51. Comment #133410 by steveroot on February 26, 2008 at 7:05 am

45. Comment #133250 by wooter on February 26, 2008 at 1:24 am

Speaking of sarcasm, ( I am trying to be scientific and logical with you but when you push your luck, I would say you started it) let me share my sarcasm with you:

If that's the best you can do for sarcasm, I would hang it up, mate. Around here, people need to wear kevlar vests for protection. Your "sarcasm" wouldn't get through wet kleenex.

Dude, you really need to read some books... meaning *non-fiction*.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

52. Comment #133417 by steveroot on February 26, 2008 at 7:12 am

53. Comment #133385 by Philip1978 on February 26, 2008 at 6:38 am

Wooter,
Your Parable of the Liar was lost on me, I didn't understand a word of it - could you possibly explain that one a bit better?

Here's a better one:

Plato: "Socrates is a dirty liar."
Socrates: "Plato, for once you're telling the truth."

{takes cover, waits for wooter's head to explode}
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

53. Comment #133431 by The Reverend Dark on February 26, 2008 at 7:22 am

Irate confesses

I married a Vicar's daughter. This is not a joke - although it may be amusing to some.

Nothing wrong with that; does she still take an interest in Saint Peter?

... Perhaps that is more information than I need.

My lovely wife has gone from a strong RC background to something else. I do occasionally go to church with her parents. It is man-tastic. They have this one guy in the congregations that's hung like this.

(Picture the Reverend holding his arms wide in best cruciform fashion.)

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

54. Comment #133440 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 7:34 am

Comment #132783 by wooter

If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause? In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:
1.Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2.The universe has a beginning.
3.Therefore the universe has a cause.

You really ought to try this one wooter:

1. The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
   
3. The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
   
4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
   
5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
   
6. Therefore, God does not exist.

A master logician like yourself should be able to spot the flaws in it.

Please submit your answer in the format of first order predicate calculus.

Other Comments by epeeist

55. Comment #133441 by ADePSP on February 26, 2008 at 7:36 am

I believe ring species to be perhaps our most powerful/easy to use device in persuading the waverers, and wavering the rigid.

Unfortunately the rigid will say the Salamander's Tale just shows micro evolution and then blither on about "types" saying both species are still salamander's (i.e. same type of creature not a new one)...

We'd need a ring species where the differences were more than just colouration (and inability to inter-breed) to persuade those stubborn fools obsessed with their missing croca-ducks :D...

The waverers on the other hand should be able to see evolution is not saying one type of creature "begats" a new type but rather it happens after a number of generations slowly until the original grandparent "type" could no longer mate with the most recent descendant type but every type in-between could do so within a range.

The ring species is great because it shows this without having to cope with the mind boggling amounts of time that causes most people problems with the more common form of evolution.

Other Comments by ADePSP

56. Comment #133445 by Steve Zara on February 26, 2008 at 7:40 am

Your liars cannot be covered up anymore.

Wooter:

I am an Englishman.

All Englishmen are liars.

Honest.

Think about it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

57. Comment #133447 by Quetzalcoatl on February 26, 2008 at 7:43 am

If we're doing this-

Wooter-

everything I post is a lie.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

58. Comment #133449 by al-rawandi on February 26, 2008 at 7:47 am

Reverend,



When I get that comedy show I have been praying to Baal for, I am hiring you on as a writer.

Too good, too good.

St. Peter....


Priceless. That and my 35 divorcees.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

59. Comment #133450 by steveroot on February 26, 2008 at 7:48 am

56. Comment #133431 by The Reverend Dark on February 26, 2008 at 7:22 am

Nothing wrong with that; does she still take an interest in Saint Peter?

Well, there won't be much bishop bashing around *that* household!

59. Comment #133445 by Steve Zara on February 26, 2008 at 7:40 am

Wooter:
I am an Englishman.
All Englishmen are liars.
Honest.

Now, Steve, I was first! :-)
BTW,
"This statement is false" :lol:
Or...

The sign in the dentist's window reads:
"I clean all those people's teeth in this town who do not clean their own teeth"
So who cleans the dentist's teeth?

Or to quote James T. Kirk,
"Nomad (Wooter), everything I say is a lie!" :-O
"5"

Other Comments by steveroot

60. Comment #133454 by Tyler Durden on February 26, 2008 at 7:52 am

wooter,

If p then q
Not q
Therefore not p

So:

If God existed then we would see the effects of this God.
We do not see the effects of a God.
Therefore God does not exist.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

61. Comment #133468 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 8:08 am

56. Comment #133431 by The Reverend Dark -

Nothing wrong with that; does she still take an interest in Saint Peter?

Possibly ;) However, she no longer weeps on the floor of these public lunatic asylums, cries because she is so bad or, in fact, believes she hears a voice in her head telling her what to do (even including where to sit on a bus. This, again, is no joke.)

People here may think I'm impolite to theists. For what they did to my only love, I will never, ever, forgive them. They are vultures that prey on the young, impressionable and vulnerable. I will spend the rest of my life undoing the damage they have done.

My choice, when I found what I was dealing with, was to either run away screaming or stay and risk destroying myself. Believe me when I write that - at her worst - she could have given our beloved wooter a good run for his money. I only have one life to give to someone else - I can only save one person from these scum - the rest can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: So when I say fucktard, I mean fucktard, like no one else here can.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

62. Comment #133471 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 8:14 am

OK smartarses - but I want to know whether the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contains itself.

Other Comments by epeeist

63. Comment #133473 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 8:15 am

Wooter

Please understand that we really have tried to help you to understand why we think of evolution the way we do.

On another thread, I advised you to watch these videos (at least, I may have only suggested the first two, but all three are good) and if we get frustrated because you don't seem to have any understanding of what you are so determined to debunk, and yet you refuse to learn about it, then please do not blame us if some people get cross with you and make clear that they do not want to waste their time.

These short videos are very well done and each one takes less than 10 minutes to watch.

For those of you who hadn't heard of Ring Species before, there may be a few things that would interest you too.

Natural Selection Made Easy (9minutes 48 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

The Theory of Evolution Made Easy (9 minutes 51 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4&feature=related

Human Evolution Made Easy (9minutes 59 seconds)
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ&feature=related

Other Comments by PJG

64. Comment #133477 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 8:22 am

65. Comment #133471 by epeeist -

OK smartarses - but I want to know whether the set of all sets which do not contain themselves contains itself.

I would say not. It is - from what I recall from my (dim) distant past - a superset of these sets.

Edit: 66. Comment #133473 by PJG -

I have emailed Josh to remove this loathsome turd from our metaphorical swimming pool. Much as I genuinely enjoy insulting his (lack of) intelligence, I am sick and tired of his verbal diarrheoa being spread over this site.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

65. Comment #133518 by PJG on February 26, 2008 at 9:27 am

Irate,

I sympathise and I know how frustrating Wooter can be (I have ended up being somewhat less than civil myself!) and yet there is part of me that feels uncomfortable about banning people from this site because they are ill-informed, irritating etc. I know he is closed-minded but at least he comes on here, there are many who wouldn't even do that, and he, and those like him, CAN be ignored.

The only people I would ban are those who are really offensive (from what I understand, DR/wee flea fell into that category because he stirred up trouble). Wooter CAN be ignored and, like someone entering a room where they are not wanted, will probably eventually just go away. If not, you never know, he may just learn something (!) which is why I thought I would give it one last go before I started to skip his posts entirely. :o)

Other Comments by PJG

66. Comment #133521 by Epinephrine on February 26, 2008 at 9:33 am

Epeeist,

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

I always liked Hoffstadter's use of self-descriptive and non-self-descriptive words. Pentasyllabic really is pentasyllabic, so we can call it autological - self-describing. Heterological words then are words like "long", which certainly isn't, or "unpronounceable" which can certainly be pronounced. Then the question is simply, "is heterological heterological?".

Other Comments by Epinephrine

67. Comment #133525 by The Reverend Dark on February 26, 2008 at 9:43 am

Irate, I am not terribly fond of banning people outright. I like them to stand up and announce their brain-dead blatherings to the world.

Oh, on consultation, I found out that the guy in the congregation (the one hung like this) - was not the crucified Christ, but was in fact the risen Christ. I still couldn't tell, his robe was too loose.

Cheers,
The Reverend Shayne Dark

Other Comments by The Reverend Dark

68. Comment #133527 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #133521 by Epinephrine

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

I like Hofstadter too. However most people only seem to have read "Godel, Escher, Bach". I enjoyed "Le Ton beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language".

Other Comments by epeeist

69. Comment #133540 by Geoff on February 26, 2008 at 10:32 am

wooter:

I am trying to be scientific and logical with you...

You need to try harder. Much harder.

In fact, you first need to find out what the words mean.

Other Comments by Geoff

70. Comment #133575 by Richard Morgan on February 26, 2008 at 11:32 am

Steve Zara : You said to wooter :

Think about it.

For a gentle person like yourself, I find this very unkind.
Sorry I don't remember how to say it in English, but in French we say
"A l'impossible, nul n'est tenu."


EDIT : Something like "Nobody is expected to accomplish the impossible."

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

71. Comment #133585 by Epinephrine on February 26, 2008 at 11:53 am

I'll admit to only having read GEB by Hofstadter, but I'm aware of his other works, and bought my dad a copy of "Le Ton Beau de Marot", since he's very into language and translation.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

72. Comment #133592 by Steve Zara on February 26, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Richard:

I know I am a hopeless optimist, but for me one of the great joys of life is that AHA! moment when you discover something new, or find a new perspective on things. One of those wonderful moments occured when I was reading Dawkins' "The Extended Phenotype" and he wrote about "genes for beaver dams". Godel Escher Bach has been mentioned. I had such a feeling when I finally understood Godel's theorem (at least for a few minutes before my brain fused).

I may play around with people like wooter, but one of the reasons I debate and discuss with people like that is to attempt to get them to the stage where they can experience that leap in understanding. It may be hopeless in almost all cases, but I think it is worth trying...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

73. Comment #133595 by Geoff on February 26, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Steve, that's exactly how I feel! Except that in addition, I've personally had several "AHA moments" since joining this site!

Other Comments by Geoff

74. Comment #133597 by steveroot on February 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

69. Comment #133521 by Epinephrine on February 26, 2008 at 9:33 am

Isn't that just Russell's paradox?

You're using the word, "just", in a new and unfamiliar way! :-)

Russell formalized the ancient "Liar's paradox", seen ad nauseum in several previous posts.
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

75. Comment #133603 by Steve Zara on February 26, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Geoff: Me too. I would particularly like to mention epeeist, Dr Benway and MPhil in this context (no disrepect to others, who also make this site so exciting).

Other Comments by Steve Zara

76. Comment #133660 by Stafford Gordon on February 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm

A perfect encapsulation of Darwinism; this and the transitional genetic markers of the inner ear of the whale et cetera, et cetera et cetera. What ever next? What is the world coming to!

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

77. Comment #133705 by Mitchell Gilks on February 26, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Screw you Steve! You have insulted me by omission! If it is a good thing, add me to the list, if bad, then forget about it.

The rest of you, stop challenging the law of non-contradiction. You'll piss off Aristole!

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

78. Comment #133842 by Jon_Sociologist on February 26, 2008 at 11:35 pm

Richard Morgan:

Can rationalists and theists interbreed?
Would they want to?

I've successfully interbred with a wiccan. And you guys think Theists are out to lunch. I must say however that our offspring does not appear to be a conventional hybrid, which would be expected to be intermediate between the parents, but instead has realized at the tender age of 5 that: no people do not have magical powers. While it's too early to call with certainty, the little gaffer appears to be heavily favouring his Atheist heritage. Thank god. . . uh I mean thank heaven. . . no that doesn't work either. . .dammit, we Atheists really need to make our impact on the English language felt more strongly.

I'm personally the result of an Agnostic/deist interbreeding with a protestant christian, and again I am not intermediate, but a firm Atheist. But my accounts are inherently anecdotal, someone really needs to do a scientific study on the subject. It would be world shattering to find out that humanity has already speciated and that having sex with christians is in fact bestiality.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

79. Comment #133843 by Jon_Sociologist on February 26, 2008 at 11:38 pm

PJG:

Wooter CAN be ignored and, like someone entering a room where they are not wanted, will probably eventually just go away.

I must take exception. People say, "don't feed the trolls". I say, "fuck that, feed them to me." I think Sam Harris has it right, we should confront bad thinking wherever we find it. If Wooter is a, and I quote, "fucktard", we should not ignore them, we should sodomize their arguments. Keep in mind that Wooter is not the only one who will read our responses. People who are on the fence, and can thus be reached, can be brought over to our side. If Wooter is the only one talking then, hard as it is to believe, some people will not realize how idiotic his position is. If on the other hand we make it clear that theists are the village idiot, then no one will wish to join them in being an idiot. If we do not articulately challenge foolish ideas then we lose the battle by default.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

80. Comment #133845 by Jon_Sociologist on February 26, 2008 at 11:40 pm

wooter:

In summary
1.The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
2. It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
3. God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn't need a cause.

You are absolutely correct in saying that if something has a beginning then it must have a cause.

This overlooks several important points:
A) The universe may not have had a beginning as such.
B) Even if it did there is absolutely no evidence to support the position that any given god is necessarily or even likely to have been the cause.

Further to point A: scientists have come up with many theories regarding the genesis of the universe. Some examples are: the multi-verse concept (many finite universes are being constantly generated in a "foaming" multi-verse that has no beginning or end), the oscillating universe concept (the universe is eternal and oscillates between big bangs and big crunches). Some day we will probably be able to test one of these theories, that day your god will need to find a new gap or it will die.

Further to point B: supposing that the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause, it requires breath taking ignorance to believe that the most likely explanation is that an incredibly complex and powerful being that exists outside of time, and chose to reveal itself to bronze age sheep fuckers. . . I mean sheep herders (yeah herders), started it all. Only an absolute idiot or someone who has been indoctrinated as a child would believe that these sheep… herders with their self-contradictory book lacking even a shred of evidence for most of its claims, would be correct in claiming a super-natural cause, as opposed to the 'first cause' being something natural, when all other causes that have ever been scientifically observed and documented have been natural. Much as we humans might like to believe otherwise, we are a natural cause, and all other observed causes to date have likewise been nature, in some form or another.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

81. Comment #133850 by Jon_Sociologist on February 26, 2008 at 11:55 pm

And furthermore, as I have explained in several threads: god doesn't explain anything regarding how the universe was created. Here's a quote from one of my posts in the forum:

In answer to the question 'how did the universe come to be?' the secular humanist answers: the Big Bang, the Theory of Evolution, etc. The creationist answers 'god did it'. The point that gets missed is that this doesn't answer the question. The question was how not who. The comeback that god is omnipotent also doesn't answer anything. If we stipulate that god is omnipotent and could do it however he wanted still doesn't answer how he actually did do it. So it is not simply a matter that there is no BELIEVABLE alternative to scientific theory to explain the universe, there is no alternative theory at all.
Collectively modern science does an excellent job of explaining the universe (and does a better and better job each day as science advances). A creator god is completely unnecessary to the explanations of science, and not in any way implied. Therefore, the principle of Occam's Razor, which I would argue is the very basis of the scientific method, leads me to discard the possibility of a creator god.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

82. Comment #133903 by Mitchell Gilks on February 27, 2008 at 2:33 am

The big bang doesn't state how the universe got her, it explains the current state of our universe, and the creation of our space/time manafold. The theory begins with the matter that makes up the universe already in existence. We have no idea if it has always existed in some form, or came into existence. The laws of physics break down as we trace the universe back to the big bang, as the matter and energy that make up the universe reach infinite density, the laws of physics break down, and we have nothing at all to go on. We do know that it makes no logical sense to talk about a "before" the big bang, as the big bang created our space/time manafold, there was no time until then, and ergo no before that point. Hawkings follows things back further using what he calls "imaginary time."

Also, evolution explains the deversity of life, not the origin, for the origin of life, the dominant theory is abiogenises.

The problem of god being a non-explanation is far more deeply rooted than that Jon, as god by definition is inexplicible, yet is claimed to be "the ultamate metaphysical reality" yet this is not possible. As a metaphysical explanation by definition explains everything, and if it doesn't explain itself, then it cannot qualify has a metaphysical explanation.

God as a non-answer isn't an argument from ignorance, as you formulate it. As simply not knowing the how, but is deep rooted, and fudemental to god's proported nature. That god fudementally cannot be an explanation.

Yes, Occam's Razor, rigourous investigation, and parsimony as fudemental to the scientific method.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

83. Comment #133908 by Mitchell Gilks on February 27, 2008 at 2:46 am

The universe can't be shown to have a beginning actually, I would like to see that, and causality is observer dependent, not a fundemental nature of things. However, even if it were true, and all things within the universe had required a cause, it would be fallacious to then say that the universe as a whole does. The universe is defined as the set of all things known or supposed to exist, all because something applies consistently to individual pieces of a set, does not mean it applies to the whole, that is the fallacy of composition.

This is however not the case, causality is observer dependent, as all order and patterns are. It is merely a projection of our interpretations of reality, unto reality. The past doesn't exist, only the present exists. Causality requires the compolation of a chain of events into a chronological order, but in reality, all that is happening is that things are effecting other things in real time.

We are pattern seeking, and personifing animals. We find patterns, and then we project them, and act as if there are outside of our heads. As order and chaos are so frequently thrown around as being states of the world, when they are not. Ordered is merely what we call something that is easy to predict, and find patterns in, while chaos is hard to predict, and find patterns in. The only fundemental difference between the two is our ability to predict.

That all aside, events on the subatomic level have been observed that have no cause, and thus violate causality.

It really erks me how theists consistently get away with employing physics that are a hundred to two hundred years out of date. I must have to refute the cosmological argument once a week. I am also getting sick of the ontological argument, though that has nothing to do with physics...or the world at all, it is built on pure sophistry.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

84. Comment #133913 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 2:55 am

This is however not the case, causality is observer dependent, as all order and patterns are. It is merely a projection of our interpretations of reality, unto reality. The past doesn't exist, only the present exists. Causality requires the compolation of a chain of events into a chronological order, but in reality, all that is happening is that things are effecting other things in real time.

I realise that Relativity is an incomplete theory, but it relies on the existence of the past. Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos has the best explanation of this that I have read.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

85. Comment #133927 by epeeist on February 27, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #133913 by Steve Zara

Steve - may I pick a small nit with you.

Is there any chance of you making a back reference to the OP when you make a quote. Otherwise it can be a little difficult to follow the context.

Other Comments by epeeist

86. Comment #133931 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 3:18 am

Comment #133927:

Is there any chance of you making a back reference to the OP when you make a quote. Otherwise it can be a little difficult to follow the context.

In this case it was the post above, but that was just the luck of timing, so good point.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

87. Comment #133932 by irate_atheist on February 27, 2008 at 3:19 am

70. Comment #133525 by The Reverend Dark -

I'm not generally in favour of banning posters, either.,

But sometimes, even a wooter can go too far...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

88. Comment #133934 by Richard Morgan on February 27, 2008 at 3:23 am

Steve Zara

"...for me one of the great joys of life is that AHA! moment ...."
"I had such a feeling when I finally understood..."
"...to get them to the stage where they can experience that leap in understanding."

Exactly!
At the end of the day, that's what it's all about, I supppose.
Feelings.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

89. Comment #133947 by hungarianelephant on February 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

Having previously argued for the removal of wooter's account here, and for the inclusion of an "Ignore" facility, I have a confession.

I'm developing something of an admiration for wooter. He (I'm assuming not she, or "it" if as I suspect wooter is actually epeeist's random comment generator) doesn't understand even the most basic concepts in evolution, can't get his head around physics, and is utterly unable to look at the universe from anything but an anthrocentric viewpoint.

He has several dozen intelligent and articulate people arguing back at him. He plainly doesn't speak the language properly. And yet he continues undaunted, posting the same utter rubbish, week after week.

He has the tenacity of the Duracell bunny. What a shame he can't apply it to something more useful.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

90. Comment #133948 by PJG on February 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

.

Jon-sociologist

I think you misunderstand my posting (but maybe I misunderstand yours)

I was opposing the banning of Wooter and his ilk. If people do not want to communicate/debate with them, they are perfectly able, and within their rights, to ignore them.

I prefer to try to explain my position/understanding and so , as per my post to Wooter, I have done so.

However, my past attempts have proved to be useless and I refused to enter into a private email discussion with Wooter as he asked on a different thread. I suspect he was more interested in the attention (undivided attention) that such a correspondence would give him. I also didn't want to give the amount of time it would take to type out information which has been done elsewhere and in a much clearer format - hence my suggestion that he watch the Potholer54 videos before trying to take us on! :o)

There may come a time when I would chose to ignore Wooter but others would wish to continue to engage with him. I would prefer that to be my choice than one made by people who want to shut him up.

I still have the feeling that some people who come onto this site with opinions we disagree with and little or no understanding of how evolution "works" (ok, maybe not Wooter, but others...) may learn something. I would also hope they may realise that atheists are not all horrid people who are closed-minded (to what they think are valid arguments) and rude!

Other Comments by PJG

91. Comment #133949 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 3:50 am

Comment #133934 by Richard Morgan:

Exactly!
At the end of the day, that's what it's all about, I supppose.
Feelings.

Interesting. I think such feelings play a huge part in motivation for educating oneself, as well as in valuing these achievements - self-conditioning if you will. But I also think that the knowledge of having gained a certain intellectual understanding can have a certain motivational power as well.
This seems to be a difficult subject however, since generally it is thought that only beliefs desires constitute motivation, and desires are usually conceived as purely emotional.

I wonder if it would be possible to conceive of an intellectual 'state' that can fulfill a functionally equivalent rôle in the motivation-equasion. Knowledge of intellectual acheivement with the specific, nonemotional goal to acquire more for the sole purpose of increasing one's understanding, without further need for justification.
Of course, in the 'real world' emotions will always be involved, and even play a major part - but still, I wonder if an emotional gratification is always absolutely required?

Other Comments by MPhil

92. Comment #133954 by PJG on February 27, 2008 at 4:05 am

MPhil

Are you saying there could be some sort of gratification that is neither emotional nor physical?

The fulfilment of the acquisition of knowledge is not likely to be physically gratifying (unless you take it to the physiological/chemical level of emotion). I can not think what other sort of gratification (other than emotional) would result. Unless, of course, you are suggesting some sort of "spiritual" one?

EDIT: and if that is what you mean, how would you differentiate between a "spiritual" gratification and an emotional one?

Other Comments by PJG

93. Comment #134024 by MPhil on February 27, 2008 at 6:35 am

Nah, that's not what I meant - I was thinking of something akin to a program. An 'Explaining the World' software where the mere acquisition and integration of information is enough to keep it going and looking for more, without a need for emotional gratification.

The question I was asking myself was if emotional gratification is always necessary. In us, it is most probably always present, but I don't know if that's all there is to motivation. I was wondering if intellectual achievement couldn't have some motivational power on its own.

Other Comments by MPhil

94. Comment #134108 by PJG on February 27, 2008 at 9:07 am

Ah, I was worried for a moment, I thought you were going all "spiritual" on us! :o)

That is an interesting question. I suppose knowledge has a survival value which could mean that the "quest for knowledge" could be "selected for". However, it seems unlikely that there isn't an emotional feel-good factor associated with it. After all, most things with a survival value are "encouraged" by a motivation that results in physical and/or psychological gratification. The four "fs" (fighting, fleeing, feeding and mating)all involve what we recognise as an emotional response. I would think that any "higher motivation" would be based on those. So even if there were a separate "pathway", I'm not sure how, or if, you could separate the origin of the motivation.

Other Comments by PJG

95. Comment #134273 by Mitchell Gilks on February 27, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Steve Zara, you misunderstood. I said "the past doesn't exist" which is different than saying "the past didn't exist." The past existed at one time, in the past, but in the present the past only occupies conceptual space, and ergo requires a mind to order a events into a chronological chain.

The past existed at one time, the order and patterns we see in the world accurately allow us to predict occurences and causality as well as many other principles we have conceived work, and accurately allow for conjectures, and theories. Though they are all a product of ourselves, and not the universe itself.

Say that something is a product of projection, and isn't actually a fudemental nature of things isn't the same as saying that it isn't accurate, or useful.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

96. Comment #134275 by Steve Zara on February 27, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Comment #134273 by Mitchell Gilks

The past existed at one time, in the past, but in the present the past only occupies conceptual space, and ergo requires a mind to order a events into a chronological chain.

Sorry, but I understood what you meant, and this contradicts our understanding of Relativity.

In fact, it also contradicts some interpretations of quantum theory. The transactional interpretation involves propogation of waves back and forth in time, to a past that is "still there"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

Other Comments by Steve Zara

97. Comment #134385 by Jon_Sociologist on February 27, 2008 at 5:07 pm

#133948 by PJG:

Jon-sociologist

I think you misunderstand my posting (but maybe I misunderstand yours)

I think I did misinterpret you. I thought that you were advocating that we all ignore wooter.

I agree that wooter should not be banned for things said on this thread so far. In fact I think wooter does us a great service. Needing to respond to him increases our group cohesion, and he gives us Atheists a chance to sharpen our arguments against the christian position. Other Atheists will also benefit by being able to observe the arguments in action. Keep in mind that while for many of us, wooter's arguments are old hat; some Atheists will be observing these arguments for the first time.

I do feel that I owe wooter an apology. My posts did go too far. While the attacks were by implication, rather than direct, I still attacked the person in addition to the argument. The fact that I was jumping on the bandwagon may explain, but it does not excuse my actions. Sorry wooter, for implying that you are an idiot, and a fucktard.

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

98. Comment #134552 by PJG on February 28, 2008 at 1:27 am

Jon-socialist

I think we agree entirely. I have no desire to ban people either for their opposing views or being uninformed or misinformed or for being ignorant. However, if someone is deliberately, provocatively and maliciously offensive, that is a different thing (and I don't think Wooter is any of those things).

However, he CAN be frustrating when his questions are answered or he is given easy access to the information he requires but he refuses to look and learn, but then continues to spout the same "objections" to his (lack of) understanding of the science.

There does come a point when people can decide it is a waste of time to continue the conversation... they may then ignore him (as I said, I am getting close to that point myself) but others may continue to try to get through to him.

Other Comments by PJG

99. Comment #134643 by Steve Zara on February 28, 2008 at 4:11 am

wooter:

Surely the clearest proof to someone like you that Evolutionary Theory is true is that so many companies (especially drug companies) make money because of it. Money may talk louder than text books to some people.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

100. Comment #134647 by hungarianelephant on February 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

Spot the wooter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGR0BriodkM

Other Comments by hungarianelephant