Prove it or remove it challenge

[Paterfamilia]

Ha ha ha... he'd eviscerate your subjective faith claims in seconds flat. Ha ha ha.


*ETA: I've actually heard guys like you call his show numerous times, only to be embarrassed and left with their tale between their legs.


Ha ha ha.

Ahhh, your mistake is obvious - there are no guys like me.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

 

[HitchSlap]

Ahhh, your mistake is obvious - there are no guys like me.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

A legend in your own mind. Ha ha ha.

I must admit though, for some reason, your arguments from incredulity are slightly less boring than others that come through here.

Ha ha ha.

 

[USincognito]

That's great but would you mind explaining your point?

I would think the point would be obvious. The argument from large numbers is nullified when we have identified actual mutations that have occurred in the human lineage and "make us human".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subjectivism is a non-colloquial category of existential ontology.

I see you meant that a some philosophers gave a meaning for their use of the term. Then by the definition given by Loudmouth I am not a subjectivist. That definition definitely does not follow the term that they applied it to.

Once again, morality is relative. You can call me a "relativist" if you want to unless that word has a philosophical definition that does not follow the word. I am not a huge fan of philosophy. Yes, it does have some uses. But it seems that is has far more abuses.

 

[USincognito]

I don't recall seeing a response from PF to this post:

----------------------
Let's try this exercise. How would any of the following sources for the origin of life on earth effect the theory of evolution?
- Abiogenesis
- Panspermia
- Fiat creation by God
- Something kooky like being a science class experiment by hyper-dimensional high school students

 

[Paterfamilia]

I see you meant that a some philosophers gave a meaning for their use of the term. Then by the definition given by Loudmouth I am not a subjectivist. That definition definitely does not follow the term that they applied it to.

Once again, morality is relative. You can call me a "relativist" if you want to unless that word has a philosophical definition that does not follow the word. I am not a huge fan of philosophy. Yes, it does have some uses. But it seems that is has far more abuses.

Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it. You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.


Okay, here is Gods objective morality:

1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)

All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.

Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?

 

[Paterfamilia]

I don't recall seeing a response from PF to this post:

----------------------
Let's try this exercise. How would any of the following sources for the origin of life on earth effect the theory of evolution?
- Abiogenesis
- Panspermia
- Fiat creation by God
- Something kooky like being a science class experiment by hyper-dimensional high school students

Certainly the positive knowledge of any of them as the causal mechanism would affect the direction of future study and present understanding.

How would depend on which one is true.

 

[Paterfamilia]

A legend in your own mind. Ha ha ha.

I must admit though, for some reason, your arguments from incredulity are slightly less boring than others that come through here.

Ha ha ha.

Ha ha ha ever so slightly less boring!! Ha ha

 

[faroukfarouk]

Nope. But it was already removed from legit science classrooms a long time ago cause it was proven to not to be a legit science. Irl I don't think any rational Christian entertains creation science any more than they would the earth being flat. Folks on the internet old enough to be my grandpa just get their kicks having peeing contests about it it seems, maybe cause they don't have anything else to do w their time.

If God didn't create the world, the Savior didn't participate in Creation and there is no New Creation in Christ Jesus, and no eternal hope; (and yet evolution is only a hypothesis anyway).

 

[sfs]

Certainly the positive knowledge of any of them as the causal mechanism would affect the direction of future study and present understanding.

How would depend on which one is true.

Pick one. How would it affect the study of evolution?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If God didn't create the world, the Savior didn't participate in Creation and there is no New Creation in Christ Jesus, and no eternal hope.

And you hope there is hope, therefore God created the world. Pretty ironclad logic, there.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Pick one. How would it affect the study of evolution?

Good question. Sleeping on it and I will answer.

 

[digitalgoth]

Oh well

 

[USincognito]

Good question. Sleeping on it and I will answer.

I look forward to an answer.

 

[Butterfly99]

If God didn't create the world, the Savior didn't participate in Creation and there is no New Creation in Christ Jesus, and no eternal hope; (and yet evolution is only a hypothesis anyway).

God did create the world. Personally I'm just not arrogant enough to say that God didn't use evolution as part of His process, when there's plenty of evidence that He surely did. I personally don't think God is a trickster. I think the problem isn't with science or w God, it's with bad exegesis that makes folks think evolution isn't compatible w God when it surely is.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

FutureAndAHope said: ↑
So I don't plan to remain silent, I plan to challenge the government to either "prove or remove" evolutionary teaching.

Good luck with that. Try to get it taken out of the classroom or try including creationism in the classroom and you'll be sued into oblivion. If you have the money for lawyers and don't mind losing, go for it. Kitzmiller vs Dover was an embarrassment for intelligent design advocates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

Reminds me of this exchage between these 2 guys concerning evolution in the schools [there is also a 1999 version of this movie]:

"Can a sponge think!?"

.......................................................

.................................................................

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it. You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.


Okay, here is Gods objective morality:

1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)

All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.

Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?

Sorry, but no Christian has put it like that before that I have seen and it surely is not what the Bible says.

And I have never seen your unsupported definition for subjectivism before so everyone can disregard it.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's honestly the goofiest interpretation of subjectivism that I have ever heard.

And I am not being rude. A philosophical tenet is what we believe. Our ontology. Evidence for our belief is epistemology. The elements that give us reason to believe our ontology.

That is the goofiest definition of epistemology I have ever heard. There is no such thing as evidence for an epistemology since evidence is the product of an epistemology. Axioms form the basis of an epistemology, not evidence.

Also, you choose which epistemology you will use, just as atheists do.

So subjectivism is the belief that whatever I think up in my head is the truth. The rock solid undisputable truth, because I thought it up. And I really can't trust anything else anyone else thought up.

So you are saying that faith and subjectivism are the same?

Do you have any objective evidence to back your claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it.

I quoted the Wiki page on subjectivism. Hasn't seen the light of day? Really?

You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.

Subjectivism
noun
1.
Epistemology. the doctrine that all knowledge is limited to experiencesby the self, and that transcendent knowledge is impossible.
2.
Ethics.

1. any of various theories maintaining that moral judgments arestatements concerning the emotional or mental reactions of theindividual or the community.
2. any of several theories holding that certain states of thought orfeeling are the highest good.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjectivism

Subjectivism

1. 1a : a theory that limits knowledge to subjective experienceb : a theory that stresses the subjective elements in experience
2. 
   
3. 2a : a doctrine that the supreme good is the realization of a subjective experience or feeling (as pleasure)b : a doctrine that individual feeling or apprehension is the ultimate criterion of the good and the right

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjectivism

Okay, here is Gods objective morality:

1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)

All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.

Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?

That is your subjective opinion that this is God's morality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Again Loudmouths definition had never seen the light of day before he uttered it. You can disregard as an actual definition - no offense meant loudmouth.


Okay, here is Gods objective morality:

1. Love God. (I am sure you don't agree with this one, but it's important.)

2. Love your neighbor as yourself. ( maybe you sorta agree with this one)

All other commandments are necessarily subjective, And supervened by the two.

Is this in accord with your previous understanding of Christian morality?

Nope. I hate myself, nothing would be worse than if I decided to treat other people as I would myself. Or view them as badly as I do myself. I would end up hating people more, and less reasonably.