Page 2 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

18 Nov 2014, 6:03 am

Quote:
What "science" disproves higher beings?


the notion of "higher" is purely subjective and has no basis in reality. just like "up" and "down" and "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" etc.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

18 Nov 2014, 7:11 am

funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Well actually since you say it was too long and you didn't read it this sounds at least a little intellectually dishonest to me.


To be honest I did read it all, it was just largely irrelevant.

aghogday wrote:
You specifically stated that humans have greater reasoning and intellectual capabilities, than the Bonobo and Bottle Nose Dolphin and I simply proved your statement incorrect per examples from modern human culture that nullify human reason and intelligence as any intelligence greater than Bonobos and Porpoises in true effect and AFFECT OF ANIMAL HOMEOSTASIS SUCCESS AS RELATIVELY COMPARED TO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS JUST HOW HIGH THE LEVELS OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND IMBALANCE PER EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE IS IN REAL LIFE.


Your examples were proof that humans behave irrationally and touchedtjat on some social concerns. They didn't in any way prove that bonobos or dolphins possess greater problem solving capabilities or superior reasoning abilities compared to humans. Being "more in touch with the world around you" =/= superior reasoning abilities.


Hmm, you just stated my examples are proof that humans behave irrational and yes they have a long HISTORY of doing that. Bonobos and bottle nose dolphins do not. I am talking about reality not potential. And simply put any animal not in touch with the world around them lives in illusion which is far away from rationality as it gets.

But anyway I do appreciate your honesty and I am not here to make the comfortable undisturbed. ;)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

18 Nov 2014, 9:23 am

Shep wrote:
The challenge
Prove, using science and science alone, that there is no ...

Science dictates that the non-existence of a thing can not be proven. Thus, it is always up to the individual asserting the existence of a thing to prove that assertion. Ever hear of "Russell's Teapot"?

Wikipedia wrote:
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872?1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

Thus, by reason alone, the fact that no one can prove that there are no alleged "Higher Beings" does not prove their existence.

Besides, if the alleged existence of a thing is indistinguishable from the alleged non-existence of a thing, then it is safe to assume that the alleged thing does not exist.

Show me a Higher Being, and I will believe. Otherwise, your belief alone is insufficient proof for your claims.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

18 Nov 2014, 9:38 am

Shep wrote:
Fascinating... two pages on and not a shred of evidence has been cited thus far...

Nor will there be. As has been stated, your trollish "argument" has been read, debated, and debunked many times before, because:

1) No one can prove non-existence of anything; and ...

2) Lack of evidence neither proves nor disproves a claim; and ...

3) The burden of proof, in its entirety, rests solely upon the person making the claim that favors existence; and ...

4) If there is no difference between the validity and the non-validity of a claim (e.g., "Higher Beings Exist"), then non-validity of the claim is the preferred assumption to make, until proven otherwise.

^THIS is Science -- QED


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

18 Nov 2014, 10:36 am

Belief in God/gods/spirits/goblins, etc. is solely an article of faith, and subjective experience.

It is fruitless to argue the existence/nonexistence of the above things.

It is fruitful to study all religions, and all philosophies, though--with an open mind.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

18 Nov 2014, 10:46 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
It is fruitful to study all religions

maybe that is why most polytheists are fruitcakes



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

18 Nov 2014, 10:59 am

Tell that to a Polytheist--to his/her face.

I'd rather be called a Lemon Meringue myself.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Nov 2014, 11:11 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyBu9TV4z5M[/youtube] :D *smiles* Religion is a thing of the past.


Religion is also a thing of the future. Some people need to believe in something greater than themselves. Some will take on a religion. Others will become zealots for some social or political cause. Some will deny the reality of death and suffering.

Religion will always have a "market"

ruveyn



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

18 Nov 2014, 11:18 am

aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Well actually since you say it was too long and you didn't read it this sounds at least a little intellectually dishonest to me.


To be honest I did read it all, it was just largely irrelevant.

aghogday wrote:
You specifically stated that humans have greater reasoning and intellectual capabilities, than the Bonobo and Bottle Nose Dolphin and I simply proved your statement incorrect per examples from modern human culture that nullify human reason and intelligence as any intelligence greater than Bonobos and Porpoises in true effect and AFFECT OF ANIMAL HOMEOSTASIS SUCCESS AS RELATIVELY COMPARED TO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS JUST HOW HIGH THE LEVELS OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND IMBALANCE PER EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE IS IN REAL LIFE.


Your examples were proof that humans behave irrationally and touched on some social concerns. They didn't in any way prove that bonobos or dolphins possess greater problem solving capabilities or superior reasoning abilities compared to humans. Being "more in touch with the world around you" =/= superior reasoning abilities.


Hmm, you just stated my examples are proof that humans behave irrational and yes they have a long HISTORY of doing that. Bonobos and bottle nose dolphins do not. I am talking about reality not potential. And simply put any animal not in touch with the world around them lives in illusion which is far away from rationality as it gets.


Acting "stupidly" vs. not acting "stupidly" isn't an indication of one's problem-solving and reasoning ability. Reasoning ability and problem-solving skills are only part of what people typically perceive as intelligence. If I was trying to argue humans are smarter your points would be much more relevant.

If we have a well-adjusted person of average intellect (IQ 100) and a maladjusted genius (IQ 147) many may argue the first person is smarter than the second. But the second one will still have the higher IQ. You're making points that refer to how much better adjusted and smart the first one is, without directly addressing the fact that I'm only discussing one specific measure of intellect.

Your premise is questionable as well, given that the same reasoning you use to define dolphins and bonobos as smarter than man can really be extended to every other lifeform on the planet.

Given that humans are the only life on earth capable of developing industrial processes to mass-produce junk food on the scale we do, the fact that many humans are malnourished by a poor diet filled with junk food is actually evidence in favour human's intellect (although it doesn't say much for our ability to foresee consequences).

It's not like other animals mass-produce healthier food, they hunt and forage because they lack the ability to conceive of agriculture, let alone everything else that makes industrial scale food production possible. If they had the option to insulate themselves from all the hardships humanity can largely insulate themselves from they would. Other animals don't avoid our junk food out of intelligently understanding all the problems with it, they mostly lack opportunities to get our food. They'll gladly eat our garbage if the opportunity presents itself.

tl;dr - Animals might be smarter depending on how we define smart. Humans still possess greater problem solving and reasoning skills.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

18 Nov 2014, 11:30 am

b9 wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
It is fruitful to study all religions

maybe that is why most polytheists are fruitcakes


As opposed to what, monotheists? Many of those have lost it as well (just check the Middle-east with all their conflicts).



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Nov 2014, 11:52 am

There are only two ways of disproving the existence of anything:

1. Show that the existence of the thing contradicts an established fact

2. Show that the existence of the thing implies a flat out logical contradiction which can never be true under any circumsteances. The law of non-contradiction holds in nature.

I can "prove" I do not have a hundred dollar bill in my wallet. I show you the contents of my walled. No hundred dollar bill there right now. You could see it for yourself.
e
I can also prove there does not exist a fraction m/n with n not = 0 and with m and n relatively prime such that
(m/n)^2 = 2. That is a mathematical proof.

if such an m/n existed the m^2 / n^2 = 2 so that m^2 = 2 * n^2. There fore m must be even since the square of an odd integer is odd. So we can write m = 2*k for some k. then m^2 = 4*k^2 = 2*n^2. Divideboth sides by 2 and we get
2*k^2 = n^2. But this implies n is even also. so m and n are both divisible by 2 which contradicts the assumption that m and n are relatively prime. Q.E.D. No such m/n exists for which (m/n)^2 = 2. Or putting in the well known way, the square toot of 2 is not a rational number.
er
This contradicts the belief of the Pythagorians that all numbers can be expressed as the ratio of integers.

For the time being, God is safe from the physical scientists since there is no empirical proof that God does not exist, and he is safe from the mathematicians because no one has proved that the existence of god lead to a contradiction, if one defines god in a not too extravagant manner, such as claiming god is omniscient, omnipotent and such like theological exaggerations.

ruveyn



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

18 Nov 2014, 11:54 am

funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
aghogday wrote:
Well actually since you say it was too long and you didn't read it this sounds at least a little intellectually dishonest to me.


To be honest I did read it all, it was just largely irrelevant.

aghogday wrote:
You specifically stated that humans have greater reasoning and intellectual capabilities, than the Bonobo and Bottle Nose Dolphin and I simply proved your statement incorrect per examples from modern human culture that nullify human reason and intelligence as any intelligence greater than Bonobos and Porpoises in true effect and AFFECT OF ANIMAL HOMEOSTASIS SUCCESS AS RELATIVELY COMPARED TO EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS JUST HOW HIGH THE LEVELS OF HUMAN SUFFERING AND IMBALANCE PER EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL INTELLIGENCE IS IN REAL LIFE.


Your examples were proof that humans behave irrationally and touched on some social concerns. They didn't in any way prove that bonobos or dolphins possess greater problem solving capabilities or superior reasoning abilities compared to humans. Being "more in touch with the world around you" =/= superior reasoning abilities.


Hmm, you just stated my examples are proof that humans behave irrational and yes they have a long HISTORY of doing that. Bonobos and bottle nose dolphins do not. I am talking about reality not potential. And simply put any animal not in touch with the world around them lives in illusion which is far away from rationality as it gets.


Acting "stupidly" vs. not acting "stupidly" isn't an indication of one's problem-solving and reasoning ability. Reasoning ability and problem-solving skills are only part of what people typically perceive as intelligence. If I was trying to argue humans are smarter your points would be much more relevant.

If we have a well-adjusted person of average intellect (IQ 100) and a maladjusted genius (IQ 147) many may argue the first person is smarter than the second. But the second one will still have the higher IQ. You're making points that refer to how much better adjusted and smart the first one is, without directly addressing the fact that I'm only discussing one specific measure of intellect.

Your premise is questionable as well, given that the same reasoning you use to define dolphins and bonobos as smarter than man can really be extended to every other lifeform on the planet.

Given that humans are the only life on earth capable of developing industrial processes to mass-produce junk food on the scale we do, the fact that many humans are malnourished by a poor diet filled with junk food is actually evidence in favour human's intellect (although it doesn't say much for our ability to foresee consequences).

It's not like other animals mass-produce healthier food, they hunt and forage because they lack the ability to conceive of agriculture, let alone everything else that makes industrial scale food production possible. If they had the option to insulate themselves from all the hardships humanity can largely insulate themselves from they would. Other animals don't avoid our junk food out of intelligently understanding all the problems with it, they mostly lack opportunities to get our food. They'll gladly eat our garbage if the opportunity presents itself.

tl;dr - Animals might be smarter depending on how we define smart. Humans still possess greater problem solving and reasoning skills.


Hmm.. this is precisely the quote I responded to and as I said before I do not respond to people I respond to opinions.

Quote:
AspE wrote:
A higher being could be just an animal that's smarter than people, and I'm pretty sure those exist somewhere.


This wouldn't fit most people's definition of a deity. Deifying an object doesn't count either, since the deified object will still lack "god-like" qualities.
Additionally, if you can name an animal with greater reasoning and intellectual capabilities than man, please do. Neither bottle-nose dolphins, bonobos nor chimpanzees qualify.


Asp E stated smarter and that is the part of the opinion I was responding to, actually, until you responded back to me.

Otherwise I would not have quoted it or responded to IT per the OVERALL SMART PART OF AspE's opinion.

OF course humans can take tests and animals can't that measure WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS STANDARD INTELLIGENCE

But never the less, they are NOT as smart when it comes to the REAL WORLD, OF SURVIVAL, the MOST IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE OF ALL.

AS EVEN a chimpanzee would RIP your face off, if you went toe to toe with him for subsistence.

Bonobos are much nicer though. And so are bottle nose dolphins, overall.

However their OVERALL INTELLIGENCE INCLUDING PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE in the wild for survival WITHOUT the teat of culture and technology FAR EXCEED HUMANS, IN THE REAL GAME OF SMART, FOR any animal that lives on this earth.

THE TRUTH is humans are functionally disabled by culture and technology.

All you have to do is put EVEN A GROUP OF humans out in the wild with no clothes, and that becomes MORE THAN APPARENT QUICK.

I've LEARNED TO un-domesticate my self, so yes, the POTENTIAL IS THERE, FOR SURE, for even human beings, but it is rare that any human accomplishes this feat of GOING BACK BEFORE THE FALL OF HUMANS TO THE TEAT OF CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, FALSE; instead of Mother NATURE TRUE, where undomesticated animals LIVE FREE WITH REAL ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE FOR SURVIVAL.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

18 Nov 2014, 12:43 pm

ruveyn wrote:
...For the time being, God is safe from the physical scientists since there is no empirical proof that God does not exist, and he is safe from the mathematicians because no one has proved that the existence of god lead to a contradiction, if one defines god in a not too extravagant manner, such as claiming god is omniscient, omnipotent and such like theological exaggerations.

ruveyn

Perhaps, but that only applies to very vague definitions of God. As soon as you say it interacts with the physical world at all, by answering prayers, or changing outcomes, or making weather or disease, then it does become something that can be legitimately studied by science. For instance, the Abrahamic god can be shown to not exist. As far as other conceptions, we can't dismiss them with absolute certainty, but they are simply unnecessary to explain anything.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,184
Location: Right over your left shoulder

18 Nov 2014, 2:11 pm

aghogday wrote:

Hmm.. this is precisely the quote I responded to and as I said before I do not respond to people I respond to opinions.

Quote:
AspE wrote:
A higher being could be just an animal that's smarter than people, and I'm pretty sure those exist somewhere.


This wouldn't fit most people's definition of a deity. Deifying an object doesn't count either, since the deified object will still lack "god-like" qualities.
Additionally, if you can name an animal with greater reasoning and intellectual capabilities than man, please do. Neither bottle-nose dolphins, bonobos nor chimpanzees qualify.


Asp E stated smarter and that is the part of the opinion I was responding to, actually, until you responded back to me.

Otherwise I would not have quoted it or responded to IT per the OVERALL SMART PART OF AspE's opinion.


Very fair.

aghogday wrote:
OF course humans can take tests and animals can't that measure WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS STANDARD INTELLIGENCE

But never the less, they are NOT as smart when it comes to the REAL WORLD, OF SURVIVAL, the MOST IMPORTANT INTELLIGENCE OF ALL.

AS EVEN a chimpanzee would RIP your face off, if you went toe to toe with him for subsistence.

Bonobos are much nicer though. And so are bottle nose dolphins, overall.

However their OVERALL INTELLIGENCE INCLUDING PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE in the wild for survival WITHOUT the teat of culture and technology FAR EXCEED HUMANS, IN THE REAL GAME OF SMART, FOR any animal that lives on this earth.


Just like every other animal, humans raise their offspring to survive facing the challenges of their reality. Operating a computer is more important to most people's day to day survival than knowing how to stalk prey. Operating a computer has higher intellectual demands than stalking prey (not to suggest that stalking prey doesn't have it's own set of intellectual demands). The fact that many animals are proficient in stalking game while most people are not doesn't indicate those animals are smarter than those people, they're just better practised in that specific skill. Humans are capable of being quite proficient at stalking game, we are after all apex predators. Even people who have no need to be proficient at stalking game and only do so recreationally are often quite capable (sport hunters).

Certainly, in the chimpanzee's environment he would be at a significant advantage to me for subsistence, but that's hardly fair. If he was dropped into my environment and had to eek out a subsistence survival he'd be at a severe disadvantage to me. I'm more likely to learn to survive in the chimp's environment than he is in mine though, after all modern humans are surviving just fine not far from there and have been throughout the entire history of our species.

When you compare the chimpanzee to someone who lives in circumstances much more comparable to his, like a human raised in a society that practises a hunter-gatherer lifestyle they're on a much more equal footing because they have more issues in common in their day-to-day existence than a chimp and a city-dwelling modern human. The people living in subsistence level living conditions are doing no worse than non-human animals living in those conditions though, so clearly humans aren't at a disadvantage when it comes to surviving in those circumstances.

aghogday wrote:
THE TRUTH is humans are functionally disabled by culture and technology.

All you have to do is put EVEN A GROUP OF humans out in the wild with no clothes, and that becomes MORE THAN APPARENT QUICK.

I've LEARNED TO un-domesticate my self, so yes, the POTENTIAL IS THERE, FOR SURE, for even human beings, but it is rare that any human accomplishes this feat of GOING BACK BEFORE THE FALL OF HUMANS TO THE TEAT OF CULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY, FALSE; instead of Mother NATURE TRUE, where undomesticated animals LIVE FREE WITH REAL ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE FOR SURVIVAL.


Domestication is effectively the survival tactic humans pursue. Our brains look for potential tools and ways to make use of them to ease our existence. We make our environment work for us.

As for a group of naked humans out in the wild, there's several of them in existence right now that are doing quite well for themselves. Humans in primitive societies are still humans after all. Humans in other societies may be lacking in the skills to survive being removed from their normal environment, but this is an issue of skills, not smarts. Most other animals also would face issues with surviving outside of their normal environment. Humans live in virtually every environment on earth. We're capable of learning a wide variety of survival skills, allowing us to adapt to a mind-boggling array of environments and social arrangements far exceeding those of any other animal to have ever inhabited this planet. That takes more than just the 'problem solving and reason' skills that I mentioned earlier. That takes smarts.


_________________
"If you stick a knife in my back 9 inches and pull it out 6 inches, there's no progress. If you pull it all the way out, that's not progress. The progress is healing the wound that the blow made... and they won't even admit the knife is there." Malcolm X
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

18 Nov 2014, 3:05 pm

^^^

Of course all of this is just my opinion, and relative to both my personal life experiences as well as direct interaction with 10's of thousands of humans in my decades long career working with the general public.

All it really takes is a walk through Wal-Mart with emotional eyes wide open, to see the level of suffering that exists even in the US among the 'common' human.

One key is human happiness per science is number one associated with social relationships that are successful with other folks in flesh and blood interaction in real life.

This takes both emotional and physical intelligence, and a computer does little to nothing to improve those instinctual and intuitive human skills.

The 20 most peaceful societies in the world as measured by science are more reflective of the primitive societies that do still exist in the world as humans are innately evolved to share and cooperate for both love and subsistence, more like the Bonobo who is evolved the same for around 150 to 200 sets of eyes like human beings.

Truly it's not the fault of human beings that they are functionally disabled in the most important aspects of any animal intelligence per emotional and physical intelligence, it is complex culture and language that is the virus, not humans per innate propensity.

Higher functioning Autism truly is representative of this overall trend in animal culture for animals that are not even able to successfully reciprocally socially communicate with other animals.

And put a Bonobo behind a computer instead of with an all loving 'tribe' of other Bonobos with comforting and touching love from the 'village' and Bonobo symptoms similar of Higher functioning Autism do most definitely occur per Scientific study as a result of a non-nurturing environment particularly in the first two years of life, whether it is a Bonobo or a human.

It's no wonder that science now shows that the causal factors of Autism may actually be greater per nurture than nature.

Although innately I had a language delay until age 4, now that I have become a relative social butterfly at age 54, IN REAL LIFE, AS EVIDENCED ON MY BLOGS, I am totally convinced that my previous diagnosis of Autism was more a result of a culture gone insane per environment than any natural propensity of mine not to able to successfully socially reciprocate communication in real life.

Working behind computers instead of working with real life flesh and blood people, was the path to horrible symptoms of Autism that I never experienced before in life, after age 4, per inability to even have motivation to speak to others in real flesh and blood life.

And now children are indoctrinated to a mechanical cognition way of life, from a very young age.

There is no doubt in my mind at least, that the cultural phenomenon of autism will keep skyrocketing up, until folks gain a little bit of common sense per nature instead of nurture.

But of course, some folks today don't even have a reference point for nature.

The primitive societies out there that still exist, most definitely do per the real advanced emotional and physical intelligences that humans innately can do, if properly challenged in the environment they live in.

And yes, when I was functionally disabled by modern cultural ways of mechanical cognition per reference point I scored a 195 on the Aspie Quiz and I score a 92 now.

I scored 44 to 45 on the AQ screening test for Autism, and I score an 11 now.

I scored in the mid 50's on the emotional intelligence test, and now score a 95.

And my personality changed from INTJ to ENFP.

So yes, per my personal experience I have objective evidence that this higher functioning autism thingy is relative to the environment one lives in, for sure, but no I cannot speak for anyone else, per his or her innate and or nurture of environment.

But let's just put it this way, I wouldn't go back 'there' for all the money in the world, and on top of that I do not need money nor does any other human that lives by innate human rules, per instinct, intuition, sharing and cooperation IN a culture that LIVES THAT WAY.

I am extremely fortunate to be financially independent in real life, as the rules of culture no longer apply to me, per control and fear, so I simply live free now, as innately and intuitively I am evolved for, as such, and in relative comparison it is simply amazing fun.

As yes, overall, animals are evolved instinctually and intuitively to play, not live in despair. There was a time when I had no idea what it meant to truly be creative and play in instinctual and intuitive ways without any cultural and technological crutches.

Now that I practice play almost continuously everyday, except for periods of time like this, when I am sick and spend time online while I'm getting over being sick, my life is bliss, simply bliss, like my cat's life, as well.

Play for me, at least, is never something that has anything to do with operating a computer. In fact for me, computers are counterproductive for instinctual and intuitive play but a challenge of dark, I do entertain from time to time, as challenge is as 'good' as play, all things considered for OVERALL 'GOOD'.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,154

18 Nov 2014, 5:06 pm

Shep wrote:
Prove, using science and science alone, that there is no higher being


This is about as ass-backwards a pretext as there can be. In the utter absence of any evidence supporting the existence of a Christian god or any other form of super natural being, this is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by the side that can never, ever prove its case to shift the burden of proof over to the other side in such a way that can never be fulfilled.

It can be laid waste to and dismissed out of hand by this simple conjecture:

If there's no evidence to even suggest that something exists, it probably does not exist
If there's no evidence to even suggest something exists, it probably exists anyway

One side supports the first statement, the other side supports the second statement. Given that the second statement is plainly ludicrous, one need not go any further.