neeeel

How is that manipulation? How is it so hard to just link a fucking epsiode? I will answer your questions when you answer mine.

This is getting ridiculous. Give me ONE episode, or video , of one of his nature documentaries, where you think he is indoctrinating children. Otherwise, I will assume you mean them all. In which case, I will pick one at random, and if theres nothing in there, I will know I can discard your ideas in this thread. I have no problem watching an episode for myself. It just seems much simpler for you to tell me a relevant episode to watch. You must have one, seeing as you have come up with this thread and your opinions about his nature documentaries. Why is it so hard for you just to link it? I dont appreciate the veiled insults or slurs.

I am not questioning the idea that he is for population control. I am not even questioning the idea that his views may make their way into his videos. Humans DO have an effect on the environment. If his videos are along the lines of "humans have an effect on the environment, we need to be careful" I dont see a problem If they are along the lines of "You are all horrible people, dont have children, please die" then thats a problem Again, I have no interest in trawling through hours and hours of videos. Why can you not give me an example of a video where you think he is indoctrinating children? When you say "not even his 'nature' documentaries are safe for kids (indoctrination from young age).", what do you mean? All of them? Just his later ones where maybe he has become more left or pro-population control? or what?

what arguments? You havent presented any that I can see, just your opinion that hes promoting population control. in the first post you stated that he was for population control, that he is trying to diminish western culture, that you dont follow him any more, and hes bad for kids, "In your mind" ( your own words). No arguments that I can see, I suppose that "He is for population control, therefore his nature documentaries arent safe for kids" could be an argument, but I already asked for clarification on that one. in the second post you ask we to watch the videos and listen to the narration . No arguments that I can see, although I can see that watching his videos may support your position ( I am not interested in trawling through countless hours of david attenborough films, which is why I asked you for specific videos/clips). In the third post, you tell me to go watch his documentaries. No arguments there either Its totally possible that I missed them, or am too stupid to see them. Perhaps you can present them in argument format in your next post?

it depends. I havent watched a lot of his videos, just bits here and there, do you have a specific clip that would highlight your concerns?

Sorry, that still doesnt explain why I should consider it an honour. I mean, I can understand that they had it bad, but it still doesnt automatically follow that I should be honoured to know them. You have no idea of the motivations which caused your parents to have children, or whether things were really well at that time. Its not about blame. Its about honesty, love, care. When we were children, could we claim that we were having a bad time, and thats why we "misbehaved"? No, that wouldnt have swayed my parents, so they cant use that excuse either. I dont know what you mean by "non-Molyneux-ed mind", are you implying that I am brainwashed or cultified?

Im interested to know, how are his nature documentaries indoctrination?

ah, I see. that doesnt really answer anything though. "what is free will?" "free will is what gives you free will"

And what is the answer to the question "what ask and answer such thing"?

This is irrelevant as to whether there is a law in the UK that is (purportedly) to protect people who are on trial, and whether Tommy Robinson broke that law. You might disagree with the law, but thats a different matter.

yes, I think it was more the way you put it, that you could compare to an ideal standard, which does involve knowledge, but is more than that Consciousness doesnt strive, it doesnt do, consciousness is not what selects the thoughts feelings or actions. You are basically replacing the ghost in the machine/soul with consciousness.

I think that stefs definition of free will make sense in a way, that free will is the amount of knowledge you have. But consciousness isnt free will, consciousness doesnt actually do anything.

randomness/chance is not free will though

The basic argument for determinism is clear. In order for free will to be true, there has to be something "outside" of the chain of causation, that chooses thoughts, feelings and actions. Unless you believe in a ghost in the machine, a soul, or similar, then there is no "thing" that examines thoughts, feelings and actions, and chooses between them. when you make a decision, for example, all the different thoughts, chains of thought, opinions and ideas, which appear to come from a "you", are ALSO determined, in the sense of there being no entity that chooses the next thought, they arise, and fade away, without any assistance from you.

because youre not poisoning the well with your descriptions of atheistic vs religious celebrations/festivals at all.

Its not really clear what you are saying, but it sounds like a variant of "They were doing the best they could with the knowledge they had" or "Well, they had bad childhoods too" You didnt really answer my question. Why do I still need to consider it an honour?

Ok, to help me out here, can you directly quote where you answered the question "How do you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something". Perhaps I missed it, or maybe you are right and I am stupid, so if you can help me out by quoting your answer, and indicating that its the answer to my question, it would help me a lot. I am anticipating that your answer will be "no, go back and read it", but the problem is that I have already gone back multiple times and cant see it, so going back another time isnt going to help. This is your first actual direct response to my question, which is great, it shouldnt have taken me 4 or 5 times of asking though. My question is not nonsensical. The question makes perfect sense, gramatically, syntactically, and semantically. Its not a proven fact that everything was created by something. you can trace causality back to the big bang, but no further. As I understand it, science is still very much divided on how the universe came into being, and what caused the big bang.

no you didnt answer my question, which is how do you know that this is true. Your claim is Instead of saying how you know this in your original post, you jump straight to Then , when I asked you the question the first time, your response was Again, none of this answers how you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something. Nowhere in your entire answer to me did you lay out how you know that something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something.

No, you didnt explain it. You just stated it as if it was fact and I should accept it. "the first to exist was a paradox" , a paradox isnt a thing, its a concept. You would have to show that such a thing can exist as a tangible object in reality. Then you would have to show that it was the first thing to exist. You would need to show that from that paradox came an incoherent chaos (as well as defining what you mean by "incoherent chaos") I did read over what you said multiple times, all I see is a set of claims, with no explanation or proof. You also didnt address my first question , which was How do you know something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something?

How do you know something cannot exist if it wasnt first created by something? Nothing is something? really?

you are correct, evidence and proof are not the same. I stand corrected We seem to be roughly on the same page, I would even agree that everyone has irrational beliefs. This doesnt mean that people who believe in god are not irrational. It means that everyone is irrational to some degree. I am not irrational for believing that whales exist. I dont think you can claim that my evidence for whales is the same as other peoples evidence for god.

What? Evidence, and proof are pretty much synonymous. they can vary in exactly what they mean, eg a mathematical proof, but are often interchangeable. What proof do I have that space exists? Not sure what you mean by space? Do you mean where the planets and stars are? I can look out into the night and see the stars and planets. Sight, sound, taste , touch and smell is proof that something exists( it could be a hallucination, sure, but all of your senses and knowledge build to a coherent understanding of the world). Same with whales. I have seen pictures and videos of whales. I have seen other fish, and dolphins, it doesnt seem a stretch to believe that bigger fish exist. I can, if I want, go and see a whale in a zoo, or pay to go on a boat and see a whale. If I didnt believe in whales, I would also have to believe that there is a huge conspiracy by nearly every other human being to pretend that whales exist, to fake pictures, movies, and robotic whales to put in zoos and seas. It seems very unlikely. It seems like you think you have "gotcha'd" me because I accept some things without proof, and not others. You are incorrect. Whales are consistent with everything I know about the world. The possibility that its a hoax is incredibly small, in my opinion. There is physical evidence of whales. Are you seriously saying theres no evidence that whales exist? theres also the point that, if I am wrong about whales, its not a huge deal. It doesnt change my life in any way. If I believe in a (Christian) god, it affects my life hugely, in how I think and act. So, I can accept that whales exist, without being too bothered about it, any lack of evidence doesnt have an effect. If I accept god without evidence, there is a huge effect on my life. Delusion about whales has next to no effect. Delusion about god has a huge effect. What evidence is there that god exists? So far , anything I have come across is ludicrous, inconclusive, or doesnt hold up rationally.

This has been debunked many many times. firstly, of course there is no ape, 1/4 ape, etc, thats not how evolution works.its incremental change over time, you cannot point to an instant in time where something changed from "ape" to "1/4 ape". if you look at either end of time , ie ape and human, they appear very different, but there is no instant at which one changed to the other, there is no moment where an ape gave birth to a human, etc. Secondly, it takes many more than 100 generations to create a new species. The fact that you talk about "a lizard suddenly becoming an alligator or fish" shows you have no clue what evolution says, and are battling away at your own strawman. Thirdly, as I understand it, it is quite rare for a full fossil to be formed, so it make perfect sense that there wouldnt be hundred of thousands of such skeletons. fourthly, foxes have evolved, are evolving right now, as is every single other species on the planet, including humans. Evolution is an on going process , as environmental conditions, and competition between species, change. Evolution, change over time, is as pretty much a fact as anything can be. It is the best explanation we have for what we see today, and various different branches of science all arrive at the same conclusion. If you have evidence to show its wrong ( what you have written in this post is absolutely not evidence that its wrong), please bring it, and you could be next years nobel prize winner.

Not believing is the default position, until proof and evidence is presented. You can argue that non-belief in a god creates or presents problems for humanity. That still doesnt alter that non belief is the default position, or that proof and evidence hasnt been presented. Its not possible for a rational person to just decide to believe something that has no basis in ratiionality, so even if I could see that a belief in god was a positive for humanity, I still couldnt believe with no proof or evidence.

The way to get rid of the "atheist mindset" that religion is irrational, is to give rational proof of the existence of god. There is none. Even if you did have proof of the existence of god, there is absolutely no way to get from there, to a belief in Christianity and the bible.