PLEASE READ BOTH HALVES THIS TIME, not just the first.
Or, alternately, you can chill out and realize that your definition of "intelligent design" differs from the one that 99.9% of the rest of the world uses, and you can either agree to disagree with everyone else or revise your definition.
Wow Ignoro. Quick tip, acting like it was all an experiment makes you look stupid.
You still do not understand. You did not read the second half, several of the exact things I described were so willingly demonstrated?
Yes. I fail for making this self defeating thread, and you would see why it is self defeating if you read the whole initial post. That is why I made this thread, for the very reasons I hate. If you don't understand that last sentence then you haven't a clue. Chemical pleasure guided me to go on about how I hate the influence of such as much. As it did you to crush me with "wow, phail".
An animal fights to the death when cornered, a wise animal backs away from defeat, but only a man can defy all nature and embrace defeat because it is one of the few things that can mark him as a man. Yes I phail here. I'll take all the phail I can't get and go for more against all that is natural of me. If you do not understand why, then you do not understand the point. I reject what should be natural to prove to myself above core instinct and of free (as I can get) will. I've only met one other person on this quest in my life. To be (as much as I can be) self-aware of why I think and do what I do to struggle in a quest that
I, not a biological machine, exist. I try to prove myself to myself by attempting to beat the human condition even though it is impossible but that is why I do it.
That is what I was saying, that they approached the enemy by instinct.
The two were slipping in fighting words, thinking of enemy people instead of abstract ideas, they even banded into a group and traded some fuzzy feelings with back and forth QFT. They could never approach such a thing neutrally because they thought with their feelings. They had no will of their own there.
Did you see Inaluct, before in the other ID thread, when after being the wise animal that backs away without directly admitting defeat, he immediately turned to dominate a lesser to gain the chemicals he craves from the need I induced? This sort of thing. Inaluct
the machine turned to dominate. His will was subjective.
acting like it was all an experiment makes you look stupid.
That was no experiment. That was not trolling. That was a demonstration by their means alone, not mine. Did you not read the second half either? Did you not see me marking their actions the entire way?
Did no one understand what I was saying in the first post about biased approaches to ideas due to instinct? That we have no neutral mind due to animalistic nature? That was the whole point of the post. The ID was an example and they willingly went forth and demonstrated. I highlighted little bits of what they did with "again!" and "There!"
I give cyber batches of cookies to the few that went "Maybe" at first. They took the rare 'second approach' in a close enough way it gives me hope.
Ironically, this topic has shown how much you care about things.
I Ignore nature and substitute it with my own?
I think I may be able to boil down the idea you were intended to read (given you actually read the whole thing):
I reject autonomous thought therefore I am a free mind.Alas though, truly I can not and I fear we are all but machines of dust.
DO NOT SIMPLY DO. My pet peeve is that so few make the effort to stretch their minds for the sake of it. Did you read what I used to do?
No one has even taken a stab at the 'second approach' I talked about either because you are all still looking at the bait. I might just have to delete that section of the post.
Jonathan S. Fox I highly respect you. I see that if even you did not catch what the bait was working up to, I failed at explaining this idea of mine well enough.
Now watch this everyone:That
is my fault and I have tried harder this time to get this across. I fear few will understand I hate it when people show a definitive influence of their emotions and instinct over higher thought and I am driven mad by the lack of truly free will that it implies and attempt to fight it at times even though I now it is futile as fighting what I hate is self defeating for this whole purpose which is what is to be discussed:
Thinking by instinct and the impediment of higher thought.
All of you read the below and continue what you do best if you must:
99.9% of the rest of the world uses
Sooo 99.9% of the world does not use the official definition given by dictionaries and the likes?
But it does not make it a valid theory with scientific anything.
With the exact credentials used by all other theories about life not of our planet?
EDIT:
AH! Found it:
The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes. This is from
the dictionary.
Are there biological and physical systems we observe in the universe that resulted from purpose instead of chance? Yes or no? If you say no, that means at least a few of the following: we are not in the universe, we do not observe our own lab work, we do not have intentions for what we design, what we created we did not create but it occurred spontaneously without our intervention, we are not an intelligence, we are not responsible for any artificial formations of matter, ...
EDIT:
Tehee, it just occurred to me that almost all of you allowed NO merit at all of any kind of any sort of such to be acknowledged of ID. There's another one I was talking about in the first post.
If you all really want to I'll make another thread for ID.
tl;dr
No tl;dr for you. READ IT THIS TIME.
Author
Topic: Scientific Dogma(?), and instictive thought (Read 6229 times)