Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   International opinions: USA on science!
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 132 (330289)
07-10-2006 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by anglagard
07-09-2006 2:29 PM


Re: Behaviors without Causes
Religion is not a cause of religious wars, like the 30 years war in Europe that originally was between Catholics and Protestants? Religion was not the cause of the mass suicides in Guyana? It was just people who up and decided to kill themselves or others?
No, religion was just a tool of manipulation. Last time I checked, religion was not a worthy excuse for murder in a court of law. Wars are fought over innumerable scapegoats. I mean, if you wanted to take it a step further, why not condemn the actions of certain atheisic dictators who have massacred people, such as, but not limited to Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, Hussein, Hitler, etc, etc? Ultimately it boils down to the moral degeneracy, does it not? And morality in this case could subjective to whatever you want. You've obviously reconciled on some level that murder is wrong. And for as much as you could say that religion causes wars, we could just as easily that the suppression of religion causes wars. I mean, right now in atheist China the Falun Gong are being persected in droves and having their organs harvested in the name of science. Are you going to blame the whole of "science" as the culprit or are you going to blame the men who commit the attrocity irrespective of their motive?
are you arguing that people just kill others at random without causes or reasons?
No, establishing motive in a criminal case is an important aspect. But you could just as easily blame Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, atheism, pantheism, or even science. But in the case of the Falun Gong, are you going to blame liver transplants or are you going to blame the men who have abandoned morality by harvesting peoples organs against their will?
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by anglagard, posted 07-09-2006 2:29 PM anglagard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by anglagard, posted 07-10-2006 1:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 132 (330293)
07-10-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Chiroptera
07-09-2006 11:10 AM


Re: Watching the moving goal posts makes me dizzy.
Miller and Urey showed that they could. So their experiment was a success. You claimed it was a failure. Miller and Urey made a hypothesis, and the experiment confirmed their hypothesis.
No, sorry... The entire premise of the experiment was to prove that life could have come about all on its own. They in no wise proved that. In all actuality, they proved quite nicely that it could not be done, even guided by human intelligence and under pristine laborartory conditions that they believed comprised earth's earliest atmosphere.
That is a success. If life arose on earth without divine intervention, then the simplest hypothesis would be that relatively complex organic molecules would have to exist first.
So, now complex organic molecules were eternal in order to make simpler ones? Its a simple deduction. For everything to have come into existence, one either has to believe that everything came out of nothing or that something, on some level, had to be eternal. So it stands to reason that you believe everything derives from nothing or that you can at least logically surmise that something, simply out of necessity, had to be eternal. And you don't have to define what that eternal thing is.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Chiroptera, posted 07-09-2006 11:10 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 07-10-2006 10:02 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 07-10-2006 10:17 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 07-10-2006 1:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 78 of 132 (330300)
07-10-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 9:45 AM


The goal
No, sorry... The entire premise of the experiment was to prove that life could have come about all on its own.
Could you show something that demonstrates this statement to be true and not one that comes from your own ignorance?
It is my understanding that the experiment intended no such thing. It should be obvious from the nature of the experiment that it is nonsense to say it was the intended goal of the experiment.
Your "logic" of the last paragraph is not sound.
You are saying that something had to be eternal or came from nothing. If that is true it does NOT logically mean that complex organic molecules had to be eternal. One thing learned from experiments like M-U are that complex organic molecules can arise from simpler ones.
Your "simple deduction" is nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 12:30 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 79 of 132 (330306)
07-10-2006 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Watching the moving goal posts makes me dizzy.
No, sorry... The entire premise of the experiment was to prove that life could have come about all on its own.
Nonsense. The premise of the experiment was to see what, if any, "biomolecules" would be produced by electrical discharges in an atmosphere like the one thought at the time to have been present on the early Earth. It produced several. Dr Miller has found a couple of dozen other ways to make different molecules under other conditions in the last fifty years, too - but he's far too bright of a man to think he could "prove that life could have come about all on its own" in a round-bottom flask under a reflux condenser.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 9:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 132 (330309)
07-10-2006 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by lfen
07-08-2006 11:32 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
And your definition of life, and non life are?
A plant is organic matter and a rock is inorganic matter. Organic is living, and inorganic is non-living. Life and non-life.
Living things are comprised of the same chemicals and follow the same processes that non living things do. The difference is one of complexity.
Rocks form, but living things procreate and grow. Is this your way of telling us that abiogensis is possible?
Consciousness remains for me a great mystery but consciousness, life, non life are all part of this universe and interact.
So, you interact with rocks? Must be a one-sided conversation.
Science changes as new information and better theories develop. In this it is superior to religion which strives to conserve the ancient misunderstandings and ignorance. So your charge of change is tacit recognizition that biology is functioning in the manner it's supposed to.
Learning more and more about a particular subject as more evidence becomes available to you is perfectly normal and expected. My contention lies with ToE changing itself whenever something was demonstrably proven false. And that would be all fine and good of the proponents could simply concede that they were wrong in the first place. Instead of hearing that something was incorrect, a slow introduction of the new belief creeps in until the two theories, the antiquated and the updated version, are consolidated.
For more clarity, think of it this way. The 1930's version of ToE was a FACT, and anyone countering that was just a misinformed religious zealot. Now, in 2006, the FACT of 1930 evolution has itself 'evolved' to the point that its largely a brand new theory. Oh, but no... Now, for sure, 2006 ToE is a FACT. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Science is not religion.
It is for some. Its a revival of Druidic paganism for many who worship the creation rather than the Creator.
Biology has made tremendous strides but life on earth is extremely complex. That our understanding of evolution is not complete should surprise no one.
Neither sentence can be stated too softly.
The ancients thinking that lightning was God's wrath being flung at humans
Okay, this is a pagan belief... Something your ancestors believed in.
humans have been formed from dust and then a God who had a mouthed breathed into their mouth is the comforting literal images of our past but other than revealing the human brain's strong tendency to understand by analogy to itself, this anthromorphic story telling had useful social and psychological functions but is not a substitute for science.
Being that I don't believe in an anthropomorphic god, God breathing "life" into Adam was not a fat, bearded man leaning down from the clouds to give CPR to Adam. Its an analogy for something that cannot be literally explained by mere words. Science simply provides us the means to understand how God does what He does. If you find the terminolgy, "God," to be particularly offensive, then just substitute it for "nature."
ID is not doing any useful science. It's an attempt to return to prescientific theocratic society, the Judiac model of the state.
If it forces people to remove their head from their rectumm, then it is doing a wonderful service to humanity. You also forget that most creationists practice something legitimate and have legitimate degrees, before moving into creation science, whereas an evolutionary biologists has all of his/her stakes wrapped up in trying to prove ToE. And one can hardly see how someone's entire career devoted to nothing other than the furtherance of an untenable theory could ever betray those studies that have contributed nothing to society.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by lfen, posted 07-08-2006 11:32 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 07-10-2006 10:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-10-2006 11:05 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 85 by lfen, posted 07-10-2006 11:42 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 87 by Hauk, posted 07-10-2006 12:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 132 (330318)
07-10-2006 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 10:23 AM


More basic level misunderstandings
For more clarity, think of it this way. The 1930's version of ToE was a FACT, and anyone countering that was just a misinformed religious zealot. Now, in 2006, the FACT of 1930 evolution has itself 'evolved' to the point that its largely a brand new theory. Oh, but no... Now, for sure, 2006 ToE is a FACT. Do you understand what I'm saying?
We understand what you are saying, it is simply wrong.
The TOE has never been fact, and your first clue should be that it is called the Theory of Evolution. Of course it changes as more is learned. That is the nature of Science, Wisdom, Knowledge.
That Evolution happened is a FACT. The evidence for that is so overwhelming that using a term such as FACT can be justified.
The explanation of that FACT, the TOE has changed and hopefully will change as more is learned.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 10:23 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 82 of 132 (330323)
07-10-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 10:23 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
A plant is organic matter and a rock is inorganic matter.
Coal? The carbonaceous portion of a carbonaceous chondrite? Those are rocks, and partly organic. And the chondrite never saw a living thing until it hit our planet.
Its a revival of Druidic paganism for many who worship the creation rather than the Creator.
What about those of us who don't worship anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 10:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by BMG, posted 07-10-2006 11:09 AM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 95 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-13-2006 8:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
BMG
Member (Idle past 208 days)
Posts: 357
From: Southwestern U.S.
Joined: 03-16-2006


Message 83 of 132 (330326)
07-10-2006 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Coragyps
07-10-2006 11:05 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
What about those of us who don't worship anything?
Pure evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Coragyps, posted 07-10-2006 11:05 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 132 (330333)
07-10-2006 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
07-09-2006 6:19 PM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
You gotta love the casual insult from the arrogance of considering all other religions "misinformed" at best. Excuse me while I turn the other cheek.
I'm sorry if I hurt your felings RAZD, that was not my intent.
The Deist position is, as Crash noted, much superior than your implication (strawman fallacy) of it -- that there is no need for further interference because it was done right the first time.
Can you explain your official position as a Deist? I only ask because it seems that all the Deists I've met have a different theory. Since they aren't unified on any given specifics, I wonder what purpose there is in calling oneself, a Deist. As well, if the Creator got it right from the start, then why would things evolve?
Nor are theists necessarily christians so your implication of (christian) theology being applicable to their belief is a logical fallacy. Take off the blinders.
I'm aware that theists don't simply encompass Christians. Afterall, you too are a theist. Maybe you explain your official stance on your beliefs, assuming that your beliefs about the Creator extend beyond that dirty word.... faith.
You are comparing the proportion of atheists with PhDs in Evolution to the proportion of atheists in the general population of America - where over half have barely finished High School (you can get a diploma with a D?).
Okay... I am led by experience here. Very rarely have I met a theistic evolutionist. And when I do meet them, they give me the impression that they are just misinformed. And before you ask, no , I don't think they are misinformed simply because they disagree with me. Most everyone on EvC is against my particualr beliefs, but I don't think most are misinformed.... maybe misguided though I think the theistic evolutionists are misinformed simply because they don't care enough about the subject to have ever made an honest inquiry. Its as if they buy into evolution because that's what the popular concensus says.... therefore, in their mind it must be true. As well, "religion" for them seems to serve some sort of emotional basis. In that arena, they seem misinformed there too. They don't display anything that tells me that they understand the Word beyond a Sunday school level understanding, like Noah and Jonah. Do you understand what I mean by that? And most evolutionists that I've ever met or have ever seen on the web are atheists. I think you could say the same thing about most Christians being creationists. Its not the rule, but it isn't some bigoted response. Right or wrong, stereotypes usually exist for a reason. They don't spring out of thin air. I think belief about evolution and its inherent draw for atheists isn't unfounded.
You're down to 27% with A college degree (so the number with a Masters is less and the number with a PhD is even less). That makes the education level of someone with a PhD significantly higher than the education level of the general population.
Okay, I'm not really sure where this all fits into the argument. But since when has anyone honored PhD's in the creationist camps?
You then make the logically false conclusion that it is due to athiests {taking control of} or {infiltrating} biology\evolution for some nefarious purpose or some such nonesense.
Nowhere did I say, or alude to that atheists were taking over biology for nefarious purposes. What I meant was that evolution and atheism inherently go hand in hand. I also meant that ToE finally gave the atheist a compelling reason to be an atheist.
Purhaps atheists like to pursue education more than the general public because they are less content to wallow in ingnorance.
Oh, hang on, let me turn the other cheek.
Your claim of an alliance between atheists and evolutionists is logically false in addition to being insulting to all non-atheists that are evolutionists. Just because you want it to be a conspiracy doesn't make it one.
There isn't an alliance between atheists and evolutionists, but rather, atheists tend to be evolutionists and vice versa. They aren't incahoots with one another, they are one and the same, typically. Get it? No conspiracy there.
Oh.My. Now you are telling the creator what HIS purpose is?
I didn't tell Him what His purpose was/is. He told me...
In my (personal) world view god created the universe to expand and become as diverse and varied as possible, to provide as many unique habitats (not necessarily planets) as possible, and {he\her\it} primed the universe for the abiogenesis of life, and {his\her\its} last words before departing (or alternately becoming the universe) were "surprise me" -- this makes evolution part of the purpose of the creation, a necessary part.
So, let me get this straight. You believe that He/Her/It created the possibility for nothing to become actual so that it will allow for He/Her/It to be "surprised", i.e. He/She/It does not know the outcome, therefore, He/She/It is not omnipotent, even though you believe that He/She/It got it 'right' the first time around. Everything about that conflicts with the other premise. And these beliefs of yours, are they based on faith?
Other evolutionists know this, and they are insulted by what they see as obstinate closed minded arrogant prideful ignorance to claim that an OBVIOUSLY false position is true. It isn't - you are just wrong.
Please don't confuse my assertiveness and confidence in my beliefs to be obstinate, close-minded, arrogant, prodeful, or ignorant. I haven't been discourteous to you or used ad hominem with you or anyone else on EvC. You know Chiroptera doesn't agree with me on anything, but she at least keeps it civil. Her effort goes along way.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 07-09-2006 6:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by RAZD, posted 07-14-2006 10:46 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 85 of 132 (330340)
07-10-2006 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 10:23 AM


Re: You gotta stop misrepresenting the issues.
Rocks form, but living things procreate and grow. Is this your way of telling us that abiogensis is possible?
Living things are made from the same "materials" and "energies" as rocks and stars. The chemistry is far more complicated but not unique. Atoms that were part of inorganic structures become part of organis structures and then once again to become "dead" or unliving atoms.
Abiogensis might be possible. The universe manifest the great range of possibilities that the basic energy and structures allow. What we don't yet know is the role of consciousness in all this.
Its a revival of Druidic paganism for many who worship the creation rather than the Creator.
Have you a proposed range of values for "many"? I know that some people are interested in Druids, Wicca, etc. but I think they are a minority of the population. I've seen no figures but haven't seen anything that appears to me to be a resurgence in these activities. Press coverage of Wiccans around Halloween is just not evidence.
And one can hardly see how someone's entire career devoted to nothing other than the furtherance of an untenable theory could ever betray those studies that have contributed nothing to society.
I'm not sure who you are referring to. Most biologist are doing work in many diverse fields from cell biology to ecology. I am certain there will be major, even radical changes in the theory and understanding of life and it will come from the work being done by biologists and not the religious objections of IDers and YECers.
ABE: Perhaps you have been referring to the popularizers of ToE like tv shows and Dawkin's books? The vast majority of biologists never write popular books. Their work and publications are for peers in peer reviewed journals. I really think you need to study more science as your criticisms give the impression that you've a very distorted idea of how it is done.
lfen
Edited by lfen, : further thought and since no one had replied or posted in the thread I thought I'd ABE it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 10:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-14-2006 8:38 AM lfen has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 132 (330359)
07-10-2006 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by NosyNed
07-10-2006 10:02 AM


Re: The goal
Could you show something that demonstrates this statement to be true and not one that comes from your own ignorance?
Ask yourself what other purpose could it possibly had served.
Miller, Stanley (1930-) -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Scientific Biography
"Biological evolution is a slow process and organisms have had plenty of time. The earth itself is a little less than 5 billion years old. The earliest life forms, precursors of the simplest bacteria, may have originated 4 billionyears ago. Eukaryotes, nucleated cells, are estimated to have appeared only a billion years ago. Present-day
biological theories provide little light on what might have happened in the long years of prebiotic evolution. The major stumbling block is the vast body of biochemistry that is inseparable from life. The simplest attributes of life, reproduction and the transmission of hereditary information involve formidably complex biochemical processes. Life involves sophisticated processes of energy transduction and cellular communication, which is central to the functioning of complex organisms, requires an exquisitely controlled cascade of biochemical reactions. Precise molecular organization, breathtaking spatial and temporal control of cellular chemistry and a remarkable fidelity of replication are among the hallmarks of the
simplest of life forms. The evolution of life in the seething ferment of a prebiotic soup, however unlikely it may seem, appears to be a favoured view. Given the complexity and fluidity of molecular organization in biological systems, the spontaneous generation of a prototype primordial cell can only be seen as a happy ”chemical fluke’. The famous Urey Miller experiment of 1953, in which a spark discharge was passed through a gaseous mixture of methane, water, ammonia and hydrogen, conditions which purportedly mimic an ”early earth atmosphere’, yielded a mixture of amino acids. It is this the Universe, have worked on the fringes of science; generating hypotheses with little hard data, toiling on the borders of fact and fiction."
5.pdf | jul102001 | currsci | Indian Academy of Sciences
It is my understanding that the experiment intended no such thing. It should be obvious from the nature of the experiment that it is nonsense to say it was the intended goal of the experiment.
What other purpose did it serve? What's obvious was that morbid curiosity wanted to know if life originated at random from a few chemical compounds, (all of which would have to have, themselves, been created) to determine the origin of life through strictly naturalistic means. There's nothing inherently wrong about the test. But please, at least recognize the intent of the inquiry.
You are saying that something had to be eternal or came from nothing. If that is true it does NOT logically mean that complex organic molecules had to be eternal. One thing learned from experiments like M-U are that complex organic molecules can arise from simpler ones.
Okay, that's fine... Where did the simple molecules come from? You might say, "from energy." Okay, then energy had to be eternal or it came from nothing. Really think about that. What other option is there? The fact of the matter is, something had to come from absolute nothingness, or something was first eternal. Seriously, what s flawed in that logic?
Your "simple deduction" is nonsense.
Uh huh..... Okay.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NosyNed, posted 07-10-2006 10:02 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Hauk
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 132 (330360)
07-10-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 10:23 AM


Anotherone bites the dust
When i started this thread I was a little bit drunk, and my thoughts where blurred. The very same thing is a fact about my early replies and should help explain the poor language and all the mess in general. (I had a nice one week holiday)
I realize that I do not in any way have enough knowledge or lingual skills to bring other then emotions and thoughts into this deabate. It seems like there are enough people like me who spend a lot more time studying the details then I do. I also feel that this discussion is going nowhere and only waste the energy of good people. Even though I appreciate the intellectual challenge of a good debate, I can not see any fuits of trying to defend my poorly written opinions etc. Thankfully there are intelligent guys like yourselfes who is taking this responsebility seriously. It seems like both camps are equally stubborn, and I am myselfe as stubborn as ever. I also conlude that the core of what I dissagree with or disslike with creationalists and ID supporters, is the very same thing that makes it hard to debate in a serious way. As long as any solid argument can be waved off with shamelessly weak statements, I see no hope of getting a message delivered to the intended receivers. Fortunately others do a much better job at this then I do. I know enough to know what makes sence and what makes nonsence, but I dont know enough to contribute among you guys. If this challenge should ever reach Norway, I will offcourse do my duty and argue for my opinions (then in my own language). Hopefully I will never need to, but as I know we have "crazy" people here to, I guess I can never rest too assured.
The original theme in this thread was about Americas relations to the rest of the world in regards of a potentional powershift. As I see that the deabte is very alive I rest assured that there are no need for us Europeans to assist you in your struggle. Maybe we will have the same struggle over here one day too, as people made me aware that we got ID supporters/creationalists here as well.
I guess I'm one of those defined as a typhically new guy who comes in all guns blazing, only to stay active for a short time, never to bee seen again.
I'm happy with what I have learned as I got the impression that people with rational sence is dominating. At least in this forum. I do not envy you who need to constantly be on the alert and monitor the momentum of creationalists ideas, not to mention their influence. I wish you all the best of luck, and I hope the civilised debates of this nature will continue to be the way we discuss our different opinions also in the future. I'm glad to see that there seems to be very littel hatered in all the frustration.
I'm sorry for not answering all posts directly addressed to me. I have read them all, but I do not feel I have the capacity to handle them all (Holidays are over).
Enjoy the conflict!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 10:23 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 12:54 PM Hauk has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 132 (330371)
07-10-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Hauk
07-10-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Anotherone bites the dust
When i started this thread I was a little bit drunk
Heh... That made me chuckle.
I realize that I do not in any way have enough knowledge or lingual skills to bring other then emotions and thoughts into this deabate.
For someone who's primary language is not English, is not as well versed as they'd like to be on the subject, and who was drunk at the time of writing the post, I'd say that you did a suberb job at getting your point across eloquently.
I see no hope of getting a message delivered to the intended receivers.
You know, the way I see it, even if the opposition is still in disagreement, they are ingesting my thoughts, and I am ingesting theirs. If nothing else, we are learning more about our thoughts and beliefs and building up our debating skills and learning about the latest arguments, both pro and con for this or that. I think there is something worthy to be said of all of that.
Hopefully I will never need to, but as I know we have "crazy" people here to, I guess I can never rest too assured.
Ummmm, even if you don't like creationism, don't you think that calling them (me), "crazy," is a bit over the top?
I'm happy with what I have learned as I got the impression that people with rational sence is dominating.
Oh, well thank you...

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Hauk, posted 07-10-2006 12:33 PM Hauk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Hauk, posted 07-10-2006 1:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 94 by Discreet Label, posted 07-12-2006 1:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 89 of 132 (330383)
07-10-2006 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 9:30 AM


Re: Behaviors without Causes
Wars are fought over innumerable scapegoats. I mean, if you wanted to take it a step further, why not condemn the actions of certain atheisic dictators who have massacred people, such as, but not limited to Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Tse-Tung, Hussein, Hitler, etc, etc?
Do individuals control history, or do they need the support of other people to carry out their plans? When calling upon such support, do they use an ideology that often times in history, is a religion?
Is athiesm the cause of WWII, or was it Nazism, or was it Hitler acting alone, or was it a combination of several forces? Remember there were six axis nations, so Nazism or Hitler don't explain all the actions of the Japanese for example, such as in Manchuria which predate Hitler's control of Germany. Additionally, it is amazing how often Hitler spoke of providence, which makes him more of a pagan than an athiest. Also, Japan's main prop for their militarisim was Shinto, a religion. As far as WWII is concerned, religion did have something to do with events, although it was one of many factors, so it was not primarily a religious war.
As for the genocides of Zedong, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, were these due to the individuals acting alone or did they have support from others within the nation? If they did not personally kill all 100 million or so their reigns totalled, they must have had some way to motivate others to kill for them. In this case, it would be the ideology of communism, which granted, promotes athiesm. However, it is important to point out that not all athiests are communists. As to Hussein, as with other dictatorships including those mentioned above, control dictated rule by fear, which meant the murder of dissenters. Religion, in and of itself, is at best, one cause among many, in the above cases.
The point I am making above is that ideology must be used by individuals to motivate others to kill for them. Therefore the ideology used is definately a "cause."
What ideology was used to motivate individuals to kill others in the Thirty Years War? The Crusades? The thousands of battles occuring due to colonialism? The destruction of the Albegensians? The burning of witches? The struggles between the Islamic Ottomans and Christans in Europe?
What ideology was used to torture, enslave, and kill Indians in the conquest? what justification was often used to enslave Africans, provided they were not killed in transit? What justified human sacrifice among the Aztecs? or Thugees?
What justification was there for mass suicides such as Jonestown and Heaven's Gate?
It is impossible to argue that religion was not one of, if not the, primary causes of these suicides, wars and genocides.
However, this is the assertion you made in post 57 of this thread.
It isn't "religion" that causes people to kill others.
This is flat-out a misrepresentation of history.
Edited by anglagard, : minor grammar
Edited by anglagard, : clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 9:30 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2006 9:10 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Hauk
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 132 (330384)
07-10-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Hyroglyphx
07-10-2006 12:54 PM


Re: Anotherone bites the dust
You know, the way I see it, even if the opposition is still in disagreement, they are ingesting my thoughts, and I am ingesting theirs. If nothing else, we are learning more about our thoughts and beliefs and building up our debating skills and learning about the latest arguments, both pro and con for this or that. I think there is something worthy to be said of all of that.
I agree. There is nothing better then a civilized debate. I think our beleifs however are so fundamentally different when we get to the business of things, that I am affraid we will keep on disagreing for all eternity, or until my kind of science teach me new stuff. I guess the major difference has to do with the stuff you call faith. I have none.
Ummmm, even if you don't like creationism, don't you think that calling them (me), "crazy," is a bit over the top?
He he.. Note that there is a major diffenrece between Crazy and "crazy". No worries man... I merely think you are wrong.. And I cant help it, but i think all religious people (or creationalists), are just a liiittle bit crazy. Because mankind have very long and solid traditions and culture in religion, I do not think you are as crazy as people who claim they are pregnant with aliens etc, but I can not help making some assosiations as I think both ideas are based on other things then our physically observable reality.
I'm happy with what I have learned as I got the impression that people with rational sence is dominating.
Oh, well thank you...
You just almost make me feel bad about beeing a bully against you Thanks for beeing a good sport. If you and I lived in the same street I'm sure we would be good friends. We would however definately keep on disagreeing on certain matters involving invisible entities, apes and humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-10-2006 12:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024