If you want to bring the matter of heredity into the mix, which, one would think, was kind of, you know, relevant when the proposed answer to a question is "DNA" you can't, also, sidestep the matter of inherited traits and their expression in actual, living organisms. Which, apparently, is also to be ignored in explaining how "DNA" is an answer to those questions.
Yet I'm told I was the one who wasn't being honest about it when I wasn't even the one who gave "DNA" as a pat answer to those questions and could give some reasons for why it couldn't be.
Is there anyone more whiny than a stuck-up blog atheist who you won't just give in for?
If either those two or anyone else can tell me how "DNA" figures into how the atheist "brain-only" brain could make an idea before that idea existed anywhere in that brain to tell it what to make I'll post the answer. I'm not waiting up nights though.
Oh, and "you're a stupid head" isn't an answer to the problem, either. I'm talking to you Skepsy.
you've been given answers, and evidence. you just refuse to look at anything that might disturb your hamster-cage world view. like all the other creationists.
ReplyDeleteand you should have kept "Camera Obscura".. a small, dim space which can only see a limited field,, one which is distorted.
bye-bye.
You've spent too much time being agreed with on Eschaton and the other neo-atheist dominated websites, you've forgotten what the difference between flashing slogans and making a coherent case for something is. It's the difference between suckering people with slogans and PR and trying to find that category of thought which materialism can't account for, the truth.
DeleteI was perfectly willing to argue the issues inside of your ideological framing to test whether or not they had internal coherence and you kept wanting to change the subject. If I were trying to support such a rigid, narrow and basically incoherent idea as materialism, I might be tempted to do the same thing. You provided no evidence, whatsoever but made some vague assertions which, when examined, which boiled down to, not even promissory notes of materialism but IOUs of neo-atheist ideology.
A camera obscura is a means of trying to draw a more accurate picture of what it is focused on, it doesn't pretend to take in the entirety of reality. Materialism is an ideological dogma that pretends, beforehand, to know the narrowest of framings into which, it insists that all of reality must fit. It denies the reality of everything that can't fit into that narrow frame, including the very mind which thinks up that materialism. It demotes human reason into a bunch of chemical reactions which cannot arise to an actual significance which exceeds the meaningless combinations and disassembling of molecules, admitting to no higher significance than that. Which could account for the general vapidity of so much of British culture which has had to try to kick up some brainless excitement by concentrating on the vapidity of pop culture. Materialism can't do any better than that.
You've chickened out without making a single try at answering those questions. I'm not surprised, you can't do that within materialism just as you can't come up with any reason to think the truth is better than a lie or find any transcendent feature to any idea. It's not a surprise because materialism denies the significance of life, turning everyone, everybody into a meaningless object.