Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on November 16, 2004, 10:14:13 am
-
This is just a personal opinion I came up with today, and in no way am I saying you should agree with it.
I think that George Bush is the culmination of what the world has led up to until this point.
Now, before you flame me, read on. What I'm saying is that I think George W. Bush is the result of a predictable cycle, concluding in the world having to make a choice between two things: leaving religion mostly behind, and continuing forward, or accepting religion into everyone's everday lives, and basically going back to pre-industrial revolution times, at least socially.
Basically, if it wasn't George Bush now, then it would be someone later. The simple fact of the matter is that George Bush and what is happening right now is not some anomaly, but a direct result of hundreds of years.
I don't know what the world will do, I can't predict it, but I hope it chooses the path of freedom from religion.
Comments?
-
Since when does giving up religion constitute "moving forward"? In my eyes, it entails a massive step in the wrong direction.
And yes Kazan, I'm waiting for your usual spiel...
-
Religion dictates boundaries, that may seem fine and well if you are happy with those boundaries and afraid of what may lay beyond them, which is, with all respect, America in a Nutshell.
-
I wouldn't say it is as much to do with "being afraid" with what lies outside imposed boundaries, not for me at least. It's the belief that such activities/ideas will be detrimental to all of human society.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Now, before you flame me, read on. What I'm saying is that I think George W. Bush is the result of a predictable cycle, concluding in the world having to make a choice between two things: leaving religion mostly behind, and continuing forward, or accepting religion into everyone's everday lives, and basically going back to pre-industrial revolution times, at least socially.
How in gods name did you come up with this theory? Because saying people are going to either give up religion or go back to the medievel ages because of one man whose religious beliefs have absolutly no effect on the 5.7 billion people outside your countries sounds kinda stupid.
-
I did not mean not beliving religion anymore, I mean taking it off the books. As in our government would be ruled by what is right and what is best for the people, not what goes against a specific religious priniciple.
Think about it. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being gay. YOU may find it personally disgusting and wrong, but you don't have any right to make people believe the same thing.
However, religion is what's making us have this big fuss about gay rights. If we went for what was written down in the constitution, they should have the same rights.
Same thing with science. Many fields of science are closed due to religious interference. Abortion, safe sex, etc, are all condoned by the Catholic Church.
Now, I admit that some religious boundaries, say, "Thou shalt not kill" are a good idea, but then again, every functional society has to have several basic laws to govern it. Not to mention that the constitution, if I remember correctly, states that every human has the right to life, liberty, and happiness. Therefore, that particular tenant was written in the constitution as a basic human right, and not a specific religious commandment, even though it may have sprung forth from religious thinking.
-
On the issue of religion and it's role in the future: Religion existed due to people's need for answers to impossible questions. It gave meaning to death, suffering and more importantly life.
However, as man evolves he finds more rational and fulfilling ways to answer such questions. Answers that don't need any supernatural influece to work.
It is simply logical that as we evolve socially, learning more about our existence and the universe that we will cease to require, nigh want, what we today see as religion.
-
I love how Americans can confuse "America" and "The world" with such ease.
-
I disagree with the above statement. Man will never be able to completely disregard religion. It's here to stay, whether we like it or not. I'm saying that if we are to continue to evolve, socially, then our religion(s) must evolve with us. They can't hold to the same principles that were written down in their various books even before the pencil was invented.
There are some religions that are adapted to the new world, but in order for us to move forward, the mainstream religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism must adapt to the changing world around them. It's as simple as that: humanity can not be held back by pretenses that existed before the New World was even discovered.
EDIT: And don't bring anti-american sentiments into this thread. Whether you like it or not, this is not just America, this is a global trend, a global concern, and a global choice.
-
The thing is that when religion and politics interact, the outcome is practically never an improvement. Modern History will tell you as much, look at the disaster the Middle East was making of itself through Theocracy before the West even started helping it along. Look at the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Hunts and numerous other such tragedies.
These tragedies happened because of Government policy that was based on the fears and suspicions fed to them by religion. Most of those 'fears' etc were mainly to keep 'curing people' to God, rather than medicine.
In this enlightened age, we understand what they were ignorant of. Who is to say what of our own ignorance we will have uncovered in 500 years time?
-
Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm saying that if we are to continue to evolve, socially, then our religion(s) must evolve with us.
If you mean the way the appendix evolved along with us, then yes.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
EDIT: And don't bring anti-american sentiments into this thread. Whether you like it or not, this is not just America, this is a global trend, a global concern, and a global choice.
You know what? Screw being nice.
What the hell do you think you know about global trends? When was the last time you left your own country? Some quick trip up to Canada maybe? I'm sure your horizons are broad enough to take in the entire world's perspective? Let me ask you something - when was the last time you saw an article on the TV news about something happening in Australia? You might have heard about the train derailment the other day, maybe the big drug bust last week, probably the election a month or two ago. If that. And (maybe) from these, you've decided that the problems facing your country must logically be faced in my country as well. And not just my country, on no. You've decided it's happening in every single country on the face of the bloody planet.
Let's talk about that election I mentioned. There were actually a lot of parallels with the American election - a fairly tight race, a surprisingly clear victory for the incumbent, and the slightly more conservative party (Ironically called the Liberals) ended up in power. But was there any talk of splitting up the country? Of course not - because here, we've learned how to get along, how to let anyone who wants to go to church and read their particular bible do so without letting it interfere with the government. But, of course, you know best. This is just a country you've probably never visited, it's obviously that your own countries screwed up problems occur here too, right?
But hell, maybe Australia's an isolated incident - who knows - every other country on the planet except Australia could be full to the brim of fundamentally split populations. Oh, and New Zealand. And pretty much the rest of the islands in the pacific. Let's try something crazy and think about things happening on another continent. India. India is one of the worlds largest countries, and it's predominantly Hindu. AFAIK (though if anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'd be more than open to hearing it) India has never been run by religious ruler. Ever. These days, there's nobody pressing for "Strict Hindu Law" or whatever - the Indians are gradually adapting their traditions for the modern world - take, for example, the role of the elderly. In the past, people over 50 or 60 would give their home and property away to their children, then basically sit around waiting to die, so that they could be reborn. The Indian government hasn't been beset by hordes of people trying them to make this law, nor by people trying to outlaw it. They're encouraging their elderly not to do this, to take a more active role in later life. They don't need to legislate it either way, but gradually their traditions are adapting. They're also gradually eroding away the caste system - this began through general social liberalization, and was helped along by government laws preventing people from discriminating against people on a caste basis. They didn't try to abolish the system, nor did they try to legislate it into law. Things just start to adapt to the modern world (NB - I'm 95% sure about this stuff, but I'm basing it off what I've learned through the media and talking to people - the insights of someone who's lived there like (I think) Singh would be most appreciated)
But hell, what do I know. I'm just a crazy foreigner.
BTW, if you're wondering why I'm so pissed off, it's because as far as I'm concerned, you just insulted my country by implying that we couldn't handle balancing religion with real life. I don't mind when people insult my country, if there's a ligitimate flaw. I wouldn't mind you criticizing our relatively poor environmental policy, or our governments willingness to support America against the will of the populace, or anything else we're doing wrong. But when you start making **** up, I get a little ticked off.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
EDIT: And don't bring anti-american sentiments into this thread. Whether you like it or not, this is not just America, this is a global trend, a global concern, and a global choice.
Are you high or something?
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Think about it. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being gay. YOU may find it personally disgusting and wrong, but you don't have any right to make people believe the same thing.
However, religion is what's making us have this big fuss about gay rights. If we went for what was written down in the constitution, they should have the same rights.
Ain't picking on you, but riddle me this...
1. The US Constitution doesn't address marriage at all. I understand the various States have their own definitions, but somewhere at the Federal level there has to be a law jotted down that states "Man And Woman". I have yet to find it. Can someone help?
2. Let me re-quote:
Think about it. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with being gay. YOU may find it personally disgusting and wrong, but you don't have any right to make people believe the same thing.
Ok. If someone should not have the right to 'make' people beleive that being gay is immoral, why is it permissable for others to make people beleive that it IS moral? Gay pride rallies, etc. I sum it up like this:
"If I have to accept your lifestyle choices, you have to accept my lack on enthusiasm about it."
No balance.
See, people are still under the impression that the 'gay' thing can be resolved through diplomacy. It won't be. Whoever has the most numbers wins. If someone is dead set against homosexuality being acceptable in the public (or private) eye, then they will probably carry that to their graves.
-
vyper, see also by Jefferson:
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
"All the world would be Christian if they were taught the pure Gospel of Christ!"
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."
In other words: your point?
P.S. Please note, this is not intended to argue for or against religous beliefs; it's simply a response to vyper's quote.
-
I haven't seen any religion creeping into UK government, despite some of the more worrying security measures that have been taken during the last few years. Offhand, I can't think of any particularly overtly religious government/nation in Europe.
I think the US' size, history of immigration, and it's founding principles (i.e. stemming from fleeing religious persecution), make it a somewhat unique case - in that it is large and diverse enough to have several polarised groups of religion.
-
UT: I have to agree with Black Wolf on this - there are very few places in the world with anything like as much extremism as the USA. For the most part, people are able to get along very well.
I may disagree with people's beliefs or principles, but I have no objection to them being able to hold those beliefs, unless they try to force them on me or others. Most religions are now very modern, and highly tolerant of other cultures and faiths. The only exceptions AFAIK are in the USA and Africa, where Christians have rather hard-line and conservative views (this is a gross generalization, of course. Not every Christian is a fundie, but the ones that are tend to make a lot of noise in these places), and the extremist Islamic groups in the Middle East.
Now, these groups are a tiny minority - though they are very vocal about their views - and simply do not represent the vast majority of religious people around the world. Your comment that
"in order for us to move forward, the mainstream religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism must adapt to the changing world around them. It's as simple as that: humanity can not be held back by pretenses that existed before the New World was even discovered"
is simply insulting to the vast majority of people of faith. Of course, there are die-hard old-school zealots about, but they have a habit of getting ignored, marginalised by the rest of the community, and dying of old age still spouting the same tired old line. Then there's no more problem. The only place this seems to fail to happen on a large scale is Africa and the US (for Christianity), and parts of the Middle East (for Islam, on a smaller scale). The fact is, the problem is not with the religions, it's with the people. Why people act like this is a mystery to me, but there must be something wrong with the way the society works. Now, in Africa and the Middle East, that's not entirely surprising, with many countries being fairly young (arising from the collapse of the empires) or still being largely undeveloped economically, technologically or educationally. But America claims to be the Leader of the World in terms of culture, economics, "freedom" and technology. So what's going on in America to turn people into these hard-core fundamentalist nutjobs?
Originally posted by aldo:
I haven't seen any religion creeping into UK government, despite some of the more worrying security measures that have been taken during the last few years. Offhand, I can't think of any particularly overtly religious government/nation in Europe.
Turkey? Though I don't know whether you'd classify them as Europe or Asia Minor. Or both....
As for UK religion, I've never liked the thing about schools having to have a daily act of worship. I found that quite offensive from an early age (not least because I hated singing hymns!), and I wish they'd change that. It doesn't say Christian worship though, so that's a plus...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
So what's going on in America to turn people into these hard-core fundamentalist nutjobs?
Fear.
-
You may well be right. The pieces all start to fit together...
-
There is nothing fundementally wrong with being gay...
...except of course the bit about going against a few hundred thousand years of evolution and directly defying your biology.
Not that I'm anti-gay, mind you, I just like to point out your thinking is utterly fallacious. I have no real issue with homosexuals. They're free to do whatever they want, and if they'll keep it to themselves and not bother me with it then I'll do the same.
And I agree, Unknown. The world stands on a brink here. We can utterly abandon religon, or we can reincorporate it. Neither of those is really going backwards or forwards. Most major religions have adapted to suit the fundemental social mores. You can't be a Catholic priest and female, but the Catholic Church has no objections to females performing almost any other job.
Relgion doesn't want to die, though. And in not wanting to die, it has created reactionaries. This is the process that created Muslim extremist terrorists, this is the process that created George W. Bush.
-
Hmmmmmmmmm.........
Well, my own opinion is this :-
The world is a boat, adrift on a stormy sea. Just beyond the Horizons we can see shadows and flickers of things we do not understand. They may be evil beyond measure, they be 40 storey high lizards, or even gigantic man-eating telephones. They might also be enlightenment, advancement and understanding.
Religion is our Anchor. It is often described as such. the Anchor that holds this boat safe, secure.... and immobile. Oh, and the food is running out, and the fuel, and no-ones cleaned the Bilges in weeks, and some of the woodwork is starting to look a bit ropey......
At some point, as scary as it may seem, we are going to have to raise that anchor and see what is beyond the horizons, whatever the future may hold. It's that or sink.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
I just like to point out your thinking is utterly fallacious.
So is yours. Evolution is a process, not an entity with the goal of making heterosexual creatures so that they might make more heterosexual creatures in turn. Biology is a field of science, not a value judgement of different sexualities.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
There is nothing fundementally wrong with being gay...
...except of course the bit about going against a few hundred thousand years of evolution and directly defying your biology.
I've always seen the defying nature argument as very weak. Humans defy nature all the time but I've never seen anyone apart from the most rabid social darwinist ever say that treating sick children or cancer patients as being fundementally wrong just cause it goes against nature.
-
Originally posted by Mongoose
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Or in short : When he wakes up, we will all be smited :p
"All the world would be Christian if they were taught the pure Gospel of Christ!"
Meaning,given the number of priest then, that many didn't teach it :D
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."
So he also gave us liberty to choose if we wants to follow him or not, otherwise it's not liberty. ;7
P.S. Please note, this is not intended to argue for or against religous beliefs; it's simply a response to vyper's quote.
PS. Please note, this is not intended to argue for or against religous beliefs; it's simply a response to Mongoose's quote :drevil:
-
Originally posted by Flipside
At some point, as scary as it may seem, we are going to have to raise that anchor and see what is beyond the horizons, whatever the future may hold. It's that or sink.
Religion is an important part of humanity, it answers the big question "wtf is it all about". Ridding the world of all religion is a fine idea for somebody who can handle the fact that they dont, wont or cant get an answer to that but the majority of people need an answer to it. Basically religion is here to stay, until such a time as we evolve into all knowing all seeing i's. Besides, most of the time you'll find religion is just being used as a cover for fear, which is what really holds people back. If you're worried about current religions holding people back, dont. Religions adapt. Judaism for example came from a failed attempt at monothesism in ancient Egypt, and in turn spawned Christianity along with some elements of Zoroastra. Islam was born from the same roots despite what sandwich and his fundie friends say, and Bhuddism is an offshoot of Hindu iirc. Religion will change as people do, ditching it aint going to do that.
-
The most common mistake people make about evolution is that it is going from point A to point B and our role is to reproduce in order to move further towards that goal. It is not, Nature explodes in every direction at once, diversity and exploration is the purpose of evolution, to create life forms for every possible niche.
True, 'gay' sections of that community do not breed, but the whole idea of 'we exist to make more of ourselves' is wrong. We exist to explore the possibilities possible within our own genetic capabilities. It may be said that the 'worthy' get to breed, but that is a BioNeural action in the minds of the creatures themselves, not an intent of nature.
A high percentage of gay men are Bisexual, and many have fulfilled their wish for children despite being gay. This is not some plot hidden since the dawn of time to take over the world. It's the natural reaction to natural stimuli. Most humans think along the 'we exist to make more us' lines.
However, for any species to reach it's maximum potential as nature intended then diversity must be encouraged, not feared. In Iraq, not so long ago, it was considered 'Moral' to stone a woman in the streets for getting pregnant out of Wedlock. In some countries you can still 'morally' lose your hands for theft. In other countries it's perfectly legal to promote yourself for prostitution in a shop-window.
Morals shift and mutate to suit what is most convenient. This is why the invention of Media changed the world. All of a sudden 'Right and Wrong' could be defined by someone who had the authority to enforce them.
That technique continues even today, and, as always you have those that abuse the system. The problem is that, at the moment, they are pretty near the top.
Edit : I know what you mean Gank, I don't think mankind could truly give up religion, it would leave nothing to live for in a lot of ways, we would become self-destructive. However, we need to stop allowing our fear of the horizon stop us from going there. And we need, as you say, to stop people from using religion to scare us.
-
Religion is an important part of humanity, it answers the big question "wtf is it all about".
No, that's what philosophy is for. Religion is just superstition with a newsletter.
-
I feel very strongly that religion is always going to be with us, because the religious tendency is not simply an establishment, it is an emotion, hardwired into our minds. I just mentioned earlier in another thread that one does not have to believe in god to know what religious ecstasy is, because like it or not, we all crave spiritual understanding. It's unavoidable.
Explaining the unexplainable is not simply about science vs. mythology, it is about seeing a universe that is either guided by some kind of conscious force, or one that is meaningless, unfeeling, and absurd. I believe the latter, but I like the former. This is why religion is never going to leave us.
As for religion holding us back from progress, I don't believe that. It's not humanity's religion that stifles us, but rather our simplistic view of our ideas. The idea that religion is a world of metaphor is unpleasant for most because it means that religion is of little use as a guideline for everyday life. I don't mean this to be derisive; the search for societal guidelines is a frustrating one. As long as we are what we are today, we will take ideas that really do not answer questions and squeeze them into concrete doctrines, so that we can go about our lives with some semblance of certainty. So when someone makes the effort to closely examine a "truth" to appreciate its full complexity, it will inevitably be seen as an attempt to sabotage everything that holds society together.
The only thing that will change this never-ending process is a fundamental change in the human mind itself. Perhaps that is a constant but very slow process, who knows.
-
Let me put it this way....
Sharon, my partner, has never threatened me, has never dictated to me, and has accepted me for who I am without having 'expectations' that I am supposed to live up to. I'd move the world for her.
Give me a God I can love, not because it is powerful and can smite me, not because if I don't I'll go to Hell or some such place, not one that encourages me to do what my own self knows is wrong, not one that scares me into not facing my fears, and not one that demands my complete and utter aquiescence to it's every whim. Then I might have found something of interest.
-
That's how I feel.
Now to find my Sharon...
-
Originally posted by ZylonBane
No, that's what philosophy is for. Religion is just superstition with a newsletter.
philosophy is for people with **** all better to do than think about ****e, religion is for people who are too busy paying for their houses, putting food on their table or bringing up their kids to wonder why the **** they're doing it. Most likely most of them know the answers religion provides arent quite right, but will stick to them because getting better ones is too much hassle. Thats human nature.
-
religion and the state should be kept separate. people should believe whatever they like. there's no _point_ in forcing people to believe in a religion; they're just more likely to go somewhere else secretly. when the state uses religion- any religion- as an excuse for its actions, that's plain wrong. how can a state interpret it's actions as the will of God/Gods, what gives such a small minority of people the right to say what they're doing is right because God says so? how would _they_ know?
on a side note, the God i believe in loved us so much he sacrificed his own son so that we wouldn't have to go to hell. that's why i love him. he doesn't ask for me to be perfect, though it'd be nice if i were, he doesn't ask me to go through any rituals or whatever of purification, he just accepts me as i am.
-
Religion is philosophy. And they both suffer from the same oversimplification. It's impossible to discuss our position in existence without somehow coming to the question of god.
-
I hate to break it to the thread author, but there is no 'crisis' of religion up here in good ol' Canada. We just chug along like we always do and let the courts decide the really hard issues while making sure that no party with even an inkling of religious influence forms the government.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Religion is philosophy.
Religion is the opposite of philosophy.
Philosophy is based on free thought, whereas religion is based on dogma.
-
religion is based on revelation. which may be divine, drug-induced or simple raving.
-
Religion is not based on dogma. There is a difference between religious institution and religion itself. Religion is an emotion, not a thing. It is a reverent desire to immerse ourselves in the ponderous world around us, and that is exactly the same thing as philosophy.
Religious dogma is the result of a simplistic interpretation of that emotion. It is us naively thinking that we can actually come up with answers, and then apply them to society. It is the exact opposite of what religion essentially is.
That's not to say I think that there's anything we can do about religious dogma. Institution is as much a part of us as religion, and we can't get rid of either one.
-
It sounds like you're confusing "religion" with spirituality.
-
Not entirely, no. Mythology specific to a religion forms its allegorical framework, but it doesn't itself tell people what to do.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
So is yours. Evolution is a process, not an entity with the goal of making heterosexual creatures so that they might make more heterosexual creatures in turn. Biology is a field of science, not a value judgement of different sexualities.
Evolution is a process that has created heterosexual creatures so that they may create more heterosexual creatures. Goals are irrevalant.
I've always seen the defying nature argument as very weak. Humans defy nature all the time but I've never seen anyone apart from the most rabid social darwinist ever say that treating sick children or cancer patients as being fundementally wrong just cause it goes against nature.
Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but quite a few social animals will do their best to take care of other members of their group that have temporary injuries or sickness.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Evolution is a process that has created heterosexual creatures so that they may create more heterosexual creatures. Goals are irrevalant.
Not according to what you just said. Evolution created heterosexual creatures so that they could create more? Doesn't the "so that" ring any alarm bells? What about if I substitute "for the purpose of"?
ngtm1r could have posted this, you know
Evolution is a process that has created heterosexual creatures for the purpose of creating more heterosexual creatures. Goals are irrevalant (sic).
Same thing, but now this idea of evolution having a purpose - of 'right' evolution and 'wrong' evolution - is made more obvious. 'S'also wrong. Evolution is a die roll.
To extend that: a roll of three may mean you can't roll any more dice, but that doesn't mean 3 = 0, does it? (And even that is incorrect, for homosexuality isn't the same as castration... rolling another die is fully possible.)
Well, maybe you haven't noticed, but quite a few social animals will do their best to take care of other members of their group that have temporary injuries or sickness.
Hold on. Are we deciding what's natural based on a preconceived idea of 'Nature' or according to what actually happens in the 'natural' world?
-
If you wish to argue semantics, I would point out that every creature on the planet makes some attempt to carry forward its line. How you wish to state that is also irrevalent.
Is evolution a die roll? Something guides it. Somehow certain things live and certain things die. Some are favored over others. No, evolution is not predictable, but it is not a game of dice. The end results are not totally random.
I spoke of what happens in the natural world. And yes, I know what you're going to cite, and I can cite huge numbers of counterexamples.
-
Presumably, then, homosexuality is a natural part of human evolution (on a social level) which has progressed to the point where homosexuals can establish social (physical) or technological (surrogate parent)means for procreation.
Im' not sure why homosexuality would be 'against' evolution - it doesn't prevent procreation, just makes it less appealing. But unless the human race has stopped evolving, why couldn't it be a part of the natural development / diversification of the species?
Of course, Darwin - IIRC - pointed out that humanity contradicts 'survival of the fittest' in many occasions, such as in war; where it is (or was in his time) usually the brightest and best that are first forward and thus most likely to die.
Oh, and why would the end results of evolution be random? I mean, natural selection prevents a complete diversification of species (those we know of, of course) anyways, because it directs evolution to only progress with the most suitable species.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
There is nothing fundementally wrong with being gay...
...except of course the bit about going against a few hundred thousand years of evolution and directly defying your biology.
Which means that it's also fundementally wrong to be a priest, nun or monk by your definition surely? None of them breed either after all.
-
i aree with [edit]I mean UT
mongoose: so long as you keep your "jesus off my penis" and "your crosses off my walls"
ie maintain the sep of curch and state that protects BOTH of us then I have no problem with you
it is a MASSIVE step backwards to break down that seperation- as right now.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Is evolution a die roll? Something guides it.
wrong
evolution IS a die roll - nothing guides it, nothing needs to guide it
-
humanity could survive without religion - infact our survival in the long term would be infinitely greater without religion
and that void you're afraid of can be filled without religion
-
by what exactly?
-
most of those questions arise from a faulty understanding of the universe - or a need to feel important, a need to have a "purpose"
people can be taught to define their own purpose in life, and that they don't need external things telling them they're important
and science education needs to be cleaned up - A LOT [the very reason our science education sucks is because of the religiousity of the us]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
evolution IS a die roll - nothing guides it, nothing needs to guide it
That's a common misconception, and the root of a lot of creationist "tornado in a junkyard" type arguments. Evolution is not random chance - mutation is random chance. Evolution is guided by natural selection. It might seem trivial, but it's vitally important.
Now - everyone keep talking about, err...whatever it is we're supposed to be talking about. Either that, or lemurs.
(http://info.bio.sunysb.edu/rano.biodiv/Backgrounds/Primates/Hs13.1024.jpeg)
I vote Lemurs BTW.
-
This thread has advanced too fast for me to read all of it, so forgive me if this opinion is out of date: I don't think religion is a bad thing! Taken in moderation, or with an open mind, it is a very GOOD thing--I know plenty of times where faith and religion has saved people's lives. I'm simply saying that religion and values specific to a singular religion should move out of our government's decision making, and our schooling systems.
But, to reiterate: I do not support the banning of religion. I love my religion, and I love being able to have faith in and believe in my higher power(s). I don't subscribe to a religion where I have to fear my deities, so I enjoy participating in my particular religion. However, I realize that not everyone may accept my religion, or want to conform to its teachings and p[rinciples. Therefore, I don't WANT my religion to be accepted as the majority, or standard way to judge moral values (assuming for the sake of argument that it would ever be).
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Evolution is guided by natural selection. It might seem trivial, but it's vitally important.[/COLOR]
"guided" implies intelligence
"Evolution is a function of natural selection and mutations" would be the correct statment
-
Lemurs. Brilliant.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
I'm simply saying that religion and values specific to a singular religion should move out of our government's decision making, and our schooling systems.
:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:
if all the religious people were like this there would be a much calmer and kinder kazan sitting before you
[as it is i have to defend myself from religious oppression daily]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"guided" implies intelligence
"Evolution is a function of natural selection and mutations" would be the correct statment
Albiet, I think evolution can be independent of physical mutations and also encompass sociological changes. which is really nitpicky,granted, but I think it's a valid point.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
"guided" implies intelligence
Perhaps (though not true IMO), but to claim that it's a roll of the dice clearly implies that the evolutionary process is pure chance. Which it isn't.
-
aldo_14: yes "social environements evolve" is valid
Black Wolf: connotation, connotation, connotation
and you'll see dennotation too -- all these primary definitions imply intelligence http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=guided
-
Definition 1.4 a Something that serves to direct or indicate.
Definition 2.2 To direct the course of; steer: guide a ship through a channel.
Definition 2.3 To exert control or influence over.
But my argument is that your words were wrong (that evolution is a roll of the dice), not that his words were precisely correct.
(http://www.aerobatics.ws/GEI/images/MADAGASCAR/ringtailed_lemur_closeup_768x1181.gif)
-
Evolution is actually, when you think about it purely in your head, with no pretexts, is common sense: the things that can't survive, die, the things that are fit to survive, live, and pass on their traits.
You can't pass on your traits if you're dead, so therefore, those traits die.
The amount of religious hoopla that is assigned to it is purely from the literal interpretation of The Bible. More accepting Christians generally have no problem with it. Evolution is an example of where one religion's ideals is allowed to influence others.
Evolution is a neutral item. When it was created, it never had any connotations of going against the Christian religion, at least in Darwin's mind. He never made it specifically to go against what the Church, he just made a scientific theory that made sense.
And Kazan, thanks for agreeing with me :)
-
That lemur looks a bit scary & disturbing.
(http://www.infocusphotos.com/gallery/Asst/images/1Ring-tailed%20Lemur.JPG)
-
UT: no thanks necceary -- your first post in this thread is stating something that i personally consider obvious - once i had realized it, but had i posted it liberator and mongoose would be coming out of the woodwork :P
things are following the typical pattern for social revolution
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That lemur looks a bit scary & disturbing.
Why do you think I posted it? :D
Good pic BTW.
(http://www.capitaloftexaszoo.org/images/lemur02.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Evolution is actually, when you think about it purely in your head, with no pretexts, is common sense: the things that can't survive, die, the things that are fit to survive, live, and pass on their traits.
You can't pass on your traits if you're dead, so therefore, those traits die.
Exactly. Evolution has to be one of the easiest scientific concepts to grasp. It really makes you wonder why there are people in the world who can't understand how it works.
-
That lemur looks like me in the morning. Except the fur..... colour.
(http://newth.net/eirik/images/lemur.jpg)
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
If you wish to argue semantics, I would point out that every creature on the planet makes some attempt to carry forward its line. How you wish to state that is also irrevalent.
Is evolution a die roll? Something guides it. Somehow certain things live and certain things die. Some are favored over others.
No, evolution is not predictable, but it is not a game of dice. The end results are not totally random.
While you point out how evolution does in fact discriminate, you don't explain how this means that there is 'correct evolution' that produces 'natural creatures' and 'incorrect evolution' that produces 'unnatural creatures'.
And evolution is a game of dice. If mutation is a die roll, then evolution is what happens when you get to roll the die again if you roll the right number beforehand and write down all the numbers. Oversimplified, yes, but the point is that evolution isn't led along the 'correct' path, 'pulled' into rolling sixes first time around, but pushed into paths that eventually turn out to be good ones - rolling and rerolling until you get a six, or a five, or maybe a four.
I spoke of what happens in the natural world. And yes, I know what you're going to cite, and I can cite huge numbers of counterexamples.
If we are indeed talking about what happens in the natural world, then how can gays be unnatural? They are products of the natural world just as much as straight people are.
Unless you start off with the idea that homosexuality is unnatural, in which case you aren't basing stuff off the real world but what you think ought to be happening instead.
To make this post slightly more on-topic: I found myself agreeing with Phillip Pullman when, in an article he wrote for one of the newspaper supplements, he pointed out that literalist interpretations of holy books like the Bible and the Qu'ran were a cancerous blight on our fair society because they failed to realise that the books were written in a time of mythos, where what was important was the meaning of things. Nowadays, we're all into logos - what stuff actually is - which is ideal for science, but not quite so awesome when it comes to a fundamentally parable- and story-based piece of writing.
-
will you quit with the lemur pictures... we're trying to have a discussion
-
(http://www.mgzoo.com/new%20photos/new%20website%20pics/black%20and%20white%20ruffed%20lemur.jpg)
This one has to be a Quaker.
-
What?
LEMUR!!!!![/b]
(http://www.longislandgamefarm.com/lemur_with_baby_on_back.jpg)
-
Altogether now,
AWWWWW
-
Could you say no to that face?
(http://www.sch.im/wlp/large%20images/ring-tailed%20lemur.jpg)
-
Can you please stop it with the lemur posts? So far this thread has been pretty sane, and wer'e finally getting to a place that's a little to the right of nowhere.
-
yeah.. like i asked before - STOP WITH THE LEMURS PLEASE
-
Everyone loves the Lemurs.
(http://www.deniseyates.com/fullsize/lemurs.jpg)
-
Yeah - who can go wrong with Lemurs?
(http://edcintl.cr.usgs.gov/images/lemur.jpg)
-
we've asked nicely - now im getting pissed
why are you disrupting this thread
-
You can't. Just look at how calm this thread has become.
Nice & calm & peaceful & leafy.
(http://www.mgzoo.com/new%20photos/new%20website%20pics/black%20and%20white%20ruffed%20lemur.jpg)
-
I've already posted that one you sod.
-
Sorry Kazan... but they make me chuckle too.
-
Originally posted by Petrarch of the VBB
I've already posted that one you sod.
Now now - there're enough lemurs for everyone.
(http://www.lemurs.animalzoo.co.uk/images/big/crowned2.jpg)
-
Looks more like a dawg.
-
What about a flying lemur?
(http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/Images/lemur.gif)
-
Natural selection, and thus evolution, is affected by every imaginable circumstance of nature, so the question is not whether you believe evolution is a die roll, but whether or not all of existence is a die roll.
And by the way, just to throw this into the mix, homosexuality does not only occur in humans; it is common throughout the animal kingdom.
-
thanks guys.. you've ruined this thread and made it completely impossible to continue the discussion
are you happy?!
WHY ARE YOU DISRUPTING THIS THREAD
-
I stopped chuckling.
-
Originally posted by Raa
What about a flying lemur?
(http://wings.avkids.com/Book/Animals/Images/lemur.gif)
That's a squirrel, surely?
Although it looks like a chipmunk.
-
EVerybody loves lemurs
(http://www.naturegraphics.net/bh982%20Ring-tailed%20Lemurs.jpg)
-
They're so cute, like little furry street-mimes.
-
It would be nice to get some admin intervention to help a civil thread that's being derailed, but whatever.
*ignores*
Ford has a valid point about homosexuality---hell, before the Christian era, it was considered relatively acceptable--I do believe that Alexander the Great is rumored to have a male lover. Fundamentally, nothing is wrong with being gay. While you may think two men having sex is disgusting (I think it's quite wierd), it doesn't give you the right to say that "My religion says it's bad, so that means YOU have to think it's bad, too". America doesn't, or isn't supposed to, work like that.
-
Respect_for("Unknown Target")++
-
Meh
(http://www.bobstravelcenter.com/cg2/trip/images/zoopics/lemurs.jpg)
-
If you don't stop posting the lemurs, they'll become bland and boring. Kinda like eating too much chocolate at Easter.
But anyway - yes, social freedoms are awesome. Libertarianism is great.
-
This thread had manifested a congential susceptibility to lemurs, causing it to perish prematurely. Its traits will not be passed on.
-
The thread looks cute, therefore it will reproduce.
-
W T F ?
I go to bed and suddenyl mankind has been overthrown by.....lemurs?
-
Yay for lemurs!
(http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/lemur/Lemur%20471031.jpg)
EDIT: It seems that lemurs come from Madagascar. Kudos to them... between the two of them, Madagascar and Australia probably have a monopoly on the weirdest yet coolest creatures ever evolved/created. :yes: