Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

[Wiccan_Child]

Darwinism is a religion?

No.

 

[DrkSdBls]

This grows increasingly futile. It's clear you're not interested in actually addressing the issue, so have fun.

That's my line.

Anyway, W_C's so much more fun then you. He knows how to play.

 

[DrkSdBls]

One of four fundamental forces. Specifically, objects with mass are attracted to each other proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance

Yes, Gravity is One of four fundamental forces. But What is it? What causes it? How does it work?

In any case, my point is that the cause of planetary formation is not necessarily the same as the cause of radioactive decay.

Who's to say that Gravity is not Caused (directing or indirectly) by radioactive decay ...... or vice versa.

Yup. Why should life be any more specific?

Something should be more specific if you desire an accurate Description. If you define Life so loosely, you can theortically define anything as such.

Is a virus alive?

Is a Computer Virus?

Matter and energy are the same thing. For stationary matter:

Right. My point is, they're two facets of the same thing.

Connected how?

Everything is connected. Remove even one, the whole system crashes.

Does it matter? Let's use whatever definition you used when you wrote the sentence.

Ha, that's my point. A Word's Meaning is Fluid, changing by the person who uses it as well as the one who hears it. You can define yourself as a Fisherman, simply because you "Caught a Fish" but try to tell that to someone who spends hours in a boat or on a Pier with a Pole; Your meaning would not be the same as another's. You are technically redefining that word apon usage as you see fit and you would even be 100% correct if but on a mere technicality. But, does that really change the meaning on the whole? (I suppose it would if it's done enough times over time.)

I didn't have a question:
"If you are going by my definitions of the words, then that would mean you are a theist: you believe that at least one deity exists."

Your question was:

And what conclusion have you come to, if any?

How so?

It was more direct;
Theist = Number
Atheist = Not a Number

Then your analogy fails.

How so?

He is not homosexual. That is all we can say.

Indeed.

But, this does not change the defining characteristic that he Is attracted to a Man, If only by a Technicality, By your Defination. This Fact does not escape this man, which is what defines his interest as a Sexual Attraction but Not in the Opposite Sex.

He is likely heterosexual, but it is possible that he non-human females, or inanimate objects. These fringe alternatives would be classed under asexuality (as opposed to homo-, bi-, and hetero- sexuality).

I do not see how it's reasonable to conclude that he must be Heterosexual (or even Bisexual.)

Also, asexuality is in no way defined by "fringe alternatives." Asexuality is total absence of Sexual Attraction. You're the one who stresses logical conjuagtes yet you've seemed to over look this one.

The words 'theist' and 'atheist' are only ever used as labels. By my definitions of them, you are a theist.

You are free to concider me whatever you like; Your conclusion does not effect my reality.

You are welcome to define them in such a way that they are not mutually exclusive, but this would preclude any meaningful conversation with the average person regarding such terms (i.e., non-mutually exclusive definitions of the terms goes against the core concepts of them).

I don't think so. Afterall, I do not Actively define myself as Theist or Atheist so meaningful conversation can always continue unheeded since it's a distinction does does not effect me either way. Do you have you know whether or not I'm a Theist in order to understand my point of view on the subject?

I disagree: everyone can be placed into one of the four catagories (i.e., homo-, hetero-, bi-, or a- sexuality).

You mean like Eye-color can be easily defined, right?

How about we just agree to disagree here, shall we?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes, Gravity is One of four fundamental forces. But What is it? What causes it? How does it work?

An object with mass warps spacetime towards it.
Another object with constant velocity will travel along a straight line with respect to spacetime.
Thus, if spacetime itself is warped, the straight line this second object travels along is also warped.
So, from our point of view (since we can't see spacetime), we see objects with mass moving towards each other.

Who's to say that Gravity is not Caused (directing or indirectly) by radioactive decay ...... or vice versa.

The probability of a radioactive particle undergoing decay is wholly unrelated to the amount of mass surrounding it.

Something should be more specific if you desire an accurate Description. If you define Life so loosely, you can theortically define anything as such.

I agree with you that I could define 'life' as anything I want. But I do not the flaw in my definition. Indeed, upon reflection, I wish to alter my definition of 'life':

Something is alive if it capable of self-replication, and/or if it is descended from such a replicator.

I inserted the notion of descent because otherwise I wouldn't consider sterile people to be alive

Is a Computer Virus?

If it is able to replicate itself, or is descended from something that can replicate itself, then yes, it is alive.

But I turn the question back on you: is a biological virus alive? You said we would automatically know if something is alive or not.

Right. My point is, they're two facets of the same thing.

No, your point was that granting matter the title of godhood requires us to grant energy the title of godhood. I have no problem with that.

My original point, you'll recall, was that you said something is a god if it is 'eternal'. Matter and energy fulfill that criterion.

Everything is connected. Remove even one, the whole system crashes.

That depends on what you mean by 'crashes'. Certainly, the universe would be a different place if one removed combustion. But crash?

Ha, that's my point. A Word's Meaning is Fluid, changing by the person who uses it as well as the one who hears it. You can define yourself as a Fisherman, simply because you "Caught a Fish" but try to tell that to someone who spends hours in a boat or on a Pier with a Pole; Your meaning would not be the same as another's. You are technically redefining that word apon usage as you see fit and you would even be 100% correct if but on a mere technicality. But, does that really change the meaning on the whole? (I suppose it would if it's done enough times over time.)

A word is simply a reference to a concept. A language is a vast collection of words (along with grammatical words and syntactical rules) that two speakers are in agreement with (i.e., two speakers of English are, by and large, in agreement about what concept the word 'paper clip' refers to).
Now, some words are rather nebulous, and their definition is not so universally agreed upon (for example, "life", "God", etc).

What we are trying to do, DrkSdBls, is to come to an agreement about the words "Theist" and "Atheist". This is the basis of our entire discussion.

It was more direct;
Theist = Number
Atheist = Not a Number

This is a simpler model, yes, but it does not convey my point.

How so?

Your 'blue-eyed' analogy was constructed to highlight an apparent flaw of catagorical definitions. However, if failed because 'blue-eyed' was ill-defined, and the definitions to which it was being compared to were well-defined.
Indeed, my original point holds for any complete and well-defined set of definitions.

Indeed.

But, this does not change the defining characteristic that he Is attracted to a Man, If only by a Technicality, By your Defination. This Fact does not escape this man, which is what defines his interest as a Sexual Attraction but Not in the Opposite Sex.

Ah, my apologies, I thought you said he had a distinct attraction to crossdress (i.e., he got off by wearing women's clothes)

OK, this is a bit more trickey, but I contend that there is insufficient information.

For example, if he is attracted to crossdressers regardless of their gender, and if he is attracted to nothing else, then he is asexual.

I do not see how it's reasonable to conclude that he must be Heterosexual (or even Bisexual.)

Also, asexuality is in no way defined by "fringe alternatives." Asexuality is total absence of Sexual Attraction. You're the one who stresses logical conjuagtes yet you've seemed to over look this one.

Again, my apologies, I misread your question.

You are free to concider me whatever you like; Your conclusion does not effect my reality.

On the contrary, the reality is that you are a theist by my definition of the word: you believe in the existance of at least one deity (if I recall correctly).
Indeed, you seem hell-bent on remaining neither theistic nor atheistic, despite the two being logical conjugates of each other (at least in the conventional definitions of the words).

I don't think so. Afterall, I do not Actively define myself as Theist or Atheist so meaningful conversation can always continue unheeded since it's a distinction does does not effect me either way. Do you have you know whether or not I'm a Theist in order to understand my point of view on the subject?

Yes. Your definitions of 'theist' and 'atheist' are wholly unsynonymous with mine. By your definitions, for example, it is possible for one to be neither atheistic nor theistic. Though our respective definitions revolve around the existance of deities, yours are otherwise uncomparable to mine.

DrkSdBls, what are your definitions of 'theism' and 'atheism'?

You mean like Eye-color can be easily defined, right?

Indeed. It was your analogy, not mine. I, for example, would define eye-colour to be the average wavelength of light reflected by an eye's iris.

How about we just agree to disagree here, shall we?

As you wish. But my point stands: every member of a two-gendered species can be placed into one of my four catagories.

 

[DrkSdBls]

An object with mass warps spacetime towards it.
Another object with constant velocity will travel along a straight line with respect to spacetime.
Thus, if spacetime itself is warped, the straight line this second object travels along is also warped.
So, from our point of view (since we can't see spacetime), we see objects with mass moving towards each other.

Curved spacetime also has a unique natured of bending Light, which means "From our point of view" has limited meaning here.

The probability of a radioactive particle undergoing decay is wholly unrelated to the amount of mass surrounding it.

But is that the same as saying that the Radioactive decay of a Particle does not release the Energy which causes that Particle to warp Spacetime?

I agree with you that I could define 'life' as anything I want. But I do not the flaw in my definition. Indeed, upon reflection, I wish to alter my definition of 'life':

Something is alive if it capable of self-replication, and/or if it is descended from such a replicator.

I inserted the notion of descent because otherwise I wouldn't consider sterile people to be alive

Goes against pretty much everything I Learned in Health Class but, hey, Whatever floats your boat!

If it is able to replicate itself, or is descended from something that can replicate itself, then yes, it is alive.

Interesting. So, answer me this. At what point does something cross from being "Alive" and "Not-Alive?"

But I turn the question back on you: is a biological virus alive? You said we would automatically know if something is alive or not.

That's not entirely what I meant. Absolute truth is not always appearent but a few defining Characteristics are an easy way to affirm that something can be defined as alive: Self-Replication, Self-initiated Movement, Internal Regulated Metabolism, and Growth or Development in responce to environment (and in the case of sentient life, Desire.)

But, yes, I would say a Virus is Alive (or at least in a state of Para-Life) but only because it displays the minimum characterisitics of Life.

Of course, that only applies to Biological Life and, when it comes to New, undefined forms of Life, the Definition becomes Philosophically subjective.

No Single characteristic can be so easily universal.

No, your point was that granting matter the title of godhood requires us to grant energy the title of godhood. I have no problem with that.

My original point, you'll recall, was that you said something is a god if it is 'eternal'. Matter and energy fulfill that criterion.

Actually, no. My point was that the universe in it's entirity fit the Criteria of God, not just it's parts....

Besides, Matter is not 'eternal.' Matter can become Energy, Energy can become Matter but Matter can not exist as matter for an 'eternity.' Eternity implys that something has existed since the beginning of Time til the end of Time. Energy does fit that Definition since no matter what state something is in, it still constitue as made up of Energy. Matter does not share that characteristic.

That depends on what you mean by 'crashes'. Certainly, the universe would be a different place if one removed combustion. But crash?

Our Universe would undoubtably be a different place had the property of Combustion had never ...... I'll say "Developed"(for a lack of a better word) in the beginning.

But I'm talking about if the Property of Combustion was to be "Stripped" away from our universe right this second. If a single Phisycal Law was to be cancelled, if the Universe didn't tear itself apart then it would certainly cause a cataclysmic System failure that I'm sure would change this universe in more ways the just not being able to start your car in the morning.

A word is simply a reference to a concept. A language is a vast collection of words (along with grammatical words and syntactical rules) that two speakers are in agreement with (i.e., two speakers of English are, by and large, in agreement about what concept the word 'paper clip' refers to).
Now, some words are rather nebulous, and their definition is not so universally agreed upon (for example, "life", "God", etc).

What we are trying to do, DrkSdBls, is to come to an agreement about the words "Theist" and "Atheist". This is the basis of our entire discussion.

Nevertheless, Theist and Atheist are two words whose meaning is entirely based on who is using them and those who hear them. To get every person to agree on the same usage is difficult to say the least but then that begs the question, Whose interpretation .

This is a simpler model, yes, but it does not convey my point.

And yet, still I understood your point a lot easier without your "More Detailed" model. I just didn't agree with it (not entirely.)

Your 'blue-eyed' analogy was constructed to highlight an apparent flaw of catagorical definitions. However, if failed because 'blue-eyed' was ill-defined, and the definitions to which it was being compared to were well-defined.
Indeed, my original point holds for any complete and well-defined set of definitions.

Then I take it, you agree that Theist and Atheist are also equally flawed catagorical definitions on the count that Theist is equally ill-defined?

Ah, my apologies, I thought you said he had a distinct attraction to crossdress (i.e., he got off by wearing women's clothes)

Ah. Of course, I have no personal understanding of that particular interest so I won't comment here.

OK, this is a bit more trickey, but I contend that there is insufficient information.

For example, if he is attracted to crossdressers regardless of their gender, and if he is attracted to nothing else, then he is asexual.

Attraction to either Sex, but only when Crossdressing isn't exactly a Sexual Orientation anymore then those who are only sexually aroused by their partner dressed as Furry animals or Clowns. This is a question one's mental Attraction as apposed to one's Physical Attraction.

As in the case of the Man in my Example, he is not attracted to neither Physical aspect nor the Mental Contruct of the Masculine idea of the Male form nor is he attracted to the Physical Aspect of the Femanine. In this Fellow's case, he desires the Femanine aspect mentally yet is finds the Contrast between the Mental Idea and Physical Reality to be Sexually Arousing. This man's Sexual Orientation is defined completely within his own mind and, as such, to any observer, is completely subjective.

So, no. Asexual would not be an accurate description of this man's Sexuality seeing that he does have sexual attraction.

Again, my apologies, I misread your question.

np

On the contrary, the reality is that you are a theist by my definition of the word: you believe in the existance of at least one deity (if I recall correctly).
Indeed, you seem hell-bent on remaining neither theistic nor atheistic, despite the two being logical conjugates of each other (at least in the conventional definitions of the words).

What if I did define myself one way or the other? Which ever I did, that would would not be accurate so what would be the point?

P.s. No, I've never claimed to believe in any Particular Deity since I have yet to be given a sufficant definition of "God."

Yes. Your definitions of 'theist' and 'atheist' are wholly unsynonymous with mine. By your definitions, for example, it is possible for one to be neither atheistic nor theistic. Though our respective definitions revolve around the existance of deities, yours are otherwise uncomparable to mine.

DrkSdBls, what are your definitions of 'theism' and 'atheism'?

Actually, I have no real definition to the words, only conceptional ideas that I get from another who uses those words. Seeing as I get different conception ideas from every person who I hear use the Words, I can not draw Any meaning from them. Like the way people say that they "Know" something to be true. Their meaning to the word "Know" is defined entirely within their own minds so whether or not they actually know this or whether they believe it is all based on what exists in their minds. All that I can do is listen, not to their words (as their choice of words tell me nothing) and instead listen to what they're "Saying."

Indeed. It was your analogy, not mine. I, for example, would define eye-colour to be the average wavelength of light reflected by an eye's iris.

Quite. And what color does that certain average wavelenth of light reflected by an eye's iris make the eye appear?

As you wish. But my point stands: every member of a two-gendered species can be placed into one of my four catagories.

Whether they belong there or not, right?

 

[Quasarsphere]

For 18 years old you are sorely lacking in knowledge, and the degree to which you have been brainwashed actuallys stuns me.

I don't even know where to start.

Let's start with this:

NO, the people of the U.S.S.R. did not worship Stalin like he was a god.

They were hardcore atheists, and evolution was one of the foundation stones of their education system.

Stalin worshipped Stalin like he was a god. Everyone else acted like they did too, if they knew what was good for them.

 

[Quasarsphere]

Lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

-- Albert Einstein

which church do you speak of? Rome/Vatican did nothing.

Do you think Einstein would agree seeing how the church acts today? btw, this seems like a borderline fallacy. an appeal to authority i think. If you agree with Einstein in what he has said here, do you respect his science as well what with him thinking the earth revolved around the sun along with the rest of the planets... If you met Einstein do you think he would agree with your stance on science? So why use him and quote him in the way your doing, if you really have no respect for his work... unless you somehow know Einstein and respect him as a person... or is it because he agrees with you in the here and now and that its convenient? Is it you think we respect him and thus you think we will agree with everything he says because of his authority in his field? You should know that that doesn't work on free thinking people.

Einstein never said that anyway. It wasn't really in his nature to claim to have despised something, having previously - in the same paragraph - said he'd never had any special interest in it. He wasn't a complete muppet.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Curved spacetime also has a unique natured of bending Light, which means "From our point of view" has limited meaning here.

Nevertheless, my explanation stands. Gravity is fundamentally different from radioactive decay.

But is that the same as saying that the Radioactive decay of a Particle does not release the Energy which causes that Particle to warp Spacetime?

No. As I said earlier, radioactive decay and gravity are related only by the fact that they are involved with atoms: all atoms warp spacetime by virture of their mass, and all atoms have a probability of undergoing radioactive decay by virtue of the Heisenbury Uncertainty Principle.

Goes against pretty much everything I Learned in Health Class but, hey, Whatever floats your boat!

Note that I merely gave my definition of 'life'. I dare say your class' demonstrator was intelligent enough to realise that he was discussing mammalian vitality. Plant life, for example, is rather different. Indeed, what did your health class teach you about 'life'?

Interesting. So, answer me this. At what point does something cross from being "Alive" and "Not-Alive?"

When it becomes part of a self-replicating system (as f8d puts it, life is a self-perpetuating pattern).

That's not entirely what I meant. Absolute truth is not always appearent but a few defining Characteristics are an easy way to affirm that something can be defined as alive: Self-Replication, Self-initiated Movement, Internal Regulated Metabolism, and Growth or Development in responce to environment (and in the case of sentient life, Desire.)

But, yes, I would say a Virus is Alive (or at least in a state of Para-Life) but only because it displays the minimum characterisitics of Life.

Of course, that only applies to Biological Life and, when it comes to New, undefined forms of Life, the Definition becomes Philosophically subjective.

No Single characteristic can be so easily universal.

Actually, no. My point was that the universe in it's entirity fit the Criteria of God, not just it's parts....

You said Godhood was granted to that with the following properties:
The Power to Create,
to Destory,
to Give Life,
to Take life,
to exist since the beginning of Time,
to Exist til the end of Time,
It makes Fire burn (from a simple Matchhead to a Star),
To manage to control a Process that is infinitely more complex then we can conceive as easily as Breathing!

One could, in theory, warp the definitions of 'power', 'create', 'destroy', 'give', 'take', 'make', and 'manage' in such a way as to make the universe fulfill these criteria. Is this your contention?

Besides, Matter is not 'eternal.' Matter can become Energy, Energy can become Matter but Matter can not exist as matter for an 'eternity.' Eternity implys that something has existed since the beginning of Time til the end of Time. Energy does fit that Definition since no matter what state something is in, it still constitue as made up of Energy. Matter does not share that characteristic.

The whole point of Einstein's matter-energy equivalence principle was to show that matter is simply an expression of energy, and energy is simply an expression of matter. The two are fundamentally the same thing (like ice, water, and steam). If energy is eternal, then so is matter. Conversely, if matter isn't eternal, then neither is energy.

Our Universe would undoubtably be a different place had the property of Combustion had never ...... I'll say "Developed"(for a lack of a better word) in the beginning.

But I'm talking about if the Property of Combustion was to be "Stripped" away from our universe right this second. If a single Phisycal Law was to be cancelled, if the Universe didn't tear itself apart then it would certainly cause a cataclysmic System failure that I'm sure would change this universe in more ways the just not being able to start your car in the morning.

I agree with you that the universe would be much different if the physics behind combustion were sufficiently altered, but I don't understand what you mean by 'crash' and 'system failure'. These are highly subjective terms. That is, a system 'crashes' or 'fails' according to the subjective observer. Who's to say a car crash isn't what cars are supposed to do?

What makes you so sure that a universe with combusion isn't the system failure?

Nevertheless, Theist and Atheist are two words whose meaning is entirely based on who is using them and those who hear them. To get every person to agree on the same usage is difficult to say the least but then that begs the question, Whose interpretation.

Everyone has their own personal set of definitions for every single word. The point is that the consensus by far correlates with my definitions: atheism is the logical conjugate of theism.

And yet, still I understood your point a lot easier without your "More Detailed" model. I just didn't agree with it (not entirely.)

Which merely shows that you did not, in fact, understand it.

Then I take it, you agree that Theist and Atheist are also equally flawed catagorical definitions on the count that Theist is equally ill-defined?

Theism is ill-defined only insofar as we have not defined 'deity'. However, I believe we have a sufficient conceptualisation of a 'deity' that we can take the logical conjugate of theism and derive atheism.

My 'theism' is ill-defined, but not nearly as ill-defined as 'blue-eyed' was in your example. Indeed, my 'theism' is positively well-defined when you compare it with your 'blue-eyed'.

Attraction to either Sex, but only when Crossdressing isn't exactly a Sexual Orientation anymore then those who are only sexually aroused by their partner dressed as Furry animals or Clowns. This is a question one's mental Attraction as apposed to one's Physical Attraction.

As in the case of the Man in my Example, he is not attracted to neither Physical aspect nor the Mental Contruct of the Masculine idea of the Male form nor is he attracted to the Physical Aspect of the Femanine. In this Fellow's case, he desires the Femanine aspect mentally yet is finds the Contrast between the Mental Idea and Physical Reality to be Sexually Arousing. This man's Sexual Orientation is defined completely within his own mind and, as such, to any observer, is completely subjective.

So, no. Asexual would not be an accurate description of this man's Sexuality seeing that he does have sexual attraction.

On the contrary, I defined asexuality as the state of not being attracted to either gender by the nature of that gender. I.e., an asexual is not attracted to men because they are men, nor women because they are women. It is possible for an asexual to be attracted to an individual who just so happens to have a gender. I believe our cross-dresser satisfies this catagory: any attracted to men or women is purely incidental.

What if I did define myself one way or the other?

Then by your definition, your status as a theist and/or an atheist would differ from that by my definition.

Which ever I did, that would would not be accurate so what would be the point?

Arguably, definitions are there to allow meaningful conversation. Agreeing on (or simply assuming) a set of mutual definitions to allow this is what goes on when two people talk.

P.s. No, I've never claimed to believe in any Particular Deity since I have yet to be given a sufficant definition of "God."

Hmm, I must have mis-remembered something.

Actually, I have no real definition to the words, only conceptional ideas that I get from another who uses those words.

You gave no definitions per se , but your usage of the words implies that, whatever your definition may be, it is not synonymous with mine. For example, you content that one may be neither theistic nor atheistic. Under my definitions, this is not possible. Thus, our definitions differ.

Seeing as I get different conception ideas from every person who I hear use the Words, I can not draw Any meaning from them. Like the way people say that they "Know" something to be true. Their meaning to the word "Know" is defined entirely within their own minds so whether or not they actually know this or whether they believe it is all based on what exists in their minds.

I believe this analogy is flawed, since you are presupposing a 'correct' definition to the word 'know'.

All that I can do is listen, not to their words (as their choice of words tell me nothing) and instead listen to what they're "Saying."

And what do people say when they talk of atheism? Of theism?

Quite. And what color does that certain average wavelenth of light reflected by an eye's iris make the eye appear?

Consult the following:

Each possible wavelength has its own colour. However, the English language has its limits, and so we only give names to the common colour groups. Remember also that the eye is ultimately limited in its ability to resolve wavelengths.

So 'blue' would be anywhere between 400nm and 550nm.

Whether they belong there or not, right?

Aha, no. I constructed my definitions such that an individual does fall into one of the catagories: the notion of asexuality can be seen as a 'fallback' catagory in the event that an individual does not fall into the major three (hetero-, homo-, or bi- sexuality).

 

[NailsII]

Not that I wish to join in this theist/atheist 'conflict'...

Note that I merely gave my definition of 'life'. I dare say your class' demonstrator was intelligent enough to realise that he was discussing mammalian vitality. Plant life, for example, is rather different. Indeed, what did your health class teach you about 'life'?

Each class of life has its own particuar characteristics, an umbrella that encompassed them all would be problematic in itself. I would not consider a virus to be a life-from as it lacks the tools to metabolise. Rather, I conclude it is more likely to be an evolutionary product of a life form. I do realise that this also meets your criteria for life, but I am of the opinion that biological science is not very good at compartmentalising everything - not all life fits into a box.
Our planet is teaming with diversity of a continous nature; creating discreet boxes would appear to be a rather crude way of appreciating this.

On the contrary, I defined asexuality as the state of not being attracted to either gender by the nature of that gender. I.e., an asexual is not attracted to men because they are men, nor women because they are women. It is possible for an asexual to be attracted to an individual who just so happens to have a gender. I believe our cross-dresser satisfies this catagory: any attracted to men or women is purely incidental.

Aha, no. I constructed my definitions such that an individual does fall into one of the catagories: the notion of asexuality can be seen as a 'fallback' catagory in the event that an individual does not fall into the major three (hetero-, homo-, or bi- sexuality).

Is there a reason why some man who dresses as a woman but is attracted to women is any less heterosexual?
And can there not be a continous distribution of sexual preferences from hetero- to homosexual, depending on how much one prefers a member of one sex compared to another?
Or do they assess each individual on their own merits, regardless of sexuality?
Just a thought.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Each class of life has its own particuar characteristics, an umbrella that encompassed them all would be problematic in itself. I would not consider a virus to be a life-from as it lacks the tools to metabolise.

You appear to contradict yourself by offering a definition of life: that which can metabolise.

Rather, I conclude it is more likely to be an evolutionary product of a life form. I do realise that this also meets your criteria for life, but I am of the opinion that biological science is not very good at compartmentalising everything - not all life fits into a box.
Our planet is teaming with diversity of a continous nature; creating discreet boxes would appear to be a rather crude way of appreciating this.

I disagree. By naming the many orders and groups in herent to life, we acknowledging the existance of their common ancestry. For example, the group of organisms we call 'mammals' all share a variety of biological structures (hair, sweat glands, three middle ear bones used in hearing, a neocortex, etc) that are not found in any other lifeform. This is evidence for their common ancestry, I believe.

Is there a reason why some man who dresses as a woman but is attracted to women is any less heterosexual?

I don't believe so. Heterosexual cross-dressing is not unknown. Note that my definitions are catagorical, and not spectral.

And can there not be a continous distribution of sexual preferences from hetero- to homosexual, depending on how much one prefers a member of one sex compared to another?

Yes. One of my bisexual friends says he is '60:40' in favour of boys. Nevertheless, he is still bisexual.

Or do they assess each individual on their own merits, regardless of sexuality?

'They'?

 

[MemeBuster]

Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

That's like saying Christianity = Inquisition And Superstition

No?


MB.

 

[Chalnoth]

Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

That's like saying Christianity = Inquisition And Superstition

No?


MB.

No, because you can actually built a logical connection between Christianity and the Inquisition and superstition. After all, the Inquisition was merely an application of Christian beliefs (specifically, the belief in heaven/hell, which allowed people to justify their horrible acts). And since Christianity equates to superstition, well...

But there is no connection whatsoever between Darwinian evolution and eugenics or racism, because the theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Science, in general, tells us what the world is like. It doesn't say what is good or bad: we decide that.

 

[FishFace]

As you wish. But my point stands: every member of a two-gendered species can be placed into one of my four catagories.

Not quite so simply though.

 

[FishFace]

Actually, I have no real definition to the words, only conceptional ideas that I get from another who uses those words. Seeing as I get different conception ideas from every person who I hear use the Words, I can not draw Any meaning from them.

DrkSdBls, you ought to read some Wittgenstein. Just because there is no concrete, sharp definition for a word does not mean it is meaningless. Atheist and theist are, in fact, relatively well defined, and can be defined absolutely precisely and remain useful.

Like the way people say that they "Know" something to be true. Their meaning to the word "Know" is defined entirely within their own minds so whether or not they actually know this or whether they believe it is all based on what exists in their minds. All that I can do is listen, not to their words (as their choice of words tell me nothing) and instead listen to what they're "Saying."

Philosophy has struggled with the problem of defining knowledge since ancient times. Turns out that it's not so simple because we use know to mean different things in different contexts - this is called epistemic contextualism. This doesn't mean that "I know I am sitting at my computer" is meaningless; it means simply that the meaning depends on the context in which I utter the phrase.
The oft-cited example is the word "heap." If you have a grain of rice on a table, it is not a heap of rice. If you add some grains, so you have, say, 5, it's still not a heap. If you add 100,000 grains it's certainly a heap, but if you added those grains one-at-a-time, when does it start being a heap?
Clearly "heapness" is not something that is precisely defined, yet the word still clearly has meaning since we can point to examples of heaps and non-heaps. Note that (a)theism isn't a word like heap. Different people use it in different ways but the variation is not vast, and we can usefully make it more precise if necessary.

 

[NailsII]

Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

That's like saying Christianity = Inquisition And Superstition

Before we go down this road, I would just like to point out a previous post I made:

Darwin was not a racist, he was one of the first to explore the possibility of a recent common ancestor between white europeans and their darker skinned freinds - despite superficial differences in appearance.

In "The Descent of Man" he expores this in detail, no doubt urged by a chance meeting with John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who became a close friend.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Not quite so simply though.

Nevertheless, they can.
If the Kinsey reports hold any weight (I have significant doubts that they do, but nevermind), then:
My homosexual is his 6
My heterosexual is his 0
My bisexual is his 1-5
My asexual is his X

Kinsey simply postulated that most people are bisexual to some degree. I disagree.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Nevertheless, my explanation stands. Gravity is fundamentally different from radioactive decay.

Of course they are. I never said they were they same thing.

No. As I said earlier, radioactive decay and gravity are related only by the fact that they are involved with atoms: all atoms warp spacetime by virture of their mass, and all atoms have a probability of undergoing radioactive decay by virtue of the Heisenbury Uncertainty Principle.

They how is that a 'No'?

Note that I merely gave my definition of 'life'. I dare say your class' demonstrator was intelligent enough to realise that he was discussing mammalian vitality. Plant life, for example, is rather different. Indeed, what did your health class teach you about 'life'?

Yes but one of my original points was that one person's definition of a word has little bearing on the opinion of others of the idea that word represents.

And I gave you the Traits that I was taught classified Life: Self-Replication, Self-initiated Movement, Internal Regulated Metabolism, and Growth or Development in responce to environment (and in the case of sentient life, Desire.)

And they don't only apply to mammalian Life, though you are correct that Plantlife has a couple differing traits but, counting the fact that we only understand Life in three forms, we really have no basis to in which to define life in it's entirely. Imagine if we were to discover Silicon-based life. How would we define life then?

When it becomes part of a self-replicating system (as f8d puts it, life is a self-perpetuating pattern).

Something could be a self-perpetuating pattern without being life.

You said Godhood was granted to that with the following properties:
The Power to Create,
to Destory,
to Give Life,
to Take life,
to exist since the beginning of Time,
to Exist til the end of Time,
It makes Fire burn (from a simple Matchhead to a Star),
To manage to control a Process that is infinitely more complex then we can conceive as easily as Breathing!

One could, in theory, warp the definitions of 'power', 'create', 'destroy', 'give', 'take', 'make', and 'manage' in such a way as to make the universe fulfill these criteria. Is this your contention?

There is no "warping" required. That is the most literal definitions of those words.

Besides, I Was tying to lead up to a point but it got sidetracked because you decided to be difficult. My point was that the Universe could be defined as God by at least 1 person's difinition because of the dubious definition of "god". Being so, if I "believed" in the universe, That would make me a Theist by Technicality yet so would it make (at least most) of the so-called Atheists Theists as well.

The whole point of Einstein's matter-energy equivalence principle was to show that matter is simply an expression of energy, and energy is simply an expression of matter. The two are fundamentally the same thing (like ice, water, and steam). If energy is eternal, then so is matter. Conversely, if matter isn't eternal, then neither is energy.

Quite. Then again, Einstein didn't write the Laws, he only intereped them.

It's a good Metaphor (like ice, water, and steam) except it has one major flaw: ice, water, and steam are each three states in which something exists, but that something is not Water. Ice, water, and steam can still be broken down into it's base elements (which could also be broken down into it's base Elements.)

Water could never be broken down into Ice or Steam.
Ice could never be Broken down into Steam or Water.
Steam could never be broken down into Water or Ice.

They can change their form but they are not made of each other. Matter can be broken down into Energy but Energy can never be broken down into matter.

I agree with you that the universe would be much different if the physics behind combustion were sufficiently altered, but I don't understand what you mean by 'crash' and 'system failure'. These are highly subjective terms. That is, a system 'crashes' or 'fails' according to the subjective observer. Who's to say a car crash isn't what cars are supposed to do?

Indeed, the Word is highly subjective though it is approprate. An "Instablility" is what I meant. A system that is drastically altered will experince "Bugs" in the the System. Even a System that experinces such a System Failure could, theoretically, still function if it has safeguards in place (but there's few things more frightening then the thought of God getting a Blue-Screen.)

But, much the way if your body suddenly lost the ability to Sweat, you theoretically could still function. It wouldn't be a total System Failure, but it would still effect the system entirely.

What makes you so sure that a universe with combusion isn't the system failure?

Same reason I don't think of the process of Evolution is a Failure because it produced us.

Everyone has their own personal set of definitions for every single word. The point is that the consensus by far correlates with my definitions: atheism is the logical conjugate of theism.

The "consensus" in which Circle?

Which merely shows that you did not, in fact, understand it.

Ah. So, we're getting into School-yard reasoning now? The "You're wrong because you won't agree with me" Philosophy?

That's no way to debate your position. Even if that's your opinion, that's not something to propose as a point of contest.

Theism is ill-defined only insofar as we have not defined 'deity'. However, I believe we have a sufficient conceptualisation of a 'deity' that we can take the logical conjugate of theism and derive atheism.

Interesting that Atheisim is so well defined when it's definition is derived from the meaning of a Word so ill-defined.

But eitherway, I'm not contesting that.

My 'theism' is ill-defined, but not nearly as ill-defined as 'blue-eyed' was in your example. Indeed, my 'theism' is positively well-defined when you compare it with your 'blue-eyed'.

Actually, no. My "blue-eyed" was perfectly well-defined in the context I was using it. You only had to over-complicate it in order to draw your conclusion that it didn't apply.

On the contrary, I defined asexuality as the state of not being attracted to either gender by the nature of that gender. I.e., an asexual is not attracted to men because they are men, nor women because they are women. It is possible for an asexual to be attracted to an individual who just so happens to have a gender. I believe our cross-dresser satisfies this catagory: any attracted to men or women is purely incidental.

Funny. You have to change the definition of the word in order to defend you errorious conclusion. Your definition of the word is not the agreed upon Concenus of the word.

Funny that this is perfectly fine for you to do yet when I do it, I'm attacked from every side.

Then by your definition, your status as a theist and/or an atheist would differ from that by my definition.

Indeed. So, where's the problem?

Arguably, definitions are there to allow meaningful conversation. Agreeing on (or simply assuming) a set of mutual definitions to allow this is what goes on when two people talk.

Not always. In fact, Meaning is more often implied during Conversions with addition "Definitions" being more or less Superfluous. Definitions are only used when a word has more meaning then can be conveyed in a simple conversion.

Hmm, I must have mis-remembered something.

It happens.

You gave no definitions per se , but your usage of the words implies that, whatever your definition may be, it is not synonymous with mine. For example, you content that one may be neither theistic nor atheistic. Under my definitions, this is not possible. Thus, our definitions differ.

I agree. So, I still fail to see the point of Debating the issue.

I believe this analogy is flawed, since you are presupposing a 'correct' definition to the word 'know'.

On the contrary, I'm contending that the correct meaning to the word "Know" is whatever it means in the instance of it's use.

And what do people say when they talk of atheism? Of theism?

Depends on who's using them. Here's a Question. What do I mean when I use those words?

Consult the following:

Each possible wavelength has its own colour. However, the English language has its limits, and so we only give names to the common colour groups. Remember also that the eye is ultimately limited in its ability to resolve wavelengths.

So 'blue' would be anywhere between 400nm and 550nm.

Actually, the English language does contain enough words for any particular Color that the idea of a certain wavelength can be conveyed to a much smaller degree then that. But, It's actually has to do more with human Laziness to use the correct Word and, instead, resort to use the general Color then the Specific.

Colors can generally be grouped into Realitive Catagories based on their general Range in which they fall but these Groupings are entirely Arbitrary because of the fact that based on the Range inwhich you determine a Color, any specific color can fall into two Groups (just try to figure out the Color of my Truck: Is it Blue or Purple?)

Aha, no. I constructed my definitions such that an individual does fall into one of the catagories: the notion of asexuality can be seen as a 'fallback' catagory in the event that an individual does not fall into the major three (hetero-, homo-, or bi- sexuality).

And I contend that how you've Constructed your Definitions is errored. The "Classification" that you've presented is entirely Subjective; In fact, the entire concept of Sexual Oriention is Subjective. Just because you've decided to group them as such has no meaning to their sexuality.

 

[NailsII]

They can change their form but they are not made of each other. Matter can be broken down into Energy but Energy can never be broken down into matter.

I'm sorry but this statement is incorrect.
Firstly, the analogy og 'breaking down' is a poor one.
Secondly, have you ever heard of a particle accelerator?
There was a really interesting article in Nature (Feb 07) on how energy can be tured into matter.

 

[DrkSdBls]

DrkSdBls, you ought to read some Wittgenstein. Just because there is no concrete, sharp definition for a word does not mean it is meaningless. Atheist and theist are, in fact, relatively well defined, and can be defined absolutely precisely and remain useful.

I didn't mean to say that the words are "Meaningless." A word has all the meaning entirely based on the context of it's usage. That's how Language works. Words only have the meaning which is conveyed.

I actually meant to say that the usage doesn't allow me to define the words so concretely.

Philosophy has struggled with the problem of defining knowledge since ancient times. Turns out that it's not so simple because we use know to mean different things in different contexts - this is called epistemic contextualism. This doesn't mean that "I know I am sitting at my computer" is meaningless; it means simply that the meaning depends on the context in which I utter the phrase.

Which is exactly what I meant.

 

[rebelEnigma]

Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

Do you deny that natural selection should apply to humans? If not, why not?

That's like saying Christianity = Inquisition And Superstition

Please point out what superstitions Christianity has perpetuated.

Total deaths of Inquistion: <5000 over 400 years. Most executed by the State, not the Church.