Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
There is no golden rule. A rule doesn't have a colour.
-
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!
I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion
- Thread starter NathantheProfit
- Start date
Jumi
Well-Known Member
You like oneliners though and my reply was to you.Universal? Oh Lord, now I understand why this topic is so high traffic.A vague bunch of people arguing vaguely about vague terms.
What did i just say about semantics?
I don't think you have the capacity to understand others.
Universal? Oh Lord, now I understand why this topic is so high traffic.
It's not vague at all. Your purpose and... Efforts seem vague now that you mention it.
Can you please, read your opponents' posts and actually... Consider their merit and replying with something relevant for once? You seem to be ALL over the place here.
The golden rule is found in almost all philosophies and religions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That refers to its "value" and not its color.
And he just accused others of being vague.
Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
There is no such thing as value in philosophy.
That refers to its "value" and not its color.
Yes there is. Try to explain the meaning of the word "value" without philosophy. Go on, try it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
For some strange reason I do not believe that you are an authority on philosophy at all. Can you support either of your recent claims about philosophy?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do believe he understands less about philosophy than I do, and I had a grand total of one non-majors level philosophy class (that means dumbed down so that everyone could understand it) course at university. I am not going to put myself out there as an authority, but I can recognize another non-authority when I see one.
Well, it's not like learning it in school will actually help you in that regard. Some people just "got" it. Now, when you think about it: Science is a philosophy. So you're a philosopher no matter what. It's just... Distinct from philosophy applicable to human well-being. Well, directly.
/E: Even semantics is a form of philosophy. The most reprehensible kind in my opinion but still. Some people live for it.
Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
It was the other way around
Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
There is no authority in philosophy.
I don't think you understand what philosophy means. First we invent meaning, then we make a word for it. Not the other way around.
Semantics itself IS philosophy. Your oversimplification does not take this into account.
No, but there is such a thing as "a person not understanding it." That's you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Thanks for confirming that you know nothing of philosophy.
Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
What I meant was that your insinuation one cannot explain the word value without philosophy says something about value not philosophy
No, i asked you to try and explain it without using philosophy. You still haven't. All it does is say something about you.
In fact: Try to explain the meaning of any word without using ANY philosophy whatsoever. Go.
Shushersbedamned
Well-Known Member
It's still the other way around.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
When you just ignore what people post, why should they respond? If you have the time to get on-line, then don't give us this "I don't have the time" nonsense.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are not working from any scientific paradigm, thus you simply cannot establish in any way how "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops prior to reaching "macro-evolution". You insist on our "proofs", which we largely do supply you with by providing links and quotes, but you act so hypocritically because you can't offer any scientific "proofs" back to support your allegations.
The simple fact of the matter is that you are not working from any scientific paradigm, thus you simply cannot establish in any way how "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stops prior to reaching "macro-evolution". You insist on our "proofs", which we largely do supply you with by providing links and quotes, but you act so hypocritically because you can't offer any scientific "proofs" back to support your allegations.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
The Watchtower publications are not scientific in nature, and I've read quite a few of them over the years because we have had two JW families living right next to and across the street from us for over 40 years. These are religious publications minus even the most basic scientific evidence.
And evolution is not "stupid" since it stands to even the most basic common sense: all material things tend to change over time and genes are material things. There is not one shred of evidence to indicate that it comes to a complete stop at some point.
Explain to me how. You just keep asserting this. This is a debate forum. Not Facebook. What are you doing with these one liners with no follow up?
I gave sufficient support for my point, to such a level that this point you keep reiterating, has already been destroyed. Don't bother holding on to it if you're not prepared to defend it.