Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Eishtmo on March 30, 2004, 10:34:12 pm
-
I think this (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/) will come in quite handy.
This is not an effort to start this arguement, again.
-
oh, but it will.
-
I have it on authority that Berkeley used to be a nice place to take classes at before it got overrun with leftist propagandists.
-
edit: don't wanna be an asshole. nevermind.
-
i predict flames ahead *sigh*
(http://www.primititootaa.com/Images/Hindenburg.jpg)
-
Thanks for the link, ZB. :)
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I have it on authority that Berkeley used to be a nice place to take classes at before it got overrun with leftist propagandists.
I have it on authority that the USA used to be a nice place to live before it's govt. got overrun with fundamentalist conservatives. :p
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Thanks for the link, ZB. :)
ZB? you have some other name for eish that we don't know about?
-
Hehe. Zutroy Bogolovf.
:nervous:
-
I love this for some reason
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/misconceptions_beavers2.gif)
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/misconceptions_beavers.gif)
:lol:
-
Originally posted by vyper
I have it on authority that the USA used to be a nice place to live before it's govt. got overrun with fundamentalist conservatives. :p
Thats exactly what I said before I decided that I didn't really want to start a flamewar. I figure if all of my (and other's) arguements and all that have been unable to "convert" the righties on here, I doubt a stupid jab at them would. Except I said right-wing fundamentalists and wannabe Empirialists.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I have it on authority that Berkeley used to be a nice place to take classes at before it got overrun with leftist propagandists.
Actually, I hate to say it, but I agree with you, Lib. As much as I like Berserkely's contribution to the software industry (BSD and its children, like the sublime and perfect FreeBSD), any school that allows nudists to go to class naked is a little bit off. ;)
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Bobboau
I love this for some reason
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/misconceptions_beavers2.gif
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/misconceptions_beavers.gif
:lol:
I actually prefer this one:
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/misconceptions_flawedtheory.gif)
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of kode
ZB? you haveth some other name for eish that we don't knowest about?
I hope not, I prefer having only one name.
-
I predict this thread get's closed
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
I haveth it on authority that Berkeley used to be a nice place to take classes at before it got overrun with leftist propagandists.
Ok the magnitude of my patience with you has reached ZERO.
Listen little deluded madman, What some book wrote 2000 years ago by some a group of brainwashed homophobic misogynistic fools has nought to do with science or reality. People like you, irrational to the point of insanity, out for the blood of anyone who doesn't agree with thy particular form of irrational belief art exacty the problem with the world today. People like you disgust me and should disgust everyone - but lo! people like you brainwash their children into thinking like you so long before they gain the ability to think critically that thy particular insanity is so ingrained in their mind that they don't haveth the courage or the wilt to challenge the foundations of their entire thought process, don't haveth the integrity to question.
People like you should be the exception, not the rule, you art why our species wilt fail.
As it says in my signature! "Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may haveth the conceit that the laws of nature art constantly broken for their sakes."
Or better as Nietzsche once put it best - [size=64]"One is not free to become a Christian. One must be sick enough for it."[/size]
-
Yeah, that whole prigs thing is a little too subtle for the audience it's aimed at :p
-
indeed
-
[color=66ff00]Kazan no matter how big or red you make the letters you will not make this guy agree with you. It's exactly the same reason as why you will never agree with him.
You could lazer etch 'God does not exist' on the moon and it would never change a thing about the beliefs of those who think he does.
Why argue with someone who will never, ever even consider what you have to say has merit?
[/color]
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of kode
ZB? you haveth some other name for eish that we don't knowest about?
:o For some reason I've confused these guys many a time. Oops. Thanks anyway, Eish. ;)
-
Kazan, dude
I have respected other people's beliefs
Now I think, It's time for you to respect other people's beliefs
From you without the thous and arts
jdjtcagle: because some of us a recovered lunatics
Thou art acting like a five year old [or any theist whenst their baseless beliefs art threatened]
Thou and thy ilk sicken me, hopelessly addicted to a set of pleasent lies.
Isn't this the same situation you are revealing to us.
Your truth is just opinions and Text book facts that are based on the most realistic theories today and are covered up to look like facts
-
jdjtcagle: you must only respect their _right_ to that belief
irrational beliefs should not be respected
-----------------
you don't trust science? what planet do you come from - i suggest you look through what eishtmo posted. If smoeone doesn't "trust science" then their critical thinking skills are _ZERO_
-
What thy saying is irrational, is thy opinion
And it's not irrational, NOTHING is irrational
and I'm not trusting something that was made to say you are ZERO critical thinking level if you believe in God.
Maybe you need to open your eyes and ask yourself if you are a critical thinker.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of jdjtcagle
What thy saying is irrational, is thy opinion
And it's not irrational, NOTHING is irrational
You're a beautiful woman from Venus and I wear a tin-foil hat to protect myself from your evil schemes.
That's not an irrational statement? :p
-
Ok, let me rephrase that, anything that can be backed up in some way
EDIT: let me rephrase that anything that can be backed up to a certain degree.
EX. You can't prove there is a God
but you can't also tell me how matter was first created
-
haha "what's irrational is thy opinion" ROTFLMAOPMPKYA
it's irrational BY THE DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL
If you believe something, and you haveth no evidence or logical arguments to back it up - that is BY DEFINITION irrational
----------
[edit]
You cannot even _Support_ that there is a god, therefore you are irrational if you believe in one
whether i can explain some property to you or not is irrevelant
PS: E=M(C*C), matter and energy are the same thing - simple in two different arrangements. All matter and energy origionates from the super-particle which exploded in the big bang
-
Liar. God created the universe. He came down in his spaceship and told me so.
-
Kazan, what it comes down to is faith.
We all have faith that an atom, any atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We can't actually prove it, no matter how good the microscope, but we believe and have faith in it none the less, because science has lent evidence suggesting that we are correct.
You have faith that the theory that the Universe began "X" billion years ago and that all the millions of different species on Earth developed from some suped up bacteria.
That is all too much of a stretch for me, it's too many coincidences. I prefer to have faith in the idea that all of this, everything around us, was created by an intelligent being beyond our comprehension and science. That he, or it if you prefer, takes and active interest in our existence and at times in the past and today, sends down rules of behavior that if followed by everyone, make for a very peaceful existence.
Your faith in the Big Bang and Evoloution is just as tenuous as my faith in God. With one minor caveat, Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Kazan, what it comes down to is faith.
We all haveth faith that an atom, any atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We can't actually prove it, no matter how good the microscope, but we believe and haveth faith in it noughtthe less, because science has lent evidence suggesting that we art correct.
Thou haveth faith that the theory that the Universe began "X" billion years ago and that all the millions of different species on Earth developed from some suped up bacteria.
That is all too much of a stretch for me, it's too many coincidences. I prefer to haveth faith in the idea that all of this, everything around us, wast created by an intelligent being beyond our comprehension and science. That he, or it if you prefer, takes and active interest in our existence and at times in the past and today, sends down rules of behavior that if followed by everyone, make for a very peaceful existence.
Your faith in the Big Bang and Evoloution is just as tenuous as my faith in God. With one minor caveat, Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has.
No, no ones need faiths in the universe beginning 13.7 billion years ago. The cosmic background radiation gives proof of that. However, the figure may change again due to evidence showing otherwise.
Similarly, faith is not the basis of atomic theory. There art observations which haveth led to the understanding of the composition of materials.
Theories art models based off of the body of given data. When there's a theory better than evolution to explain the diversity of species, fossil record, adaptations, etc. it'll most likely become the dominant theory.
When there's a better theory than the big bang to explain things like cosmic background radiation and other evidence that points to the big bang, it'll become an accepted theory. (e.x. some thought experiments in superstring theory has some nice alternatives to the big bang that create the same side-effects)
The only faith in science is the underlying assumption behind the method that observation of the natural world can lead to the better understanding of it.
As for thy comment on "science not providing a way for people to coexist" the field of sociology wast founded by people trying to observe societal traits to create more stable, peaceful, productive societies. (after seeing the chaos of the French Revolution, the Peninsular War, etc. etc.)
Neither sociology, nor any religion has come up with a way of having people coexist peacefully. Remember, communisim works in theory. Christianity works, if thou art Christ.
However, this is all a lie since God spoke to me as opposed to Shrike. I am the ONE and ONLY prophet and unbelievers such as Liberator, Shrike, and Kazan shalt be cleansed from the Earth! (As well as Mercury, Venus, Luna, and P3X-403) Mars Afterall, the burning tire told it all to me, it's all clear now!
-
rotfl
-
Sociology, my understanding of it anyway, is the study of social groups at gross levels at best, I have yet to see a theory put forth by man that will work regardless of man's nature.
That's the fly in your ointment, as it were.
All the Academics in the world can proscribe a theory that they think will produce a working, relative peaceful society, but they always leave out the most important part, the Nature of the Beast they seek to tame.
Man is greedy, self-centered, and agressive on a species level. To try and debate this is fallacy as that statement has over 7000 years of recorded history to back it up.
Only one group of commands that I know of can put order to the chaos:
1. You shall not worship any other god but YHWH.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of YHWH in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery(this extends to pre-marriage also)
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury(knowingly lie)
10. You shall not covet(fervently desire something somebody else has).
Christ also in message and deed, but not directly in word added an eleventh:
11. Love your neighbor as yourself, and treat him honorably.
For the sake of argument we'll leave the first 3 out, as they are religion specific, but a society based on these basic precepts will exist without major internal conflict until Man tries to quantify these commands to suit his purposes. Try and prove me wrong, and you'll find that it all boils down to these 11 basic rules of behavior. Everything else is mand-made and thus transient.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
1. Thou shalt not worship any other god but YHWH.
I knew god wast I dictator... I just knew it! And they call me, the misstress of Hell bad.
2. Thou shalt not make a graven image.
And how dost this prevent this 'chaos' you speak of?
3. Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH in vain.
Again... dictorship!
It's like Hussein really, but instead of being tortured for a little while you get thy ass sent down to the purgatory and my minions end up torturing you for eternity.
4. Thou shalt not break the Sabbath.
I'll do anything a damn well please on sunday. :nod:
5. Thou shalt not dishonor thy parents.
6. Thou shalt not murder.
Those art quite basic, a moron could think of those :p I'll agree with these.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery(this extends to pre-marriage also)
I had sex before getting married... So what? This is such utter bull****. During marriage, ok. But before, it's thy own friggin' choice.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Tell that to every big corporation and/or government out there...
9. Thou shalt not commit perjury(knowingly lie)
Agreed :)
10. Thou shalt not covet(fervently desire something somebody else has).
So, you don't want six billion dollars? Thou don't want a fancy car? Without desire it's impossible to accomplish something.
11. Love thy neighbor as yourself, and treat him honorably.
My neighbour wast an asshole and he still is. I'm not treating anyone with any respect unless they show me the same. Period. (Though I'll always try at the start :p).
In other words; Most of these rules are either useless, outdated or just plain... well plain.
-
you are worshiping a god other than YHWH! I shall smite thee for this transgresion!
/*holy war rages for 1000 years*/
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Bobboau
you art worshiping a god other than YHWH! I shalt smite thee for this transgresion!
/*holy war rages for 1000 years*/
Heh, more souls for me! :drevil:
-
Plain is perfect though.
Plain is easy enough for everyone to understand.
Only lawyers and politicians like complex laws.
Can you think of an easier/better way to prevent STDs than abstinence until marriage? Especially given that modern prophilactics are only partially successful. Plus, it gives the happy couple something to look forward to, instead of more of the same.
-
what word is getting transformed into gay
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Plain is perfect though.
Plain is easy enough for everyone to understand.
Only lawyers and politicians like complex laws.
Can you think of an easier/better way to prevent STDs than abstinence until marriage? Especially given that modern prophilactics art only partially successful. Plus, it gives the gay couple something to looketh forward to, instead of more of the same.
But sex is evil due to MAN'S ORIGINAL SIN!!!!1111oneoneone
YOU ARE EVIL AND SINFUL LIBERATOR!!!!
FEEL THE WRATH OF THE BURNING TIRE'S GAZE!!!! Only those who seek redemption shalt be... errm... returned to sender and get a... A RECEIPT!
-
:wtf:
-
happy
Ace, you didn't answer the query.
Can you think of a better way to prevent STD proliferation than abstinance, given your only alternative's less than stellar performance.
-
Oh I absolutly love these topics.
*Shakes Kazan's and Tiara's hand*
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Ace, you didn't answer the query.
Can you think of a better way to prevent STD proliferation than abstinance, given thy only alternative's less than stellar performance.
As I said, sex is evil and sinful! How dare I answer such a question at the whims of thy perversions!
Afterall, STDs art a judgement of GOD upon SINNERS!!!!! Loyal, *MARRIED*, couples would *NEVER* get STDs!
Anyway, thy whole "abstinence before marriage" statement came from the commandments and Tiara mentioning that she had pre-marital sex. Using Mrs. T. as an example, she wast in a couple that is long-term and with a partner who she wast certain he didn't haveth any diseases, and hopefully she wast sure she didn't either.
It all comes down to that thing called responsibility you imply that only GOD FEARIN' GAY HATIN' CHRISTIANS have. If thou art planning on having sex, make damn sure thou art responsible enough to use protection, not haveth a disease you'll spread to thy partner, etc. etc.
Sex isn't something that should be done on a whim, and it's not something that should be enshrouded in voodoo rituals that make the fact that there's some pleasure involved in the process EVIL and SINFUL!!! It's a fact of life.
Anyways, you are forgiven Liberator for your past transgressions. Repent to the will of the voice of the Flaming Tire now, and you shall be saved and be granted life eternal during the re-inflation of the tire...
-
Everything I know about religion I learned from the IRC Bible.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
11. Love thy neighbor as yourself, and treat him honorably.
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Plus, it gives the gay couple something to looketh forward to, instead of more of the same.
Or a case of hypocrisy at work. ;)
As much as I find Kazan a blockhead, he, at least, try to make his argumentation with a little thought behind them, instead of always bashing us up the head with the same argument. Your argumentation, Liberator, remind me of something I read not so long ago : tell something as often and as long as you can, and maybe people will believe you, even if you only have the flimsiest of proof (last known exemple of this method : there's WMD in Irak :D )
Plus you're always going on in your arguments on how you're right in believing in God and we're wrong for not believing in the Old Guy. Pride goesth before the fall and all that, I dareth say:) .
I could go on a little while on why I don't like you, butI'm too lazy to do it :p
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Ferret
Oh I absolutly love these topics.
*Shakes Kazan's and Tiara's hand*
Did I sayeth you could touch me, f00!?
*TWACKETH*
:p
-
hehe.. ty ferret :D
-
What is funny is the whole "too many coincidences" argument. Really. People just don't get that, had all these "coincidences" not happened, they simply wouldn't be here to observe them. Does it look like it's too convenient? Sure, but the fact that it all happened just the way it did is the only reason you're here to see it (and to think it's all impossible). There weren't all these coincidences on, say, Mars. Interestigly enough, you don't see any Martians *****ing about it.
;)
-
"the too many coincidences" argument rests of a faulty understanding a probability as well.
-
Rebuttal originating from the lack of wisdom of Liberator
Kazan, what it comes down to is faith.
Yes, and faith by definition is irrational, illogical
DEVOID OF REASON
We all haveth faith that an atom, any atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. We can't actually prove it, no matter how good the microscope, but we believe and haveth faith in it noughtthe less, because science has lent evidence suggesting that we art correct.
actually we don't have faith we can observe that with an various particle microscopes.
What was the date on your elementry school science textbooks? 1954?
Thou haveth faith that the theory that the Universe began "X" billion years ago and that all the millions of different species on Earth developed from some suped up bacteria.
Once again, you try accusing me of _FAITH_
You don't need FAITH to know this
Unverse age? Function of expansion rate/outer glactic distance, Function of positions of Quasars, etc.
EVOLUTION:
Microevolution: happens obviously, undeniably - every time someone sets out to disprove it they end up finding even more evidence to prove it
Macroevolution: logical extension of microevolution, OBSERVED TO OCCUR
That is all too much of a stretch for me, it's too many coincidences. I prefer to haveth faith in the idea that all of this, everything around us, wast created by an intelligent being beyond our comprehension and science. That he, or it if you prefer, takes and active interest in our existence and at times in the past and today, sends down rules of behavior that if followed by everyone, make for a very peaceful existence.
"coincidences" argument lies on a faulty knowledge of the probabilities.
You PREFER - because it's emotionally appealing. You ADMIT to bias, you just ADMITTED TO INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
IF you have children _NEVER_ teach them about the nature of the universe, you are not qualified - until you cast off bias an honestly look at it, and when your understanding fails you don't make baseless extraordinary claims
Your faith in the Big Bang and Evoloution is just as tenuous as my faith in God. With one minor caveat, Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has.
I don't need _FAITH_ for either, because there is EVIDENCE for both - for evolution that evidence is irrefutable.
"Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has" - this isn't science's job. FURTHERMORE Religion DOES NOT PROMOTE PEACEFUL COEXISTANCE - Religion promotes bigotry, hatred and war every day - prime example is this lattest round of bigotry trying to invade the government against homosexuals - oh and the arguments being used now are the same arguments that were used by racists against blacks, and misogynists against women.
Your "precious bible" DIRECTLY Promotes: Bigotry (against homosexuals, minorities, etc), Misogyny, killing people, genocide, etc
(If you don't know what misogyny is: hatred against women/sexism)
-
wait, if he just admited to intelectual dishonesty, isn't that intelectualy honest?
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Bobboau
wait, if he just admited to intelectual dishonesty, isn't that intelectualy honest?
No, admitting to dishonesty is moronic honesty.
-
and I think Isreal/Palistine is a better example of how well religons let people live together,
oh, wait it's that devil religon Islam that's all to blame, that's right, yeah.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Sociology, my understanding of it anyway, is the study of social groups at gross levels at best, I haveth yet to descry a theory put forth by man that wilt work regardless of man's nature.
That's the fly in thy ointment, as it were.
All the Academics in the world can proscribe a theory that they think wilt produce a working, relative peaceful society, but they always leave out the most important part, the Nature of the Beast they seek to tame.
Man is greedy, self-centered, and agressive on a species level. To try and debate this is fallacy as that statement has o'er 7000 years of recorded history to back it up.
Only one group of commands that I knowest of can put order to the chaos:
1. Thou shalt not worship any other god but YHWH.
2. Thou shalt not make a graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH in vain.
4. Thou shalt not break the Sabbath.
5. Thou shalt not dishonor thy parents.
6. Thou shalt not murder.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery(this extends to pre-marriage also)
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not commit perjury(knowingly lie)
10. Thou shalt not covet(fervently desire something somebody else has).
Ah, but here I must disagree. Firstly, any such law that be madeth by society that carry with it the same intent, is, plain as day, to be of the same effectiveness. The quantification of that law can only helpeth it be more just, not less, for every transgresion hath degrees of fault, degrees of harm, degrees of , in a word, sin. If I commiteth murder upon only one man, be that the same as if I killed a thousand? Would it be just for the same punishment to be exacted?
I must also disagree with thy implication that these laws originated from Christianity. That be not the case. Well before the arrival of Christ and the writing of the Bible, ancient Babylon hath laws that were similar to these. I know not the specifics, but I am fairly certain that most civilizations predating Christianity had something along the lines of these basic laws. The most plausible explaination as to how pretty much every society develops the exact same set of laws, is that these are laws that are part of the human mind. Every man, save few, knows right from wrong. Independently, every society develops what amounts to the same legal code. Explain this to me.
And lastly, though I have no evidence, I believeth that humans are not, as you you, greedy, self-centered and agressive. A few are, and by a wonderful flaw in logic, they are those who gain power. They influence the rest of the species negatively, though the species is not itself negative. The more a society develops, the less they agressive, self-centred and greedy. These emotions exist in all humans, but the more "enlightened" and individual becomes, the less effect these emotion have on them. Usually, the individual becometh "enlightened" as a result of his society becoming "enlightened", but that is not always the case.
-
Yeah, well, Kazan, unless you haven't noticed, humans are irrational beings. If we weren't, we'd be called Vulcans. Or Robots.
among other things, God is a very wide term. Hell, some forms of christian churches define god as the cause that started the universe (don't take it too literally, I'm not good in estonian-english translation). As such, it is as good a reason as any. Also see Leibniz' definition of God (yes, it ain't the christian god, but still, it's a very good definition of God as they come)
Also, as such the theory of evolution is perfectly well supported by most of the more reformed forms of christianity. Not to mention, that there's a lot more to religion than the explanation of the world around us.
You wanna be intellectually honest, fine, be intellectually honest. Me, I wanna be human.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Rictor
I must also disagree with thy implication that these laws originated from Christianity. That be not the case. Well before the arrival of Christ and the writing of the Bible, ancient Babylon hath laws that were similar to these. I knowest not the specifics, but I am fairly certain that most civilizations predating Christianity had something along the lines of these basic laws. The most plausible explaination as to how pretty much every society develops the exact same set of laws, is that these art laws that art part of the human mind. Every man, save few, knoweth right from wrong. Independently, every society develops what amounts to the same legal code. Explain this to me.
Simple. It ain't so. There have been civilisations, in which incest has been legal, those in which female children were allowed to be killed, if they weren't tough enough to survive, hell, we had slavery and female discrimation up until 100 years ago (and I'm speaking only of the western countries, and I remind again, that Islam allows killing, if it's the killing of non-believers in a Jihad. ). As someone mentioned in the religion thread, even though most earth religions may seem similar on the outside, they are rather different on the inside.
-
Christianty allows the killing on non-believers. Or were the Jesuits not Christians then? And since when does Christianity ban the keeping of slaves. More than half of America kept slaves, and the slaveowners were devout Christians. If the issue had been left to religion, there would still be slavery. Same goes for female discrimination, as early as a hundred years ago, women were not allowed to vote. Again, Christian people living in a (mostly) Christian nation.
All of these things, which are today considered obviously wrong, were all allowed in the days when the Bible was law. Only due to people ingoring the Bible were we able to progress beyond slavery, injustice and religious wars.
-
Stunaep: Vulcans have no emotion - humans can have emotion, they just need to keep them out of where they don't belong.
-
I've never said that the bible should be taken as a law. A voluntary guide, sure, you've got to admit, when it's not contradictory, it's really humane. Plus, christianity can, as was already mentioned, be summarized in the two immortal sentences "Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself", and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" (to the nitpicky axemistress, this doesn't mean the person who lives next door).
Not to mention, whose to say that the bible is the correct word of God anyways. It's not like the wordings, the interpretation and **** hasn't changed since the life of Jesus. Hell, even the four apostles contradict themselves when it comes to regarding the life of Jesus. Those two sentences, they however, do agree on.
-
humane?! ROTFL you haven't read the entire thing - it has god ORDERING GENOCIDE
-
It also has Jesus ordering peace, charity, and compassion against your neighbors. What's your point?
Please, show me, point out to me the quote, when I have said, that everything in the bible should be taken, word for word, and followed. That'd be stupid. The bible is one of the most contradictous works of literature I've ever read.
-
Ah, so you claim that only if we follow the "good" stuff, and disregard all the bad, then the Bible is indeed the pillar of order in a depraved society. Yes, if we disregard all the contradictions, the intolerance and soo forth, than it does preach peace. But...you know....
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
Your faith in the Big Bang and Evoloution is just as tenuous as my faith in God. With one minor caveat, Science has not, as yet, provided a method of coexisting with everyone else that is peaceful, God has.
Wrong
Read up on game theory. Axelrod's prisoners dilema experiments proved conclusively that the best way to coexist with other people also in the same situation is to play cooperative tit-for-tat with them (i.e you act nice and friendly until someone betrays you. Then you visit an exactly equal amount of retribution on them. Then you descry what they do. If they take it and don't do anything you goest back to treating them well. )
The problem is not that science can't come up with a method. The problem is that no one is willing to use it.
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
I've never said that the bible should be taken as a law. A voluntary guide, sure, you've got to admit, whenst it's not contradictory, it's really humane. Plus, christianity can, as wast already mentioned, be summarized in the two immortal sentences "Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to yourself", and "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself" (to the nitpicky axemistress, this doesn't mean the person who lives next door).
Game theory can be spun to sayeth virtually the same thing but unlike christianity there is no need to throw out a whole load of stuff because it causes genocide and religious intolerance. So if we art talking about what makes a good voluntary guide science is better since it has less contradictions (and unlike religion it's actually working to get rid of the relatively small ones it has).
-
could it be, that this could be one of the reasons, why the reformation of the catholic church began in the first place in the 16th century?
-
Ow, pooie :p
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of karajorma
Wrong
Read up on game theory. Axelrod's prisoners dilema experiments proved conclusively that the best way to coexist with other people also in the same situation is to play cooperative tit-for-tat with them (i.e you act nice and friendly until someone betrays you. Then you visit an exactly equal amount of retribution on them. Then you descry what they do. If they take it and don't do anything you goest back to treating them well. )
The problem is not that science can't come up with a method. The problem is that no one is willing to use it.
So, because no-one is willing to use it makes science a better guide to life, than the life works of countless philosophers, priests and whatnot, exactly how?
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
So, because no-one is willing to use it makes science a better guide to life, than the life works of countless philosophers, priests and whatnot, exactly how?
Hmmm. I should make that line next to no one instead of no one cause many atheists actually do live according to game theory (even if they don't realise they art).
The problem is you can't get the religious to dump their system and turn o'er to using game theory alone whenst it comes to making decisions.
But whether or not you manage to do that it dost prove that liberator is completely wrong in his analysis that science hasn't come up with a solution. It has.
-
dont call anything liberator says an "analysis" because he doesn't do them
he just makes assertions
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Kazan
dont call anything liberator says an "analysis" because he doesn't do them
he just makes assertions
Didn't you notice t'was April Fools Day :p I'm allowed to sayeth the sort of thing that is obviously false today ;)
-
liberator's smart.... no wait! april fools!
-
Kazan is tolerant of others......yea, thee guess'd it.
-
Rictor: once again, why do people insist that it is wise to tolerate irrationalism - you must respect their right to have an opinion, you don't have to respect the opinion itself
anybody who thinks you must to both has been brainwashed by the political correctness brigade
-
you know, if we'd all follow the scientifical approach to life, we'd probably all end up being like Kazan. Think about that. :p
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Kazan
Rictor: once again, why do people insist that it is wise to tolerate irrationalism - you must respect their right to have an opinion, you don't haveth to respect the opinion itself
I don't see how flat out insulting people qualifies as respecting their opinion.
-
as a my third post in a row, I'd like to enquire, what the hell does descry mean?
-
i thought it was describe, but i was wrong
-
descry ~ see
Stunaep: you fail to realize liberator is insulting us constantly, just in ways that you or he doesn't even understand (Saying we have faith of all the absurd things in the universe)
-
Again I say; oh, pooie!
:p
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Kazan
descry ~ see
Stunaep: you fail to realize liberator is insulting us constantly, just in ways that you or he doesn't even understand (Saying we haveth faith of all the absurd things in the universe)
Wait, you want to say, you never have faith in anything? (could be wrong, heavens knows this shakespearan english doesn't make stuff easier to read)
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Kazan
As it says in my signature! "Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may haveth the conceit that the laws of nature art constantly broken for their sakes."
"God is Dead." Nietzsche.
"Nietzsche is Dead." God.
(couldn't resist :))
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
Wait, you want to say, you never haveth faith in anything?
Depends on what you assume faith to mean (it has several meanings)
faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Meaning 1 could be applied to an atheist if it didn't use the word belief. Meaning 3 is perfectly fine but wasn't the meaning being used here.
The problem is that an atheist can never say he has faith in anything without a theist coming along and saying that it means he's setting up science as a religion. The same is true with the word believe because if you say you believe science has the correct answer a theist will again come along and say the same thing.
For these reasons I too was also insulted by Liberator's comments that I have faith in science. I certainly do not.
I am convinced that science is correct because I understand how the scientific method works. I understand that science makes no assumptions that it isn't willing to cast aside if new evidence comes to light that suggests the assumption may have been incorrect. Furthermore assumptions are only made in the first place if there is evidence that supports them.
Faith is a completely different matter. You start out with an assumption and then fit evidence around it. If the evidence doesn't fit you throw it away or come up with a half-hearted explaination that makes it fit but at no time do you ever question that your central assumption might be incorrect.
So when someone says that I have faith in science that's a pretty big insult. It's saying that I'm fooling myself into believing a view of the world because I'm not prepared to examine my convictions.
I don't disbelieve in God because I've never examined the bible or scripture. I disbelieve in God because I personally have examined the evidence in a scientific fashion and have found there to be no more proof of the existance of God than there is of Buddha or Krishna or any other diety you care to mention. In fact most if not all of the religions in the world have made claims that science actually disproves in one way or another. I've challenged the assumptions involved in religion and found them either to be false (The bible is 100% correct) or based on no evidence at all (there needs to be a god for the universe to exist).
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of aldo_14
"God is Dead." Nietzsche.
"Nietzsche is Dead." God.
"God never existed." -- Tiara
Sorry, couldn't resist.
-
God creates dinosaur... God creates man... man destroyes god... man created dinosaur...
Sorry, couldn't resist either, I've always love that movie :D
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of karajorma
Stuff
Hey, I've got no problem, with you being an atheist. I cannot understand, why being an atheist should automatically mean setting up a religion. And I certainly have no problem with scientifici methods.
We could discuss the meaning of faith in a 900-post religion thread (which i already did, natch)
My point is, that because someone unwantingly insults you (and yes, I do believe Liberator hadn't got in mind insulting Kazan, however fitting that might have been), you should start wantingly insulting them back. Especially, because he is being irrational, which ****, even Kazan is often. Most human emotions are completely irrational (please, let's try to keep genetics out of this). "An eye for eye leaves the entire world blind" - Gandhi, if we're going into the land of quotes.
-
That's going into the sig
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of jdjtcagle
God creates dinosaur... God creates man... man destroyes god... man created dinosaur...
Sorry, couldn't resist either, I've always love that movie :D
No, it goes like this if god would actually exist:
- god creates dinos
- god kills dinos
- god creates humans
- humans create dinos
That'd mean humanity would be redoing god's work. And if humans can do gods work, god isn't any better, more powerful or special then a normal human.
:D
:p
-
A VERY, VERY small part of it.:D
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of aldo_14
"God is Dead." Nietzsche.
"Nietzsche is Dead." God.
(couldn't resist :))
atleast finish the entire freaking exchange
you know nietzsche wrote that himself
"God is dead" - Nietzsche; "Nietzsche is dead" - God, and the riposte, "Some are born posthumously!" - Nietzsche
-
i NEVER have FAITH as in "believing in something without evidence"
"faith in someone" ie thinking they're going to succeed i can have - but it's really just beleiving in their ability to suceed based off previous expirience with them.
If someone think's im acting irrationally it's simple because they do not understand my motivation
-
Haven't you ever heard of 'state of affect'? or have you never thumped a ball against the wall, just because you had nothing better to do? Hell, love is a completely irrational feeling, I want to believe that you've experienced that.
What about, when you're pursuing a theory, that you believe to be right, but have no concrete proof? Or when you have a gut feeling? Never had one of those? Man, what a sad life you must lead.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
Hey, I've got no problem, with you being an atheist. I cannot understand, why being an atheist should automatically mean setting up a religion. And I certainly haveth no problem with scientifici methods.
It doesn't but if I had a pound for every time I've heard someone act as though atheism is a religion I could buy HLP and ban the next person to say it :D
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
We could discuss the meaning of faith in a 900-post religion thread (which i already did, natch)
My point is, that because someone unwantingly insults you (and yes, I do believe Liberator hadn't got in mind insulting Kazan, however fitting that might haveth been), you should start wantingly insulting them back. Especially, because he is being irrational, which ****, even Kazan is often. Most human emotions art completely irrational (please, let's try to keep genetics out of this). "An eye for eye leaves the entire world blind" - Gandhi, if we're going into the land of quotes.
I didn't insult Liberator though. I mearly agreed with Kazan that he has yet to write anything that approaches an analysis rather than an assertion and further explained Kazan's statement about why saying that an atheist has faith in science is a pretty big insult.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Kazan
atleast finish the entire freaking exchange
you knowest nietzsche wrote that himself
"God is dead" - Nietzsche; "Nietzsche is dead" - God, and the riposte, "Some art born posthumously!" - Nietzsche
Nope - I'm quoting off a webpage. But to be honest, I couldn't give a **** about Nietsche.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
What about, whenst thou art pursuing a theory, that you believe to be right, but haveth no concrete proof? Or whenst you haveth a gut feeling? Never had one of those? Man, what a sad life you must lead.
Having a gut feeling is not irrational. It becomes irrational only if you continue to act on your gut feeling in the face of evidence that it is wrong.
-
Emotions are only a problem, only a lapse of rationality when you use them where they do not belong
-
"I'm not a fascist. I'm a priest. Fascists dress up in black and tell people what to do. Whereas priests...
...More drink! "
-
Now THAT'S funny!
Kazan, if you haven't had faith in something without evidence before, you must have led a very shallow life or be wealthy beyond the dreams of Avarice.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Now THAT'S funny!
Kazan, if you haven't had faith in something without evidence before, you must have led a very shallow life or be wealthy beyond the dreams of Avarice.
The irony :rolleyes: I believe you lead a shallow life because you don't even try to look further then you have to. You are stuck believing in a single thing, for all eternity, forever, and ever and ever and ever.....
Now that's shallow. You are unwilling to open your mind to other possibilities.
As for me, I'm not excluding the possibility of a God cause there has been no proof that says he doesn't exist. But unless someone proves that he actually exist I won't ever believe in him, heaven or all that bullcrap. Ever.
-
Liberator: you don't understand the nature of shallow.
Shallow because i am never irrational RRRRRIGHT -
Which one of us is engaged?
Which one of us lives with their girlfriend?
Which one of us has a plush jobs?
Which one of us has a thriving business?
Which one of us has respect for his accomplishments?
-
This quote is aimed mostly at Liberator, but it applies to everyone.
"Keep they religion to thyself."
-George Carlin
-
Thorn: you must have a religion before you can keep it to yourself
-
Kaz: Alright... Keep thy religion and beliefs to thyself.
Hows that then?
-
calling them beliefs is a stretch - but i'll let you get away with it :P
but no, i will not let irrationality continue to weight our species down
-
Well...
Big letters is not going to do anything...
And I'll tell you one thing, no matter how big of a dent you make on the world of religion, you'll never change it
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Well...
Big letters is not going to do anything...
And I'll tell you one thing, no matter how big of a dent you make on the world, you'll never change it
I'd say a dent of a 15 km wide asteroid I pushed into a collision course with Earth would make a dent :drevil:
And jdjt...whatever you name is, anyone can make a difference. No matter how small. And each small change will contribute to a larger change. Wether you like it or not, things will always change because people try to change it.
It won't be in a snap, but over time, each effort will contribute to a larger change of the world.
-
OOPS...
Ment to say world of religion.
It's not going to happen, no matter what kind of facts are discovered.
And yes one does agree with the 15 kilometer asteroid
-
The world of religion changes as well. Don't you see the difference of the church since it came into existence? And it'snot because the church wanted to change, it was because they were forced to change.
For example:
- Witchhunt
- Withes proven not to exist
- Witchhunts stop cuz the church can't deny the proof and even if they did they'd have real trouble with a lot of people. :p
-
Witchunts???
Riiighht...:p
-
I was refering to aldo's witicism, sorry you didn't pick up on that.
Regardless, one day, something will happen;
You're fiance might be heavily injured in a car wreck, you might lose your job, you're children might get sick, you might get sick; regardless, one day something will happen that makes you face your mortality. At that moment, you will feel God asking to help with your burden.
Tiara, given your condition I'm surprised you don't agree, at least somewhat.
-
Lib. That is the most insulting thing I've read in weeks. The sad thing is that you don't even realise the magnitude of the insult and the basic stupidity inherent in it.
What you're saying is that if I were to get a terminal illness I would get religion. I would believe that when I die it will be the end of my imperfect life on Earth and the beginning of my perfect life in heaven bathed in the glory of God. You then believe that upon making this transition I'd pray not to die. That is the single most stupid idea I have ever heard in my life. If I'm going to heaven when I die why would I care about death?
I worry about death because I know that it will be the end of my existance but if I believed that it wouldn't be I'd smoke, drink more and crosss roads without looking. After all when I die I'm going to heaven so what would I care about life?
So your act of praying to God when you're in trouble actually shows your lack of faith because some part of you seems to want to remain on Earth and not be part of this God's infinite love in heaven.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
calling them beliefs is a stretch - but i'll let you get away with it :P
but no, i will not let irrationality continue to weight our species down
It's not your call to make, is it?
Unless you fancy yourself as an ubermensch, of course.
On the subject of mortality - I couldn;t find the exact source for this quote (or the exact text) but IMO it's fitting;
"If I am, i am not dead
If I am dead, i am not
So why worry about what happens when I am not?"
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Tiara, given your condition I'm surprised you don't agree, at least somewhat.
a). I don't believe in god so whats the point in asking?
b). If I'd look for help I would go to TCO, my own family, etc... Surely not some IMO non-existant diety.
c). See a and b.
Besides, turning to god only when you need him wasn't a good thing anywayz IIRC :p
I sure as hell don't agree with you in the least bit. The fact that I got hit by a car would be god's fault to begin with. :ick:
-
But Liberator does have a point, though his way of expressing it, is well, you know. People who have lost everything (or never had anything to begin with), often turn to God, and the idea of Heaven and '**** as means of finding hope for a better future. Now unless you're one of those people who say that "If you're poor, then it's your own god-damn fault" (which is imo, about as stupid a statement that one can make), then that's gotta count as a good use for religion. Inversely, those with money, girlfriends, power, and so on, may eventually want to achieve something more, than that, because if truly all humans ever wanted was, as Kazan put it, a girlfriend, a good job, and respect for his accomplishments and whatnot, then life wouldn't be very perspective. Sure, they're a requirement for happy life, but still. A good portion people (well, ambitious people anyhow, which certainly goes for them rich religious people), wish to achieve something greater, something that will laster longer than they do, and some of them, to that end, turn to religion. And that's a good thing, mind ya.
Me, myself, just to get my views on religion clear, are pretty similar to Tiara. I don't believe in God, but I don't completely deny the possiblity of his existence either. I believe that there is neither enough evidence to support his existance, nor enough to disprove it. And since I do accept the general principles (NOTE the word principles) of christianity, I don't like when people insult other people just because their views seem 'irrational'.
Kaz: Acting on a gut feeling, without evidence to support it (but also without evidence proving the contrary) is just as irrational as believing in one or other God. In both cases you may have theories why something will happen the way you feel it will/why you believe in one or another deity, yet no concrete proof.
Kara: I've never accused you of insulting anyone. You stay very polite in your posts, and make a good debater. It's Kazan who worries me.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
But Liberator does have a point, though his way of expressing it, is well, you know. People who have lost everything (or never had anything to begin with), often turn to God, and the idea of Heaven and '**** as means of finding hope for a better future. Now unless you're one of those people who say that "If you're poor, then it's your own god-damn fault" (which is imo, about as stupid a statement that one can make), then that's gotta count as a good use for religion.
No it isn't. People in the same situation often turn to alcohol or drugs. That doesn't make it a good use for them does it?
Sure there are some people for whom religion makes a good crutch to lean on when your life turns to **** but lets look at the flipside of the coin. How many people don't do anything about the fact that their life has turned to crap because they believe that God will sort it out in the end?
Ask a psychiatrist about emotional crutches. He'll tell you that while some people may need them they'd certainly be better off if they could do without them.
Originally posted by Stunaep
Me, myself, just to get my views on religion clear, are pretty similar to Tiara. I don't believe in God, but I don't completely deny the possiblity of his existence either. I believe that there is neither enough evidence to support his existance, nor enough to disprove it.
Any atheist who completely denies the possibility of the existance of God is lying either to themselves or to you. However there is a level to that denial. It's the same as that the universe was created by a giant tapdancing mongoose. Sure the universe could have been created by one but why should should I walk about believing in one unless I actually meet the furry critter?
I can come up with 300 different unprovable theories for how the universe got started without breaking a sweat. They'd all be equally valid with the one that christianity puts out (some might even have less contradictions!). The point is that all of them would be highly improbable.
Originally posted by Stunaep
And since I do accept the general principles (NOTE the word principles) of christianity, I don't like when people insult other people just because their views seem 'irrational'.
I however don't accept the general principles. While christianity has managed to stumble into some good consepts it's also picked up a huge number of bad ones. I'll give you an example. If it is proved that homosexuality has a genetic basis then wouldn't the way christians act towards gay people be irrational? In fact discriminating against someone on a genetic basis is no better than racism which is also irrational.
-
And for the last time, what the hell is wrong with being irrational? It's a completely human trait. One is never completely irrational, since everything one does makes sense to at least to himself, so what's wrong with being somewhat irrational.
As for the christian thing, Sure, harassing gay people is wrong, and yes, it's in the bible, but hey, the principles of christianism are the ten commandments. Jesus himself said that.
Originally said by Jesus
"And behold, one came up to Him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And He said to him, "Why do you ask Me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the Commandments." He said to Him, "Which?"
These commandments, do just fine for the most part, I cannot say, I always follow them, but I accept them as the positive ideal. Why don't I see "Harass gay people" in these commandments.
As I've previously mentioned, the bible is full of inconsistencies. To take it all word for word, would be stupid. But these ten commandements, together with "Love thy neighbor..." and the best of all "Don't do to others...." are the things that Jesus, the center figure of christianity has himself said to be the principles. Everyone agrees on that. That, I accept. The basis, of being a good a kind person, helpful, and friendly, is what Jesus was aiming at.
No it isn't. People in the same situation often turn to alcohol or drugs. That doesn't make it a good use for them does it?
Well, it's not like believing in God eventually kills you. Just like drinking moderately doesn't. Taking drugs, well, that's another matter entirely, but mostly, people who don't go to extremes in religious stuff, tend to get along just as well in life, as those who don't. And as opposed to turning to drugs and alcohol, turning to God, is a lot favorable. If they have to lean on someone, let it be God, rather than alchohol.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
And for the last time, what the hell is wrong with being irrational? It's a completely human trait. One is never completely irrational, since everything one does makes sense to at least to himself, so what's wrong with being somewhat irrational.
There's nothing wrong with a little irrationality but you shouldn't base major life decisions on it.
Originally posted by Stunaep
As I've previously mentioned, the bible is full of inconsistencies. To take it all word for word, would be stupid. But these ten commandements, together with "Love thy neighbor..." and the best of all "Don't do to others...." are the things that Jesus, the center figure of christianity has himself said to be the principles. Everyone agrees on that. That, I accept. The basis, of being a good a kind person, helpful, and friendly, is what Jesus was aiming at.
Here's the problem though. The 10 commandments are not the basic principles of christianity. The basic tenet of christianity is the belief in God and Jesus and his ressurection. No matter how much rationality you add to that in the form of sensible commandments (like not killing, stealing etc.) it's already tainted with irrationality.
Sure the non God related commandments make sense but they are far too entwined in the irrationality of the rest of christianity for you to be able to hold them up and say "See. Christianity is rational after all"
Originally posted by Stunaep
Well, it's not like believing in God eventually kills you. Just like drinking moderately doesn't. Taking drugs, well, that's another matter entirely, but mostly, people who don't go to extremes in religious stuff, tend to get along just as well in life, as those who don't. And as opposed to turning to drugs and alcohol, turning to God, is a lot favorable. If they have to lean on someone, let it be God, rather than alchohol.
My whole point is that people who turn to religion during periods of difficulty are mearly using an emotional crutch same as people who use alcohol or drugs. While that may be good in the short term if they then become dependant on the crutch it becomes a bad thing. Far better to solve the problem without the need of an emotional crutch in the first place.
-
Well, a lot of people aren't made like that. And it's doubtful we'll become like that any time soon (evolution does take millions of years). So for that time, I'll take religion over drugs.
As for the thing about the Jesus and his resurrection, those aren't things you base your life on. Sure, I can say that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected. That doesn't change my life one bit. Living, or at least trying to live according to the 10 commandments/Neighbor thing, that is what affects the lives of christians.
-
But they don't just live by the 10 + 2. They live by all the other irrational stuff too. I'd have next to no issues with christians if they just lived by the 10 +2. It's the gay bashing, sex hating side of christianity that I have a problem with and that is nothing to do with the commandments.
-
well, I completely agree with you on that. I've never thought otherwise.
And guess what, there are christians, who don't use the irrational stuff, hell, the lutherianism basically evolved around throwing away the old and unnecessary irrational ****.
So there we are.
-
Don't try to make me into a weak minded fool like you
Originally posted by Liberator
Regardless, one day, something will happen;
Oh! I just hit a key on my keyboard! something happened! oh I did it again! oh! oh! oh!
Originally posted by Liberator
You're fiance might be heavily injured in a car wreck,
That could happen, it would suck balls too
Originally posted by Liberator
you might lose your job,
Jobs come and go, NEXT!
Originally posted by Liberator
you're children might get sick, you might get sick; /B]
mmmm medicine
Originally posted by Liberator
regardless, one day something will happen that makes you face your mortality.
I face my mortality every day, for someone of my philosophy every day is a battle and every day is a constnat reminder that we are mortal.
Facing reality makes you stronger.
Originally posted by Liberator
At that moment, you will feel God asking to help with your burden.
No, I will not, and I am extremely insulted beyond your wildest imaginations by you trying to say this. I am not a weak minded, weak willed little coward like you. My logic does not bend to irrationalism and emotions.
You know what happens when I die? I NO LONGER AM ALIVE - I NO LONGER EXISTS.
You are too afraid to admit that. You are so afraid of taking responsibility for your life that you surrender your will to your imaginary skybeast. You pretend that everything you do is in its plan, so if you screw up you can shift the blame, if something good happens it is its doing and it will do it again.
GROW UP
Originally posted by Liberator
Tiara, given your condition I'm surprised you don't agree, at least somewhat.
Tiara wasn't harsh enough with you i think. She should have taken your head off
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
the lutherianism basically evolved around throwing away the old and unnecessary irrational ****.
/B]
except teh fundamental irrationalisms
_ANY_ irrationalism promoted as "fact" "reality" etc is a threat to modern civilization and the future of our species.
[At one point religion did serve a purpose for civilization and wasn't wholly a bad thing for civilization; but we have gone way beyond needing it and now it is dead weight that just causes wars, hatred, bigotry, etc]
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Read up on game theory. Axelrod's prisoners dilema experiments proved conclusively that the best way to coexist with other people also in the same situation is to play cooperative tit-for-tat with them (i.e you act nice and friendly until someone betrays you. Then you visit an exactly equal amount of retribution on them. Then you descry what they do. If they take it and don't do anything you goest back to treating them well. )
Game theory (which is a branch of math by the way) is not about ethics, morals or anything of the sort. It is all about optimal strategies in games, these optimal strategies are not necessarily tied to the same things as social guidelines. Trying to twist math to fit with social advice is not a good idea.
Why are we even arguing about the effectiveness of science to guide people to do "good" things anyway? Science is not meant for guiding people in societies. Don't try to compare mangoes and rhubarb.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
I was refering to aldo's witicism, sorry you didn't pick up on that.
Regardless, one day, something will happen;
You're fiance might be heavily injured in a car wreck, you might lose your job, you're children might get sick, you might get sick; regardless, one day something will happen that makes you face your mortality. At that moment, you will feel God asking to help with your burden.
Tiara, given your condition I'm surprised you don't agree, at least somewhat.
Sooner or later you're going to have to realise that you cant go about thinking everyone has to have the same opinion you do. Have the same beliefs you do. One of these days you're going to run into reality and its going to kick your ass for being an arrogant prick. Not eveyone is as tolerant (or as far away) as the people here are. If people dont immediately agree with you, leave them the **** alone. Otherwise you're going to piss someone off, and your "god" wont do a damn thing about it because you brought it on yourself.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Game theory (which is a branch of math by the way) is not about ethics, morals or anything of the sort. It is all about optimal strategies in games, these optimal strategies are not necessarily tied to the same things as social guidelines. Trying to twist math to fit with social advice is not a good idea.
Why are we even arguing about the effectiveness of science to guide people to do "good" things anyway? Science is not meant for guiding people in societies. Don't try to compare mangoes and rhubarb.
Read up on Axelrod's experiment before you comment (It's covered quite well in The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins) as it's actually quite interesting.
I never said that Game theory was about ethics or morals. As you say it's about optimal strategies in games. However a series of experiments in the prisoners dilemma found that tit-for-tat was the best strategy and that furthermore that when a natural selection element was applied to the game they eventually ended up with an idea world where none of the participating strategies attempted to backstab any of the others and where any strategy which had attempted it had gone extinct.
That shows that although game theory doesn't give you orders on how to live your life it does point you in the right direction without the need for any religion.
Theists are always happy to say that atheists must be basing their morals on the religion. Axelrod's experiments prove that the rule "Try to be nice to everyone" is not just a form of humanism or biblically derived but can be derived from simple self interest.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
[At one point religion did serve a purpose for civilization and wasn't wholly a bad thing for civilization; but we have gone way beyond needing it and now it is dead weight that just causes wars, hatred, bigotry, etc]
Now it also produces music, literature, philosophical threads like this, and generally nice people. THe fundamentalists, no matter what you think, are and have always been a minority. Earlier, they were just the minority with power.
Compare yourself to Steak. I'd choose his subtle irrationality over your 'insult-everyone-that-is-different' mentality any day.
-
Stu: Exactly.
-
Even if you disagree - vehemently - with someone, you'll never change their opinion by preaching to them you own belief / opinion / view. Applies to both sides in any argument.
-
I do not insult-everyone-that-is-different
i attack anyone who is INTENTIONALLY intellectually dishonest and insulting like liberator
i try to talk to people who are just deluded
-
my point still stands. Steak is a better social person.
then again, who knows what you might be like in RL.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Kazan
I do not insult-everyone-that-is-different
i beset anyone who is INTENTIONALLY intellectually dishonest and insulting like liberator
i try to talk to people who art just deluded
The thing is, by assuming you have a right to judge people, you by implication are insulting their own judgement..... from what i can see, you get pissed off by people judging you (at least negatively) - so why isn't the inverse true?
What I mean is, that it is often that you are judging people by your own standards - but you seem to take issue when they do the same based on their own, different standards.
Plus it just seems counter productive...... the person behind the argument (i.e. the phrasing, the tone) is often as effective as the content itself - the more reasonable you are - evne if you disagree - the more people will be inclined to reasonably assess & respond toyour arguments.
(is the filter still on then, BTW?)
-
Stunaep: for the most part im really nice - it's just topics that irritate me come up a lot on here
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Stunaep
Now it also produces music, literature, philosophical threads like this, and generally nice people. THe fundamentalists, no matter what you think, art and haveth always been a minority. Earlier, they were just the minority with power.
Sure the fundementalists are bad but you can't blame them for everything. The fundementalists may be the ones who get up on the pulpits and scream about how gay people are ill or perverted but the only reason anyone pays them any more attention than a mouthy tramp on the street is because millions of those generally nice people listen to that crap and agree with it.
Run a poll and see who is against gay marriage with the average people on the street. Then ask those same people what religion they are (if any). I'll bet you won't be surprised by the number of your generally nice religious people who'll suddenly turn into gay bashers.
Unless they've become terrorists the fundementalists only have power because the rest of the religious people in the country agree with them on some level. Otherwise they'd just be shouting into the wind.
-
Kazan == Drago Museveni?
Kaz, I think we'll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I'm not as much of a Fundamentalist as I come across on here sometimes, but since you all seem to associate Political Conservatism with Christian Fundamentalism it does color your impression of me. There are certain things that I believe are wrong, and history shows that, by and large, they are.
I believe the United States of America is on the slippery slope towards decadence that Western Europe has already gone most of the way down, and I will do anything it takes to prevent that.
-
Rebuttal originating from the wisdom of Liberator
I believe the United States of America is on the slippery slope towards decadence that Western Europe has already gone most of the way down, and I wilt do anything it takes to prevent that.
Western Europe is decadent? So then, who's not decadent? The Bible belt states?
Out of the people at HLP from Western Europe, who do you feel is decadent? Or have these people "proven" themselves to you?
-
Liberator: thankee for the compliment (Kazan == Drago Museveni)
Poliotical Conservatism and Christianity goest hand in hand
"slippery slope" - exactly that, logical fallacy -- allowing homosexuals equal marriage rights doesn't harm you in any way
-
Kazaan want logic and I think I found it
67% chance that God exists (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html)
-
Errr.... that's bull**** math. You can twist it any which way with his method. How the hell does he define the possibilities anyway? All possible configurations of the Universe from start to finish?
-
jdjtcagle: probabilities aren't always logic - probabilities like that rest on ASSUMPTIONS, many of them
-
Hmmm...
Sorry I tried then
-
you tried, and for that you do deserve a pat on the back - hence why i am not biting your head off :D
-
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Decadentadj
1 : marked by decay or decline
2 : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the decadents
3 : characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence
Specifically, definitions 1 and 3.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Decadencenoun
1 : the process of becoming decadent : the quality or state of being decadent
2 : a period of decline
Any society that let's 15,000 die in a heat wave because they are too busy sunning their fat wine drinking asses at the beach is decadent in my eyes.
Any society that makes citizens pay tax on individual components of an item is decadent in my eyes.
Any society that would rather pass resoloution after resoloution instead of taking action is a decadent bunch o pantywaists who need to pull the goddamn heads out of the sand.
You'll pardon us while we go save the world again.
On a personal note, if any of you Euros have any sort of national pride, I would advise you get your countries out of the EU before Europe ends up like the former Soviet Block countries.
-
wow, you're ****ing arrogant
you presume a lot, and then
"You'll pardon us while we go save the world again." WOW YOU'RE ****ING ARROGANT
Right now the US is not 'saving the world' we're playing bully on the playground.
Liberator please don't talk to the foreigners like you represent our country.
-
I am a citizen of America, born and raised, why can't I speak for my country?
As far me being arrogant, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?
-
wow...
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
Kazaan want logic and I think I found it
67% chance that God exists (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html)
The problem with his logic was that it was deeply flawed. He assumed that good things happening was proof of God's existence where as bad things were proof he didn't exist. Now it's obvious that if God exists that he allows bad things to happen as part of some grand master plan so the fundemental assumption in that calculation if deeply flawed.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Any society that let's 15,000 die in a heat wave because they are too busy sunning their fat wine drinking asses at the beach is decadent in my eyes.
Seeing as I think that one is specifically (as usual) targetting the French :
-5000, not 15000
-All old people, with fragile health
What would you want us to do ? Install air-conditioner in every old people appartment and house ?
Get real, accusing us on this is moronic. It's like If I said that the USA are decadent because they let people each time there's a tornado. You can't do a thing when Nature wants to 'play'.
Btw, we may be decadent, but at least we take care of our own people : Health care anyone ? If we don't have the best system, we're not that far behind, and I'm as usual too lazy to do the research, but I think that there's way more people living in poverty in the USA that in France.
I could go on like this, but I don't want to upset the other American on this board, who seems level-headed and intelligent people, instead of moronic preacher.
(Flame away, but I needed to do this, Lib is beginning to really grate on my nerve :D )
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Specifically, definitions 1 and 3.
Any society that let's 15,000 die in a heat wave because they are too busy sunning their fat wine drinking asses at the beach is decadent in my eyes.
Any society that makes citizens pay tax on individual components of an item is decadent in my eyes.
Any society that would rather pass resoloution after resoloution instead of taking action is a decadent bunch o pantywaists who need to pull the goddamn heads out of the sand.
You'll pardon us while we go save the world again.
On a personal note, if any of you Euros have any sort of national pride, I would advise you get your countries out of the EU before Europe ends up like the former Soviet Block countries.
Very well then, by your standards who is not decadent then? Most of your statements are vague enough to be applied to the United States.
-
Liberator, please stop your Westrern Europe bashing. Your ignorance is really astounding. And your respect with me has just dropped into the negative catagory. Around -85% respect.
What you call patriotism and 'speaking up for your country' seems to me like it's a bigoted attempt to make your own country look better.
:ick: Try that one more time and my boot will be up your ass faster then you can say 'US of A'.
-
Hey Lib, how much did those blinders you wear cost? They seem to work really well.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Run a poll and see who is against gay marriage with the average people on the street. Then ask those same people what religion they are (if any). I'll bet you won't be surprised by the number of your generally nice religious people who'll suddenly turn into gay bashers.
But I'll bet I'll get the same number of gay-bashers from non-religious people, at least judging by what I see on the street.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Any society that let's 15,000 die in a heat wave because they are too busy sunning their fat wine drinking asses at the beach is decadent in my eyes.
Any society that makes citizens pay tax on individual components of an item is decadent in my eyes.
Any society that would rather pass resoloution after resoloution instead of taking action is a decadent bunch o pantywaists who need to pull the goddamn heads out of the sand.
You'll pardon us while we go save the world again.
On a personal note, if any of you Euros have any sort of national pride, I would advise you get your countries out of the EU before Europe ends up like the former Soviet Block countries.
Now, maybe you'd go, and learn a bit about European politics, before you start decatentling us again.
Name me a period in any time, in the history of civilisation, in which some of those things you mentioned, haven't been done.
That's right, none.
Or perhaps, the stone age. Because it didn't have goverments.
As for the taking action part, need I remind you that there have been no wars fought on US (continental) soil since the Civil War. There are two being fought right now in Europe (or at least two that I know about). And if I have to choose between a gung-ho cowboy president, and a the resolution-making, then I'll gladly take the resolution making.
And finally, I don't see any of your so called Decadence that isn't being done in the States, Asia, or any other country in the world.
And what the hell are your definition of decadence anyway? Let's play the opposite game. <- Note the word game
I think that USA is decadent, because 60% of it's population is overweight
I think that USA is decadent, because it elected GWB as it's president.
I think that USA is decadent, because it dictates higher prices on goods, that could clearly be manufactured for lower costs, just to get more money.
That way, we could call every country in the world decadent.
So please, christian as you are, let me remind you of the line "Why do you see a splinter in your brother's eye, but fail to see the log in your own?"
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
But I'll bet I'll get the same number of gay-bashers from non-religious people, at least judging by what I see on the street.
From agnostics maybe or the God exists but I don't believe in religion crowd. The number would be much lower amongst atheists.
Let me put it this way find me an atheist on this board who hates gays. Out of the christians I can point to several who do. Find me a similar number of atheists.
If you look at the topics about gay rights you find almost all the people who were demanding that they had the right to marry we atheists.
-
Yeah, well, but this board also has an general IQ higher than the general population, or at least so it seems. At least, I've seen a lot of people, who even don't know that the year is 2004 because Jesus was born 2004 years ago, and are actively opposed to gay marriages.
I guess, it ultimately comes down to general knowledge of the world. YOu get all kinds of people on both sides.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
I guess, it ultimately comes down to general knowledge of the world. YOu get all kinds of people on both sides.
Well, I'll agree with that. Still too bad though...
-
Socialist countries do far more to look after *all* members of their society than welfare states.
-
Stu: I don't know a single atheist who hates gays - and I know a lot of atheists
it's like this - 2 out of 3 three christians I know are homophobes - 0 out of every 100 atheists
-
I could think of quite a number of people who arent religious and hate gays that i know, i could also think of a number of religious(aka christian) people, including myself who dont have a problem at all. Different demographics in the UK probably, people don't tend to be as fundamental over here as in the US.
-
Well everyone gots a opinion and everone choses what they believe in.
It's just one of those some do and some don't things
-
Yes, but predujice is unacceptable.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Stu: I don't know a single atheist who hates gays - and I know a lot of atheists
it's like this - 2 out of 3 three christians I know are homophobes - 0 out of every 100 atheists
I know quite a few aethists who do, myself.
Well, maybe not hate exactly, more disdain / dislike the idea. I't spossibly down the nature of Scotland / Glasgow itself. 'tis a hard city Glasgow.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Yeah, well, but this board also has an general IQ higher than the general population, or at least so it seems. At least, I've seen a lot of people, who even don't know that the year is 2004 because Jesus was born 2004 years ago, and are actively opposed to gay marriages.
I guess, it ultimately comes down to general knowledge of the world. YOu get all kinds of people on both sides.
Yeah but for all the higher IQ's on this board we still see several of the christians having a go at gays and none of the atheists doing it.
So either you're basically saying that we've somehow got an unrepresentative sample of atheists but a more representative one of christians. (which seems rather strange considering the numbers of both) or you're saying that christians are dumber on average (and I'm sure you don't want to go there!).
BTW Jesus was born 2007-2009 years ago if you want to be pedantic. King Herod died in 4BC so the dates must be wrong. :D
-
Um... yeah, well, **** happens. :p
Seriously, I know a lot of atheists who dislike gay marriage, and next to none christians who oppose it (and my sister's a christian for example), and seeing that Kazan is quite the opposite, then apparently it isn't that much about religion.