MAJOR derail from Screwball Thread

[lilpixieofterror]

I've just heard it from the person sitting next to me that he has first hand experience from online schooling and he would discriminate against online courses, even U of Phoenix. Now I don't know either way as I have never taken an online course (I've taken a mail-in high school course before, but that's it) and I have a sister who is actually excited to have used online courses from U of M, but his claim is that Phoenix has had reliability problems in the past.

The only reason I'm posting about this is because I'm curious as to how all of that is answered. That and I'm curious about online courses in general.

It has a lot to do with the person's preferences. I personally prefer the interaction of a class room over the interaction of a computer so I tend to stick to those that meet in person.

[DoomRater]

Well pretty much everyone I know equally values connetion over computer as much as personal interaction, so I'm ont sure that's the issue. He cited the relative ease of cheating compared to real classes and rumors of scandals of people selling McDiplomas.

[jpholding]

Yep. I've slogged through this thread from first to last, and all I've got to say is, I hope he does a better job in his legal career (if in fact he really does have one) than he has here. If he performs like this against a capable litigator, and in front of a semi-conscious judge, he's gonna get his head handed to him. It'd be good for him too, but not so good for whatever poor schmuck retains him.

Maybe he could make a career out of representing OJ Simpson.

[Stax]

No, there is an explanation which can get me out of this mess as you call it.It is rather simple, actually.A society where people lie all the time would be a grossly inefficient one, and you should not be overly skeptical of people because whatever we are, we aren't a grossly inefficient species.

How do I know that this explanation is true and isn't merely a result of you lying because you want me to believe that you're being truthful, and that such a society would not and could not exist?

However, the point is not that a society like that exists; this is a straw man. The point is that, under your morality, I have no reason to believe that you are telling me the truth. This is not to say that you are lying all the time, but that I have no way of knowing whether or not you are lying to me when you talk.

Now you may say that lying is still a possibility and that I may be bull[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ting you...

..., but that logic holds even when you do accept God's objective morality, as humans can disobey god's laws.

Yes, but this misses the issue. Under God's morality, we have a reason to be moral and to tell the truth, and Christians have an obligation to keep to this. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that a Christian is going to be truthful, although this is not to say that they always are...

ETA: I just realised that this doesn't answer the question of non-Christians being moral. To this end, I would say that, as God's creation, they have a knowledge of what is right and wrong and can recognise that lying is wrong, even if they don't hold the correct reason(s) for believing that this is so.

Actually, I don't really know what I'm on about now :\

Morality seems too....serpentine.

Not quite sure what you mean here. (The second part, obviously.)

How do you know you aren't in a computer simulation?

The Matrix is only a film, so I know I'm okay.

More seriously, this involves the assumption that computers can generate consciousness and can simulate minds, which is something that I reject. This assumption (not surprisingly) is based on the evolutionary principle that our thoughts are not a metaphysical construct, and can be explained in purely materialistic ways. Since I do not believe this, I have no problems rejecting the Matrix scenario.

An interesting take on this question (by someone who accepts the assumption that thoughts can be explained materialistically, and I should probably mention that I don't agree with everything that he says) can be found here, particularly since he proposes a way to test the simulation (if we are indeed living in one).

By the way, I know my chemical reactions of thought are likely to be accurate, because inaccurate thought-processing brains would be discarded by natural selection.

That's the most common rationalisation. Unfortunately, there is no reason as to why accurate thought-processing brains are a requirement in all areas; you only need them to be accurate in areas concerning survival, since it is the passing on of genes that is required. Knowledge related to subject fields such as science, maths, astronomy, etc., is rather superfluous to survival when you come to think about it. That's not to say that knowledge in fields such as medicine isn't useful, but that it isn't necessary; humans could survive without such things as vaccines, etc., although the mortality rate would obviously be higher. You may argue that evolution "made" the category of medicinal knowledge as this would reduce the mortality rate, but that comes to the problem of an undirected process not having long-term structure and planning accomplishing this, which is impossible.

[Anon]

is everyone here an intellectual retard? Do you really think your little quip is analogous to a god of gaps argument? We're too stupid, we don't know, therefore god. If you find that argument so compelling, why are you agnostic? Obviously it's not for intellectual reasons (since you would need a functioning brain to form beliefs based on rational thought).

You still didn't realize your mistake there. You had unwittingly stated a tautology.

Attachment 71835

[Anon]

It has a lot to do with the person's preferences. I personally prefer the interaction of a class room over the interaction of a computer so I tend to stick to those that meet in person.

Kaplan, on the other hand, is legit (*and* accredited). The classes are on par with an average 4-year university as far as difficulty goes, at least in the math department. I should know; I teach part-time for them.

Most students (90%) are female, most of whom are stay-at-home moms looking to start a career. The environment is excellent, and uses real-time teaching and phone calls and just about everything we can do to make the experience as personal as possible (without actually seeing the person in reality).

[lilpixieofterror]

Well pretty much everyone I know equally values connetion over computer as much as personal interaction, so I'm ont sure that's the issue. He cited the relative ease of cheating compared to real classes and rumors of scandals of people selling McDiplomas.

And when they do that and screw themselves by doing it... they will have some serious issues. It doesn't take very long to find a fake.

[lilpixieofterror]

Kaplan, on the other hand, is legit (*and* accredited). The classes are on par with an average 4-year university as far as difficulty goes, at least in the math department. I should know; I teach part-time for them.

Most students (90%) are female, most of whom are stay-at-home moms looking to start a career. The environment is excellent, and uses real-time teaching and phone calls and just about everything we can do to make the experience as personal as possible (without actually seeing the person in reality).

I have no issue with online schooling myself. It has opened up education to groups that wouldn't be able to do it otherwise or it has made it easier for most people to get their education done. I do agree the cheating aspect sure doesn't help matters much, but it usually doesn't take very long to spot a fake and expose them for being frauds. The thing about trying to cheat something like that is that sooner or latter... somebody is going to get caught.

[VenomX]

Kaplan, on the other hand, is legit (*and* accredited). The classes are on par with an average 4-year university as far as difficulty goes, at least in the math department. I should know; I teach part-time for them.

Most students (90%) are female, most of whom are stay-at-home moms looking to start a career. The environment is excellent, and uses real-time teaching and phone calls and just about everything we can do to make the experience as personal as possible (without actually seeing the person in reality).

I was going to mention Kaplan. My cousin (herself a teacher) got her master's degree there. I know she did her homework and wouldn't go to a diploma mill, so I had no problem going to Kaplan myself, where I'm currently trying to get my bachelor's.

I have been absolutely impressed at the quality of the instructors and the tremendous help my academic advisor has given me. They have a great support system in place for students. The only thing that hasn't impressed me is the Financial Aid Department--they really suck. But that's a different story for another time.

Bottom line, I'd recommend Kaplan to anyone interested in pursuing an online education!

[Darwin's Dog]

How do I know that this explanation is true and isn't merely a result of you lying because you want me to believe that you're being truthful, and that such a society would not and could not exist?

However, the point is not that a society like that exists; this is a straw man. The point is that, under your morality, I have no reason to believe that you are telling me the truth. This is not to say that you are lying all the time, but that I have no way of knowing whether or not you are lying to me when you talk.

That's true of ALL morality systems, so I honestly don't see your point.Convincing someone that you're telling the truth requires proof of some sort, and I really don't have any, except the darwinian reason I advanced earlier.

Yes, but this misses the issue. Under God's morality, we have a reason to be moral and to tell the truth, and Christians have an obligation to keep to this. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that a Christian is going to be truthful, although this is not to say that they always are...

Under evolutionary morality, you also have a reason to tell the truth, so what is your problem with the former?

Not quite sure what you mean here. (The second part, obviously.)

I meant that topics like philosophy, and ethics, are topics that seem too idealized and abstract to me, with little experimentation and much idle wanderings of the mind.

More seriously, this involves the assumption that computers can generate consciousness and can simulate minds, which is something that I reject. This assumption (not surprisingly) is based on the evolutionary principle that our thoughts are not a metaphysical construct, and can be explained in purely materialistic ways. Since I do not believe this, I have no problems rejecting the Matrix scenario.

The linking of brain activity to certain thoughts is almost certain proof of thoughts being materialistic beings and not some ethereal process a la Descartes.

That's the most common rationalisation. Unfortunately, there is no reason as to why accurate thought-processing brains are a requirement in all areas; you only need them to be accurate in areas concerning survival, since it is the passing on of genes that is required. Knowledge related to subject fields such as science, maths, astronomy, etc., is rather superfluous to survival when you come to think about it.

Advanced subjects such as science, maths, etc. stem from basal mental abilities such as spatial manipulation and logical processing.Those abilities are needed, very much so, in a primal environment, and thus your point fails.

That's not to say that knowledge in fields such as medicine isn't useful, but that it isn't necessary; humans could survive without such things as vaccines, etc., although the mortality rate would obviously be higher.

Medicine is not a basal trait, rather, it's an emergent trait-there are no genes controlling proficiency as a doctor, and it is merely a matter of combining the good old skills of logic and evidence to see that some herbs heal wounds and others don't, and voila! The beginnings of herbal medicine.Now medicine itself may become a trait later on e.g. the medicine of one tribe being better than the rest may lead to some group selection, but I ramble.

You may argue that evolution "made" the category of medicinal knowledge as this would reduce the mortality rate,

Medicine is an emergent trait, as I've said before.That said, anything reducing mortality rates would be selected by evolution, yes.

but that comes to the problem of an undirected process not having long-term structure and planning accomplishing this, which is impossible.

The good old teleological argument in the biological form.I don't really see any problems with evolution making medicine as it does not generate medicine as a trait at once at all, rather, it selects traits each having a use of their own, and given certain circumstances those constituents can be combined into a system.

Simple casino logic, here.

[Darth Ovious]

Yakee_Doodle has chickened out of accepting my debate challenge. After he told Shadowboy that he was interested in doing so.

I then offered yo lunch the chance to debate, but he gave me the same crap.

Oh well. What can us Theists do when atheists are just so darned scared of debating us?

You know, I would actually like to debate at least one intelligent atheist/non-believer at some point in my life. Becuase, apart from having a healthy and intellectual discussion, there is a chance I might actually lose.

If you're wanting to debate an intelligent atheist/non-believer then yo lunch and Mankee_Poodle are not going to fit the bill.

[Stax]

That's true of ALL morality systems, so I honestly don't see your point.Convincing someone that you're telling the truth requires proof of some sort, and I really don't have any, except the darwinian reason I advanced earlier.

The point I’m making is that this explanation is inadequate, since your explanation for telling the truth is that lying is unproductive and thus truth is better for conveying information, as it is accurate. This does nothing to tell us why we should or should not lie, which means we have no real reason not to if the situation arises, and thus, I have no way of knowing that such a situation has not arisen and you are not in fact lying. I may believe that you are telling the truth more than you are lying, but I have no way of distinguishing between the two. You may argue that the same limitation applies whatever morality system you are using, but mine has a reason for being truthful that transcends the specific circumstances that we are in. You can trust that I will do my best to be honest all the time, as I believe lying to be wrong, but your version of morality depends on the situation, and I have little-to-no way of knowing whether or not the specific situation is one that you view as necessitating lying.

I meant that topics like philosophy, and ethics, are topics that seem too idealized and abstract to me, with little experimentation and much idle wanderings of the mind.

Ah. I’d disagree, obviously, but much of this would be personal opinion.

The linking of brain activity to certain thoughts is almost certain proof of thoughts being materialistic beings and not some ethereal process a la Descartes.

Automatically equating a material effect with a material cause is rather silly, in my opinion.

Advanced subjects such as science, maths, etc. stem from basal mental abilities such as spatial manipulation and logical processing.Those abilities are needed, very much so, in a primal environment, and thus your point fails.

I did not deny this, but time that one spends broadening one’s specifically mathematical skill could be better spent applying one’s existing skills to the real world (particularly so, in a primal environment), which is my point; much of knowledge starts out as abstractions that are then applied. In your scenario, however, why bother wasting time with abstractions? Surely it’s better to focus on the correct application of certain skills as opposed to aimlessly (for want of a better word) theorising as to what may or may not be possible.

Medicine is not a basal trait, rather, it's an emergent trait-there are no genes controlling proficiency as a doctor, and it is merely a matter of combining the good old skills of logic and evidence to see that some herbs heal wounds and others don't, and voila! The beginnings of herbal medicine.Now medicine itself may become a trait later on e.g. the medicine of one tribe being better than the rest may lead to some group selection, but I ramble.

I don’t really see how evidence is a ‘skill’. Now, whilst I agree to a certain extent that some very rudimentary form of medicine could have possibly formed, there is no reason for it to extend beyond what is immediately necessary in the environment, i.e. basic forms of herbal medicine as described.

More to the point, this assumes that nature favours logical reasoning, which is something that I doubt. In the face of combat or escape, I would have thought it obvious that it favoured characteristics such as brute strength more, as the implementation of something is better than the whimsical formulations of an abstract construct that a person is unable to apply to the real world.

However, this assumes that the mind even exists, and as far as I’m aware, evolutionary theory says that it doesn’t.

The good old teleological argument in the biological form.I don't really see any problems with evolution making medicine as it does not generate medicine as a trait at once at all, rather, it selects traits each having a use of their own, and given certain circumstances those constituents can be combined into a system.

The good old evolutionary argument in epistemological form. Again, I’m not really sure whether we can assume that such traits are indeed advantageous to survival, which makes me question the rest of your argument.

One thing that stands in certain opposition to your view is the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, e.g. in Astronomy. There is no reason why people should seek to understand the universe under your paradigm, as such efforts would almost certainly lead a person away from applying what they know to the greatest degree.

Simple casino logic, here.

What’s your worst case scenario?

[Darwin's Dog]

The point I’m making is that this explanation is inadequate, since your explanation for telling the truth is that lying is unproductive and thus truth is better for conveying information, as it is accurate. This does nothing to tell us why we should or should not lie, which means we have no real reason not to if the situation arises, and thus, I have no way of knowing that such a situation has not arisen and you are not in fact lying.

This holds for ALL morality systems, as I will explain further on.

You may argue that the same limitation applies whatever morality system you are using, but mine has a reason for being truthful that transcends the specific circumstances that we are in.

Your morality can also, in certain circumstances, be overriden, as in the gestapo example.Why should I believe that you are telling the truth and not lying for Jesus?

You can trust that I will do my best to be honest all the time, as I believe lying to be wrong,

You also believe murder to be wrong and would rather lie than condemn an innocent man.How do I know all those arguments you're peddling aren't lies to make me a Christian and receive salvation rather than hell?

but your version of morality depends on the situation, and I have little-to-no way of knowing whether or not the specific situation is one that you view as necessitating lying.

So does yours.I'm merely using your own weapon on you.

Automatically equating a material effect with a material cause is rather silly, in my opinion.

Correlation does not mean causation, but it certainly implies it.

Also, the reverse was shown recently, I believe:Stimulating some parts of the brain led to certain thoughts, so you can hardly call it a non-material cause.

I did not deny this, but time that one spends broadening one’s specifically mathematical skill could be better spent applying one’s existing skills to the real world

Which is why advanced mathematics is not seen in the stone age, for instance.It is only after humans begin civilization that advanced mathematics takes its baby steps.Also, mathematical skills are very relevant to the real world:Mathematics is the language of science, and without it, no science, meaning automatically humanity's fitness drops.No electricity.No high-tech medical care.The list goes on.

In your scenario, however, why bother wasting time with abstractions? Surely it’s better to focus on the correct application of certain skills as opposed to aimlessly (for want of a better word) theorising as to what may or may not be possible.

Excuse me?What exactly do you mean by "correct application of certain skills"?If you mean that humanity simply kept applying spatial manipulation to the yet-to-be-thrown spear making it more accurate instead of using that spatial knowledge to theorize building a better spear, I think it is obvious which one would be more beneficial.

I don’t really see how evidence is a ‘skill’.

Interpreting it and drawing inferences from it is a skill, though.Just like French is not a skill, but speaking in French is

Now, whilst I agree to a certain extent that some very rudimentary form of medicine could have possibly formed, there is no reason for it to extend beyond what is immediately necessary in the environment, i.e. basic forms of herbal medicine as described.

As humanity's life span lengthened, it gradually discovered the medicinal problems beyond immediate cuts and gashes, like diarrhea, and so medicine progressed as well.

More to the point, this assumes that nature favours logical reasoning, which is something that I doubt. In the face of combat or escape, I would have thought it obvious that it favoured characteristics such as brute strength more, as the implementation of something is better than the whimsical formulations of an abstract construct that a person is unable to apply to the real world.

Unable to apply to the real world? Seriously?How is making a spear for combat less useful than increasing the size of the muscle wielding the spear itself?Do you think that the early humans used no logical reasoning making stone tools?

However, this assumes that the mind even exists, and as far as I’m aware, evolutionary theory says that it doesn’t.

You'd be correct in that it has no existence, certainly not a metaphysical one.

The good old evolutionary argument in epistemological form. Again, I’m not really sure whether we can assume that such traits are indeed advantageous to survival, which makes me question the rest of your argument.

Already addressed above.

One thing that stands in certain opposition to your view is the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, e.g. in Astronomy. There is no reason why people should seek to understand the universe under your paradigm, as such efforts would almost certainly lead a person away from applying what they know to the greatest degree.

I can advance several objections to that view:
1)The thirst for pure knowledge could be a haywire trait basing off the quest for knowledge applicable to real life.
2)There is an inherent thirst for pure knowledge in humans due to evolutionary reasons because much of the pure knowledge is later applied, leading to increased survival.
3)Astronomy can likewise be applied for interstellar travel which can maybe bring about benefits untold later.

What’s your worst case scenario?

Yeah what a stupid mistake I made there

[Stax]

This holds for ALL morality systems, as I will explain further on.

Less so for Christianity, as lying is universally wrong. I forgot to mention the Principle of Double Effect in my initial explanation as to why I would lie to the Gestapo, for which I apologise. Anyway, this would indeed be a case of attempting to save someone’s life resulting (unfortunately) with me lying. A similar situation arises when one has to carry out an abortion to save the mother’s life: the abortion is the unfortunate side-effect of saving the mother’s life.

You may argue that the same limitation applies whatever morality system you are using, but mine has a reason for being truthful that transcends the specific circumstances that we are in.

Your morality can also, in certain circumstances, be overriden, as in the gestapo example.Why should I believe that you are telling the truth and not lying for Jesus?

Indeed, it can be overridden. However, that’s actually usually due to human imperfection as opposed to a flaw in the system. The problem with rationalising that lying can ever be correct is that it opens the door to such issues, and under your system, there is nothing to prevent this, other than

You can trust that I will do my best to be honest all the time, as I believe lying to be wrong,

You also believe murder to be wrong and would rather lie than condemn an innocent man.How do I know all those arguments you're peddling aren't lies to make me a Christian and receive salvation rather than hell?

The comparison is flawed. I cannot make you change your mind by a presentation of the facts in this matter, as I believe that the Holy Spirit must first regenerate you, whereas the Gestapo are more likely to believe me. Consequently, me presenting facts, reasons, etc., to you makes no difference in and of itself, so there is no point in lying. Another point is that I would not want to convert anybody based on what I perceive to be a lie (whether the reasons are true is another issue entirely!), as I regard this to be despicable.

So, rest assured that I’m not lying to you (not that I believe you did, anyway). If anything I have said is demonstratably false, as opposed to merely being perceived to be false by you as a result of your operational paradigm (the difference between us is a result of a disagreement between our foundational axioms upon which we build our worldview on; it is our interpretation of the facts that differs – this is an important part of critical-realist epistemology), I will willingly retract it, as I have no intention of being deceptive. As I’ve stated, I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and consequently, I believe that truth should lead one to him, so I do not live in fear of where the truth leads. On the contrary, I embrace it. Therefore, if you (or anyone else) finds genuine errors in what I have said, I will correct them (the errors, not the people!).

So does yours.I'm merely using your own weapon on you.

No – I have a standard to adhere to that condemns lying universally. The only instance in which this is breached is where it is an unpleasant side-effect as opposed to being directly intended. This is the crucial difference between our systems; yours does not condemn lying as being wrong per se, only as being unproductive, and it is thus up to you to determine whether or not it is correct to lie in a given situation. I, on the other hand, believe that it is universally wrong to lie, and you will therefore find that I only lie when I a) fail to live up to the standard required of me, or b) lie as a regrettable side-effect which is a result of a different action.

What this ultimately comes down to is subjectivity vs objectivity: I have an objective reason not to lie whereas you have a subjective reason. Consequently, my behaviour with respect to the truth is more likely to be consistent than yours, and you can thus trust that I will do my best to adhere to my beliefs, as to not do so would be wrong. You have no reason to do so, other than an ex post facto rationalisation based on your own opinion, which is most likely to be in a state of constant flux.

Automatically equating a material effect with a material cause is rather silly, in my opinion.

Correlation does not mean causation, but it certainly implies it.

Also, the reverse was shown recently, I believe:Stimulating some parts of the brain led to certain thoughts, so you can hardly call it a non-material cause.

Why? If, for example, God exists and can act in nature, if He creates, say, a plastic cup, is this any less a material object than if we had created the exact same cup? I see no reason to believe that a material effect (brain functions) automatically means that there is a material cause: if a non-material being’s actions have a material effect, this does not make the non-material being material! It simply means that this is the way in which it interacts with our world. (I add that this does not sum up my view of the mind, but is merely a convenient description of such.)

Your claim of the reverse proving that the cause is material when the cause/effect path is reversed does not hold for the above reason. It is also worth mentioning

As for the next section...

I tire of debating Darwinian scenarios as to the origin of traits (biological or not), as they are completely unfalsifiable. If, for instance, we assume that skills such as mathematical aptitude had not developed, you would no doubt invoke an evolutionary scenario whereby this conferred some advantage. Your explanations are not predictions of the evidence, but post dictions, and you would do well to acknowledge this. I can present an equally plausible scenario as to why we should thirst for knowledge: God created us with this desire. As to knowledge re different fields of science, etc., it’s perfectly possible for God to have created Adam with such knowledge, which was then imparted to others as the number of humans populating the world grew.

It’s surprisingly easy, to be honest. All you have to do with an evolutionary scenario (story is probably a more accurate summary here, as that’s what they are) is just assert that the trait we are explaining confers a “survival advantage” and is therefore going to be selected. Consequently, all I can really do is ask for details concerning these scenarios and then assess the plausibility of them. So, how exactly do you propose that fields of knowledge such as mathematics originated?

As a result of this, I apologise if I fall asleep while responding (although it probably has more to do with the time than anything...).

Which is why advanced mathematics is not seen in the stone age, for instance.It is only after humans begin civilization that advanced mathematics takes its baby steps.Also, mathematical skills are very relevant to the real world:Mathematics is the language of science, and without it, no science, meaning automatically humanity's fitness drops.No electricity.No high-tech medical care.The list goes on.

Yes; it is really necessary to calculate such things as the masses of quarks when you’re trying to trap a bear, isn’t it? Tell me, is there a “curiosity” gene that evolution miraculously invented that then allowed man to thirst for more knowledge? Otherwise, there is absolutely no need to develop the fields of knowledge further than what is required to survive effectively, despite your assertions to the contrary.

In your scenario, however, why bother wasting time with abstractions? Surely it’s better to focus on the correct application of certain skills as opposed to aimlessly (for want of a better word) theorising as to what may or may not be possible.

Excuse me?What exactly do you mean by "correct application of certain skills"?If you mean that humanity simply kept applying spatial manipulation to the yet-to-be-thrown spear making it more accurate instead of using that spatial knowledge to theorize building a better spear, I think it is obvious which one would be more beneficial.

I mean that the sharks should retreat to the Artic Ocean and build a fortress before I drop a dozen Mooselobs on them with a Gyrocopter. If this was not obvious, I’ll try harder next time.

Un-facetiously (hmm, is that really a word? I have no idea!), what do you honestly think I menat? Is it not more beneficial to apply basic skills effectively and in many scenarios than to waste time devising, e.g. a theory of origins? Please, tell me how understanding stellar formation helps you kill that bear. Do you intend to create a miniature star to incinerate it or something? Do you intend to bamboozle the bear with your impressive knowledge of quantum physics?

Interpreting it and drawing inferences from it is a skill, though.Just like French is not a skill, but speaking in French is

I’m well aware of that, but that’s not what you said.

Now, whilst I agree to a certain extent that some very rudimentary form of medicine could have possibly formed, there is no reason for it to extend beyond what is immediately necessary in the environment, i.e. basic forms of herbal medicine as described.

As humanity's life span lengthened, it gradually discovered the medicinal problems beyond immediate cuts and gashes, like diarrhea, and so medicine progressed as well.

Naturally, naturally. If it hadn’t, I’m sure that it would be proof that such knowledge was a hindrance to our survival.



More to the point, this assumes that nature favours logical reasoning, which is something that I doubt. In the face of combat or escape, I would have thought it obvious that it favoured characteristics such as brute strength more, as the implementation of something is better than the whimsical formulations of an abstract construct that a person is unable to apply to the real world.

Unable to apply to the real world? Seriously?How is making a spear for combat less useful than increasing the size of the muscle wielding the spear itself?Do you think that the early humans used no logical reasoning making stone tools?

Oh, c’mon. I’m talking about a person sitting there for hours theorising about hyperbolic functions as opposed to building up some muscle and applying what little he needs to know to throw a spear. You’re not seriously suggesting that, as opposed to merely noticing the effects of spear-throwing and learning through experience, that man sat down with a chisel and some stone and calculated the best mass, velocity and angle to throw spears at in order to kill a bear, are you? I hope not.

Furthermore, how can you argue that spears are more useful for combat for those people when they have no idea what a spear is, much less how to make one? Are they supposed to have accidentally hit somebody with a sharp rock, decided that these could be used as weapons, later found that these rocks could be mounted on the end of a stick and slowly developed the spear? Once again, this assumes that rational thought and logic were already in existence, although I fail to see how they directly increased a species’s chance of survival when there are other areas which confer a more direct advantage. Natural selection does not have a long-term view. I see it as more likely that quick thinking in the sense of allowing one to survive would be selected, as opposed to those with the best thinking caps.

So tell me, how do we kill that bear with the graph of y = sinh(x), then? Do we confuse it with i? How about using a graphical representation of Mandelbrot sets as a clever diversion? Would you prefer they write out the Fibonacci series to slow the bear down?

You'd be correct in that it has no existence, certainly not a metaphysical one.

How nice to know that we don’t really exist. Please explain why we are having this discussion if our thoughts are merely the result of random chemical reactions.

Out of curiosity, are you a determinist?

I can advance several objections to that view:

Thought you might.

1)The thirst for pure knowledge could be a haywire trait basing off the quest for knowledge applicable to real life.

Yes, of course. And if it had not developed, it would not be advantageous, would it? “That which explains too much explains nothing.”

2)There is an inherent thirst for pure knowledge in humans due to evolutionary reasons because much of the pure knowledge is later applied, leading to increased survival.

Sorry, no. You can’t kill a bear with calculus or complex numbers. You seem to be confusing knowledge that can be applied to the real world later to knowledge that is far more abstract and theoretical.

3)Astronomy can likewise be applied for interstellar travel which can maybe bring about benefits untold later.

But at the present time, it would be useless. Now, I think it’s time I had a bit of fun with an evolutionary scenario here!

Suppose that intellectuals ponder the mysteries of the universe. One would expect that this causes the field of Astronomy to be developed, but this is not the case, since these people waste time examining objects that are so very far away that could be better spent doing fifty spear-ups or some other physically relevant activity. Consequently, these people are less fit than those who do not spend time gazing up at the stars, and it is these people who are more likely to be selected, thus, the trait for the pursuit of Astronomy is eliminated or at least stunted to such a great degree that it cannot progress, and the population of humans no longer yearn for an understanding of the stars. Thus, Star Trek was never made, and we never got to see the Enterprise’s shields withstand ten bazillion torpedo hits, whilst finishing the enemy ships in a single shot by miraculously finding a weak point (which is unrealistic, since if all these ships were destroyed like that, we would expect evolution to select the ship designers who did not kill lots of members of their people, therefore, ships would not have silly weak points).

Come to think of it, this stuff is quite fun. Maybe I should do it more often.

Yeah what a stupid mistake I made there

‘twas a bit low, I admit, but I couldn’t resist. Don’t set your snake on me!

BTW, I have quite a bit of time off from lectures tomorrow, so I should be able to get my post in our informal debate finished. Hope that’s okay.

ETA: I should probably mention that these objections against evolution don't apply to theistic evolution.

[Andius]

Given the attitude your taking me on, I shall hereby dub you Mr. Imperialist, a far more worthier name for you.

aren't most Latin American countries Christian

Correct. Although most of the 19th Century, both Oligarchs and Catholic Church authorities had an uneasy cooperation in that century, the Churches hardly played a role in contributing to the oligarchs during the authoritarian years of the 20th Century (all too frequently, many Christians frequently opposed these authoritarian regimes, especially the Roman Catholic Church).

No Sociologist, Anthropologist, nor Historian in Latinamerican Studies will affirm that Christianity was a primary driving factor in the many exploitations that occurred, the correlation in that matter simply does not exist.

funny, since most traitors, thieves, pillagers, rapists, and murderers are theists (in this country mostly Christians of one stripe of the other).

Submitting to the belief of a deity will not halt a person from committing such acts (it's not some mere magic formula in being a theist). Still, belief in some form of theism is hardly a sufficient condition to drive a person to such acts. Even traitors, thieves, pillagers, rapists and murderers can continue to be theists (although usually, they will be defying their respective deities by committing such acts, I know, since members of MS and M18 gangs are well awares of this fact).

Also, what makes you think said "Christians" can still retain such a title? A person who revels in committing such acts will no longer be recognized as a "Christian" by his/her peers at Church, since by definition, the actions no longer reflect the character of a Christian, and these are usually persons who have made the willing choice of defying the statutes implemented by God, effectively opposing HIm. (And what residual collectivism that still left in Latinamerica, we quickly distance ourselves from such persons that refuse to correct their behaviour as members of Church).

The banana is still unimpressed by your one-dimensional thinking.

Don't you know, atheists are the best behaved people in the world (but it's probably because we're among the smartest in society to begin with).

Oh your the "smartest" and most "well behaved" alright. The very German atheists who have no problem jumping on a Turk, the Dutch atheist that causes a ruckus in the home of an Ethiopian immigrant, the French that sneers down at an Argelian, the English soccer fan that jeers at the Cote d Ivory player in the middle of a game.

Given the large chunk of atheists found in Europe, and the treatment they usually dish out at foreigners (especially those of darker skin tones), I can see the quality of non-theistic education effectively being a "shining" example to the rest of the world, HOORAY!!!

the largest number of drug consumers are in the United States, because if drugs are freely available in a free and afluent society .... statistics say a significant portion of people will become addicted to drugs.

Oh hoozah.... what a pity.

hey look, if you'd like to think Bogota is a wonderful place like Paris or New York go right ahead (I guess you already believe in talking snakes, so deluding yourself about Latin American is probably a small stretch).

Tis not the architecture or their advancements that primarily impress me, it's their manners (and quite frankly, you are quite bereft of them, you could use a Colombian to school you in manners, but I guess deluding yourself in believing a Godless reality inevitably makes you a complete ass).

I'm sure thinking something like that gives you comfort (and helps justify the very narrow imaginary world you live in).

Sorry, I am not the one having reality issues, especially when just about every expression of yours borders with imperialism and racism, and you are hardly noticing it.

right, but it can hardly be equated to a Marshal Plan (or even our level of intervention and assistance to Iraq). In other words if this country really wanted to we could provide more positive assistance to our neighbors to the south (but we don't ... I suppose we have plenty of our own problems that take precedence).

PPPPPFFTTT, BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Mr. Imperialist, you are too much.... (this confirms that it is YOU who is having the reality issues, not I )

Marshall Plan? Equated as actually helpfull?? OH man..... to toss you a lifeline, check the GDP growth of "benefitted" Allied countries in contrast with Axis countries around 1945-1955 (assuming your tiny little brain, can do a little bit of homework). The point is, the governments do a horrible job in assisting the less developed nations, it's the usual historical pattern (with some exceptions of course), and quite frankly, we don't need their help.

Companies that have installed themselves legitimately without the coercion of States are an excellent example of entities that actually contribute to development of foreign nations, amongst other types of entities. There is good fruitfull foreign help, and useless foreign help, and government stupid sir, is USELESS foreign help.

I don't think there's much hope for Africa or much of Latin America to be honest (so I see no sense in wasting our resources trying).

Good, I for one, do not want them, since gumming up other countries seems to be a skill your governments are quite adept at (and quite frankly, I pity the Latinamerican Governments that still believe we actually need the assistance of North American and European Governments).

So what posture your gonna take Mr. Imperialist? What with this inconsistancy:

In other words if this country really wanted to we could provide more positive assistance to our neighbors to the south

but change by saying:

(but we don't ... I suppose we have plenty of our own problems that take precedence).

I don't think there's much hope for Africa or much of Latin America to be honest (so I see no sense in wasting our resources trying).

One minute, your acting all "Mr. High and Mighty" "We developed nations are the only hope for the barbarous undeveloped world, and if they ask our aid, we shall give it", and now your " DDDUUUUHHHHH, I guess we won't help them to save our own resources, screw you third world!".

Can we say, hoozah for inconstitencies people?

false cause fallacy (you can beat this drum all day long, repetativeness doesn't make it any less stupid). A disbelief in something cannot inform anything (much less an economic theory like Marxism or the evil actions of men like Stalin).

Exactly you moron, because disbelief in something cannot inform an individual to distinguish between right and wrong, honorable and disgraceful, there is no information that can legitimately make them aware of what actions can be and cannot be done. Not so much a matter of "cause", more like, "absence of". (And once again, your failing in understanding religions properly, Karl Marx derived all of his economic theories from his understanding of Reality being reduced to the Material, aka, Dialectical Materialism. That's 3 religions so far that you are failing at. )

The baloney you folks tell stupid people to get them to gobble up your ancient fairy tales.

Ah yes, cuz baselessly calling our teachings false, merely because they are not your own, is an excellent way to start refuting our beliefs! Attaboy! Aren't you the shining example and a grand bastion of Atheism.

yes, I'm sure you're way too busy on your banana plantation

And I got about a couple of them with your name on it, ready to machine gundown your throat for you to choke on.

(But given the rate of dumb that you spew here, your choking too much on your own words already. )

dude .... why should I care about the religion of your ancient ancestors?

Your the one who brought up the "sun worshipping" ancestors deal, remember? (your memory seems to be failing you, not a good sign, looks like the atheist dumb is catching up with you ). If your gonna insult properly, learn how to do it by learning the background correctly that your are insulting you noob.