Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

So, what's the difference then? Seems to me (if we believe the worldview of the atheist/materialist) that mechanisms are mechanisms are mechanisms.

Machines made from biological cells are machines and machines made from transistors are machines - are you arguing here that there are two distinct kinds of machines? if so please explain, I'm interested.

Biological, and mechanical.

And biological machines and mechanical machines are all made from atoms and molecules which always follow the laws of nature I think you'll find, so no difference really other than how we might choose to classify things.

As our technology advances, we will eventually have to deal with the issue of how we wish to consider our robots, androids, and other such.

So first you claim there's a difference, then say that right now you have no idea what difference is and have faith that in the future we will know! Basically you have no idea what the difference is.

What do we do then, ask the Christians what their God says about em? How can we trust the Christian to know what their God would have us do?

I have no idea, I thought we were discussing machinery, are you seeking to change the subject?

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Your answer doesn't seem to fit the question, a bit like me saying humans aren't animals, such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

For the here and now, I don't see an issue, but as above, we'll eventually have to sort it out.

And for the here and I now I still don't see an answer to my question, why reply to a question if you aren't willing to answer it?

[JoeyKnothead]

As our technology advances, we will eventually have to deal with the issue of how we wish to consider our robots, androids, and other such.

So first you claim there's a difference, then say that right now you have no idea what difference is and have faith that in the future we will know! Basically you have no idea what the difference is.

That's a fair assessment. What I'm getting at is a future where the question of "robot's rights" is apt to crop up.

So yeah, I don't think we're there yet - though it might do us well to set in on the question now (as you have).

What do we do then, ask the Christians what their God says about em? How can we trust the Christian to know what their God would have us do?

I have no idea, I thought we were discussing machinery, are you seeking to change the subject?

I consider my comments pertinent to the site, and the subforoom.

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Your answer doesn't seem to fit the question, a bit like me saying humans aren't animals, such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

For the here and now, I don't see an issue, but as above, we'll eventually have to sort it out.

And for the here and I now I still don't see an answer to my question, why reply to a question if you aren't willing to answer it?

I don't try to duck and dodge anything. If my comments're unsatisfactory for ya, it's not by design.

I think, at least for now, the analogy of humans / robots is weak, to useless. Of course, as above, it's becoming more likely the analogy'll be apt.

I ask again...

Should a woman be allowed to molest her kids?

[Inquirer]

As our technology advances, we will eventually have to deal with the issue of how we wish to consider our robots, androids, and other such.

So first you claim there's a difference, then say that right now you have no idea what difference is and have faith that in the future we will know! Basically you have no idea what the difference is.

That's a fair assessment. What I'm getting at is a future where the question of "robot's rights" is apt to crop up.

So yeah, I don't think we're there yet - though it might do us well to set in on the question now (as you have).

What do we do then, ask the Christians what their God says about em? How can we trust the Christian to know what their God would have us do?

I have no idea, I thought we were discussing machinery, are you seeking to change the subject?

I consider my comments pertinent to the site, and the subforoom.

Humans, least most of em, ain't robots. Such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

Your answer doesn't seem to fit the question, a bit like me saying humans aren't animals, such is the problem of arguments from analogies.

For the here and now, I don't see an issue, but as above, we'll eventually have to sort it out.

And for the here and I now I still don't see an answer to my question, why reply to a question if you aren't willing to answer it?

I don't try to duck and dodge anything. If my comments're unsatisfactory for ya, it's not by design.

I think, at least for now, the analogy of humans / robots is weak, to useless. Of course, as above, it's becoming more likely the analogy'll be apt.

I ask again...

Should a woman be allowed to molest her kids?

I don't think we should allow that, of course we can't stop it only react to it if and when we discover it. I take that view not based on science though.

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #48]

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will?

According to some arguments from Christians, they believe that the God gave humans free will, which allowed them to be more that simply robots.
Would a robot you might construct and program, be given free will? And if so [assuming you would know how to achieve this] would you not be giving said robot the right to resist your own will?

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #48]

Does a robot that I might construct and program, have any right to resist my will?

According to some arguments from Christians, they believe that the God gave humans free will, which allowed them to be more that simply robots.
Would a robot you might construct and program, be given free will? And if so [assuming you would know how to achieve this] would you not be giving said robot the right to resist your own will?

Can the maker not do as he pleases with what he has made?

If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?

The robot would have no more no less than we do, it is subject to the same laws of nature, my questions are directed at the materialists here, those who believe we are the result of naturalistic forces.

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

The robot would have no more no less than we do, it is subject to the same laws of nature,

How does this answer my question "If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?" since there are no known laws of nature preventing or compelling anyone to act in any particular way re the question?

[JoeyKnothead]

I ask again...

Should a woman be allowed to molest her kids?

I don't think we should allow that, of course we can't stop it only react to it if and when we discover it. I take that view not based on science though.

So we see a maker shouldn't necessarily always have control over what they've made.

Science is useless for answering such questions, just look at the history if eugenics.

Or Christianity. I'm reminded of various "Christian wars" that sought to eradicate the "others".

History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #67]

History shows us that given enough power, many / most systems'll be corrupted.

GM: Cultivate
viewtopic.php?p=1070555#p1070555

William: From the link;

The Barbarian: The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.

William:Surely this would have to do with the underlying models of the systems which govern human society, where power can be used for corrupt purposes.

The models themselves, must be corrupt.
If the models are corrupt, then there is simply no way in which to hope they will ensure human beings act without corruption, because the models are taught to human beings from the moment they are able to learn - effectively meaning that human beings are taught to be corrupt - are corrupted - by the very models which govern human societies - models which were created by ancient humans and the corruption has been passed down through the ages - and modified with the latest knowledge, and that addition corrupts the knowledge.

GM: At least the Earth is real enough – never to mind the rest of the universe…
And That's Not All
What has been established beyond reasonable doubt, is that it is illogical that something that is derived from something that isn't, which firmly places the idea of a Creator/Creation at the center of reasonable discussion.
Inertia [a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force.]
"This" Translates To "That".

William: Unconscious mind inertia
Random coincidence? I think not.

GM:Unfolding Nicely
Endogenous [having an internal cause or origin. growing or originating from within an organism - not attributable to any external or environmental factor.]
viewtopic.php?p=1076206#p1076206


William: From the link;

Nobs: Or is there no god at all, and the bible is a hodgepodge of slapped together fairy tales but clueless people who wish to cominate and control the masses?

William: Or - the god is dealing with misinformation regarding itself and allows for that misinformation to help gauge those using that system of belief as the only information they themselves gauge god with.

To cominate and control the masses, is an indirect way in which to influence god for as long as allowed to do so.

Perhaps there is something to the 'gauging' the god does in the way that god does so - a special something which identifies those who actually know god from those who know only misinformation about god.
Perhaps the god seeks to see itself within all those being gauged...and the 'special something' is that thing it seeks, been found...

But to suggest "there is no god at all", jumps to conclusions...

William: Comminate - to threaten with divine punishment.

GM: Any God-Mind claiming to be responsible for human beings existing, is going to have problems to deal with re that
*Laughter*

William:

viewtopic.php?p=1080860#p1080860

[brunumb]

Should a woman be allowed to molest her kids?

I don't think we should allow that, of course we can't stop it only react to it if and when we discover it. I take that view not based on science though.

If your view is not based on science, on what basis did you come to that view?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #65]

The robot would have no more no less than we do, it is subject to the same laws of nature,

How does this answer my question "If you created a robot as a sex-toy and also gave it free will, and it chose not to willing have sex with you, would you as the maker, still feel you have the right to do as you please with what you made?" since there are no known laws of nature preventing or compelling anyone to act in any particular way re the question?

I do not know what you mean by "free will" so how could I ever construct such a machine?