Do you believe in God?

[dxld]

You know what @dxld, for me it is OK to say that according to your religion a million Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt in Biblical times, but that there is no hard evidence. Just don't claim it as fact.

I will say I can not provide a video recording of the events that transpired. The closest thing to a video recording would be the video reenactment with Charlton Heston and Yule Brynner.

 

[niky]

There currently exists no archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus. The most you can say is that it might have happened, but you cannot claim it as fact if there is no evidence for it.

That's how it works. Simply.

 

[dxld]

There currently exists no archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus. The most you can say is that it might have happened, but you cannot claim it as fact if there is no evidence for it.

That's how it works. Simply.

The Ipuwer Papyrus is a single papyrus holding an ancient Egyptian poem, called The Admonitions of Ipuwer[1] or The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All.[2] Its official designation is Papyrus Leiden I 344 recto.[3] It is housed in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, Netherlands, after being purchased from Giovanni Anastasi, the Swedish consul to Egypt, in 1828. The sole surviving manuscript dates to the later 13th century BCE (no earlier than the 19th dynasty in the New Kingdom).

The Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt as afflicted by natural disasters and in a state of chaos, a topsy-turvy world where the poor have become rich, and the rich poor, and warfare, famine and death are everywhere. One symptom of this collapse of order is the lament that servants are leaving their servitude and acting rebelliously.

These events are very close to the events that occurred during Exodus.

 

[niky]

Funny. Exodus doesn't mention an Egypt at war, as shown here in verse III:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm

Close, but not the same. Exodus doesn't describe the collapse of the social order, warfare with invaders or internal political strife, which is what the poem seems to describe.

-

Ancient poetry and epics often give us clues as to what occurred in the distant past, but should not be taken as gospel when discussing history.

Not unless you believe that Gilgamesh did travel to the land of the dead, that Atlantis exists or that Rama shot Ravana with a nuclear-powered spear.

 

[Dotini]

The Bronze Age ended in a sudden, violent general disaster, sweeping away the great powers of the time, including dynastic Egypt. Archeologists remain puzzled as to the exact details of the cause(s). The study of the Bronze Age and its collapse makes for fascinating reading. Many peoples, not just Semites, were apparently forced into migrations. At the time, Egypt was the apex of civilization on Earth - something like the US today. People wanted to go to Egypt to work and study. If the proto-Jewish people left, it seems just as possible that they were expelled as that they chose to leave.
From wikipedia:

The Late Bronze Age collapse was a transition in the Aegean Region, Southwestern Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age that historians, such as Mario Liverani, S. Richard, Robert Drews, Frank J. Yurco, Amos Nur, and Leonard R. Palmer, believe was violent, sudden and culturally disruptive. The palace economy of the Aegean Region and Anatolia which characterised the Late Bronze Age was replaced, after a hiatus, by the isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages.

Between 1206 and 1150 BCE, the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and Syria,[1] and the New Kingdom of Egypt in Syria and Canaan[2] interrupted trade routes and severely reduced literacy. In the first phase of this period, almost every city between Pylos and Gaza was violently destroyed, and often left unoccupied thereafter: examples include Hattusa, Mycenae, and Ugarit.[3]

The gradual end of the Dark Age that ensued saw the eventual rise of settled Syro-Hittite states in Cilicia and Syria, Aramaean kingdoms of the mid-10th century BCE in the Levant, and the eventual rise of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_collapse

 

[Scaff]

No he isn't unless you are only considering the part of his paragraph you chose to bold. And even then I would dispute that what those rodents did was because they THINK or because they CARE about others. That's a bold claim, although I do think animals care about others, without the need for rodents to tell me that. I know dogs care about other dogs and usually care about the humans they belong to.

I've only used the version of 'think' he provided in terms of answering him and that definition fell over quite quickly, unless you dispute that animals can and do solve problems?

zzz_pt mentioned higher and different notions of thought and caring. And until someone shows me a simphony created by a mouse, or a painting created by a cat, or a poem created by a dog, It'll still remain an undisputed truth that there's no equivalent in animal world to the human mind.

Then, you can go about it the scientific way. I find it very interesting myself:
http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3051-animal-intelligence-and-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3051-animal-intelligence-and-the-evolution-of-the-human-mind
Actually I mentioned differing levels, zz-pt initially dismissed the concept of thought in qanything other than humans entirely, hence his animals don't meet this definition of 'think;' post.

And you can, of course, deny any difference between Man and other living beings (animal or vegetal) resulting from anything other than a specific brain characteristic that allows Man to be, well ... different from all others known in this planet.

Species differ in many, many different ways, that I have clearly and repeatedly stated. Humanity is not however unique in being able to think.

That, I think, is where atheists don't go. Fine. The way I see it, the fact that we - all Mankind - came this far is all the evidence I need about an higher conscience and intelligence.

This would appear to answer quite a few things.

It would appear that you already have an outcome and are happy to accept the facts that support that view, but not the ones that don't.

Personally I would rather accept the outcome that all the facts support

In fact, we are probably, in relation to God, as our dog is in relation to us. The dog has some "glimpses" of what we are and of what we do and of what we say and want. Doesn't get it fully, just enough so we can, at a very basic and primitive level, connect.

Rather slight difference, both dogs and humans can be shown to exist, once again we run into a problem with that as far as deities are concerned.

There is no evidence to prove it is false, so I will not retract my claim until proven completely false. Not only that but I did not state the exact number, I claimed a multitude of Jews, not a million.

Remembrance of Passover and the Hebrews slavery in Egypt is a core religious tradition celebrated by Jews and Christians, for me to be asked to retract my claim would in part be asking me to renounce my faith, which I will not do. In respect to all moderators and the policy's of GTPlanet, I stand in the faith that I chose and I refuse to use words that would lead to the renouncing of my faith.

No one is saying that you can't believe it, or even claim to believe it.

What you did however was state that you could prove it happened, proof and belief are quite different things.

However as far as accepting it as possibly being an allegorical story would stop you being Jewish because it would be a rejection of holy text? I don't buy that at all given that plenty from the text gets ignored on a regular basis.

I asked you this question in a slightly different manner before, when was the last time the state of Israel stoned someone to death for being gay or blasphemy? As they are not doing so they are going against the direct word of god, does this make them no longer Jewish?

By the way, you didn't make a claim of numbers of slaves, your religious text however does (and you are staining that you can't go against that), and its put the number at 1 million plus.

 

[zzz_pt]

I won't reply to everyone that quoted me but I have to say that you all need to search what objective moral values are and not speak as if you knew. Saying that are objective moral values because of the evolution or because we human live in society is plain incorrect.

Objective moral values. You can "belive" (or accpet... as you don't like the word belive) they exist or not. But if you don't you have to give me some explanation from where or how do we came to know what is morally right and wrong and how should we act accordingly.

Here is a link that I thinkit can help to understand this point of view

As it is incorrect assuming I'm defending some kind of religion/god. I never quoted the bible or any other scripture. I asked questions (reasonable ones I think).

I didn't say animals don't matter and shouldn't be preserved and treated in a kind and respectfull way.

@Scaff, I continue to say that animals do not think as we are. They don't discuss, don't know what is irony or philosophy or any other matter of reflective tought. You state that animals think as we think because they can open locks, they can relate with others or they show some "altruism". That IMO is far from the concept of thinking that I know. I'm sorry but I can't grassp it.

@Hun200kmh Thanks mate. Maybe because we're both portuguese led you to understood what I tried to say.

ps: Electrical signals in the brain do not prove scientificly that love exists I'm sorry. It doesn't prove the feeling and pleasure of love. And if you do the same brain test to someone who is praying or worshiping you would see the same type of electrical signals and stimulation... And that does not prove the existence of God. Or does it?

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff, I continue to say that animals do not think as we are. They don't discuss, don't know what is irony or philosophy or any other matter of reflective tought. You state that animals think as we think because they can open locks, they can relate with others or they show some "altruism". That IMO is far from the concept of thinking that I know. I'm sorry but I can't grassp it.

I have never stated that animals think as we do, as such I would strongly recommend that you do not assign a point of view to me that I have never stated.

You did however state that only humans 'think'.....

Think

I think animals do not think. Because I assume this definition of thinking. Abstract thinking, reflextion, opinion, etc. In that sense, I don't think animals think. Maybe they do...who knows.

....you cite the provided definition. The problem with the provided definition is that animals other than humans have been shown to think in exactly the same way as a number of those definitions.

The problem with your definition of 'thinking' is that a certain percentage of the human population would also fail it (the mentally impaired, heavily autistic or savants), given that they would also fail your standard what does that exactly mean for them?

 

[Famine]

I won't reply to everyone that quoted me but I have to say that you all need to search what objective moral values are and not speak as if you knew. Saying that are objective moral values because of the evolution or because we human live in society is plain incorrect.

Objective moral values. You can "belive" (or accpet... as you don't like the word belive) they exist or not. But if you don't you have to give me some explanation from where or how do we came to know what is morally right and wrong and how should we act accordingly.

For objective moral values (or objective rights) to exist you need only two things. A single truth (that cannot be denied) and logic to derive values (or rights) from it.

We have those things.

I'm sorry but I don't think animals do any of those points in the link. Maybe we have diferent concepts of thinking.

I'm guessing you've never owned a dog or cat?

There is no evidence to prove it is false, so I will not retract my claim until proven completely false.

I will state that you are a sentient vacuum cleaner who does not realise he is a vacuum cleaner. You need to provide evidence to prove this false before I retract it. Until then I will post it repeatedly without censure.

I will state that you have committed a sex crime against a walrus. You need to provide evidence to prove this false before I retract it. Until then I will post it repeatedly without censure.

See how that works? Yeah, it doesn't at all, does it. You need to provide evidence for your claim. It is beholden on you to do so, not on anyone else to prove it wrong. If you can't prove it, why would you even begin to accept it's true anyway? If you can, provide the evidence.

It's not a complicated concept.

 

[zzz_pt]

I have never stated that animals think as we do, as such I would strongly recommend that you do not assign a point of view to me that I have never stated.

You did however state that only humans 'think'.....



....you cite the provided definition. The problem with the provided definition is that animals other than humans have been shown to think in exactly the same way as a number of those definitions.

The problem with your definition of 'thinking' is that a certain percentage of the human population would also fail it (the mentally impaired, heavily autistic or savants), given that they would also fail your standard what does that exactly mean for them?

I'm sorry but I don't think animals do any of those points in the link. Maybe we have diferent concepts of thinking.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sorry but I don't think animals do any of those points in the link. Maybe we have diferent concepts of thinking.

So you do not believe that any animal other than humans can:

• Analysis (i.e solve a problem)
• be preoccupied with something
  
• Remember

All those are listed in the link you have provided and species other than human are capable of all of them.

It wold seem that you are saying that other than humans, animals act only on basic instinct and have no ability to cognitively reason?

If so then your believe is at odds with a rather large (and growing) body of scientific evidence, now while the following is not a scientific paper it does reference a number and illustrates the point rather well.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/dec/18/hunting.animalwelfare

And just in case you want to throw in the 'it in the lab so I can ignore it' line again:

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2002/08/0808_020808_crow.html

So crows that in the wild use tools (please explain how tool use has developed without the capacity to think) will adapt to better materials for tool use, adapt the material to form a better tool and then use it. All without thinking in your 'belief' (and here we once again hit upon the issue of belief).

I find it quite frankly astonishing that to preserve a 'belief' you are willing to utterly ignore a huge body of evidence. As I said in a post to another member earlier you are quite clearly cherry-picking only facts that support your pre-set outcome (that only man can 'think') and utterly ignoring quite clear evidence as a result.

 

[zzz_pt]

remember is not the same as to think.
be anxious or scared (not preoccupied) is not the same as to think.

Analisys? To analise something you have to ask a question. No animal has ever asked a question. We know chimpazees who have lerned sign language, words and numbers, who self recognize in front of a mirror but they never ever used this information to ask a single question. On other words, they never had a thought. Parrots can learn hundeads of worlds and sounds but they never asked a question.

I've saw squirrels and octupuses solving problems...they had a "path" to achive a "meal". That's what animals do in nature...they find ways to feed their needs. I've saw chimpanzees doing simple calculation but in a lab enviorment and after years of an insistent "learning" process.

To me, none of this is to think in its fullest sense.

If you said that animals think, I'm assuming they think as we do. Or if not, then you have to find another word to describe what animals do.


@Famine I've owned several animals (from fishes, to mice, cats and a dog).

You're saying that we have what? I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "a logic to derive values" in the context of objective moral values. I would suggest you to open the link i've posted.

 

[Famine]

Analisys? To analise something you have to ask a question. No animal has ever asked a question.

What could possibly lead you to that conclusion? What, because they haven't vocalised one in any of the myriad human languages?

We know chimpazees who have lerned sign language, words and numbers, who self recognize in front of a mirror but they never ever used this information to ask a single question. On other words, they never had a thought. Parrots can learn hundeads of worlds and sounds but they never asked a question.

Lana has been documented asking questions. Earlier experiments with primate cognition even had Lucy lying.

 

[Scaff]

remember is not the same as to think.
be anxious or scared (not preoccupied) is not the same as to think.

Analisys? To analise something you have to ask a question. No animal has ever asked a question. We know chimpazees who have lerned sign language, words and numbers, who self recognize in front of a mirror but they never ever used this information to ask a single question. On other words, they never had a thought. Parrots can learn hundeads of worlds and sounds but they never asked a question.

So now you are backtracking on your own linked source now that it doesn't fit your pre-set outcome!

As for having to ask a question, why does asking a question need to be externally verbalized? Do you talk out loud every time you are faced with a problem?

I've saw squirrels and octupuses solving problems...they had a "path" to achive a "meal". That's what animals do in nature...they find ways to feed their needs. I've saw chimpanzees doing simple calculation but in a lab enviorment and after years of an insistent "learning" process.

Once again you quite clearly are either not reading the material provided or have utterly ignored it.

To me, none of this is to think in its fullest sense.

And that puts you at odds with a vast body of peer reviewed scientific evidence, have a guess which hold the great level of creditability.

If you said that animals think, I'm assuming they think as we do. Or if not, then you have to find another word to describe what animals do.

How do you think?

Savants and people at the extreme end of the autistic scale do not think in the same way as you or I, given that fact (and it is one) then you best find another word for how they think, and by your own rigid definition of think they are now not on a same level as other humans. Do you define the mental impaired (who in extreme cases would fail all of your standard of what is required to 'think') as different to your wider 'we' and therefore different to other humans?

I've asked you to addressed this already, please do as it raises rather valid issues with your own definition of 'think' (which also appears to change to support your pre-defined outcome).

 

[dxld]

For objective moral values (or objective rights) to exist you need only two things. A single truth (that cannot be denied) and logic to derive values (or rights) from it.

We have those things.I'm guessing you've never owned a dog or cat?I will state that you are a sentient vacuum cleaner who does not realise he is a vacuum cleaner. You need to provide evidence to prove this false before I retract it. Until then I will post it repeatedly without censure.

I will state that you have committed a sex crime against a walrus. You need to provide evidence to prove this false before I retract it. Until then I will post it repeatedly without censure.

See how that works? Yeah, it doesn't at all, does it. You need to provide evidence for your claim. It is beholden on you to do so, not on anyone else to prove it wrong. If you can't prove it, why would you even begin to accept it's true anyway? If you can, provide the evidence.

It's not a complicated concept.

Now you are just insulting me, so I wil take this for what it is, an insult from an administrator. Out of the words I have read from you at 1235am Hawaii time Jan 4,2014 the administrator with user name Famine, member 9036 has attacked my character and insulted me by stating I was a sentient vacuum cleaner and stated I committed a sex crime against a walrus.

In no way is my intention to insult your character by stating Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. It is unnecessary for you to blatantly mock me to attempt to prove a point, which you have not.

As I stated, I provided my evidence, you can chose to believe it or not.

 

[Famine]

Now you are just insulting me

No, I'm not. Please read more closely.

In no way is my intention to insult your character by stating Hebrews were slaves in Egypt. It is unnecessary for you to blatantly mock me to attempt to prove a point, which you have not.

The point is proven. Your reaction alone proves the point.

It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove a claim. It is the responsibility of the claimant to prove it - I have to prove that you've committed a sex crime against a walrus in order to be able to state it as fact and you have to prove the existence of Jewish slaves in vast numbers in Egypt in order to be able to state it as fact...

As I stated, I provided my evidence, you can chose to believe it or not.

You've provided no evidence. What you provided was conjecture.

Evidence is independent of belief. With evidence it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Everything you've posted requires belief to accept and is thus not evidence.

Provide evidence - actual objective evidence - or withdraw your claim. This isn't optional.

 

[zzz_pt]

I "think" we're not talking about the same thing (animal thinking / human thinking). And NO, I'm not babacktracking in nothing. You chosed to read the way that most interest you. Maybe I did the same. But from the beggining I've been saying that, for me, animals do not think as we do. "I think therefore I am". Can an animal have such a though? I doubt it.

But this is getting offtopic. I'm still waiting for a reply on the question about objective moral values and your positions about this since almost everyone are contradicting themselves on this matter.

 

[dxld]

No, I'm not. Please read more closely.The point is proven. Your reaction alone proves the point.

It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove a claim. It is the responsibility of the claimant to prove it - I have to prove that you've committed a sex crime against a walrus in order to be able to state it as fact and you have to prove the existence of Jewish slaves in vast numbers in Egypt in order to be able to state it as fact...You've provided no evidence. What you provided was conjecture.

Evidence is independent of belief. With evidence it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Everything you've posted requires belief to accept and is thus not evidence.

Provide evidence - actual objective evidence - or withdraw your claim. This isn't optional.

I come on this thread for discussion and light hearted humor, not to be insulted and have my character attacked, actions which are unbefitting of an administrator.

To believe in my heart that the Jews were Slaves in Egypt is a core belief in my religious values and is not optional for me to retract my beliefs. What you do not hold as fact, I hold as biblical fact.

 

[Famine]

I come on this thread for discussion and light hearted humor, not to be insulted and have my character attacked, actions which are I befitting of an administrator.

Good job that neither of those things have happened then.

Incidentally, it isn't dicussion to post unsupported conjecture as fact then refuse to post any actual evidence or retract the claim -that's just proselytising. Up until the point where you're made aware of the actual evidence denying the claim - whereupon it becomes lying to continue with the pretence.

Prove the claim with objective evidence or withdraw it.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Famine

He belives in God therefore he belives in what the bible says. It's a matter of faith and you can not ask for a scientific evidence for that. It's nonsense. This is a "do you belive in" not "prove me that it exists / happended".

I'm still waiting about your clarification about objective moral values.

 

[Famine]

@Famine

He belives in God therefore he belives in what the bible says. It's a matter of faith and you can not ask for a scientific evidence for that. It's nonsense. This is a "do you belive in" not "prove me that it exists / happended".

That's not the problem - if it were, this thread would be much shorter.

The problem is making a statement of fact that is not borne out by evidence and refusing to provide evidence to support the statement or recanting it in the face of the evidence against it. This occurred when he stated there was a massive slave population of Jews in ancient Egypt - a claim not verified by any evidence.

I'm still waiting about your clarification about objective moral values.

I missed it 'cos tags edited in are not sent as notifications

I'm not sure how I can be any more clear in what I said. For objective values to be derived there needs to be a base fact and logic. We have the base fact and we have logic. The base fact is "I am the origin of my own thoughts". Logic derives objective values from that to generate rights.

 

[zzz_pt]

I'm not sure how I can be any more clear in what I said. For objective values to be derived there needs to be a base fact and logic. We have the base fact and we have logic. The base fact is "I am the origin of my own thoughts". Logic derives objective values from that to generate rights.

I would suggest you to read the link (or any other source you can find) about objective moral values since by principle objective moral values are independent from us and what we think. Moral relativism is what you are talking about...but that view raises a lot of problems.

 

[Scaff]

I "think" we're not talking about the same thing (animal thinking / human thinking).

Humans are animals, as such its not human or animal thinking, its simply thinking and the scale as which it operates, its this attempt to separate cognitive behavior out that is causing rather fundamental flaws in your position.

And I would still like an answer to this:

How do you think?

Savants and people at the extreme end of the autistic scale do not think in the same way as you or I, given that fact (and it is one) then you best find another word for how they think, and by your own rigid definition of think they are now not on a same level as other humans. Do you define the mental impaired (who in extreme cases would fail all of your standard of what is required to 'think') as different to your wider 'we' and therefore different to other humans?

I've asked you to addressed this already, please do as it raises rather valid issues with your own definition of 'think' (which also appears to change to support your pre-defined outcome).

And NO, I'm not babacktracking in nothing. You chosed to read the way that most interest you. Maybe I did the same. But from the beggining I've been saying that, for me, animals do not think as we do. "I think therefore I am". Can an animal have such a though? I doubt it.

Given that your original position was....

Much like animals or any other live organism that we know. If we are no diferent from any other live-form in terms of matter, why are we the only one that can deliberate think/hate/care/ about our peers?

...that humans are the only animals that can think/hate/care about our peers, I would say that you have backtracked on a massive scale.

But this is getting offtopic.

No it isn't. A fundamental point of you belief is that humans are 'above' animals and that only humans can think/hate/care about our peers is proof of this.

I'm still waiting for a reply on the question about objective moral values and your positions about this since almost everyone are contradicting themselves on this matter.

I've not seen anyone contradict themselves on this at all. Religion is not a requirement for a moral code at all, unless pack animals have religion. Most social animals have rules that the pack/herd/etc. must follow, with punishments for failing to do so and benefits for doing so.

 

[Famine]

I would suggest you to read the link (or any other source you can find) about objective moral values since by principle objective moral values are independent from us and what we think.

I did. It was rubbish.

Moral relativism is what you are talking about...but that view raises a lot of problems.

I am absolutely not talking about moral relativism, which is a massive pile of codswallop.

Rights are objective. They cannot be defined by culture, personal values or laws - all of which are subjective. They are derived by objective logic from objective fact.

Go have a browse of the Human Rights thread for more - it's a more suitable thread in any case.

 

[Touring Mars]

you can not ask for a scientific evidence for that

But where do you draw the line with this?

You cannot ask for scientific evidence for the existence of God? OK, fair enough - I'm willing to accept that people believe in God despite a lack of evidence, but I personally regard this lack of evidence as a good reason not to believe.

You cannot ask for scientific evidence regarding historical events described in the Bible? I'm not OK with that, but it doesn't make too much difference to me either way. If these events occurred the way the Bible says they did, why wouldn't there be evidence to support the stories?

You cannot ask for scientific evidence regarding anything the Bible says? Now we're getting into dangerous territory - because now you are leaving the door wide open to a vast array of subjects and issues on which the Bible was never intended to be a detailed and accurate account.

There is a major problem for the latter two however - the existence of evidence that contradicts what is written in the Bible. Belief in God is all well and good, but the (separate) belief that the Bible cannot be wrong about anything frequently brings one into direct conflict with reality.

 

[DK]

All of this talk about "objective moral values" makes me think of the book "The Bonobo and the Atheist" by Frans de Waal.

 

[zzz_pt]

@Famine I respect your opinion. If you've read it I can't say anything more other than: who says what it's right?

@Scaff It's not the times you say I'm backtracking that makes it true. I have the same position as I had yesterday. I do not think animals deliberate have an opinion about hating someone or loving someone. They care and hate but not on an intelectual level. I love Ferrari design but I hate Tata design. I like Dali but not as much as Magritte. And I can explain why (I'm not doing so because it doesn't matter for the discussion). I'm not an expert in these subjects. IMO humans have different minds than animals. We know little or nothing about our own mind to say that animals have minds similar to ours. I simply don't think animals think (by my concept and idea of thinking). I've said I've owned different animals and I loved them all and some behaviours were quite "human-like". But from that, assuming they think and have an intelectual and racional mind is to much for me.

@Touring Mars I just said you can't ask for an evidence for a belief. I'm not saying that the bible is 100% acurate because it contains metaphors and allegories too. We can't take everthing literally (IMO). But again, I was referring to that specific case.


I'll leave this discussion now because I have things to do.

 

[Touring Mars]

@Touring Mars I just said you can't ask for an evidence for a belief. I'm not saying that the bible is 100% acurate because it contains metaphors and allegories too. We can't take everthing literally (IMO). But again, I was referring to that specific case.

Thanks for the clarification. The issue I have is that belief in God is frequently equated to belief in the Bible (as you have suggested here), but they are two very different things.

I agree that it is somewhat pointless to ask for evidence for a belief - but then it becomes extremely important to limit what you apply belief to.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff It's not the times you say I'm backtracking that makes it true. I have the same position as I had yesterday. I do not think animals deliberate have an opinion about hating someone or loving someone. They care and hate but not on an intelectual level. I love Ferrari design but I hate Tata design. I like Dali but not as much as Magritte. And I can explain why (I'm not doing so because it doesn't matter for the discussion). I'm not an expert in these subjects. IMO humans have different minds than animals. We know little or nothing about our own mind to say that animals have minds similar to ours. I simply don't think animals think (by my concept and idea of thinking). I've said I've owned different animals and I loved them all and some behaviours were quite "human-like". But from that, assuming they think and have an intelectual and racional mind is to much for me.

Every single point you have raised here can be applied to various members of humanity, a point I have raised at least twice now and you have utterly failed to address.

If members of humanity also can't meet your criteria and you are unwilling or unable to address that point I would say that undermines your position to quite a large degree (and yours is a position that has changed).

 

[Denur]

We know little or nothing about our own mind to say that animals have minds similar to ours.

Good grief, do you really know so little? We know so much about our minds, that it is, uh, mind blowing. I'm not even going to share links on the matter with you. Just Google a bit.