I suppose if you want to believe that I'm being dishonest and simply trying to disagree with you and discredit the scientists, then I can't stop you. I can't convince you otherwise when you've been this firmly solid on what you believe my agenda's been since I first commented on this blog post. In all reality, you can't read my mind and I can't read yours. We can only make assumptions.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
I suppose if you want to believe that I'm being dishonest and simply trying to disagree with you and discredit the scientists, then I can't stop you. My beliefs do not matter. I'm merely pointing out where you are being intellectually dishonest. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't convince you otherwise when you've been this firmly solid on what you believe my agenda's been since I first commented on this blog post. I have repeatedly quoted exactly what you've written in every case. You have yet to offer a logical resolution to the conundrum presented to you. In all reality, you can't read my mind and I can't read yours. We can only make assumptions. Since you are clearly avoiding resolving your intellectual dishonesty, you could simply tell the BYOND folks whether you are a pathological liar or suffering from cognitive dissonance. We won't need to assume if you do. | |
My goodness you are so hard to talk to. I'm not being intellectually dishonest. If you want to know why I said what you keep quoting, it's because I misread the statement. As Iain pointed out, it could be easily misinterpreted if read the wrong way. This is a little freaken BYOND blog, yet you treat it like we're in some debate that actually matters. I misread something and thus said something rather stupid. I'm done here.
| |
Fugsnarf wrote:
My goodness you are so hard to talk to. I'm not being intellectually dishonest. To quote you: "I want to see some results before I form an opinion." Yet you have a steadfast belief in God. Your quote is intellectually dishonest. If you want to know why I said what you keep quoting, it's because I misread the statement. As Iain pointed out, it could be easily misinterpreted if read the wrong way. It's actually not if you had actually followed the link and read the paper. Really, try it sometime. This is a little freaken BYOND blog, yet you treat it like we're in some debate that actually matters. I misread something and thus said something rather stupid. I'm done here. Don't be such a coward. I'm giving you an opportunity to improve yourself here. Like you said, we can only assume things about people. From the logic train, you have the opportunity to stop lying to yourself. Cognitive dissonance is a horrible thing for someone to live with, and pathological liars have no credibility in society. I may not know who you are, but each case is bad! Don't be a coward. Change yourself. | |
You certainly are the high and mighty one, aren't you?
You think that just because I say "I want to see some results before I form an opinion." and that I'm a Christian, that I'm being intellectually dishonest? The entire reason that I'm a Christian is that I've seen nothing but results. I didn't say that I wanted to see the cell in person and examine it myself, I was more pointing to that I wanted to see more of what it can do. This was based off of the fact that I misread the statement thinking that they didn't know much about the cell yet, but I now know that's wrong. Being a Christian is about making a decision to trust in God, whom you can't see, because all you see around you are the effects of Him. I don't believe that all matter and life could simply come in to being, it's far too complex. I don't believe that the miracles and signs that I see in my life are merely coincidental. I see the results, and that's why I believe. | |
Fugsnarf:> As Iain pointed out, it could be easily misinterpreted if read the wrong way.
The problem here is that Bootyboy was not only referring to your misreading of that statement, but is making an unrelated point. To paraphrase him in a way which will be very understandable to you, but may gloss over some of the finer points of his argument, he's basically saying: "It is dishonest to believe in God and then demand scientific proof of anything else, because God cannot be scientifically proven." As I read it, this would imply that until you state that god does not exist, you don't have any right to make recourse to reason and logic in any of your arguments. --- Although I appreciate your blog and sympathize with you on many issues, Bootyboy, we seem to have differing opinions on what constitutes dishonesty. Without trying to give a full definition, let me just say that I believe someone can hold views which are contradictory on a deep level without being dishonest, so long as they have reason to believe that their beliefs are not contradictory. In other words, someone can be wrong without being dishonest. Case in point, Fugsnarf probably believes that there is some sort of logical proof of God's existence, even though you and I have long since discounted any such proof. | |
I'm confused tbh. If I believe in God, I have no right to ask for scientific proof against something?
...What? | |
I don't understand how this discredits the possibility for God to exist. Nowhere in any sacred scripture does it say "man is not able to (do what science has done in this case), at least to my knowledge.
As far as man = God regarding this, like someone below me said, God isn't all about placing genetic information into a Mycoplasm mycoides cell. There's much more to it than that. You should also have known that making a statement as bold as "Man is God" would ruffle feathers. Spirituality is something I try to avoid for simple sake of avoiding needless, pointless bantering, like you have here. That's by no means taking away from this milestone, it's an amazing accomplishment that will help humanity out in the long run(I'd like to see an antibody made to counter AIDS, Cancer, etc.) | |
IainPeregrine wrote:
Although I appreciate your blog and sympathize with you on many issues, Bootyboy, we seem to have differing opinions on what constitutes dishonesty. Without trying to give a full definition, let me just say that I believe someone can hold views which are contradictory on a deep level without being dishonest, so long as they have reason to believe that their beliefs are not contradictory. In other words, someone can be wrong without being dishonest. Case in point, Fugsnarf probably believes that there is some sort of logical proof of God's existence, even though you and I have long since discounted any such proof. We might be much closer to agreement than you might think. There's a statistical theorem called Bayes' Theorem that deals with conditional probabilities. It's a big necessity in poker and many aspects of my job. This applies very well in life -- you can make good moral, financial, and health decisions with Bayesian modeling. In its essence, it's important to know there is (almost) never absolute certainty. We learn by a process of "pruning the Bayesian tree", that is, we have a lot of assumptions going into any decision. From when time we are babies until (perhaps) the myelination of our brain, we _naturally_ pruned that tree to learn how to walk, to speak -- to do basic cognition. The dishonesty I am referring to is the unnatural want to defy what we naturally are able to do. It's the will to defy this natural and human process is what is overtly dishonest. If we were to *assume* thing inside someone's mind where after Bayesian analysis this was the behavior, we as observers would say that the person would value the need to lie to society or hold some very deep internal struggle alive much higher than the need to seek an otherwise rational decision. To sum it up, rational human beings are always trying to resolve the conflicts and contradictions in ones mind. That's how we learn. | |
Bootyboy wrote:
The dishonesty I am referring to is the unnatural want to defy what we naturally are able to do. It's the will to defy this natural and human process is what is overtly dishonest. If we were to *assume* thing inside someone's mind where after Bayesian analysis this was the behavior, we as observers would say that the person would value the need to lie to society or hold some very deep internal struggle alive much higher than the need to seek an otherwise rational decision. I believe I've clarified enough times that I misread the statement and thus said something stupid, I admit to this. I believe this is a great achievement and it's worth our attention. I really can't figure out what you're trying to bash as far as I've said. I defended my Christian beliefs and how I said I want results in comment 25, and I already said I misread the statement and said something dumb. What more do you need? | |
Fugsnarf wrote:
I believe I've clarified enough times that I misread the statement and thus said something stupid, I admit to this. I believe this is a great achievement and it's worth our attention. It is clear that you haven't read a word that I've written, not a word. You're clarifying something that I'm not addressing. I'm addressing your reaction... assume that what you read was actually correct -- my response would have been the same. Now reread my comments and cogitate. | |
I've read everything you've said already, most more than a few times. When I said what I said in my first comment, I thought what they were saying was that "the cells are expected to have phenotypic properties and are capable of continuous self-replication" which, while being read improperly, sounded to me like they are making assumptions that this cell will be an organism and self-replicate, but that it hasn't happened yet. After re-reading and also reading some of the paper, I realized that what I said was stupid and yes, ignorant.
Because of what I said there, I assumed that it came across as if I was trying to discredit the scientific achievement. In reality, the statement I gave was said out of the ignorance of thinking that not much was known about these cells. I just wanted to know more before I would call it life. However, now, knowing that they actually have these phenotypic properties and can self-replicate, I'm willing to say that it's life and an amazing achievement. When you switched to say that I couldn't believe in God and still give my statement saying I wanted more results before I would give an opinion, I began to assume that this wasn't about you not believing that I misread the statement and assuming I'm discrediting the achievement, but more that I was being a hypocrite by believing in a God that can't be seen and still expecting to see something from the scientists. However, as I clarified before, I believe in God because I see the results of Him in the world from what I believe could only be created, to the many things he continually does in my life and the lives of others. I believe I've now gotten to everything you've called me out on and also clarified what was going through my mind while all of this was happening. If there's more you want me to clarify, just ask. | |
Neblim wrote:
He didn't "not read", he ignored the irrelevancy of your prejudice against Christians. As an atheist, I find you just as guilty of those "Holy people" claiming justification to bug an atheist to death about the "word of god". Quit fueling the fire. Please find a quote within this thread where I am prejudiced against Christians. Just because I'm prejudiced against ignorance doesn't equate to me focusing on a theist's ignorance nor an atheist's ignorance. To presume I am focusing only on Christians is more you forcing your own bias. Though I would like to point out, Fugsnarf avoided an entire holy war with you just to get on with all our lives. Consider it a gift from "God" or "Man", however you prefer it. I couldn't care less. Holy war? A comment thread can invoke a holy war? That's nuts. This very simple matter. Easy to frame and easy to cogitate. You shouldn't have to care, the concepts are easy. | |
Jamckell wrote:
Create matter. Impossible. And no, a god can't make it, either. EDIT: Also, Disturbed, there is an AIDS antibody, but the African hookers are keeping it to themselves. | |
Theres a cure for everything in this world. But if everyone in the world is completely healthy, how would doctors, surgeons, pharmacists etc. keep their jobs?
| |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Theres a cure for everything in this world. No. | |
Yes, there is a cure for everythiNg in this world, actually. GOogle it; evidence has been found that the goveRnmEnt is ActuaLLY holding back centuries of medical advances from us. (sorry messed up keyboard)
| |
Magicbeast20 wrote:
EmpirezTeam wrote:Then you're saying the world doesn't revolve around money. You can't be living on planet Earth. | |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
Theres a cure for everything in this world. But if everyone in the world is completely healthy, how would doctors, surgeons, pharmacists etc. keep their jobs? Idk, by continuing to find cures for these diseases. I'm pretty confident they get paid for finding cures and producing medicine. Not to say I don't believe in your conspiracy, just putting a dent in your logic. | |
Create matter.
I would love to see you do posts on thermodynamics and the Big Bang over those nonsensical Israelite posts.
That would be an example of "trying harder". You accept the challenge?