Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

[DrkSdBls]

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.

I'll have to get back to you on that.

But That's not how Physics were taught back in school.

 

[Chalnoth]

Please point out what superstitions Christianity has perpetuated.

Prayer does something.

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

Does that matter? Is it somehow not evil if its magnitude was small?

 

[Blayz]

Prayer does something.


Does that matter? Is it somehow not evil if its magnitude was small?

Apparently so. Ever read the CARm apologetic on the Midanite slaughter? Paragraphs of conjecture about how righteously indignant the Jews were and how, when you boiled it down, it was only a few male children that were murdered (most having died in the original attack), as though being angry and only killing a few children is less evil.

 

[ProphetMarecavallo]

Scary stuff.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

All populations of replicating systems are subject to natural selection, humans included. Eugenics, however, makes the erroneous presupposition that some 'races' or 'breeds' of humans are 'better' than other races/breeds.

Please point out what superstitions Christianity has perpetuated.

The existance of a triune deity, the usefulness of prayer, the existance of heaven (and sometimes hell), etc.

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

I think his point was that Christianity doesn't lead to the Inquisition. A b&#1072;stardisation of Christianity is what lead to the Inquisition. Similarily, it is a b&#1072;stardisation of evolutionary theory that lead to eugenics.

 

[NailsII]

I'll have to get back to you on that.

But That's not how Physics were taught back in school.

I know the feeling.
When I was a teenager, my gran took me church and I learned about creation as if it were fact.
Imagine my anger when I discovered it was a lie.
It is too easy to accept things on 'faith' - and in that I include anything teachers, parents and especially politicians say. Only when you are mature enough (not a personal attack you understand, more a finger-pointing at my own late start on free thinking) to research for yourself can you truly claim anything with any certainty.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

Actually, you did: you stated the same thing that burns matches causes stars to shine. This is synonymous with equating gravity with radioactive decay.

They how is that a 'No'?

I was attempting to explain how the radioactive decay of a particle has no bearing on the warping of spacetime. Specifically, it is the existance and position of mass that warps spacetime. Energy does not warp spacetime, as far as I am aware.

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.)

Then you consider viruses to be alive, but not plants? Unconventional, to be sure.

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?

How would we know if we had discovered silicon-based life or not?

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

Not according to my definition it can't.

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

On the contrary, your wording was nebulous. I had no idea what you were talking about.

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.

No. Believing in the universe is different to believing the universe is a god.

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

Indeed. However, Einstein's field equations have passed falsification tests without fail. This level of precision is unprecidented.

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.

That doesn't make sense. Steam is ice, just at a different temperature. Matter is energy, just in a different configuration.

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.

And yet, you still haven't told me what you mean by 'crash', 'system failure', or 'bug'.

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

And what reason is that? Or do you consider the purpose of the universe to produce life / humans?

The "consensus" in which Circle?

The Anglosphere.

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

You said you understood my point, but you didn't. Review the previous few posts.

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.

I think I would know what point I'm trying to convey, and, given your previous comments, I do not believe you understand.

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

Remember that I am only trying to establish that, conventionally, one is either an atheist or a theist.

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, you yourself demonstrated how ill-defined 'blue-eyed' was: is someone with one blue eye and one green eye 'blue-eyed' or not? I was simply highlighting how important it is to keep your key terms sufficiently well-defined.

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.

I didn't change my definition:

• Asexuality: to be not attracted to members of either gender

I reworded the definition, but they are synonymous. That said, I don't think I've accused you of equivocation.

Indeed. So, where's the problem?

Various things. The definition of 'blue-eyed', the definition of 'deity'/'god', your definition of 'theism'/'atheism', etc.

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

Ultimately, I would like to know your definitions of 'theism' and 'atheism'.

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

I have no idea. But apparently one is not the logical conjugate of the other.

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?)

Which is why, when we are talking formally, we use catagorical, rather than nebulous, definitions of key terms.

And I contend that how you've Constructed your Definitions is errored.

How so? I am free to define them as I wish. Indeed, I attempted to define them to fit the conventional definitions; can you show that I have not done this?

The "Classification" that you've presented is entirely Subjective;

On the contrary, I used convention as a baseline.

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.

On the contrary, since every person has a sexual profile, we can arbitrarily group people according to what's on said profile. I decided to group people according to which genders they are attracted to (if any). People are either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. I have yet to see definitions of any of these words that differs from my own.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I know the feeling.
When I was a teenager, my gran took me church and I learned about creation as if it were fact.
Imagine my anger when I discovered it was a lie.
It is too easy to accept things on 'faith' - and in that I include anything teachers, parents and especially politicians say. Only when you are mature enough (not a personal attack you understand, more a finger-pointing at my own late start on free thinking) to research for yourself can you truly claim anything with any certainty.

Oh, I completely agree with you. Infact, that's my entire philosophy in a nutshell. The problem here comes with the fact that I am not able to do the research myself in Everything and so must rely on those who I trust to tell me the truth. Of course, I learned a long time ago that everyone will lie to you at least once, even your Teachers and Parents. That's why you need to filter what you are told thorough common sense. Then again, Times change, Ideas change. That's why you also must challenge your previous ideas, often by challenging contrary ideas.

 

[LittleNipper]

Oh, I completely agree with you. Infact, that's my entire philosophy in a nutshell. The problem here comes with the fact that I am not able to do the research myself in Everything and so must rely on those who I trust to tell me the truth. Of course, I learned a long time ago that everyone will lie to you at least once, even your Teachers and Parents. That's why you need to filter what you are told thorough common sense. Then again, Times change, Ideas change. That's why you also must challenge your previous ideas, often by challenging contrary ideas.

Imagine the dismay when the CREATION story and the FLOOD are exonerated. Boy, will the egg in the face be prevalent one day. Gram will not seem so naive then.

 

[Chalnoth]

Imagine the dismay when the CREATION story and the FLOOD are exonerated. Boy, will the egg in the face be prevalent one day. Gram will not seem so naive then.

Falsified theories don't magically get resurrected. The Biblical creation and flood accounts are completely incompatible with what we know about the Earth. They have been falsified, and there is no reasonable way in which they might be "exonerated."

 

[DrkSdBls]

Actually, you did: you stated the same thing that burns matches causes stars to shine. This is synonymous with equating gravity with radioactive decay.

Sorry but no, they are not synonymous.

I was attempting to explain how the radioactive decay of a particle has no bearing on the warping of spacetime. Specifically, it is the existance and position of mass that warps spacetime. Energy does not warp spacetime, as far as I am aware.

Not so much the energy Warping Space rather the Nature of the "Fabric of Spacetime" and it's mutablity; Like Skin.

Then you consider viruses to be alive, but not plants? Unconventional, to be sure.

Actually, I never said anything about excluding plants. In fact, I counted Plants among the 3 known forms of Life we are aware of and those Traits I've listed apply to Plants as well (though Self-initiated Movement is debatable.)


[qoute]How would we know if we had discovered silicon-based life or not?

By your reasoning, when ever we define it as such.

Not according to my definition it can't.

That's evident. But we're tring to determine what actually is life here.

I'll give you a Hypothetical:

Imagine we make it to another Planet an discover a Crystaline materal covering much of the planet which we discover is made of Highly Organized Silicon based (we'll can them Proteins, for lack of better word.) Now, imagine if we discover that this Crystaline materal actually "grows" by Aborbing Silicon from the surrounding Envirnment and adds to itself following the same Complex Patten that it is constructed of.

If I told you that apart from the main core, any part seperated would revert to Patternless sand and would cease to grow. It doesn't reproduce another, seperate Materal from itself. It just grows. In fact, it's not "Decended" from another other form of Materal but rather is a highly complex form of the same base Silicon molecules that first formed during the it's own Abiogensis. First question. Does this Crystaline Materal "Replicate?"

Next Question. If I told you that this Materal also exibited a highly complex Electrical System running through it's Structure and even demonstrated the ability to direct it's growth according to it's environment, Would this Material be concidered Intellegent (even if only instinctual?) For that matter, does something need to be alive to be Intelligent?

On the contrary, your wording was nebulous. I had no idea what you were talking about.

Then I recken that's more a failure on your part, not mine.

No. Believing in the universe is different to believing the universe is a god.

Actually, the only difference is that to believe that the universe is not a god is to restrict your definition of God to a very Strict definition; a definition that has yet to be determined.

Which you've just proven my point. Belief is defined, not by the unknown Knowledge but rather how one views the known knowledge.

To ask someone if they believe in God is a nebulous question indeed when that word is undefined, the question Biased, and the answer not a simple yes or no.

Indeed. However, Einstein's field equations have passed falsification tests without fail. This level of precision is unprecidented.

Oh, lets not forgive just how many equations Einstein had formulated that didn't make the cut.

But that's besides the point, of course. The point is that Einstein's field equations are also incomplete in many regards.

That doesn't make sense. Steam is ice, just at a different temperature. Matter is energy, just in a different configuration.

No, Steam is a state of a configuration of molecules, which are a configuration of Atoms, Etc. Just because you can change it's state doesn't mean a thing in relation to it's nature.

And yet, you still haven't told me what you mean by 'crash', 'system failure', or 'bug'.

They don't matter. I was using them in a Figuretive sense. That wasn't the meaning I was attempting to convey.

And what reason is that? Or do you consider the purpose of the universe to produce life / humans?

No. The Reason why is that I believe the Process of Evolution is an Integral part of the Universe and has been since the beginning (even if it wasn't being used at a certain point) and, as such, it can't be a failure if it's worked so well into the workings of the universe.

The Universe works, so it can't be defined as a failure.

If the universe were to suddenly develop a process that would result in preventing the universe from fuctioning, then that would be a failure.

As for Evolution, I don't concider anything a failure. Sad and a little disappointing purhaps but not a Failure.

The Anglosphere.

Are you suggesting I live somewhere else? Maybe I do cause, around here, that's a minority view.

You said you understood my point, but you didn't. Review the previous few posts.

No, in the first few post, I was attempting to elicit a clearer understanding of your point. As soon as I got that, I understood your point. I just disagreed with it.

I think I would know what point I'm trying to convey, and, given your previous comments, I do not believe you understand.

That's the funny thing about Belief; Without proper facts, you'll always just be guessing.

Remember that I am only trying to establish that, conventionally, one is either an atheist or a theist.

Oh, that point hasn't escaped me. And remember, I'm trying to establish that (a)theism is realitive.

On the contrary, you yourself demonstrated how ill-defined 'blue-eyed' was: is someone with one blue eye and one green eye 'blue-eyed' or not? I was simply highlighting how important it is to keep your key terms sufficiently well-defined.

In the context I was using it, the fact it was so "Ill-defined" was my point. The simple fact that the meaning of the key-word "Blue-eyed" failed to apply in this given circumstance even though, the meaning of the word still retained some of it's meaning, just not all of it.

I didn't change my definition:

• Asexuality: to be not attracted to members of either gender

Semantics. The problem (one of many, actually) is that you have to ask does this apply to Sexual Attaction, Non-sexual Attaction, Or Both? Also, were does Sexual Distinction come into effect in determining Sexual orientation?

If a Man says he's Heterosexual and finds women to be appealing yet is sexually unattracted to any Female, does this still make him Heterosexual? Would he have to have been attracted to at least one Female in his Life to be determined Heterosexual?

And what about general Sexual Arousal? A Man who is unattracted to either Gender specifically yet still is Sexually attracted to non-gender specific Stimuli: Smells, Sights, Sounds, Non-gender Specific Anatomy (Feet, Hair, Eye-color). If such a man was attracted to a series of Non-gender Specific Stimuli and found a female who exibited one or more of these Traits, would he be concidered Heterosexual (he is attracted to a Female), Asexual (he isn't attracted to a female because she's female), Or Bi-sexual (because he is attracted to traits shared by both men and Women.)

I reworded the definition, but they are synonymous. That said, I don't think I've accused you of equivocation.

Wasn't refering to you, though you sure didn't make it any easier.

Various things. The definition of 'blue-eyed',

To have Eyes Naturally colored blue.

the definition of 'deity'/'god',

Nice. Shift the question back to me again.

your definition of 'theism'/'atheism', etc.

I find no problem there, so it's not a issue.

Ultimately, I would like to know your definitions of 'theism' and 'atheism'.

I have no idea. But apparently one is not the logical conjugate of the other.

Think of a Coin. It has two Faces, one is obviously not the same as the other. If you flip the coin, what is the Probability of one side coming face up? But, a more important question, which side is no longer part of the coin?

Which is why, when we are talking formally, we use catagorical, rather than nebulous, definitions of key terms.

Aside from the fact that we still use nebulous definitions everyday..... Catagorical Definitions are often just as errored.

How so? I am free to define them as I wish. Indeed, I attempted to define them to fit the conventional definitions; can you show that I have not done this?

You are free to define them as you wish though I fail to see how you've attempted to define them to fit the conventional definitions since everything I know any Human sexuality (and believe me, I know quite a bit in this area) is contrary to your definitions. How you reason that they are in any way "Conventioal" escapes me.

On the contrary, I used convention as a baseline.

That's funny. So did I.

On the contrary, since every person has a sexual profile, we can arbitrarily group people according to what's on said profile. I decided to group people according to which genders they are attracted to (if any). People are either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual. I have yet to see definitions of any of these words that differs from my own.

First, every person's Sexual Profile is Relative to their own definition of Sexuality, Sub Definitions being more or less meaningless until People result to define themselves according to another's perspective of Sexuality and not according to how they define themselves.

Second, People are not either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual when these terms themselves are subjective. If anything, I'd define heterosexality and homosexaity as "Most Distingishing Sexual Oriention." The words heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual lose their meaning when you apply a person's Sexuality to a More Accurate Sliding Scale Model. Human Sexuality is very much like a Rainbow and each person falls somewhere within the Sexual Spectrum depending on where they are at that point of their lifes and, Like different Colors of the Rainbow, People can at times, fall between Generalities and still be their own color. Just because you measure colors as Red, Blue, and Yellow, that doesn't mean that's the only colors.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Imagine the dismay when the CREATION story and the FLOOD are exonerated. Boy, will the egg in the face be prevalent one day. Gram will not seem so naive then.

And just How do you suppose that they will be "exonerated?"

 

[NailsII]

Oh, I completely agree with you. Infact, that's my entire philosophy in a nutshell. The problem here comes with the fact that I am not able to do the research myself in Everything and so must rely on those who I trust to tell me the truth. Of course, I learned a long time ago that everyone will lie to you at least once, even your Teachers and Parents. That's why you need to filter what you are told thorough common sense. Then again, Times change, Ideas change. That's why you also must challenge your previous ideas, often by challenging contrary ideas.

I agree entirely. That is the strength of the scientific method, to challange what we know an learn.

Imagine the dismay when the CREATION story and the FLOOD are exonerated. Boy, will the egg in the face be prevalent one day. Gram will not seem so naive then.

If you contracted a skin disorder, would you trust a doctor (and medical science) to treat you, or would you see a priest and wander the plains for an eternity dressed in rags, proclaiming yourself "unclean"? (biblical mythology)

Falsified theories don't magically get resurrected. The Biblical creation and flood accounts are completely incompatible with what we know about the Earth. They have been falsified, and there is no reasonable way in which they might be "exonerated."

Absolutely.

And just How do you suppose that they will be "exonerated?"

By science, perhaps?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Part 1 of 2

Sorry but no, they are not synonymous.

How so? The forces 'behind' stars is primarily gravity and strong nuclear. The force 'behind' matches is primarily electromagnetism.
I realise I may be contradicting myself here, but the details are irrelevant. The point is that Stars shine for utterly different reasons to why matches burn.

Actually, I never said anything about excluding plants.

Plants don't engage in self-initiated movement.

By your reasoning, when ever we define it as such.

You talk as if there is a more objective way to determine whether something is alive or not.

That's evident. But we're tring to determine what actually is life here.

On the contrary, life is whatever we define it to be. Humans have evolved with this dichotomal concept of 'alive' and 'not alive'. As with other such evolved concepts, they are entirely superficial and have no bearing on reality. That said, there are systems that are traditionally considered to be 'alive' (though I'm struggling to think of a generic example; therein lies the issue).

I'll give you a Hypothetical:

Imagine we make it to another Planet an discover a Crystaline materal covering much of the planet which we discover is made of Highly Organized Silicon based (we'll can them Proteins, for lack of better word.) Now, imagine if we discover that this Crystaline materal actually "grows" by Aborbing Silicon from the surrounding Envirnment and adds to itself following the same Complex Patten that it is constructed of.

Given that this is how crystals form, you'd be hard-pressed to find a crystalline system that doesn't add more unit cells (the base pattern) to itself.

If I told you that apart from the main core, any part seperated would revert to Patternless sand and would cease to grow. It doesn't reproduce another, seperate Materal from itself. It just grows. In fact, it's not "Decended" from another other form of Materal but rather is a highly complex form of the same base Silicon molecules that first formed during the it's own Abiogensis. First question. Does this Crystaline Materal "Replicate?"

I cannot answer your question, because I believe your scenario is internally inconsistent.

If this is a crystalline structure, it is simply a vast lattice of silicone-based units (let's call them 'protiens') that, when in contact with the more basic and non-crystallising silicone-based 'sub-units' (let's call them 'aminos'), incorporates 'aminos' into a new 'protien 'adjacent to it. That is, a group of 'aminos' wafts onto the edge of the structure, and the edge-most 'protiens' crystallise these 'aminos' into another 'protien'. So:

aminos are periods ' . '
protiens are colon pairs ' : : '
the initial structure is : : : : :
Consider a group of aminos coming into contact with the structure:
: : : : ......... . .. .
: : : : ...... . .. .
: : : : .... . .. .
: : : : : : .. .
: : : : : : : .

Thus, the structure is extended. This is the model we are considering (my apologies for this lengthy exposition).

Now, you say that, if a small piece of the structure becomes seperated from the rest:
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : . ....... : : :
You say that this piece will cease to assimilate new aminos into itself.

Now:

• What if a protien becomes detached from the structure? From its point of view, nothing has changed with regards to its crystallisation abilities (since it is still a protien). Why, then, can it not crystallise?
• What if the structure is split exactly into two? Which 'dies'? Which 'lives'?

Next Question. If I told you that this Materal also exibited a highly complex Electrical System running through it's Structure and even demonstrated the ability to direct it's growth according to it's environment, Would this Material be concidered Intellegent (even if only instinctual?) For that matter, does something need to be alive to be Intelligent?

These I can answer.

To the first, I would say that this structure is as intelligent as a simple Earth-based plant (cress, for instance). Whether cress counts as an intelligence or not is ultimately semantics.

To the second, I would say no. Computers are not replicators, and so do not qualify as 'alive' by my definition of the word, yet one can easily envision an A.I. of sufficient complexity to warrent the title of 'an intelligence'. Quite what this complexity entails is a matter of some debate, but billions of years of computer technology should yield a true A.I..

Then I recken that's more a failure on your part, not mine.

On the contrary, it is not my fault if you provide insufficient information for me to know what concept you are trying to convey. Informally, I would have resorted to my own definition, but since this is a formal semantics debate, I have no such luxery.

Actually, the only difference is that to believe that the universe is not a god is to restrict your definition of God to a very Strict definition; a definition that has yet to be determined.

Ah, no, I said the statement "I believe in the universe", not "I don't believe the universe is a god".

Which you've just proven my point. Belief is defined, not by the unknown Knowledge but rather how one views the known knowledge.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

To ask someone if they believe in God is a nebulous question indeed when that word is undefined, the question Biased, and the answer not a simple yes or no.

And this merely underlines the importance of well-defined terminology.

Oh, lets not forgive just how many equations Einstein had formulated that didn't make the cut.

The equations Einstein left us with at the moment of his death have yet to be refuted. I am not aware of any posit or important derivation that has been post-humously refuted.

But that's besides the point, of course. The point is that Einstein's field equations are also incomplete in many regards.

On the contrary, they explain preciesly what Einstein wanted to explain. Don't forget that the ten field equations:

are simply an explanation of gravitation. They don't explain, say, electromagnetism (as far as I am aware).

No, Steam is a state of a configuration of molecules, which are a configuration of Atoms, Etc. Just because you can change it's state doesn't mean a thing in relation to it's nature.

A particle of steam is simply a free H2O molecules; steam is H2O in its unbound state. Ice, then, can be seen as very cold steam; ice is steam, and steam is ice. The two are simply at a different position on the PVT surface for H2O.

They don't matter. I was using them in a Figuretive sense. That wasn't the meaning I was attempting to convey.

Then what were you trying to convey?

No. The Reason why is that I believe the Process of Evolution is an Integral part of the Universe and has been since the beginning (even if it wasn't being used at a certain point) and, as such, it can't be a failure if it's worked so well into the workings of the universe.

The Universe works, so it can't be defined as a failure.

If the universe were to suddenly develop a process that would result in preventing the universe from fuctioning, then that would be a failure.

Then the issue is: what is the function of the universe?

Are you suggesting I live somewhere else? Maybe I do cause, around here, that's a minority view.

Not at all. However, the average is just that: the average. The Anglosphere isn't defined by those who speak average English, but rather by those who speak English, period. That said, I have yet to see a person disagree with my definition of atheism and theism such that they are logical conjugates. You, DrkSdBls, are the first.

No, in the first few post, I was attempting to elicit a clearer understanding of your point. As soon as I got that, I understood your point. I just disagreed with it.

And what point was that? I think we are talking of two different things here.

That's the funny thing about Belief; Without proper facts, you'll always just be guessing.

Alas, I have no way to directly probe your mind. I can only assume that your words here are honest (an assumption to which I have no doubts).

Oh, that point hasn't escaped me. And remember, I'm trying to establish that (a)theism is realitive.

The definition of atheism and theism is relative insofar as each person has their own definition of the terms. I have yet to hear yours, so I am simply espousing mine and claiming that they are the amalgamation of the average Anglophone's conceptualisation of the terms.

In the context I was using it, the fact it was so "Ill-defined" was my point. The simple fact that the meaning of the key-word "Blue-eyed" failed to apply in this given circumstance even though, the meaning of the word still retained some of it's meaning, just not all of it.

Ah, I see. Then it is interesting to note that 'ill-defined' doesn't mean 'void of all meaning'. That something is 'ill-defined' simply means that it is incomplete (insofar as it could refer to one of several distinct concepts; a well-defined word refers to preciesly one concept).
But yes, I see you point now.

Although, you previously said:
"My "blue-eyed" was perfectly well-defined in the context I was using it."
Oh, well.

Semantics.

To say the least We are, after all, discussing my catagorical definition of a generally nebulous word.

The problem (one of many, actually) is that you have to ask does this apply to Sexual Attaction, Non-sexual Attaction, Or Both?

Good point. I am talking of sexual attraction (bear in mind that celibates may still experiance sexual attraction; they just choose not to act on it). Thus, an asexual is one who experiances no sexual attraction to either gender.

Also, were does Sexual Distinction come into effect in determining Sexual orientation?

What's 'sexual distinction'? I've never come across that term before.

If a Man says he's Heterosexual and finds women to be appealing yet is sexually unattracted to any Female, does this still make him Heterosexual?

No. Heterosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction to only the opposite gender. Perhaps the above calrification would help.

Would he have to have been attracted to at least one Female in his Life to be determined Heterosexual?

A person's placement in my catagories may, in theory, change over time. For example, someone may be genuinely attracted to men and only men, and then be genuinely attracted to both men and women, and then just women. So this person (let's assume their male) goes from homosexuality, to bisexuality, to heterosexuality.

That said, there is considerable debate as to whether such a change can in fact occur.

And what about general Sexual Arousal? A Man who is unattracted to either Gender specifically yet still is Sexually attracted to non-gender specific Stimuli: Smells, Sights, Sounds, Non-gender Specific Anatomy (Feet, Hair, Eye-color). If such a man was attracted to a series of Non-gender Specific Stimuli and found a female who exibited one or more of these Traits, would he be concidered Heterosexual (he is attracted to a Female), Asexual (he isn't attracted to a female because she's female), Or Bi-sexual (because he is attracted to traits shared by both men and Women.)

My four catagories group people according to how they're attracted to the two genders. Any other fetish they may have is irrelevent.

I must say, I am rather enjoying this debate

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Part 2 of 2

To have Eyes Naturally colored blue.

Which raises numerous questions:

• "To have" - can a person's status as 'blue-eyed' change over time?
• "eyes" - does this refer to the totality of their eyes? That is, if a person has seven blue eyes and one green eye, are they deemed 'blue-eyed', or do they have two titles: 'blue-eyed' and 'green-eyed'?
  Furthermore, what do you mean by 'eye'? The average wavelength of light reflected by all visable parts of the organ science calls the 'eye'? Or just the iris?
• "naturally" - does this refer to the genetic predisposition of their eye colour, or the colour they have at any given time (assuming they have eyes at all)
• "coloured blue" - what constitutes 'blue'?

But I note that you have since clarified that the 'blue-eyed' fiasco was simply to illustrate a point on ill-defined definitions, so I'll let this one slide... for now

Nice. Shift the question back to me again.

To be fair, I was simply listing the issues thus far in the debate. We have already agreed that there is no unanimous definition of deity.

I find no problem there, so it's not a issue.

My point is that I do not know what you mean when you use the words 'atheism' & 'theism', and the derivatives thereof. I am simply curious as to whom you deem 'theistic'.

Think of a Coin. It has two Faces, one is obviously not the same as the other. If you flip the coin, what is the Probability of one side coming face up? But, a more important question, which side is no longer part of the coin?

I don't understand. The coin will only ever have exactly three sides, each mutually exclusive (the coin will, in ideal situations, only ever be on one of the three sides). Likewise, one will only ever be on one side of the 'atheism/theism' stance. There is no middle ground, as far as my definitions are concerned.

Aside from the fact that we still use nebulous definitions everyday.....

Indeed. However, I said "..., when we are talking formally, ..."
Formally, definitions must be well-defined. Arguably, that's the definition of formal speech

You are free to define them as you wish though I fail to see how you've attempted to define them to fit the conventional definitions since everything I know any Human sexuality (and believe me, I know quite a bit in this area) is contrary to your definitions. How you reason that they are in any way "Conventioal" escapes me.

Show me one person (besides yourself) who considers heterosexuality to be anything other than sexual attraction to the opposite gender.
Show me one person who sees homosexuality as anything but the sexual attraction to one's own gender.
Show me one person who sees bisexuals as being sexually attracted to both genders.

That's funny. So did I.

Then we either used different methods of derivation, or different conventions. I'm betting on the latter.

First, every person's Sexual Profile is Relative to their own definition of Sexuality, Sub Definitions being more or less meaningless until People result to define themselves according to another's perspective of Sexuality and not according to how they define themselves.

In mathematics, once one has defined the origin and the coordinate system, all points in that system can be catagorically defined.
Similarily, once one has defined what one means by the terms 'heterosexuality' etc, everyone falls into place. It doesn't matter what their definitions are, merely what their sexual profiles are. We are, at the moment, taking these to be a given. In practice, it can be hard to read a person's profile.

Second, People are not either heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual when these terms themselves are subjective.

On the contrary, I have provided catagorical definitions of the four terms. I have yet to see your demonstration that people can't be placed in one of my four groups.

If anything, I'd define heterosexality and homosexaity as "Most Distingishing Sexual Oriention." The words heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual lose their meaning when you apply a person's Sexuality to a More Accurate Sliding Scale Model. Human Sexuality is very much like a Rainbow and each person falls somewhere within the Sexual Spectrum depending on where they are at that point of their lifes and, Like different Colors of the Rainbow, People can at times, fall between Generalities and still be their own color. Just because you measure colors as Red, Blue, and Yellow, that doesn't mean that's the only colors.

Nevertheless, if you have three terms: "Red", "Violet", and "Everything else", all colours will fall into one of the three catagories.

Likewise, everyone will fall into one of my catagories. To compare my model to yours:
My heterosexuality and my homosexuality are both the extreme ends of your scale.
My bisexuality is your 'middle groud'; the area of the sexual between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
My asexuality is off the scale, and in this respect my model is more accurate: your scale cannot accomodate the asexual.

Now, everyone will fall into one of my catagories. By using the law of excluded middle, my terminology is constructed thusly:

• Someone either is or is not on the scale.
  • If they are not, they are asexual.
  • If they are, see below.
• Someone either is or is not at one of the extremes.
  • If they are not, they are bisexual.
  • If they are, see below.
• Someone either is or is not at the left-hand extreme.
  • If they are not, they are homosexual.
  • If they are, they are heterosexual.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Imagine the dismay when the CREATION story and the FLOOD are exonerated. Boy, will the egg in the face be prevalent one day. Gram will not seem so naive then.

LN, the reason you think the Creation and Flood myths will be proven is the same reason you think they are true. Thus, one need only point out the irrationality of this assumption (I'm guessing Biblical literalism, or something similar) to refute your point.

 

[Beccs]

That's enough!

We get it. You don't like the theory of evolution because it interferes with your blessed creation beliefs. Fine, but who are you to scream racism to justify your stubborn preference for mythology over science?

It's a common argument. It's a shame it doesn't hold water.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It's a common argument. It's a shame it doesn't hold water.

So if it's not a mythological bias, what is your beef with evolution?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Part 1 of 2
How so? The forces 'behind' stars is primarily gravity and strong nuclear. The force 'behind' matches is primarily electromagnetism.
I realise I may be contradicting myself here, but the details are irrelevant. The point is that Stars shine for utterly different reasons to why matches burn.

Actually, I was trying to draw a Parallel, not claim that they're the Exact same Force.

But the "fuel" (Or, For absence of the correct term at the moment, Quantum Spark) is the same for all underlying forces. On a Quantum level, everything is inter-connected.

Plants don't engage in self-initiated movement.

Not willfully, anyway, But I never claimed that Conscious desire was a requirement for life.

Plants are (for lack of a better wiord) "Designed" to get around. Now, they do not just pick up and move on their own but they do take advantage of forces that move them in order to help perpetuate their Species.


Like I said self-initiated movement is a debatable ability for Plants, but only because of the unweildy use of the word "self." Plants do not move through self-guilded effort but you can not argue that they do not move with Intent and/or Design.

You talk as if there is a more objective way to determine whether something is alive or not.

Well, I don't know about "Objective" but there is a simplier way.

Try to prove that something is Not Alive.

Take everything we know about everything we understand to be alive and apply it to the "something" in question. If you can not prove that it not alive, then it's alive.

On the contrary, life is whatever we define it to be. Humans have evolved with this dichotomal concept of 'alive' and 'not alive'. As with other such evolved concepts, they are entirely superficial and have no bearing on reality. That said, there are systems that are traditionally considered to be 'alive' (though I'm struggling to think of a generic example; therein lies the issue).

I agree. Purhaps I should have said "we're tring to establish each of our own Opinions of what we determine is life."

Given that this is how crystals form, you'd be hard-pressed to find a crystalline system that doesn't add more unit cells (the base pattern) to itself.

Granted. But seeing as I'm using an example that is 100% "alien" there no reason to assume that such a System in an Alien Environment would function identically to our own.

I cannot answer your question, because I believe your scenario is internally inconsistent.

Now, you say that, if a small piece of the structure becomes seperated from the rest:
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : . ....... : : :
You say that this piece will cease to assimilate new aminos into itself.

Now:

• What if a protien becomes detached from the structure? From its point of view, nothing has changed with regards to its crystallisation abilities (since it is still a protien). Why, then, can it not crystallise?

Indeed, though I was using the example in the Context of "What If." Exactly way it wouldn't is unto the Scientist studing it to determine but it is inconcequintual to the fact that it just does.

But, for sake of interest, I'll say that this Crystaline Structure has a electrical current that traverses it's Crystaline Patterns (it's Patterns are highly Complex, similar to a circit-board but forms like a Snowflake) that stimulates the crystallisation process. Cut off from the "Main Body", it's residual Electro Charge will soon fade and it's process will cease.

(We're discussing a Alien Silicon-based thing here: e.g. Fiction. So, I can take creative license if I so choose. )

[quote[What if the structure is split exactly into two? Which 'dies'? Which 'lives'?[/quote]

Actually, that's a very good question and an experiment I'm dying to try.....

...But anyway, I'd imagine that the full structure would cease, in light of the Fact that I have no idea as to what would stimulate it's growth in the first place.

I suspect that it would have a Highly complex "Heart" where the Electo-charge either Originates or is "Processed" so, the surviving half would be the one with that still intact.

To the first, I would say that this structure is as intelligent as a simple Earth-based plant (cress, for instance). Whether cress counts as an intelligence or not is ultimately semantics.

To the second, I would say no. Computers are not replicators, and so do not qualify as 'alive' by my definition of the word, yet one can easily envision an A.I. of sufficient complexity to warrent the title of 'an intelligence'. Quite what this complexity entails is a matter of some debate, but billions of years of computer technology should yield a true A.I..

Indeed. That's why I can say that we're discover artificial Intellegence long before we create artificial Life.

On the contrary, it is not my fault if you provide insufficient information for me to know what concept you are trying to convey. Informally, I would have resorted to my own definition, but since this is a formal semantics debate, I have no such luxery.

I don't often find it so hard for someone to understand me. Purhaps that because, in the circles I roam, certain words convey a slightly different meaning........

Ah, no, I said the statement "I believe in the universe", not "I don't believe the universe is a god".


I'm not sure what you mean here.

Which was my point.

You tell someone that you "Believe in the Universe."
This Same Person Believes that the Universe is God.
In this person's mind, you're saying "I believe in God (or, at least, a god.)"

Without further Clarification and more detailed understanding of each other's Beliefs (along with highly defined Words,) this is a very easy conclusion to reach.

The same can be equally said of the Opposite view.

If you were say "I do not believe in God" and If Someone who has a very specific "God" in Mind were to hear you say that, they'd automatically fall to their own concept of "God" without even getting a more clear perspective of your beliefs.

"I do not believe in God" isn't very clear.

And this merely underlines the importance of well-defined terminology.

Exactly.

On the contrary, they explain preciesly what Einstein wanted to explain. Don't forget that the ten field equations:

are simply an explanation of gravitation. They don't explain, say, electromagnetism (as far as I am aware).

They also don't explain Quantom Particules, which is highly contested as being the force behind Gravity.

A particle of steam is simply a free H2O molecules; steam is H2O in its unbound state. Ice, then, can be seen as very cold steam; ice is steam, and steam is ice. The two are simply at a different position on the PVT surface for H2O.

But they are still H2O. H2O is still made of seperate Elements which, alone, are the same building blocks that make up Water. Whether Water, Ice or Steam, you break them down and you'll get that same Elements each time.

Then what were you trying to convey?

Ok. I was talking about if you were to remove an underlying Physical Law of the Universe, this would have a Enter Figuritive Speak here effect on the universe in as a whole; Just as if you were to remove the Immune System from a living Organism.

Then the issue is: what is the function of the universe?

That's like asking what is the Meaning of Life?

But, I guess the answer is the same: To make the most out of the Little time it has. Just because it Can create Galaxies, Stars, and Life doesn't mean that's it's purpose! That's it's ....... Talent!

Not at all. However, the average is just that: the average. The Anglosphere isn't defined by those who speak average English, but rather by those who speak English, period. That said, I have yet to see a person disagree with my definition of atheism and theism such that they are logical conjugates. You, DrkSdBls, are the first.

That's right, The First! I'm number One!

And my opinion is equal to everyone else put together so, as far as you're concerned, it's 50/50!

...........

Sorry. Having a little fun.

But, unlike you, I've had a little more experince in getting many different ideas of many words, Atheism included. But, I guess my personal experince means nothing. Afterall, it's been made quite clear before on these forums that "if it has been experinced by 100% of the Population, it's impossible."

And what point was that? I think we are talking of two different things here.

That Atheism is the Mathimatical conjugate of Theism.

Oh, and Logical too.

Alas, I have no way to directly probe your mind. I can only assume that your words here are honest (an assumption to which I have no doubts).

That's the first step to understanding me. I'm always honest. I may not be completely sane, But I'm honest!

The definition of atheism and theism is relative insofar as each person has their own definition of the terms. I have yet to hear yours, so I am simply espousing mine and claiming that they are the amalgamation of the average Anglophone's conceptualisation of the terms.

Indeed. And I won't give mine as I have none. Which is why I've said several times that anyone can concider me whatever they like, but they'll be wrong.

Ah, I see. Then it is interesting to note that 'ill-defined' doesn't mean 'void of all meaning'. That something is 'ill-defined' simply means that it is incomplete (insofar as it could refer to one of several distinct concepts; a well-defined word refers to preciesly one concept).
But yes, I see you point now.

Although, you previously said:
"My "blue-eyed" was perfectly well-defined in the context I was using it."
Oh, well.

Perfectly Imperfect, my friend, As is the case which every human concept.

But you've got my intended meaning, I believe.

To say the least We are, after all, discussing my catagorical definition of a generally nebulous word.


Good point. I am talking of sexual attraction (bear in mind that celibates may still experiance sexual attraction; they just choose not to act on it). Thus, an asexual is one who experiances no sexual attraction to either gender.


What's 'sexual distinction'? I've never come across that term before.

Distinction between Genders.

My question was, when Sexual attraction is not based on Gender defined Traits (Such as the masculine or the feminine), how is Sexual Orientation dertermined? One can be Sexually attacted to a person, not because of their Gender but to a Trait that can be found on either Gender. A Man can be sexually attracted to something as Long Blond Hair or certain Facial Features and can find these Traits on any member of either gender yet would not base his Sexual Orientation this Sexual attraction alone. Theorically, he would even pursue a relationship based on this one Sexual Attraction and it would not determine his Orientation.

No. Heterosexuality is defined as the sexual attraction to only the opposite gender. Perhaps the above calrification would help.

Regardless of what it's defined as, it's definition has no bearing on human Sexuality.

A person's placement in my catagories may, in theory, change over time. For example, someone may be genuinely attracted to men and only men, and then be genuinely attracted to both men and women, and then just women. So this person (let's assume their male) goes from homosexuality, to bisexuality, to heterosexuality.

That said, there is considerable debate as to whether such a change can in fact occur.

Oh, people can and do change. Those who argue against it are those who fear that acknowledging that it's possible for them to change means that they are in some way Likely to change.

But Personal Experince (literally) tells me that Change is not only possible but also Potential!

My four catagories group people according to how they're attracted to the two genders. Any other fetish they may have is irrelevent.

And I think your catagories are sexist.

I must say, I am rather enjoying this debate

As am I. Too bad I have such an Irregular Schedule.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Part 2 of 2


Which raises numerous questions:

• "To have" - can a person's status as 'blue-eyed' change over time?
• "eyes" - does this refer to the totality of their eyes? That is, if a person has seven blue eyes and one green eye, are they deemed 'blue-eyed', or do they have two titles: 'blue-eyed' and 'green-eyed'?
  Furthermore, what do you mean by 'eye'? The average wavelength of light reflected by all visable parts of the organ science calls the 'eye'? Or just the iris?
• "naturally" - does this refer to the genetic predisposition of their eye colour, or the colour they have at any given time (assuming they have eyes at all)
• "coloured blue" - what constitutes 'blue'?

But I note that you have since clarified that the 'blue-eyed' fiasco was simply to illustrate a point on ill-defined definitions, so I'll let this one slide... for now

Hmmm....

But I would ask you a question: If someone say's "I'm going to poke you in the eye with this Ice-Pick," would you be so difficult by asking "Which Eye?" What part of the Eye?" "Is that Ice-pick Clean?," Ect...

My point is that I do not know what you mean when you use the words 'atheism' & 'theism', and the derivatives thereof. I am simply curious as to whom you deem 'theistic'.

I don't really care enough to define any either way. If someone Says they believe in God, I accept that without having to define them as "theistic."

I don't understand. The coin will only ever have exactly three sides, each mutually exclusive (the coin will, in ideal situations, only ever be on one of the three sides). Likewise, one will only ever be on one side of the 'atheism/theism' stance. There is no middle ground, as far as my definitions are concerned.

But the coin, no matter how many times you flip it, will never lose the face-down side. The "Middle-ground" in this case is the Coin as a Whole.

I think of every Idea as a two-sided coin. Even when one side is face-up, the other side is still there, just hidden from view.

And, good work on remembering the Third side of the coin. I always get somebody with that.

Indeed. However, I said "..., when we are talking formally, ..."
Formally, definitions must be well-defined. Arguably, that's the definition of formal speech

Quite. In many ways, our conversion is the equivalent to a Fire-side Chat over a Pickle Barrel!

Show me one person (besides yourself) who considers heterosexuality to be anything other than sexual attraction to the opposite gender.
Show me one person who sees homosexuality as anything but the sexual attraction to one's own gender.
Show me one person who sees bisexuals as being sexually attracted to both genders.

Not "Other", "More."

Of course, I could show you a lot more who Lie to themselves about their own Sexuality and use you're classifications to justify it.

Most people aren't as Honest as I am.

Then we either used different methods of derivation, or different conventions. I'm betting on the latter.

Tell me, how much Time and Effort did you put into the Research before you made up your Classifications?

In mathematics, once one has defined the origin and the coordinate system, all points in that system can be catagorically defined.
Similarily, once one has defined what one means by the terms 'heterosexuality' etc, everyone falls into place. It doesn't matter what their definitions are, merely what their sexual profiles are. We are, at the moment, taking these to be a given. In practice, it can be hard to read a person's profile.

Harder expecially when a Person's Profile is whatever they tell you it is.....But, mathematically, Sexual orientation can not be so easily "tracked" when the numbers don't add up right.

On the contrary, I have provided catagorical definitions of the four terms. I have yet to see your demonstration that people can't be placed in one of my four groups.

No, you missunderstand me. Of course, they can be placed into any of your four Groups.... But that's irrelavant. Just because you can define someone as such means nothing. It doesn't make them so.

Nevertheless, if you have three terms: "Red", "Violet", and "Everything else", all colours will fall into one of the three catagories.

Likewise, everyone will fall into one of my catagories. To compare my model to yours:
My heterosexuality and my homosexuality are both the extreme ends of your scale.
My bisexuality is your 'middle groud'; the area of the sexual between heterosexuality and homosexuality.
My asexuality is off the scale, and in this respect my model is more accurate: your scale cannot accomodate the asexual.

Now, everyone will fall into one of my catagories. By using the law of excluded middle, my terminology is constructed thusly:

• Someone either is or is not on the scale.
  • If they are not, they are asexual.
  • If they are, see below.
• Someone either is or is not at one of the extremes.
  • If they are not, they are bisexual.
  • If they are, see below.
• Someone either is or is not at the left-hand extreme.
  • If they are not, they are homosexual.
  • If they are, they are heterosexual.

I never said that my scale cannot accomodate the asexual. As a matter of Fact, it fits in quite nicely though I guess you mis-interpreted my Scale to mean one Line of continous Change like that typically portrayed as the "Rainbow" of progressing Colors of the Light Spectrum. Rather, it's more like a 3-dimentional representation of a Color Pallet. (I wish I had a Graphic to depict it.) There are more Directions then just 2 and one's Posision can fall anyway within this 3-dimensional Space and slight blend with any number of different Colors and one time.