wiegraf: @mr anony, STORY STORY
I admit I've been waiting for you to propose your alternative, you've failed to bite . I have no problem with the environment having no purpose, you know that. I'm still not sure if freewill is an illusion, but as things stand now, there is a conscious effort by us to make up our own purpose. Biological need or not, for practical reasons, its irrelevant. We, not gods, have to come up with this purpose.

Religious men have built all sorts of voodoo to mystify the process and give the illusion of some sort esoteric, privileged knowledge, (for example, it came to the point where jews couldn't even speak the name of yahweh anymore, lol). They have failed spectacularly imo. Reason and the scientific method on the other hand, the proof is in the pudding. Your alternative probably relies on something spiritual. I don't mean to ignore spirituality, clearly some need it to function, but I think they fear the unknown a little too much and seriously underestimate humanity's potential. With regards to the judeochristian god I know eediots who'd pull stunts like the one di caprio pulled at the end of titanic for absolute strangers. In fact, that was what fully let me embrace atheism. How could gods be such callous bastards when normal humans could be so emphatic, capable of achieving so much? The problem of evil, again.

We make our purpose, we don't need spiritual mumbo jumbo and disingenuous pastors, etc pushing their petty agendas and poorly thought out solutions anymore. You could say man (or woman) has evolved. So what's your alternative?

Edited

My aim wasn't to propose an alternative since you have outlawed the alternative I would have provided from your thread. I just wanted to make you examine your position and ask yourself some questions. It appears we have come to the point where you have recognized that logic has failed you so you have thrown up your hands in the air and declared your faith which sounds very much like the religious-blind-faith answer of "God did it" your answer in this case is "The Environment did it".

In a sense, the "Environment" is your god and you believe that it created you, gave you life. The funny part is that you also admit that your god has no mind, no senses, and no purpose......we have one word for that: Idol!

Martian:

lol, how?!!!

How else do you define a man who gives himself rights?

Mr_Anony:
How else do you define a man who gives himself rights?

I'll just give you the definitions of tyranny and you can decide for yourself whether human rights has any correlation with it.

tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Tyranny violates human rights.
Just face it, you don't have a point and drawing any correlation between human rights and tyranny is just annoying and idiotic.
You want an example of a tyrant, check out the primitive jewish idea called yahweh that you worship.

Mr_Anony:
My aim wasn't to propose an alternative since you have outlawed the alternative I would have provided from your thread. I just wanted to make you examine your position and ask yourself some questions. It appears we have come to the point where you have recognized that logic has failed you so you have thrown up your hands in the air and declared your faith which sounds very much like the religious-blind-faith answer of "God did it" your answer in this case is "The Environment did it".

In a sense, the "Environment" is your god and you believe that it created you, gave you life. The funny part is that you also admit that your god has no mind, no senses, and no purpose......we have one word for that: Idol!

I don't have faith in the environment, it exists. Having no purpose isn't the end of the world. Acknowledging you can make one, hopefully with a group, one that could be 'positive', is a very powerful concept.

Basing this purpose on archaic constructs, well that leads to a lot more problems (despite sometimes good intentions). You fail to acknowledge @ kay's point, whatever you propose will be man made, intrinsically of not more value than anything we propose except maybe in the minds of some of the arbiters of our destiny (I term it that cause it sounds cool, don't you think): us. You wouldn't have any special 'truths' more valuable than the 'rights' we espouse. It will probably be worse actually.

Don't be disingenuous, you know you can describe it without having to quote the bible. Let it out, if you will good ser

Martian:

I'll just give you the definitions of tyranny and you can decide for yourself whether human rights has any correlation with it.

tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Tyranny violates human rights.
Just face it, you don't have a point and drawing any correlation between human rights and tyranny is just annoying and idiotic.
You want an example of a tyrant, check out the primitive jewish idea called yahweh that you worship.

Lol.... Said something like that. Ignored.

Avicenna: @Mr anony.
I made a direct reference to democracy. I said, ultimately, authority is derived from the people.
Unless the people are tyrant unto themselves, your point is invalid.

Martian:

I'll just give you the definitions of tyranny and you can decide for yourself whether human rights has any correlation with it.

tyr·an·nies
1. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
2. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler.
3. Absolute power, especially when exercised unjustly or cruelly: "I have sworn . . . eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (Thomas Jefferson).
4.
a. Use of absolute power.
b. A tyrannical act.
5. Extreme harshness or severity; rigor.

Tyranny violates human rights.
Just face it, you don't have a point and drawing any correlation between human rights and tyranny is just annoying and idiotic.
You want an example of a tyrant, check out the primitive jewish idea called yahweh that you worship.

You seem to have a problem with understanding metaphors.
A person who claims a right but when asked by what authority he has such a right, he ascribes it to himself, such a person has inadvertently claimed absolute power or is deluded. Self-endowed rights simply deserve no respect.

Mr_Anony:
You seem to have a problem with understanding metaphors.

To use your words, your metaphor "doesn't follow". matter of fact, it's totally ridiculous.

Mr_Anony:
A person who claims a right but when asked by what authority he has such a right, he ascribes it to himself, such a person has inadvertently claimed absolute power or is deluded.

You're grasping at straws because human rights have nothing to do with absolute power. In your primitive christian opinion, you think a person who asserts that he has a right to be treated with dignity is deluded. A person claiming absolute power over people is a tyrant; not a person who affirms that he is a human and deserves to be treated with respect and dignity unless he violates another human's freedom.

Human rights
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

"Inherent dignity" because there is no reason why another human shouldn't be allowed to prosper in a peaceful environment because of the acts of other humans. At least that's what civilized people strive for.

Is this what you consider deluded?

Mr_Anony:
Self-endowed rights simply deserve no respect.

lol, like all of yahweh's?

wiegraf:

I don't have faith in the environment, it exists. Having no purpose isn't the end of the world. Acknowledging you can make one, hopefully with a group, one that could be 'positive', is a very powerful concept.

Oh you do, Faith is simply something you know and trust to be true. You have faith in the environment, you believe it exists, (if you prefer to say you 'know' it exists it is all the same to me) you believe it to be responsible for making you the you are even though you cannot logically link it's nature to your nature i.e. how can a mindless entity create a mind? (That is what blind-faith is; holding a position in spite of better reason not to).

Basing this purpose on archaic constructs, well that leads to a lot more problems (despite sometimes good intentions). You fail to acknowledge @ kay's point, whatever you propose will be man made, intrinsically of not more value than anything we propose except maybe in the minds of some of the arbiters of our destiny (I term it that cause it sounds cool, don't you think): us. You wouldn't have any special 'truths' more valuable than the 'rights' we espouse. It will probably be worse actually.

You have made two wrong assumptions namely: that "old=false/new=true" and that "everything starts from man"

Don't be disingenuous, you know you can describe it without having to quote the bible. Let it out, if you will good ser

The solution I propose to you is God............I cannot expand on Him properly without referencing His Word. It is like asking me to tell you about physics without quoting any physicists or referring to any physics textbooks.
Rejecting information from a particular source without even hearing what that source has to say but rather choosing to ridicule the source based on stereotypes is what is called willful ignorance.

Martian:

To use your words, your metaphor "doesn't follow". matter of fact, it's totally ridiculous.



You're grasping at straws because human rights have nothing to do with absolute power. In your primitive christian opinion, you think a person who asserts that he has a right to be treated with dignity is deluded. A person claiming absolute power over people is a tyrant; not a person who affirms that he is a human and deserves to be treated with respect and dignity unless he violates another human's freedom.

Human rights
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

"Inherent dignity" because there is no reason why another human shouldn't be allowed to prosper in a peaceful environment because of the acts of other humans. At least that's what civilized people strive for.

Is this what you consider deluded?



lol, like all of yahweh's?

Dude use some logic here ok. Don't just argue blindly.

Take the outsiders position for a few moments, Assuming you are a martian and you just met a human being (me)

I claim: I have a right to life and to be treated with respect.
You ask: And what gives you this right?
I answer: I gave myself the right?
You ask: And why should you be respected?
I answer: Because I am a human being.
You ask: And what is so special about being a human being that makes it deserve respect?

Mr_Anony:
Dude use some logic here ok. Don't just argue blindly.

lol

Mr_Anony:
I claim: I have a right to life and to be treated with respect.
[s]You ask: And what gives you this right?
I answer: I gave myself the right?
You ask: And why should you be respected?[/s]
I answer: Because I am a human being.

Good.

Mr_Anony:
And what is so special about being a human being that makes it deserve respect?

I feel humans deserve respect and dignity because just as I have a will, emotions and needs and I have no reason to think that other humans don't have them also. As a concious and intelligent being, I understand that most, if not all, humans desire peace, freedom and prosperity as we all live out our collective contingent existence on this planet.
A human is not special because he is just another organism living on this thing we call a planet. Nevertheless, being members of the same species, with similar struggles, human rights provide a framework to ease some those existential struggles that humans face.

Mr_Anony:
Take the outsiders position for a few moments, Assuming you are a martian and you just met a human being (me)

You ask: And what is so special about being a human being that makes it deserve respect?

So, what's so special about you earthling?

Mr_Anony:
And what is so special about being a human being that makes it deserve respect?

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

This ability will indicate to a reasonable and logical person, that other people have desires and if those desires do not endanger him, he should give them the same respect he would want.

Martian:
I feel humans deserve respect and dignity because just as I have a will, emotions and needs and I have no reason to think that other humans don't have them also. As a concious and intelligent being, I understand that most, if not all, humans desire peace, freedom and prosperity as we all live out our collective contingent existence on this planet.
A human is not special because he is just another organism living on this thing we call a planet. Nevertheless, being members of the same species, with similar struggles, human rights provide a framework to ease some those existential struggles that humans face.

Good answer but not a logical one.
You have been asked why you should deserve respect and your answer started with "I feel.....". In other words you are saying "human beings a deserve respect because human beings say so"
Let me rephrase it in the way a martian would hear it: "earthlings deserves respect because earthlings feel they deserve respect".
mawk mawk mawk! *my impression of alien laughter.

Mr_Anony:
Good answer but not a logical one.
You have been asked why you should deserve respect and your answer started with "I feel.....". In other words you are saying "human beings a deserve respect because human beings say so"
Let me rephrase it in the way a martian would hear it: "earthlings deserves respect because earthlings feel they deserve respect". mawk mawk mawk! (Alien laughter)

lol, ok then. Read up on the theory of mind. You probably won't understand it though, unless someone adds yahweh to it. mawk mawk mawk!

Martian:
So, what's so special about you earthling? And why do you deserve respect

Let's get your perspective.

Martian:

lol, ok then. Read up on the theory of mind. You probably won't understand it though, unless someone adds yahweh to it. mawk mawk mawk!

Good, attributing a mind to someone else is all well and good in the sense that if by having a mind I deserve x, then it follows that another person who has a mind should deserve x. What it doesn't explain though is why having a mind should deserve x in the first place.

Let's get your perspective. So, what's so special about you earthling? And why do you deserve respect

My answer is simple. My human rights are justified by God who is the ultimate authority and creator of all things created.

Mr_Anony:
Good, attributing a mind to someone else is all well and good in the sense that if by having a mind I deserve x, then it follows that another person who has a mind should deserve x. What it doesn't explain though is why having a mind should deserve x in the first place.

You deserve x because living on y isn't easy and x is meant to ease some of the stress of living on y that may be caused by members of your own species.

Mr_Anony:
My answer is simple. My human rights are justified by God.

I understand God to be an idea some people have and they place tremendous value on different conceptions of it. I don't subscribe to the idea myself, but if it's not an idea, then I'm open to hearing from whatever this God is. Can I speak to this God and ask it about your human rights?

Mr_Anony:
Oh you do, Faith is simply something you know and trust to be true. You have faith in the environment, you believe it exists, (if you prefer to say you 'know' it exists it is all the same to me) you believe it to be responsible for making you the you are even though you cannot logically link it's nature to your nature i.e. how can a mindless entity create a mind? (That is what blind-faith is; holding a position in spite of better reason not to).


You have made two wrong assumptions namely: that "old=false/new=true" and that "everything starts from man"


The solution I propose to you is God............I cannot expand on Him properly without referencing His Word. It is like asking me to tell you about physics without quoting any physicists or referring to any physics textbooks.
Rejecting information from a particular source without even hearing what that source has to say but rather choosing to ridicule the source based on stereotypes is what is called willful ignorance.

Fancy meeting you here again! When did we last meet? Its been so long, like 2 mins ago

One: I don't. It exists, it can't be ignored. Requires no faith.

How can a mindless entity create a mind? Surely you jest, this folly /lordmode. How does simple create complex? It's everywhere in nature. And it's been randomly churning out this processes billions of times per second for billions of years.


Two: no I don't. Religion, moral codes are memetic and they evolve. There are various aspects of ancient greece's moral code that are better than christianity's imo, even though christianity is newer (xtianity is better in many ways too, calm down). With what we know now, and enormous hindsight, I'd say we are in a better condition now to define a moral code than sheperds from antiquity.

Tthree: stop it , bad mr anony, stop that.. You can make your case without having to quote your bible and you know this. I don't need to quote newton or einstein to explain their theories. Define your axioms and take it from there

Martian:

You deserve x because living on y isn't easy and x is meant to ease some of the stress of living on y.

'Deserving something' and 'needing something' are two entirely different things.

I understand God to be an idea some people have and they place tremendous value on different conceptions of it. I don't subscribe to the idea myself, but if it's not an idea, then I'm open to hearing from whoever this God is. Can I speak to this God and ask it about your human rights?

Lol, God is not an idea but then for an idea you claim not to have, it is interesting that you have already conceptualized God as one you can speak to and ask about human rights. Anyway, you can but you can only communicate with him in spirit and in truth. If you insist on the physical word there's the bible if you will accept it.

Mr_Anony:
'Deserving something' and 'needing something' are two entirely different things.

Human rights are needed and humans have decided that we deserve it. That's it really. You can add god all you want but god is just anither thing humans made up.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, God is not an idea but then for an idea you claim not to have, it is interesting that you have already conceptualized God as one you can speak to and ask about human rights

It's not interesting. Since you said god gave you the rights, it's only natural that I ask if i can communicate with god.

Mr_Anony:
Anyway, you can but you can only communicate with him in spirit and in truth.

the discussion is coming to an end because you are starting to say "in spirit and in truth" and that cliche doesn't mean anything to people outside your particular religion.

Mr_Anony:
If you insist on the physical word there's the bible if you will accept it.

Thank you very much. The bible is just jewish mythology and I don't dignify mythologies. Another person can come up with another god and tell me to go read some book filled with nonsensical stories and I would tell them the same thing. Thank you very much, but I'll pass.

Martian:
Human rights are needed and humans have decided that we deserve it. That's it really. You can add god all you want but god is just anither thing humans made up.

lol, you cannot deserve something by deciding to deserve it. You can deny God all you want but human rights will never make sense without ascribing them to a higher authority.

It's not interesting. Since you said god gave you the rights, it's only natural that I ask if i can communicate with god.

the discussion is coming to an end because you are starting to say "in spirit and in truth" and that cliche doesn't mean anything to people outside your particular religion.

Thank you very much. The bible is just jewish mythology and I don't dignify mythologies. Another person can come up with another god and tell me to go read some book filled with nonsensical stories and I would tell them the same thing. Thank you very much, but I'll pass.

too bad

Mr_Anony:
lol, you cannot deserve something by deciding to deserve it. You can deny God all you want but human rights will never make sense without ascribing them to a higher authority.
too bad

yeah, yahweh and zeus conferred human rights on us. Don't forget about Obatala and Kabezya mpungu; they also came up with some of those rights.

Martian:

yeah, yahweh and zeus conferred human rights on us. Don't forget about Obatala and Kabezya mpungu; they also came up with some of those rights.

bla bla bla..........the usual "resort to mockery when logic fails you" routine

wiegraf:

Fancy meeting you here again! When did we last meet? Its been so long, like 2 mins ago

lol

One: I don't. It exists, it can't be ignored. Requires no faith.

How can a mindless entity create a mind? Surely you jest, this folly /lordmode. How does simple create complex? It's everywhere in nature. And it's been randomly churning out this processes billions of times per second for billions of years.

Your misconception is that faith is believing something that doesn't exist, that is not faith, that is madness. Faith is simply being convinced of something i.e. Putting your trust in certain information and accepting it to be true.
True faith exists with reason. There must be logical reasons to hold a position as true, if not, it simply isn't true. Blind faith is faith that something is true in spite of reason that it must be false.
e.g I have faith that 2+2=4 anyone saying 2+2=3 simply has blind faith.

Now "simple to complex" is very different from "disorder to order". To claim that nature randomly churns out stuff, you must have to claim that the laws of nature themselves are entirely random and this is not true. I hold that nature is not random and order can only come from order.

Two: no I don't. Religion, moral codes are memetic and they evolve. There are various aspects of ancient greece's moral code that are better than christianity's imo, even though christianity is newer (xtianity is better in many ways too, calm down). With what we know now, and enormous hindsight, I'd say we are in a better condition now to define a moral code than sheperds from antiquity.

First of all, I'd like to remind you that this thread is about human rights not religion/moral codes...yes I know they are related but they are different.
What is interesting is how you start by saying that you don't hold that newer=better but then go on to make a case that assumes that more evolved = more advanced. Funny enough, you have failed to recognize the fact that if evolution is truly mindless and random, then the concept of better is flawed as any reference to value immediately infers order and/or purpose.

Tthree: stop it , bad mr anony, stop that.. You can make your case without having to quote your bible and you know this. I don't need to quote newton or einstein to explain their theories. Define your axioms and take it from there

I'm sorry bruv, as much as you may not like it but I cannot discuss God without reference to His Word.

Mr_Anony:
lol


Your misconception is that faith is believing something that doesn't exist, that is not faith, that is madness. Faith is simply being convinced of something i.e. Putting your trust in certain information and accepting it to be true.
True faith exists with reason. There must be logical reasons to hold a position as true, if not, it simply isn't true. Blind faith is faith that something is true in spite of reason that it must be false.
e.g I have faith that 2+2=4 anyone saying 2+2=3 simply has blind faith.

Now "simple to complex" is very different from "disorder to order". To claim that nature randomly churns out stuff, you must have to claim that the laws of nature themselves are entirely random and this is not true. I hold that nature is not random and order can only come from order.



First of all, I'd like to remind you that this thread is about human rights not religion/moral codes...yes I know they are related but they are different.
What is interesting is how you start by saying that you don't hold that newer=better but then go on to make a case that assumes that more evolved = more advanced. Funny enough, you have failed to recognize the fact that if evolution is truly mindless and random, then the concept of better is flawed as any reference to value immediately infers order and/or purpose.


I'm sorry bruv, as much as you may not like it but I cannot discuss God without reference to His Word.

One: my dictionary has faith meaning more or else both those things. Putting your confidence or trust in a person or thing is one. The other definitions, like 5 of them, all have to do with belief that is not based on proof, or theology. Non of this definitions suffice as with regards to the elements. If I jump out of a 10 story window I will fall down and likely die. That doesn't require faith, it will happen regardless of what I believe or put my trust in. Requires no sentience to take place, unlike faith

What parts of nature do you hold are not random? For most of it, this is false. Quite a complex thing to tackle now though, and I don't have your energy atm (seriously, where do you get this energy from, its been days of bombardment - as far as morality issue - with your allies deserting you yet you still resist)

Two: we derailed a while back, that's very bad I know, and the topic is important. But this is critical to the issue, where do we get the moral right to declare that the unspeakable is wrong? Who or what determines what is egregious?

I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about moral codes and religion. Concepts that require sentience. Goals have been set, instinctive or not, via freewill or determination, irrelevant. We are sentient and intellegent, thus we can reflect, pla, etc, unlike evolution.

Three: not even if I give you cookies?

Mr_Anony:
bla bla bla..........the usual "resort to mockery when logic fails you" routine

I wasn't mocking you. I was just agreeing that good ol' yahweh gave you human rights and that Zeus probably helped him out.

Martian:

I wasn't mocking you. I was just agreeing that good ol' yahweh gave you human rights and that Zeus probably helped him out.

of course you were not mocking. You were only just 'agreeing'

Mr_Anony:
of course you were not mocking. You were only just 'agreeing'

Glad we can agree on Yahweh and Zeus.

@mr anony, This summarizes my view as to how to prudently go about setting up a moral code. There is an infitite chain here. I was looking for something else, but this is useful. Also, moving the other discussion here as well, so tired atm lol.

"Foundationalism
Perhaps the chain begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief. Such beliefs are called basic beliefs. In this solution, which is called foundationalism, all beliefs are justified by basic beliefs. Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori.) This would be a claim that some things (basic beliefs) are true in and of themselves.

Foundationalism is the belief that a chain of justification begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief. Thus, a belief is justified if and only if:

it is a basic/foundational belief, or
it is justified by a basic belief
it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is ultimately justified by a basic belief or beliefs.

Foundationalism can be compared to a building. Ordinary individual beliefs occupy the upper stories of the building; basic, or foundational beliefs are down in the basement, in the foundation of the building, holding everything else up. In a similar way, individual beliefs, say about economics or ethics, rest on more basic beliefs, say about the nature of human beings; and those rest on still more basic beliefs, say about the mind; and in the end the entire system rests on a set of basic beliefs which are not justified by other beliefs."


Too tired, I'll explain why despite my view of the nature of freewill we still have to respect goals, etc. But I'm pretty sure you know why and are probably just trolling me.. Later

Martian:

Glad we can agree on Yahweh and Zeus.

We certainly don't, but then I can see how you wouldn't understand that.

Mr_Anony:
We certainly don't, but then I can see how you wouldn't understand that.

Yes we do!! The only minor disagreement we have is about the relationship between Yahweh and Zeus. G@y or straight?
It's sort of like the minor disagreement in Christianity. Is god one or is he three in one?

wiegraf:

One: my dictionary has faith meaning more or else both those things. Putting your confidence or trust in a person or thing is one. The other definitions, like 5 of them, all have to do with belief that is not based on proof, or theology. Non of this definitions suffice as with regards to the elements. If I jump out of a 10 story window I will fall down and likely die. That doesn't require faith, it will happen regardless of what I believe or put my trust in. Requires no sentience to take place, unlike faith

No matter how your dictionary defines faith, it must tell us that faith is belief and trust. What your belief and trust is based on is entirely another matter and this is where reason and logic comes in to help us justify our faith. I think I made the difference between true faith and blind faith very clear.
Basically whenever you test and expect a result, you have shown faith.

What parts of nature do you hold are not random? For most of it, this is false. Quite a complex thing to tackle now though, and I don't have your energy atm (seriously, where do you get this energy from, its been days of bombardment - as far as morality issue - with your allies deserting you yet you still resist)

Lol, for starters, there are certain constants such as the speed of light, gravity, nuclear forces e.t.c. about 30 such constants fine tuned to such precision that if any one of them is altered, life will not exist (but anyway, that's a topic for another day)

Two: we derailed a while back, that's very bad I know, and the topic is important. But this is critical to the issue, where do we get the moral right to declare that the unspeakable is wrong? Who or what determines what is egregious?

Lol, morality is based on the idea that a human being has certain rights by default and not the other way round. It is from the violation of these human rights that we have an evil and hence a good.

I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about moral codes and religion. Concepts that require sentience. Goals have been set, instinctive or not, via freewill or determination, irrelevant. We are sentient and intellegent, thus we can reflect, pla, etc, unlike evolution.

What you are neglecting is to show how an unconscious unintelligent entity brings forth a conscious intelligent being. There is a very big gap in logic there which you are willfully ignoring.

Three: not even if I give you cookies?

Lol no, last I checked, cybercookies don't taste good. Just lift the ban.

Martian:

Yes we do!! The only minor disagreement we have is about the relationship between Yahweh and Zeus. G@y or straight?
It's sort of like the minor disagreement in Christianity. Is god one or is he three in one?

that's your problem, I refuse to be drawn on tangents as you have obviously run out of things to say. You can go to bed now, big boy.