Why Darwin Matters by misbehaven

America loves a winner!

Now now, drama queen. Seems like you have a rather exaggerated view of yourself. I'm sure that in, EVERY case, you were minding your own sweet business, and loh and behold!....out of the woodwork all these seething fundies w/ pitch forks and torches came banging on your door!!!

* wishes there was a snooze emoticon *

Frem, I don't know you, and sure as hell wasn't ridiculing anything which you hold dear, so what the fuck is w/ you and the ad hominems toward me ? If you WANTED to beg to differ, and then calmly relay your own views, then fine. But you didn't have to such an a-hole about it all. You sound like the sort who spills their problems out on the dinner tabel for all to see, even when no one asked you to. Maybe it's the way you dress, the way you talk, the music you listen to...hell, I have no idea. But it sure sounds like you've gone out of your way to show you're all non conformy and then whine when folks treat you as a non conformy type.

The brutal Soviet regimes? Hitler's reign? You are SERIOUSLY lacking in historical reference here, pal. You sound like Dick Durbin, for Buddha's sake. Overreact much ? Oops. too late. I already know the answer to that one.

And please, read this part before you lash back in some standard, knee jerk reply. I am NOT a Christian ( believer in Christ, born again,..get the idea ? ) so don't waste your diatribe telling me I'm the one going to hell or some such nonsense.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Dude, you seriously need to introduce yourself to a quaalude or something, and chill out.

If I was so damn expressive in person, why the hell would the local homeowners org need to try so hard to find out which church, if any, I belong to, eh ?
It's not their damned business by any means, and if I cared for them to know they would, so your argument goes to pieces.

Was I deliberately and maliciously baiting you, specifically, in hopes of watching you verbally crap a brick cause someone dared blow yet another of your precious fictions into powder ?

Yeah, I guess I was... *shrug*, it was funny.

Lenin wasn't brutal ? Stalin wasn't brutal ?
Gee, I guess sending dissenters off to the gulags was their version of club med, now wasn't it ?
And Hitler didn't much care for non-party members either.

Let's face the facts here, whether you like it or not, in this day and age, in the USA, the supposed land of freedom (hahahah*gasp*hahahaha) being found to be non-christian is damned well exactly like being found to not be a "loyal member of the party" in communist russia or nazi germany - people talk, they work against you, of course all in the name of "bringing you to god" but yes, some of em don't much care how you get there.

And for your information, since you care so much, most of that came from a rather odd set of rumors set in motion by an ex-friend who figured out what my beliefs were and went completely apeshit about it to the locals, your typical pig-humping straw hat conservative bucktooth morons who couldn't rub two brain cells together if they had them, who decided to run me off until they realized that not ALL different belief systems are dumbass neo-pacificst doormats just waiting to be walked on, and that they might actually.. you know, get HURT in the process of trying to harm me, and then like the cowards they were, ran back to their church to try to PRAY me out of town, oh joy oh joy - I guess they prolly even believed it worked, since I left the area in disgust with them shortly thereafter.

You also make the dire mistake of somehow believing I care what you believe, or what you think - why would I ? why should I ?

You'd have to actually matter to me for that to happen.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In fact... it's EXACTLY like that.

Overreaching word my ass, it's as exact a description as possible.

As a former fundie, I have to concur with Frem--but I would qualify evangelical Christianity (or fundamentalist Christianity) as opposed to your average Methodist or cradle Catholic who doesn't give others enough thought to persecute them. Not to say Methodists and Catholics don't have their own version of modern inquisition, but relatively speaking, it is a LOT tamer.

Now not ALL evangelical Christians are like that. Some fundies are tolerant and kind in the original tradition of their faith. And some parts of the country are worse than others.

But evangelical Christianity, as a whole, is founded on the bedrock of judgment. God judges who will go to heaven and who will go to hell. Born again Christians are taught to JUDGE who is a Christian and who isn't (cause you know, yoking with a nonbeliever is a sin), to JUDGE what is a sin and what isn't. In addition, they are rabid about proselytizing and forcing their morals on others. This compulsion to judge results in an inquisition-type climate for those who they've singled out as sinful or wicked.

Like I said, I used to be a fundie. My husband headed the D&D group at our college and was singled out by my group as being the spawn of Satan. I went to talk to him for a few months, decided that not only was he not the anti-Christ incarnate, but that he was really a Christian. I was called before the congregation, accused of a slew of lies without being able to defend myself, and told that I was gangrene in the body of Christ and needed to be cut off. All my friends and roommates were told never to speak to me again except to ask me to repent. Now if that isn't an inquisition type event, I don't know what is.

Now to be fair, not all evangelical churches operate this way. However, even without these extremes, the intolerance of dissention underlies most of their interaction with the world.

God help us all should they ever achieve the political power they crave. I have no doubt that it will be every bit as brutal as Stalin or Hitler.

Frem, have you ever seen a little known movie called Rising Storm? It depicts a futuristic theocratic police state. My favorite line in that movie is, "Don't I have rights?" -- "F*ck your rights! Praise Jesus!"

Cracks me up.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Nitpicking my way thru the thread...

Quote:
People think if Darwin admittedly credits Malthus, he must have read Smith as well.

Then why not credit Smith directly? I might have read "The Wordly Philosophers" (which discusses Marx) and credit my understanding of economic philosophies, but that doesn't mean I read Marx.

Quote:
I think your point was that scientists have some sort of "schism" if they believe in both God and science at the same time.

Do scientist "believe" in science like you "believe" in God? Yes. Behind every philosophy are underlying assumptions which cannot be proven or reduced. But what that means is that the underlying assumptions- that which you assume to be true- really are fundamentally incompatible. There is no way to "blend" belief in the natural v belief in the supernatural.

Quote:
terrorism commited by christians -( eric rudolph ) olympic park bombing. deaths - 1

Terrorism committed by Xtians- 50,000+ since 2000 if you count dead Iraqi civilians. Which I know you don't because

(a) They're not Americans. Only dead Americans count.
(b) Killing civilians to induce state of terror isn't terrorism if you have really big guns to do it with.
(c) The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Islam. Except unless otherwise noted by Auraptor.

---------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is no way to "blend" belief in the natural v belief in the supernatural.

Well, that may be the crux of our disagreement. Like I said, plenty of very well respected and well published scientist do that very blending, so I am concluding there must be a way to blend. You call that way "schism," and they call that way, "way."

Here is the thing Sig. Many of us scientists do not assume that the "natural" is all there is in the universe. I really think whether you call it a schism or not boils down to this question: you either believe what Causal calls physical monism, or you believe the supernatural can possibly exist (simply because well, one can't scientifically or logically prove that it doesn't).

And if you're a physical monist, that is fine. Allow some room for dissent without saying your belief system is superior and the only one that is true?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:07 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Fremdfirma wrote:
Tuesday, August 29, 2006 05:24
Dude, you seriously need to introduce yourself to a quaalude or something, and chill out.

If I was so damn expressive in person, why the hell would the local homeowners org need to try so hard to find out which church, if any, I belong to, eh ?
It's not their damned business by any means, and if I cared for them to know they would, so your argument goes to pieces.

Was I deliberately and maliciously baiting you, specifically, in hopes of watching you verbally crap a brick cause someone dared blow yet another of your precious fictions into powder ?

Yeah, I guess I was... *shrug*, it was funny.

Dude, keep the self medication to a minimum, if you can. I'll skip the 'lude, pal. It's you who needs it. You sure are making a big deal out of some homeowners group ASKING what church you attend. If it's none of their bidness, no big worries. They can ask, doesn't mean you have to answer. And it doesn't mean you have to feel threatened either. You've got some serious paranoia issues, that's for sure.

Quote:
Lenin wasn't brutal ? Stalin wasn't brutal ?
Gee, I guess sending dissenters off to the gulags was their version of club med, now wasn't it ?
And Hitler didn't much care for non-party members either.

You comparing anything today in the US to what Lenin or Hitler did is patently absurd.That stuff WAS brutal. What you're experiencing isn't. Not by a long shot. That's where you need to learn up on your history. You underscore what went on in those regimes when you try to compare them to anything you'll ever experience.

Quote:
Let's face the facts here, whether you like it or not, in this day and age, in the USA, the supposed land of freedom (hahahah*gasp*hahahaha) being found to be non-christian is damned well exactly like being found to not be a "loyal member of the party" in communist russia or nazi germany - people talk, they work against you, of course all in the name of "bringing you to god" but yes, some of em don't much care how you get there.

" they work against you! " Yep, you're paranoid. I just wonder what section of the US you live in. I happen to live in the S.E. And yes, I know small towns can be rather close minded, but so what ?

Quote:
And for your information, since you care so much, most of that came from a rather odd set of rumors set in motion by an ex-friend who figured out what my beliefs were and went completely apeshit about it to the locals, your typical pig-humping straw hat conservative bucktooth morons who couldn't rub two brain cells together if they had them, who decided to run me off until they realized that not ALL different belief systems are dumbass neo-pacificst doormats just waiting to be walked on, and that they might actually.. you know, get HURT in the process of trying to harm me, and then like the cowards they were, ran back to their church to try to PRAY me out of town, oh joy oh joy - I guess they prolly even believed it worked, since I left the area in disgust with them shortly thereafter.

You also make the dire mistake of somehow believing I care what you believe, or what you think - why would I ? why should I ?

You'd have to actually matter to me for that to happen.

-Frem

Oh yes, the mighty individual you are. You fly off the handle the moment anyone DARES to suggest you live your own life, regardless of what others think. " Oooooho! But they're out to get me! An ex-friend spread rumors about me and I still act like I'm in Jr High school, and now Jenny's friend won't say hello to me because she thinks I don't like her friends, blah blah blah ..... "

I can see you have a great deal of growing up to do. Or maybe in your case, it's 'evolving', before you and I could ever see eye to eye.

But I'm not holding my breath. G'day.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
They can ask, doesn't mean you have to answer. And it doesn't mean you have to feel threatened either.

Askin is one thing, but you know quite well it don't stop with just askin, and it hasn't, and I personally find it somewhat annoying, wouldn't anyone ?

Quote:
You comparing anything today in the US to what Lenin or Hitler did is patently absurd.

Is it now ? rabid nationalism, racism and aggression against a targeted ethnic group, homeland security, intensive surveillance, gitmo... on no, nothing like those regimes, nothing to see here, move along, move along, shows over folks...

Umm, do you even live on the same planet as the rest of us, I wonder ?

Quote:
" they work against you! " Yep, you're paranoid. I just wonder what section of the US you live in. I happen to live in the S.E. And yes, I know small towns can be rather close minded, but so what ?

Oh that's rich, you start with calling me paranoid for noticing something that at the end of the sentence, you admit that they do.

Sure you're not already self-medicating ? Paxil counts, you know.

And I got only one thing to say in response to you thinking me being pissed about something throwing a molotov (which thankfully fell short) at my house is "junior high".

I'm glad my neighbor is a better person than you and rolled out his garden hose to assist instead of accusing me of something.

And in case you missed it, I don't care what they think, and I certainly don't care what you think - I care what people DO... and if they do offensive things, I take issue with it.

Like Hero, you keep buyin rope from me, and even help tie the noose, don't you people ever learn?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 10:50 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Like Hero, you keep buyin rope from me, and even help tie the noose, don't you people ever learn?

-Frem

The only way this comes close to making sense is that you're a troll, and are simply spewing this shit for some lame ass amusement. You've already shown yourself to be irrational, so I'll group you in w/ your fellow troll buddies, Pirate News and Kaneman. Enjoy!

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- Ah, the nub.

Quote:
Well, that may be the crux of our disagreement. Like I said, plenty of very well respected and well published scientist do that very blending, so I am concluding there must be a way to blend. You call that way "schism," and they call that way, "way."

People - even scientists- are notoriously illogical, contextual non-thinkers. There are several examples how most people are wrong most of the time which will take too long to type up. Suffice it to say, I do not find this a compelling argument.

Quote:
Here is the thing Sig. Many of us scientists do not assume that the "natural" is all there is in the universe. I really think whether you call it a schism or not boils down to this question: you either believe what Causal calls physical monism, or you believe the supernatural can possibly exist (simply because well, one can't scientifically or logically prove that it doesn't).

So given possibility that something "untestable" exists "outside of the natural universe" (BTW that's a contradiction in terms. The universe is by definition "everything that exists everywhere") why would someone choose to assume that it exists?

Quote:
And if you're a physical monist, that is fine. Allow some room for dissent without saying your belief system is superior and the only one that is true?

http://www.answers.com/topic/physicalism

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
People - even scientists- are notoriously illogical, contextual non-thinkers. There are several examples how most people are wrong most of the time which will take too long to type up. Suffice it to say, I do not find this a compelling argument.

Sig: There is no way to blend.
CTS: People do it all the time, so obviously there is a way.
Sig: Well, their way is wrong.

So you are now saying there is no RIGHT way to blend the natural and the supernatural. And who gets to define which is the RIGHT way?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Well, that may be the crux of our disagreement. Like I said, plenty of very well respected and well published scientist do that very blending, so I am concluding there must be a way to blend. You call that way "schism," and they call that way, "way."

No they don't they compartmentalise, they say so themselves.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
No they don't they compartmentalise, they say so themselves.

Is there an Association of Scientific Blenders I don't know about? Who's "they"? I mean, specifically, who do you know said this? And does that one or two or however many people you can quote represent all scientists who blend?

I personally know at least a handful of professional research scientists (people who do scientific research for a living) who are very religious, and they don't compartmentalize.

Maybe some scientists do compartmentalize, and other scientists blend. The fact is blending does occur. Now SignyM is saying the blenders aren't doing it right. I'd like to know what that means.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Fringe, kook whackos out there killing and claiming to be doing " God's work " are far and few between. The disparity between a random 'abortion doctor killer' and an Islamic suicide bomber are is on an absurdly large scale. Muslims killing other Muslims and other's rates in the 10,000's, if not higher, where as Christian killers are ...what, in the single digits for the year? If that ? Maybe if you did an honest, side by side comparison of identified terrorist and the #'s of victims each has tallied, I could admit my error. Until then, nah.

I'm flying out to Atlanta in two days time, and that's a lot of work you want from me there, I'll try and get too it after my trip.

Quote:
My 'jealous' comment was ,in part, tongue in cheek. I was trying to come up with some reason why you'd use such an overreaching word as 'Inquisition' to describe Christianity here in the U.S. From my point of view, such hyperbole was worthy of a 'neener neener' reply on my part.

I said how dangerous it would be if Fundamentalist Christians ever gained control of America, then I said Inquisition. I thought it would be obvious that I meant an inquisition would occur after a turn to theocracy.

Also I think you really under estimate the fundamentalists. They aint a bunch of no teeth red necks marrying their pigs in the mountains man, they have schools, finishing schools that are teaching the 'cream' of American Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians to become the next presidents of the united states. Teaching them to say the right things to get the common vote, teaching them to win any debate no matter how untenable their position. Teaching how wrong Evolution is in the face of Creationism in science class (I kid you not).

These aint a bunch of slack jawed yokels with pitch forks and an eye for the sow, their organised and committed to playing the long game to break down the barrier between church and state.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Is there an Association of Scientific Blenders I don't know about? Who's "they"? I mean, specifically, who do you know said this? And does that one or two or however many people you can quote represent all scientists who blend?

You're asking me for evidence you don't provide yourself. Just thought that needed to be said.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You're asking me for evidence you don't provide yourself. Just thought that needed to be said.

Pfft.

I already gave you general information on the scientists on my end. To reiterate, they are professional scientists I personally know. If you want, I can email their names, credentials, and scientific fields privately but that will take some time because I would have to get their permission first.

I mean you provided absolutely NO clue, except to say "they." All I want is general information on who "they" are. Are they people you know? People you read? People quoted by authors you read? Friends of people quoted by authors who were quoted by some newspaper article?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 1:14 PM

All of the above.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- Well, possibly we're just hacking over a definitional problem.

So, when you say something is "outside of nature" maybe a description of what that means to you would eliminate whole swaths of disagreement.

Perhaps you view (or you think others view) "nature" as fully testable, knowable, or predictable... a kind of mechanistic clockwork about which we know the important "stuff" already... we just need to work out the details. How do you view "nature"?

Or to reverse the question: What would you define as being "outside" of nature? A phenomenon that behaved in contradiction to all known laws- like a miracle? A phenomenon that was exceptionally random- like luck? A feeling of invisible support? A code of ethics? Free will?

It would be a great disappointement to me if the universe turned out to be fully knowable. I hope there are aspects of the universe we will never become aware of, simply because we can't perceive the parameter. (Our perceptions are often limited by our ideas. Having one idea blocks out others.) I am confused about "free will"... I suspect it is not anywhere near as "free" as people like to think. (I think our brains do an analogue add/ subtract along possible lines of action. If I'm bothered by a radio I may not get up to shut it off unless I'm also itchy, for example.) I wonder whether the future is already determined.... if you start out with two physical entities that are exactly the same in every aspect, will you always get the same result?

I honestly don't know. Perhpas it is thsi state of unkowingness that you think of as supernatural.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:51 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey Signy, CTS,

There's something seems to be missing from your discussion. I think Signy's framing of the debate as natural vs. supernatural is a big part of the problem. Signy's argument seems to imply that anyone who believes in God (however you define it), is doing so entirely at a whim. They just like the idea, or "It seems like a pleasant notion, everyone's doing it and it sure would be nice to live in such a world so I'll say there's a God."

Here's the wacky religious scientist, with all her hard data and crunchable numbers, nonetheless saying to herself, "Now I'll posit a Universal Invisible Friend to keep me 'company' while I study the result of my latest double blind trials."

Well, it sounds completely goofy.

Here I am for instance. I don't believe in God or Angels or Demons; I don't posit them as a pleasing fiction or crutch to comfort me when I'm blue. I've actually had to deal with things that match the standard descriptions of such critters to a degree sufficiant that I find these terms useful when describing my experience.

I ain't saying that all these religious scientists are full-blown shamanistic mystics or nothin', but I'm thinking that the difference between one of me and one of them may be more a matter of degree than of kind.

Scientists who believe in God have some level of personal anecdotal evidence, subjective and intuitive perception at least, that there's something more to the world than the official five senses can varify and that this "something more" seems to perceive them, seems to will or intend something for them. Sure, sure, it could just be their subconsious or a problem with brain hemispheres, but they've prolly thought of that too and their gut still says, "Hrmmmmm, not so much."

Their gut says, "Just 'cause I can't prove my feeling in a lab, doesn't mean I should abandon it like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny."

Naturally, to someone of a scientific bent, such a provocative notion needs investigating, but hardcore science has nothing to offer them. And yet they have that nagging feeling.

So, they turn to religion. They read some holy book or other and something of this feeling that they have, this sense of what the Universe is up to, is reflected (prolly rather imperfectly) in the book. So they stick with the book even though the book is full--and I mean chock FULL--of illogical, disquieting garbage, because they haven't found their deepest intuition about the nature of the Universe reflected anywhere else.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:35 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
.... Teaching them to say the right things to get the common vote, teaching them to win any debate no matter how untenable their position. Teaching how wrong Evolution is in the face of Creationism in science class (I kid you not).

These aint a bunch of slack jawed yokels with pitch forks and an eye for the sow, their organised and committed to playing the long game to break down the barrier between church and state.

Oh, these things occur, on that we'll agree. And it's likely far more involved than most folks would think. Even Katherine Harris, Congresswoman from Florida and trying to win a US Senate seat has said more Christians need to be voted into office, and save this country from sin. Those kooks are out there, but there's no real threat of them overrunning the Gov't any time soon ( not in my life time, at least ). Ms Harris, btw, is expected to do very poorly and be soundly defeated in the Nov. election.

As for the CreatioNAZIS, I've been debunking their kind for a decade or more. Not that they really NEED help debunking, as they do an o.k. job of it themselves, if anyone happens to listen to them.

On a lighter note, Kent (Dr. Dino ) Hovind was arrested once again, for tax fraud. This guy has a 'degree' from an uncredited clown college that was nothing more than a few tables and chairs in some guy's basement. I personally think the guy is mentally touched, but that's for another thread.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:05 PM

ANTIMASON

Citizen- just so i understand your theory correctly, you think that christianity is the world puppetmaster, with the end goal of abolishing church and state..with what motive? i really want to hear your theory about how all of this is layed out, from beginning to end; the truth as you see it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Citizen- just so i understand your theory correctly, you think that christianity is the world puppetmaster, with the end goal of abolishing church and state..with what motive? i really want to hear your theory about how all of this is layed out, from beginning to end; the truth as you see it?

In the words of Homer Simpson Holy-Macaroni! Where did I say that?

I merely said that some fundementalist Christians in America are preparing to take over the US government from within and turn the country into a theocracy.

I've seen them on video saying "We're preparing these children to be the next presidents of the United States and to break down the barrier between church and state". They were talking about a well funded private school, whose science lessons are to do with debunking science in the face of Christianity, not with teaching science or the scientific method.

I imagine they want to do it because like many hard core fundemenatalists they are utterly convinced that they are right, that their actions are gods will and they merely want to save America from sin.

Unfortunatly when you get a group of people who tend to think they're a little bit infallible and that they're actions are mandated from on up high you tend to get crusades and inquisitions. You'll at the very least have pretty stringent laws against Freedom of Speech, who ever heard of a Christian Theocracy that allowed people to say they don't believe in God?

Point is there are VERY good reasons for the seperation between Church and state, and evidently some people don't realise that. Islamic nutcases fly planes into buildings, Christian nutcases work behind the scenes, which singles them out as a fair bit more dangerous, since they are not committing a crime, they're legally planning to turn the US into a fascist state.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:52 AM

Quote:
Point is there are VERY good reasons for the seperation between Church and state, and evidently some people don't realise that.

Right, citizen, and not only from a secular point of view. There are many hints in the new testament, that point into this direction as well (e.g. give Caesar, what belongs to him, and GOD, what belongs to him - sorry, translated from German not into correct "St James stile"). So I wonder, whether these Christians really know their good book, or just go on with their own plans (not asking for HIS).

Only one quick post today. Gotta go.
Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:53 AM

Quote:
who ever heard of a Christian Theocracy that allowed people to say they don't believe in God

who ever heard of a Christian Theocracy at all????

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:59 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I suppose most of our "thoughts" are based on feelings. So while CTS had an experience that leads to the thought "Someone is out there cheerleading me on" I could point to an equally powerful (and likely equally invalid) feeling that NOBODY is out there, NOBODY "cares". The anti-Santa Claus moment.

One feeling versus another.

Feelings are very tricky things. I deal with three people: Myself, my child, and my SO- whose feelings are compromised in one way or another and are therefore unreliable tools for decision-making. I have overridden some of my deepest feelings when making decisions (followed my head, not my heart) only to learn that my head was correct.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Esther:
Quote:
who ever heard of a Christian Theocracy that allowed people to say they don't believe in God

who ever heard of a Christian Theocracy at all????

Love my captain!

Vatican City (it's an independent state), just about all of Europe for a good deal of it's history.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:32 AM

Quote:
Vatican City (it's an independent state), just about all of Europe for a good deal of it's history.

Nah, not really. Ever been to Vatican state? It's a Part of the city of Rome - and heavily depending on Italian politics. It has 0,44 square-kilometres and around 900 inhabitants (about 550 of which are state citizens). That would be like calling Manhattan an independent state (or my employing company, coming to speak of it. I always suspected, it's a "bureaucracy" in a totalitarian sense).

And coming to European history: there was a constant quarrel going on between the "wordly" powers (Kings and the like), and the pope - of which in some stages, there were up to three different ones at a time. The popes never had any "wordly" power, and the Kings tried to keep it this way. People knew, that it was about power, not about God (if you look at medieval heaven-and-hell pictuers, you find often quite a lot of clerics burning on the hell side - even popes!) Medieval time was not as homogenous, at it often seems for us today. There were lots of heathens (Saxons, Fanks, Allemans, Wikings etc.)all over the place,and latr the reformation.

From about 1122 (Investiturstreit - Canossa - Wormser Konkordat, sorry, I tried to look that up in English, but I didn't find a translation), the separation between church and state was pretty definite.

I really wouldn't call that a theocracy. I still don't think, that it's "intrinsic" to Christianity, to build a theocracy - on the contrary: it's all about personal relationship (to God) and our own conscience. Jesus was a rebel to the system, Luther was too, even St. Franciscus.

But maybe, that's just a matter of wording and I don't really get, what you are saying.

Oh, and your remark "Europe for a good deal of it's history" made me smile a bit. Christianity bekame state religion in the East-Roman Empire (actually partly Asia - today's Turkey) around 300 (Konstantin the Great) and at 600, the continent was so "heathen" again, that missionaries were sent out from Ireland building monasteries on the continent. But before that, Europe had a history of about 8.000 years (if you start at the later stoneage) or even 2,4 million years (if you start at the first stone tools of Homo Egaster - after all, this is a "Evolution" thread, is it?) without any Christianity (and thus Christian Theocracy).

I'm not a historian. I found all the figures in Wikipedia (great tool!)

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 5, 2006 10:19 PM

Number one:
The Vatican is an independent state. Manhattan isn't. Saying Vatican City is an independent state is nothing like saying Manhattan is an independent state.

Vatican City is OFFICIALLY an independent state.

Don't believe me? Ask wiki:

Quote:
Vatican City Coordinates: 41°54′10″N, 12°27′9″E — formally State of the Vatican City, or Vatican City State (Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano, Latin: Status Civitatis Vaticanae) — is a sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a landlocked, almost completely walled, enclave within the city of Rome, Italy. The entire state is about 44 hectares (108.7 acres) and thus is a European microstate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

Number Two:
I'll tell you what; you're splitting of hairs made me smile. I would have thought it obvious I was talking of modern Europe, which didn't exist until after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Most of the states of Europe were founded as Christian, were ruled by 'divine' kings and worship of any religion other than the state religion was punishable by death, that's the definition of theocracy.

The history of Europe goes back Billions of years, but the dinosaurs not being Christian means nothing.

The argument of Homo ergaster makes no sense (not least since I’m pretty sure homo ergaster never existed in ‘Europe’), so what there was no Christianity back then, there was no Europe back then either. There was land we came to call Europe, but by similar logic we could say Israel hasn't been Jewish for all its history because Palestine wasn't Jewish prior to 1947.

A definition of Theocracy:
Any government in which the leaders of the government are also the leaders of the religion and they rule as representatives of the deity.
So, for instance, just like Henry Tudor VIII.

Number Three:
I never said there was something special about Christianity that creates theocracies, and saying "Jesus was a rebel" as proof that Christianity can't produce theocracies seems pretty nonsensical.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 9:38 AM

Hi Citizen,

the sound of your answer made me feel, as if I had stepped on your toes a bit. wasn't my intent. I just always feel kind of bad if someone puts so many countries and centuries (as the time of Europe after the roman empire) into one single statement, and I always feel, that "Middle Ages" is a wildly missunderstood concept (like there was rather no burning of whitches in the Middle Ages. That only started in the 14 hundreds, which is already Renaissance - modern Ages). I have the same problem with the US - I had one of these "all US is a non-culture we-can-buy-everything McDonalds community" discussion with a russian colleage today. Just pisses me off. He never had been to the states, and still he leaves "no good hair" on them.

Yes, you're right, vatican is an official state. I just thought using the word "theocracy" for 500 people was a bit "big" (some churches have more members...), but o.k., point taken.

I was already typing some answers to your other points, but I erased them, thinking this would be more suitable for a discussion we could lead over a friendly glass of wine, if we should ever meet. Going to any convention in the near future?

So, read you around the vicinity
Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 10:38 AM

Sorry, didn't mean it to come across like that, I'd just landed from my trip to the states, 7.5hr flight overnight so.

Yeah I'm going to S3, planning on D*C next year in September, you?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 8, 2006 2:17 PM

WALKERHOUND

Quote:
I would have thought it obvious I was talking of modern Europe, which didn't exist until after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Most of the states of Europe were founded as Christian, were ruled by 'divine' kings and worship of any religion other than the state religion was punishable by death, that's the definition of theocracy.

hmmm but those "divine" kings spent large hunks of there time fighting with the holly see. as individuals or groups, contesting who was in charge of what or had the authority to do this other thing.

i'm not actually saying that you couldn't make the argument that any or all of those societies at that time and place (or realy almost any other place) were theocracy's (by strict definition at lest). sort of like the monarch of Briton is the head of the church of England, so there for England is a theocracy (it's got technical points to it but not vary compelling as such, hummm i'n not sure i have a point as such here).

sigh: i suppose my problem as a catholic is the attitude you get so often in the science vs, faith (dun dun DUUNN) debate.

scientist or scientific community makes an anucment, "we have discovered xx and we think this will explain the actions of zz"

Me (roman rite catholic) "cool that's interesting" (or not cause it might be about something i find boring

)

"See there’s no g*d" atheist/ rationalist (as opposed to the grate mase of atheist that really couldn't care less about getting into the argument in the first place ) "AH ha see it proves there's no grate big sky bully/imaginary friend/ ect ect. so forth"

Me (RC) "how you figure that?"

A/R "well...science found a reason for xx so crazy (cough crutch cough that you need to explain things to complicated for you to understand) isn't needed any more"

Me "soooo a scintest feel's pretty confident he's figured out one of the basic law's of how things work. that just proves G*d lay's down a good design"

a/r "but........... ect ect"

Me "ya i don't agree with your conclusion. why are you still talking about it ? come back when you have a new argument, or at lest can stop calling me stupid."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 10, 2006 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Yeah I'm going to S3, planning on D*C next year in September, you?

Never been to ANY convention in my life. Feel soooo tempted to go to the flanvention, it's just, that I have spent so much money on my appartments renovation this year, and it's so far away and I would need some days of vaccation and there are not so many tickets anymore and ... well. Maybe I'm just scared and insecure.

S3 is on a weekend I already have other plans made (and paid). But maybe one day. D*C is in the US as well, right? Where are you about?

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 10, 2006 12:51 PM

I'd been to one convention, roped in to helping with an Aliens convention since a friends brother was organising it. It wasn't a great experience.

Anyway since then I've been to Starfury conventions and D*C, which have been much better. Nothing to be afraid of.

I'm in the UK I'm guessing your from the US?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 11, 2006 3:40 AM

Quote:
I'm in the UK I'm guessing your from the US?

na-a, Germany - so two Europeans discussing European history on a US website

(but I take your guess as a compliment regarding my language skills). I'm still hoping, that there will be a convention with Nathan and / or Joss in the UK - but I guess, chances look rather grim.

Esther

Love my captain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 11, 2006 8:05 AM