Christianity

[attofishpi]

So.

Philosophy = Love of Wisdom.

What is WISE below:

1. It is wise not to believe there is a God.

2. It is wise to have one's knowledge gained in this life wiped and reincarnate anew or be dead for the rest of eternity.

3. It is wise to believe there is a God, as this entity has promised eternal life where the knowledge you gained is retained for the rest of eternity.


So the stance of Harbal is at point 1 where the best possible outcome is point 2.

Which of the above 3 points Mr Harbal is the one that best reflects PHILOSOPHY = Love of Wisdom?

None. If you add a fourth option, it is wise not to believe things that are highly unlikely to be true, I'll vote for that one.

None of the above is WISE in your opinion!

Thus pertaining to your unwise statement - then atheism has no place in philosophy either!!

Yet you did vote for point 1.

Ridiculous.

The wisest thing you could do Harbal is retract THE most unwise statement made on a PHILOSOPHY forum: that there is no place for God in philosospy!!

FFS.

[Harbal]

Are we "waiting"?

Well I'm not.

No, I suppose there would be good reason not to.

But at least we owe them the chance to answer, even if we strongly suspect they can't.

What on earth are you talking about, IC? I haven't asked any "them" a question.

You have to discredit the theory of evolution, I get it, you don't have a choice, but it is respectable, accepted, mainstream science, so I think your best plan would be to avoid the subject.

[Harbal]

The wisest thing you could do Harbal is retract THE most unwise statement made on a PHILOSOPHY forum: that there is no place for God in philosospy!!

FFS.

It's only my opinion, fishy, why do you care?

[attofishpi]

The wisest thing you could do Harbal is retract THE most unwise statement made on a PHILOSOPHY forum: that there is no place for God in philosospy!!

FFS.

It's only my opinion, fishy, why do you care?

Because this is PHILOSOPHY.

[Immanuel Can]

What on earth are you talking about, IC? I haven't asked any "them" a question.

I did. I asked them for evidence. And I owe them time to produce it; or at least enough time to show decisively that they cannot, if they cannot.

Recall, I wrote:

If I'm wrong, then Evolutionists should be able to produce the number and sorts of transitional human fossils their theory would make us expect.

That they can't, means...what?

To which you replied:

Okay, but while we're waiting for the evolutionists...

So...I have to think you understand exactly what we're "waiting" for...even if we don't get it.

[Harbal]

What on earth are you talking about, IC? I haven't asked any "them" a question.

I did. I asked them for evidence. And I owe them time to produce it; or at least enough time to show decisively that they cannot, if they cannot.

Recall, I wrote:

If I'm wrong, then Evolutionists should be able to produce the number and sorts of transitional human fossils their theory would make us expect.

That they can't, means...what?

To which you replied:

Okay, but while we're waiting for the evolutionists...

So...I have to think you understand exactly what we're "waiting" for...even if we don't get it.

I wasn't paying attention to what you were actually waiting for, IC, sorry.

Well, I don't need convincing that evolution theory is correct, and you don't want it to be correct, so I can't really see much point in our hanging around waiting for fossils.

[Harbal]

Because this is PHILOSOPHY.

Exactly, fishy, so let's leave God where he belongs, on the religious forums.

[attofishpi]

Because this is PHILOSOPHY.

Exactly, fishy, so let's leave God where he belongs, on the religious forums.

Really? What is LOVE of WISDOM to you Harbal?

What is LOVE?

What is WISDOM?

[Harbal]

Because this is PHILOSOPHY.

Exactly, fishy, so let's leave God where he belongs, on the religious forums.

Really? What is LOVE of WISDOM to you Harbal?

What is LOVE?

What is WISDOM?

I'd love to answer those questions, but it's well past my bed time.

Good night, fishy.

[attofishpi]

Sweet dreams sweetpea.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I don't need convincing that evolution theory is correct, and you don't want it to be correct, so I can't really see much point in our hanging around waiting for fossils.

Science is, in its ideal, a pursuing of evidence toward theory, not an upholding of theories that are contradicted by the evidence, is that not so? Then on what basis would we continue to believe in the story of "human evolution," when the evidence for it simply fails to exist?

And this is but one of the areas in which it does. The Evolutionist's ideology cannot account for other positive data. It cannot explain how it is supposed to struggle "upward" against a cosmos we find objectively to be entropic on every hand. It cannot explain how biological phenomena like triadic parasitism and symbioses can possibly have come about. It cannot explain the irreducible complexity of the human DNA, or how such a thing can come about by chance. It is not the product of observation, repetition or testing, but essentially, of imaginative narrative-forming. In these, and many other ways, it is simply a theory yearning for evidence it fails to have, or refusing the evidence we do have.

And how has it come about, given that science is also permanently provisional and revisable (one of its great strengths, by any account), and the method welcomes criticism and revision...and yet even a modest expression of doubt about the ideology of Evolutionism is sufficient to bring down cries of "anti-science" and "superstition"? Why is this theory, of all theories, considered above revision and improvement, beyond possiblity of question or doubt?

And what does it indicate that we invest so much desperate faith in a theory that is, by any fair account, a just-so story? Why do we put laurels on those who refuse to think about it, and excoriate all those who do?

So we should have those fossils; and absent them, we are rational to call into question the whole Evolutionary account of anthropogenesis -- and to do so on scientific, not superstitious, grounds.

[Dubious]

It cannot explain how it is supposed to struggle "upward" against a cosmos we find objectively to be entropic on every hand.

Entropy creates complexity; it's a dynamic process; without it the designs of evolution and all of its multitudinous manifestations could never have occurred...on earth as it is in the heavens (cosmos)!

[Immanuel Can]

Entropy creates complexity

It's the opposite.

Entropy is the principle that things move from states of higher complexity to those of lower complexity, if left to themselves.

Your newly painted fence does not stay newly painted, and must be painted again. A watch, left on the shelf, turns eventually into nothing but scrap, not into a microcomputer. A bag of letters shaken vigorously in a bag and spilled out result in chaos, not in the first lines of Hamlet. And your cells, as they divide, begin to decay, producing the ubiquitous phenomena of aging.

Nothing, left to chance, simply mutates into something better, higher or more complex; unless some new energy and design is infused into it, it inevitably becomes delining and disordered. We observe this everywhere.

Entropy is arguably the most secure and well-attested principle we observe. But it's the opposite of what Evolutionism requires us to believe is happening.

[seeds]

And let's not forget your fanboy crush on that other "white nationalist" - Jonathan Bowden.

Well! You lay it on thick!

Me? Laying it on thick?

Now of course I'm not denying the accusation, however, having it come from the "laying it on thick" master himself has me wondering if you're vying for Immanuel Con's title of "Queen of Projection"?

I have already explored and resolved these issues as ‘moral problems’ so I am largely immune to the moral harangue. But I notice that you make great use of it. And all I really want to do is examine the predicates inform your social, moral and cultural views.

Well, I suggest that stating the following...

"...It is true that in the realm of ideas I do side with Renaud Camus*..."

...and this...

"...I entertain the sort of ideas [Jonathan] Bowden talks about..."

...is certainly not indicative of the notion that "...all you want to do is examine the predicates that inform my social, moral and cultural views...", for it is obvious that you support, and are trying to promote, whatever it is that Bowden and Camus are promoting.

In which case, you can drop the ruse of presenting yourself as some kind of impartial seeker of knowledge.

If a Black said to you “My Black identify is very important to me. My origins, my history, and my racial blackness. I want my children to look like me.” What would you say? Would you bust out in a moral condemnatory argument? Would you shame him or her?

What about a Japanese or a Chinese?

Could you support anyone of any ethnicity or race from ‘remaining who they are’? Holding to their identity in all areas — culture, language, traditions, and also their somatic constitution (their physical composition, their genetics as we say today)?

I have a strong feeling that you’d not oppose them with a condemning moral argument. But if you did I would condemn you. I say that any people has a right to preserve themselves.

It's incredible to me that someone of your "seeming" advanced level of intelligence does not understand that the obsessive emphasis placed on the need to maintain racial purity leads to a xenophobic attitude that further leads to the sort of reprehensible behavior exhibited in the image I uploaded earlier,...



...or, worse yet, leads to the insanity of what the Germans did to the Jews in the last century.

Do I really need to remind someone as well-read as you about that old adage having to do with idiots who ignore history are [.....]?

On a lighter note, I know that you like a little bit of sweet humor mixed-in with your philosophical gruel, so, let me say that I can see your point in not wanting to see the races mix.

I mean, just look at the ghastly results of race-mixing in these various kpop stars...

White/Japanese:



White/Filipino:



White/Korean:



Oh, and here's this particularly grotesque mixed-race actress...

Mother - Chinese/Indonesian, father - White Dutchman:



...the horror...the horror!!!

I don't know about you, man, but I'm thinking that if mixing white genes with Asian genes tends to produce some of the most gorgeous females on the planet, then perhaps you might want to rethink your white nationalist horse crap.
_______

[attofishpi]

Entropy creates complexity

It's the opposite.

Actually it's neither, entropy causes nothing...entropy is a state of affair.