Comments

  • Should sperm be the property of its origin host?


    Don't forget that one of these arguments is his claim that women are too dumb and weak willed to resist supposed biological urges (that he never proved exist) and that in their irrational baby craze they maliciously trap poor and defenseless men with babies.
  • What God Are You Talking About?


    I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is.

    However, there is far too much misunderstanding of evolution floating around on this site. It is because people receive a horrible education in evolution (especially in the USA) then they never bother to go out and correct this on their own. Even if someone borrows some element of Darwin's ideas, it is not evolution if it includes some type of design or direction, such ideas are not congruent with the totality of the process of natural selection. If you claim it is a divine process then you are really talking about special creation, but people don't like being associated with creationism they rather be associated with evolution.
  • Should sperm be the property of its origin host?
    you are a distractionRanger

    If my distraction is pointing out your sexist remarks, then I consider that productive.
  • Should sperm be the property of its origin host?


    I am not interested in correcting your bigoted sexist views, but I do feel sorry for any woman dumb enough to get in bed with you. However, feel free to actually prove your own "facts".
  • Should sperm be the property of its origin host?
    women have a special biological function which tells them to go through with pregnancy even if doing so is illogicalRanger

    It is hard not to see you as a sexist when you keep making sexist ignorant remarks.
  • What God Are You Talking About?


    Variation in species occurs due to random mutation, when a mutation results in an advantage then natural selection preserves that advantage. The speed in which this process moves will depend on the breeding cycle of the species in question, for some species this could take millions of years, while others, like bacteria, we can see it happening before our eyes.

    I am not disagreeing that a shift in environment could create advantages and disadvantages, in fact, I completely agree with that and it has been proven factually true.

    WHAT I AM SAYING, is that a change in environment is not the only relevant factor here. Ecosystems are a delicate balance and if a variation happens into an advantage that did not currently exist than that sub-species via natural selection will become the dominant species.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change.Harry Hindu

    That can be the case, but it is not always the case. A random variation which gives any advantage over the existing population will be preserved by natural selection, and this can happen even if no changes in the environment occurred.
  • What God Are You Talking About?


    That is not evolution. Evolution is not progressive, it is not designed, it is a random process. You are talking about something entirely different.
  • Defining Good And Evil
    You are a rude and ignorant person. Please do not breed.Devans99

    But I am clearly smarter than you, and I thought you wanted the smart people to breed.
  • Defining Good And Evil

    I didn't say you sounded cold I say you were " showing an incredible ignorance of evolution." Learn how to read, then go read the Origin of Species.

    Darwin talks about selective breeding right out of the gate, not on humans on animals, but it is the same principle. Actual Darwinian evolution is what is cold, and that this why people misinterpret it, like you, and tend towards a more Lamarckian spin on evolution (the idea of some type of progression).

    Survival of the Fittest (aka natural selection) is the natural law which governs the selection process in the variation of species, in the case of eugenics that law would be removed. Eugenics would end natural selection in the human population. Natural selection is a selection process, so applying selective breeding removes that natural process.

    Furthermore, whether or not humans are currently outside natural selection depend on if humans have escaped the Malthusian trap, which there are people on both sides of the fence on that one. Evolution is an incredibly slow process, and only time will tell if we have truly escaped Malthus' trap.

    So to recap, it is not that I think you are being cold; I think that you don't know what you are talking about.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    I am not the one playing with imaginary friends.
  • Should sperm be the property of its origin host?
    Women in this position under extreme emotional pressure to fulfill the requests of their bodies reproductive cycle. Therefore, if a man is hold hostage in the situation, the woman has every reason to irrationally move forward unless she has an amazingly rational and stable head on her shoulders.Ranger

    It sounds like you are calling women idiots who are a slave to their bodies.
  • Defining Good And Evil
    You are showing an incredible ignorance of evolution. Survival of the fittest is the natural selection process, so eugenics is what would actually remove that natural selection process. Furthermore evolution is not progressive, it is random.

    Also "fittest" does not alway mean the strongest, fastest or smartest. It means they survived long enough to have offspring. In many cases this would mean they had sex appeal.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    I command thou to send me money.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    ,Considering all this god crap is made-up human nonsense, then this means all gods are understandable by humans.
  • What God Are You Talking About?


    In time you'll understand.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    You are just going to end up debating a shifting straw man.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    By defining "God" the only thing you will do is give them a clear excuse to reject anything you say.
  • What God Are You Talking About?
    They are all made up and none of them are real, so what does it really matter.There are far more interesting Things in life than god(s).
  • The Evidential Problem of Evil
    You only see the pain as bad because of your limits as a human. God sees all and in His great wisdom knows this pain is not bad but good.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    Hey, Mr. Wanna Be Scientists go prove your "fact".
  • There is No Secular Basis for Morality


    I don't see atheists strapping bombs to their chest and blowing people up.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    As an aside and for the record, humans are absolutely more powerful than God.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    It would seem that God being omnipotent means[. . .]Ben Hancock

    So you are going to decide the limits of an all-powerful being? Really? That is some ego you have, but OK. So what you are saying here, is that humans have the power to limit and define the power of an all-powerful being. Which makes humans more powerful and thus humans are now GCB+1.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    That seems to beg the question of what makes that being 'great'?Ben Hancock

    You are just now realizing this? The moment you read the word "greatest" you should realized that was an entirely subjective gradation.

    The omni traits carry a slew of inconsistencies and conflicts, for a conceptual being to have a rational form, that humans can actually convince, it is far better just to forget about them.


    f I say, "the greatest possible being can lift a car over his/head" and you say, "the greatest possible being can lift a skyscraper over his/head" clearly the being you have conceived of is greater than mine. However, the concept of the GCB+1 ends because, eventually, it becomes clear that truly the greatest conceivable being must be able to move any object, and so we can all agree that unless the being we are conceiving of can move any object, it is not the Greatest Conceivable Being.Ben Hancock

    So can your GCB make an object so big it can't lift it? Your entire argument is logically flawed, so your purposed GCB being is deeply flawed. Thus by limiting my conceptual being my GCB > your GCB, as with removing the omni traits it becomes more logically congruent.

    Omni traits make for horrible conceptual beings.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    I think some of you don't actually understand how subjective and shallow the argument laid out in the OP is, due to the way it is written I can always move the goal post.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    I can think of a being that is omnipotent. I can conceive of a being that is omniscient. I can conceive of a being that is omnipresent and even omnibenevolent.lupac

    All three of those traits have fallen under heavy criticism over the ages. They cause logical and moral conflicts and are far from being characteristics of a "greatest" conceivable being. I think a conceptual being which does not possess any of those traits is a vastly superior concept, as it is a far more practical conceptual form.

    GCB +1

    So it looks like it is good on paper and in practice.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    No matter what you think up, or try to put in thought, mine will always be greater, because that is the door the OP left wide open.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    If it is called the Greatest Conceivable Being, then you should be able to conceive of it, right?

    So don't be shy, religion has been trying to do it for thousands of years and they still suck at it, so what do you have to lose.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    Can anyone here actually conceive of this supposed GCB? Anyone at all?
  • numbers don't exist outside of God


    @LD Saunders doesn't even know what a basic fact is.

    But go and prove your position, post the details of the GCB and I will show you some flaws in it. You will never be able to conceive of this supposed GCB.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God


    I think you are making that blank statement because you are unable to follow me.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God


    It is a logical proof.

    A simple version of a proof by contradiction, the plus one simply represents one thing is greater than the other, and the original statement is shown true because supposing the negation leads to a contradiction. So this contradiction that you are hung up on, that there can't be a GCB and a something greater than GCB is exactly what proves there that there is no GCB, as supposing that there is a GCB leads to a contradiction.

    You arguing the existence of this contraction only makes me more right. You are proving my position, without even realizing it, as the more you hammer on this contradiction the more it validates my simple proof.

    Whatever GCB you can think of I can think of one greater, therefore there is no GCB, because supposing there is one leads to a contradiction.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    Btw, religious groups have been warring and killing each other over who has the GCB for thousands of years. Christianity, Islam and Jaduism are prime examples of GCB+1 at work.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God


    Then don't think of it as an infinite set, think of it as your finite set plus one. Honesty, I don't think you even understand what infinity represents. If GCB is your top rank then mine will always be GCB+1 more rank.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God
    OK your GCB can be at the top rank, and my will be at your top rank plus one more rank. Dang, another contradiction.
  • numbers don't exist outside of God


    Think of the greatest integer you can and we'll call this the greatest conceivable integer (GCI). Post that number here and I'll show you one greater by adding a one.