Chance or by Design ?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed
that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this
assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned
exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is
no vali ...[text shortened]... ints out, he wanted life to be meaningless
because it interfered with his personal freedoms.

Why should I agree with everything Huxley says and believes? -answer, I don't.
He is wrong and you are wrong and you have not counter-argued anything I said.

Originally posted by humy
Why should I agree with everything Huxley says and believes? -answer, I don't.
He is wrong and you are wrong and you have not counter-argued anything I said.

sure it must be true because you say its true! I dont argue, when will you learn that I
am simply correct, all the time, there is no need to argue, truth has a potency all of its
own.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FMF is a Buffet King that sees what he wants to see.

I saw you say "does it not form the very basis of your belief system and influences your morality?" Then I saw you apparently distance yourself from it. But you seem to want to pass it off as someone - not you - "see[ing] what he wants to see".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
FMF is a Buffet King that sees what he wants to see.

So do you deny saying “does it not form the very basis of your belief system and influences your morality?”
and “how it forms the entire basis of your belief system”?
Do we see that you said this just because we see “what we want to see”?

Originally posted by FMF
I saw you say "does it not form the very basis of your belief system and influences your morality?" Then I saw you apparently distance yourself from it. But you seem to want to pass it off as someone - not you - "see[ing] what he wants to see".

I have distanced myself from nothing, its your assertion , not mine.

Originally posted by humy
So do you deny saying “does it not form the very basis of your belief system and influences your morality?”
and “how it forms the entire basis of your belief system”?
Do we see you say this just because we see “what we want to see”?

I deny nothing! now if you dont mind, i am off to gym, for some exercise and relaxation 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I deny nothing! now if you dont mind, i am off to gym, for some exercise and relaxation 🙂

I deny nothing!

"I have distanced myself from nothing" (your quote)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have distanced myself from nothing, its your assertion , not mine.

You would equate it "forms part" of a belief system with it is the "very basis" of a belief system? There seems to be quite a distance there, you don't think so?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
sure it must be true because you say its true! I dont argue, when will you learn that I
am simply correct, all the time, there is no need to argue, truth has a potency all of its
own.

sure it must be true because you say its true!

why would I lie when I say I do not agree with everything Huxley says and believes?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so your beliefs about the universe influence your behaviour, thank you, and one of
those beliefs is the theory of evolution, thank you!

How do those two statements even equate?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
so your beliefs about the universe influence your behaviour, thank you, and one of
those beliefs is the theory of evolution, thank you!

so your beliefs about the universe influence your behaviour, thank you, and one of
those beliefs is the theory of evolution,

-which doesn't logically imply that the theory of evolution influences his morality.
You just can't handle logic.

Originally posted by humy

so your beliefs about the universe influence your behaviour, thank you, and one of
those beliefs is the theory of evolution,

-which doesn't logically imply that the theory of evolution influences his morality.
You just can't handle logic.

not only does it logically imply that it does by virtue of it being part of his belief system,
its practically cannot help but influence his morality/behaviour. You just cant handle
truth.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How do those two statements even equate?

its quite simple, evolution/abiogenesis etc etc hereby referred to as materialism are
part of your belief system, what we believe about the universe, its origins etc
influences our behaviour.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its quite simple, evolution/abiogenesis etc etc hereby referred to as materialism are
part of your belief system, what we believe about the universe, its origins etc
influences our behaviour.

So do my views on Dark Matter influence my behaviour?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no its not irrelevant, materialism has profoundly influenced morality after all, if there is
no God, there is no accountability and what is more it may even be used as a precept
for amoral behaviour, Huxley even stated that it was precisely the embracing of the
materialistic philosophy which fuelled the justification for an a-moral sexual practice.

Its a hypothetical question, lets stick to empiric evidence, shall we! 🙂

how is evolution connected to materialism? are you saying that anybody that doesnt have god only has materialism?

dodging hypothetical questions is a cop out. they are a perfectly valid method of working things out. ill re-phrase the question taking out the hypothetical part.

after god what do you think is the second most likely explanation for the existence of life?