things that were previously believed by most people were later rejected as false.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

He asked me to give my own definition, not a dictionary definition.  So I answered him as he asked, and he rejected it.

So you walked right into it. You should have gone with the dictionary so if that was rejected you could probably conclude you were wasting your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Incidentally truth is not determined by polls or numbers of people on one side or the other.  History proves that many things that were previously believed by most people were later rejected as false.

Again you need to quantify what many things mean. And there's been less and less of these examples as time moves forward because science is always being tested and holding up to closer scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So you walked right into it. You should have gone with the dictionary so if that was rejected you could probably conclude you were wasting your time.

It was obvious I was wasting my time anyway.  Nothing I said would have made any difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Again you need to quantify what many things mean. And there's been less and less of these examples as time moves forward because science is always being tested and holding up to closer scrutiny.

It is impossible to discuss something by basing it on something that is not really connected to the topic.  If someone is not interested in considering the substance itself, there is no point in going further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Again you need to quantify what many things mean. And there's been less and less of these examples as time moves forward because science is always being tested and holding up to closer scrutiny.

I think it's more wishful thinking than truth to say, science is "holing up to closer scrutiny". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

It is impossible to discuss something by basing it on something that is not really connected to the topic.  If someone is not interested in considering the substance itself, there is no point in going further.

Precisely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...