This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - frezal
2081
« on: May 15, 2009, 10:00:13 PM »
Pain has returned. Damn. I would go to a doctor, but I don't think I have any health insurance.
2082
« on: May 15, 2009, 02:16:47 PM »
I don't know if it's because I have a mild headache or not, but my arm appears to not be hurting anymore. It's still a bit tingly though. Perhaps the nerve is unpinching?
2083
« on: May 15, 2009, 12:39:39 AM »
So I think I ****ed up a nerve in my left arm. It's been feeling painful and tingly for a few days now. Since it started acting up after I woke up one morning, I think I may have fallen asleep on it.
No worries, though. It's probably not seriously damaged.
2084
« on: May 12, 2009, 03:08:34 AM »
Man! I went out like a punk. Perhaps I need to modernize... or start entering my weird bots that aren't very good at fighting, but are really entertaining to watch.
2085
« on: May 11, 2009, 07:39:30 PM »
So, if faith and reality are derived from that same meaning, that gives more philosophical evidence to God's existence than there is to the non-existence of God (there's no real proof either way). That just shows that ancient peoples thought that faith and reality were one in the same. It offers no evidence to suggest that a god or gods actually exist.
2086
« on: May 11, 2009, 07:29:18 PM »
I used to go bowling every weekend. Now that the good bowling alley closed, I don't go very often.
2087
« on: May 11, 2009, 06:14:54 PM »
Well sure, in the Bible God may have smited people, but have you actually heard of someone being smited that's been recorded recently? Well, no. That would require proof of god first.
2088
« on: May 11, 2009, 12:45:45 AM »
And how many did God kill in the story of Lot alone? :P It's estimated to be around a sh** load.
2089
« on: May 11, 2009, 12:19:49 AM »
God can't be compared to Hitler because Hitler was a murderer. I have not heard of God ever smiting anyone. I don't think he's the kinda guy who would gas six million because he doesn't like them. Have you not read the Bible? God kills about 2 million people in there. Here's a fun picture that makes my post look more sophisticated: 
2090
« on: May 10, 2009, 09:54:39 PM »
Just had a 4 hour outdoor robot event (unfortunatly, there was smokers amongst the roboteers, i HATE cigarette smoke, blah!) Cigarette smoke is awful. Hookah smoke, on the other hand, is wonderful. It's been a while since I've had any hookah, though. There are no good hookah shops here.
2091
« on: May 10, 2009, 08:12:03 PM »
I just mean that there is a lot of stuff in life that sucks. I was paraphrasing an argument against God that I've heard on several occasions. (Incidentally, I don't agree with it.) Namely that if God is perfect, then life should be perfect, but it's not. The atheists who say that God doesn't exist because life sucks are most likely not really atheists, but some sort of theist who has had a rough time. It wasn't a trap and God is not a fascist... in fact, quite the opposite is true. God gave man the choice whether or not to obey him. Stalin also gave his people the choice whether or not to obey him. If the soviets chose to cross him, they got taken out by the KGB, just like if you cross God you get tortured in hell literally forever. Now, do either of these two scenarios seem like the people get much of a choice? If he didn't put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden and tell Adam and Eve not to eat from it, there would be no way for them to disobey, and they would be forced to love God without even knowing there was an alternative. But that alternative, according to the New Testament, is pain and misery for eternity. If we don't accept this type of behavior from world leaders, why should we praise this kind of behavior from an invisible being in the sky? God could have easily just made us his loyal slaves... but he didn't. At the risk of ruining his own creation, God gave us the choice of obedience. Last I checked, not too many evil dictators will do that. Stalin certainly gave his people a choice. If the women stayed in the kitchen and popped out babies, the homosexuals abstained from having homosexual relationships, and everybody followed the other crazy laws, the KGB would not take them out. But, if they did disobey the great Stalin, they would be taken out. How is this any different than what the NT's version of hell? Going off on a tangent here, God is still giving us that choice. People often wonder why God doesn't just reach down and smite the bad guys with a lightning bolt. Or why Jesus hasn't returned yet. Well it all makes sense if you consider that he's giving us as much time as possible to repent. He wants to smite as few people as possible. That is a huge copout. It is also a very evil thing to do. Provide the people with no evidence of your existence, let genocide occur at all times, and then send people to a put of fire for not believing. At least Stalin's people could see that he was real. I'll admit it, that's a difficult question. Mostly because I don't know much about other religions and can't make informed statements about them. But there's a couple of reasons why I think Christianity is "the right one". Do you think that it might be possible that you believe in the Bible because that is what you were raised with? Quickly: One, the Bible was written over hundreds of years by several different authors who sometimes had no contact with each other, yet the message remains consistent throughout. The message was just fulfilling the Jewish prophecies of the OT. They took one of the guys running around claiming to be the messiah, and retrofitted his life to match that of the prophecies. (There were several "messiahs" around Jesus's time. One such person was Apollonius. It's interesting that modern Christians don't even consider that guy as a candidate for their God). Two, after Jesus was crucified, the disciples were scattered, disheartened, and depressed. It doesn't make sense for them to be so enthusiastic about the idea that he rose from the dead if he didn't really do it. So many gods did the same exact thing (Horus, for example). Not only that, but that story existed before the NT (much like the flood story was around with different characters before the OT). And three, Christianity actually changes lives. Maybe I'm biased, but I haven't heard many stories of addicts and criminals repenting and finding a better life and staying that way after coming to faith in some other religion. That's because you're not actively seeking out those stories. There's also a high probability that you don't know very many Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, atheists, agnostics, etc. True. Religious teachings, like anything else in the world, can be misinterpreted. It's hard to know God's will and some people get it grossly wrong. That's why I chose not to get into that particular issue. How do you know that some people get it grossly wrong? There are passages in the Bible that clearly support genocide (which I'll get to when I respond to philetbabe again). There are passages in the Bible that clearly support men being dominate over women. There are passages in the Bible that clearly support slavery and child rape. While rational humanist Christians tend to ignore these insane passages, they are still there, waiting for a crazy member of their religion to use it as justification for all sorts of wrong. Is not the purpose of food to nourish? So if you become food, your purpose is to nourish the organism that eats you, so that organism can reproduce. I won't belabor the point, though, since "The Meaning of Life" is no more to be food than it is to reproduce. That's a fair point, and one I didn't really consider. Yes, domesticated pets were originally bred for that purpose. But what about now? What about all these "purebreed" cats and dogs people can enter into contests and such? Some modern pets would be very unfit for life in the wild. They are unfit for the wild because they are biologically meant to be paired with humans. On a philosophical level, I suppose they serve a purpose to entertain us, but I was speaking purely on a biological level. Yes, but a wild cat won't sit on your lap no matter how warm it is. We've bred modern cats so that they will, and serve the purpose of comfort. It depends on the situation. If you raise a wild cat, it will consider you its mother. So long as that wild cat recognizes you, it would probably sit on your lap. (though it might be a bit rough with you since it's much stronger). Technically, humans are animals, but our existence is vastly different from other animals. No technically is necessary. We are animals with DNA that is nearly identical to that of modern chimps. I don't think I need to make a list of human accomplishments to make that point. Yep. We developed very smart brains (due to having weak bodies) in order to survive. And while our biological instincts may be the same, we have higher thought processes that can (and often should) override those. When confronted with a plate of food, for instance, we can choose whether or not to eat it. An animal guided by pure instinct will just gobble it up as long as it's hungry. That's not true. A wild scavenger will likely gobble up that food, but others are very particular in their diets. This is assuming that the wild animal isn't on the brink of starvation. In that case, the animal would scarf the food (much like a person in the same situation). I didn't say intelligence is unique to humans. Intelligence and self-awareness, however, is. Chimpanzees are self aware, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. As I said before, we have the capability to ignore our instincts. Also, while it's true that any species outside of its native range can have drastic global effects, none of them could do damage on the scale humans are capable of. Imagine if we did not restrain ourselves from exploiting the environment as much as we wanted (which is to say, restrain ourselves from obeying our instincts). Whole biomes would collapse. The ozone layer would vanish. The Earth would turn into a radioactive oven. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up killing everything bigger than algae. So much of your life is based on your primal instincts. You may not realize it, but that 'fight or flight' reaction is very common in human lives. Yes, our instincts have changed quite a bit, but the basic survival instincts have remained the same. Since we are smarter than the rest of the animals (and by extension, the lower forms of life), we are able to affect the whole world much faster. That doesn't, however, mean that we are the only ones who can. That's just callous. Suppose rice were threatened with a new disease that was wiping it out. Would you condemn it to extinction then, and cause mass starvation all across Asia? That seems to go against your belief that the meaning of life is to procreate. By preserving the Earth's ecosystems, as opposed to ruining them, we increase humanity's own survival. They would need to find a new source of food, or find a way to keep rice around (or die out). In a global economy, I really don't think that would be much of a threat to humanity (though it would be quite inconvenient). Because if the purpose of life is to procreate and nothing more, there is absolutely no reason for our ability to override our instincts. We might as well live as animals, mating with as many people as possible and killing our rivals. There is no reason for creativity. Art, entertainment, love, it all just gets in the way of our primary purpose. Nothing we do matters except how many kids we can overpopulate the Earth with. Wrong again, Tom. Because of our massive intelligence, we are able to survive. We build houses with heating units because we lack the fur to keep warm. We develop vaccines and such to keep us from dying of disease. Just because our purpose is to procreate, that doesn't mean that everything else we do is rendered void. Take art, for example. It allows us to express our emotions and attract others who feel the same way. Thus furthering the species. No kids, you might as well be dead. Everyone on this forum, in fact, is wasting their time with meaningless distractions when they could be out raping women! I'm not religious, so I have no justification for rape. We can further the species even if we don't procreate ourselves. We could help raise other children, or provide other services to help ensure the survival of the current and next generation of humans. If you don't think that view of life is depressing, man, you have problems. I will agree that your view of the world is depressing. Einstein's sexual behavior has nothing to do with anything; I was just using him as an example of someone important who didn't have any kids. Don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it. Einstein furthered human survival (and in a way caused massive death). The same with Jesus. Even if you don't believe he was God, you would have to agree that he was important. Real or not, Jesus was important. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and various other dictators were also important. That's exactly my point! You don't need to fulfill your "biological purpose" in order to be significant. That is the Meaning of Life I'm getting at--significance beyond simply reproducing. If you don't further the cause of human survival, or greatly hinder it, you will most likely not be significant to the masses. But energy can be lost as heat. Energy is never lost; it just becomes different kinds of energy. Things always move from a higher energy state to a lower state. Entropy is always increasing, and the only way to decrease it again is to put energy into it (thus increasing entropy somewhere else.) My point is that, one way or another, Earth and probably the entire universe will eventually cease to support life. The Earth will eventually be non-existent, so at that point, it'll no longer be able to support life of any kind. As for the universe, if it ever stops being able to support life, it'll probably eventually go back to being able to support life at some point. Not sure if that makes sense, but it makes sense in my head. It matters if you believe in an eternal afterlife. Only in the context of eternity does anything at all have any meaning whatsoever. Why must we live forever to have meaning? If you die and that's it, that's all she wrote, then the Earth might as well explode tomorrow for all the difference it makes, because it's going to end anyway someday, and it won't matter how many children you have or how fit your DNA is. That's a pretty pessimistic view. So the only reason why you bother to wake up in the morning is because you eagerly await living forever with a space dictator? How awful. I prefer to enjoy the 75+ years of time I have here on Earth. I could say more about God and how the concept of him being a cruel dictator is a gross misconception, but I've already talked about that and I'm really tired now. I'll probably wake up and notice a bunch of mistakes in this post... meh. I've already shown the similarities between God and a dictator. If you can't see that God, as depicted in the Bible and the Qur'an, is an invisible tyrant, I don't know what would convince you.
2092
« on: May 10, 2009, 01:56:39 PM »
I go on 4 mile walks two or three times a week. Considering that I'm 5'9" and weigh 130 lbs, I think that's probably good.
2093
« on: May 09, 2009, 05:51:13 PM »
@ Click--I'll provide you with a response in the next day or so. I don't want to not address any of the points you raised, so I'll need some time to write up a good response.
On the topic of Hitler:
While he did not attend church regularly, he very much considered himself a Christian, and believed (at least on a public level) that he was doing the work of God. Here's a quote from a speech he gave one April 12th, 1922:
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
If that's not sufficient, read Mein Kampf. It's riddled with references to his Christian faith.
2094
« on: May 08, 2009, 11:13:16 PM »
Alright, I'm back home now. I'll try to get to that reply I promised in the next day or so. I'm a bit too tired to be digging up Hitler quotes right now.
2095
« on: May 05, 2009, 11:43:57 AM »
Virus's are not living as there is a list of properties a thing must have to be classed as living (Can't remember) that we did in science one time and a virus has only 2 or 3 of them so it is therefor not living. I think the debate amongst biologists is whether or not to change the definition of "living" to include viruses. I'll respond to philetbabe later. I'm about to drive seven hours across the state.
2096
« on: May 05, 2009, 02:58:15 AM »
I've been waiting to discuss religion with you since I read your website. Here it goes. 1st cent: Regarding Creation vs. Evolution. First off, contrary to popular belief, creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. God may have created the first life forms, true, but it makes sense that they would have changed somewhat since the beginning of time. Evolution, in other words. Especially when you factor in the Fall. I think most Catholics and other rational theists would agree with you on that. People often ask, "If God created life, then why does it suck so much?" although usually in more words than that. Well originally, it didn't suck. But as soon as Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, evil entered the world, and you got stuff like disease and aggression and all that nastiness. I think that is a rather pessimistic look at life on Earth. In no way does life "suck". Life is amazing (in the true sense of the word)! Sure, there are a lot of horrible things that occur (genocide comes to mind), but to say that life sucks doesn't sit right with me. The story of the forbidden apple (or pomegranate, depending on who you ask) doesn't sit well with me, either. What kind of tyrannical dictator would set up such a trap? God created Adam and Eve with the "flaw" of curiosity. He then tells them that they can eat from any tree, except that one. Of course with the inherent flaw of curiosity, the built in desire to learn, they'd go for the apple (and since God is all knowing, he knew they would before he even made such "flawed" beings). Then, like a true fascist, God punishes them and all of their descendants by making them feel pain, shame, and marked them with original sin. If what God did wasn't evil, what is? However, what I want to say here is that it doesn't matter how life on Earth came about, or to what degree evolution played a part. All that matters is that God did it. How, why, when, we can never know any of those things for sure and I really don't think God cares whether we believe he created the universe in six literal days or whether it was over billions of years, as science suggests. Just that God is behind it all, however it happened. What makes you believe it was the Christian God that created all? Why do you subscribe to this supernatural being, and not Zeus, Thor, Mithra, Horus, Krishna or any of the other gods? 2nd cent: Regarding the meaning of life. Even Christians will give you widely varying answers to this, and frankly I'm not 100% sure of it myself. I think it's safe to say that our purpose on Earth is "To Do God's Will", although that is an oversimplification and gets into the issue of what is God's will, which is a totally different gnarly religious issue. "Doing God's Will" can be a pretty dangerous statement. So much evil has been done for that cause. On the Muslim side of the fence, there was the Armenian Genocide, the genocide going on in Sudan, the September 11th hijackings, and a whole lot of violence in between. On the Christian side of the fence, there was the holocaust (Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic, and used Christianity to rally people together), the genocide in Rwanda, the genocide in Bosnia, and a whole lot of violence in between. All of these atrocities were backed by passages out of their respective holy books. While the more sane members of the religion tend to dwell more on the cheery and uplifting passages, it cannot be denied that the justification is there. While I can't say with any clarity what exactly "the meaning of life" is (unless you count 42), I can say that it's NOT just to procreate. Even the lowliest of animals have a greater purpose than that. Down to the smallest bacterium, it will at least provide a food source for some other organism higher up the food chain, some more advanced lifeform that could not survive on its own. Smaller organisms keep on providing sources of nourishment for larger ones on up the food chain until you get to the top, where humans are. We are entirely dependent on bugs and germs for our continued existence. While organisms do serve as nutrition for other organisms, that doesn't mean that we serve a purpose other than spreading our DNA far and wide. In fact, many organisms are intentionally eaten so that they can better spread. The purpose of the lowliest organisms, therefore, could be said to be "to procreate and to support higher forms of life." However, even that is an incomplete definition. Supporting higher forms of life really isn't the purpose, though. If I was eaten by a bear, my purpose on Earth wasn't to become brunch for a bear. My purpose was still to spread my DNA (which means I would have failed as I have no children. That's beside the point, though). The bear evolved in such a way to take advantage of my slow running speed and small physical stature to eat me, and thus increase its chances of having [more] babies. Many more advanced forms of life exist for less scientific reasons. What is the purpose of a domestic dog or a cat? Perhaps originally they were kept nearby to control pest populations, but today their main purpose is to bring happiness to their owners. Survival of the fittest alone cannot explain the existence of many domesticated breeds of cats and especially dogs. Pets are something we humans have artificially--I hesitate to use the word "created"--guided the evolution of, recently for the sole purpose of companionship and/or beauty. Sometimes, we even preclude the most basic purpose of life--procreation--by sterilizing our pets, in order to focus on those last qualities, and we always prevent them from becoming food (unless you're either a sadist or starving). Therefore, the purpose of pets could be said simply to be, "to bring happiness, companionship, and/or beauty into the world." Survival of the Fittest explains domesticated pets perfectly. We used cats for ridding our homes of pests. Cats used us to get a warm home and guaranteed meal. We were mutually helping each other to survive. While things have changed a bit, the premise is about the same. Cats relieve stress, which helps us avoid heart and other health problems. We still provide them with a warm home and meals. Thus, mutual survival. We used dogs to help us hunt, navigate, and to give us company. Dogs used us for protection, guaranteed meals, and a warm home. Mutual survival, again. Now, it's about the same. Now if mere cats and dogs have such a noble purpose as that, don't you think humans should have a purpose at least as noble? No, because I don't believe they have those purposes. I think you're treating pets as if they are material things that are here for the purpose of entertaining us. While it's fun to pretend that cats sit on our laps because they love us, the truth is that they are just wanting some warmth, and our laps happen to be a very good, and comfortable, source of that. I'm not going to try and get into exactly what that nobler purpose might be, but I will say that to assert "the purpose of life is to procreate" is to reduce humanity lower than the most basic, animalistic level of existence. We are simply animals, so our existence is the same as any other animals. Just because our nervous systems are more complex, that doesn't mean that our biological instincts are any different from the days of Lucy and before. We have something no other life form has--intelligence and self-awareness--and with it comes the power to change the world for better or for worse. Dolphins, great apes, bears, octopods, and many other animals are also highly intelligent. While they may not be as smart as us, they are certainly intelligent. And any species (including species outside of the animal kingdom) can change the world for better or worse. It'll take longer, but you mentioned nothing about time being a factor. I don't want to sound cliched, but... with great power comes great responsibility. We have a responsibility to care for the world and protect its life for the sake of future generations. Why? I agree that we should intentionally try to kill off any species, and that we should keep our pollution to a minimal, but that doesn't mean that we have to prevent species from going extinct. If a species can no longer cut it, it's their time to join the 90% of creatures that ever existed. To simply Exist and Procreate is to ignore that responsibility, with the inevitable result that the world will be less able to support life. Earth supported life just fine before us. It's happened many times before on a small scale, every time a pest organism invades new territory and drives local species to extinction. Only with humans (which, if you change the definition of a pest to be "harmful to Earth's welfare" instead of "harmful to human welfare", fit every aspect of it) the scale is the whole world and the local species are worldwide. The Earth has always had the metaphorical bumper sticker that says, "Adapt or GTFO!" If they aren't surviving, perhaps it's because they're not the fittest. If we can't adapt to life without them, perhaps we're not so great after all. Not to mention that the idea of our sole purpose being procreation and the perpetuation of microscopic strands of peptides is just plain depressing. Why would that be depressing? Why must you serve a tyrannical space dictator by worshipping and preventing weaker species from going the way of the dodo? What about people who never reproduce? Einstein never had any kids. Neither did Jesus, for that matter. Did they have no purpose then? Whether or not Jesus actually existed is debatable, but due to the needlessly complicated (and utterly false) story moving him from Nazareth to Bethlehem, I'll concede that the Jesus in the Bible is at least partially based on the life of a man of that time. Anyways, biologically speaking, their purpose was to spread their seed. Just because Einstein was a whiz at physics, that doesn't mean his biological urge to have lots and lots of sex went away (though shackin' up with his cousin probably helped). Just inconsequential blips in the course of history that may as well have never existed for all the difference it makes? In that case, nothing we do matters. "Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die," in the words of the Bible. Why must one fulfill his/her biological purpose in order to be significant? Besides, Einstein did quite a bit to further our species by expanding our knowledge in physics. We've been able to survive because of our expansive knowledge, and expanding it further will only help us survive better. Besides, his work in relativity may someday save our sausages. And eventually, if a meteor doesn't strike the Earth first, or we don't ruin the environment to the point where life is impossible, the sun is going to burn out and go dark, and nothing will be able to live anymore. You forgot something! Our sun might also swell up into a nice red giant. Or we could get swallowed by that red giant that's heading this way. All our efforts to preserve the species will be for naught. In the end, entropy always wins. There is a limited amount of energy in the universe and it grows less every day. We have always had the same amount of energy. Energy, like matter, cannot be created or destroyed. Even if we eventually settle other planets and continue the human genetic line there, we can't escape that basic, cosmic truth. A billion, or a trillion, or a googleplex years from now, it doesn't matter, the universe will run down and there will be no meaning or purpose to anything anymore. In fact, with that in perspective, there is no meaning or purpose to anything now either, if you believe we are only here to procreate. If we are here to serve a fascist and to prevent dud species from dying out, how will that matter once "the universe runs down"? And what do you mean by that? Do you mean once the universe is no longer inhabitable by us? That's why I don't understand people who believe that about the meaning of life. If you ask me, I couldn't live without the idea of some higher purpose, some hope of beating entropy. The alternative is just too bleak. You want to live under a ruthless dictator who demands that you worship at his feet, despite providing no evidence to his existence, or suffer the consequences of eternal punishment? To me, that would be bleak.[/QUOTE]
2097
« on: May 04, 2009, 05:54:34 PM »
The notion that evolution is simply one animal coming from another is completly wrong. That is an aspect of evolution yes, but the entire theory itself is more encompassing and broad than that.
EDIT: Yes, it works I blame Pokémon for that ultra-simplistic view of evolution.
2098
« on: May 04, 2009, 05:50:01 PM »
I just ate a tuna sanguich on some tasty honey wheat bread. OMNOMNOMNOM
2099
« on: May 04, 2009, 02:54:21 PM »
Don't parasitic wasps do the same? They don't technically need other creatures to procreate. They just zombify other creatures to enhance their ability to procreate. Evolution can't technically be a scientific fact because it isn't observable, testable or repeatable. Or am I wrong?
Some could say bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is proof, but actual proof of evolution would require proving that one species actually became another species, which unfortunately takes to long to really observe.
As for our purpose as a species, survival is definitely on the list, but I believe there is more than that. Evolution is just as observable and testable as gravity. Like gravity, it allows for accurate predictions to be made.
2100
« on: May 04, 2009, 02:43:16 PM »
I'm not sure what my favorite is. A good one would be a sanguich with some ham, swiss cheese, some lettuce, and dijon mustard in between two pieces of some kind of whole wheat bread. It's even better if it's grilled (though you'll have to drop the lettuce or add it at the end.)
|
Show Posts