That is an absolute riot!!!!!

"Rubber duckey, youre the one!"

I wonder how many bodies we would find if we affixed an underwater camera to all those duckies?

http://tinyurl.com/2amndg

Joe,
don't forget these too...
http://www.nbc5.com/news/5417646/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65192

Oh Jill,
That just brought a smile to my face and made me laugh. Thank you!

Hows this work? Do people donate money to get a ducky put in the water? Then all the money goes to special olympics? I have to say special olympics is awesome! I have volunteered for three years. I always have a good time helping out!

Joe, Rosie... or these

http://www.flicklife.com/47a9823a91aabf2a28a3/Car_free_falls_18_stories_into_Chicago_River.html

JM, I don't know. I had never heard of this until receiving the hopping with excitement email from my friend. I linked to info, though.

Ahhhhhh....I can't get the videos to play!

I have a friend who participates in the local special olympics. She was my "bus buddy" all throughout middle school and high school. Her mom drove the bus and she would be in the front seat and always required that I sit with her. If someone else would sit next to her she would try to push them out so I could sit with her instead.
:-)

Doug,

But your faith, (and you do have one) is secular and humanist, materialistic and void of an external truth. You aren't pretending that, you believe it.
*
There is no "external truth" as far as this stuff. Might as well stay with what is true.

Are you "pretending" this to be true or do you believe it. Because I don't. If you are saying that this "simply is true, because it is" then I would have to accuse you of subscribing to something you believe to be an external truth. Otherwise how do you explain the statement "Stay with what is true"? Don't you mean stay with what you believe to be true?

So which is it? You believe it or you believe it is an external truth and we must all believe it?

Doug,

You do pretend that your unprovable beliefs are "proven" externally, and that is not so. My beliefs/assumptions are in my opinion, and I note that and have never said otherwise. If it's physical reality or a commonly-held assumption between you and I, that is one thing, but one of us just saying something that we can't prove to the other is not "proof."

Yes you do. You believe that it is an "external truth" that in this case there is no "external truth" and you expect me to believe it too.

........

Doug,

Well, you do "put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation" just like most other religions do. You can't prove some things, though you think them (have "faith" in them). There is of course possible refutation, since they're not proven.

But that is very different from pretending...

Doug,

There are frequently recurring relationships in the universe. Tendencies of growth and decay, and it applies in human emotion, too, as expressed in the financial markets. Does this prove there was an intelligent creator? I don't think it has anything to do with it. There are some common things in the universe, that's all. What makes thunder? Early humans thought that "God did it," or that "a god did it," because they didn't understand it. Lots of us tend to put God in "the gaps.",/i>

First, we don't believe God is only in the Gaps. Just because we figure something out, doesn't mean God no longer had a hand it it...

Second, We aren't talking about "many things have hair" or "lots of things breathe oxygen"...we are talking about a natural occurrence that occurs over many, many aspects of nature that is so precise and so complicated that we are held in awe. From acorns to human faces, this mathematical equation shows up time and time again...why? How?

Doug,

It is one thing to say that we all have desires and another entirely to say that desires are the only things that drive us.
*
Then let's argue it.

I thought that's what we were doing...or maybe I was just pretending? ;)

Doug,

It's all the same thing, MK. The God of the Bible is definitely sentient. He feels things are good and bad ("He saw that it was good" etc.), he has desires, he wants stuff to happen and not happen. Sure - even going with him "creating" things, it's per his desire. And some people obviously approach it as if "God wants this or doesn't want that," etc.

Again Doug, He doesn't "feel" things are good or bad. He decides which things are good or bad. Big difference as you have oft pointed out...the difference between and internal truth and external truth. And isn't that the bone of contention right now?

Doug,

It's all the same thing, MK. The God of the Bible is definitely sentient. He feels things are good and bad ("He saw that it was good" etc.), he has desires, he wants stuff to happen and not happen. Sure - even going with him "creating" things, it's per his desire. And some people obviously approach it as if "God wants this or doesn't want that," etc.

Again Doug, He doesn't "feel" things are good or bad. He decides which things are good or bad. Big difference as you have oft pointed out...the difference between and internal truth and external truth. And isn't that the bone of contention right now?

Jill, congratulations to your friend!!

Okay- It's obvious. Doug knows everything, and anyone else who believes something Doug doesn't believe is a believer in "mumbo jumbo"...why? Because Doug says so.

Some more absolutes from Doug, who doesn't believe in Absolutes:

Doug's Recent Absolutes number 1: "It's always dishonest to pretend that our subjective belief is any kind of external proof or belief. I don't do it, but that's not true of everybody."

First of all, Doug, we don't believe in Subjective beliefs. We with honesty and integrity submit to you our knowledge of what we know to be the truth. And even if you don't believe it, calling us "pretending" when we are being honest, is very, very insulting. And why, by the way, is it always dishonest to state what you believe, since you believe that morals and beliefs are subjective in the first place? Do you now believe that there are absolute morals? It is now "wrong" to "pretend" things? Why? Prove to me that it is wrong. Because you say so doesn't count.

Doug's Recent Absolutes Number 2: There is no "external truth" as far as this stuff. Might as well stay with what is true.

What is true is always what Doug says is true because Doug says so. If there is no external truth, where are you getting this "truth" that there "is no external truth"??

Doug's Recent Absolutes Number 3:

You do pretend that your unprovable beliefs are "proven" externally, and that is not so.

Wow, Doug knows everything! He even knows whether we believe something in our own mind or not! Well, Doug, try this on for size: You do pretend that your unproven beliefs (that God does not exist, that morality is subjective, etc etc) are proven externally, and that is not so. If you are SO sure about it...prove it. Don't worry about proving the negative. Focus on the positives first. Prove that good and evil are subjective. Prove that we are pretending to believe in God. You can't. It's your opinion...and I would suppose that it's a strong emotional need that you are fulfilling by believing such.

My beliefs/assumptions are in my opinion, and I note that and have never said otherwise.

Yes you did!

If it's physical reality or a commonly-held assumption between you and I, that is one thing, but one of us just saying something that we can't prove to the other is not "proof."

Then our beliefs are equally valid as yours. And calling us "pretenders" (liars), and calling our beliefs "mumbo jumbo", is condescending and rude and it is attempting to tell us that your beliefs are MORE valid than ours, when you can't really know that if morality and beliefs are truly subjective!

That's just it, Bethany - non-religous people are not necessarily "uncomfortable," nor without hope, nor feeling worthless, nor nothing more than animals, etc.

Where is their hope? Where is their worth? You say worth is determined by the number of people who value a person. I say they are valuable regardless. Where do atheists believe they worth more than animals? Each and every one of you believes that we are on the same plane as animals, that "putting us to sleep" would be an act of mercy, just as it is to an animal. That we can just kill our children in the womb (and in your case, out of the womb and beyond, if there are enough people to support it) and there is no problem. I want to know where you derive your hope, joy, peace, etc. Where is your solid foundation for these things, when you are as worthless as others say you are?

Doug's recent absolutes number 4: It's not my imagination that there is no proof of your religious beliefs as anything beyond imaginary.

Prove that! How do you know everything in your entire life isn't imaginary? How do you know we're not all part of a large dream?
And by the way, if it's not your imagination, you are contradicting yourself, because you say that all beliefs and morals come straight from sentient minds, and your imagination comes from your sentient mind. Which means that anything that you believe or imagine is your imagination. Your beliefs that there is no evidence or proof of our God doesn't mean there is no proof, simply that you haven't found it for yourself!
How about this one Doug, I don't believe in a Heliocentric universe. I believe in a Geocentric universe. I bet you'll have a problem with that. But until you can prove to ME beyond a shadow of a doubt that one exists (oh and you can send me all the mathematical formulas you want...they wont prove a thing to me), then I'll have to say that you pretend to think that a heliocentric universe exists.

It's not my imagination that some people believe as you do, and that some people do not.

Differing beliefs among people does not prove there is no absolute moral system! You say this as though it has some significance to us.

What have I actually tried to convince you of, that I cannot prove?

That we are liars, pretenders, and only imagine to believe things where you somehow have an internal/external force proving to you that Duog is right no matter what.

I've never said "there is no God," etc. Last night we at least approached common ground on moral thoughts - be they of people of or God, etc.

Yes, you have. When you tell us that we are pretending to believe in a God, and when you tell us that what we believe is "mumbo jumbo", you are being honest about how you feel. You believe there is no God, and you have said it here many times in your own way.

You can't prove there is one, and I can't prove there's not.

Then are our beliefs equal, Doug? Are my beliefs about God exactly as valid as your beliefs about evolution?

Beyond that, you actually can't prove there is anything beyond your mind. What if you "woke up" in what you now conceive of as the future, and found that your whole life to this point was akin to a "dream," and that reality is much different?

What if you did, Doug? And what if it was God's dream, this life was a test, and you had rejected Him? What exactly is your point by this question?

Here is my thesis: "Short of physical compulsion otherwise, people do what they want the most, or what they have the least distaste for, among their available choices." I think that covers it all. What do you think?

I completely disagree. Some people spend their lives doing things they don't necessarily want to do, for the greater good.

No, for about the 18 crillionth time - realizing that there is no proof of something is not the same thing as saying it does not exist or cannot exist.

It must be, because I have heard you say that God doesn't exist in many different ways here already.
You have insulted us by claiming our beliefs are inferior to yours because you assume you, and you alone, hold all the truths to be held in the universe.

I wrote: They believe in a deity. Why can't you at least start there?

Doug replied: Who says I haven't started there? I realize that. That's not at issue (although I'm glad you said "most" heh heh heh).

Actually, that is exactly what is at issue, Doug.

My point remains there has to be "somebody" to think of it, even if it would be a god, etc. "No mind" would eliminate all mental awareness, even of gods, etc.

It wouldn't eliminate God though. Just as if I die, the dying wouldn't eliminate my kids...it would only eliminate my ability to see or hear them in my mortal body.

Okay, MK - that you think this is a given.

Another condescending insult.

Okay Doug, you think and pretend that morality being subjective is a given.

No, I am like the person who hears the tree and sees if fall because a beaver had gnawed through the bottom. There are other people who would think "God did it."

Another insult. "Doug knows more than those stupid God believers."

Wrong again. There is certainly good and evil. They are conceptions in the minds of people (whether religious or not). You can't prove there is anything supernatural in the deal, but you know darn well that people think about good and evil.

Prove it. Prove that these exist only in the mind. You can't.

You are comparing a thing with physical reality - the tree - with your unprovable belief. Not the same deal.

The majority of the world disagrees with you, Doug. So by your idea of subjective morality and beliefs, you're wrong simply because you're outnumbered.

Prove that you deserve to live, Doug. Not that you have a right to it protected by the constitution, but that you deserve to live just because you have the capacity want to. Prove that your feelings and self awareness make you worth living.

doug's recent absolutes number 5: I do understand, I just don't have the emotional need to believe in mumbo-jumbo, to be blunt about it.

Insult after insult.

No, I am like the person who hears the tree and sees if fall because a beaver had gnawed through the bottom. There are other people who would think "God did it."

And how can you prove that God didn't tell the beaver to chew through that tree and make it fall down?

Marykay, great minds think alike! I just read your posts and we made some of the same points! :P

I thought that's what we were doing...or maybe I was just pretending? ;)

Doug, prove that evolution happened. All of it is theory, none of it is proven...yet you believe in it. Maybe you're just pretending. Oh you have evidence you say? Well, that's not good enough. I want tangible proof. I want to see where you were in the beginning of the world, and when you actually did tests and experiments to compare what the world was like back then, and what it is like today. I want proof, Doug...show me PROOF that evolution is a FACT.

Yes you do. You believe that it is an "external truth" that in this case there is no "external truth" and you expect me to believe it too.

Exactly!
If he really believed that what he believes is subjective, then he would simply agree to disagree.

Doug,

It's all the same thing, MK. The God of the Bible is definitely sentient. He feels things are good and bad ("He saw that it was good" etc.), he has desires, he wants stuff to happen and not happen. Sure - even going with him "creating" things, it's per his desire. And some people obviously approach it as if "God wants this or doesn't want that," etc.

Again Doug, He doesn't "feel" things are good or bad. He decides which things are good or bad. Big difference as you have oft pointed out...the difference between and internal truth and external truth. And isn't that the bone of contention right now?

Bethany,

He wants us to agree to the premise that everything we do is from an internal desire. Then he wants to argue that different desires have different valuations. Then he will tell us that the desire for personal reproductive freedom is a stronger desire than the desire of an unborn "fetus" to live. Because an unborn fetus doesn't have any desires.

What he's not getting is that we don't accept the premise. While we might agree that desire plays a role (and further assert that "desires gone mad" are what got us into this (abortion) situation to begin with) we DO NOT subscribe to the notion that ONLY desire drives what we do. We believe in an external force.

Then he argues that that external force exists only in our imagination, and comes from a desire, and we can't prove it.

Then we tell him he can't prove his and he says he doesn't have to because his point isn't that one of us is right or one of us is wrong, but that both of us are acting on desires...

Talk about circular.

The problem is we both know exactly what he is saying but do not agree with his premise, which he keeps "pretending" is a given and a proven...

It makes me exhausted...

Shall we go another round?

Mk, you hit the nail on the head! And it is VERY exhausting...

Hi MK and Bethany,

over and over it seems Doug emphasizes our weak arguments and totally rejects or doesn't even comment about the strongest of these points ... or, he finds an interpretation of what we have written that was never (in our wildest imaginings) thought as part of the picture. [There is little doubt that we approach much of what Doug says, this same way (he thinks).]

Its very much like: 'Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Often this image is used to say 'we're-talkng-about-the-same-thing" ... we are not, but we are coming at something immense from divergent perspectives [something like the 11-blind-sages describing an elephant].

There are 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' life ... not 1 but 4. It is as if there is a bit of freedom (or uniqueness) to any relationship with God.

God is who He is. (From experience) the more I experience me & my is-ness, is in living out His being (His is-ness). St. Thomas had his take on living that way. Doug has a problem here.

An example - if a chimp was given a typewriter ... how long would it take generations of chimps to (permutations and combinations = evolution to type out one sentence about anything at all?

- why the creator is/(has to be) sentient ... silly, eh?

Its very much like: 'Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Often this image is used to say 'we're-talkng-about-the-same-thing" ... we are not, but we are coming at something immense from divergent perspectives [something like the 11-blind-sages describing an elephant].

John, I think that is an excellent way of looking at this. I have noticed many times Doug assumes we agree with him on something when really we are disagreeing.

Simply the fact that we acknowledge that man has desires is not acknowledging that desires are the basis of morality, but he seems to think it is.

John,

I love when you chime in...you get the heart of everything...

Let's say that for the sake of argument we were to "pretend" to agree with Doug, that everything comes from our desires...then we would argue to the point of no return on which desire is greatest...okay, whatever.

But what if he "pretended" for the sake of argument that we were right, that there was an absolute moral truth, that it came from God, that it is God...I wonder how far he'd get in proving that abortion is morally correct.

I mean take the example of the deaf person standing under a tree. Would the deaf person still be crushed, even if he couldn't perceive the sound of the tree falling.

Doug's response was that the two aren't comparable because a tree is a physical thing.

Well a human life is a physical thing and the "idea" of whether or not we have a right to kill it is a non-physical thing. The tree is a physical thing, but the "idea" that the deaf person will still be killed by it, regardless of how he/she perceived it is a non-physical thing.

You're right, when we "stump" him, he resorts to snappy retorts, but doesn't actually address the question...

what to do, what to do...

Exactly Bethany,

He wants us to agree to his premise, but he refuses to agree with ours. Why? Because we are pretending, but he "knows" the truth...

I do love Chi Town. My son did pretty well at the last Chicago Marathon. The plastic duck race is cute. Stupid but cute.

MK; But your faith, (and you do have one) is secular and humanist, materialistic and void of an external truth. You aren't pretending that, you believe it.

Since there's no evidence of that type of "external truth," what of it? Yes, I make unprovable assumptions, as do we all, and as I've said many times. The difference is that I don't pretend it is "external."

.........

"There is no "external truth" as far as this stuff. Might as well stay with what is true."

Are you "pretending" this to be true or do you believe it. Because I don't. If you are saying that this "simply is true, because it is" then I would have to accuse you of subscribing to something you believe to be an external truth. Otherwise how do you explain the statement "Stay with what is true"? Don't you mean stay with what you believe to be true?

I am saying that physical reality, which is indeed external to us, isn't at argument. Neither are things that you and I, if it's we two who are arguing, agree upon. If we both make the same assumptions, then we can go from there. There is that which is true for both of us, or for all people - and about that there really isn't much debate.

........

So which is it? You believe it or you believe it is an external truth and we must all believe it?

I was saying that "because I say so," is not proof. Valuation/morality/desire is in the eye of the beholder (even if we hypothesize the existence of gods, etc.) If I make a factual error about physical reality, go ahead and argue with me about it - most times that can be resolved. If you and I both accept certain unprovable premises, then we can also logically go from there, to a point, anyway. Tapping into "God's morality" is not proof, though - you could claim anything by that. When you make an unproven assertion, then the burden of proof is on you.

Doug

"You do pretend that your unprovable beliefs are "proven" externally, and that is not so. My beliefs/assumptions are in my opinion, and I note that and have never said otherwise. If it's physical reality or a commonly-held assumption between you and I, that is one thing, but one of us just saying something that we can't prove to the other is not "proof."

MK: Yes you do. You believe that it is an "external truth" that in this case there is no "external truth" and you expect me to believe it too.

If you can prove it, okay, but you can't. I freely admit that I make unprovable assumptions about the abortion issue, and have subjective emotions, desires, and valuations. You pretend yours are not subjective. If you want to say that there is external morality, then the burden of proof is on you. Since we don't have that, to say it's unproven is true. That is not saying that it's impossible that there are gods, etc., or other "higher" beings. The fact remains that no proof is no proof.

Doug

"It's all the same thing, MK. The God of the Bible is definitely sentient. He feels things are good and bad ("He saw that it was good" etc.), he has desires, he wants stuff to happen and not happen. Sure - even going with him "creating" things, it's per his desire. And some people obviously approach it as if "God wants this or doesn't want that," etc."

MK: Again Doug, He doesn't "feel" things are good or bad. He decides which things are good or bad. Big difference as you have oft pointed out...the difference between and internal truth and external truth. And isn't that the bone of contention right now?

What real difference do you see? Isn't the biblical God deciding by what he desires and what he does not desire?

"Well, you do "put forward, of a guess, in spite of possible refutation" just like most other religions do. You can't prove some things, though you think them (have "faith" in them). There is of course possible refutation, since they're not proven."

MK: But that is very different from pretending...

No, that was right from the definitons you posted.

"There are frequently recurring relationships in the universe. Tendencies of growth and decay, and it applies in human emotion, too, as expressed in the financial markets. Does this prove there was an intelligent creator? I don't think it has anything to do with it. There are some common things in the universe, that's all. What makes thunder? Early humans thought that "God did it," or that "a god did it," because they didn't understand it. Lots of us tend to put God in "the gaps."

MK: First, we don't believe God is only in the Gaps.

I realize that, but "God" is still put in many such a gap.

........

Just because we figure something out, doesn't mean God no longer had a hand it it...

Possibly, but many times there comes a rational, logical scientific explanation, while all along there was no proof of supernatural stuff going on.

........

Second, We aren't talking about "many things have hair" or "lots of things breathe oxygen"...we are talking about a natural occurrence that occurs over many, many aspects of nature that is so precise and so complicated that we are held in awe. From acorns to human faces, this mathematical equation shows up time and time again...why? How?

Because from our observations there is commonality in our universe, in many things.

Doug

MK: Okay- It's obvious. Doug knows everything, and anyone else who believes something Doug doesn't believe is a believer in "mumbo jumbo"...why? Because Doug says so.

Baloney, MK.

Actually Doug,

I didn't say this, Bethany did...but I don't disagree.

MK: Okay- It's obvious. Doug knows everything, and anyone else who believes something Doug doesn't believe is a believer in "mumbo jumbo"...why? Because Doug says so.

Because from our observations there is commonality in our universe, in many things.

Doug, that doesn't explain why it occurs...only explains that we are able to observe it.

"Because from our observations there is commonality in our universe, in many things."

Bethany: Doug, that doesn't explain why it occurs...only explains that we are able to observe it.

Well, matter, energy, etc., seem to be pretty constant, and if all spacetime was once "compressed" in a singularity before the "Big Bang," then everything being rather homogenous in many ways would make sense, IMO, because it all was once together.

I like physics and cosmology but I'm not much of a physicist and haven't kept up to date with it.

Correct me if I'm wrong - seems to me that you see it, and can't explain that "why" you mentioned, and so you say that God must have done it.

Doug

MK: Let's say that for the sake of argument we were to "pretend" to agree with Doug, that everything comes from our desires...then we would argue to the point of no return on which desire is greatest...okay, whatever.

It's not "everything." It's everything in the moral realm, MK. There needn't be any "greatest." If there is sufficient opinion for a law, it will be, and if not then not. That's true regardless of whether people approach the argument with religious faith or not.

.......

But what if he "pretended" for the sake of argument that we were right, that there was an absolute moral truth, that it came from God, that it is God...I wonder how far he'd get in proving that abortion is morally correct.

The thing then would be proving what God wants. Or, said another way, the argument would be just what God's absolute truth was.

........

I mean take the example of the deaf person standing under a tree. Would the deaf person still be crushed, even if he couldn't perceive the sound of the tree falling. Doug's response was that the two aren't comparable because a tree is a physical thing. Well a human life is a physical thing and the "idea" of whether or not we have a right to kill it is a non-physical thing. The tree is a physical thing, but the "idea" that the deaf person will still be killed by it, regardless of how he/she perceived it is a non-physical thing.

Good grief - I've told you 20 times or more that the physical reality in the argument is not really at issue. Yes, ideas are different physically-manifested things, and you've never gotten any argument from me on that.

........

You're right, when we "stump" him, he resorts to snappy retorts, but doesn't actually address the question...

Preaching to the choir.

Doug

Simply the fact that we acknowledge that man has desires is not acknowledging that desires are the basis of morality, but he seems to think it is.

Bethany, it is all the same thing. Even for your faith-based moral thoughts, doesn't God want some things and not want others? Wouldn't you say that God is against abortion, and that "he" is for pregnancies being continued?

Doug

John: over and over it seems Doug emphasizes our weak arguments and totally rejects or doesn't even comment about the strongest of these points ... or, he finds an interpretation of what we have written that was never (in our wildest imaginings) thought as part of the picture. [There is little doubt that we approach much of what Doug says, this same way (he thinks).]

John, I am trying to reply to all the posts I haven't yet gotten to. If you see me not commenting on the strongest of your points - call me on it. Please - copy what was said, and then say, "Doug, what about this?"

I realize that our interpretations may be different. We approach some things differently, so that's going to happen. I do try to cover all the bases, and realize that since we have different unprovable assumptions, there isn't going to be any total agreement.

Doug

MK: He wants us to agree to the premise that everything we do is from an internal desire. Then he wants to argue that different desires have different valuations. Then he will tell us that the desire for personal reproductive freedom is a stronger desire than the desire of an unborn "fetus" to live. Because an unborn fetus doesn't have any desires. What he's not getting is that we don't accept the premise. While we might agree that desire plays a role (and further assert that "desires gone mad" are what got us into this (abortion) situation to begin with) we DO NOT subscribe to the notion that ONLY desire drives what we do. We believe in an external force. Then he argues that that external force exists only in our imagination, and comes from a desire, and we can't prove it.

That's pretty good, MK. Bottom line, though - this is all our desire in this argument. Even if you say it comes from God on your part, you are still the one here saying things, and you are the one who wants abortion to be pretty much illegal. It is fact that different people want different things in the abortion debate. That is fact; that is something which is true for all of us.

........

Then we tell him he can't prove his and he says he doesn't have to because his point isn't that one of us is right or one of us is wrong, but that both of us are acting on desires...Talk about circular.

You have considerable skill at misstating the argument. I don't think I have to prove what I said above - that the abortion argument is people with differing desires, regardless of what they impute or attribute it to. If it were put to a vot today, people are going to vote one way or another on the basis of what they want.

........

The problem is we both know exactly what he is saying but do not agree with his premise, which he keeps "pretending" is a given and a proven... It makes me exhausted...

Then why not reply directly to what I have said, rather than spinning the argument as above. Whatever the causes - faith, etc., - this argument is about what people think. And there are obviously different takes on it, again, regardless of any claimed source. My premise is that you want certain things, same as everybody else in the argument.. You think it's due to what you know from God. Okay, but your desire and thoughts are still at work. For various reasons you want abortion to be less frequent, further restricted or banned. Do I really have to "prove" that?

Doug

It's all the same thing, MK. The God of the Bible is definitely sentient. He feels things are good and bad ("He saw that it was good" etc.), he has desires, he wants stuff to happen and not happen. Sure - even going with him "creating" things, it's per his desire. And some people obviously approach it as if "God wants this or doesn't want that," etc.

MK: Again Doug, He doesn't "feel" things are good or bad. He decides which things are good or bad. Big difference as you have oft pointed out...the difference between and internal truth and external truth. And isn't that the bone of contention right now?

How does he decide what's good and bad, then?

Doug

Doug, prove that evolution happened. All of it is theory, none of it is proven...yet you believe in it. Maybe you're just pretending. Oh you have evidence you say? Well, that's not good enough. I want tangible proof. I want to see where you were in the beginning of the world, and when you actually did tests and experiments to compare what the world was like back then, and what it is like today. I want proof, Doug...show me PROOF that evolution is a FACT.

Bethany,

Evolution is a fact - there is overwhelming historical proof of it. This is not to say we know everything about it. The theory of evolution is ideas about the mechanisms involved. That things evolve isn't really in doubt among peer-reviewed scientists, but how it works is still often argued, hypothesized, and theorized.

Do you believe in gravity? Well, there are theories of gravity, too, and in the last century Newton's theory of gravity gave way to Einstein's.

Doug

"No, I am like the person who hears the tree and sees if fall because a beaver had gnawed through the bottom. There are other people who would think "God did it.""

Bethany: And how can you prove that God didn't tell the beaver to chew through that tree and make it fall down?

That's not an argument. I've never said I could. What sense would that make? Can you prove that Santa Claus didn't tell the beaver to do it?

Doug

MK: How about this one Doug, I don't believe in a Heliocentric universe. I believe in a Geocentric universe. I bet you'll have a problem with that. But until you can prove to ME beyond a shadow of a doubt that one exists (oh and you can send me all the mathematical formulas you want...they wont prove a thing to me), then I'll have to say that you pretend to think that a heliocentric universe exists.

Holy Crow, MK..... This one deserves it's own post.

Yes, I have a problem with geocentricism. Do I want to bother proving it wrong to you? No.

As for the heliocentric universe, I have just as big a problem with it. It's also incorrect. If you are being serious here (I do wonder..), then fine and dandy, but consider yourself telling a woman not to have an abortion because you believe in a geocentric universe or heliocentric universe.... What's she going to say to that? Probably something like, "You're crazy." Or at the very least that your beliefs don't necessarily mean diddly to her. So it is also with your morality.

Doug

"Here is my thesis: "Short of physical compulsion otherwise, people do what they want the most, or what they have the least distaste for, among their available choices." I think that covers it all. What do you think?"

MK: I completely disagree. Some people spend their lives doing things they don't necessarily want to do, for the greater good.

Nope - that's still what they want to do the most, feed the poor or whatever, etc. If they had some greater desire, they wouldn 't do it.

Doug

Oops, Sorry MK and Bethany - those last two replies should have been to Bethany, not MK.

:: smacking self upside the head ::

Bethany: Doug's Recent Absolutes number 1: "It's always dishonest to pretend that our subjective belief is any kind of external proof or belief. I don't do it, but that's not true of everybody." First of all, Doug, we don't believe in Subjective beliefs. We with honesty and integrity submit to you our knowledge of what we know to be the truth. And even if you don't believe it, calling us "pretending" when we are being honest, is very, very insulting. And why, by the way, is it always dishonest to state what you believe, since you believe that morals and beliefs are subjective in the first place? Do you now believe that there are absolute morals? It is now "wrong" to "pretend" things? Why? Prove to me that it is wrong. Because you say so doesn't count.

Yes, you do believe in subjective beliefs. Had you been brought up in a different religion, you could well believe in different ones, and be just as sure you are correct. I am not trying to be insulting, but you saying so is not proof. Not all beliefs are necessarily subjective - if one believes that consciousness exists, how can that be argued with? In effect, you are saying to a pregnant woman, "God says that ending the pregnancy is wrong." You could as well say to a woman with a wanted pregnancy, "God wants you to end the pregnancy." The women are free to believe you or not - if there is a burden of proof here, it's on you.

........

Doug's Recent Absolutes Number 2: There is no "external truth" as far as this stuff. Might as well stay with what is true. What is true is always what Doug says is true because Doug says so. If there is no external truth, where are you getting this "truth" that there "is no external truth"??

We are talking about the moral realm. In lieu of any demonstrable proof of the supernatural things you believe in, perhaps I should say, "There is not proof of external morality." Meanwhile it is fact that different people have different desires with respect to given pregnancies and with respect to the abortion debate itself.

........

Doug's Recent Absolutes Number 3:

You do pretend that your unprovable beliefs are "proven" externally, and that is not so.

Wow, Doug knows everything! He even knows whether we believe something in our own mind or not! Well, Doug, try this on for size: You do pretend that your unproven beliefs (that God does not exist, that morality is subjective, etc etc) are proven externally, and that is not so. If you are SO sure about it...prove it. Don't worry about proving the negative. Focus on the positives first. Prove that good and evil are subjective. Prove that we are pretending to believe in God. You can't. It's your opinion...and I would suppose that it's a strong emotional need that you are fulfilling by believing such.

Again, why not reply to what I have actually said about it. I have never stated that a god does not exist. You say not to worry about proving the negative but you've already misstated my position. I also did not say you are "pretending to believe in God." I believe that you do. That's one of those things that isn't at issue, and as I've said, if it's a matter of physical reality or if we agree on a thing or make the same assumptions, then we can go from there. On good and evil - my point is that they are perceptions of sentient minds. Even if we are talking about "higher" beings than us earthly humans, if they exist, they too may have their perceptions about good and evil. Correct me if I'm wrong - I know the terminology has been a problem here - you believe that God says what is good and evil, that he decides what is good and evil. Then he has his perceptions about them. If we assume the existence of God, then that morality is relative to him. As I've said al along - it's in the eye of the beholder, and so too in this case, even if it's God's "eye."

........

Doug's recent absolutes number 4: It's not my imagination that there is no proof of your religious beliefs as anything beyond imaginary.

Prove that!

It is fact that you imagine some things, but you cannot prove them to be anything beyond imaginary. And the same for other religions around the world. Yes, they believe things but there is no real "proving" these things which by definition are matters of "faith." If one has the same "faith" then one will agree, but in no way is that proof. Consider the differences between your Christianity and Muslims. Can they "prove" to you that they're right? Can you "prove" to them that you are? No. You both imagine things, but this isn't a matter of "proving."

........

How do you know everything in your entire life isn't imaginary?

We've talked about this before. I'm usually the one who brings it it. I can't, but I make assumptions, one of which is that there are these other consciousnesses out there, you included. If that's right, then you make the same assumption, and as I've said, it's where the assumptions diverge that the arguing begins.

........

And by the way, if it's not your imagination, you are contradicting yourself, because you say that all beliefs and morals come straight from sentient minds, and your imagination comes from your sentient mind. Which means that anything that you believe or imagine is your imagination. Your beliefs that there is no evidence or proof of our God doesn't mean there is no proof, simply that you haven't found it for yourself!

Well, I didn't state it wasn't my imagination. I also do not say there is no proof of God. Heck, maybe there is, somewhere "out there" in time or space. And maybe there's proof of Allah, for the Muslims. Maybe there's proof which would make you rethink your beliefs. Same ol' deal about proving the negative - for now we don't know but we can't say it's impossible.

........

"You can't prove there is one, and I can't prove there's not."

Then are our beliefs equal, Doug? Are my beliefs about God exactly as valid as your beliefs about evolution?

No, our beliefs are not equal. You are stating something which is unproven, i.e. "there is God." I am not saying there is or there isn't. I don't know and freely admit it. As for evolution, the origin of life on this planet is a good question. As far as common descent, though, the historical evidence for evolution is massive. I can agree to disagree with you on this one.

........

No, for about the 18 crillionth time - realizing that there is no proof of something is not the same thing as saying it does not exist or cannot exist."

It must be, because I have heard you say that God doesn't exist in many different ways here already

You are making that up. Again, why not copy what I have actually said? I realize there is no proof of the negative.

........

You have insulted us by claiming our beliefs are inferior to yours because you assume you, and you alone, hold all the truths to be held in the universe.

When have I said "inferior" or the like? I do not think I have. Your "hold all the truths" is silly, but again - in this argument it's good to stick with what is true for all of us, first of all, and include the assumptions we all make. Once we get to where our assumptions diverge, that's where the debate begins.

........

"No, I am like the person who hears the tree and sees it fall because a beaver had gnawed through the bottom. There are other people who would think "God did it."

Another insult. "Doug knows more than those stupid God believers."

Nope, not what I meant. I did not mean to be insulting. The point is that "magic" for an answer, rather than admitting a physical cause, or admitting that one does not know, isn't a good one. Same for early humans and the "god of thunder," etc.

........

Wrong again. There is certainly good and evil. They are conceptions in the minds of people (whether religious or not). You can't prove there is anything supernatural in the deal, but you know darn well that people think about good and evil.

Prove it. Prove that these exist only in the mind. You can't.

As before, they are perceptions in the mind. Beyond the mind, they do not exist. Even if assuming a god, without the god having a perception about good and evil, and without any other mind having the perceptions, then the idea would not exist. "Somebody" has to have the idea in the first place.

........

You are comparing a thing with physical reality - the tree - with your unprovable belief. Not the same deal.

The majority of the world disagrees with you, Doug. So by your idea of subjective morality and beliefs, you're wrong simply because you're outnumbered.

No, the majority of the world does not disagree with me about the difference between physical reality and "faith."

........

Prove that you deserve to live, Doug. Not that you have a right to it protected by the constitution, but that you deserve to live just because you have the capacity want to. Prove that your feelings and self awareness make you worth living.

There is no such proof. There is the desire to live, sure.

........

doug's recent absolutes number 5: I do understand, I just don't have the emotional need to believe in mumbo-jumbo, to be blunt about it. Insult after insult.

The least you could do is present it in context. I can go back and get any number of "insults" and falsehoods and misstatements of my position, etc. If "mumbo-jumbo" made you feel bad, then I apologize. I will try to avoid using that one.

Doug