Australian Animals, dogs, humans, and creationism

@tenderfoot,

tenderfoot wrote:

The biblical garden of Eden was on the Gold Coast, Queensland Australia. Adam and Eve never left here--- that'd why the rest of the world have all those queer animals.

That's what I believe and I have all the faith I need to make it true.

Well, no theist can fault THAT.

Mind you, the Gold Coast, as it is now, is my idea of Hell.....but that's life.

1 Reply

Dlowan.
You will be immediately reported to the snake spirit of South Stradi and the hinterland spirit of the water fall to be bitten and drowned for daring to denigrate this holy land... plus -- I will point the bone as soon as I have finished this chop.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

Mind you, the Gold Coast, as it is now, is my idea of Hell.....but that's life.

What da bunny said!

I can understand east coast of Oz, but certainly not that bit!

0 Replies

@tenderfoot,

Oh...the HINTERLAND is cool...and so was the coast itself before mighty mammon hit.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Are you starting a new religion? Cause you know, tis how religions start !

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Are you starting a new religion? Cause you know, tis how religions start !

Hmmmmm....I don't really approve of religions.

I am not sure what kind of religion you feel I am starting.

I have now become quite worried.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Quote:

Hmmmmm....I don't really approve of religions.

Heheheheh...everyone has their own personal religion...otherwise they wouldn't every think they are right, have values, have 'morals' etc etc etc Smile

Mind you, I class patriotism / nationalism / political ideology as religions too...

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Well, both patriotism and nationalism are against my political ideology......and I think we can make a good rational case for the golden rule.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

everyone has their own personal religion

Bullshit . . . this is mere ipse dixit . . . and it defines religion so broadly and vaguely as to make it meaningless . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta, everything we talk about is definition based. Every word we use has a definition that is commonly agreed to, and a large number of words have a definition personal to a person. I see many, many similarities between a persons personal beliefs and religions...however, you are welcome to stick to your definition so that it makes sense to you, and I'll stick with mine.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Setanta, everything we talk about is definition based. Every word we use has a definition that is commonly agreed to, and a large number of words have a definition personal to a person. I see many, many similarities between a persons personal beliefs and religions...however, you are welcome to stick to your definition so that it makes sense to you, and I'll stick with mine.

Applying personal definitions to words we use makes meaningful conversation very difficult (if not impossible).

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Applying personal definitions to words we use makes meaningful conversation very difficult (if not impossible).

Allow me to stress this.

As for Vikkor's response, someone may call himself a democrat or a republican, and justify his position on the basis of thousands of years of democracy, or of thousands of years of republics. These words have specific, unambiguous defintions. A democracy is a rule by the people, a republic is a government of laws. But the religious believer takes a great deal on faith, and accepts it without any evidence. You may disagree with me, for example, that a republic is the best form of government, but my argument in its favor will be based on something better than "that's just what i believe."

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Hi Setanta - people do it all the time. It's one of the reasons for so many misunderstandings. No one knows all the dictionaries definitions of the, what, 200,000 or so Enlgish words. Also, there isn't a word in the English language for all concepts, or all nuances of concepts, so some words just have to make do. I don't know why you are trying to convince me though - I'm happy with my version of that one word for the concept I wish to convey (some people understand, while others wish to nitpick definitions, and that's okay - but there's little point trying to convince me to use another word)

By the way

Quote:

But the religious believer takes a great deal on faith, and accepts it without any evidence

is one of the main reasons I think people have their own religions.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Hi Setanta - people do it all the time. It's one of the reasons for so many misunderstandings.

Which is exactly why it shouldn't be done.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

Your reply is evasive and disingenuous. You cannot escape what Roswell has pointed out--that if definitions are not very nearly universal and consensual, language fails as a means of communications.

You also seem so stubbornly devoted to your silly remark about everyone having their "own religions" that you completely ignore the valid distinction i made between expectations based upon experience of the real world, and blind faith based on wishful thinking.

It's a poor performance, Vikorr.

(My apology for having previously misspelled your name.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta - I pointed out what Rosborne979l quoted in full knowledge of what I pointed out.

Quote:

if definitions are not very nearly universal and consensual, language fails as a means of communications.

I don't actually disagree with what you are saying - I just think it's a narrow view of langage. Language often fails as a means of communicating concepts - which is what I also pointed out when I said : Also, there isn't a word in the English language for all concepts, or all nuances of concepts, so some words just have to make do.

Quote:

you completely ignore the valid distinction i made between expectations based upon experience of the real world, and blind faith based on wishful thinking.

That would be a whole debate in itself. For example - some hold to the belief that 'expectations' are illusions.

However, in response to your assertion - your use of comparison (and my not quoting the whole comparison) does not make the part I quoted any less valid...your comparison is based on two part parts 'existing' (for comparison), yes? I mentioned one part as a reason.

Perhaps you like the comparison to clarify your thoughts - but I don't personally see it as necessary.

1 Reply

Vikkor (LOL) You idiot! *smack vikkor under the ear*

God didn't make australian animals.

the rainbow serpent did.

3 Replies

@dadpad,

Ooooooh

0 Replies

@dadpad,

Uh, yeah, but the Rainbow Serpent also created the Bunyip, and there's just no explaining that thingamajig.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Presumably a rather large Drop Bear mated with a Dragon sometime in the not too distant past.

0 Replies

Australian Animals, dogs, humans, and creationism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know