http://www.physorg.com/news73670043.html
The original press release (expanding upon the intelligent design angle) can be found at:
http://www.chp.edu/pressroom/newsrelease295.php
The abstract of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper is at:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0602216103
John Latter / Jorolat
Evolution Research
http://evomech.blogspot.com/
the pseudogenes are the evolution ,the that i call from trash gens that are lost during the evolution.some virus and bacters has that sequence of dna that define a serie of gens,those pseudogens can to actue tin the generation of the cancer
This is real science,not the faith-based science of special creationists!
QUOTE
"Discussion over evolution and Intelligent Design really has centered on whether pseudogenes, sometimes called 'junk DNA,' have a function or not. The suggestion is that an Intelligent Designer would not make junk DNA, so if a pseudogene does have a function, this is claimed to support the idea of an Intelligent Designer," Dr. Nicholls said. "But there is no evidence that any of the 20,000 pseudogenes are functional. Our research proves this Makorin pseudogene does not have a function. It has continued to mutate over its short life of a few million years, a fact that supports evolution, and eventually will be discarded from the mouse genome."
From http://www.chp.edu/pressroom/newsrelease295.phpI would like to see a peer-reviewed scientific paper that would back up ANY purported ID claim that if a use is found for "junk DNA" that the discovery would back the ID stance, in any way whatsoever!
Science may have some unknowns, but those areas do not support the bogus realm of ID. If a use is eventually found for some, or all of this "junk DNA", it will most likely fill in one more puzzle piece where every other "missing link" has bolstered evolution to an astonishing degree since 1859! 
Religious Intelligent Design is a load
Darwinian style evolution is a load
there is only one explanation for the existence of LIFE
and that is it grew in all its array of species from one seed. It is one super-organism
genetics, biochemistry, microbiology and associated scientific disciplines show that LIFE is coherent, mutually co-operating and precisely controlled by an innate ROM
There is no "junk DNA", just because humans do not understand ?"everything"? does not make such technology "junk"
Human beings are so arrogant, so stupid and so self-centred.
Every generation thinks they know it all, only to find that all they knew was but a line drawing of reality.
And yet they never learn. This thing called LIFE uses and abuses for its own purpose... humans remember
The Cult of The Dinosaur.
Darwinian style evolution is a load
there is only one explanation for the existence of LIFE
and that is it grew in all its array of species from one seed. It is one super-organism
genetics, biochemistry, microbiology and associated scientific disciplines show that LIFE is coherent, mutually co-operating and precisely controlled by an innate ROM
There is no "junk DNA", just because humans do not understand ?"everything"? does not make such technology "junk"
Human beings are so arrogant, so stupid and so self-centred.
Every generation thinks they know it all, only to find that all they knew was but a line drawing of reality.
And yet they never learn. This thing called LIFE uses and abuses for its own purpose... humans remember
The Cult of The Dinosaur.
QUOTE (Zarkov+Nov 25 2007, 10:24 AM)
Religious Intelligent Design is a load
Darwinian style evolution is a load
there is only one explanation for the existence of LIFE
and that is it grew in all its array of species from one seed. It is one super-organism
Darwinian style evolution is a load
there is only one explanation for the existence of LIFE
and that is it grew in all its array of species from one seed. It is one super-organism
That statement may very well describe the present state of life on earth, but it does nothing to demonstrate the process that is responsible for this condition. I believe that Darwinian evolution is a good start in trying to explain the process.
QUOTE
Every generation thinks they know it all, only to find that all they knew was but a line drawing of reality.
I don't think that any self respecting scientist would agree with your observation. Science is a discipline that thrives on trying to prove itself wrong.QUOTE
Science is a discipline that thrives on trying to prove itself wrong.
if only !
Unfortunately history has shown otherwise and even now
experience on forums shows the establishment holds sway no matter what proof.... until there is a total bust up. Even the moderators are intolerant of new formulations, even though the flow of facts never end and are continually uncovered
No, science is set in stone and is a religion to many unenlightened. tragic!!!!!!!
re ""evolution""", it is similar to the maturation of a plant, it is a deliberate unfolding where each step is dictated by the ""conscious" (in the DNA's eye) continually modified and unfolding environment.
It all comes to a head as flowers, which of course consciously (innately directed) seed..... a life cycle of LIFE
LIFE is already at the flowering stage.... next phase ----> is LIFE a perennial or an annual ?
QUOTE (photojack+)
I would like to see a peer-reviewed scientific paper that would back up ANY purported ID claim that if a use is found for "junk DNA" that the discovery would back the ID stance, in any way whatsoever! Science may have some unknowns, but those areas do not support the bogus realm of ID. If a use is eventually found for some, or all of this "junk DNA", it will most likely fill in one more puzzle piece where every other "missing link" has bolstered evolution to an astonishing degree since 1859!
photojack: In case you didn't notice, the article that was cited to start this thread was from August 1, 2006. So-called "Junk DNA" has since been deemed NOT to be "junk" at all, as a more recent article from April 23, 2007 explains:
http://www.physorg.com/news96567418.html
'Junk' DNA now looks like powerful regulator, researcher finds
Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.
Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science at Stanford, found more than 10,000 nearly identical genetic snippets dotting the human chromosomes. Many of those snippets were located in gene-free chromosomal expanses once described by geneticists as "gene deserts." These sections are, in fact, so clogged with useful DNA bits - including the ones Bejerano and his colleagues describe - that they've been renamed "regulatory jungles."
"It's funny how quickly the field is now evolving," Bejerano said. His work picking out these snippets and describing why they might exist will be published in the April 23 advance online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It turns out that most of the segments described in the research paper cluster near genes that play a carefully orchestrated role during an animal's first few weeks after conception. Bejerano and his colleagues think that these sequences help in the intricate choreography of when and where those genes flip on as the animal lays out its body plan. In particular, the group found the sequences to be especially abundant near genes that help cells stick together. These genes play a crucial role early in an animal's life, helping cells migrate to the correct location or form into organs and tissues of the correct shape.
The 10,402 sequences studied by Bejerano, along with David Haussler, PhD, professor of biomolecular engineering at UC-Santa Cruz, are remnants of unusual DNA pieces called transposons that duplicate themselves and hop around the genome. "We used to think they were mostly messing things up. Here is a case where they are actually useful," Bejerano said.
He suspects that when a transposon is plopped down in a region where it wasn't needed, it slowly accumulated mutations until it no longer resembled its original sequence. The genome is littered with these decaying transposons. When a transposon dropped into a location where it was useful, however, it held on to much of the original sequence, making it possible for Bejerano to pick out.
In past work, Bejerano and his co-workers had identified a handful of transposons that seemed to regulate nearby genes. However, it wasn't clear how common the phenomenon might be. "Now we've shown that transposons may be a major vehicle for evolutionary novelty," he said.
The paper's first author, Craig Lowe, a graduate student in Haussler's lab at UC-Santa Cruz, said finding the transposons was just the first step. "Now we are trying to nail down exactly what the elements are doing," he said.
Bejerano's work wouldn't have been possible without two things that became available over the past few years: the complete gene sequence of many vertebrate species, and fast computers running sophisticated new genetic analysis software. "Right now it's like being a kid in a candy warehouse," Bejerano said. Computer-savvy biologists have the tools to ask questions about how genes and chromosomes evolve and change, questions that just a few years ago were unanswerable.
Bejerano and his colleagues aren't the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed in 1956 that they could help determine the timing for when nearby genes turn on and off.
Just as an FYI...
photojack: In case you didn't notice, the article that was cited to start this thread was from August 1, 2006. So-called "Junk DNA" has since been deemed NOT to be "junk" at all, as a more recent article from April 23, 2007 explains:
http://www.physorg.com/news96567418.html
'Junk' DNA now looks like powerful regulator, researcher finds
Large swaths of garbled human DNA once dismissed as junk appear to contain some valuable sections, according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine and the University of California-Santa Cruz. The scientists propose that this redeemed DNA plays a role in controlling when genes turn on and off.
Gill Bejerano, PhD, assistant professor of developmental biology and of computer science at Stanford, found more than 10,000 nearly identical genetic snippets dotting the human chromosomes. Many of those snippets were located in gene-free chromosomal expanses once described by geneticists as "gene deserts." These sections are, in fact, so clogged with useful DNA bits - including the ones Bejerano and his colleagues describe - that they've been renamed "regulatory jungles."
"It's funny how quickly the field is now evolving," Bejerano said. His work picking out these snippets and describing why they might exist will be published in the April 23 advance online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
It turns out that most of the segments described in the research paper cluster near genes that play a carefully orchestrated role during an animal's first few weeks after conception. Bejerano and his colleagues think that these sequences help in the intricate choreography of when and where those genes flip on as the animal lays out its body plan. In particular, the group found the sequences to be especially abundant near genes that help cells stick together. These genes play a crucial role early in an animal's life, helping cells migrate to the correct location or form into organs and tissues of the correct shape.
The 10,402 sequences studied by Bejerano, along with David Haussler, PhD, professor of biomolecular engineering at UC-Santa Cruz, are remnants of unusual DNA pieces called transposons that duplicate themselves and hop around the genome. "We used to think they were mostly messing things up. Here is a case where they are actually useful," Bejerano said.
He suspects that when a transposon is plopped down in a region where it wasn't needed, it slowly accumulated mutations until it no longer resembled its original sequence. The genome is littered with these decaying transposons. When a transposon dropped into a location where it was useful, however, it held on to much of the original sequence, making it possible for Bejerano to pick out.
In past work, Bejerano and his co-workers had identified a handful of transposons that seemed to regulate nearby genes. However, it wasn't clear how common the phenomenon might be. "Now we've shown that transposons may be a major vehicle for evolutionary novelty," he said.
The paper's first author, Craig Lowe, a graduate student in Haussler's lab at UC-Santa Cruz, said finding the transposons was just the first step. "Now we are trying to nail down exactly what the elements are doing," he said.
Bejerano's work wouldn't have been possible without two things that became available over the past few years: the complete gene sequence of many vertebrate species, and fast computers running sophisticated new genetic analysis software. "Right now it's like being a kid in a candy warehouse," Bejerano said. Computer-savvy biologists have the tools to ask questions about how genes and chromosomes evolve and change, questions that just a few years ago were unanswerable.
Bejerano and his colleagues aren't the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed in 1956 that they could help determine the timing for when nearby genes turn on and off.
Just as an FYI...
Even DNA itself is turning out to possible not be the last answer. New studies are showing that methylation or chemicals and substances that "turn on" or suppress or "turn off" genes leads to a completely more vast level of complexity.
It is suggested that changes in environment, diet, stress, etc. can change how your DNA is expressed, and greatly change the lifestyle/development/physical makeup and chemical processes in the entity.
We really (in spite of the "Human Genome Project") do not know that much about Genes and how they work
It is suggested that changes in environment, diet, stress, etc. can change how your DNA is expressed, and greatly change the lifestyle/development/physical makeup and chemical processes in the entity.
We really (in spite of the "Human Genome Project") do not know that much about Genes and how they work
newguy, I was already WELL aware of those developing trends! 
Did you notice in the quote you used of mine, this sentence?
deadbeat, I learned about "tRNA" (transfer RNA) and "mRNA"( messenger RNA) in high school over 35 years ago! Though new developments continue to "fill in the blanks" and it CAN be stated, "we do not know that much about genes and how they work", SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! ((
))
Did you notice in the quote you used of mine, this sentence?QUOTE
"If a use is eventually found for some, or all of this "junk DNA", it will most likely fill in one more puzzle piece where every other "missing link" has bolstered evolution to an astonishing degree since 1859!
photojack quote. (Emphasis mine.) deadbeat, I learned about "tRNA" (transfer RNA) and "mRNA"( messenger RNA) in high school over 35 years ago! Though new developments continue to "fill in the blanks" and it CAN be stated, "we do not know that much about genes and how they work", SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! ((
)) QUOTE (photojack+Nov 26 2007, 06:40 PM)
newguy, I was already WELL aware of those developing trends! Did you notice in the quote you used of mine, this sentence?
photojack quote. (Emphasis mine.)
deadbeat, I learned about "tRNA" (transfer RNA) and "mRNA"( messenger RNA) in high school over 35 years ago! Though new developments continue to "fill in the blanks" and it CAN be stated, "we do not know that much about genes and how they work", SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! (())
As I was saying, you are mistaken.
Any science CANNOT replace religion. They have completely different purposes and uses and should not be confused.
Explain to me how science has either proved or disproved the "golden rule" which is:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
It is like saying, what color does garlic taste like?
Did you notice in the quote you used of mine, this sentence?photojack quote. (Emphasis mine.)
deadbeat, I learned about "tRNA" (transfer RNA) and "mRNA"( messenger RNA) in high school over 35 years ago! Though new developments continue to "fill in the blanks" and it CAN be stated, "we do not know that much about genes and how they work", SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! ((
)) As I was saying, you are mistaken.
Any science CANNOT replace religion. They have completely different purposes and uses and should not be confused.
Explain to me how science has either proved or disproved the "golden rule" which is:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
It is like saying, what color does garlic taste like?
deadbeat, I have much better deductive reasoning than your diatribe implies. Have someone WITH A COLLEGE EDUCATION read along with you, EVERY post I have made on EVERY thread and understand them IN CONTEXT. Then tell me I am mistaken. 
I never mentioned science disproving the golden rule. I have posted on other threads today and in the past, that science would show the ORIGINS of ethics and altruism in the animal kingdom, BEFORE, AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR, RELIGION!" Apes show behavior that implicitly demonstrates this behavior. Do apes have "religion"? (()) Do chimps "accept Jesus into their hearts? 
I stated that any discoveries of uses for "junk DNA will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! And I will maintain that belief.
I never mentioned science disproving the golden rule. I have posted on other threads today and in the past, that science would show the ORIGINS of ethics and altruism in the animal kingdom, BEFORE, AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR, RELIGION!" Apes show behavior that implicitly demonstrates this behavior. Do apes have "religion"? ((
)) Do chimps "accept Jesus into their hearts? I stated that any discoveries of uses for "junk DNA will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! And I will maintain that belief.
QUOTE
When you objectively look at the body of knowledge backing evolution and the rest of scientific inquiry, then contrast that with the fragmented, highly variable and contentious realm of religion, the choice becomes clear. From studying the development of Christianity, comparative religions and religious experiences from an anthropological perspective, I find NO unifying theme whatsoever. Unlike in the sciences with evolution being the underlying principle in the natural sciences and plate tectonics, the force that drives all geological inquiry.
photojack quote from the "Taking Science On Faith" thread.
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 26 2007, 07:58 PM)
deadbeat, I have much better deductive reasoning than your diatribe implies. Have someone WITH A COLLEGE EDUCATION read along with you, EVERY post I have made on EVERY thread and understand them IN CONTEXT. Then tell me I am mistaken.
I never mentioned science disproving the golden rule. I have posted on other threads today and in the past, that science would show the ORIGINS of ethics and altruism in the animal kingdom, BEFORE, AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR, RELIGION!" Apes show behavior that implicitly demonstrates this behavior. Do apes have "religion"? (()) Do chimps "accept Jesus into their hearts?
I stated that any discoveries of uses for "junk DNA will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! And I will maintain that belief.
photojack quote from the "Taking Science On Faith" thread.
Okaaaayyyyy.
So you have found Altruism and Compassion in Apes. But only when it was convenient or had some advantage to the animal in question.
Again your SCIENCE attempts to explain these concepts, that they arose naturally through evolution possibly or whatever.
But what kind of recommendation does it give you to LEAD YOUR LIFE? It does not. You just try to rationalize and justify not having to conform to a higher standard. "hey the Apes do it too" well except when they do not want to.
What are your "ten commandments" of science? What direction and goal does Science give you? Can you even quantify "Love"? If not, should you then never Love? Can you quantify Duty or Honor or Justice? Will you live without those too?
You just do not see, science tries to EXPLAIN, religion seeks to lead you to a better life without having to understand everything.
I never mentioned science disproving the golden rule. I have posted on other threads today and in the past, that science would show the ORIGINS of ethics and altruism in the animal kingdom, BEFORE, AND WITHOUT THE NEED FOR, RELIGION!" Apes show behavior that implicitly demonstrates this behavior. Do apes have "religion"? ((
)) Do chimps "accept Jesus into their hearts? I stated that any discoveries of uses for "junk DNA will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! And I will maintain that belief.
photojack quote from the "Taking Science On Faith" thread.
Okaaaayyyyy.
So you have found Altruism and Compassion in Apes. But only when it was convenient or had some advantage to the animal in question.
Again your SCIENCE attempts to explain these concepts, that they arose naturally through evolution possibly or whatever.
But what kind of recommendation does it give you to LEAD YOUR LIFE? It does not. You just try to rationalize and justify not having to conform to a higher standard. "hey the Apes do it too" well except when they do not want to.
What are your "ten commandments" of science? What direction and goal does Science give you? Can you even quantify "Love"? If not, should you then never Love? Can you quantify Duty or Honor or Justice? Will you live without those too?
You just do not see, science tries to EXPLAIN, religion seeks to lead you to a better life without having to understand everything.
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 26 2007, 07:58 PM)
Have someone WITH A COLLEGE EDUCATION read along with you, EVERY post I have made on EVERY thread and understand them IN CONTEXT.
<<<< Faculty at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Lincoln Laboratories on Hanscomb Air Force Base in Massachusetts. I'll ask one of the Nobel Laureates I know to help me with the big words.
<<<< Faculty at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Lincoln Laboratories on Hanscomb Air Force Base in Massachusetts. I'll ask one of the Nobel Laureates I know to help me with the big words.
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 26 2007, 07:58 PM)
When you objectively look at the body of knowledge backing evolution and the rest of scientific inquiry, then contrast that with the fragmented, highly variable and contentious realm of religion, the choice becomes clear. From studying the development of Christianity, comparative religions and religious experiences from an anthropological perspective, I find NO unifying theme whatsoever. Unlike in the sciences with evolution being the underlying principle in the natural sciences and plate tectonics, the force that drives all geological inquiry.
emphasis mine.
But I gave you the "unifying theme" for religion. That is easy.
The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways.
I was going to paraphrase that, but it's just fine the way the author intended.
Personally, I'll stick with my own premise. Any designer who would design a universe so oblivious to suffering and sacrifice, isn't worth the term 'designer', let alone worship.
As for the supposed 'junk DNA', I seriously doubt any of it is without specific purpose. Protein coding DNA simply doesn't account for all of the physical structures and functionality of the completed organisms. Eventually we'll figure out how more of it works.
ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED WRONG, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE! The Darwinian stance may be opposite, BUT SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN JUSTIFY SAYING IT IS "NO LESS RIDICULOUS!" I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face.
emphasis mine.
But I gave you the "unifying theme" for religion. That is easy.
QUOTE ( Wiki "the Golden Rule"+)
The ethic of reciprocity or "The Golden Rule" is a fundamental moral principle which simply means "treat others as you would like to be treated." It is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights. Principal philosophers and religious figures have stated it in different ways.
deadbeat quote.
RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OVER THOSE REALMS!
That would be like saying atheists are incapable of feeling love! (())
Do you NOW see where your logic and deductive reasoning are failing miserably?
You have hijacked another scientific thread for your INANE rants about religion! Go to Creation / Evolution for that topic please.
QUOTE
"You just do not see, science tries to EXPLAIN, religion seeks to lead you to a better life without having to understand everything. 
Can you even quantify "Love"? If not, should you then never Love? Can you quantify Duty or Honor or Justice? Will you live without those too?" 
Can you even quantify "Love"? If not, should you then never Love? Can you quantify Duty or Honor or Justice? Will you live without those too?" RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OVER THOSE REALMS!
That would be like saying atheists are incapable of feeling love! ((
))Do you NOW see where your logic and deductive reasoning are failing miserably?
You have hijacked another scientific thread for your INANE rants about religion! Go to Creation / Evolution for that topic please.
QUOTE
"You're saying humans need ... fantasies to make life bearable."
"NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE."
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers?"
"YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES."
"So we can believe the big ones?"
"YES. JUSTICE. DUTY. MERCY. THAT SORT OF THING."
"They're not the same at all!"
"REALLY? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT, LIKE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
- Susan and Death - Terry Pratchet
"NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE."
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers?"
"YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES."
"So we can believe the big ones?"
"YES. JUSTICE. DUTY. MERCY. THAT SORT OF THING."
"They're not the same at all!"
"REALLY? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET YOU ACT, LIKE THERE WAS SOME SORT OF RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
- Susan and Death - Terry Pratchet
I was going to paraphrase that, but it's just fine the way the author intended.
Personally, I'll stick with my own premise. Any designer who would design a universe so oblivious to suffering and sacrifice, isn't worth the term 'designer', let alone worship.
As for the supposed 'junk DNA', I seriously doubt any of it is without specific purpose. Protein coding DNA simply doesn't account for all of the physical structures and functionality of the completed organisms. Eventually we'll figure out how more of it works.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 27 2007, 12:23 AM)
I was going to paraphrase that, but it's just fine the way the author intended.
Personally, I'll stick with my own premise. Any designer who would design a universe so oblivious to suffering and sacrifice, isn't worth the term 'designer', let alone worship.
As for the supposed 'junk DNA', I seriously doubt any of it is without specific purpose. Protein coding DNA simply doesn't account for all of the physical structures and functionality of the completed organisms. Eventually we'll figure out how more of it works.
HAHAH Terry Pratchett hits it right on the head (author of the discworld series that was taken from)
Personally, I'll stick with my own premise. Any designer who would design a universe so oblivious to suffering and sacrifice, isn't worth the term 'designer', let alone worship.
As for the supposed 'junk DNA', I seriously doubt any of it is without specific purpose. Protein coding DNA simply doesn't account for all of the physical structures and functionality of the completed organisms. Eventually we'll figure out how more of it works.
HAHAH Terry Pratchett hits it right on the head (author of the discworld series that was taken from)
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 27 2007, 12:01 AM)
deadbeat quote.
RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OVER THOSE REALMS!
That would be like saying atheists are incapable of feeling love! (())
Do you NOW see where your logic and deductive reasoning are failing miserably?
You have hijacked another scientific thread for your INANE rants about religion! Go to Creation / Evolution for that topic please.
Hehe afraid of losing the argument? I am not derailing the topic here, it is obviously intended to be a discussion of ID versus Darwinian, and your earlier statement specifically said "Bolster evolution, not religion". so You brought it up first. I agree with your stance on Darwinian evolution as accepted hypothesis, but I also maintain that saying that has no effect on religion other than fundamentalists.
I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face. ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science. Your Darwinian stance is opposite and no less ridiculous.
Science cannot displace religion (except fundies who are silly enough to take the bible literally and bury their heads in the sand about every thing written after the King James Version).
Not saying Atheists are incapable of feeling Love. I AM saying that science tells you nothing about Love. Or Hope, Faith, Duty, Honor..etc.
I AM saying that religion fills a different need, it is a completely different thing. It deals with the unknowable and unknown. Science just defines the known.
Or tell me how science guides you in these matters, perhaps you know something I do not.
RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OVER THOSE REALMS!
That would be like saying atheists are incapable of feeling love! ((
))Do you NOW see where your logic and deductive reasoning are failing miserably?
You have hijacked another scientific thread for your INANE rants about religion! Go to Creation / Evolution for that topic please.
Hehe afraid of losing the argument? I am not derailing the topic here, it is obviously intended to be a discussion of ID versus Darwinian, and your earlier statement specifically said "Bolster evolution, not religion". so You brought it up first. I agree with your stance on Darwinian evolution as accepted hypothesis, but I also maintain that saying that has no effect on religion other than fundamentalists.
I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face. ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science. Your Darwinian stance is opposite and no less ridiculous.
Science cannot displace religion (except fundies who are silly enough to take the bible literally and bury their heads in the sand about every thing written after the King James Version).
Not saying Atheists are incapable of feeling Love. I AM saying that science tells you nothing about Love. Or Hope, Faith, Duty, Honor..etc.
I AM saying that religion fills a different need, it is a completely different thing. It deals with the unknowable and unknown. Science just defines the known.
Or tell me how science guides you in these matters, perhaps you know something I do not.
QUOTE
"I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face. ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science. Your Darwinian stance is opposite and no less ridiculous."
deadbeat quote. ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED WRONG, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE! The Darwinian stance may be opposite, BUT SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN JUSTIFY SAYING IT IS "NO LESS RIDICULOUS!" I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face. ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science. Your Darwinian stance is opposite and no less ridiculous." |
deadbeat quote.
ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED WRONG, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE! The Darwinian stance may be opposite, BUT SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN JUSTIFY SAYING IT IS "NO LESS RIDICULOUS!" I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face.
" I AM saying that science tells you nothing about Love. Or Hope, Faith, Duty, Honor..etc."
ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED WRONG, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE! The Darwinian stance may be opposite, BUT SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN JUSTIFY SAYING IT IS "NO LESS RIDICULOUS!" I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face.
" I AM saying that science tells you nothing about Love. Or Hope, Faith, Duty, Honor..etc."
deadbeat quote.
If you'd remembered, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself!
If you'd remembered, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself!
QUOTE
"Ethics, psychology, psychiatry and other realms of science and philosophy are actually BETTER placed to study and comment in the" little things" like honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love...... Scientists, including the atheistic ones, all display honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love and more. I know, I'm one of them! I know many scientists and many religious people and I would have to candidly admit that the religious ones are the most hypocritical and likely to "sin in the eyes of the Lord!" They think they can go to church and be absolved of their sins, thereby somehow "clearing their conscience"! The scientists, holding no such irrational beliefs, act with higher moral standing to begin with. We have to face our consciousness, without a "scapegoat!"
photojack quote from the "Human-chimpanzee relationship genetic or skeletal?" thread Yesterday at 6:24 P.M. in direct reply to your previous post!
They think they can go to church and be absolved of their sins, thereby somehow "clearing their conscience"! The scientists, holding no such irrational beliefs, act with higher moral standing to begin with. We have to face our consciousness, without a "scapegoat!" QUOTE (photojack+Nov 27 2007, 01:25 AM)
ID is pushed by fundamentalists who deny science AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVED WRONG, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE! The Darwinian stance may be opposite, BUT SHOW ME HOW YOU CAN JUSTIFY SAYING IT IS "NO LESS RIDICULOUS!" I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face.
So ID may well be incorrect as argued by fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are then proven wrong. But certainly not other religions or religious people who do not share that view. You try to hold the one thing as an indictment of ALL religion, which is ridiculous.
If you'd remembered, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself!
The problem is not that I do not remember your earlier post, the problem is that it signifies nothing.
The problem is not that I do not remember your earlier post, the problem is that it signifies nothing.
"Ethics, psychology, psychiatry and other realms of science and philosophy are actually BETTER placed to study and comment in the" little things" like honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love......
All of those disciplines do in fact study these things, but, and pay attention here because this is what you seem to be missing....(if they follow the scientific method) make no value judgements. All positions are equivocal more or less. You cannot name a reference for whatever your code is on Love, Honor, etc. because you are making it up as you go to suit yourself.
It seems to me you just decide for yourself that whatever suits your fancy is your morality. Convenient.
Scientists, including the atheistic ones, all display honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love and more. I know, I'm one of them! I know many scientists and many religious people and I would have to candidly admit that the religious ones are the most hypocritical and likely to "sin in the eyes of the Lord!"
Oh they display those qualities alright. But without guidance or judgement, the lack of or lesser amount of a quality is no better or worse than any other position.
The funniest part is the judgement you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess.
You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow.
Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior.
Oh they display those qualities alright. But without guidance or judgement, the lack of or lesser amount of a quality is no better or worse than any other position.
The funniest part is the judgement you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess.
You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow.
Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior.
They think they can go to church and be absolved of their sins, thereby somehow "clearing their conscience"! The scientists, holding no such irrational beliefs, act with higher moral standing to begin with. We have to face our consciousness, without a "scapegoat!"
Obviously, you fail to understand repentance, forgiveness or much of anything about a particular religion. Perhaps I can explain at least the Roman Catholic version, and you can tell me what is wrong with it.
We believe that when you sin, it is a bad thing. In order to recieve forgiveness, you must do several things:
REPENT: admit your wrong-doing and firmly avow to do your best not to do it again. Not that you will never sin again, but you will try hard not to.
CONFESS: admit your wrong-doing to a loving and neutral party, in our faith, your priest. This is very difficult to do and is a great motivator to not repeat sin (well Father, I did it again). Many religions prefer to keep your responsibility entirely secret and private, mine is harder and I think better. Your mileage may vary.
FORGIVENESS: In my faith, the priest will offer forgiveness, and assign a PENANCE as the next step. In many faiths, confession is not necessary, merely personal admission of guilt, and you recieve your forgiveness directly from God, with no intermediary preferred.
PENANCE: redress your ill deed. In the case you only harmed yourself, or trivial matters, a mere prayer to reflect on your transgression is often the only penance required. In larger matters, specific actions may be required to undo harm you may have done. Some religions do not require penance, I think it is necessary.
I am ACCOUNTABLE for my behavior, and have a standard toward which I strive to achieve. Where is your standard?
Oh your "higher moral standing", I guess, but what is it based on? Darwinian evolution? Whatever makes you happy? You do not need a scapegoat, because you take no responsibility on yourself.
So ID may well be incorrect as argued by fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are then proven wrong. But certainly not other religions or religious people who do not share that view. You try to hold the one thing as an indictment of ALL religion, which is ridiculous.
QUOTE
If you'd remembered, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself!
The problem is not that I do not remember your earlier post, the problem is that it signifies nothing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
If you'd remembered, I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself! |
The problem is not that I do not remember your earlier post, the problem is that it signifies nothing.
"Ethics, psychology, psychiatry and other realms of science and philosophy are actually BETTER placed to study and comment in the" little things" like honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love......
All of those disciplines do in fact study these things, but, and pay attention here because this is what you seem to be missing....(if they follow the scientific method) make no value judgements. All positions are equivocal more or less. You cannot name a reference for whatever your code is on Love, Honor, etc. because you are making it up as you go to suit yourself.
It seems to me you just decide for yourself that whatever suits your fancy is your morality. Convenient.
QUOTE
Scientists, including the atheistic ones, all display honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love and more. I know, I'm one of them! I know many scientists and many religious people and I would have to candidly admit that the religious ones are the most hypocritical and likely to "sin in the eyes of the Lord!"
Oh they display those qualities alright. But without guidance or judgement, the lack of or lesser amount of a quality is no better or worse than any other position.
The funniest part is the judgement you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess.
You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow.
Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Scientists, including the atheistic ones, all display honor, truth, loyalty, character, morality, love and more. I know, I'm one of them! I know many scientists and many religious people and I would have to candidly admit that the religious ones are the most hypocritical and likely to "sin in the eyes of the Lord!" |
Oh they display those qualities alright. But without guidance or judgement, the lack of or lesser amount of a quality is no better or worse than any other position.
The funniest part is the judgement you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess.
You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow.
Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior.
They think they can go to church and be absolved of their sins, thereby somehow "clearing their conscience"! The scientists, holding no such irrational beliefs, act with higher moral standing to begin with. We have to face our consciousness, without a "scapegoat!"
Obviously, you fail to understand repentance, forgiveness or much of anything about a particular religion. Perhaps I can explain at least the Roman Catholic version, and you can tell me what is wrong with it.
We believe that when you sin, it is a bad thing. In order to recieve forgiveness, you must do several things:
REPENT: admit your wrong-doing and firmly avow to do your best not to do it again. Not that you will never sin again, but you will try hard not to.
CONFESS: admit your wrong-doing to a loving and neutral party, in our faith, your priest. This is very difficult to do and is a great motivator to not repeat sin (well Father, I did it again). Many religions prefer to keep your responsibility entirely secret and private, mine is harder and I think better. Your mileage may vary.
FORGIVENESS: In my faith, the priest will offer forgiveness, and assign a PENANCE as the next step. In many faiths, confession is not necessary, merely personal admission of guilt, and you recieve your forgiveness directly from God, with no intermediary preferred.
PENANCE: redress your ill deed. In the case you only harmed yourself, or trivial matters, a mere prayer to reflect on your transgression is often the only penance required. In larger matters, specific actions may be required to undo harm you may have done. Some religions do not require penance, I think it is necessary.
I am ACCOUNTABLE for my behavior, and have a standard toward which I strive to achieve. Where is your standard?
Oh your "higher moral standing", I guess, but what is it based on? Darwinian evolution? Whatever makes you happy? You do not need a scapegoat, because you take no responsibility on yourself.
deadbeat, So you had to eat your words!
But after admitting virtual defeat, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE DARWINIAN VIEW TO BE "RIDICULOUS!"
QUOTE
"So ID may well be incorrect as argued by fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are then proven wrong. But certainly not other religions or religious people who do not share that view. You try to hold the one thing as an indictment of ALL religion, which is ridiculous."
deadbeat quote.But after admitting virtual defeat, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE DARWINIAN VIEW TO BE "RIDICULOUS!"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "So ID may well be incorrect as argued by fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are then proven wrong. But certainly not other religions or religious people who do not share that view. You try to hold the one thing as an indictment of ALL religion, which is ridiculous." |
deadbeat quote.
But after admitting virtual defeat, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE DARWINIAN VIEW TO BE "RIDICULOUS!"
"The problem is not that I do not remember your earlier post, the problem is that it signifies nothing."
But after admitting virtual defeat, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE DARWINIAN VIEW TO BE "RIDICULOUS!"
"The problem is not that I do not remember your earlier post, the problem is that it signifies nothing."
deadbeat quote.
It either shows a short attention span or lack of attention to important details, OR BOTH!
You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
It either shows a short attention span or lack of attention to important details, OR BOTH!
QUOTE
"All of those disciplines do in fact study these things, but, and pay attention here because this is what you seem to be missing....(if they follow the scientific method) make no value judgments. All positions are equivocal more or less. You cannot name a reference for whatever your code is on Love, Honor, etc. because you are making it up as you go to suit yourself.
It seems to me you just decide for yourself that whatever suits your fancy is your morality. Convenient."
deadbeat quote.It seems to me you just decide for yourself that whatever suits your fancy is your morality. Convenient."
You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "All of those disciplines do in fact study these things, but, and pay attention here because this is what you seem to be missing....(if they follow the scientific method) make no value judgments. All positions are equivocal more or less. You cannot name a reference for whatever your code is on Love, Honor, etc. because you are making it up as you go to suit yourself. It seems to me you just decide for yourself that whatever suits your fancy is your morality. Convenient." |
deadbeat quote.
You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
"Maslow studied exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."
You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
"Maslow studied exemplary people such as Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Frederick Douglass rather than mentally ill or neurotic people, writing that "the study of crippled, stunted, immature, and unhealthy specimens can yield only a cripple psychology and a cripple philosophy."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Another bunch of wild, erroneous conclusions! (()) I just did prove you wrong and those previous posts are there for all to see!
Another bunch of wild, erroneous conclusions! (()) I just did prove you wrong and those previous posts are there for all to see!
" because you take no responsibility on yourself."
QUOTE
"Oh they display those qualities alright. But without guidance or judgment, the lack of or lesser amount of a quality is no better or worse than any other position.
The funniest part is the judgment you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess.
You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow.
Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior."
The funniest part is the judgment you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess.
You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow.
Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior."
Another bunch of wild, erroneous conclusions! ((
)) I just did prove you wrong and those previous posts are there for all to see! QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Oh they display those qualities alright. But without guidance or judgment, the lack of or lesser amount of a quality is no better or worse than any other position. The funniest part is the judgment you pass on all who believe. You believe nothing, and therefore cannot sin? You wanted to do it, so its okay I guess. You say OH NO that is wrong, and yet you cannot point to any specific guidelines or morality that you follow. Prove me wrong, just pick any quality we talked about and explain how your religion of science proscribes or prescribes your behavior." |
Another bunch of wild, erroneous conclusions! ((
)) I just did prove you wrong and those previous posts are there for all to see! " because you take no responsibility on yourself."
deadbeat quote.
[B]NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! Please RETRACT that ridiculous statement NOW! The last half of your post is typical religious indoctrination! I have seen too much of THAT in my life!
I would like you to study those links, INTELLIGENTLY reply to this post, retract that ill-conceived statement and tell me how Maslow and Rogers are leading me astray! There will be a test, tomorrow on humanistic psychology 101! Bring a sharp #2 lead pencil!
[B]NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! Please RETRACT that ridiculous statement NOW! The last half of your post is typical religious indoctrination! I have seen too much of THAT in my life!
I would like you to study those links, INTELLIGENTLY reply to this post, retract that ill-conceived statement and tell me how Maslow and Rogers are leading me astray! There will be a test, tomorrow on humanistic psychology 101! Bring a sharp #2 lead pencil!
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 27 2007, 04:03 PM)
deadbeat, So you had to eat your words!
But after admitting virtual defeat, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE DARWINIAN VIEW TO BE "RIDICULOUS!"
Wow, you won that point in your own mind at least.
My exact words:
"I agree with your stance on Darwinian evolution as accepted hypothesis, but I also maintain that saying that has no effect on religion other than fundamentalists. I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face. "
I am saying that "the argument" you are making is that somehow Darwinian theory somehow disproves ALL religion. So again, I already accepted darwinian theory, just not your derision of all religion
It either shows a short attention span or lack of attention to important details, OR BOTH!
You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people.
Beautiful, that is what I was ASKING you to do. Lets examine your examples...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
As I see it, your example of Carl Rogers is irrelevant. He provides no judgement on behavior other than it must be properly adapted to by the organism to its own best advantage.
the best Sociopaths would agree with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Again Maslow always referring to the needs of self. He just prioritizes the needs you have. Always focusing on the self. Hmmm said something about that earlier didn't I? All this instructs is how to best fulfill YOUR needs, which is exactly what I accused you of doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
Lets look at his list of what a self-actualized person should do:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Touchy feely gobbeldygook, but nothing about ethics or morality in any of those.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
OH I see, so this does not provide ethics or morality, you have to get it elsewhere. This is just a roadmap of successful habits.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Beautiful, that is what I was ASKING you to do. Lets examine your examples...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
As I see it, your example of Carl Rogers is irrelevant. He provides no judgement on behavior other than it must be properly adapted to by the organism to its own best advantage.
the best Sociopaths would agree with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Again Maslow always referring to the needs of self. He just prioritizes the needs you have. Always focusing on the self. Hmmm said something about that earlier didn't I? All this instructs is how to best fulfill YOUR needs, which is exactly what I accused you of doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
Lets look at his list of what a self-actualized person should do:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Touchy feely gobbeldygook, but nothing about ethics or morality in any of those.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
OH I see, so this does not provide ethics or morality, you have to get it elsewhere. This is just a roadmap of successful habits.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Another bunch of wild, erroneous conclusions! (()) I just did prove you wrong and those previous posts are there for all to see!
HAHAHA no you just exposed the truth, that you have no code of Ethics or Morality, just some system designed to selfishly best meet whatever you think you want, (oh I am sorry, your hierarchy of needs).
[B]NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! Please RETRACT that ridiculous statement NOW! The last half of your post is typical religious indoctrination! I have seen too much of THAT in my life!
I would like you to study those links, INTELLIGENTLY reply to this post, retract that ill-conceived statement and tell me how Maslow and Rogers are leading me astray! There will be a test, tomorrow on humanistic psychology 101! Bring a sharp #2 lead pencil!
Hehe I had Philosophy and passed with flying colors. Apparently you only listened to the parts you liked.
What you are saying is WRONG! SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT DARWINIAN THEORY DISPROVES ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS! I NEVER SAID OR ASSUMED THAT! One more wild, erroneous assumption on your part! You seem to be unique in your ability to summarily dismiss two of the greatest psychological theorists and thinkers with a few CLOSE-MINDED sentences!
Appreciation of life and closeness to people carry with it many moral and ethical implications, that cannot be easily dismissed. At least not if we're assuming an intelligence with reasoning and memory.
What you are saying is WRONG! SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT DARWINIAN THEORY DISPROVES ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS! I NEVER SAID OR ASSUMED THAT! One more wild, erroneous assumption on your part! You seem to be unique in your ability to summarily dismiss two of the greatest psychological theorists and thinkers with a few CLOSE-MINDED sentences!
How about when you said
"SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION!"
About 100 times, and continued to quote it. From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION (read it yourself)
Talk about a lack of critical thinking (or memory)
So you are assuming that if the preponderance of evidence for establishing darwinian evolution is correct, it disavows or damages Religion. It only damages those fundamentalists with their head in the sand denying science, not my religion.
About 100 times, and continued to quote it. From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION (read it yourself)
Talk about a lack of critical thinking (or memory)
So you are assuming that if the preponderance of evidence for establishing darwinian evolution is correct, it disavows or damages Religion. It only damages those fundamentalists with their head in the sand denying science, not my religion.
"They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority."
THAT is your erroneous conclusion after an "in depth" study of Maslow and Rogers? (()) Even apes have morals NOT independent of external authority!
HAHAHAHAHAHHA Oh man that is precious. That line is a direct cut and paste from YOUR link on self-actualization. So you argue your own so called code is invalid. Too funny.
here is a fuller cut from Self Actualization according to Maslow
THAT is your erroneous conclusion after an "in depth" study of Maslow and Rogers? (()) Even apes have morals NOT independent of external authority!
HAHAHAHAHAHHA Oh man that is precious. That line is a direct cut and paste from YOUR link on self-actualization. So you argue your own so called code is invalid. Too funny.
here is a fuller cut from Self Actualization according to Maslow
Self-actualization
Self-actualization--a concept Maslow attributed to Kurt Goldstein, a mentor to Maslow--is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can.
Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
In short, self-actualization is reaching one's fullest potential.
You can have your close-mindedness AND your parochial views of religion. I'll take the course of the enlightened souls, optimally developing human traits along the path of higher learning and self actualization! Your deductive reasoning sucks!
HAHAHHA oh man is your slip showing... How many Bong hits does it take to achieve this "transcendentalness"?
So we have established that:
A. the Link to Carl Rogers and Maslow and Hierarchy of needs and Self-Actualized whatever contain no ethical or moral code ADMITTED WITHIN THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED. The are worthless without an ethical and moral foundation from which to apply them.
B. You apparently do not read, or at least do not recognize the very sputum you are expounding upon.
C. Without ethical or Moral foundation OUTSIDE of Rogers and Maslow, it is simply a guide on how to get what you want, regardless of the right or wrong of it.
D. So you seem to me to have proved that your "code" is merely convenient to do whatever you want to. Just as I said before, and you so loudly and adamantly denied.
But after admitting virtual defeat, YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THE DARWINIAN VIEW TO BE "RIDICULOUS!"
Wow, you won that point in your own mind at least.
My exact words:
"I agree with your stance on Darwinian evolution as accepted hypothesis, but I also maintain that saying that has no effect on religion other than fundamentalists. I am just saying that the argument is ridiculous on its face. "
I am saying that "the argument" you are making is that somehow Darwinian theory somehow disproves ALL religion. So again, I already accepted darwinian theory, just not your derision of all religion
QUOTE
It either shows a short attention span or lack of attention to important details, OR BOTH!
You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people.
Beautiful, that is what I was ASKING you to do. Lets examine your examples...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
As I see it, your example of Carl Rogers is irrelevant. He provides no judgement on behavior other than it must be properly adapted to by the organism to its own best advantage.
the best Sociopaths would agree with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Again Maslow always referring to the needs of self. He just prioritizes the needs you have. Always focusing on the self. Hmmm said something about that earlier didn't I? All this instructs is how to best fulfill YOUR needs, which is exactly what I accused you of doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
Lets look at his list of what a self-actualized person should do:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Touchy feely gobbeldygook, but nothing about ethics or morality in any of those.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
OH I see, so this does not provide ethics or morality, you have to get it elsewhere. This is just a roadmap of successful habits.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It either shows a short attention span or lack of attention to important details, OR BOTH! You are jumping to wild and ERRONEOUS conclusions here! Convenient, but inaccurate! I can and have named a reference to my "code" on love, honor, etc. in other threads in this forum. I have mentioned two of my favorite psychologists, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow including the latter's "hierarchy of needs" and "self actualization" which lead toward optimal development in people. |
Beautiful, that is what I was ASKING you to do. Lets examine your examples...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rogers
As I see it, your example of Carl Rogers is irrelevant. He provides no judgement on behavior other than it must be properly adapted to by the organism to its own best advantage.
the best Sociopaths would agree with that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Again Maslow always referring to the needs of self. He just prioritizes the needs you have. Always focusing on the self. Hmmm said something about that earlier didn't I? All this instructs is how to best fulfill YOUR needs, which is exactly what I accused you of doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heirarchy_of_needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_actualization
Lets look at his list of what a self-actualized person should do:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Touchy feely gobbeldygook, but nothing about ethics or morality in any of those.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
OH I see, so this does not provide ethics or morality, you have to get it elsewhere. This is just a roadmap of successful habits.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Maslow
Another bunch of wild, erroneous conclusions! ((
)) I just did prove you wrong and those previous posts are there for all to see! HAHAHA no you just exposed the truth, that you have no code of Ethics or Morality, just some system designed to selfishly best meet whatever you think you want, (oh I am sorry, your hierarchy of needs).
QUOTE
[B]NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! Please RETRACT that ridiculous statement NOW! The last half of your post is typical religious indoctrination! I have seen too much of THAT in my life!
I would like you to study those links, INTELLIGENTLY reply to this post, retract that ill-conceived statement and tell me how Maslow and Rogers are leading me astray! There will be a test, tomorrow on humanistic psychology 101! Bring a sharp #2 lead pencil!
Hehe I had Philosophy and passed with flying colors. Apparently you only listened to the parts you liked.
sociopath [(soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-uh-path)]
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others. (Compare psychopath.)
Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others. (Compare psychopath.)
QUOTE
"I am saying that "the argument" you are making is that somehow Darwinian theory somehow disproves ALL religion."
deadbeat quote. What you are saying is WRONG! SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT DARWINIAN THEORY DISPROVES ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS! I NEVER SAID OR ASSUMED THAT! One more wild, erroneous assumption on your part! You seem to be unique in your ability to summarily dismiss two of the greatest psychological theorists and thinkers with a few CLOSE-MINDED sentences!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I am saying that "the argument" you are making is that somehow Darwinian theory somehow disproves ALL religion." |
deadbeat quote.
What you are saying is WRONG! SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT DARWINIAN THEORY DISPROVES ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS! I NEVER SAID OR ASSUMED THAT! One more wild, erroneous assumption on your part! You seem to be unique in your ability to summarily dismiss two of the greatest psychological theorists and thinkers with a few CLOSE-MINDED sentences!
"They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority."
What you are saying is WRONG! SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT DARWINIAN THEORY DISPROVES ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS! I NEVER SAID OR ASSUMED THAT! One more wild, erroneous assumption on your part! You seem to be unique in your ability to summarily dismiss two of the greatest psychological theorists and thinkers with a few CLOSE-MINDED sentences!
"They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority."
deadbeat quote.
THAT is your erroneous conclusion after an "in depth" study of Maslow and Rogers? (()) Even apes have morals NOT independent of external authority!
You can have your close-mindedness AND your parochial views of religion. I'll take the course of the enlightened souls, optimally developing human traits along the path of higher learning and self actualization! Your deductive reasoning sucks!
Edit. This is from an earlier post on Nov. 13, 2007.
"Maslow also proposed that people who have reached self-actualization will sometimes experience a state he referred to as "transcendence", in which they become aware of not only their own fullest potential, but the fullest potential of human beings at large. He described this transcendence and its characteristics in an essay in the posthumously published The Farther Reaches of Human Nature." (emphasis mine.)
Now, does his "transcendence" maybe sound a little bit like a "religious" experience? THAT kind of transcendence is what I would hope for the optimum future of mankind!
THAT is your erroneous conclusion after an "in depth" study of Maslow and Rogers? ((
)) Even apes have morals NOT independent of external authority! You can have your close-mindedness AND your parochial views of religion.
I'll take the course of the enlightened souls, optimally developing human traits along the path of higher learning and self actualization! Your deductive reasoning sucks!Edit. This is from an earlier post on Nov. 13, 2007.
QUOTE
"Maslow also proposed that people who have reached self-actualization will sometimes experience a state he referred to as "transcendence", in which they become aware of not only their own fullest potential, but the fullest potential of human beings at large. He described this transcendence and its characteristics in an essay in the posthumously published The Farther Reaches of Human Nature." (emphasis mine.)
Now, does his "transcendence" maybe sound a little bit like a "religious" experience? THAT kind of transcendence is what I would hope for the optimum future of mankind!
QUOTE
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Touchy feely gobbeldygook, but nothing about ethics or morality in any of those.
Touchy feely gobbeldygook, but nothing about ethics or morality in any of those.
Appreciation of life and closeness to people carry with it many moral and ethical implications, that cannot be easily dismissed. At least not if we're assuming an intelligence with reasoning and memory.
Thank you Corvidae! He cherry-picked one phrase, THEN EVEN MISCONSTRUED THAT!
BRAVISSIMO CORVIDAE! (())
QUOTE
"You can have your close-mindedness AND your parochial views of religion. I'll take the course of the enlightened souls, optimally developing human traits along the path of higher learning and self actualization! Your deductive reasoning sucks!"
photojack quote. I'll take the course of the enlightened souls, optimally developing human traits along the path of higher learning and self actualization! Your deductive reasoning sucks!" BRAVISSIMO CORVIDAE! ((
))
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 27 2007, 07:22 PM)
What you are saying is WRONG! SHOW ME WHERE I STATED THAT DARWINIAN THEORY DISPROVES ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS! I NEVER SAID OR ASSUMED THAT! One more wild, erroneous assumption on your part! You seem to be unique in your ability to summarily dismiss two of the greatest psychological theorists and thinkers with a few CLOSE-MINDED sentences!
How about when you said
QUOTE
"SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION!"
About 100 times, and continued to quote it. From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION (read it yourself)
Talk about a lack of critical thinking (or memory)
So you are assuming that if the preponderance of evidence for establishing darwinian evolution is correct, it disavows or damages Religion. It only damages those fundamentalists with their head in the sand denying science, not my religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION!" |
About 100 times, and continued to quote it. From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION (read it yourself)
Talk about a lack of critical thinking (or memory)
So you are assuming that if the preponderance of evidence for establishing darwinian evolution is correct, it disavows or damages Religion. It only damages those fundamentalists with their head in the sand denying science, not my religion.
QUOTE
"They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority."
THAT is your erroneous conclusion after an "in depth" study of Maslow and Rogers? ((
)) Even apes have morals NOT independent of external authority! HAHAHAHAHAHHA Oh man that is precious. That line is a direct cut and paste from YOUR link on self-actualization. So you argue your own so called code is invalid. Too funny.
here is a fuller cut from Self Actualization according to Maslow
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority." |
THAT is your erroneous conclusion after an "in depth" study of Maslow and Rogers? ((
)) Even apes have morals NOT independent of external authority! HAHAHAHAHAHHA Oh man that is precious. That line is a direct cut and paste from YOUR link on self-actualization. So you argue your own so called code is invalid. Too funny.
here is a fuller cut from Self Actualization according to Maslow
Self-actualization
Self-actualization--a concept Maslow attributed to Kurt Goldstein, a mentor to Maslow--is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can.
Maslow writes the following of self-actualizing people:
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
They are creative.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority.
They have discernment and are able to view all things in an objective manner.
In short, self-actualization is reaching one's fullest potential.
QUOTE
You can have your close-mindedness AND your parochial views of religion.
I'll take the course of the enlightened souls, optimally developing human traits along the path of higher learning and self actualization! Your deductive reasoning sucks!HAHAHHA oh man is your slip showing... How many Bong hits does it take to achieve this "transcendentalness"?
So we have established that:
A. the Link to Carl Rogers and Maslow and Hierarchy of needs and Self-Actualized whatever contain no ethical or moral code ADMITTED WITHIN THE LINKS YOU PROVIDED. The are worthless without an ethical and moral foundation from which to apply them.
B. You apparently do not read, or at least do not recognize the very sputum you are expounding upon.
C. Without ethical or Moral foundation OUTSIDE of Rogers and Maslow, it is simply a guide on how to get what you want, regardless of the right or wrong of it.
D. So you seem to me to have proved that your "code" is merely convenient to do whatever you want to. Just as I said before, and you so loudly and adamantly denied.
HAHAHA I CAN'T RESIST
You quote Mircea Eliade in your signature, but he sides with me, not your atheistic ideal.
here is a quote from wiki on him
Wiki entry on Mircea Eliade
Sacred and profane
Eliade argues that religious thought in general rests on a sharp distinction between the Sacred and the profane;[52] whether it takes the form of God, gods, or mythical Ancestors, the Sacred contains all "reality", or value, and other things acquire "reality" only to the extent that they participate in the sacred.[53]
Eliade's understanding of religion centers on his concept of hierophany (manifestation of the Sacred) — a concept that includes, but is not limited to, the older and more restrictive concept of theophany (manifestation of a god).[54] From the perspective of religious thought, Eliade argues, hierophanies give structure and orientation to the world, establishing a sacred order. The "profane" space of nonreligious experience can only be divided up geometrically: it has no "qualitative differentiation and, hence, no orientation [is] given by virtue of its inherent structure".[55] Thus, profane space gives man no pattern for his behavior. In contrast to profane space, the site of a hierophany has a sacred structure to which religious man conforms himself. A hierophany amounts to a "revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the nonreality of the vast surrounding expanse".[56] As an example of "sacred space" demanding a certain response from man, Eliade gives the story of Moses halting before Yahweh's manifestation as a burning bush (Exodus 3:5) and taking off his shoes.[57]
Emphasis mine
You quote Mircea Eliade in your signature, but he sides with me, not your atheistic ideal.
here is a quote from wiki on him
Wiki entry on Mircea Eliade
QUOTE
Sacred and profane
Eliade argues that religious thought in general rests on a sharp distinction between the Sacred and the profane;[52] whether it takes the form of God, gods, or mythical Ancestors, the Sacred contains all "reality", or value, and other things acquire "reality" only to the extent that they participate in the sacred.[53]
Eliade's understanding of religion centers on his concept of hierophany (manifestation of the Sacred) — a concept that includes, but is not limited to, the older and more restrictive concept of theophany (manifestation of a god).[54] From the perspective of religious thought, Eliade argues, hierophanies give structure and orientation to the world, establishing a sacred order. The "profane" space of nonreligious experience can only be divided up geometrically: it has no "qualitative differentiation and, hence, no orientation [is] given by virtue of its inherent structure".[55] Thus, profane space gives man no pattern for his behavior. In contrast to profane space, the site of a hierophany has a sacred structure to which religious man conforms himself. A hierophany amounts to a "revelation of an absolute reality, opposed to the nonreality of the vast surrounding expanse".[56] As an example of "sacred space" demanding a certain response from man, Eliade gives the story of Moses halting before Yahweh's manifestation as a burning bush (Exodus 3:5) and taking off his shoes.[57]
Emphasis mine
deadbeat, Again your deductive reasoning sucks, AND HERE'S WHY!
That was referring to: If any "use" or coding is found for "junk DNA" that it will be shown to bolster evolution. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD BOLSTER RELIGION? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Can you see the difference NOW? AFTER 100 TIMES? There is no conflict. YOU assumed that erroneously. No matter which way the clarification or subsequent development of our knowledge of junk DNA goes, it won't bolster religion! Get it?
QUOTE
"SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION!"
photojack quote. That was referring to: If any "use" or coding is found for "junk DNA" that it will be shown to bolster evolution. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD BOLSTER RELIGION?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Can you see the difference NOW? AFTER 100 TIMES? There is no conflict. YOU assumed that erroneously. No matter which way the clarification or subsequent development of our knowledge of junk DNA goes, it won't bolster religion! Get it? QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION!" |
photojack quote.
That was referring to: If any "use" or coding is found for "junk DNA" that it will be shown to bolster evolution. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD BOLSTER RELIGION? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Can you see the difference NOW? AFTER 100 TIMES? There is no conflict. YOU assumed that erroneously. No matter which way the clarification or subsequent development of our knowledge of junk DNA goes, it won't bolster religion! Get it?
About 100 times, and continued to quote it. From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION (read it yourself)
That was referring to: If any "use" or coding is found for "junk DNA" that it will be shown to bolster evolution. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT WOULD BOLSTER RELIGION?
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? Can you see the difference NOW? AFTER 100 TIMES? There is no conflict. YOU assumed that erroneously. No matter which way the clarification or subsequent development of our knowledge of junk DNA goes, it won't bolster religion! Get it? About 100 times, and continued to quote it. From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION (read it yourself)
deadbeat quote. (Now beating his head against the wall!) Talk about a lack of critical thinking (or memory!) (())
I was referring to GROUP-BASED MORAL BEHAVIOR as in altruism in ape social groups. Maslow was referring to being independent of "external authority" LIKE CHURCHES AND RELIGION! That is where a statement out of context can cause problems. PEOPLE INTERNALIZE THEIR MORALS AND CAN FORM THOSE MORALS WITHOUT RELIGION. RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OVER MORALS! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THAT?
YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO EXCLUDE PROBABLY THE GREATEST POTENTIAL IDEALOGICAL BENEFIT TO MANKIND, THE BEST MEANS TO REACH OUR POTENTIALS AND THE ULTIMATE GROWTH TOOL! That is your choice, just as your acceptance of religious indoctrination is. I fended off the usual attempts people made to me concerning religion and have gone far beyond. You have that potential also! Just open your eyes and look at the totality of life, without your blinders on! Your religious babble is totally unconvincing. In fact it makes me so much more sure I chose the right path!
))QUOTE
"They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority."
Maslow quote.I was referring to GROUP-BASED MORAL BEHAVIOR as in altruism in ape social groups. Maslow was referring to being independent of "external authority" LIKE CHURCHES AND RELIGION! That is where a statement out of context can cause problems. PEOPLE INTERNALIZE THEIR MORALS AND CAN FORM THOSE MORALS WITHOUT RELIGION. RELIGION DOES NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE DOMAIN OVER MORALS! HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THAT?
YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO EXCLUDE PROBABLY THE GREATEST POTENTIAL IDEALOGICAL BENEFIT TO MANKIND, THE BEST MEANS TO REACH OUR POTENTIALS AND THE ULTIMATE GROWTH TOOL! That is your choice, just as your acceptance of religious indoctrination is. I fended off the usual attempts people made to me concerning religion and have gone far beyond. You have that potential also! Just open your eyes and look at the totality of life, without your blinders on! Your religious babble is totally unconvincing. In fact it makes me so much more sure I chose the right path!
deadbeat, Taking statements out of context will get you in trouble every time! You quoted from one of his earlier studies. I could take quotes from that article that would make it look like he follows Shamanism! The quote by him in my signature and this one from the wikipedia article are more indicative of his own personal views attained later in his life.
Point to the religion that doesn't contend Humans were created as a completed form (or at the least a starting point of existence). They're few and far between.
I didn't bother to go back to check photo's assertions, however as a basic starting point, there is a point of contention between evolution and religion in most cases. Personally I've found that most who don't find a conflict, take the written works of the religion as metaphors rather than written testament. Which of course creates the question of what's metaphor and what's written fact. Making for a testament that's doubtful at best. Leading to the argument of evolutionary evidence vs. religious faith.
deadbeat, Taking statements out of context will get you in trouble every time! You quoted from one of his earlier studies. I could take quotes from that article that would make it look like he follows Shamanism! The quote by him in my signature and this one from the wikipedia article are more indicative of his own personal views attained later in his life.
Funny, I quoted FROM THE SAME PARAGRAPH YOU DID.
Wow are you completely clueless. Again you quote the little part of the paragraph that talks about how modern nonreligious man feels, let me add the WHOLE THING here, and you can plainly see that he is saying Modern Nonreligious is inferior. Talk about lack of reading comprehension.
Existentialism and secularism
Behind the diverse cultural forms of different religions, Eliade proposes a universal: traditional man, he claims, "always believes that there is an absolute reality, the sacred, which transcends this world but manifests itself in this world, thereby sanctifying it and making it real".[136] Furthermore, traditional man's behavior gains purpose and meaning through the Sacred: "By imitating divine behavior, man puts and keeps himself close to the gods — that is, in the real and the significant."[137]
According to Eliade, "modern nonreligious man assumes a new existential situation".[138] For traditional man, historical events gain significance by imitating sacred, transcendent events. In contrast, nonreligious man lacks sacred models for how history or human behavior should be, so he must decide on his own how history should proceed — he "regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and refuses all appeal to transcendence".[139] From the standpoint of religious thought, the world has an objective purpose established by mythical events, to which man should conform himself: "Myth teaches [religious man] the primordial 'stories' that have constituted him existentially."[140] From the standpoint of secular thought, any purpose must be invented and imposed on the world by man. Because of this new "existential situation", Eliade argues, the Sacred becomes the primary obstacle to nonreligious man's "freedom". In viewing himself as the proper maker of history, nonreligious man resists all notions of an externally (for instance, divinely) imposed order or model he must obey: modern man "makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. [...] He will not truly be free until he has killed the last god".[141]
Ironically, Eliade says, nonreligious man cannot escape his bondage to religious thought. By resisting sacred models, by insisting that man make history on his own, secularism identifies itself only through opposition to religious thought: "He [secular man] recognizes himself in proportion as he 'frees' and 'purifies' himself from the 'superstitions' of his ancestors." [142] Furthermore, modern man "still retains a large stock of camouflaged myths and degenerated rituals".[143] For example, modern social events still have similarities to traditional initiation rituals, and modern novels feature mythical motifs and themes.[144] Finally, nonreligious man still participates in something like the eternal return: by reading modern literature, "modern man succeeds in obtaining an 'escape from time' comparable to the 'emergence from time' effected by myths".[145]
So the little blue snippet CLEARLY taken out of context in this paragraph, IS YOUR SIGNATURE. The Immediately following red statement illustrates how it is pointless and irrational, much like the rest of your argument.
Mircea Eliade quote.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade
NOW, DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DEBATE! (())
Oh yes please, while you are at it, you seem to have conveniently skipped addressing the other argument you lost, about Rogers and Maslow having no intrinsic ethic or moral content, and requiring "a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority".
Or is that too embarassing? Because that is where you said you DERIVED YOUR ETHICS AND MORALS FROM, which means you basically do not really have anything other than, as I stated, whatever you feel like and is convenient.
The quote by him in my signature and this one from the wikipedia article are more indicative of his own personal views attained later in his life. QUOTE
""All I wish for is a deep change, a complete transformation. But, for God's sake, in any direction other than spirituality".
Mircea Eliade quote. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ""All I wish for is a deep change, a complete transformation. But, for God's sake, in any direction other than spirituality". |
Mircea Eliade quote.
"According to Eliade, "modern nonreligious man assumes a new existential situation". For traditional man, historical events gain significance by imitating sacred, transcendent events. In contrast, nonreligious man lacks sacred models for how history or human behavior should be, so he must decide on his own how history should proceed — he "regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and refuses all appeal to transcendence". From the standpoint of secular thought, any purpose must be invented and imposed on the world by man. Because of this new "existential situation", Eliade argues, the Sacred becomes the primary obstacle to nonreligious man's "freedom". In viewing himself as the proper maker of history, nonreligious man resists all notions of an externally (for instance, divinely) imposed order or model he must obey: modern man "makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. [...] He will not truly be free until he has killed the last god". "He [secular man] recognizes himself in proportion as he 'frees' and 'purifies' himself from the 'superstitions' of his ancestors."
"According to Eliade, "modern nonreligious man assumes a new existential situation". For traditional man, historical events gain significance by imitating sacred, transcendent events. In contrast, nonreligious man lacks sacred models for how history or human behavior should be, so he must decide on his own how history should proceed — he "regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and refuses all appeal to transcendence". From the standpoint of secular thought, any purpose must be invented and imposed on the world by man. Because of this new "existential situation", Eliade argues, the Sacred becomes the primary obstacle to nonreligious man's "freedom". In viewing himself as the proper maker of history, nonreligious man resists all notions of an externally (for instance, divinely) imposed order or model he must obey: modern man "makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. [...] He will not truly be free until he has killed the last god". "He [secular man] recognizes himself in proportion as he 'frees' and 'purifies' himself from the 'superstitions' of his ancestors."
QUOTE
From that statement, you are suggesting EVOLUTION is in conflict with RELIGION
Point to the religion that doesn't contend Humans were created as a completed form (or at the least a starting point of existence). They're few and far between.
I didn't bother to go back to check photo's assertions, however as a basic starting point, there is a point of contention between evolution and religion in most cases. Personally I've found that most who don't find a conflict, take the written works of the religion as metaphors rather than written testament. Which of course creates the question of what's metaphor and what's written fact. Making for a testament that's doubtful at best. Leading to the argument of evolutionary evidence vs. religious faith.
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 28 2007, 12:41 AM)
deadbeat, Taking statements out of context will get you in trouble every time! You quoted from one of his earlier studies. I could take quotes from that article that would make it look like he follows Shamanism!
The quote by him in my signature and this one from the wikipedia article are more indicative of his own personal views attained later in his life. Funny, I quoted FROM THE SAME PARAGRAPH YOU DID.
Wow are you completely clueless. Again you quote the little part of the paragraph that talks about how modern nonreligious man feels, let me add the WHOLE THING here, and you can plainly see that he is saying Modern Nonreligious is inferior. Talk about lack of reading comprehension.
QUOTE (wiki+ Mircea Eliade)
Existentialism and secularism
Behind the diverse cultural forms of different religions, Eliade proposes a universal: traditional man, he claims, "always believes that there is an absolute reality, the sacred, which transcends this world but manifests itself in this world, thereby sanctifying it and making it real".[136] Furthermore, traditional man's behavior gains purpose and meaning through the Sacred: "By imitating divine behavior, man puts and keeps himself close to the gods — that is, in the real and the significant."[137]
According to Eliade, "modern nonreligious man assumes a new existential situation".[138] For traditional man, historical events gain significance by imitating sacred, transcendent events. In contrast, nonreligious man lacks sacred models for how history or human behavior should be, so he must decide on his own how history should proceed — he "regards himself solely as the subject and agent of history, and refuses all appeal to transcendence".[139] From the standpoint of religious thought, the world has an objective purpose established by mythical events, to which man should conform himself: "Myth teaches [religious man] the primordial 'stories' that have constituted him existentially."[140] From the standpoint of secular thought, any purpose must be invented and imposed on the world by man. Because of this new "existential situation", Eliade argues, the Sacred becomes the primary obstacle to nonreligious man's "freedom". In viewing himself as the proper maker of history, nonreligious man resists all notions of an externally (for instance, divinely) imposed order or model he must obey: modern man "makes himself, and he only makes himself completely in proportion as he desacralizes himself and the world. [...] He will not truly be free until he has killed the last god".[141]
Ironically, Eliade says, nonreligious man cannot escape his bondage to religious thought. By resisting sacred models, by insisting that man make history on his own, secularism identifies itself only through opposition to religious thought: "He [secular man] recognizes himself in proportion as he 'frees' and 'purifies' himself from the 'superstitions' of his ancestors." [142] Furthermore, modern man "still retains a large stock of camouflaged myths and degenerated rituals".[143] For example, modern social events still have similarities to traditional initiation rituals, and modern novels feature mythical motifs and themes.[144] Finally, nonreligious man still participates in something like the eternal return: by reading modern literature, "modern man succeeds in obtaining an 'escape from time' comparable to the 'emergence from time' effected by myths".[145]
So the little blue snippet CLEARLY taken out of context in this paragraph, IS YOUR SIGNATURE. The Immediately following red statement illustrates how it is pointless and irrational, much like the rest of your argument.
QUOTE
Mircea Eliade quote.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mircea_Eliade
NOW, DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DEBATE! ((
)) Oh yes please, while you are at it, you seem to have conveniently skipped addressing the other argument you lost, about Rogers and Maslow having no intrinsic ethic or moral content, and requiring "a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority".
Or is that too embarassing? Because that is where you said you DERIVED YOUR ETHICS AND MORALS FROM, which means you basically do not really have anything other than, as I stated, whatever you feel like and is convenient.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 28 2007, 05:09 AM)
Point to the religion that doesn't contend Humans were created as a completed form (or at the least a starting point of existence). They're few and far between.
I didn't bother to go back to check photo's assertions, however as a basic starting point, there is a point of contention between evolution and religion in most cases. Personally I've found that most who don't find a conflict, take the written works of the religion as metaphors rather than written testament. Which of course creates the question of what's metaphor and what's written fact. Making for a testament that's doubtful at best. Leading to the argument of evolutionary evidence vs. religious faith.
The Roman Catholic religion does not do so. Here are some illuminating snips about Catholicism and its views toward creation...
The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2]
"Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." (Vatican Council I) "
Like I said, science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. Some religions and believers go out of their way to make conflicts, but it is not necessary.
If science were not being used by the "secular progressive" movement to attempt to refute and battle religion and tradition, there would be less conflict even with them. It is not enough that they be free to believe as they wish, or disbelieve as may be the case, but they insist on trying to make others conform to THEIR beliefs which is INTOLERANCE, but a flavor they find acceptable.
I didn't bother to go back to check photo's assertions, however as a basic starting point, there is a point of contention between evolution and religion in most cases. Personally I've found that most who don't find a conflict, take the written works of the religion as metaphors rather than written testament. Which of course creates the question of what's metaphor and what's written fact. Making for a testament that's doubtful at best. Leading to the argument of evolutionary evidence vs. religious faith.
The Roman Catholic religion does not do so. Here are some illuminating snips about Catholicism and its views toward creation...
QUOTE
The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2]
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2] |
"Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." (Vatican Council I) "
Like I said, science and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. Some religions and believers go out of their way to make conflicts, but it is not necessary.
If science were not being used by the "secular progressive" movement to attempt to refute and battle religion and tradition, there would be less conflict even with them. It is not enough that they be free to believe as they wish, or disbelieve as may be the case, but they insist on trying to make others conform to THEIR beliefs which is INTOLERANCE, but a flavor they find acceptable.
QUOTE
The Roman Catholic religion does not do so. Here are some illuminating snips about Catholicism and its views toward creation...
Which is what I said, people in this group are rationalizing away their written testament as a literary metaphor rather than an actual testament. In the case of the Catholics, they are regarding the book of Genesis as a metaphorical fairy tale of good intention, but little if any fact. Not a good start for a testament to begin with a complete fabrication...
First off, faith does not provide knowledge, if anything it tends to prevent it by dissuading investigation. The only thing faith provides protection from is fear. Far too many very faithful people of every religion have met untimely ends and committed great mistakes to say that faith is any sort of protection.
First off, faith does not provide knowledge, if anything it tends to prevent it by dissuading investigation. The only thing faith provides protection from is fear. Far too many very faithful people of every religion have met untimely ends and committed great mistakes to say that faith is any sort of protection.
It is not enough that they be free to believe as they wish, or disbelieve as may be the case, but they insist on trying to make others conform to THEIR beliefs which is INTOLERANCE, but a flavor they find acceptable.
What is justice, but the intolerance for evil or unfair? When it comes to the question of evolution vs creationism, the problem is that the question is being asked in our schools. A place where intolerance is intentionally very high. People seem to be more than a bit touchy about what their children are taught.
It is not enough that we have to be inundated with their holidays every year, give them tax breaks on their lands, and have our views marred with their symbolism. They wish to use our institutions of teaching as yet another source of indoctrination.
Religions already have their churches, and we already put up with the bells. There is no reason to give any more.
And stop watching Bill O'Rielly, he's rotting your brain.
Which is what I said, people in this group are rationalizing away their written testament as a literary metaphor rather than an actual testament. In the case of the Catholics, they are regarding the book of Genesis as a metaphorical fairy tale of good intention, but little if any fact. Not a good start for a testament to begin with a complete fabrication...
Weak. So if it is not evidentially true to some scientific standard, it's not good enough for you. Fine, we do not want your kind in our little club hehe. Might want to look up FAITH. Just because YOU do not believe, does not mean that we cannot.
Religion is DIFFERENT than science, they are fundamentally different things with different applications.
Trying to say Science can disprove religion is like asking what color an apple tastes like.
Weak. So if it is not evidentially true to some scientific standard, it's not good enough for you. Fine, we do not want your kind in our little club hehe. Might want to look up FAITH. Just because YOU do not believe, does not mean that we cannot.
Religion is DIFFERENT than science, they are fundamentally different things with different applications.
Trying to say Science can disprove religion is like asking what color an apple tastes like.
First off, faith does not provide knowledge, if anything it tends to prevent it by dissuading investigation. The only thing faith provides protection from is fear. Far too many very faithful people of every religion have met untimely ends and committed great mistakes to say that faith is any sort of protection.
You are right about protection from fear. That is ABSOLUTELY the best function. It is like a man and a minefield. Science would want a map, showing the exact location of each mine, how they are detonated and safe areas all delineated. You could scientifically find a safe path, and even mark off clearly all the dangerous spots.
Life is a lot like a minefield and for most of that big old minefield there IS NO MAP. Religion is like footprints through the minefield. If you put your foot exactly where the last guy that made it through did, you can get through it safely, even if you do not know what a mine is, or where they all are.
Faith in and of itself of course does not provide knowledge. It is the tool used to apply the knowledge available from religion.
Dissuading learning is not a necessary defect in religion. It has been a defect in people who occupy ANY power structure and wish to stifle dissent.
You just do not understand what religion is FOR. It is not to deal with science and describing what we know about our universe. It is to describe how to deal with the UNKNOWN and the transcendental. Little things Science is no good for, like Love, Honor, Friendship, Loyalty, Truth. Footprints through the minefield brother. We do not know exactly what those things are, or how to create or keep them. I have a book that tells me where Jesus' footprints are. And I really want to go where he went.
You see Religion represents our best efforts, groping in the dark, trying to find what will make us happy, productive, and beneficial human beings. It is the end result of thousands of years of trial and error, handed down through the years.
When it is superseded by ACTUAL knowledge (Science), then it should be relegated to myth and historical curiosity and the science used to improve our collective lot. But if you think about it, religion is often (certainly not in every particular) right on many things.
What is justice, but the intolerance for evil or unfair? When it comes to the question of evolution vs creationism, the problem is that the question is being asked in our schools. A place where intolerance is intentionally very high. People seem to be more than a bit touchy about what their children are taught.
If you left ethics and values (your secular progressive ones) out of the education system, there would be no conflict. You just seek to brainwash the children to turn them away from their families, and fold them into the Nanny-state that knows all and teaches only YOUR values.
No the problem is creationism is ridiculous, but an expected response to the ridicule and obvious bias of the education system, which is completely overrun with lefty liberal wingnuts. Who use the education system as a weapon to try to inculcate their twisted non-value system into our children.
Had you left the science as just the pursuit of knowledge, and not tried to use it as a weapon against the faith and beliefs of the majority of the country's population, it probably would have never been attacked.
If you left ethics and values (your secular progressive ones) out of the education system, there would be no conflict. You just seek to brainwash the children to turn them away from their families, and fold them into the Nanny-state that knows all and teaches only YOUR values.
No the problem is creationism is ridiculous, but an expected response to the ridicule and obvious bias of the education system, which is completely overrun with lefty liberal wingnuts. Who use the education system as a weapon to try to inculcate their twisted non-value system into our children.
Had you left the science as just the pursuit of knowledge, and not tried to use it as a weapon against the faith and beliefs of the majority of the country's population, it probably would have never been attacked.
It is not enough that we have to be inundated with their holidays every year, give them tax breaks on their lands, and have our views marred with their symbolism. They wish to use our institutions of teaching as yet another source of indoctrination.
Ahem...YOUR institutions? 75% of this country is christian my friend YOU are the minority. You have the freedom to NOT practice whatever you like, just as we have the freedom to practice our religion.
The secular progressive concept of "seperation of church and state" mantra is not in the constitution, it written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Your atheistic progress is beginning to backfire, legislating nutty laws from an activist Supreme Court. The idea that government may not contain any reference or preference to any religion is just an effort to stamp out religion. Secular progressives are VERY happy to ensure ideas they LIKE get tolerated though, even if the values espoused are not shared by the majority.
Religions already have their churches, and we already put up with the bells. There is no reason to give any more.
We can only hope the bells drown out the secular progressive whining.
We can only hope the bells drown out the secular progressive whining.
And stop watching Bill O'Rielly, he's rotting your brain.
HAHAHAH the highest rated news and editorial show on TV, really kills you don't it? While YOUR favorites like MSNBC (absolutely most left nutty biased and also lowest rated) and the Clinton News Network continue to drop and languish.
You might want to look in more places than just the ones that tell you what you WANT to hear. You might accidently stumble across some actual truth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The Roman Catholic religion does not do so. Here are some illuminating snips about Catholicism and its views toward creation...The position of the Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years. Today, the official Church's position remains a focus of controversy and is fairly non-specific, stating only that faith and scientific findings regarding the evolution of man's material body are not in conflict, though man is regarded as a "special creation", and that the existence of God is required to explain the spiritual component of man's origins. This view falls into the spectrum of viewpoints that are grouped under the concept of theistic evolution.[1][2] |
Which is what I said, people in this group are rationalizing away their written testament as a literary metaphor rather than an actual testament. In the case of the Catholics, they are regarding the book of Genesis as a metaphorical fairy tale of good intention, but little if any fact. Not a good start for a testament to begin with a complete fabrication...
QUOTE
on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds."
First off, faith does not provide knowledge, if anything it tends to prevent it by dissuading investigation. The only thing faith provides protection from is fear. Far too many very faithful people of every religion have met untimely ends and committed great mistakes to say that faith is any sort of protection.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." |
First off, faith does not provide knowledge, if anything it tends to prevent it by dissuading investigation. The only thing faith provides protection from is fear. Far too many very faithful people of every religion have met untimely ends and committed great mistakes to say that faith is any sort of protection.
It is not enough that they be free to believe as they wish, or disbelieve as may be the case, but they insist on trying to make others conform to THEIR beliefs which is INTOLERANCE, but a flavor they find acceptable.
What is justice, but the intolerance for evil or unfair? When it comes to the question of evolution vs creationism, the problem is that the question is being asked in our schools. A place where intolerance is intentionally very high. People seem to be more than a bit touchy about what their children are taught.
It is not enough that we have to be inundated with their holidays every year, give them tax breaks on their lands, and have our views marred with their symbolism. They wish to use our institutions of teaching as yet another source of indoctrination.
Religions already have their churches, and we already put up with the bells. There is no reason to give any more.
And stop watching Bill O'Rielly, he's rotting your brain.
QUOTE
Which is what I said, people in this group are rationalizing away their written testament as a literary metaphor rather than an actual testament. In the case of the Catholics, they are regarding the book of Genesis as a metaphorical fairy tale of good intention, but little if any fact. Not a good start for a testament to begin with a complete fabrication...
Weak. So if it is not evidentially true to some scientific standard, it's not good enough for you. Fine, we do not want your kind in our little club hehe. Might want to look up FAITH. Just because YOU do not believe, does not mean that we cannot.
Religion is DIFFERENT than science, they are fundamentally different things with different applications.
Trying to say Science can disprove religion is like asking what color an apple tastes like.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Which is what I said, people in this group are rationalizing away their written testament as a literary metaphor rather than an actual testament. In the case of the Catholics, they are regarding the book of Genesis as a metaphorical fairy tale of good intention, but little if any fact. Not a good start for a testament to begin with a complete fabrication... |
Weak. So if it is not evidentially true to some scientific standard, it's not good enough for you. Fine, we do not want your kind in our little club hehe. Might want to look up FAITH. Just because YOU do not believe, does not mean that we cannot.
Religion is DIFFERENT than science, they are fundamentally different things with different applications.
Trying to say Science can disprove religion is like asking what color an apple tastes like.
First off, faith does not provide knowledge, if anything it tends to prevent it by dissuading investigation. The only thing faith provides protection from is fear. Far too many very faithful people of every religion have met untimely ends and committed great mistakes to say that faith is any sort of protection.
You are right about protection from fear. That is ABSOLUTELY the best function. It is like a man and a minefield. Science would want a map, showing the exact location of each mine, how they are detonated and safe areas all delineated. You could scientifically find a safe path, and even mark off clearly all the dangerous spots.
Life is a lot like a minefield and for most of that big old minefield there IS NO MAP. Religion is like footprints through the minefield. If you put your foot exactly where the last guy that made it through did, you can get through it safely, even if you do not know what a mine is, or where they all are.
Faith in and of itself of course does not provide knowledge. It is the tool used to apply the knowledge available from religion.
Dissuading learning is not a necessary defect in religion. It has been a defect in people who occupy ANY power structure and wish to stifle dissent.
You just do not understand what religion is FOR. It is not to deal with science and describing what we know about our universe. It is to describe how to deal with the UNKNOWN and the transcendental. Little things Science is no good for, like Love, Honor, Friendship, Loyalty, Truth. Footprints through the minefield brother. We do not know exactly what those things are, or how to create or keep them. I have a book that tells me where Jesus' footprints are. And I really want to go where he went.
You see Religion represents our best efforts, groping in the dark, trying to find what will make us happy, productive, and beneficial human beings. It is the end result of thousands of years of trial and error, handed down through the years.
When it is superseded by ACTUAL knowledge (Science), then it should be relegated to myth and historical curiosity and the science used to improve our collective lot. But if you think about it, religion is often (certainly not in every particular) right on many things.
QUOTE
What is justice, but the intolerance for evil or unfair? When it comes to the question of evolution vs creationism, the problem is that the question is being asked in our schools. A place where intolerance is intentionally very high. People seem to be more than a bit touchy about what their children are taught.
If you left ethics and values (your secular progressive ones) out of the education system, there would be no conflict. You just seek to brainwash the children to turn them away from their families, and fold them into the Nanny-state that knows all and teaches only YOUR values.
No the problem is creationism is ridiculous, but an expected response to the ridicule and obvious bias of the education system, which is completely overrun with lefty liberal wingnuts. Who use the education system as a weapon to try to inculcate their twisted non-value system into our children.
Had you left the science as just the pursuit of knowledge, and not tried to use it as a weapon against the faith and beliefs of the majority of the country's population, it probably would have never been attacked.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
What is justice, but the intolerance for evil or unfair? When it comes to the question of evolution vs creationism, the problem is that the question is being asked in our schools. A place where intolerance is intentionally very high. People seem to be more than a bit touchy about what their children are taught. |
If you left ethics and values (your secular progressive ones) out of the education system, there would be no conflict. You just seek to brainwash the children to turn them away from their families, and fold them into the Nanny-state that knows all and teaches only YOUR values.
No the problem is creationism is ridiculous, but an expected response to the ridicule and obvious bias of the education system, which is completely overrun with lefty liberal wingnuts. Who use the education system as a weapon to try to inculcate their twisted non-value system into our children.
Had you left the science as just the pursuit of knowledge, and not tried to use it as a weapon against the faith and beliefs of the majority of the country's population, it probably would have never been attacked.
It is not enough that we have to be inundated with their holidays every year, give them tax breaks on their lands, and have our views marred with their symbolism. They wish to use our institutions of teaching as yet another source of indoctrination.
Ahem...YOUR institutions? 75% of this country is christian my friend YOU are the minority. You have the freedom to NOT practice whatever you like, just as we have the freedom to practice our religion.
The secular progressive concept of "seperation of church and state" mantra is not in the constitution, it written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
Your atheistic progress is beginning to backfire, legislating nutty laws from an activist Supreme Court. The idea that government may not contain any reference or preference to any religion is just an effort to stamp out religion. Secular progressives are VERY happy to ensure ideas they LIKE get tolerated though, even if the values espoused are not shared by the majority.
QUOTE
Religions already have their churches, and we already put up with the bells. There is no reason to give any more.
We can only hope the bells drown out the secular progressive whining.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Religions already have their churches, and we already put up with the bells. There is no reason to give any more. |
We can only hope the bells drown out the secular progressive whining.
And stop watching Bill O'Rielly, he's rotting your brain.
HAHAHAH the highest rated news and editorial show on TV, really kills you don't it? While YOUR favorites like MSNBC (absolutely most left nutty biased and also lowest rated) and the Clinton News Network continue to drop and languish.
You might want to look in more places than just the ones that tell you what you WANT to hear. You might accidently stumble across some actual truth.
Secularisim is the concept broadly stated, despite what some very conservitive commentators say, not that religion does not sense, only that one has to prove something using the scientific method, or thier own trial and error. (what ever that something you want to prove is) Only that it's not needed to justify your, mine, or any ones existance. It also is the view of many anti-secularists the so called moral imperitives are some how ordered, or strongly suggested, by god or gods, etc. A little shock for some of you but in an organized society where you may have to interact with other humans at least once in a while, you should treat others with dignity and kindness. Not because god, santa claus, who ever will get pissed, but because it's the right thing to do. Shocking, huh? Some say how can you believe in evolution, or science for that matter when science changes? Please... Science, yes friends, has the ability to adapt, it has to or its not science, or life. New ideas are put to the test and must be argued intelligently and tested in an open manner. Concerning mentioning religion in public schools, the private schools are anouther issue, some may be very surprised, I think we have to bring it up in the context of teaching history (I do lecture in this area from time-to-time at the university level). Human history can not be taught in my view with out reference at some point to religion. As for new evidence of evolution? How about old proof as in antibiotic resistance?
Creationism? Well lets say thats anouther issue. Buy the way which of the creation myths do we teach, even as an elective? I can't you tell how many will say "prove this or that religous perspective wrong". I can't tell you how many times I and others have said you can't prove a negative in science, that SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE. To prove something true, you need to convince people. They need data and it has to stand up, consistantly. In the end it's not even the concept of creationisim that gets me as worked as those who abandon the scientific method insisting we should buy it not based on testable evidence, but because god says so. I'm sure god say's a lot. I am all ways willing to listen.
Creationism? Well lets say thats anouther issue. Buy the way which of the creation myths do we teach, even as an elective? I can't you tell how many will say "prove this or that religous perspective wrong". I can't tell you how many times I and others have said you can't prove a negative in science, that SOMETHING IS NOT TRUE. To prove something true, you need to convince people. They need data and it has to stand up, consistantly. In the end it's not even the concept of creationisim that gets me as worked as those who abandon the scientific method insisting we should buy it not based on testable evidence, but because god says so. I'm sure god say's a lot. I am all ways willing to listen.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Nov 28 2007, 11:54 PM)
Weak. So if it is not evidentially true to some scientific standard, it's not good enough for you. ...
Religion is DIFFERENT than science, they are fundamentally different things with different applications.
Deserving of different institutions of teaching. Especially at a time when most art and music classes are being cut from schools due to lack of funding.
And yes, when it tries to push itself into the arena of science, such as evolution, then I do hold it to a scientific standard.
Green - see synesthesia
Green - see synesthesia
You are right about protection from fear. That is ABSOLUTELY the best function.
So you agree religion is a crutch for the fearful.
Yeah, that's a cheap jab. However blind faith usually ends with a quick blow to the head in some manner.
Actually that would be the scientific testing of a hypothesis that there is a safe path. Using a human guinea pig to run the experiment. Faith would be walking through a minefield with a blindfold and expecting to live.
Actually that would be the scientific testing of a hypothesis that there is a safe path. Using a human guinea pig to run the experiment. Faith would be walking through a minefield with a blindfold and expecting to live.
Dissuading learning is not a necessary defect in religion. It has been a defect in people who occupy ANY power structure and wish to stifle dissent.
Thus is why it's considered a feature rather than a bug. A tool that any power structure will reach out for and abuse. And the reason why any interaction between government and religion should always be looked upon with the greatest of skepticism.
Actually I know exactly what religion is for. More importantly, I know what it is being used for.
Actually I know exactly what religion is for. More importantly, I know what it is being used for.
And I really want to go where he went.
He died, twice. I do hope your looking for his alleged earthly destinations instead. The others may be easier to reach, but by all evidence, it's a one way trip.
My secular progressive values? Unfortunately my values are not secular in basis. They simply benefit from a lack of organized religious influence.
Besides, there are already schools without a secular influence. They're called churches, mosques, etc.
My secular progressive values? Unfortunately my values are not secular in basis. They simply benefit from a lack of organized religious influence.
Besides, there are already schools without a secular influence. They're called churches, mosques, etc.
No the problem is creationism is ridiculous, but an expected response to the ridicule and obvious bias
...of reality?
And yes, creationism is ridiculous...and a basic facet of almost all religions.
I'm afraid you've put the cart before the horse. Religion has been to attacking science for nearly all of recorded history. Now they want to get pissy when the scientists finally get enough freedom to push back.
I'm afraid you've put the cart before the horse. Religion has been to attacking science for nearly all of recorded history. Now they want to get pissy when the scientists finally get enough freedom to push back.
You have the freedom to NOT practice whatever you like, just as we have the freedom to practice our religion.
Not since the inception of truancy laws. At which point, putting religion into schools becomes forced indoctrination.
I believe Jefferson already made the argument clear by quoting the first amendment himself.
I believe Jefferson already made the argument clear by quoting the first amendment himself.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies so
Religion is DIFFERENT than science, they are fundamentally different things with different applications.
Deserving of different institutions of teaching. Especially at a time when most art and music classes are being cut from schools due to lack of funding.
And yes, when it tries to push itself into the arena of science, such as evolution, then I do hold it to a scientific standard.
QUOTE
Trying to say Science can disprove religion is like asking what color an apple tastes like.
Green - see synesthesia
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Trying to say Science can disprove religion is like asking what color an apple tastes like. |
Green - see synesthesia
You are right about protection from fear. That is ABSOLUTELY the best function.
So you agree religion is a crutch for the fearful.
Yeah, that's a cheap jab. However blind faith usually ends with a quick blow to the head in some manner.
QUOTE
Religion is like footprints through the minefield. If you put your foot exactly where the last guy that made it through did
Actually that would be the scientific testing of a hypothesis that there is a safe path. Using a human guinea pig to run the experiment. Faith would be walking through a minefield with a blindfold and expecting to live.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Religion is like footprints through the minefield. If you put your foot exactly where the last guy that made it through did |
Actually that would be the scientific testing of a hypothesis that there is a safe path. Using a human guinea pig to run the experiment. Faith would be walking through a minefield with a blindfold and expecting to live.
Dissuading learning is not a necessary defect in religion. It has been a defect in people who occupy ANY power structure and wish to stifle dissent.
Thus is why it's considered a feature rather than a bug. A tool that any power structure will reach out for and abuse. And the reason why any interaction between government and religion should always be looked upon with the greatest of skepticism.
QUOTE
You just do not understand what religion is FOR.
Actually I know exactly what religion is for. More importantly, I know what it is being used for.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You just do not understand what religion is FOR. |
Actually I know exactly what religion is for. More importantly, I know what it is being used for.
And I really want to go where he went.
He died, twice. I do hope your looking for his alleged earthly destinations instead. The others may be easier to reach, but by all evidence, it's a one way trip.
QUOTE
If you left ethics and values (your secular progressive ones) out of the education system, there would be no conflict.
My secular progressive values? Unfortunately my values are not secular in basis. They simply benefit from a lack of organized religious influence.
Besides, there are already schools without a secular influence. They're called churches, mosques, etc.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you left ethics and values (your secular progressive ones) out of the education system, there would be no conflict. |
My secular progressive values? Unfortunately my values are not secular in basis. They simply benefit from a lack of organized religious influence.
Besides, there are already schools without a secular influence. They're called churches, mosques, etc.
No the problem is creationism is ridiculous, but an expected response to the ridicule and obvious bias
...of reality?
And yes, creationism is ridiculous...and a basic facet of almost all religions.
QUOTE
Had you left the science as just the pursuit of knowledge, and not tried to use it as a weapon against the faith and beliefs of the majority of the country's population, it probably would have never been attacked.
I'm afraid you've put the cart before the horse. Religion has been to attacking science for nearly all of recorded history. Now they want to get pissy when the scientists finally get enough freedom to push back.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Had you left the science as just the pursuit of knowledge, and not tried to use it as a weapon against the faith and beliefs of the majority of the country's population, it probably would have never been attacked. |
I'm afraid you've put the cart before the horse. Religion has been to attacking science for nearly all of recorded history. Now they want to get pissy when the scientists finally get enough freedom to push back.
You have the freedom to NOT practice whatever you like, just as we have the freedom to practice our religion.
Not since the inception of truancy laws. At which point, putting religion into schools becomes forced indoctrination.
QUOTE
The secular progressive concept of "seperation of church and state" mantra is not in the constitution, it written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
I believe Jefferson already made the argument clear by quoting the first amendment himself.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The secular progressive concept of "seperation of church and state" mantra is not in the constitution, it written by Thomas Jefferson in a January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. |
I believe Jefferson already made the argument clear by quoting the first amendment himself.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies so