JMorris
Democratic Socialist
no.......those are still the same 2 sources he's using for his "research". the ONLY 2 sources
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Consciousness in Cavemen? A Debate.
- Thread starter mickiel
- Start date
no.......those are still the same 2 sources he's using for his "research". the ONLY 2 sources
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
If anyone had bothered to actually read his posts
It would be obvious that those are his ONLY two sources....
ha ha
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Not that there's anything wrong with that.If anyone had bothered to actually read his posts
It would be obvious that those are his ONLY two sources....
ha ha
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
no, nothign wrong with ONLY using your own mind and the bible....
unless you happen to discussing anthropology, paleontology or related subjects
of course even then its not a problem.....
I can use the movie Ernest does Christmas to discuss the Existentialist nightmare of the stranger by Camus............. but I wont actually be saying anything of merit to anyone but my own deluded self involved self.....
Although perhaps Ernest would be good for discussing Nihilism.....vis a vis the stranger....
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Ernest isn't scriptural.no, nothign wrong with ONLY using your own mind and the bible....
unless you happen to discussing anthropology, paleontology or related subjects
of course even then its not a problem.....
I can use the movie Ernest does Christmas to discuss the Existentialist nightmare of the stranger by Camus............. but I wont actually be saying anything of merit to anyone but my own deluded self involved self.....
Although perhaps Ernest would be good for discussing Nihilism.....vis a vis the stranger....
mickiel
Well-Known Member
Well some people here react as if theres something wrong with using your own mind, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Can my mind be wrong, now come on, of course it can. But I would rather deceive myself, than to allow someonelses mind to deceive me. In fact, I asked God to give me a sound mind years ago, and I asked him to unhook me from the need to look outside of myself for the truth. He answered that prayer.
I don't like depending on sources outside of myself for truth. Truth is hard to determine , but once you think you need books, people, literture, archives, and all that, your addicted to looking outside of yourself for truth, and that further comlplicates matters, what if the sources are in error? Now there are situations that you must look outside of yourself. Such as recently, I never really knew how long ago Adam was created, I still don't know. I have to look outside of myself, because my mind does not know. I will know, but just not now, so I research, because God has not downloaded that information into me.
But I know somewhat how it is when he does download things, and I have learned to trust that.
Peace.
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
so?
discussing anthropology by ONLY using the bible and your own mind is as rational as using Ernest does Christmas to discuss existentialism....
Although I am betting, as I previously said, ernest would actually reveal more about Albert Camus than the bible would about anthropology and neanderthals....
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
there's nothing wrong with your stance
unless you actually want to have a debate...
If you were havign a genteel conversation, then it would be fine
to stress that the ideas you derive from your own mind and the bible are akin to science, be it palaentology, anthropology, chemistry, physics etc...is just plain laughable....but you seem lost in your own world thinking that what you think is in some way comparable....
Being as this is a debate, people naturally mistakenly think they are debating, which may involve opinions, but it also involves factual information .....just stating this is what I think, its true, what you say is wrong because it doesnt agree with my mind or the bible...is to be blunt....pathetic. There is of course merit to seekign truth only from within, but not in a debate about cave men...unless you make it clear, you'r "facts" are not really facts at all.
I could discuss how I think smurfs actually live in my nose...and how due to this the president of Australia is a white man. But you know.....I wouldn't expect anyone to take me seriously unless I was on drugs, mentally retarded or just plain trolling the boards.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
This is why I am now asking him to produce sources for his opinion. And it's another reason I posted a link to another forum he belongs to. I think he's trolling. I think I as well as others here have posted more than enough evidence. If he does not agree then so be it. Let us now move on to something else.....
mickiel
Well-Known Member
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Did cavemen really drive around in foot-powered cars? If so, what exactly was the advantage over simply walking where you needed to go? It just seems like a lot of extra weight to drag around for no apparent purpose, other than to give the impression that you're driving an automobile.
ericoh2
******
This site is about an artifact uncovered that appears to have been used as a mathematical device dating back approx. 35000 BC. If it was indeed a mathematical device would you conclude that this person/group had consciousness by your definition?
What’s the Oldest Mathematical Artifact? (I) « The Number Warrior
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
dont be stupid...
cars are only 4000 yrs old...
caveman could not have driven foot powered cars
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
I looked it up in the bible, no mention of cavemen with cars.
God must have destroyed them when he recreated mankind.
However i asked my mind and it yes they did have cars. But they were fords and no one wanted to drive them.
-Q
God must have destroyed them when he recreated mankind.
However i asked my mind and it yes they did have cars. But they were fords and no one wanted to drive them.
-Q
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
So now that my mind has answered that question.
We should talk about dinosaur vacuum cleaners. Could they pick up bowling balls.
Once again the bible has failed me, But my mind says no, they could not pick up bowling balls as bowling balls were made of pudding back then and the dinosaur vacuum cleaner would just tear it apart.
-Q
We should talk about dinosaur vacuum cleaners. Could they pick up bowling balls.
Once again the bible has failed me, But my mind says no, they could not pick up bowling balls as bowling balls were made of pudding back then and the dinosaur vacuum cleaner would just tear it apart.
-Q
mickiel
Well-Known Member
If it was shown to be a Mathmatical device, yes, I would conclude Consciousness, understanding of Math is a sign of Consciousness. But after viewing the find, I doubt it is a mathmatical device. But if it were, I would say yes, its a sign of consciousness.
Peace.
Last edited:
monta
.
Cormorants can count, does that mean they have a higher consciousness?
Mr Cheese
Well-Known Member
dont be stupid..according to Mickiel only homosapiens have consciousness...nothign else
gah 10 hell marys for monta...for stupidity