Why Darwin Matters
POSTED BY: misbehaven
UPDATED: Monday, September 11, 2006 18:05
VIEWED: 12092
PAGE 1 of 1
The following article can be found in its entirety at: http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/ It's an interesting read regardless of one's faith or lack of faith. Here are few excerpts from the article:
The Joys Of Life Without God
Skeptics Society founder Michael Shermer explains why Darwin matters, how believing in God is the same as believing in astrology, and why it doesn't take divine faith to experience something bigger than ourselves.
Why does Darwin matter?
Because we live in the age of science. And the Darwinian worldview is the preeminent and best supported theory for the explanation of the natural and biological world. Marx is gone. Freud is gone. History and data have not supported their theories. But Darwin was right. You have to know evolution to understand the natural world. And that cannot be a threat to people of faith. There's a serious problem if you are forced by your faith to reject the most well supported theory in all of science.
What's your best answer for why there is no God?
It's not why there is no God, it's why there's not compelling evidence to believe in God. That's a better way to put it. And from my perspective, it's just not there for me. With training in science, I have high standards of evidence. If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals Science or Nature for publication, you'd be laughed out of the room; you wouldn't get past the first reviewer.
On the other side, the best evidence that there probably isn't a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded. When you study world religions, it's obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God. If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you? From a Christian perspective, it means we need to get more missionaries over there to tell them the truth! From an anthropological perspective, it's another case. Christians today might say, I don't believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god.
So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we're all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I'm an atheist on one more god.
So what's the real agenda of I.D.?
They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.
Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!
What do you believe in?
I believe in the indomitable human spirit and the amazing capacity we have for understanding the world; for love, joy and happiness. Science not only does not take away any of those things, it adds to the sum of human knowledge. When I look through my little telescope in my backyard at the planets, moon or Andromeda galaxy that is 2.9 million light-years away, I can enjoy the beauty of the night sky and appreciate it on an emotional level. Then I can think that the photons of light that are landing on my retina left 2.9 mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for this link! I will have to read the whole thing, but what you have posted is excellent!
----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
one of the Forsaken TM
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is nicely written. But I still don't see why someone can't be a scientist AND believe in God AND endorse evolution at the same time. In my view, it is utterly silly to compare God with astrology.
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/index1.html
Do you think the impulse to believe in God is the same as believing in astrology?
Yes, it's a similar foundation of magical superstitious thinking. And our need to be spiritual takes all forms. Given that traits vary in populations, it's natural that some people will gravitate toward New Age spiritualism and others toward conservative Christianity. Even secularists believe in all kinds of transcendent things, such as "mind." This is the Deepak Chopra school. He says, I don't believe that Christian conservative stuff, but the universe is intelligent, it's alive, it knows we're here. What? You're goofier than the Christians!
Here's a relatively new book called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief " by Francis Collins, one of the guys who headed the Human Genome Project.
Quote:
... the book argues that belief in a transcendent, personal God—and even the possibility of an occasional miracle—can and should coexist with a scientific picture of the world that includes evolution. Addressing in turn fellow scientists and fellow believers, Collins insists that "science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced" and "God is most certainly not threatened by science; He made it all possible." Collins's credibility as a scientist and his sincerity as a believer make for an engaging combination, especially for those who, like him, resist being forced to choose between science and God.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743286391/002-5597673-5717640?v=glan
ce&n=283155
I know many well respected and well published scientists who have a very deep faith in God. Hell, I'm married to one. Whoever says God and science are mutually exclusive is ignoring evidence to the contrary.
I'm a scientist, if not by trade, then by training. I LOVE science. I love the method. But it has its limits--it is better for investigating some things than others. It makes no sense to assume, that if a subject cannot be investigated by science, it cannot exist.
It is my observation that many good scientists understand that science has its limits, and are open to other avenues of knowledge. Maybe it boils down to whether one believes science is omniscient and omnipotent, or if it can be supplemented by other branches of epistemology.
(Edited to add:
Just found this on a FAQ on evolution at PBS.org. It says it better than I can, so I am copying and pasting.
Quote:
Does evolution prove there is no God?
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution is the description of a process that governs the development of life on Earth. Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people's spiritual beliefs.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because science is based on evidence, and religion is based on lack of evidence (faith)? Because once you go back to the a priori assumptions of each system you find that they are incompatible? Because scientists who think they can straddle both systems have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?
This is nicely written. But I still don't see why someone can't be a scientist AND believe in God AND endorse evolution at the same time.
It's not that science can prove or disprove god, or god(s) or whatever. It's just that the stuff outside of science is UNKNOWABLE. And being unknowable, it doesn't make sense when people claim to know it.
Anyway, I have two VERY GOOD REASONS why Darwin matters!
FIRST- Without Darwin there would be no capitalism. And especially there would be no underlying philosophy for all those right-wing pro-business lunatics: SOCIAL DARWINISM!
Think of it. Doesn't the irony just blow you away?
The pro-business, pro-greed, right-wing religious conservatives base their social agenda on the dog-eat-dog model that they THINK Darwin postulated, and they use psuedo-science (but science nonetheless, not religion) as the basis for all of their economic evil-mongering. SECOND- There would be no SURVIVOR. I mean, how could we have all those reality shows if someone didn't secretly think that Darwin had a good model of nature, society, and human behavior?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you think carpenters who use BOTH a hammer AND a saw straddle 2 systems and have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because scientists who think they can straddle both systems have a deep schism in their underlying philosophies?
Science is a tool. Faith is a tool. They are used for different functions. Some people want science to be the ONLY tool, but many professional scientists disagree. Why must they be forced to accept science as the ONLY right tool or face accusations of "schisms"? See, many scientists just aren't that dogmatic about the tool of their trade.
Quote:Actually, they claim that Darwin was heavily influenced by Adam Smith, and simply transposed the economic model onto the biological sytem. (Not saying I agree with them, I didn't look into it. It's just what they say.)
The pro-business, pro-greed, right-wing religious conservatives base their social agenda on the dog-eat-dog model that they THINK Darwin postulated, and they use psuedo-science (but science nonetheless, not religion) as the basis for all of their economic evil-mongering.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah, I never got the Science versus Faith thing (other than the Buffy versus Faith thing, but that's another TV-Series 
).
Can I prove, that my boyfriend loves me? - NO
Is it then better to presume, he doesn't? - NO
Would it help my relationship to him, if I asked him to prove his love? - Not really
It all boils down to one question:
Is god a "thing", that we can prove or disprove, or is he a "someone" we can relate to.
And about Darvin: I love God, but I have no problem with Darvin - although some secular biologists I know say, that he's disproven already (there are new theories now - constructions morphology by example). But I still think, his basic thoughts were rather ingenious at the time and covered the basic systematic behind how life came to pass on earth.
However, he only talked about the "how", never about the "why" (since that's the question of religion and philosophy, not of biology). I think, Christians make a big mistake by mixing thee two questions up.
That's my two (Euro) cents.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:CTS: Science is a tool for understanding the physical nature of the universe. Religion is a tool for... for... for.... Not sure what it's a tool for, altho it HAS been used as a tool by the ruling classes for societal control. Anyway, you tell me what religion is used for because I'm not sure.
Science is a tool. Faith is a tool. They are used for different functions. Some people want science to be the ONLY tool, but many professional scientists disagree. Why must they be forced to accept science as the ONLY right tool?
Also, my point was not that god doesn't exist. My point is that whatever is outside of science is by definition untestable, and that therefore anyone who claims to "know" whether god exists or his/her/their nature has no way of demonstrating it. That doesn't seem to stop many of the faithful from insisting that others believe along with them.
As I recall, from a previous thread you said that religion was not "just" a belief in a supernatural deity but also included ethics and philosophy. (Maybe that wasn't you. If so, I apologize.) Although there are a lot of concepts that have no correlates in science, concepts like "right and "wrong", beauty and ugliness, that doesn't automatically mean that they are a religion. IMHO most religions generally have three aspects. While they are often used to support each other, only ONE aspect makes it a religion:
a system of ethics
an explanation of the nature of the universe
a belief in the supernatural
Atheists have proved for years that one can have ethics w/o religion, and scientists have been busy developing alternate explanations for how the universe works. That leaves the aspect of the supernatural, which is unknowable.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, you tell me what religion is used for because I'm not sure.
Religion or spirituality is a tool for understanding non-physical issues. Many people find atheistic philosophy sufficient for addressing these issues, and others prefer theistic philosophy. I don't see why the people who like vanilla have to put down people who like chocolate, and vice versa.
Quote:Nobody said it was, Sig. I think your point was that scientists have some sort of "schism" if they believe in both God and science at the same time.
Also, my point was not that god doesn't exist.
Quote:Proselytizing, whether using science or not, is a different matter altogether. My objection with the author of the Salon article is his insistence that scientists have some sort of philosophical flaw if they also believe in God. Your "schism" comment appear to be in support of this author. That was what I was arguing.
That doesn't seem to stop many of the faithful from insisting that others believe along with them.
Quote:Yes, that was me. And I gave the examples of Buddhism, Taoism, and some types of Hinduism.
As I recall, from a previous thread you said that religion was not "just" a belief in a supernatural deity but also included ethics and philosophy.
Quote:Yep. No argument here.
Atheists have proved for years that one can have ethics w/o religion, and scientists have been busy developing alternate explanations for how the universe works. That leaves the aspect of the supernatural, which is unknowable.
We digress a lot, don't we?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi SignyM
Saying Religion is a tool for (whatever) for me sounds like love is a tool for having a cleaning woman without paying her (or having your rent paid without going to work yourself).
True, religion can (as everything) be used and misused, but does that mean, it IS a tool? Do you know, that the Nazis used Darwin to argue, that some people (mainly disabled) need to be killed, to cleanse the genetic pool (it's called euthanasia)? Darwinism is a good way to explain evolution and biology, but I don't want to live in a society, which lives by Darwins survival-of-the-fittest-rules (ever heared the expression "social darwinism?) Then I rather go back to my old bible (do onto others, as you want them to do onto you).
Quote:
only ONE aspect makes it a religion:
a system of ethics
an explanation of the nature of the universe
a belief in the supernatural
I think, there are two things, that can define a religion:
God (astrology is in a way also "supernatural", but you wouldn't call it a religion. Buddism has no "God", only principles, and they ceonsequently don't call themselfs "religion" but "philosopy")
A different use of the word is, if you just say a religion is, what you put your whole life on (Marxism could be a religion for someone, although there is nothing supernatural about it). In this definition, "Firefly" could be a religion (hey, are we the congregation of the Browncoats or what?)
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
Quote:Having read several editions of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", all I can say is ... hunhhhh ????
Darwin was heavily influenced by Adam Smith
What is the evidence for that statement?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Having read several editions of Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and Adam Smith's "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", all I can say is ... hunhhhh ????
Whow! You really READ that stuff? Respect!
I think, the idea is: Smith worked (as one of the first in this field) with empirical conclusions in his area of tought (economics). Further he concluded, that wjhile every individuum seeks for its own good, the overal good of society is maximized. Just as every individual animal strives for its own, but at the end, its the "species", that evolves. It's just that both look at a thing (economy or biology) from the two levels (individuial and group) and draw their conclusions from it, that when we look at a system, we need to get down to the individuum, being part of it. That's how I understood it anyways.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hi Esther!
Hi SignyM
Quote:Actually, I didn't say that relgion was a tool, it was Canttakesky.
Saying Religion is a tool for (whatever) for me sounds like love is a tool for having a cleaning woman without paying her (or having your rent paid without going to work yourself).
Quote:I don't know. If religion ISN'T a tool then what is it?
True, religion can (as everything) be used and misused, but does that mean, it IS a tool?
Quote:Yes, I mentioned social darwinism in my first post. It's a terrible misuse of Darwin's theory. However, people do insist on using science to bolster their various views of ethics... sociobiology, for example.
Do you know, that the Nazis used Darwin to argue, that some people (mainly disabled) need to be killed, to cleanse the genetic pool (it's called euthanasia)? Darwinism is a good way to explain evolution and biology, but I don't want to live in a society, which lives by Darwins survival-of-the-fittest-rules (ever heared the expression "social darwinism?)
Quote:I'm sure those aren't the only two choices.
Then I rather go back to my old bible (do onto others, as you want them to do onto you).
Quote:Needs thought
I think, there are two things, that can define a religion:
God (astrology is in a way also "supernatural", but you wouldn't call it a religion. Buddism has no "God", only principles, and they ceonsequently don't call themselfs "religion" but "philosopy")
A different use of the word is, if you just say a religion is, what you put your whole life on (Marxism could be a religion for someone, although there is nothing supernatural about it). In this definition, "Firefly" could be a religion (hey, are we the congregation of the Browncoats or what?)
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've heard this from various different sources, but here is a link that might shed a clue.
Originally posted by rue:
What is the evidence for that statement?
Quote:
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Darwin.htm
It was likely Darwin's reading of Adam Smith which led Darwin to his decisive breakthrough.3 ("Adam Smith was the last of the moralists and the first of the economists, so Darwin was the last of the economists and the first of the biologists.") Darwin read not only about those "laws" that govern the accumulation of wealth, but also those "laws" which lead to being poor. In regards to these poor "laws," Darwin read Malthus' Essay on Population:
"In October 1838, that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus' Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence [a phrase used by Malthus] which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work."4
Quote:
A more serious claim to have influenced Darwin can be made for the Scottish economist Adam Smith, in his work The Wealth of Nations of 1776. There is a clear analogy between the survival of the corporation through successful trading and the survival of a hereditary lineage through advantageous traits. It is known that Darwin read Smith and those political and social commentators that followed him, and it would be surprising if these ideas did not lodge in his thoughts.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precursnatsel.html
Quote:
I’ve always liked Stephen Jay Gould’s revision of Malthus’s role in affecting Darwin’s thought. Consider these passages from one of Gould’s finest essays, “Darwin’s Middle Road,” appearing in Gould’s 1980 collection, The Panda’s Thumb. . .
Gould goes on:
The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits. http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/10/smith_and_darwi.html
Anyway, you get the idea. I've seen this sort of talk on other boards and websites, some stated more vehemently than others. Again, I'm not saying I agree--I honestly haven't looked into it.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I love the quote from the episode of "House" with the faith healer:
"Faith... that's just another word for ignorance, isn't it?"
not to mention
"It's fine when people want to say there are holes in our knowledge *[paraphrasing i think in that part]*. The problem is most people want to live in the holes, and get angry win you try to put dirt in their holes. COME OUT OF YOUR HOLES PEOPLE!"
Anyway, Darwin is of course correct and very important. At least from a way of viewing how life evolves. Now humans probably less so in the near future because we will have the ability to control our own evolution through genetic engineering and such.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Esther
Quote:Yeah, well, it was decades ago. :sheepish:
Whow! You really READ that stuff? Respect!
Thanks for the reply! They do seem to be broadly analogous, but I was curious if Smith had a direct influence on Darwin.
Darwin, I think, had a wide vision of the resources of survival. He recognized that using vacant niches of food and shelter, due either to physical selection or unique behaviors, was a first step to species survival. Without sufficient resources neither the parent nor offspring survive.
But the parallel to economics is, to me, too broad to be useful. I read it as 'it either works, or it doesn't'.
Anyway, I have to get back to work.
TTUL
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't know. If religion ISN'T a tool then what is it?
Point I wanted to make is, you can use everything as a tool (Religion as well as Darwinism).
I wouldn't say darwinism is a "tool", although you can "use" it as such (as explained before). But I think, it's a way of explaining the world, and for some people, it's just plain "the truth". (for others, it isn't). And so is religion.
So I guess, everybody has to decide for himself, what religion is (for him). For someone, it might be a tool (e.g. for the guy who tries to make all-believing, willing slaves out of his fellow men), for others, it might be "a lie".
For me, I guess, it's a relationship and a way of living. And like in a relationship, it's not the formalities or the name of it, that counts, but the guy I relate to.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue and SignyM,
One more link. Check this out.
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/
Hehe.
As far as a direct influence of Smith, it appears there are published scholars who argue this was the case. The evidence is Smith heavily influenced Malthus, whom Darwin himself credits with influencing his thoughts on evolution. People think if Darwin admittedly credits Malthus, he must have read Smith as well.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Im a member of the natural museum in my town, and they have evolved more on the theory of "Konstruktionsmorphologie" (don't force me to put that in correct English, please). Main point is: an organism cannot be "closed for renovation". If the environment changes, the organisms cannot change to adopt, they need to have changed BEFORE, otherwise, they just die. So fish needed to have lungs BEFORE they left the sea.
Oh, comming to fish, there's an interesting thought by this theory: Fish move sideways, when they swim. Then, they became reptiles (still moving sideways - look at a lizard). Side-movement, however, is not very sensible on land (squeezes the lungs), so that gradually changed and the spine of mamals rather moves up and down. When the mamals returned to the sea, they kept this kind of spine-movement. Thats why fish move left-to-right when they swin, and wales and dolphines move up and down.
Is that cool or what?
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
I did take a quick look at the links. If Darwin says Malthus was his biggest influence, I'll take it at face value. The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.
From the quotes, the biggest breakthrough seems to be in accepting natural explanations for what had previously been a religious topic.
TTUL
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- last comments for today. I'm not a philosopher, so I may not be saying this in a philosophically elegant way, but it seems that when scientists use various physical observations and create hypotheses to explain and predict them around them, they HAVE to assume several things:
There is a physical world that we share. In other words, this is not some sort of fantasy or dream state.
Our senses, and the various extensions of our senses, bear some sort of relationship to the real world.
The real world operates by consistent and testable principles.
That means that there are many areas outside of science- for example, "good" and "bad". But the one area that science cannot allow is a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner. If that were the case, may as well take all predictions and chuck them out the window. Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural beng mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.
If you look at right-wing xtians and their resistance to evolution, that is exactly their sticking point as well. They can't stand the thought that another system might successfully explain the nature of the universe, because in THEIR mind that's what religion is supposed to do. God done it all.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And this parallel:
Originally posted by rue:
The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.
"The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits." -- Stephen Jay Gould
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nanite1018:
Anyway, Darwin is of course correct and very important. At least from a way of viewing how life evolves. Now humans probably less so in the near future because we will have the ability to control our own evolution through genetic engineering and such.
Exactly. Darwin could tell you how, but not why. Science sais, "we can control our own evolution", but questions like "should we?" cannot be answered by science. It's just a totally different area - the area of philosophy ethics and - well - religion. And that's why I don't see them bugging eachother. Darwinism and Religion for me are just on different plains. And actually, I blame the church for mixing them up, making everything blurry.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.
Now you might not be too far appart from religious people. The concept of a supernatural being mucking about in an arbitrary manner (cutely said, by the way
) presumes, that there IS something "natural". Te "mocking about" is the definition of a wonder. If religious people believed, that everything was arbitrary, there would be no "wonder". e.g. If the Jews had no concept of how water normally behaves, they would not have been so astonished (calling it a wonder), when Moses parted the red sea. I don't want to go into the discussion, whether this story is true or not. All I want to say, that also religious people have the notion, that there is a "normal" and "scientific" way the wold works. And if they belive, that God CAN "override" these laws, they admit, that in 99,9% of the cases, he doesn't (why should he - after all he created them
)Quote:
If that were the case, may as well take all predictions and chuck them out the window.
Actually, I heard that newer physics, acknowedging that everything is energy, and that electrons are constantly moving, now say, that it's not totally impossible, that a stone will fall up, instead of down. It's just very, very, VERY unlikely.
So there you go
Uff, can you belive that? It's 22:35 over here, and I'm still at my office, catting away with you shiney people! Gotta go home now!
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Esther:
Main point is: an organism cannot be "closed for renovation". If the environment changes, the organisms cannot change to adopt, they need to have changed BEFORE, otherwise, they just die. So fish needed to have lungs BEFORE they left the sea.
They did...lungs (or air bladders) have uses beyond breathing (bouancy for instance). So some fish developed air bladders, maybe some had weaker walls surrounding the air bladders than others or something, the fish were given a reason to move over small bits of land, the fish with the weakest walls around the bladder had the most oxygen seep into their bloodstream and survived the most. Or maybe one of a few dozen other reasons that air bladders would be advantageous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I could have said - by people making historical inferences, in this case, S J Gould.
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:And this parallel:
Originally posted by rue:
The evidence for Smith's influence is only by historical inference.
"The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith’s basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits." -- Stephen Jay Gould
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I see. I get it.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now, since I restrict MY notion of religion to the concept of a supernatural beng mucking about in an arbitrary manner, in MY system of definitions science and religion don't mix.
My supernatural being doesn't muck.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS - I was going to ask Signy, but I'll ask you.
There are many contradictions in the definition of god, so I was wondering how you specifically think of god.
And are these questions (below) pertinent? If yes could answer them? If no, why are they irrelevant?
Is your supernatural being all powerful?
If yes, is your supernatural being not capable of contradicting their nature of being non-interfering?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is he all powerful? Yeah sorta. He's not powerful enough to change the nature of the system he created. (Or you can say he chooses not to change the system he created.) Yes, he is capable of interfering sorta, but he chooses not to.
Originally posted by rue:
Is your supernatural being all powerful?
If yes, is your supernatural being not capable of contradicting their nature of being non-interfering?
My idea of God is like a superhero coach in a football game. He is on the sidelines, watching, giving advice, inspiring, motivating. But he doesn't play the game. Can he help play the game? Well, I suppose physically, he can, but it would be against the entire raison d'etre of the game for him to jump in. In that sense, he can't play the game--it wouldn't count, it would defeat the purpose of the game if the coach jumped in and played.
So is the coach all powerful? Well, yeah, sort of. But he isn't powerful enough to change the nature of the game. He CAN jump in the game and win it. But he chooses not to.
Or you can imagine a parent helping his child with homework. He CAN do the homework for the kid, but that would defeat the purpose of the homework He chooses not to do the homework for the kid and simply teaches and advises.
Hope that makes some sense.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think, that acknowledging the truth that is evolution, necessarily means that someone can't have faith in a god. Intelligent design followed by evolution seems like a order that theist should be able to reason out in their heads, and still go to sleep at night believing god has got their backs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
Regrettably, it did not make too much sense to me. It's like thinking of a god who enjoys watching the soaps - except real children suffer then die for no reason except wrong place, wrong time.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry. I tried.
Originally posted by rue:
Regrettably, it did not make too much sense to me. It's like thinking of a god who enjoys watching the soaps - except real children suffer then die for no reason except wrong place, wrong time.
My view is actually not too much different from an atheist's view. We're on our own. If we want the children to stop dying, WE have to do it. God provides the inspiration for us to do it, if I listen. But he can't do it for us.
For me God is like Music. I am the dancer. My dances can save the children, or not. The Music can inspire me to dance a saving dance, but he can't do the saving dance himself. Cause ya know, he's just the music.
If you prefer, I can answer that he chooses not to be omnipotent.
Ah well, if you don't get it, it's ok.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, CTS, you're equating life to a game, or homework? Interesting...
---
I'm a trouble-maker; Kaneman said so!
::points to 'I'm a trouble-maker' sticker on shirt and makes a platypus noise::
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Noo... I am trying to find examples in which a more powerful person would choose not to complete a task for someone who has a hard time completing the same task--because interfering would change the nature of the task. If a coach played in the game he's coaching, it wouldn't be the same kind of game anymore. If parents did their kids homework for them, it would defeat the purpose of homework.
Originally posted by yinyang:
So, CTS, you're equating life to a game, or homework? Interesting...
Apparently I am not doing a good job explaining this.
I will try one more time from a different perspective. Why do I believe in God. Because when I close my eyes, I can hear a sort of "music." An inspiration. I call this music "God." I believe that the entity that is this inspiration has the power to shapeshift if you will, and take another form other than "music" but that would change everything else as well. It would change who WE are and what the world is around us. So in that sense, for us to live this reality, God is not all powerful--he is limited to being simply the "music" in our lives. In this reality, WE are the only things with physical abilities to change our physical world.
Or maybe I just made things worse.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FINALLY! Shermer's book ' Why Do People Belive Weird Things ' is one of the two great books that I consider must reading.
Well, 3, if you count Robert Bakker's Dinosaur Heresies ( I think Wash might have had a copy of that one )
I can't lie and say that how I view evolution hasn't altered or affected the way I see God / Religion. But where ever the truth is, there's magic of some sort involved. That much I do know.
Signym -
Quote:What you're referring to is a misapplication to what Darwin was talking about in regards to BIO-evolution. Darwin detested the idea that others would distort his findings, as we saw Hitler do some 80 yrs later. Darwin was speaking of BIOLOGY,and nothing else.
FIRST- Without Darwin there would be no capitalism. And especially there would be no underlying philosophy for all those right-wing pro-business lunatics: SOCIAL DARWINISM!
Those 'greedy, right wing capitalist' you speak of have no need for the views of some 18th century naturalist to justify their business practices. Most likely have no idea who Darwin even is.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS,
I think we've each come to unique places of personal meaning.
For you it's the harmonies you hear. (If you ever watch 'Good Will Hunting' there is a scene near the end with a couple seconds of music played with bells and chimes that sounds like the music of the spheres ...)
HK has direct experience with the larger reality.
For me it's the feeling of 'just enough' and light-hearted freedom.
If only we could experience that much of each others' realities we would be enlarged
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, that's it. Religion to me is that place of personal meaning. I think many of us know that same place, we just call it different things.
Originally posted by rue:
I think we've each come to unique places of personal meaning.
Quote:Just to clarify, the "music" I'm am talking about is metaphorical, not literal. I am talking about, for lack of a better word, inspiration. I use the word music because when I hear a amazing symphony I get a very similar sense of inspiration. Or when I see a breathtaking view of scenery. Or am touched by some extraordinary kindness from a fellow human being. It's an awareness of a universal grandness so much bigger than ourselves--I call that grandness "God."
For you it's the harmonies you hear. ...
Quote:Cool. See, freedom is very grand and inspirational.
For me it's the feeling of 'just enough' and light-hearted freedom.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
My idea of God is like a superhero coach in a football game. He is on the sidelines, watching, giving advice, inspiring, motivating. But he doesn't play the game. Can he help play the game? Well, I suppose physically, he can, but it would be against the entire raison d'etre of the game for him to jump in. In that sense, he can't play the game--it wouldn't count, it would defeat the purpose of the game if the coach jumped in and played.
Hi CTS
for me, that's a very ingenious explanation.
Quote:
RUE: Regrettably, it did not make too much sense to me. It's like thinking of a god who enjoys watching the soaps - except real children suffer then die for no reason except wrong place, wrong time.
People do not want, that God interferes with their life, and then, wen he doesn't, they get angry at him.
Freedom of choice doesn't make much sense, if you can't choose to harm somebody. So all God could do is to limit the harm we can do to eachother to a ceratin extent. And he did. Death is the border (well, not for Niska, I asume). Now that border seems pretty high to us, but only, because it's the highest we have ever known. We just cannot imagine something beyond that.
Sometimes, I imagine God to be something like a novellist - we are his novel. If you ever have written a fiction, you realize, how the figures can get a life of their own. With this special novel, however, if somebody dies (in the novel), he becomes part of the world of the novelist -that means he is taken out into reality. He becomes real. In this case, dying would not be such a horrible thing after all.
Strange thought, I know. Just appeals to me.
Esther
Love my captain!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by misbehaven:
so what's the real agenda of I.D.?
They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.
Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!
first of all, God has almost no influence in America..when you read the Bible, this becomes obvious. when the Federal Reserve prints "in God we trust", the all seeing eye of Lucifer makes it obvious who theyre talking about; and a politician could say he believes in bigfoot or mothman, but it is his actions which are the true test, and this is where they constitantly fail
i wish people would understand that in reality Gods message is antithetical to authoritarian oppressive control, and stands in the way of the true globalists agenda. if the goal is to dehumanize people to the extent that we are mindless serfs, then they taught the wrong message. how does "love your neighbor as yourself" equate to degenerate suppressive overlords? if God forbids the love of money, or the love of anything before him, which is idolatry, then it contradicts this consumer driven nightmare world that we live in today. and Jesus' message of peace is an obsticle for an agenda to propogate citizens into wars of greed or conquest. time and again you will find these contradictions, as a general rule, it helps to study something in its entirety before settling on unsubstantiated conclusions like that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe not, but that's the idea. It's a pretty good one too actually.
first of all, God has almost no influence in America.
Extreme rightwing fundementalist christians, they do have sway, and they're influence is growing, and thats really very worrying, not just for American citizens but for others as well, because the fire and brimestone from these fruitcakes will be falling on all our heads.
Viva la American Inquisition.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Maybe not, but that's the idea. It's a pretty good one too actually.
first of all, God has almost no influence in America.
Extreme rightwing fundementalist christians, they do have sway, and they're influence is growing, and thats really very worrying, not just for American citizens but for others as well, because the fire and brimestone from these fruitcakes will be falling on all our heads.
Viva la American Inquisition.
You're just still bent out of shape that your former colonies stuck it to you some 230 yrs ago, and haven't looked back since!
Granted, the whole ' Manifest Destiny ' con of telling land hungry newcomers that " God WANTED you to settle out west.. " worked like a charm. But your " Inquisition" remark smacks more of jealousy than anything. First of all, it was the SPANIARDS who pulled off the transfiguration of the American SW and the spreading of Catholocism to Central/South America. Not so much w/ the US Gov't.
And while you seem to be taking for granite the threat of Islam in not only Europe, but across the globe, you take a jab at some nonsenical 'Inquistion', which occured 100's of yrs ago in a country far,far away.
Priorities, mate. Time to put them in order.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AU, you really are delusional, you've got more to be afraid of from Christian fundamentalists influencing your government than from Islamic fundamentalists planning to blow up planes with hand cream.
I realise terrorism is a new and scary thing for you that makes you wet your pants on a daily basis, so it seems like a big scary thing, but I've been facing it my entire life. I've realised that treating a bunch of ineffectual psychotic morons as the bogey man and keeping the night light on in case they jump out of the cupboard is pointless, maybe you'll stop listening to our f
ded up sensationalist media sometime and realise this rather simple fact too, but probably you won't. You have, after all, shown yourself to be incapable of independent thought.
Where as Islamic terrorists can't do anything more than kill a couple of people, that's if they get really, really, really lucky, Right-wing Christian fundamentalists are gaining influence in US government, it is their stated purpose to infiltrate government and their stated purpose to tear down the barrier between church and state. They want to turn the US into a theocracy, and you trying to paint me as jealous because of that obviously means you want a Christian theocracy, enjoy your inquisition, they're a fixture of theocracies. I hope you're Christian enough for them, or maybe you'll be one of the inquisitors, I could believe that, you do support torture after all.
That's the problem with people like you, you’re so arrogant and ignorant of anything outside your home town you think everyone must be jealous of you. Yes AU, everyone wants to be you, now take today’s medication, there's a good boy.
And just so you know, from someone who actually lives in Europe, Islamic fundamentalists have less sway with governments over here than they do in America. Every time a Muslim fanatic says they hate America people like you soil themselves and demand all freedoms be curtailed in the name of 'safety'. Over here not so much.
I, like most people, am not jealous of you. Most of your post is nonsense, and like a sniper suffering from Alzheimer’s you continually miss the mark. If you can't understand what I'm saying please keep your 'opinions' to yourself and get back to your duplo bricks.
Perspective mate, get some.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen- the Christian faith is extorted, manipulated, coerced, mislead and deceived at all levels of American society; to say that our doctrines are responsible for our governments behavior is a misappropriation of blame. thats like saying christians are responsible for all the worlds diceptions. now ill admit that christians have become a tool for political gain, but that is more because they fail to fully realize the herecies being propogated by those who seek control. our establishment is lying to everybody to achieve their agenda, it is not solely christians being worked over by Bush and the NWO fearmongers. if the goal IS to eliminate the boundary between church and state, understand then that the bibles message makes clear that this attempt is in anticipation for the rise of mystery babylon, and the system of the beast; a lifestyle antithetical to Gods original purpose for man.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
citizen wrote:
Sunday, August 27, 2006 00:47
AU, you really are delusional, you've got more to be afraid of from Christian fundamentalists influencing your government than from Islamic fundamentalists planning to blow up planes with hand cream.
terrorism commited by christians -( eric rudolph ) olympic park bombing. deaths - 1
terrorism comitted by muslims - 1993 WTC attacks, 9/11/01 WTC attacks, E.Africa Embassy attacks, USS Cole attack, Kobar Towers,Bali , ... you get the picture.
Christian fundies do pose a threat, but I'll deal w/ not being able to buy beer on Sunday here in GA ( except at a bar, after 12noon ). What I won't stand for is subways being ripped open by the next generation of jihadist who don't like how YOU live your life.
Quote:Yes, because it's oh so more important to hurl ad hominems toward me than attempt anything remotely close to having a coherent, intelligent conversation. I need not add anthing to your diatribe. It is what it is. I'll move on.
I realise terrorism is a new and scary thing for you that makes you wet your pants on a daily basis, so it seems like a big scary thing, but I've been facing it my entire life. I've realised that treating a bunch of ineffectual psychotic morons as the bogey man and keeping the night light on in case they jump out of the cupboard is pointless, maybe you'll stop listening to our fded up sensationalist media sometime and realise this rather simple fact too, but probably you won't. You have, after all, shown yourself to be incapable of independent thought.
Quote:Ahh, something of substance!
Where as Islamic terrorists can't do anything more than kill a couple of people, that's if they get really, really, really lucky, Right-wing Christian fundamentalists are gaining influence in US government, it is their stated purpose to infiltrate government and their stated purpose to tear down the barrier between church and state. They want to turn the US into a theocracy, and you trying to paint me as jealous because of that obviously means you want a Christian theocracy, enjoy your inquisition, they're a fixture of theocracies. I hope you're Christian enough for them, or maybe you'll be one of the inquisitors, I could believe that, you do support torture after all.
Oh, the Fundies ARE gainining influence ? WOw, I must have missed that, LVING HERE AS I HAPPEN TO DO , AND ALL. So, when Judge Roy Moore ( Captain 10 Commandments ) gets tossed off the Alabama State Supreme Court, and then pummelled at the ballot box, that's YOUR definition of fundies gaining influence? ( walks off stage, laughs hysterically, walks politely back ) The fundie movement has been a tug of war w/ the rest of the country for decades now. It comes and goes, but never really gains that much momentum w/ the rest of the country. My Christianity isn't an issue, but I do support 'torture' , as you put it, of Islamo nutcase fascists terrorist when getting info from them could save lives. I'm completely for that, yep! And religion has nothing to do w/ that, only being pragmatic. Quote:
That's the problem with people like you, you’re so arrogant and ignorant of anything outside your home town you think everyone must be jealous of you. Yes AU, everyone wants to be you, now take today’s medication, there's a good boy.
Hee, hee. You're so funny. People like you... *sigh*
Quote:Oh yah, you're being overrun by the Islamo fascist so convincingly, you don't even know it. Spain rolls over like a $ 10 whore after just 1 attack on its trains. France had riots all over by who? Muslims. Theo Van Gogh gets shot and stabbed to death by who ? An unapologetic Muslim. But since I'm a kno
And just so you know, from someone who actually lives in Europe, Islamic fundamentalists have less sway with governments over here than they do in America. Every time a Muslim fanatic says they hate America people like you soil themselves and demand all freedoms be curtailed in the name of 'safety'. Over here not so much.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
im not incredibly knowledgable about Islam..but i do find some basic contradictions with the overall message of God in scripture. among others, the Judeo/Christian ethic of "thou shalt not kill", appears to leave little room for murder and conquest over idealogical principles. also, atleast in Christianity, Martyrdom is when you die sumbissively, refusing to sumbit and compromise your ideals; im not so sure that suicide bombers or kamakazee missions qualify.
now, because Jesus' warns of false teachers and their destructive philosophies, it could be argued that such Islamic beliefs are antiChristian, or essentially false doctrines heretical to the messages of Jesus.
i like to think that Jesus teaches the Martin Luther King Jr. approach, which is "non-violance", tolerance and love; as opposed to that Malcolm X doctrine, which is "by any means neccessary".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Where am I gonna go:
Not heard of the IRA, the Lords Resistance Army or half a dozen other Christian terrorists around the world? What if it's not against the US it doesn't count? Only American lives are worth anything? In fact I'm sure if I went looking I could dig up a few more Christian terrorists in the US, and certainly Christian motivated murders. How about we start, off the top of my head, with the KKK?
If you’re happy about a Christian Theocracy in America, or if you think Islamic terrorists on the other side of the world are more to worry about, you don't understand the dangers.
All you have to do is look to see the growing Christian fundamentalist influence on your government. Stop looking under your bed for the Islamic bogeyman and look about you for what’s really going on.
AU you are colossally uniformed, that's where I'm going to go.
You accuse me of starting a diatribe, when you started down that road. You don't get that you foster the reactions people have towards you.
Frankly it's a popular American attitude I see a lot (and the one YOU started out with), people don't like us because they are jealous of us. Get a clue, learn about the rest of the world before you start talking about it.
Which leads to the last question. If you understood what I was saying what was all the "you're jealous" bullshit about?
EDIT:
And no, I meant Alzheimer's, Alzheimer's effects skilled movements. But if you'd prefer your attempts at insults and barbs to be likened to Parkinsons, thats okay by me.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Where am I gonna go:
Not heard of the IRA, the Lords Resistance Army or half a dozen other Christian terrorists around the world? What if it's not against the US it doesn't count? Only American lives are worth anything? In fact I'm sure if I went looking I could dig up a few more Christian terrorists in the US, and certainly Christian motivated murders. How about we start, off the top of my head, with the KKK?
If you’re happy about a Christian Theocracy in America, or if you think Islamic terrorists on the other side of the world are more to worry about, you don't understand the dangers.
All you have to do is look to see the growing Christian fundamentalist influence on your government. Stop looking under your bed for the Islamic bogeyman and look about you for what’s really going on.
AU you are colossally uniformed, that's where I'm going to go.
You accuse me of starting a diatribe, when you started down that road. You don't get that you foster the reactions people have towards you.
Frankly it's a popular American attitude I see a lot (and the one YOU started out with), people don't like us because they are jealous of us. Get a clue, learn about the rest of the world before you start talking about it.
Which leads to the last question. If you understood what I was saying what was all the "you're jealous" bullshit about?
EDIT:
And no, I meant Alzheimer's, Alzheimer's effects skilled movements. But if you'd prefer your attempts at insults and barbs to be likened to Parkinsons, thats okay by me.
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.
Citizen-- havent we been over this before? i want you to show me quotes of Jesus' permitting the behavior described? i am not arguing that insidious things are taking place, but they are not a result of the bibles doctrines; if anything, they are proof of the evil at work in the world. ive shown you before that Bush is a known occultist, and his actions and diceptive doctrines reflect that.
the KKK, or any other group with DIVISIVE motives is NOT christian, but occultic. once a group crosses that threshold of tolerance and love into aggressive preemption, they no longer represent christian ideals, but a perversion; period.
Jude 1 " for certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. they are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only sovereign Lord."
John 2 "Do not love the world, or anything in the world. if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. for evertyhing in the world- the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does- comes not from the Father but form the world. the world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever. Dear children this is the last hour, and as you ahve heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. this is how we know it is the last hour. they went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. for if they did, they would have remained with us"
2 Peter "but there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. they will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought you- bringing swift destruction on themselves. many will follow their shamefull ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. in their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping."
Jesus' among other things says "woe to you, teachers of the Law and pharisees, you hypocrites! you shut the kingdom of heaven in mens faces. you yourselves do not enter, nor will you let
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What's funny is an English bloke telling a boy from the Deep South about the KKK. Here we both are telling each other what we don't know about our own side of the pond. Guess that makes us both guilty, huh?
All I'll say is that were the Islamo movement kept over in the Mid East, it would be far less of a threat. Still a threat, but far less of one.
And as cracked as the likes of Kent Hovind, Jerry Falwell et al over here, they've still yet to pick up arms or call for a holy crusade against the rest of us. They know better. We all have our own guns. But for the Fundie theorcacy you speak of is , while not to be dismissed casualy, still a fair amount of amusement for most Americans. Fundie snake handlers remain , hidden up in the Appalachian hills, annoying snakes who occasionally get their bite on. The U.S.A. allows for such fringe kook and nutcase religious folks, knowing full well they'll never gain wide spread acceptance.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well hold on a minute, you did say something that was untrue in both circumstances and I did correct you. Plainly Christian Terrorists have killed more than one person, not only in the rest of the world but also in the US. So either I do know more about events in the country in which you live, or you are willfully ignoring information that doesn't support your supposition.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
What's funny is an English bloke telling a boy from the Deep South about the KKK.
Quote:If thats what you think that's what you think. I think different, and not, as you said earlier, because I'm jealous of you.
Fundie snake handlers remain , hidden up in the Appalachian hills, annoying snakes who occasionally get their bite on. The U.S.A. allows for such fringe kook and nutcase religious folks, knowing full well they'll never gain wide spread acceptance.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes we have, but your argument remain falacious.
Originally posted by Antimason:
Citizen-- havent we been over this before? i want you to show me quotes of Jesus' permitting the behavior described?
Quote:The bible is very contradictory, in one place it will say "Thou Shalt not Kill" (Exodus 20:13) and in another it will say "The anger of God rose against them, and he killed their strongest men; he struck down the finest of Israel's young men. But in spite of this, the people kept on sinning. They refused to believe in his miracles. So he ended their lives in failure and gave them years of terror. When God killed some of them, the rest finally sought him. They repented and turned to God." (Psalms 78:31-34), legitimising the killing of people to gain followers.
but they are not a result of the bibles doctrines;
The stated purpose of the Lords Resistance Army, for instance, is to create a Christian Theocracy with the law based strictly off of the Ten Commandments. You can go on and on about how this is really the occult if you like, but they ARE Christians, whether they break your reading of the Bible is irrelevant because its clear they believe they are doing the Christian gods work.
In fact from a historical perspective their reading is more 'traditional'.
Quote:That doesn't mean they aren't Christian. I saw you're words against Islam earlier, in Islam one can only fight if they are attacked, and a martyr is someone who dies in battle with those who have attacked you. In other words Islamic terrorism is NOT supported by the Qur'an, you have to selectively read the doctrines, just like you do with the Bible. But this doesn't make it any less Islamic terrorism, any more than it makes Christian Terrorism any less Christian Terrorism.
the KKK, or any other group with DIVISIVE motives is NOT christian, but occultic. once a group crosses that threshold of tolerance and love into aggressive preemption, they no longer represent christian ideals, but a perversion; period.
Quote:Maybe you should look in to the one true Scotsman fallacy.
so clearly, greed, impure selfish lusts and ambitions, are opposed to the message of God. such people are not truly of the faith, or they are worshipping a false christ(antiChrist). what you are describing is people who are being decieved by false doctrines.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well hold on a minute, you did say something that was untrue in both circumstances and I did correct you. Plainly Christian Terrorists have killed more than one person, not only in the rest of the world but also in the US. So either I do know more about events in the country in which you live, or you are willfully ignoring information that doesn't support your supposition.
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.
Quote:
I think different, and not, as you said earlier, because I'm jealous of you.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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.
Um, getting shot at, harrassed, damned near set on fire TWICE, fired from a dispatch position, accused of demon worship and being vampiric and/or demonic in nature just before being nearly run out of town by the congregation of the local church, only to leave in disgust a few weeks later....
Gee, would that qualify, shithead ?
I get REAL pissed when Christians shovel that "oh we're a persecuted minority" shit despite the fact that they've been the prime movers behind every goddamned (pun intended) bloodbath in this country for over 200 years.
As far as "Christianity here in the U.S." - as practiced by the masses, it's every bit as bad as the inquisition, especially when employers sneakily discriminate, the homeowners org tries to determine your beliefs because they suspect you of not being a churchgoer, when you run facefirst into endless hurdles and have to conceal your own beliefs just to get along in the freakin community, you bet it's an inquisition.
Christianity as it is/was intended may be a different thing, but what the general populace practices in it's name is a nightmare for those who do NOT practice the belief, it's like being "Not a member of the party!" under the more brutal Soviet regimes, or during Hitlers reign.
In fact... it's EXACTLY like that.
Overreaching word my ass, it's as exact a description as possible.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In fact... it's EXACTLY like that.
Overreaching word my ass, it's as exact a description as possible.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nitpicking my way thru the thread...
Quote: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.
People think if Darwin admittedly credits Malthus, he must have read Smith as well.
Quote: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.
I think your point was that scientists have some sort of "schism" if they believe in both God and science at the same time.
Quote:Terrorism committed by Xtians- 50,000+ since 2000 if you count dead Iraqi civilians. Which I know you don't because
terrorism commited by christians -( eric rudolph ) olympic park bombing. deaths - 1
(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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
Originally posted by SignyM:
There is no way to "blend" belief in the natural v belief in the supernatural.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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 wh
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- Ah, the nub.
Quote: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.
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."
Quote: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?
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).
Quote:http://www.answers.com/topic/physicalism
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
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No they don't they compartmentalise, they say so themselves.
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."
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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?
Originally posted by citizen:
No they don't they compartmentalise, they say so themselves.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're asking me for evidence you don't provide yourself. Just thought that needed to be said.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pfft.
Originally posted by citizen:
You're asking me for evidence you don't provide yourself. Just thought that needed to be said.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In the words of Homer Simpson Holy-Macaroni! Where did I say that?
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Vatican City (it's an independent state), just about all of Europe for a good deal of it's history.
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!
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahh Germany, I worked out there with the military for a bit, put on two stone in three weeks due to your food .
I assumed you were from the US because you mentioned the Flanvention, but your English is great, much much better than my German.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME