rationalskepticism.org

Jayjay4547 wrote:Rather, the destructive impact of the created human faculties of speech and symbiosis-like object relations, is now revealed. I tried to use this obviousness just to demonstrate the real significance of the distinctive enabling of our species, in the face of the origin story trope of smudgism (“just n animal”)

So, what sort of Creator has been revealed to you? If it's not also revealing some sort of grand purpose, what's the point? It would be fun if this clash of opposing viewpoints revealed something about God's Grand Plan.

Jayjay4547 wrote:Where it will lead is radically unpredictable.

”Men have knowledge of the present.
As for the future, the gods know it,
Alone and fully enlightened” (Cavafy)

NOT knowing the creative future is the human condition, distinguishing us from gods.

OK, so that answers my question. No insights into God's Grand Plan. So really, this is just a difference of opinion about whether or not evolution theory has messed up the story of human origins. Even without your concocted issue, we wouldn't really know what was going on.

Of course, i can't treat this as simply a difference of opinion, given what you're using to argue your side; you, too, treat it as more than a mere difference of opinion. You appear to believe something else is at stake, even though that is not revealed to you.Your pantomime of humility is overshadowed by your certainty that the atheists have screwed up your theist party.

Clearly, atheists only represent a different sort of relation to this Creator, but we are also a part of this creation that has been revealed to you. You'd accept the presence of an opposing viewpoint with a little more élan, if theism had any value as an ideology. That you do this by whining is part of my puzzlement at your making theism such a hard-sell.

For fuck's sake, JJ. You've given up any pretense of being anything but another run-of-the-mill theist who claims the hand of God is manifest, and then bows out, saying nothing more than, "God works in mysterious ways." You do this with more energy than most, more empty verbiage, more whining that atheism is messing up the party. At last, your diatribe is really common as dirt. The bulk of the noise you generate is your lame pantomime of 'discussing' science.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t imagine that everything I think is true, but I’m not persuaded by terms like : idiotic creationist diatribes, rant, fucking dead, masturbation, fantasy.

Well, you imply you believe some of it is true. For instance, do you believe that what you call "the distinctive enabling of our species" has some purpose, even though it's not revealed to you? If this purpose should be revealing the nature of this Creator you envision, what's our takeaway? If I call it "jerking us all off" and you call it "mysterious ways", it's just a system of opposing viewpoints. If theism is true, there's nothing for you to worry about; you're just seeing the will of God being enacted.

If theism is not true, well, you're wasting your time in a most ridiculous fashion. This is really the fun part, the classic clash of theism and atheism of a decade ago, losing all your obfuscation about "symbiotic-like relation to objects". This kind of stuff is supposed to carry the day for you. This creator of yours (you'd say ours) is subtle, but it is not malicious, to paraphrase somebody who liked to make metaphors of God using something more than word-salad such as "symbiotic-like relation to objects".

It's true, you and I are both humans, both animals. The clash of opposing viewpoints is what makes the game fun.

Jayjay4547 wrote:You are presenting an opposing viewpoint to mine, I don’t expect that to change.

So, your viewpoint is that this all is created, but so what? Just make yourself plain about whatever this reveals to you besides a viewpoint in opposition to which you find atheism. That's a tautology, JJ. Perhaps all you present is a system of opposing viewpoints. I think we knew that, already, Professor. Come on, JJ! Make this interesting. You can't do it without adding a lot of obfuscation, can you?

Jayjay4547 wrote:It doesn’t take a savant to figure that an origin story is bound to reflect and reveal the ideology of the teller.

So, would you be saying "ideology" is nothing more than an opposing viewpoint? I don't think that's all you believe about ideology, or about atheism. Do you, for example, believe atheism is responsible for anything bad, or should we stick to laying it all at the doorstep of this Creator you envision? After all, atheism is merely another aspect of the creation you envision.

I mean, really, JJ: if this is all the same old song and dance about the violation of religious belief represented by denying the God of the believer, you could speak more plainly about it.

Can we just agree that an opposing viewpoint to creationism (theism), in and of itself, is nothing particularly bad in and of itself in your view? That's ridiculous, of course.What you seem to have a problem with is merely that there is an opposing viewpoint at all. If this is not the case, please set me to rights. I know how much you love doing that.

You are re-generating this idea of "destructive potential", so I conclude it must be significant to you:

Jayjay4547 wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote: If humans are created, then their destructive potential was created. So your story has to deal with that. Why do you separate speech and tool use from every other characteristic of humans, including their over-active endocrine systems? Sometimes that just leads to being terrified, and sometimes it leads to strong pair bonding and procreation. Each is a factor in producing the destructive effects you're now obsessing about.?

I was talking about the creation of the distinctive human faculties of speech and symbiotic-like relation with objects; at one time these didn’t exist, now they do, that is creation. I don’t know about our over-active endocrine systems; I suppose endocrine levels of activity are controlled by circumstance, these systems are shared with many other species and were created a long time ago.

You call it creation. I call it evolution. Potayto, potahto, tomayto tomahto. Let's call this whole caricature off. These distinctive faculties are full of destructive potential, and if they're created, you know Who's to blame for that. Part of theism is, of course, to accept the will of the God you believe in. Really, your issue seems only to be that there is an opposing viewpoint to yours. Surely your belief in God's plan should be allowing you to accept this conflict with more equanimity.

Let's me close this with Spearthrower's unique brand of humor:

Spearthrower wrote:
Are you really trying to claim that a book from 150 years ago is meant to be considered the last word on evolutionary theory?

Oh what am I saying? You think the Bible is the last word on everything, so of course you're under this utterly foolish impression.

Jayjay4547 wrote:I don’t imagine that everything I think is true....

You don't think everything in the Bible is true. I mean, "symbiotic-like relation to objects" doesn't appear in the Bible, so, some truth was obviously not accessible to those who generated the foundational documents of your opposing viewpoint.

Jayjay4547 wrote: And that style has been followed up till today, demonstrably on this ratskep topic where every effort by me to discuss relations involving other species, is routinely ridiculed.

So, nothing wrong with opposing viewpoints, as long as they don't involve ridicule. What if your ideas are ridiculous to anyone but you? I'm not seeing any evidence that anyone but you thinks your efforts to create your own brand of creationism are not ridiculous, and that includes other theists.