Author Topic: Was HIV produced in a lab?  (Read 233 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Was HIV produced in a lab?
« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2018, 11:20:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
isn't the fact they believe in a sky daddy that created everything by definition a question on their level of intellect?

Why, our own forum proves that all chess players are master race, and all chess players are atheists, so ...

If a computer can play chess better than a human, maybe people should stop playing it.
שלום

Re: Was HIV produced in a lab?
« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2018, 11:21:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To your comment, "If a person burns a fire in a forest, is this natural?" I answer, it's natural (ie, not supernatural), but because of the human involved, not without intent or agency. There's a difference. This is the fine point I have to put on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login's comment.
I agree with your fine point.  A fire started by an arsonist is quite different than one started by lightening.  My only point is that neither fire is supernatural.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: Was HIV produced in a lab?
« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2018, 11:26:48 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I agree with your fine point.  A fire started by an arsonist is quite different than one started by lightening.  My only point is that neither fire is supernatural.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Baruch, if agency is to have any meaning whatsoever, you have to be able to distinguish between actions that have them vs. actions that don't. In a world where only material causes for things have ever been in evidence, and how neuroscience is increasingly showing how the human brain works and in particular how it makes choices, the guys who say that agency is an illusion and all human action is natural do kind of have a point. Yet that doesn't preclude a way of defining agency such that it does make sense in a naturalistic, materialistic world where current neuroscience holds, even if it is bizarre to our mundane understanding.

I even argue that it the apparent contradictions atheists seem to commit may be because the question is simply ill-framed to begin with: the relevant comparison is not action with agency vs. natural action, but rather action with agency vs. action without agency. The former, I think, is not a true dichotomy, whereas the latter is. It's not that anyone is lying, per se, but that the entire conversation is kind of wonky to begin with.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
To your comment, "If a person burns a fire in a forest, is this natural?" I answer, it's natural (ie, not supernatural), but because of the human involved, not without intent or agency. There's a difference. This is the fine point I have to put on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login's comment.

You are always mixing and minimizing ... ontologically.  Here I can give you a unified field theory of code/language.

We only need one letter.  Here is the language ... (yes, borrowed from Zermelo etc)

a
aa
aaa
etc ...

You can arbitrarily map that sequence to any integer series or any written language or both.  Therefore ... all numbers are "a" and all words are "a".

Or like Parmenides, who invented logic, for reductio absurdum .. have we simply identified a clear reductio and that we ourselves are absurd?

If I say all of reality is cheese (see Moon) ... there is no way to "disprove" that ... because I will cleverly re-define "cheese" to mean the same as any counter-example you come up with.  Or use any other word, and abuse it ... say "nature"?

And nature?  In false dichotomy ... all languages fail because of this.  There is no such thing as nature or super-nature or any other fake opposites.  Black and white are the same thing (in reductionism they have to be).  Monkeys engage in language using words they don't understand.  Or you can refer to a dictionary, which is a giant nest of circular definitions aka logically invalid.  So what is real?  Two monkeys entertaining each other by throwing poo.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:04:02 AM by Baruch »
שלום

Offline Cavebear

Re: Was HIV produced in a lab?
« Reply #33 on: Today at 01:35:41 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I have heard the monkey theory but it hasn't convinced me.
I am sure that lots and lots of people, too, can't be convinced by this explanation.

What the fuck! I do not feel comfortable when having sex. This is a very hard destiny for the people like me -the obssessed ones-

Well, quite frankly, with the way you would indoctrinate a child, the less often you have sex, the better the gene pool is...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk