Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ted Kirkpatrick and Animal Cruelty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tassman
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    Feel free to back up that assertion with fact.
    I have. Biology is defined as the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena.

    I understand that, thanks.
    You obviously don’t if you need to ask "why" it came about”.

    I understand that as well. I'm interested in why a survival instinct would develop. As you're so fond of telling me, there is no 'purpose' in evolution. Survival is rather purposeful.
    Survival is not “rather purposeful”. Evolution takes the position that the human animal, like all other organisms, are temporary and accidental outcroppings of a directionless, purposeless process based upon ‘survival’ and ‘reproduction’.

    As usual, you're avoiding my question.
    You asked why Evolution “should predispose us toward cooperative behaviour”. The answer is that it demonstrably does. There's no "why".

    ... and you continue to do so.
    See above.

    That's probably the most likely basis given a materialistic worldview. However, given the paucity of evidence you're taking it as an article of faith.
    Nonsense, there’s considerable evidence. Instincts have evolved as innate, typically fixed patterns of behaviour in response to certain stimuli and as such are a well understood phenomena. What's your explanation?

    I understand that. I'm not arguing against that. I'm talking about how one putatively evolves into a social species.
    There's nothing "putative" about the existence of "social species"; it's demonstrably true. As for "how" it is well documented how we and many other creatures have evolved into given species, namely via favourable mutations and incremental changes over eons.

    Ah, well. If you can't answer my questions, respond by avoidance and poisoning the well. I can't wave away any evidence if you haven't presented any.
    You claim to be a creationist. What is the evidence to support your ‘goddidit’ explanation? Conversely, there’s a wealth of evidence supporting Evolution and Natural Selection.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    To be fair, seer pointed out there's a standard for calling it Christian, such as belief in bodily resurrection. If you meet that standard, then Jesus, the holder of the trademark, officially brands you with the trademark. According to Christianity, some people will go about using the trademark without permission.
    Ah, if that's what he meant, I agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    That's all very well but he seems to have lots of spokesmen who claim to be in touch with head office who contradict each other.
    To be fair, seer pointed out there's a standard for calling it Christian, such as belief in bodily resurrection. If you meet that standard, then Jesus, the holder of the trademark, officially brands you with the trademark. According to Christianity, some people will go about using the trademark without permission.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I never claimed to be an anti-evolutionist. Perhaps you shouldn't conflate the terms.

    I told you already - check a dictionary. "Theory" and "fact" mean different things
    I didn't say they're exactly same but questioned what you meant by "still a theory." I still have no idea what you meant if you didn't mean it in the creationist sense.

    Originally posted by One Bad Pig
    Further, I don't think I'd call myself a "theistic evolutionist," though I quite understand the utility of theory in science.
    No one who understands its utility would ever say "it's still a theory." That's a meaningless statement because it assumes a theory graduates into the higher state of "fact." A theory exists to explain the different pieces of consilient evidence that together explain an overarching truth. The truth is that life really evolves.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    Presumably Christ.
    That's all very well but he seems to have lots of spokesmen who claim to be in touch with head office who contradict each other.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    An "anti-naturalist/anti-materialist" isn't at all the same as an "anti-evolutionist." Purposeful conflation of that sort is moral bankruptcy.
    I never claimed to be an anti-evolutionist. Perhaps you shouldn't conflate the terms.
    One Bad Pig, to clarify, what did you mean when you said evolution is "just a theory?" That's not something that a theistic evolutionist would typically say, since they'd already know the utility of theory in science.
    I told you already - check a dictionary. "Theory" and "fact" mean different things. Further, I don't think I'd call myself a "theistic evolutionist," though I quite understand the utility of theory in science.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    One Bad Pig, to clarify, what did you mean when you said evolution is "just a theory?" That's not something that a theistic evolutionist would typically say, since they'd already know the utility of theory in science.

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
    I said no such thing. You are utterly morally bankrupt, aren't you?

    More like anti-materialist.
    An "anti-naturalist/anti-materialist" isn't at all the same as an "anti-evolutionist." Purposeful conflation of that sort is moral bankruptcy.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by whag View Post
    Perhaps I went overboard. Even some conservative Christians like yourself accept that eusociality evolved. OBP is saying that's an "unfounded assumption," which is as bizarre as saying evolution is an unfounded assumption.
    I said no such thing. You are utterly morally bankrupt, aren't you?
    Turns out he's an anti-evolutionist.
    More like anti-materialist.

    Leave a comment:


  • One Bad Pig
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Inasmuch as psychology encompasses behaviour it is a component of biology and certainly our evolved natural instincts are biology.
    Feel free to back up that assertion with fact.
    Yes it explains “what happens”. And “why” can only refer to a reason or explanation in science, NOT ‘purpose’. There is no “purpose” as such.
    I understand that, thanks.
    "Should" has nothing to do with it. But it’s demonstrably true that there is a survival instinct. Ever tried to swat a fly?
    I understand that as well. I'm interested in why a survival instinct would develop. As you're so fond of telling me, there is no 'purpose' in evolution. Survival is rather purposeful.
    It’s demonstrably true that all social species are thus predisposed. That’s the very definition of “social species”, i.e. animals which interact highly with others of their own species, to the point of having a recognizable society.
    As usual, you're avoiding my question.
    …and “two or more” social animals are predisposed toward cooperative behaviour. Among social species they all are. That’s what being a social animal is by definition. You really have an abysmal understanding of Evolution and Natural Selection.
    ... and you continue to do so.
    Given that Instincts are innate, fixed patterns of behaviour how would they not have a “genetic basis”?
    That's probably the most likely basis given a materialistic worldview. However, given the paucity of evidence you're taking it as an article of faith.
    Group survival, not individual survival, is the raison d’ętre of social species. Individual acts of self-sacrifice for the good of one’s community or family are not uncommon whereas individual acts of selfishness are not viewed favourably by the group.
    I understand that. I'm not arguing against that. I'm talking about how one putatively evolves into a social species.
    Ah well, you already have your conclusions don't you? Any pesky contradictory evidence can thus be hand waved away as an act of faith.
    Ah, well. If you can't answer my questions, respond by avoidance and poisoning the well. I can't wave away any evidence if you haven't presented any.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adrift
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Who owns the trademark to Christianity?
    Presumably Christ.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    They start from different assumptions from you. Who owns the trademark to Christianity?
    What assumptions are those? If I'm not mistaken they don't hold that it is necessary to believe in the physical resurrection of Christ to be a Christian. I think that is a fairly central doctrine.

    Leave a comment:


  • MaxVel
    replied
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Ah well, you already have your conclusions don't you? Any pesky contradictory evidence can thus be hand waved away as an act of faith.
    That is very funny!

    Leave a comment:


  • whag
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Which is why they should stop calling themselves that.
    Perhaps I went overboard. Even some conservative Christians like yourself accept that eusociality evolved. OBP is saying that's an "unfounded assumption," which is as bizarre as saying evolution is an unfounded assumption. Turns out he's an anti-evolutionist.

    Leave a comment:


  • pancreasman
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Which is why they should stop calling themselves that.
    They start from different assumptions from you. Who owns the trademark to Christianity?

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Juvenal, 10-13-2021, 08:41 AM
19 responses
112 views
0 likes
Last Post mossrose  
Started by seer, 10-11-2021, 06:32 PM
9 responses
73 views
0 likes
Last Post Machinist  
Started by lee_merrill, 10-08-2021, 06:03 PM
5 responses
46 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by seer, 10-06-2021, 05:21 PM
32 responses
159 views
0 likes
Last Post Tassman
by Tassman
 
Started by System199176, 10-06-2021, 09:36 AM
21 responses
225 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X