The ones that disappear

(Art is a value?)

So…how do you explain, @Sid, art created by species other than Homo sapiens?

1 Like

That’s not true, you have dismissed scientific evidence from the theory of evolution several times on here.

For example the theory of evolution contains evidence that human emotions like love have a survival benefit, and this is why they evolved. You deny this (albeit with only handwaving), in favour of your unevidenced claim that a deity using inexplicable magic did it.

Truth is a theistic value, fnarrr you’ve lied relentlessly? Obviously none of those require theism, hilarious. It’s @Sid who is trying to hijack values and pretend they are theistic values.

  1. Truth is that which is in accordance with fact or reality, so the very antithesis of a theistic value, since they believe in the existence of what is not objectively real.
  2. Love describes a range of evolved human emotions, and ample objective evidence from the scientific theory of evolution explains how and why it evolved.
  3. Justice is simply a subjective view, and theism adds only blind faith based unevidenced dogma to this.
  4. All morality is subjective, including religious morality, and there is ample research to demonstrate that other species exhibit morality. Again religion adds nothing but an amoral blind adherence to archaic patriarchal Bedouin notions of morality.
  5. Art, predates religion, and is not at all dependant on it, this one is simply laughable.

@Sid, why do you think love is a reason to believe in a deity, as you claimed?


I have trouble explaining a lot of “art” be it visual or music but if you believe that life is a product of directed design then I believe you would find an answer there if it was something you felt you really needed to know more about . You would have different answers or no answers based upon your non belief .

Circular reasoning fallacy, if you belief life is designed then this leads to answers that involve a designer.

That depends what questions you’re asking, and questions religious apologists ask are usually leading and make unevidenced presuppositions. Nothing in art requires or evidences a deity, unless you can offer something more than these unevidenced assertions you’ve offered thus far?

@Sid, why do you think love is evidence for a deity, as you claimed?

And the drivel keeps flowing …

Let’s take a look at this shall we?

This is going to be hilarious.

Poppycock. Love isn’t a “theistic value”, it’s an emotion that humans have experienced ever since we became a well-defined species. Indeed, that emotion was almost certainly experienced by our hominid ancestors going all the way back to Ardipithecus. Scientists have observed bonding relationships taking place between Capuchin monkeys (more on this later), and those monkeys know nothing about your goat herder mythology, your cartoon magic man or your so-called “theistic values”.

Indeed, thanks to the papers I recently obtained on empathy in rats, I suspect they experience this too.

Let’s move on to the rest of your drivel …

Again, poppycock. The truth-value of a proposition has nothing to do with your goat herder mythology or your mythical “theistic values”, it’s the status a proposition attains when it is tested to determine said truth-value, either by recourse to relevant observational data, or by recourse to a derivation in an appropriate formal system. The idea that mathematical proofs, for example, owe anything to your mythical “theistic values” is a pathetic joke. Likewise for postulates about concrete entities verifired by scientific experiment.

Another falsification of this cretinous assertion of yours, is provided by the fact that your goat herder mythology contains within its pages, assertions that are not merely false (but presented therein as purportedly constituting fact), but which are absurd and deranged to such an extent, that they are beneath deserving of a point of view in any rigorous arena of discourse.

Again, poppycock. I’ll cover this in more detail shortly.


Are you completely unaware of this docuemnt:

that I shared here, in which I present the evidence for the evolutionary and biological basis of ethical behaviour? Which includes the concepts of reciprocity and fairness, both of which have been demonstrated to be present in the behaviour of numerous non-human species? Species which, again, know nothing about your cartoon magic man or your mythical “theistic values”?

Note that I presented the contents of no less than eighteen peer reviewed scientific papers in that document, backing the requiiste statements.

Incidentally, several of the papers I presented therein arise from the research of Frans de Waal, and he provides us with this interesting video clip:

The section of that video from about 15:30 onwards is especially illuminating here. Oh wait, capuchin monkeys have a sense of fairness and justice, while knowing nothing of your cartoon magic man or your mythical “theistic values”.


Humans have been producing art for a long time - we have instances of art produced by humans dating back to the Upper Palaeolithic, around 40,000 yeas before present, which is around 37,000 years before your mythology existed. In the case of indigenous Australians, some of their art, (including the remarkable instances of “x ray art” they produced, along with abstract “dot art”) may date back as much as 70,000 years before present. None of the people involved in the production of said art knew anything about your mythical “theistic values”.

Meanwhile, how about an example of art from another species?

Male Bower Birds spend days, weeks, or in the case of some species, years building elaborate structures known as “bowers”, which they decorate with carefully selected brightly coloured objects in order to entice females to mate with them. The deliberation exhibited by male Bower Birds when deciding exactly where in their constructions to place particular brightly coloured objects, bears many of the hallmarks of artistic deliberation in humans - it’s entirely possible that these birds possess an aesthetic sense, and apply that to the construction of these elaborate nests. Effectively, the male Bower Birds expend all this effort, to construct a “theatre stage” for their mating dances, and display remarkable intricacy in the construction of said stages. Once again, these birds know nothing of your cartoon magic man or your mythical “theistic values”.

For those interested in seeing one of these birds in action, here’s a video of the Vogelkop Bower Bird strutting its stuff, so to speak (yes, bird porn :smiley: )

Indeed, it’s becoming more and more apparent, as I examine your drivel, that “theistic values” consist of making shit up, in order to pretend that concepts and phenomena bearing no relation to your cartoon magic man purportedly cannot exist without this imaginary entity. If anything, it’s your so-called “theistic values” that involve stealing ideas from elsewhere.


Well, @Sid, that’s the closest you’ve come to saying, “I don’t know.”
I suppose you are correct, that were I a theist of some sort, I would find different answers to a great many questions. Would those answers be dependable, repeatable, testable, reliable? I can ask my four year old granddaughter a question and get a really fanciful answer that bears no resemblance to reality (albeit entertaining). But it’s an answer.
So your response to my question seams fanciful but without much substance.
I’d very much like to know more about why you believe instead of why folks here do not. It seams, by your posts, that you challenge a lot but explain infrequently.

1 Like

@Sid, from your list of five things stolen from theists, I asked about love. Now I’ll ask about justice.
What do you think justice is? (Don’t throw me a dictionary, tell me what you think.)
Please don’t walk over this question, Sid.

You do realize dictionaries are designed to give us common usage of terms so that we can agree on them and actually have a conversation. Why would someone invent their own term and then attempt to talk about it. Then they would sound as foolish as you.

Yes, although I am often foolish, I do, in fact, realize that dictionaries provide common usage definitions for words. In my experience, however, people too frequently have in mind a definition other than the most popular. That’s why I asked, Cog.

1 Like

Uh, I have a theory about that…

Edit to do some “research”

Indeed, this is the one question he’s been asked repeatedly and dodged every time - namely, what makes him think that a cartoon magic man fro a goat herder mythology is real? Along with the supplementary question of why this particular cartoon magic man from this mythology?

HUH! My sincerest apologies Cyber. I honestly thought I was responding to Sid. The tone of my objections were completely inappropriate for addressing you. This is 100% my problem and not a deficiency on your part. You are certainly due a public apology, and I have nothing but respect for your effort and participation in the forums. I thought I was responding to Sid. “Yes,” I went back and looked at the thread. 'Yes" your name is right at the top. “Yes” I am an idiot for not paying attention. I generally don’t pay attention to who makes comments, and obviously I should pay more attention with my flippant approach to many. I sincerely apologize for my tone. And, you are correct and completely undeserving of any ridicule, unlike Tin Man or Skriten.


Thank you, Cognostic.


OFF WITH HIS HEAD! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Baliff, whack him on the pee-pee! :hammer:


Man! This is a tough room! Have you guys had any meat to eat lately? Sheesh! Ready to crucify…
Its not like this is the first time an unjustified belief led to impulsive, inappropriate behavior…and now you guys are doing it, and finally, yes, so am I…See what you started @Cognostic ?
Edit Uh…Monkey see Monkey… uh… shame on you?..Uh,…we can’t get fooled again!

1 Like

The fallacy fallacy of the never ending fallacy .
So because I believe in directed design that means I will only find answers that involve a designer ??, and that of course is circular reasoning .
However, if you don’t believe in directed design then you will be led to answers that do not involve a designer ?? and of course that is perfectly logical and no circular reasoning involved .
Of course the comeback will be that, wait for it, you have provided no proof of a designer and therefore there can be no designer . Got it

As I said before Love is sufficient for me to crack the egg and if one is sufficient then the rest fall in line .
However I will answer your question .
Why does a blind indifferent universe need justice ?
If you say it doesn’t then why do you ?

Go and learn what a circular reasoning fallacy means, I merely indicated that you had used one in your assertion.

I do not believe in a deity because there is no objective evidence for design in nature, indeed it is a universal characteristic of design, (where we see objective evidence for it), that it is unnatural, and does not therefore occur in nature. I have base no assumptions, nor do have I made any claims beyond that. I merely withhold belief from your claims that a deity exists, or is even possible, You can offer nothing to support the claim beyond demonstrably irrational arguments (see circular reasoning fallacy et al), and unevidenced assertions.

No you haven’t got it, so you either can’t read, or are lying, but I am done explaining the epistemological and rational difference between withholding belief from a claim, and making a contrary claim. the posters here will already know this much, you can go away and learn it, or not, at this point I could care less. Not least because you refuse to answer questions or evidence claims relentlessly. For example:

@Sid why do you think the existence of (an evolved emotion like) love remotely evidences a deity?

It seems you have nothing, but then that was clear from the first. What is more intriguing is have you enough self awareness to see you that your inability to answer with a single word of explanation has an obvious inference.

There is my original response to expose the dishonest way you again misrepresented what I said.

Note you failed to address that, or any of the other refutations of yet another of your tediously unevidenced assertions.