Intelligent design and creationism

User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509238 wrote: Have you actually read Jaynes's book, Mickey, or have you gotten this off some website?


I have read the book twice, and I am on my third evolution of reading and reviewing it. I am now reading a book on the theories of Julian Jaynes, entitled " God's Voices and the Bicameral mind" , edited by Marcel Kuijsten, and I am insulted by your implication that I have not read his books. I hold no need to insult you. Because of your behavior, I am inspired to stop communicating with you.

Which I remember I had to once do with you before. This is unfortunate. Not necessary.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509241 wrote: I have read the book twice, and I am on my third evolution of reading and reviewing it. I am now reading a book on the theories of Julian Jaynes, entitled " God's Voices and the Bicameral mind" , edited by Marcel Kuijsten, and I am insulted by your implication that I have not read his books. I hold no need to insult you. Because of your behavior, I am inspired to stop communicating with you.

Which I remember I had to once do with you before. This is unfortunate. Not necessary.Do you agree with this assessment of Jaynes's book?was an American psychologist, best known for his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976), in which he argued that ancient peoples were not conscious.

Jaynes' definition of consciousness is synonymous with what philosophers call "meta-consciousness" or "meta-awareness", i.e., awareness of awareness, thoughts about thinking, desires about desires, beliefs about beliefs. This form of reflection is also distinct from the kinds of "deliberations" seen in other higher animals such as crows insofar as it is dependent on linguistic cognition.

Jaynes wrote that ancient humans before roughly 1000 BC were not reflectively meta-conscious and operated by means of automatic, nonconscious habit-schemas. Instead of having meta-consciousness, these humans were constituted by what Jaynes calls the "bicameral mind".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509241 wrote: and I am on my third evolution of reading and reviewing itAnd what in the world does this mean?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by LarsMac »

Mickiel;1509241 wrote: I have read the book twice, and I am on my third evolution of reading and reviewing it. I am now reading a book on the theories of Julian Jaynes, entitled " God's Voices and the Bicameral mind" , edited by Marcel Kuijsten, and I am insulted by your implication that I have not read his books. I hold no need to insult you. Because of your behavior, I am inspired to stop communicating with you.

Which I remember I had to once do with you before. This is unfortunate. Not necessary.


I've been reading "Consciousness and the Brain" by Stanislas Dehaene

It is a good read, as well.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

We not only make the mistake that consciousness is located within the head, we think our intelligence is a physical organ also. There are no physical organs for conscious intelligence ; I maintain it is a spirit in man. We therefore give consciousness " A Space", we not only locate this space of consciousness inside our own heads, we assume it is there in others. We imagine there is a space inside of our heads that we are talking from. But there is no such thing in our heads at all! In fact its all physiological tissue, predominantly neurological tissue, none of which is considered a " Brain organ of consciousness."

Its a fallacy; Where does consciousness take place? Where does intelligence take place? Almost everyone immediately replies , in the head. This is because when we retrospect and introspect, we seem to look inward on an inner space somewhere behind our eyes. Physical organs are not the seat of reason. The brain does not determine your beliefs or emotional content , or your ways of being that determine what you and I will be. This is how the Spirit from God that is in every human, is then ignored. The very spirit that determines you and your being, is now taken away from being a spiritual thing, and we try to make it a physical thing. This is one reason why intelligent design is misunderstood.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509242 wrote: Do you agree with this assessment of Jaynes's book?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Jaynes




Yes I do.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509245 wrote: We not only make the mistake that consciousness is located within the head, we think our intelligence is a physical organ also. There are no physical organs for conscious intelligence ; I maintain it is a spirit in man. We therefore give consciousness " A Space", we not only locate this space of consciousness inside our own heads, we assume it is there in others. We imagine there is a space inside of our heads that we are talking from. But there is no such thing in our heads at all! In fact its all physiological tissue, predominantly neurological tissue, none of which is considered a " Brain organ of consciousness."

Its a fallacy; Where does consciousness take place? Where does intelligence take place? Almost everyone immediately replies , in the head. This is because when we retrospect and introspect, we seem to look inward on an inner space somewhere behind our eyes. Physical organs are not the seat of reason. The brain does not determine your beliefs or emotional content , or your ways of being that determine what you and I will be. This is how the Spirit from God that is in every human, is then ignored. The very spirit that determines you and your being, is now taken away from being a spiritual thing, and we try to make it a physical thing. This is one reason why intelligent design is misunderstood.This is not what Jaynes has said. You do realize that, right?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

LarsMac;1509244 wrote: I've been reading "Consciousness and the Brain" by Stanislas Dehaene

It is a good read, as well.


I'll order the book myself; hope its on Amazon. I order my books there.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1509240 wrote: So, you agree with what Micky has posted?


I don't know who Mickey is. I do find what Mickiel has been writing to be worth some thought.

Ahso!;1509240 wrote: Have you actually read Jaynes's book?
No, I have yet to 'actually read' Jaynes' book But I might have to go look it up.

Ahso!;1509240 wrote: Or are you simply making a statement?
I am simply making an observation.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509246 wrote: Yes I do.Well, your statements are contrary to it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509247 wrote: This is not what Jaynes has said. You do realize that, right?


Well yes, when I quote him, I will say so. My views are a mixture of Jaynes and me on these topics. His influence on me is obvious, but its also obvious that I do not agree with him totally.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509243 wrote: And what in the world does this mean?


IT simply means I have read the book twice, and I am currently reading it a third time.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509252 wrote: IT simply means I have read the book twice, and I am currently reading it a third time.Ah. Thanks. It looked like you posted that you were on your third slow change of it. But then I'm a literalist.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

To understand intelligent design and creationism, we have to understand consciousness. I maintain it is nothing physical, but its spiritual. It is the same with intelligent design. The spiritual is what creates , its what manipulates knowledge. Take into account " Metaphor and Language." The most fascinating property of language is its capacity to make metaphors. It is by metaphor that language grows. It generates new language as human culture becomes more and more complex. Language is metaphysical, but its not created by the physical, its created by the supernatural; incorporeal; from this spiritual, we then metaphrase , or translate words.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509253 wrote: Ah. Thanks. It looked like you posted that you were on your third slow change of it. But then I'm a literalist.


Oh no , I cannot change a book. But a book can change me , and his book has. Because he touched on things spiritual, whether he knew it or not. And that can change me.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509255 wrote: Oh no , I cannot change a book. But a book can change me , and his book has. Because he touched on things spiritual, whether he knew it or not. And that can change me.Jaynes seemed to say quite emphatically that consciousness was a part of brain function. Do you deny that?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509255 wrote: Oh no , I cannot change a book. But a book can change me , and his book has. Because he touched on things spiritual, whether he knew it or not. And that can change me.You can see why I thought it was rather nonsensical then.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickey, would you mind taking a photo of pages 44&45 of your book and posting it here so I can get the entire context of what you quoted? I think that is better than asking you to type it all out for me, which I know you'd be happy to do. I just don't want to ask you to go to all that trouble.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509258 wrote: Mickey, would you mind taking a photo of pages 44&45 of your book and posting it here so I can get the entire context of what you quoted? I think that is better than asking you to type it all out for me, which I know you'd be happy to do. I just don't want to ask you to go to all that trouble.


I took the pictures but I don't have the capacity to get them into my computer. But I'll try somethingelse.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509259 wrote: I took the pictures but I don't have the capacity to get them into my computer. But I'll try somethingelse.That's okay, I found what I'm looking for.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509260 wrote: That's okay, I found what I'm looking for.


I tried here;

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes | Julian Jaynes Society

But his site would not give me copy of those pages online.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

So, it appears that Jaynes theorized that thousands of years ago the two hemispheres of the human brain operated or functioned on one side as absorbing information and the other side connecting to it through auditory hallucinations, or as Jaynes described it as "god-voices" which commanded the actions of the individual. This is what he called Bicameralism or The Bicamerial Mind. The term "god-voices" is probably what caught your attention. However, Jaynes was not advocating for a spiritual reality of any kind, rather he used the term as to indicate commands.

You're correct that Jaynes argued that back then that that communication between the two hemispheres was the best of what can be called consciousness. Jaynes then theorized that consciousness slowly developed through language as it evolved.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Jaynes believes that the consciousness has no location in the body, of which I agree, but he does not believe there is a spirit in man. He also believed that primordial man had no consciousness, of which I agree. I think God created them as a precursor to modern man. But I am not sure. They were existing on instincts alone, and much later when God created Adam, he was not the first man, but he was the first man with consciousness, which I covered in a thread here in archives. Or he was the first man God " Blew into him a spirit." Then civilization was born. Then intelligent design in humans took a serious turn in history and zoomed off into another direction. It was incredible!
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509262 wrote: So, it appears that Jaynes theorized that thousands of years ago the two hemispheres of the human brain operated or functioned on one side as absorbing information and the other side connecting to it through auditory hallucinations, or as Jaynes described it as "god-voices" which commanded the actions of the individual. This is what he called Bicameralism or The Bicamerial Mind. The term "god-voices" is probably what got your attention. However, Jaynes was not advocating for a spiritual reality of any kind, rather he used the term as to indicate commands.

You're correct that Jaynes argued that back then that that communication between the two hemispheres was the best of what can be called consciousness. Jaynes then theorized that consciousness slowly developed through language as it evolved.




I believe that the early humans were at first in direct contact with God , of which Jaynes called " The God vocies", I call it communication with God. Jaynes was not advocating the spiritual, but I am. I think he hit on bit and parts of the truth, but he was not a spiritual man ; but oh how he inspired me. He was an intellectual. And proved to me that the intellectual can be separate from the spiritual; but when they combine, oh what humans that produces.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Jaynes theorized that consciousness was a product of language. It's important to understand the distinction between theory and belief. Jaynes was in the discipline of science (though it's quite debatable whether or not psychology or psychiatry is science), so chances are that he kept whatever beliefs he might have had aside. The problem for Jaynes' theory is that while for a number of years his work was considered revolutionary and interesting, not much in the way of evidence was ever found for it. These days, with all the imaging technology we have as well as the knowledge we've gained on the subject of consciousness, we're much more convinced that consciousness is indeed part of the direct function of the brain.

The question is whether or not that is an evolved condition or was Jaynes incorrect and that the human brain always functioned that way. I don't know if anyone knows for sure.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509264 wrote: I believe that the early humans were at first in direct contact with God , of which Jaynes called " The God vocies", I call it communication with God. Jaynes was not advocating the spiritual, but I am. I think he hit on bit and parts of the truth, but he was not a spiritual man ; but oh how he inspired me. He was an intellectual. And proved to me that the intellectual can be separate from the spiritual; but when they combine, oh what humans that produces.To give an example of what Jaynes theorized; let's say that the individual at some time observed another human or other animal blown over a cliff by heavy wind. This information is absorbed on one side of the brain and stored there. Then one day the wind begins to pick up. What Jaynes said would happen is that the stored memory would invoke the brain to communicate with the other side and command (god-voice) the individual to take cover thus causing an action or response by the person for survival.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509267 wrote: To give an example of what Jaynes theorized; let's say that the individual at some time observed another human or other animal blown over a cliff by heavy wind. This information is absorbed on one side of the brain and stored there. Then one day the wind begins to pick up. What Jaynes said would happen is that the stored memory would invoke the brain to communicate with the other side and command (god-voice) the individual to take cover thus causing an action or response by the person for survival.


To give an example of what happened with me and Jaynes; lets say that the individual with the theory, plainly wrote an example of his theory, He stated one thing about consciousness, and that inspired another totally different thing in the reader. I was the reader and I was inspired in far differing areas of the theory, it created a theory of my own. For example;

Jaynes saw consciousness as having no location in the body, the bible teaches that the Spirit of God is like a ghost, its a conscious spirit within man. Interesting similarity, although totally differing.

Jaynes saw the early humans as having no consciousness, the bible teaches that Adam was the first man. Obviously Adam was not the first man, but understanding Jaynes theory, could explain that Adam was then the first man with consciousness.

Also Jaynes teaches that consciousness is many things on many levels, and we can unconsciously do conscious things; and that consciousness did not emerge in evolution and we are not continuous with the idiot hierarchies of speechless apes. That mankind is different from anything else we know of in the universe; his intellectual life, his culture and history, his religion and science, are these derivable from matter? Just stunning to me, it was simply eye opening. And continues to be.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509268 wrote: To give an example of what happened with me and Jaynes; lets say that the individual with the theory, plainly wrote an example of his theory, He stated one thing about consciousness, and that inspired another totally different thing in the reader. I was the reader and I was inspired in far differing areas of the theory, it created a theory of my own. For example;

Jaynes saw consciousness as having no location in the body, the bible teaches that the Spirit of God is like a ghost, its a conscious spirit within man. Interesting similarity, although totally differing.

Jaynes saw the early humans as having no consciousness, the bible teaches that Adam was the first man. Obviously Adam was not the first man, but understanding Jaynes theory, could explain that Adam was then the first man with consciousness.

Also Jaynes teaches that consciousness is many things on many levels, and we can unconsciously do conscious things; and that consciousness did not emerge in evolution and we are not continuous with the idiot hierarchies of speechless apes. That mankind is different from anything else we know of in the universe; his intellectual life, his culture and history, his religion and science, are these derivable from matter? Just stunning to me, it was simply eye opening. And continues to be.


That's not a theory, that's taking bits and pieces of things people say and forming a narrative out of them. IOW, it's called making it up as you go. There's nothing real about any of that, it's merely a made up story.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1509269 wrote: That's not a theory, that's taking bits and pieces of things people say and forming a narrative out of them. IOW, it's called making it up as you go. There's nothing real about any of that, it's merely a made up story.


Well, if the narrative of simple human development, without any "spiritual interference" (From whatever source, Gods, high-minded individuals, personal epiphany, Alien influence, whatever) is the only truth, it seems that all any of us are really doing is making it up as we go along. But then some random distribution of humans have developed a common collection of experiences, and those who fall in line with the consensus are considered sane, while the rest a merely making it up. I believe that it is all imagination, without which, the planet would have been quite boring for the last few millennia.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Try this one, Mickey: A farmer has a theory that if he puts colored dye in his chicken's feed the chicken will lay colored eggs. He does this and the chickens do indeed lay eggs the colors of the dye. The theory was proven.

Then just begore Easter the farmer puts different colored dyes in his chicken's feed thus producing multi-colored eggs and delivers them to the local grocery store to sell for the Easter holiday.

Upon seeing these pretty multi-colored eggs, a young child at home asks her mother why the eggs are different colors this week. The mother tells her daughter that God made the chickens lay those eggs for Easter.

Now, mom meant no harm, however, unless someone corrects the narrative the child was told she will indeed believe God did that and add a layer to her belief in God.

Sometime later this girl might be talking to friends or posting on an internet forum or other social media and states that God makes chickens lay colored eggs every Easter holiday season. She is corrected but because mom told her this and mom wouldn't lie to her she argues insistently that she's right, thus appearing ignorant and foolish.

Someone on the internet goes and finds evidence that the chickens were fed food dye to create the colored eggs, and the girl doesn't believe the evidence.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1509270 wrote: Well, if the narrative of simple human development, without any "spiritual interference" (From whatever source, Gods, high-minded individuals, personal epiphany, Alien influence, whatever) is the only truth, it seems that all any of us are really doing is making it up as we go along. But then some random distribution of humans have developed a common collection of experiences, and those who fall in line with the consensus are considered sane, while the rest a merely making it up. I believe that it is all imagination, without which, the planet would have been quite boring for the last few millennia.That's closer than most get to. Once you do get it figured out and it becomes real, be sure for the sake of your loved ones that there are no guns nearby. Consciousness can be a real bitch.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

In theory there can be several stages of creative thought. I understand and believe that man has creative thought, but I do not believe that man created himself or the universe. I do not believe that nature has creative thought. In my view, creative thought can only derive from creative beings. Intelligent design and creationism then, are the result of a clear choice from a creative mind to create. And intelligent design and creationism are a clear result of consciousness! Consciousness can create and develop what it creates. Which is why I believe that primordial man was not conscious, because they did not advance. Animals are not conscious beings because they never change , they simply live out their lives in predictable patterns.

Intelligent design is deliberate intent that arose out from a working conscious ; a living consciousness; nothing dead can create. Rocks are dead matter, they cannot grow and evolve. Matter does not deliberately think and plan, because matter is not conscious. It is stunning ignorance to me how people readily accept that matter can create and design and develop itself and other things. Simply stunning!
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by LarsMac »

An interesting view on the subject.

Neuroscientist explains why free will could be an illusion - Business Insider
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
Ted
Posts: 5652
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:05 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ted »

Interesting thought on free will.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

I personally do not accept the free will concept. Instead of giving my views , I offer this article;

https://bible-truths.com/lake15.html

Its quite extensive , but I agree with it. And so many are completely blind to this, because they know no other way to think. Our thinking can become like a " Rut"; or just get installed in us at a young age, and then just stay there and fester ; never growing beyond.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Lots of goofballs out there. Reading the posts on these religious threads and the citations serves to reinforce my damnation of the American educational system (and causes Canada's to be suspect as well).
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509285 wrote: Lots of goofballs out there. Reading the posts on these religious threads and the citations serves to reinforce my damnation of the American educational system (and causes Canada's to be suspect as well).




Well we are glad to have you in section ; welcome. I kind of enjoy picking at your head.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by gmc »

Mickiel;1509282 wrote: I personally do not accept the free will concept. Instead of giving my views , I offer this article;

https://bible-truths.com/lake15.html

Its quite extensive , but I agree with it. And so many are completely blind to this, because they know no other way to think. Our thinking can become like a " Rut"; or just get installed in us at a young age, and then just stay there and fester ; never growing beyond.


You should read the bible for yourself and do some research then maybe you would stop coming out with the nonsense that you do. At tye very least you might appreciate that if you do not have free will then the god you wish to believe in is a capricious, vicious malignant force worthy of nothing but contempt.

If the bible is true why do so many religious people just quote the bits they want to use for their own ends. Don't answer just having a minor rant I get fed up with religious posters that can't even be bopthered to read thaie own book.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

gmc;1509311 wrote: You should read the bible for yourself and do some research then maybe you would stop coming out with the nonsense that you do. At tye very least you might appreciate that if you do not have free will then the god you wish to believe in is a capricious, vicious malignant force worthy of nothing but contempt.

If the bible is true why do so many religious people just quote the bits they want to use for their own ends. Don't answer just having a minor rant I get fed up with religious posters that can't even be bopthered to read thaie own book.


God is a force and he can get vicious; and in my view, bible readers and believers have every right to pick and choose any scripture they wish to. If its there to pick, its free game.

As far as you having your rant, I understand; it can happen when you drink and drive, or drink and write. You are transparent, I see through you!
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by gmc »

Mickiel;1509323 wrote: God is a force and he can get vicious; and in my view, bible readers and believers have every right to pick and choose any scripture they wish to. If its there to pick, its free game.

As far as you having your rant, I understand; it can happen when you drink and drive, or drink and write. You are transparent, I see through you!


No you don't and I find your implication mildly offensive. If god is a force prove it. You can't therefore until there is evidence to the contrary it is not reasonable to believe he exists. In my experience anyone who believes the bible is the word of god hasn't actually read it for themselves and tend to get quite upset when their lack of knowledge is pointed out to them and like you are doing resort to ad hominem arguments. Similarly theists whose favourite argument consists of I believe it so it must be true are so lacking in belief they feel the need to trot out their pet theories on on line discussion forums defending their faith with a shield of imaginary truth and the sword of false logic.

Catholics have a particular problem with this pope how can they disagree with a man anointed by god thinking for yourself is against their religion.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1509311 wrote: You should read the bible for yourself and do some research then maybe you would stop coming out with the nonsense that you do.There's obviously an issue with reading comprehension.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1509327 wrote: There's obviously an issue with reading comprehension.


No they just don;t bother reading it. I suspect they are afraid of what they might find.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1509334 wrote: No they just don;t bother reading it. I suspect they are afraid of what they might find.He says he's read it - I take him at his word. He also claims to have read other books and it's demonstrably obvious that Mickey completely misunderstands those as well. That seems like a comprehension problem to me.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by gmc »

Ahso!;1509340 wrote: He says he's read it - I take him at his word. He also claims to have read other books and it's demonstrably obvious that Mickey completely misunderstands those as well. That seems like a comprehension problem to me.


No imo In previous threads it has become abundantly clear he hasn't read it, it's either vtrue and the word of god or it is not you can't have it both ways.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

gmc;1509348 wrote: No! IMO In previous threads, it has become abundantly clear he hasn't read it, it's either true and the word of god or it is not - you can't have it both ways.It's hard to say either way. I think whatever it is that he does in regards to actual reading, he tries to mix together what he somehow randomly decides as truths and then fills in gaps on his own as he attempts to make sense of life. It's obviously a very confusing interpretation, and I imagined there's plenty more of his past in play psychologically that adds to it all.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509351 wrote: It's hard to say either way. I think whatever it is that he does in regards to actual reading, he tries to mix together what he somehow randomly decides as truths and then fills in gaps on his own as he attempts to make sense of life. It's obviously a very confusing interpretation, and I imagined there's plenty more of his past in play psychologically that adds to it all.


You really must believe that attacking my personage, will diminish the things I have to say. I understand that, its not much else you can do in your choice of defense. Go after me, and maybe the people will pay no attention to the message.

You think maybe it has worked?

My words are far stronger than your desire to make this about me. I don't need to attack you in order to make me words stronger; they stand on their own. God is, and its absolutely nothing you can do about it. You can't snap your fingers and make this go away.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509354 wrote: You really must believe that attacking my personage, will diminish the things I have to say.Not at all. We're discussing how it is that you arrive at the thoughts you communicate. It is clear that they have little basis in reality and are bits and pieces taken from here and there in order to form what you are calling your "message". The only message you're sending is that you're a very confused person.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1509358 wrote: Not at all. We're discussing how it is that you arrive at the thoughts you communicate. It is clear that they have little basis in reality and are bits and pieces taken from here and there in order to form what you are calling your "message". The only message you're sending is that you're a very confused person.


As we determined earlier, reality is simply a collection of the results from random synaptic activity, and so, quite subjective. Mikiel's reality has as much validity as yours, from that perspective.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1509358 wrote: Not at all. We're discussing how it is that you arrive at the thoughts you communicate. It is clear that they have little basis in reality and are bits and pieces taken from here and there in order to form what you are calling your "message". The only message you're sending is that you're a very confused person.




Well one small bit of what I am now saying is this; I don't need to make your personage small, in order to make my words big. You dig; I don't need to push you down in order to get up. In my experience in this war, when people start attacking your personage , its partly because they feel threatened.

But I want to assure you, I am not going to hurt you.

I mean its alright, I don't need to attack you, because my position is strong. You get that? Do you feel me?

Will you think with me?

Hello.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Intelligent design and creationism

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1509367 wrote: Well one small bit of what I am now saying is this; I don't need to make your personage small, in order to make my words big. You dig; I don't need to push you down in order to get up. In my experience in this war, when people start attacking your personage , its partly because they feel threatened.

But I want to assure you, I am not going to hurt you.

I mean its alright, I don't need to attack you, because my position is strong. You get that? Do you feel me?

Will you think of me?

Hello.You have to understand that when a poster such as yourself posts threads that are unique in which the sources he or she cites have completely different content and contextual meaning to what the poster is presenting, readers are going to inevitably ask why. That's what gmc and I have done. It may be that posters will often engage in this sort of analysis behind the scene thru private messaging. I prefer to be upfront and honest so to not hide thoughts from those I'm talking about. But when you put yourself out there like this you're going to be subject to criticism.

Novelists are often subject to this sort of scrutiny because their work is unique, and so readers often ask where subjects and characters of their work come from and thus are often analyzed.

For example, if you were discussing the contents of the bible, you could be engaged on that, however, when that's attempted and you're challenged on it you often meander off into some other outside source that you also often misrepresent in order to justify what you've posted leaving readers wondering what exactly it is you're trying to communicate.

ETA: I know most will give you a pass on all this because of your illness, however, I doubt you'd want to be patronized and would, therefore, prefer honesty. Honesty's all I've got for you. I'll leave the patronizing to the troll(s).
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Post Reply

Return to “General Religious Discussions”