Sad Skeptic

Seattle, WA, United States

Someone is shy

Sad hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Sad Skeptic
Posted over 3 years ago
Against obvious logic, what is the reasonable case for Intelligent Design/God's existence? If not, why is the thought of such so prevalent?
I find it quite tough to believe that any serious effort has been made to unearth your postulate that the Earth is around 6K old. Honestly, in this day and age, that little tidbit is quite shocking, and a little revealing into a certain line of thought. There is a real scientific consensus behind the fact of the Earth not being flat, per se, and please don't throw out such statements as "I find the scientific evidence for that pretty convincing" into the public arena of a forum without thought...thanks.
Noface
Sad Skeptic
Posted over 3 years ago
Against obvious logic, what is the reasonable case for Intelligent Design/God's existence? If not, why is the thought of such so prevalent?
Thank you for replying to the thread, much appreciated. To reply to said points: "It seems atheists will always be found wanting.. Logic can never explain feelings, values, moral senses, love.." This seems odd - I thought the atheism that I attempted to elaborate on was not quite so keen to immediately find answers to all the questions of our universe, through the imagination of personal experiences with deities, scriptures written thousands of years ago, and the simple hope that things will be alright, as there is Someone watching from above. I would also like to refer to endorphins,logical thought, and identifying ourselves to a group as well. "it does not extinguish man's insatiable desire to know why." Is this the same insatiable curiosity that leads us to not want to find the out of reach, past the "fuzzy bounds of logic"? To accept that, through what can only be called "magic", some being rises above? Would you consider my comment in a reply to ThomasJohn1130? Thanks.
Noface
Sad Skeptic
Posted over 3 years ago
Against obvious logic, what is the reasonable case for Intelligent Design/God's existence? If not, why is the thought of such so prevalent?
First of all, thank you very much for replying to this conversation. There is often a dearth of debate on the most sensitive, personal topics here, on TED, which is a pity as this is the best place to have them. By "God", first of all, I assume that you're referring to the one, Judeo-Christian-Islamic omniscient being, creator, and the whole shebang. If not, that's fine, and doesn't really change much. I find that to poke holes in some thousands of year-old teachings copied down from rather poorly educated people is almost unrealistic. Though they are likely there, what does it prove? By contrast, I find fault in the answer that God is prevalent because He is real. What evidence has guided people to this conclusion? People have attributed less and less to what I would call "magical" beings as scientific process led to more knowledge of our surroundings. Trees are no longer occupied by Dryads that make them grow. Lightning is more than the anger of the heavens. Of course what can't be quite conquered is the beginnings of our universe (there are heaps of evidence, which is at least more than is shown for Him), and the time after death. Is it a truly likely, believable hypothesis that you would like to make that He defied all laws of physics to form our universe, *poof*, just popped things into existence? That (only applies to Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) is waiting with eternal milk and honey in some distant realm, judging whether you're good or bad? If so, find solace in that. Please don't, however, elect candidates based on their said "values", or deny the scientific progress that's made. Live your life as you want to, and not how He tells you to. You never know...
Noface
Sad Skeptic
Posted over 3 years ago
Can you think like a kid? How would you define / describe DRUGS to school kids? How might a kid interpret and use that definition of drugs?
Alright, to provide the youth perspective: substances that alter the function of the mind for purposes of, I suppose, elements of enjoyment. This sort of escape from reality is often negative due to health risks and the avoidance of the opportunity and life out there to be had. As a freshman in high school, that seems realistic.
Noface
Sad Skeptic
Posted over 3 years ago
Graham Hill: Why I'm a weekday vegetarian
Hello, Magali Dutilleux, I hope you don't mind if I begin a rather opinionated diatribe against the laid-back apathy expressed in both this video and many reactions to it, such as this one. Of course, I choose this opportunity to stage this as such solely because I trust the quality of debate that a TEDX organizer can facilitate is the most pristine. Mr.Hill says that their should be another option, outside the binary system of vegetarian or omnivore, but of course this would be seen as an abhorrent "weekday criminal" situation by those true to the legitimate moral positioning of animals having some ethical value. To argue for that value, I'll reference: -91% of the area deforested in the Amazon Rainforst since 1970 is now feedlot pasture. -The average US citizen causes fifteen animals to be slaughtered per year. -Seventy years of meat eating and fifteen animals per year is more than a thousand sentient being slaughtered for the personal convenience of one omnivore. The area of the rainforest that was deforested just in that Amazon area contained more than 10^18 sentient animals. That's one quintillion per omnivore. How much of your life's satisfaction is solely comprised of those steaks and cheese? Maybe 2%? All those animals for that? Unless you can personally say that those thousands and thousands of animals really have no moral standing, even on the same scale of consciousness and intellectual complexity as we humans, have absolutely no value, weekday vegetarianism is a compromise of the worst kind. It is the most blatant apathy towards what is happening all around us, and it is corrosive to the advancement of a civilization. Can a legitimate point be made that somewhere in the distance between sentient animals(humans and other), in the murky depths between more distinct languages and more advanced reasoning, that we have evolved from no moral standing to perhaps infinite? I believe not, and unless this is countered, weekday veg is the apathy of greed. Debate?