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 solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
The ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," portion was added so that religion could not be banned or curtailed outside the realm of the government.
And what values would the majority be opposed to? Objectivity? Human Equality?
And what values would the majority be opposed to? Objectivity? Human Equality?
HAHAHAH the highest rated news and editorial show on TV, really kills you don't it?
Bush had the highest presidential approval ratings ever. Doesn't make him any less of an idiot.
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.
Right, and seperate "institutions" should be used for "global warming indoctrination" "alternate lifestyle (johnny has two mommies)" "why capitalism is bad" "recycling' "the evils of nuclear power" and all of the many left wing liberal ideas pushed constantly on our children and students of every level. These things are constantly harped upon, and are MORE IMPORTANT than Art and Music I guess. You notice that stuff was left in, we MUST make time to teach that crap.
Even though nutjob leftyness has pretty much taken over our education system (kind of like Apple computers did), they do not reflect the beliefs and ethics/morals of the VAST majority of the country (just like IBM compatible computers).
You and the nutjobs will not refrain from trying to brainwash your "nanny-state" values, but seem to have a problem with opposing values. Anti-religionism is not unbiased or neutral, it is being used as COMPETING value systems, and lefties are trying to SILENCE the opposition by denying them the same access. Ain't gonna work, the rebellion is underway.
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.
HAHAHA you just still refuse to see the obvious. We do not CARE if you accept it. You obviously made your own choices. You do not get to define the boundaries of what we can believe mister TOLERANCE.
Green - see synesthesia
So a neurological defect eh? May be why you have the opinions you do HAHAH
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.
HAHAHAH some argument against. If it helps you deal with fear it is bad then? Oh of course, you want people to be AFRAID so you can lead them like sheep, that must be why you resent it so much.
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.
Lord, they are not blind, yet they refuse to see.
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.
That is only valid if you assume that GOVERNMENT itself or the INSTITUTION OF LEARNING and Science are somehow immune from the same abuses. So by your argument Government should not be able to Govern, and all Science should be disallowed to influence it either. No organized group of individuals with any purpose is safe from abuse of power and corruption. That does not mean you get to single out the ones YOU do not like to deny participation. Your INTOLERANCE is showing again.
Actually I know exactly what religion is for. More importantly, I know what it is being used for.
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.
Cannot attack the central idea presented so resorting to cheap shots again? Sad really. I remind you again, what YOU Think about the value of our system of beliefs is unimportant to us. You have no system of beliefs, ethics or morals that stands on its own. You can only define your ethics and morals by saying WHAT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE in comparison to us. So, without rational thought or guidance, you just pick and choose what you prefer, what is merely convenient to you. Totally selfish, might want to look up the word Sociopath, they would agree with your Ethics and Morals. What is your Golden rule? Your source of example on these matters? Without religion, you do not have one.
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.
Crack a dictionary...
sec·u·lar –adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
–noun 7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.
Now explain how your system of Ethics or Morals was created and justified IN ABSENCE of religion. You just choose not to have one, and your ethics and morality system is purely SELF-INTEREST
...of reality?
And yes, creationism is ridiculous...and a basic facet of almost all religions.
HAHAH and here you are resorting to STEREOTYPING, classic INTOLERANCE eh? Why do you not just NAME the specific ones that do, oh wait you have no idea, you just ASSUME they all do.
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.
Oh so it's BAD when religion does it, but INTOLERANCE is acceptable as long as its YOUR viewpoint? HAHAHAH good argument....NOT
Not since the inception of truancy laws. At which point, putting religion into schools becomes forced indoctrination.
Uh...do not blame "free government education for all" Nanny state ideas on us, that lefty lib concept has just evolved into not just an entitlement, but now you have turned it into MANDATORY BRAINWASHING, your screw-up, not mine.
I believe Jefferson already made the argument clear by quoting the first amendment himself.
The ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," portion was added so that religion could not be banned or curtailed outside the realm of the government.
HAHAHAH it also is protected INSIDE the realm of government, otherwise how is it not "prohibited in free exercise". You see that was your big failing. When you put Science in COMPETITION with Religion, then you cannot discriminate in government for EITHER, so BOTH must be included, since with NEITHER it would be not only ridiculous but completely ineffective. Your prejudice and intolerance BACKFIRED.
And what values would the majority be opposed to? Objectivity? Human Equality?
HAHAH Human Equality, tolerance, fairness and most of the things you SAY you stand for are ethics and morals based on RELIGION not Science. Trouble is you forget that they apply to competing practices that you disagree with. Show me a study that defines what you believe on HUMAN EQUALITY, TOLERANCE and the like? Hell, just pick one even.
Bush had the highest presidential approval ratings ever. Doesn't make him any less of an idiot.
Or more of an idiot.
Greetings to all.
The topic is a complex one.
It is true that we can learn from all religions past and present particularly where they have caused the many problems attributed and where they have offered insights into Morals and Ethics etc.
Science may not be the best way to promote eg;Good behavior alone. Science to me is more like a Tool, Arguably Man kinds greatest ever Tool. We should use this Tool to uncover/resolve/explain etc, the many mysteries including Life/Evolution/Creation etc. Science can be used to aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals without all the Dogma.
Not true. Science does not "promote" or "aid" ethics and Morals. It is completely independent of ethics and morals when done properly.
from wiki;
"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"
It is all about observable, empirical and measurable. Which has NOTHING to do with ethics.
As stated earlier in this debate, Religion may have been used/miss used to dispense Fear.
HAHAH so if that disqualifies religion, what about Global Warming, Eugenics, any number of other so-called "science" efforts that were widely used and misused to promote fear and bend public will.
Surely if you believe 100% in your Religion why would you fear Scientific discovery?
Shouldn't all Religious groups be backing Science to truly see the wonder of Creation?
Is it possible that there is a long held fear that Science would once and for all prove that we are not the result of ID or similar?
Or even if we are the result of ID, that the Designer/s are not as, what or whom we have been lead to believe?
You mistake ID as a tenet of all religions, (or simplisticly wish to say it is so to simplify your argument). It is supported by only some and mostly "fundamentalist" religions. Certainly not mine, the Roman Catholic church.
Typically you display classic selectively applied intolerance. Your prejudice is showing.
Instead of "religious" what if what you substitute "Black" or "Gay"? Now you have a discrimination lawsuit.
We need to allow Science to uncover the truth.
Of course, science cannot reveal "truth" only facts. But I agree with your meaning, Science should be advanced and supported.
We need the Religious groups to put their fears aside and do what blind faith is all about, trust.
I would disagree about "blind" but...Religious may not sit idly by, while others try to use SCIENCE as a religion to attack them or supplant them.
We will need their wisdom to help us deal with the results.
of course I agree
If Science does prove that there is no biblical 'God' or Creator, we may need Global therapy : )
Of course it is NOT POSSIBLE to do that. So I wouldn't worry.
Collectively we need to create a model for the future of Mankind and Earth.
A greater co-operation is required.
Absolutely. In order for that to happen, all models of ethics and morality need be afforded the same freedom, rights and priviledges. Religious or Atheist. That is the basis of our constitution.
I personally do not care as much for the debate as I do for knowing the truth.
Kind
Regards.
We each search for our personal truth.
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 solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
The ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," portion was added so that religion could not be banned or curtailed outside the realm of the government.
QUOTE
Secular progressives are VERY happy to ensure ideas they LIKE get tolerated though, even if the values espoused are not shared by the majority.
And what values would the majority be opposed to? Objectivity? Human Equality?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Secular progressives are VERY happy to ensure ideas they LIKE get tolerated though, even if the values espoused are not shared by the majority. |
And what values would the majority be opposed to? Objectivity? Human Equality?
HAHAHAH the highest rated news and editorial show on TV, really kills you don't it?
Bush had the highest presidential approval ratings ever. Doesn't make him any less of an idiot.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
Right, and seperate "institutions" should be used for "global warming indoctrination" "alternate lifestyle (johnny has two mommies)" "why capitalism is bad" "recycling' "the evils of nuclear power" and all of the many left wing liberal ideas pushed constantly on our children and students of every level. These things are constantly harped upon, and are MORE IMPORTANT than Art and Music I guess. You notice that stuff was left in, we MUST make time to teach that crap.
Even though nutjob leftyness has pretty much taken over our education system (kind of like Apple computers did), they do not reflect the beliefs and ethics/morals of the VAST majority of the country (just like IBM compatible computers).
You and the nutjobs will not refrain from trying to brainwash your "nanny-state" values, but seem to have a problem with opposing values. Anti-religionism is not unbiased or neutral, it is being used as COMPETING value systems, and lefties are trying to SILENCE the opposition by denying them the same access. Ain't gonna work, the rebellion is underway.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
HAHAHA you just still refuse to see the obvious. We do not CARE if you accept it. You obviously made your own choices. You do not get to define the boundaries of what we can believe mister TOLERANCE.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
Green - see synesthesia
So a neurological defect eh? May be why you have the opinions you do HAHAH
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
HAHAHAH some argument against. If it helps you deal with fear it is bad then? Oh of course, you want people to be AFRAID so you can lead them like sheep, that must be why you resent it so much.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
Lord, they are not blind, yet they refuse to see.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
That is only valid if you assume that GOVERNMENT itself or the INSTITUTION OF LEARNING and Science are somehow immune from the same abuses. So by your argument Government should not be able to Govern, and all Science should be disallowed to influence it either. No organized group of individuals with any purpose is safe from abuse of power and corruption. That does not mean you get to single out the ones YOU do not like to deny participation. Your INTOLERANCE is showing again.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
Actually I know exactly what religion is for. More importantly, I know what it is being used for.
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.
Cannot attack the central idea presented so resorting to cheap shots again? Sad really. I remind you again, what YOU Think about the value of our system of beliefs is unimportant to us. You have no system of beliefs, ethics or morals that stands on its own. You can only define your ethics and morals by saying WHAT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE in comparison to us. So, without rational thought or guidance, you just pick and choose what you prefer, what is merely convenient to you. Totally selfish, might want to look up the word Sociopath, they would agree with your Ethics and Morals. What is your Golden rule? Your source of example on these matters? Without religion, you do not have one.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
Crack a dictionary...
sec·u·lar –adjective
1. of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2. not pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to sacred): secular music.
3. (of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.
4. (of members of the clergy) not belonging to a religious order; not bound by monastic vows (opposed to regular).
5. occurring or celebrated once in an age or century: the secular games of Rome.
6. going on from age to age; continuing through long ages.
–noun 7. a layperson.
8. one of the secular clergy.
Now explain how your system of Ethics or Morals was created and justified IN ABSENCE of religion. You just choose not to have one, and your ethics and morality system is purely SELF-INTEREST
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
...of reality?
And yes, creationism is ridiculous...and a basic facet of almost all religions.
HAHAH and here you are resorting to STEREOTYPING, classic INTOLERANCE eh? Why do you not just NAME the specific ones that do, oh wait you have no idea, you just ASSUME they all do.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
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.
Oh so it's BAD when religion does it, but INTOLERANCE is acceptable as long as its YOUR viewpoint? HAHAHAH good argument....NOT
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
Not since the inception of truancy laws. At which point, putting religion into schools becomes forced indoctrination.
Uh...do not blame "free government education for all" Nanny state ideas on us, that lefty lib concept has just evolved into not just an entitlement, but now you have turned it into MANDATORY BRAINWASHING, your screw-up, not mine.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
I believe Jefferson already made the argument clear by quoting the first amendment himself.
The ", or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," portion was added so that religion could not be banned or curtailed outside the realm of the government.
HAHAHAH it also is protected INSIDE the realm of government, otherwise how is it not "prohibited in free exercise". You see that was your big failing. When you put Science in COMPETITION with Religion, then you cannot discriminate in government for EITHER, so BOTH must be included, since with NEITHER it would be not only ridiculous but completely ineffective. Your prejudice and intolerance BACKFIRED.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
And what values would the majority be opposed to? Objectivity? Human Equality?
HAHAH Human Equality, tolerance, fairness and most of the things you SAY you stand for are ethics and morals based on RELIGION not Science. Trouble is you forget that they apply to competing practices that you disagree with. Show me a study that defines what you believe on HUMAN EQUALITY, TOLERANCE and the like? Hell, just pick one even.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 10:58 AM)
Bush had the highest presidential approval ratings ever. Doesn't make him any less of an idiot.
Or more of an idiot.
Greetings to all.
The topic is a complex one.
It is true that we can learn from all religions past and present particularly where they have caused the many problems attributed and where they have offered insights into Morals and Ethics etc.
Science may not be the best way to promote eg;Good behavior alone. Science to me is more like a Tool, Arguably Man kinds greatest ever Tool. We should use this Tool to uncover/resolve/explain etc, the many mysteries including Life/Evolution/Creation etc. Science can be used to aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals without all the Dogma.
As stated earlier in this debate, Religion may have been used/miss used to dispense Fear.
Surely if you believe 100% in your Religion why would you fear Scientific discovery?
Shouldn't all Religious groups be backing Science to truly see the wonder of Creation?
Is it possible that there is a long held fear that Science would once and for all prove that we are not the result of ID or similar?
Or even if we are the result of ID, that the Designer/s are not as, what or whom we have been lead to believe?
We need to allow Science to uncover the truth.
We need the Religious groups to put their fears aside and do what blind faith is all about, trust.
We will need their wisdom to help us deal with the results.
If Science does prove that there is no biblical 'God' or Creator, we may need Global therapy : )
Collectively we need to create a model for the future of Mankind and Earth.
A greater co-operation is required.
I personally do not care as much for the debate as I do for knowing the truth.
Kind
Regards.
The topic is a complex one.
It is true that we can learn from all religions past and present particularly where they have caused the many problems attributed and where they have offered insights into Morals and Ethics etc.
Science may not be the best way to promote eg;Good behavior alone. Science to me is more like a Tool, Arguably Man kinds greatest ever Tool. We should use this Tool to uncover/resolve/explain etc, the many mysteries including Life/Evolution/Creation etc. Science can be used to aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals without all the Dogma.
As stated earlier in this debate, Religion may have been used/miss used to dispense Fear.
Surely if you believe 100% in your Religion why would you fear Scientific discovery?
Shouldn't all Religious groups be backing Science to truly see the wonder of Creation?
Is it possible that there is a long held fear that Science would once and for all prove that we are not the result of ID or similar?
Or even if we are the result of ID, that the Designer/s are not as, what or whom we have been lead to believe?
We need to allow Science to uncover the truth.
We need the Religious groups to put their fears aside and do what blind faith is all about, trust.
We will need their wisdom to help us deal with the results.
If Science does prove that there is no biblical 'God' or Creator, we may need Global therapy : )
Collectively we need to create a model for the future of Mankind and Earth.
A greater co-operation is required.
I personally do not care as much for the debate as I do for knowing the truth.
Kind
Regards.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
Greetings to all.
The topic is a complex one.
It is true that we can learn from all religions past and present particularly where they have caused the many problems attributed and where they have offered insights into Morals and Ethics etc.
Science may not be the best way to promote eg;Good behavior alone. Science to me is more like a Tool, Arguably Man kinds greatest ever Tool. We should use this Tool to uncover/resolve/explain etc, the many mysteries including Life/Evolution/Creation etc. Science can be used to aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals without all the Dogma.
Not true. Science does not "promote" or "aid" ethics and Morals. It is completely independent of ethics and morals when done properly.
from wiki;
"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"
It is all about observable, empirical and measurable. Which has NOTHING to do with ethics.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
As stated earlier in this debate, Religion may have been used/miss used to dispense Fear.
HAHAH so if that disqualifies religion, what about Global Warming, Eugenics, any number of other so-called "science" efforts that were widely used and misused to promote fear and bend public will.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
Surely if you believe 100% in your Religion why would you fear Scientific discovery?
Shouldn't all Religious groups be backing Science to truly see the wonder of Creation?
Is it possible that there is a long held fear that Science would once and for all prove that we are not the result of ID or similar?
Or even if we are the result of ID, that the Designer/s are not as, what or whom we have been lead to believe?
You mistake ID as a tenet of all religions, (or simplisticly wish to say it is so to simplify your argument). It is supported by only some and mostly "fundamentalist" religions. Certainly not mine, the Roman Catholic church.
Typically you display classic selectively applied intolerance. Your prejudice is showing.
Instead of "religious" what if what you substitute "Black" or "Gay"? Now you have a discrimination lawsuit.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
We need to allow Science to uncover the truth.
Of course, science cannot reveal "truth" only facts. But I agree with your meaning, Science should be advanced and supported.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
We need the Religious groups to put their fears aside and do what blind faith is all about, trust.
I would disagree about "blind" but...Religious may not sit idly by, while others try to use SCIENCE as a religion to attack them or supplant them.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
We will need their wisdom to help us deal with the results.
of course I agree
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
If Science does prove that there is no biblical 'God' or Creator, we may need Global therapy : )
Of course it is NOT POSSIBLE to do that. So I wouldn't worry.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
Collectively we need to create a model for the future of Mankind and Earth.
A greater co-operation is required.
Absolutely. In order for that to happen, all models of ethics and morality need be afforded the same freedom, rights and priviledges. Religious or Atheist. That is the basis of our constitution.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Nov 29 2007, 07:18 PM)
I personally do not care as much for the debate as I do for knowing the truth.
Kind
Regards.
We each search for our personal truth.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Nov 29 2007, 04:37 PM)
Right, and seperate "institutions" should be used for "global warming indoctrination" "alternate lifestyle (johnny has two mommies)" "why capitalism is bad" "recycling' "the evils of nuclear power" and all of the many left wing liberal ideas pushed constantly on our children and students of every level.
Uh...do not blame "free government education for all" Nanny state ideas on us, that lefty lib concept has just evolved into not just an entitlement, but now you have turned it into MANDATORY BRAINWASHING, your screw-up, not mine.
Actually none of that is taught as part of the curriculum in our schools. The closest would be the impacts of pollution. Sex education for the 'alternate lifestyles' type information is optional and only with parental consent. Capitalism is still being taught as an underpinning foundation of the United States.
I wasn't blaming anyone, the truancy laws have been shown to lower crime rates and overall improve standard of living, as well as helping to prevent violations of the child labor laws.
I wasn't blaming anyone, the truancy laws have been shown to lower crime rates and overall improve standard of living, as well as helping to prevent violations of the child labor laws.
COMPETING value systems
Again with this competing value systems. Why is it every time someone says "Why can't we all just get along?" they nail him to the nearest cross post? Where exactly is this conflict?
Global warming? You would prefer we pollute the world until it's uninhabitable?
LGBT's? Would you prefer we just stoned them to death in the streets?
And the only problems anyone has with capitalism are it's excesses, would you prefer we bring back child and slave labor? I'd say loan sharking too, but the banks have kept that one legal via loophole. Damn conservative activist judges...
No, but I do get to define the boundaries around my beliefs and my children's beliefs. Forcing your beliefs onto my children does present me with a very immediate and personal problem.
No, but I do get to define the boundaries around my beliefs and my children's beliefs. Forcing your beliefs onto my children does present me with a very immediate and personal problem.
HAHAHAH some argument against. If it helps you deal with fear it is bad then?
Fantasy is generally considered a poor method to deal with fear. Personally I'd prefer people who are able to face fear on their own. Cowardice is rather repugnant.
If you get an answer, seek psychological help.
If you get an answer, seek psychological help.
That is only valid if you assume that GOVERNMENT itself or the INSTITUTION OF LEARNING and Science are somehow immune from the same abuses. So by your argument Government should not be able to Govern, and all Science should be disallowed to influence it either. No organized group of individuals with any purpose is safe from abuse of power and corruption. That does not mean you get to single out the ones YOU do not like to deny participation. Your INTOLERANCE is showing again.
Actually I expect government and it's institutions to be abused. Which is why it should be strongly separated from groups who operate based on faith rather than fact. Groups operating on faith, don't question their leaders nearly enough or with enough scrutiny. Faith leaders are given the expectation that they are working for the good of the group. Government leaders should never be given the same leeway.
Actually I do have a system of beliefs, they're simply not germane to the discussion. And ethics and morals are easily definable by their comparison of greater good for the greatest number of people in a given time scale. No faith, divine being or intervention needed. Altruism does have evolutionary benefits regardless of religion.
Actually I do have a system of beliefs, they're simply not germane to the discussion. And ethics and morals are easily definable by their comparison of greater good for the greatest number of people in a given time scale. No faith, divine being or intervention needed. Altruism does have evolutionary benefits regardless of religion.
HAHAH and here you are resorting to STEREOTYPING, classic INTOLERANCE eh? Why do you not just NAME the specific ones that do, oh wait you have no idea, you just ASSUME they all do.
Tell ya what here's a List that even includes coloring pages for ya. Add on top of that, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's and Bhuddists. That pretty much covers 90% of the population of the planet.
Really? I've been advocating the bible be changed to state that it would be physically impossible for a wooden boat to carry two of every animal and enough food for a month? Did I ask that the bible have disclaimers stating that miracles have neither been observed or documented by any scientific source? Have I said churches should have warning signs out front stating that there is no empirical evidence to support their supernatural beliefs?
Is it really so intolerant to tell others not to push their beliefs on me or my children? And would you feel the same if it were Muslims trying to push the Qu'ran into our schools?
Really? I've been advocating the bible be changed to state that it would be physically impossible for a wooden boat to carry two of every animal and enough food for a month? Did I ask that the bible have disclaimers stating that miracles have neither been observed or documented by any scientific source? Have I said churches should have warning signs out front stating that there is no empirical evidence to support their supernatural beliefs?
Is it really so intolerant to tell others not to push their beliefs on me or my children? And would you feel the same if it were Muslims trying to push the Qu'ran into our schools?
HAHAHAH it also is protected INSIDE the realm of government, otherwise how is it not "prohibited in free exercise".
Protected, but not institutionalized into it. There is a very distinct difference. Expecting an atheist government would have been and still is ludicrous. The 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is there to prevent a national religion. Members of the government are free to practice their religion, just not force it on the population. It's the same reason Article VI of the constitution includes "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The founders knew mixing religion and government made for some seriously bad tea.
Uh...do not blame "free government education for all" Nanny state ideas on us, that lefty lib concept has just evolved into not just an entitlement, but now you have turned it into MANDATORY BRAINWASHING, your screw-up, not mine.
Actually none of that is taught as part of the curriculum in our schools. The closest would be the impacts of pollution. Sex education for the 'alternate lifestyles' type information is optional and only with parental consent. Capitalism is still being taught as an underpinning foundation of the United States.
QUOTE
Uh...do not blame "free government education for all" Nanny state ideas on us,
I wasn't blaming anyone, the truancy laws have been shown to lower crime rates and overall improve standard of living, as well as helping to prevent violations of the child labor laws.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Uh...do not blame "free government education for all" Nanny state ideas on us, |
I wasn't blaming anyone, the truancy laws have been shown to lower crime rates and overall improve standard of living, as well as helping to prevent violations of the child labor laws.
COMPETING value systems
Again with this competing value systems. Why is it every time someone says "Why can't we all just get along?" they nail him to the nearest cross post? Where exactly is this conflict?
Global warming? You would prefer we pollute the world until it's uninhabitable?
LGBT's? Would you prefer we just stoned them to death in the streets?
And the only problems anyone has with capitalism are it's excesses, would you prefer we bring back child and slave labor? I'd say loan sharking too, but the banks have kept that one legal via loophole. Damn conservative activist judges...
QUOTE
We do not CARE if you accept it. You obviously made your own choices. You do not get to define the boundaries of what we can believe mister TOLERANCE.
No, but I do get to define the boundaries around my beliefs and my children's beliefs. Forcing your beliefs onto my children does present me with a very immediate and personal problem.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We do not CARE if you accept it. You obviously made your own choices. You do not get to define the boundaries of what we can believe mister TOLERANCE. |
No, but I do get to define the boundaries around my beliefs and my children's beliefs. Forcing your beliefs onto my children does present me with a very immediate and personal problem.
HAHAHAH some argument against. If it helps you deal with fear it is bad then?
Fantasy is generally considered a poor method to deal with fear. Personally I'd prefer people who are able to face fear on their own. Cowardice is rather repugnant.
QUOTE
Lord, they are not blind, yet they refuse to see.
If you get an answer, seek psychological help.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lord, they are not blind, yet they refuse to see. |
If you get an answer, seek psychological help.
That is only valid if you assume that GOVERNMENT itself or the INSTITUTION OF LEARNING and Science are somehow immune from the same abuses. So by your argument Government should not be able to Govern, and all Science should be disallowed to influence it either. No organized group of individuals with any purpose is safe from abuse of power and corruption. That does not mean you get to single out the ones YOU do not like to deny participation. Your INTOLERANCE is showing again.
Actually I expect government and it's institutions to be abused. Which is why it should be strongly separated from groups who operate based on faith rather than fact. Groups operating on faith, don't question their leaders nearly enough or with enough scrutiny. Faith leaders are given the expectation that they are working for the good of the group. Government leaders should never be given the same leeway.
QUOTE
You have no system of beliefs, ethics or morals that stands on its own. You can only define your ethics and morals by saying WHAT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE in comparison to us.
Actually I do have a system of beliefs, they're simply not germane to the discussion. And ethics and morals are easily definable by their comparison of greater good for the greatest number of people in a given time scale. No faith, divine being or intervention needed. Altruism does have evolutionary benefits regardless of religion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have no system of beliefs, ethics or morals that stands on its own. You can only define your ethics and morals by saying WHAT YOU REFUSE TO BELIEVE in comparison to us. |
Actually I do have a system of beliefs, they're simply not germane to the discussion. And ethics and morals are easily definable by their comparison of greater good for the greatest number of people in a given time scale. No faith, divine being or intervention needed. Altruism does have evolutionary benefits regardless of religion.
HAHAH and here you are resorting to STEREOTYPING, classic INTOLERANCE eh? Why do you not just NAME the specific ones that do, oh wait you have no idea, you just ASSUME they all do.
Tell ya what here's a List that even includes coloring pages for ya. Add on top of that, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's and Bhuddists. That pretty much covers 90% of the population of the planet.
QUOTE
Oh so it's BAD when religion does it, but INTOLERANCE is acceptable as long as its YOUR viewpoint?
Really? I've been advocating the bible be changed to state that it would be physically impossible for a wooden boat to carry two of every animal and enough food for a month? Did I ask that the bible have disclaimers stating that miracles have neither been observed or documented by any scientific source? Have I said churches should have warning signs out front stating that there is no empirical evidence to support their supernatural beliefs?
Is it really so intolerant to tell others not to push their beliefs on me or my children? And would you feel the same if it were Muslims trying to push the Qu'ran into our schools?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh so it's BAD when religion does it, but INTOLERANCE is acceptable as long as its YOUR viewpoint? |
Really? I've been advocating the bible be changed to state that it would be physically impossible for a wooden boat to carry two of every animal and enough food for a month? Did I ask that the bible have disclaimers stating that miracles have neither been observed or documented by any scientific source? Have I said churches should have warning signs out front stating that there is no empirical evidence to support their supernatural beliefs?
Is it really so intolerant to tell others not to push their beliefs on me or my children? And would you feel the same if it were Muslims trying to push the Qu'ran into our schools?
HAHAHAH it also is protected INSIDE the realm of government, otherwise how is it not "prohibited in free exercise".
Protected, but not institutionalized into it. There is a very distinct difference. Expecting an atheist government would have been and still is ludicrous. The 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is there to prevent a national religion. Members of the government are free to practice their religion, just not force it on the population. It's the same reason Article VI of the constitution includes "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The founders knew mixing religion and government made for some seriously bad tea.
Hi Deadbeat,
Thanks for the response. However to clarify:
I have clearly written that Science 'can' aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals.
An example of this occured recently in the controversial field of Stem Cell research where Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out how to turn ordinary human-skin cells into something like pluripotent stem cells.
Now I know there are still issues here as other Scientists still believe in using Embryonic
cells but hopefully the positive coverage may help Scientists realise that they have a responsibilty to pursue projects that meet the ethical demands of the whole. This cannot always be met or agreed but the challenge is there.
I have clearly written that Science 'can' aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals.
An example of this occured recently in the controversial field of Stem Cell research where Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out how to turn ordinary human-skin cells into something like pluripotent stem cells.
Now I know there are still issues here as other Scientists still believe in using Embryonic
cells but hopefully the positive coverage may help Scientists realise that they have a responsibilty to pursue projects that meet the ethical demands of the whole. This cannot always be met or agreed but the challenge is there.
from wiki;
"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"
It is all about observable, empirical and measurable. Which has NOTHING to do with ethics.
The defintion refers to the Scientific method not Science as a whole ie; the Scientists themselves etc.
The Internet and TV are all extentions of Science and can be used to promote anything you like within reason including faith.
Science is a Tool and can be used for many things. This was the basic premise of what I wrote. I did not mention anything about 'Disqualifying Religion' If anything I was suggesting that Science surely would only validate Religion if that is what is discovered.
And that those with faith should have confidence that Science would find evidence to prove their faith to be true.
Science is a Tool and can be used for many things. This was the basic premise of what I wrote. I did not mention anything about 'Disqualifying Religion' If anything I was suggesting that Science surely would only validate Religion if that is what is discovered.
And that those with faith should have confidence that Science would find evidence to prove their faith to be true.
You mistake ID as a tenet of all religions, (or simplisticly wish to say it is so to simplify your argument). It is supported by only some and mostly "fundamentalist" religions. Certainly not mine, the Roman Catholic church.
I did not mistake ID as a tenet of all religion, it was an example.
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly.
If you believe that a greater co-operation between Religion and Science is somehow discrimination then I am sorry, however you may have overlooked the fact that the quote you were refering to were the following 4 questions:
If you believe that a greater co-operation between Religion and Science is somehow discrimination then I am sorry, however you may have overlooked the fact that the quote you were refering to were the following 4 questions:
Surely if you believe 100% in your Religion why would you fear Scientific discovery?
Shouldn't all Religious groups be backing Science to truly see the wonder of Creation?
Is it possible that there is a long held fear that Science would once and for all prove that we are not the result of ID or similar?
Or even if we are the result of ID, that the Designer/s are not as, what or whom we have been lead to believe?
Please forgive my ignorance and explain why they are discriminatory?
Many thanks
well it didn't do much good in 1930's germany.
Actually none of that is taught as part of the curriculum in our schools. The closest would be the impacts of pollution. Sex education for the 'alternate lifestyles' type information is optional and only with parental consent.
I will address this more thoroughly in a little bit
Capitalism is still being taught as an underpinning foundation of the United States.
I wasn't blaming anyone, the truancy laws have been shown to lower crime rates and overall improve standard of living, as well as helping to prevent violations of the child labor laws.
This is a red herring topic, irrelevant
Again with this competing value systems. Why is it every time someone says "Why can't we all just get along?" they nail him to the nearest cross post? Where exactly is this conflict?
Your arrogance and sense of superiority blind you to your prejudice and intolerance. You are not "getting along with us" you attack us and do everything to silence us and indoctrinate even our children to your views.
"Hard science" is merely a search for pure knowledge. The "Soft sciences" are an attempt to make an Atheistic religion, a substitute, and scientific method cannot be applied.
You choose not to see the conflict. Your "non-mandatory sex education" for example. You think that is fair then, yes?
The correct way to do it is much different. TOLERANCE which is not displayed in your method. TOLERANCE for religion.
let me explain by comparing to a more obvious example you are familiar with...
Lets take the example of racism against Black people. To support and work for understanding and acceptance, and defeat racism, we promote learning about the cultural differences and celebrate them. We do this with "Black History month" and by using in our curriculum learning that illustrates and explains Black people and their culture, as well as our own. We celebrate the MANY different cultures and ethnicities of our melting pot.
But what if we decided that "Latino" culture was not proper to be included in any curriculum? That it could not be discussed or celebrated? That it could not even be mentioned for fear of offending a black or white? Would that be right?
Hell no it would not. What if we not only did that, but our history classes focused only on the evil of Pancho Villa, and all of the terrible corruption and evil in the Mexican government, presenting only a SINGLE view and fomenting and indoctrinating derision and hatred of Latinos. Of course, if you did not agree with this philosophy, you could have your children go to study hall, while every one else was indoctinated in this crap.
I am sure you can see what is wrong with that. Now substitute RELIGION for Latino, and use Atheism, Agnosticism for white and black. That is what you are telling us is "fair" in your sex education class. Eliminating any mention of religion in government and education is exactly in agreement with Atheism and Agnosticism, and in definite attack on religion. You take us out of the discussion.
Global warming? You would prefer we pollute the world until it's uninhabitable?
not going to discuss the Man-Made global warming idiocy here, it is THOROUGHL:Y covered in multiple other threads.
LGBT's? Would you prefer we just stoned them to death in the streets?
Oh yes, that is your argument. All or nothing. Our way or the highway. Love and embrace them, or have them killed. How about TOLERANCE. We may disagree (although it would be interesting to hear how being a BISEXUAL or TRANSVESTITE is genetic and not a choice. Did Ann Heche have Genetic modification when she switched teams? Oh, no she just "changed her mind".)
The CORRECT answer is to present BOTH views, those held by religion, and those held by LGBT community as well, and promote TOLERANCE instead of conflict. You are just afraid to respect views that are in direct opposition to yours.
And the only problems anyone has with capitalism are it's excesses, would you prefer we bring back child and slave labor? I'd say loan sharking too, but the banks have kept that one legal via loophole. Damn conservative activist judges...
Actually the banking problems were caused by DEREGULATION of the banking industry, an obviously BAD republican idea.
No, but I do get to define the boundaries around my beliefs and my children's beliefs. Forcing your beliefs onto my children does present me with a very immediate and personal problem.
Really? Then why does YOUR forcing YOUR beliefs on MY children not seem to bother you?
Fantasy is generally considered a poor method to deal with fear. Personally I'd prefer people who are able to face fear on their own. Cowardice is rather repugnant.
Really? You have no idea how religion helps with fear and uncertainty. But go ahead and tell me how you are helped to deal with them? I would be glad to hear your ALTERNATIVE.
If you get an answer, seek psychological help.
Actually I expect government and it's institutions to be abused. Which is why it should be strongly separated from groups who operate based on faith rather than fact. Groups operating on faith, don't question their leaders nearly enough or with enough scrutiny. Faith leaders are given the expectation that they are working for the good of the group. Government leaders should never be given the same leeway.
Okay, explain what FACTS provide a solid underpinning of Ethics and Morals for government, and deal with all of those things like Love, Honor, Duty and the like. And it must be subject to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as previously mentioned.
THERE ARE NONE, because they are different concepts with different application. You cannot replace religion with science because they are not the same, they operate differently and on different things. When So called SCIENCE intrudes into the world of ethics and morals, it is just a thinly disguised attempt at a replacemnt or new religion.
Actually I do have a system of beliefs, they're simply not germane to the discussion.
Oh HELL NO, they are EXACTLY GERMANE brother man. You dishonor and try to discredit my religiously derived ethics and morals, but will not explain what you propose to replace them with?
And ethics and morals are easily definable by their comparison of greater good for the greatest number of people in a given time scale.
So then EUGENICS was a good idea in your opinion? Google or Wiki that.
No faith, divine being or intervention needed. Altruism does have evolutionary benefits regardless of religion.
So a church Martyr is altruistic. A suicide bomber is Altruistic. Both of these are equivalent?
Tell ya what here's a List that even includes coloring pages for ya. Add on top of that, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's and Bhuddists. That pretty much covers 90% of the population of the planet.
IDIOT. That says MYTH right on it. That does not mean we believe they are LITERALLY TRUE IN FACT. Irrelevant, and as usual your understanding and defense is in question.
Really? I've been advocating the bible be changed to state that it would be physically impossible for a wooden boat to carry two of every animal and enough food for a month? Did I ask that the bible have disclaimers stating that miracles have neither been observed or documented by any scientific source? Have I said churches should have warning signs out front stating that there is no empirical evidence to support their supernatural beliefs?
Religion does not require the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOUR ETHICS AND MORALS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Why should ours be?
Is it really so intolerant to tell others not to push their beliefs on me or my children? And would you feel the same if it were Muslims trying to push the Qu'ran into our schools?
Yes it is the same. You push your viewpoint without allowing the competing viewpoints to be voiced or even mentioned. Your method is no different.
Protected, but not institutionalized into it. There is a very distinct difference.
Really? Are you telling me then that ATHEISM is not institutionalized? That is exactly what you are supporting by silencing religion. But that intolerance still does not bother you.
Expecting an atheist government would have been and still is ludicrous.
Thanks for the response. However to clarify:
QUOTE
Not true. Science does not "promote" or "aid" ethics and Morals. It is completely independent of ethics and morals when done properly.
I have clearly written that Science 'can' aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals.
An example of this occured recently in the controversial field of Stem Cell research where Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out how to turn ordinary human-skin cells into something like pluripotent stem cells.
Now I know there are still issues here as other Scientists still believe in using Embryonic
cells but hopefully the positive coverage may help Scientists realise that they have a responsibilty to pursue projects that meet the ethical demands of the whole. This cannot always be met or agreed but the challenge is there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not true. Science does not "promote" or "aid" ethics and Morals. It is completely independent of ethics and morals when done properly. |
I have clearly written that Science 'can' aid the promotion of Ethics and Morals.
An example of this occured recently in the controversial field of Stem Cell research where Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out how to turn ordinary human-skin cells into something like pluripotent stem cells.
Now I know there are still issues here as other Scientists still believe in using Embryonic
cells but hopefully the positive coverage may help Scientists realise that they have a responsibilty to pursue projects that meet the ethical demands of the whole. This cannot always be met or agreed but the challenge is there.
from wiki;
"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]"
It is all about observable, empirical and measurable. Which has NOTHING to do with ethics.
The defintion refers to the Scientific method not Science as a whole ie; the Scientists themselves etc.
The Internet and TV are all extentions of Science and can be used to promote anything you like within reason including faith.
QUOTE
HAHAH so if that disqualifies religion, what about Global Warming, Eugenics, any number of other so-called "science" efforts that were widely used and misused to promote fear and bend public will.
Science is a Tool and can be used for many things. This was the basic premise of what I wrote. I did not mention anything about 'Disqualifying Religion' If anything I was suggesting that Science surely would only validate Religion if that is what is discovered.
And that those with faith should have confidence that Science would find evidence to prove their faith to be true.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| HAHAH so if that disqualifies religion, what about Global Warming, Eugenics, any number of other so-called "science" efforts that were widely used and misused to promote fear and bend public will. |
Science is a Tool and can be used for many things. This was the basic premise of what I wrote. I did not mention anything about 'Disqualifying Religion' If anything I was suggesting that Science surely would only validate Religion if that is what is discovered.
And that those with faith should have confidence that Science would find evidence to prove their faith to be true.
You mistake ID as a tenet of all religions, (or simplisticly wish to say it is so to simplify your argument). It is supported by only some and mostly "fundamentalist" religions. Certainly not mine, the Roman Catholic church.
I did not mistake ID as a tenet of all religion, it was an example.
Perhaps I should have written that more clearly.
QUOTE
Typically you display classic selectively applied intolerance. Your prejudice is showing.
Instead of "religious" what if what you substitute "Black" or "Gay"? Now you have a discrimination lawsuit.
Instead of "religious" what if what you substitute "Black" or "Gay"? Now you have a discrimination lawsuit.
If you believe that a greater co-operation between Religion and Science is somehow discrimination then I am sorry, however you may have overlooked the fact that the quote you were refering to were the following 4 questions:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Typically you display classic selectively applied intolerance. Your prejudice is showing. Instead of "religious" what if what you substitute "Black" or "Gay"? Now you have a discrimination lawsuit. |
If you believe that a greater co-operation between Religion and Science is somehow discrimination then I am sorry, however you may have overlooked the fact that the quote you were refering to were the following 4 questions:
Surely if you believe 100% in your Religion why would you fear Scientific discovery?
Shouldn't all Religious groups be backing Science to truly see the wonder of Creation?
Is it possible that there is a long held fear that Science would once and for all prove that we are not the result of ID or similar?
Or even if we are the result of ID, that the Designer/s are not as, what or whom we have been lead to believe?
Please forgive my ignorance and explain why they are discriminatory?
Many thanks
QUOTE
HAHAHAH the highest rated news and editorial show on TV, really kills you don't it?
well it didn't do much good in 1930's germany.
Everyone, Please watch this most appropriate video. The best I've seen in a long time! (())
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE
))http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE
QUOTE (photojack+Nov 30 2007, 05:50 PM)
Everyone, Please watch this most appropriate video. The best I've seen in a long time! (())
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE
He says religion is " a filthy lie and a threat to civilization "
Oh yes, this guy would definitely inform the debate.
))http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cXWElb-GE
He says religion is " a filthy lie and a threat to civilization "
Oh yes, this guy would definitely inform the debate.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Actually none of that is taught as part of the curriculum in our schools. The closest would be the impacts of pollution. Sex education for the 'alternate lifestyles' type information is optional and only with parental consent.
I will address this more thoroughly in a little bit
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Capitalism is still being taught as an underpinning foundation of the United States.
I wasn't blaming anyone, the truancy laws have been shown to lower crime rates and overall improve standard of living, as well as helping to prevent violations of the child labor laws.
This is a red herring topic, irrelevant
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Again with this competing value systems. Why is it every time someone says "Why can't we all just get along?" they nail him to the nearest cross post? Where exactly is this conflict?
Your arrogance and sense of superiority blind you to your prejudice and intolerance. You are not "getting along with us" you attack us and do everything to silence us and indoctrinate even our children to your views.
"Hard science" is merely a search for pure knowledge. The "Soft sciences" are an attempt to make an Atheistic religion, a substitute, and scientific method cannot be applied.
You choose not to see the conflict. Your "non-mandatory sex education" for example. You think that is fair then, yes?
The correct way to do it is much different. TOLERANCE which is not displayed in your method. TOLERANCE for religion.
let me explain by comparing to a more obvious example you are familiar with...
Lets take the example of racism against Black people. To support and work for understanding and acceptance, and defeat racism, we promote learning about the cultural differences and celebrate them. We do this with "Black History month" and by using in our curriculum learning that illustrates and explains Black people and their culture, as well as our own. We celebrate the MANY different cultures and ethnicities of our melting pot.
But what if we decided that "Latino" culture was not proper to be included in any curriculum? That it could not be discussed or celebrated? That it could not even be mentioned for fear of offending a black or white? Would that be right?
Hell no it would not. What if we not only did that, but our history classes focused only on the evil of Pancho Villa, and all of the terrible corruption and evil in the Mexican government, presenting only a SINGLE view and fomenting and indoctrinating derision and hatred of Latinos. Of course, if you did not agree with this philosophy, you could have your children go to study hall, while every one else was indoctinated in this crap.
I am sure you can see what is wrong with that. Now substitute RELIGION for Latino, and use Atheism, Agnosticism for white and black. That is what you are telling us is "fair" in your sex education class. Eliminating any mention of religion in government and education is exactly in agreement with Atheism and Agnosticism, and in definite attack on religion. You take us out of the discussion.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Global warming? You would prefer we pollute the world until it's uninhabitable?
not going to discuss the Man-Made global warming idiocy here, it is THOROUGHL:Y covered in multiple other threads.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
LGBT's? Would you prefer we just stoned them to death in the streets?
Oh yes, that is your argument. All or nothing. Our way or the highway. Love and embrace them, or have them killed. How about TOLERANCE. We may disagree (although it would be interesting to hear how being a BISEXUAL or TRANSVESTITE is genetic and not a choice. Did Ann Heche have Genetic modification when she switched teams? Oh, no she just "changed her mind".)
The CORRECT answer is to present BOTH views, those held by religion, and those held by LGBT community as well, and promote TOLERANCE instead of conflict. You are just afraid to respect views that are in direct opposition to yours.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
And the only problems anyone has with capitalism are it's excesses, would you prefer we bring back child and slave labor? I'd say loan sharking too, but the banks have kept that one legal via loophole. Damn conservative activist judges...
Actually the banking problems were caused by DEREGULATION of the banking industry, an obviously BAD republican idea.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
No, but I do get to define the boundaries around my beliefs and my children's beliefs. Forcing your beliefs onto my children does present me with a very immediate and personal problem.
Really? Then why does YOUR forcing YOUR beliefs on MY children not seem to bother you?
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Fantasy is generally considered a poor method to deal with fear. Personally I'd prefer people who are able to face fear on their own. Cowardice is rather repugnant.
Really? You have no idea how religion helps with fear and uncertainty. But go ahead and tell me how you are helped to deal with them? I would be glad to hear your ALTERNATIVE.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
If you get an answer, seek psychological help.
Actually I expect government and it's institutions to be abused. Which is why it should be strongly separated from groups who operate based on faith rather than fact. Groups operating on faith, don't question their leaders nearly enough or with enough scrutiny. Faith leaders are given the expectation that they are working for the good of the group. Government leaders should never be given the same leeway.
Okay, explain what FACTS provide a solid underpinning of Ethics and Morals for government, and deal with all of those things like Love, Honor, Duty and the like. And it must be subject to the SCIENTIFIC METHOD as previously mentioned.
THERE ARE NONE, because they are different concepts with different application. You cannot replace religion with science because they are not the same, they operate differently and on different things. When So called SCIENCE intrudes into the world of ethics and morals, it is just a thinly disguised attempt at a replacemnt or new religion.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Actually I do have a system of beliefs, they're simply not germane to the discussion.
Oh HELL NO, they are EXACTLY GERMANE brother man. You dishonor and try to discredit my religiously derived ethics and morals, but will not explain what you propose to replace them with?
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
And ethics and morals are easily definable by their comparison of greater good for the greatest number of people in a given time scale.
So then EUGENICS was a good idea in your opinion? Google or Wiki that.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
No faith, divine being or intervention needed. Altruism does have evolutionary benefits regardless of religion.
So a church Martyr is altruistic. A suicide bomber is Altruistic. Both of these are equivalent?
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Tell ya what here's a List that even includes coloring pages for ya. Add on top of that, Christians, Muslims, Hindu's and Bhuddists. That pretty much covers 90% of the population of the planet.
IDIOT. That says MYTH right on it. That does not mean we believe they are LITERALLY TRUE IN FACT. Irrelevant, and as usual your understanding and defense is in question.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Really? I've been advocating the bible be changed to state that it would be physically impossible for a wooden boat to carry two of every animal and enough food for a month? Did I ask that the bible have disclaimers stating that miracles have neither been observed or documented by any scientific source? Have I said churches should have warning signs out front stating that there is no empirical evidence to support their supernatural beliefs?
Religion does not require the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. YOUR ETHICS AND MORALS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Why should ours be?
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Is it really so intolerant to tell others not to push their beliefs on me or my children? And would you feel the same if it were Muslims trying to push the Qu'ran into our schools?
Yes it is the same. You push your viewpoint without allowing the competing viewpoints to be voiced or even mentioned. Your method is no different.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Protected, but not institutionalized into it. There is a very distinct difference.
Really? Are you telling me then that ATHEISM is not institutionalized? That is exactly what you are supporting by silencing religion. But that intolerance still does not bother you.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Expecting an atheist government would have been and still is ludicrous.
and yet that is EXACTLY what is being pushed for. Strange huh?
The 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is there to prevent a national religion.
ALSO TO PREVENT FAVORITISM OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT of religion.
Atheism is just a religion of "no-religion". A directly competing set of ethical and moral values.
Members of the government are free to practice their religion, just not force it on the population.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
The 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is there to prevent a national religion.
ALSO TO PREVENT FAVORITISM OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT of religion.
Atheism is just a religion of "no-religion". A directly competing set of ethical and moral values.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
Members of the government are free to practice their religion, just not force it on the population.
and yet forcing ATHEISM does not seem to bother you?
It's the same reason Article VI of the constitution includes "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The founders knew mixing religion and government made for some seriously bad tea.
Your damn right, get your ridiculous ATHEISM out of my government
well it didn't do much good in 1930's germany.
Wow, I lived in Germany for 8 years during the 1970's. Your lack of understanding and comprehension is astounding.
FOX is the ONLY network that makes an attempt to be unbiased and present the facts. "We report, you decide". They make a point of demarking which shows are "editorial" and inherently biased. (O'Reilly is editorial, but does attempt to keep a fair balance, even though his opinions are demonstrably conservative and republican leaning, but he does not blindly follow party line, he thinks for himself and invites viewers to as well.)
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and even NBC are doling out Agenda-driven pablum you are lapping up.
They are SPINNING every news story and where they even concetrate their coverage with a truly obvious MOVE-ON.ORG George Soros-esque flavor.
That is EXACTLY what the Nazi's did in Germany.
***?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
http://foxattacks.com/
Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Fox News Channel controversies
***?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
http://foxattacks.com/
Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Fox News Channel controversies
At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.
There is no other media outlet with a more biased reputation than Fox news. Even Air America and Al Jazeera have a more balanced reputation and Air America openly bills itself as a liberal station.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM)
It's the same reason Article VI of the constitution includes "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The founders knew mixing religion and government made for some seriously bad tea.
Your damn right, get your ridiculous ATHEISM out of my government
QUOTE (semi colin+Nov 30 2007, 09:33 AM)
well it didn't do much good in 1930's germany.
Wow, I lived in Germany for 8 years during the 1970's. Your lack of understanding and comprehension is astounding.
FOX is the ONLY network that makes an attempt to be unbiased and present the facts. "We report, you decide". They make a point of demarking which shows are "editorial" and inherently biased. (O'Reilly is editorial, but does attempt to keep a fair balance, even though his opinions are demonstrably conservative and republican leaning, but he does not blindly follow party line, he thinks for himself and invites viewers to as well.)
MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and even NBC are doling out Agenda-driven pablum you are lapping up.
They are SPINNING every news story and where they even concetrate their coverage with a truly obvious MOVE-ON.ORG George Soros-esque flavor.
That is EXACTLY what the Nazi's did in Germany.
QUOTE
FOX is the ONLY network that makes an attempt to be unbiased and present the facts. "We report, you decide".
***?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
http://foxattacks.com/
Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Fox News Channel controversies
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| FOX is the ONLY network that makes an attempt to be unbiased and present the facts. "We report, you decide". |
***?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
http://foxattacks.com/
Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Fox News Channel controversies
At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance - either liberal or conservative - is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists.
There is no other media outlet with a more biased reputation than Fox news. Even Air America and Al Jazeera have a more balanced reputation and Air America openly bills itself as a liberal station.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 30 2007, 03:34 PM)
***?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!
http://foxattacks.com/
Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Except there is NOTHING in this case which indicates that Fox LIED.
The case was simply about the fact that the STATION has EDITORIAL control over what is presented.
Which is why
As the first article says:
As the first article says:
Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.
Note, the qualifier "that the reporters KNEW were false"
Oh really?
So now the TRUTH is what Akers CLAIMS it is?
I thought that was what FAIR AND BALANCED was all about, to allow BOTH SIDES to present their case and let the VIEWER decide.
The FACT is, if Fox were not upheld than a reporter could sue the station for ANY story that the station chose not to run (or even if they simply edited it) if the reporter simply disagreed with the station's editors.
Arthur
http://foxattacks.com/
Fox managers and their lawyers ordered us to distort, twist, and slant a story and threatened us with immediate dismissal if we would not broadcast material we knew to be false and misleading.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Except there is NOTHING in this case which indicates that Fox LIED.
The case was simply about the fact that the STATION has EDITORIAL control over what is presented.
Which is why
QUOTE
the five major media outlets .. filed briefs of Amici Curiae- .. to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.
As the first article says:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the five major media outlets .. filed briefs of Amici Curiae- .. to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. |
As the first article says:
Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts.
Note, the qualifier "that the reporters KNEW were false"
Oh really?
So now the TRUTH is what Akers CLAIMS it is?
I thought that was what FAIR AND BALANCED was all about, to allow BOTH SIDES to present their case and let the VIEWER decide.
The FACT is, if Fox were not upheld than a reporter could sue the station for ANY story that the station chose not to run (or even if they simply edited it) if the reporter simply disagreed with the station's editors.
Arthur
Cheney? Is that you? Seriously...just WOW. That level of denial takes serious amounts of work.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Nov 30 2007, 10:21 PM)
Cheney? Is that you? Seriously...just WOW. That level of denial takes serious amounts of work.
Not really.
Protein hormones are large. The hormone does not pass through the placenta to fetal calves. It does not pass through the lining of the digestive system, and is broken down in the digestive system.
But don't take my word for it, or even the US FDA which approved it:
Here's what the Canadian report on its safety said:
Report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Expert Panel on Human safety of rbST
Prepared for Health Canada, January 1999
Executive Summary
At Health Canada's request, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada established an expert panel in April of 1998 to examine the human safety issues pertinent to the use of rbST in dairy cattle in Canada.
The panel was asked to "review international scientific reports and conclusions that have been made about rbST"and "to make observations and recommendations regarding the adequacy of the scientific data submitted by the manufacturer of Nutrilac (rbST) or (to examine scientific information) existing elsewhere to make sound scientific assessments regarding the human health risks associated with the use of Nutrilac (rbST) in Canadian dairy cattle."
The panel members were chosen for their expertise in medicine, pediatrics, oncology, nutritional science, epidemiology, pharmacology and toxicology. All are active or emeritus members of Canadian Faculties of Medicine or Health Sciences. The panel operated independently with a reporting relationship to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
The panel reviewed an extraordinary volume of scientific data and literature relevant to its task. The quality of the scientific evidence available to the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Human Safety Division with respect to the Nutrilac file appears to be excellent and complete as far as is possible in a field of scientific study which has evolved rapidly during the course of a review lasting more than nine years. In particular, there is a quickly expanding literature on biologic effects of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is indirectly relevant to the human safety of food products from rbST-treated cattle. The panel experienced no difficulty in finding up-to-date information required for its analysis. It was apparent to the panel that scientific awareness of relevant human safety issues within Health Canada has kept pace with growth of scientific perception concerning somatotropin (ST) and IGF-1 during the 1990s.
The panel has reached a number of conclusions concerning the human safety of food products from rbST-treated cattle.
Cow's milk contains bST whether or not the cow has been treated with rbST. No increase in total bST concentration is observed in milk from rbST-treated cows and therefore no human risk related to ST consumed by this route is likely to result.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-...ap_crmcc_e.html
Arthur
Not really.
Protein hormones are large. The hormone does not pass through the placenta to fetal calves. It does not pass through the lining of the digestive system, and is broken down in the digestive system.
But don't take my word for it, or even the US FDA which approved it:
Here's what the Canadian report on its safety said:
Report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Expert Panel on Human safety of rbST
Prepared for Health Canada, January 1999
Executive Summary
At Health Canada's request, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada established an expert panel in April of 1998 to examine the human safety issues pertinent to the use of rbST in dairy cattle in Canada.
The panel was asked to "review international scientific reports and conclusions that have been made about rbST"and "to make observations and recommendations regarding the adequacy of the scientific data submitted by the manufacturer of Nutrilac (rbST) or (to examine scientific information) existing elsewhere to make sound scientific assessments regarding the human health risks associated with the use of Nutrilac (rbST) in Canadian dairy cattle."
The panel members were chosen for their expertise in medicine, pediatrics, oncology, nutritional science, epidemiology, pharmacology and toxicology. All are active or emeritus members of Canadian Faculties of Medicine or Health Sciences. The panel operated independently with a reporting relationship to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.
The panel reviewed an extraordinary volume of scientific data and literature relevant to its task. The quality of the scientific evidence available to the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Human Safety Division with respect to the Nutrilac file appears to be excellent and complete as far as is possible in a field of scientific study which has evolved rapidly during the course of a review lasting more than nine years. In particular, there is a quickly expanding literature on biologic effects of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), which is indirectly relevant to the human safety of food products from rbST-treated cattle. The panel experienced no difficulty in finding up-to-date information required for its analysis. It was apparent to the panel that scientific awareness of relevant human safety issues within Health Canada has kept pace with growth of scientific perception concerning somatotropin (ST) and IGF-1 during the 1990s.
The panel has reached a number of conclusions concerning the human safety of food products from rbST-treated cattle.
Cow's milk contains bST whether or not the cow has been treated with rbST. No increase in total bST concentration is observed in milk from rbST-treated cows and therefore no human risk related to ST consumed by this route is likely to result.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/vet/issues-...ap_crmcc_e.html
Arthur
MWAHAHAHAH
Get em Arthur, geez it must sting a bit when they get caught out in their own BS like that.
Get em Arthur, geez it must sting a bit when they get caught out in their own BS like that.
First off, I don't actually care about the veracity of the reporters claims. That Fox decided the "There's no law against lying" was the best defense was the point. Their accuracy is not in question (Although it is repeatedly questionable), their bias is.
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0300865_pf.html
Which leads us to the question, is this a problem with accuracy or bias?
That's just a sample, there's plenty more.
Oh, and as a last note, the Canadian study you linked was based on previous data. They didn't actually do any testing. And regardless of where they got their data, there have been no long term studies of the effects of increased IGF-1 intake. The only data available is that it is excreted/consumed in levels below normal bodily levels, however it is bio-reactive and does appear in feces having made the entire trip through the digestive system. There are 'experts' on both sides of the debate arguing with a lack of data. At the moment, the EU along with several other countries including Canada have banned rBST milk.
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0300865_pf.html
Which leads us to the question, is this a problem with accuracy or bias?
That's just a sample, there's plenty more.
Oh, and as a last note, the Canadian study you linked was based on previous data. They didn't actually do any testing. And regardless of where they got their data, there have been no long term studies of the effects of increased IGF-1 intake. The only data available is that it is excreted/consumed in levels below normal bodily levels, however it is bio-reactive and does appear in feces having made the entire trip through the digestive system. There are 'experts' on both sides of the debate arguing with a lack of data. At the moment, the EU along with several other countries including Canada have banned rBST milk.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Dec 2 2007, 09:06 PM)
First off, I don't actually care about the veracity of the reporters claims. That Fox decided the "There's no law against lying" was the best defense was the point.
Well the VERACITY of the reporters claims is paramont.
There are no facts which indicate a problem with rBST milk, even a DECADE after that story ran. In fact 1/3 of the milk in the USA comes from rBST treated cows.
As far as the ruling, it was NEITHER the Fox station's position nor the POSITION of the Second District court that "There's no law against lying".
She lost the claim simply because the court found that Akre's claim did NOT fall under the Whistle-Blower statute.
Thus the issue of the stories VERACITY never even came up.
From the ruling:
In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone (“BGH”) in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT’s management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.
In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected allof Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.
Arthur
Well the VERACITY of the reporters claims is paramont.
There are no facts which indicate a problem with rBST milk, even a DECADE after that story ran. In fact 1/3 of the milk in the USA comes from rBST treated cows.
As far as the ruling, it was NEITHER the Fox station's position nor the POSITION of the Second District court that "There's no law against lying".
She lost the claim simply because the court found that Akre's claim did NOT fall under the Whistle-Blower statute.
Thus the issue of the stories VERACITY never even came up.
From the ruling:
In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone (“BGH”) in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT’s management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.
In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected allof Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 3 2007, 04:01 AM)
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.
Arthur
Talk about cherry picking quotes, nearly the very next sentence is :
In other words the whistle blower statute did not apply because the FCC policy does not qualify for the whistle blower statute so their claim wasn't considered valid.
It's like saying you can't sue someone for torture if they water boarded you, because water boarding doesn't qualify by statute as torture.
If you bothered to read past your quote, the judge goes into detail on this very fact.
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,...03/2D01-529.pdf
Arthur
Talk about cherry picking quotes, nearly the very next sentence is :
QUOTE
We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.
In other words the whistle blower statute did not apply because the FCC policy does not qualify for the whistle blower statute so their claim wasn't considered valid.
It's like saying you can't sue someone for torture if they water boarded you, because water boarding doesn't qualify by statute as torture.
If you bothered to read past your quote, the judge goes into detail on this very fact.
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,...03/2D01-529.pdf
Ah lost the argument about Morality and Ethics, and trying to switch the topic to FOX News I see.
Okay, so we have established that your "religion of science" contains no established principles on ethics or morality, and that you simply choose whichever position personally suits you best. So your "competing religion" of non-religion cannot be superior, just more convenient for you. By your own arguments, your Atheism is basically a religion in disguise, and you support its the preferential inclusion in government to the detriment of all other religions, in direct defiance of the constitution. "Self Actualize" that.
Gee, you just can't win.
Glad to see you admit defeat.
Okay, so we have established that your "religion of science" contains no established principles on ethics or morality, and that you simply choose whichever position personally suits you best. So your "competing religion" of non-religion cannot be superior, just more convenient for you. By your own arguments, your Atheism is basically a religion in disguise, and you support its the preferential inclusion in government to the detriment of all other religions, in direct defiance of the constitution. "Self Actualize" that.
Gee, you just can't win.
Glad to see you admit defeat.
Actually I just had to take a pause after actually finding someone who thought Fox was an unbiased news source. It's kind of like running into a flat-earther.
And your assertion that science can have no ethics or morals is getting really kind of old. "The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people over the longest time period". A simple morality with no calls for any deity what so ever. And I didn't even have to climb a mountain and chisel it in stone.
Here's a news flash, Jews don't want to be indoctrinated by Christians either. Muslims don't want to convert to Baptists, and I'm also pretty sure the Catholics don't want to become Buddhists. Keeping religion out of school has nothing to do with promoting atheism. It has to do with not allowing anyone's religion to trample on someone else's.
If you're unable to promote your own religion on your own with a world wide network of churches, thousands upon thousands of priests and nearly the most reprinted book in history. You've got bigger problems than a school curriculum.
Although, I would understand if you didn't trust the priests around your kids...
And your assertion that science can have no ethics or morals is getting really kind of old. "The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people over the longest time period". A simple morality with no calls for any deity what so ever. And I didn't even have to climb a mountain and chisel it in stone.
QUOTE
preferential inclusion in government to the detriment of all other religions,
Here's a news flash, Jews don't want to be indoctrinated by Christians either. Muslims don't want to convert to Baptists, and I'm also pretty sure the Catholics don't want to become Buddhists. Keeping religion out of school has nothing to do with promoting atheism. It has to do with not allowing anyone's religion to trample on someone else's.
If you're unable to promote your own religion on your own with a world wide network of churches, thousands upon thousands of priests and nearly the most reprinted book in history. You've got bigger problems than a school curriculum.
Although, I would understand if you didn't trust the priests around your kids...
QUOTE (Corvidae+Dec 3 2007, 03:27 PM)
Actually I just had to take a pause after actually finding someone who thought Fox was an unbiased news source. It's kind of like running into a flat-earther.
And your assertion that science can have no ethics or morals is getting really kind of old. "The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people over the longest time period". A simple morality with no calls for any deity what so ever. And I didn't even have to climb a mountain and chisel it in stone.
Here's a news flash, Jews don't want to be indoctrinated by Christians either. Muslims don't want to convert to Baptists, and I'm also pretty sure the Catholics don't want to become Buddhists. Keeping religion out of school has nothing to do with promoting atheism. It has to do with not allowing anyone's religion to trample on someone else's.
If you're unable to promote your own religion on your own with a world wide network of churches, thousands upon thousands of priests and nearly the most reprinted book in history. You've got bigger problems than a school curriculum.
Although, I would understand if you didn't trust the priests around your kids...
HAHAH
Okay, so how does that little blurb describe your position on Abortion, Death Penalty, Torture, Gun Control?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY EUGENICS
And your assertion that science can have no ethics or morals is getting really kind of old. "The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people over the longest time period". A simple morality with no calls for any deity what so ever. And I didn't even have to climb a mountain and chisel it in stone.
Here's a news flash, Jews don't want to be indoctrinated by Christians either. Muslims don't want to convert to Baptists, and I'm also pretty sure the Catholics don't want to become Buddhists. Keeping religion out of school has nothing to do with promoting atheism. It has to do with not allowing anyone's religion to trample on someone else's.
If you're unable to promote your own religion on your own with a world wide network of churches, thousands upon thousands of priests and nearly the most reprinted book in history. You've got bigger problems than a school curriculum.
Although, I would understand if you didn't trust the priests around your kids...
HAHAH
Okay, so how does that little blurb describe your position on Abortion, Death Penalty, Torture, Gun Control?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY EUGENICS
deadbeat, You are usurping thread after thread with your rants about morals, as if rational, reasoning scientists can have no morals without YOUR RELIGION! Let these threads get back to their intended scientific topics without injecting your parochial, biased deadbeat views on your private interpretations of one particular religion. We have better things to discuss!
Let these threads get back to their intended scientific topics without injecting your parochial, biased deadbeat views on your private interpretations of one particular religion. We have better things to discuss!
QUOTE (photojack+Dec 3 2007, 04:31 PM)
deadbeat, You are usurping thread after thread with your rants about morals, as if rational, reasoning scientists can have no morals without YOUR RELIGION! Let these threads get back to their intended scientific topics without injecting your parochial, biased deadbeat views on your private interpretations of one particular religion. We have better things to discuss!
HAHAHA
But that is the BASIS of this thread, describing how Evolution is disproving ID, and all of the initial posts were to do with how ID (religious theory) makes religion irrelevant and ridiculous. I am attacking that head on.
Some select quotes from the first page of this thread:
"This is real science,not the faith-based science of special creationists! "
"Science may have some unknowns, but those areas do not support the bogus realm of ID. "
"No, science is set in stone and is a religion to many unenlightened. tragic!!!!!!!"
"SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! (()) "
What your responses show is that you cannot defend those assertions successfully. Your Atheism and your ethics and morals only exist as a statement of what you "choose not to believe" from religion. You insidiously pose as a superior concept, when in fact you are just a competing idea, with no basis in fact or reason, just what you choose.
Let these threads get back to their intended scientific topics without injecting your parochial, biased deadbeat views on your private interpretations of one particular religion. We have better things to discuss! HAHAHA
But that is the BASIS of this thread, describing how Evolution is disproving ID, and all of the initial posts were to do with how ID (religious theory) makes religion irrelevant and ridiculous. I am attacking that head on.
Some select quotes from the first page of this thread:
"This is real science,not the faith-based science of special creationists! "
"Science may have some unknowns, but those areas do not support the bogus realm of ID. "
"No, science is set in stone and is a religion to many unenlightened. tragic!!!!!!!"
"SCIENCE is the realm where that information will be integrated and where it has and will be shown to bolster evolution, NOT RELIGION! (()) "
What your responses show is that you cannot defend those assertions successfully. Your Atheism and your ethics and morals only exist as a statement of what you "choose not to believe" from religion. You insidiously pose as a superior concept, when in fact you are just a competing idea, with no basis in fact or reason, just what you choose.
deadbeat, I think you will see that from the Scopes trial on, Evolution and the rational scientific view has won out over the dogma and irrationality of religion EVERY time, in courts and at school board meetings. The preponderance of evidence, court testimony, intelligent reasoned debate and deductive reasoning all strongly favor evolution over your religious opinions. Any evidence of purpose or use of "junk DNA" will truly bolster my evolutionary theory over your dogma! There may be an upcoming case in Texas. Care to make a wager on who will prevail?
SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS! (())
SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS! ((
))
QUOTE (photojack+Dec 3 2007, 05:49 PM)
deadbeat, I think you will see that from the Scopes trial on, Evolution and the rational scientific view has won out over the dogma and irrationality of religion EVERY time, in courts and at school board meetings. The preponderance of evidence, court testimony, intelligent reasoned debate and deductive reasoning all strongly favor evolution over your religious opinions. Any evidence of purpose or use of "junk DNA" will truly bolster my evolutionary theory over your dogma! There may be an upcoming case in Texas. Care to make a wager on who will prevail?
SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS! (())
We will see won't we? The outcome of one trial means little.
You still cannot defend your religion of atheism, and I am happy with that.
The Dogma and severe rationality of Science as a religion will be defeated (see EUGENICS). When the people are truly informed, your agenda is obvious.
75% of America is Christian
10-14% of the World population is Atheist
only an estimated5% of America is Atheist
Yeah we will see will we not?
SCIENCE PREVAILS, RELIGION FAILS! ((
)) We will see won't we? The outcome of one trial means little.
You still cannot defend your religion of atheism, and I am happy with that.
The Dogma and severe rationality of Science as a religion will be defeated (see EUGENICS). When the people are truly informed, your agenda is obvious.
75% of America is Christian
10-14% of the World population is Atheist
only an estimated5% of America is Atheist
Yeah we will see will we not?
We will see won't we. Creationists/IDers (aka Christians) do not have a leg to stand on in this debate. The only reason that there is a debate at all is because of the lies, distortions, propaganda and other such unscrupulous tactics such as the wedge strategy. Fortunately, the morals of our society have advanced beyond the pitiful morals mouthed by old school Christianity. Your "moral majority" will not be able to win this time by killing, torturing, jailing or any of the other similar tactics that have been employed in the past to silence opposition. This conflict will be decided by our modern court system based on logic and evidence presented in a truthful and honest manner. Things that the Creationist/ID camp do not have on their side.
If you examine history, you will see that since ancient times, theists have been trying to silence the scientific naturalistic worldview. Time and again, theists have managed to silence opposition through violence, censorship, and other forms of oppression. However, you will also see that time and again, the truth cannot be forever hidden. If you don't know what I am talking about, then read the histories of why we know that the Sun is a star, not a god, and the Earth is not at the center of the universe.
If you examine history, you will see that since ancient times, theists have been trying to silence the scientific naturalistic worldview. Time and again, theists have managed to silence opposition through violence, censorship, and other forms of oppression. However, you will also see that time and again, the truth cannot be forever hidden. If you don't know what I am talking about, then read the histories of why we know that the Sun is a star, not a god, and the Earth is not at the center of the universe.
QUOTE (Rusty Shackleford+Dec 3 2007, 09:26 PM)
We will see won't we. Creationists/IDers (aka Christians) do not have a leg to stand on in this debate. The only reason that there is a debate at all is because of the lies, distortions, propaganda and other such unscrupulous tactics such as the wedge strategy. Fortunately, the morals of our society have advanced beyond the pitiful morals mouthed by old school Christianity. Your "moral majority" will not be able to win this time by killing, torturing, jailing or any of the other similar tactics that have been employed in the past to silence opposition. This conflict will be decided by our modern court system based on logic and evidence presented in a truthful and honest manner. Things that the Creationist/ID camp do not have on their side.
If you examine history, you will see that since ancient times, theists have been trying to silence the scientific naturalistic worldview. Time and again, theists have managed to silence opposition through violence, censorship, and other forms of oppression. However, you will also see that time and again, the truth cannot be forever hidden. If you don't know what I am talking about, then read the histories of why we know that the Sun is a star, not a god, and the Earth is not at the center of the universe.
Noooo....not quite
ALL christians are not in on the ID debate. FUNDAMENTALISTS are, but they are a vanishingly small but vocal group (kinda like commie pinko ultra left wing libs)
My religion is the Roman Catholic church, which supports Science in general and Darwins theory in specific.
My problem with ATHEISTS (note: not SCIENTISTS) is that they are trying to push SCIENCE as an alternative for religion. It is not (I know you think it is) and never can be.
SCIENCE is independent of ethics or morals (see entire previous posts in this thread). Religion is all about ethics and morals. Government without ethics and morals would be a travesty. But that is what Atheists are pushing for.
Simple answer to shut me up, and I WILL ADMIT I AM WRONG is
Explain to me using the scientific method, or point me to a resource that will do so, how your ethics and morals are derived as a SCIENTIST (or ATHEIST for that matter).
ATHEISM is responsible for just as horrific tragedies as religion bub, check your history books on Leninist Russia, and be sure to look up EUGENICS and Hitler's little party of jew extermination.
If you examine history, you will see that since ancient times, theists have been trying to silence the scientific naturalistic worldview. Time and again, theists have managed to silence opposition through violence, censorship, and other forms of oppression. However, you will also see that time and again, the truth cannot be forever hidden. If you don't know what I am talking about, then read the histories of why we know that the Sun is a star, not a god, and the Earth is not at the center of the universe.
Noooo....not quite
ALL christians are not in on the ID debate. FUNDAMENTALISTS are, but they are a vanishingly small but vocal group (kinda like commie pinko ultra left wing libs)
My religion is the Roman Catholic church, which supports Science in general and Darwins theory in specific.
My problem with ATHEISTS (note: not SCIENTISTS) is that they are trying to push SCIENCE as an alternative for religion. It is not (I know you think it is) and never can be.
SCIENCE is independent of ethics or morals (see entire previous posts in this thread). Religion is all about ethics and morals. Government without ethics and morals would be a travesty. But that is what Atheists are pushing for.
Simple answer to shut me up, and I WILL ADMIT I AM WRONG is
Explain to me using the scientific method, or point me to a resource that will do so, how your ethics and morals are derived as a SCIENTIST (or ATHEIST for that matter).
ATHEISM is responsible for just as horrific tragedies as religion bub, check your history books on Leninist Russia, and be sure to look up EUGENICS and Hitler's little party of jew extermination.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 3 2007, 04:45 PM)
Explain to me using the scientific method, or point me to a resource that will do so, how your ethics and morals are derived as a SCIENTIST (or ATHEIST for that matter).
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 3 2007, 09:54 PM)
Wikipedia - Evolutionary Psychology
That link is a good start....
It is an attempt but here is where they are going, this is the founders of the science "foundational principals"
Similarly, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two of the founders of the field, offer these five foundational principles of evolutionary psychology:
1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.
2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.
3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler than it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry
4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.
5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.[5]
So what kind of ethical or Moral guidance are you going to get from that? None that is good, if any at all. Nature is red in tooth and claw, is that the ethic and morality you search for? Survival of the fittest?
That link is a good start....
It is an attempt but here is where they are going, this is the founders of the science "foundational principals"
QUOTE
Similarly, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, two of the founders of the field, offer these five foundational principles of evolutionary psychology:
1. The brain is a physical system. It functions as a computer. Its circuits are designed to generate behavior that is appropriate to your environmental circumstances.
2. Our neural circuits were designed by natural selection to solve problems that our ancestors faced during our species' evolutionary history.
3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler than it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve -- they require very complicated neural circuitry
4. Different neural circuits are specialized for solving different adaptive problems.
5. Our modern skulls house a stone age mind.[5]
So what kind of ethical or Moral guidance are you going to get from that? None that is good, if any at all. Nature is red in tooth and claw, is that the ethic and morality you search for? Survival of the fittest?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 3 2007, 03:45 PM)
Noooo....not quite
ALL christians are not in on the ID debate. FUNDAMENTALISTS are, but they are a vanishingly small but vocal group (kinda like commie pinko ultra left wing libs)
My religion is the Roman Catholic church, which supports Science in general and Darwins theory in specific.
My problem with ATHEISTS (note: not SCIENTISTS) is that they are trying to push SCIENCE as an alternative for religion. It is not (I know you think it is) and never can be.
SCIENCE is independent of ethics or morals (see entire previous posts in this thread). Religion is all about ethics and morals. Government without ethics and morals would be a travesty. But that is what Atheists are pushing for.
Simple answer to shut me up, and I WILL ADMIT I AM WRONG is
Explain to me using the scientific method, or point me to a resource that will do so, how your ethics and morals are derived as a SCIENTIST (or ATHEIST for that matter).
ATHEISM is responsible for just as horrific tragedies as religion bub, check your history books on Leninist Russia, and be sure to look up EUGENICS and Hitler's little party of jew extermination.
Not that I agree, but why is it unfair for atheists to promote science as a replacement for religion? Don't religions seek to promote themselves over others? Don't the non-religious deserve the right to proselytize their beliefs just as religions have?
Do you seriously think the Bible is the source of your ethics and morals? Have you ever read it? There are few morals and ethics in there at all. The Bible supports all kinds of behavior that modern morals would condemn.
Here is just a small example of the Bible's "morals and ethics":
Anyone who goes uncircumcised is to be exiled from his people (Genesis 17:14).
If a man has sex with a menstruating women, both are to be exiled (Leviticus 20:18).
A man who marries a mother and daughter must burn in a fire (Leviticus 20:14).
If two men have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).
If a mother and son have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:11).
If a man and daughter-in-law have sex, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:12).
If a man has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:15).
If a woman has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:16).
Anyone who attacks his mother or father must be put to death (Exodus 21:15).
Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9).
Anyone who commits murder must be put to death (Leviticus 24:17).
Anyone who commits adultery must be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Anyone who commits perjury must be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).
Anyone who commits kidnapping must be put to death (Exodus 21:16).
Anyone who disobeys a judge or priest must be put to death (Deuteronomy 17:12).
Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2).
Anyone who does not worship God must be put to death (2 Chronicles 15:13).
Any strangers approaching a sanctuary must be put to death (Numbers 17:7).
Any prophet who tries to turn you against God must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5).
Any prophet who makes a wrong prediction must be put to death (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
Family members who tempt you with other gods must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
If an ox gores someone, the ox and its owner must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:29).
Anyone who claims to talk with spirits must be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27).
A stubborn and rebellious son must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
Any woman who has had premarital sex must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:21).
Anyone who worships another god must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
Anyone who curses or blasphemes must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:14-16).
Break the neck of your donkey’s firstborn or kill a lamb instead (Exodus 34:20).
If a city worships other gods, kill everyone in it and burn it (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).
But you may say that is all in the past, God is loving and forgiving now, Jesus gave us a New Testament. The God "of Love and Forgiveness" also promises to show us his "morals and ethics" in the future:
God will kill men, have their children smashed, and have their wives raped (Isaiah 13:15-16).
God will punish children for the iniquities of their fathers and distant ancestors (Isaiah 14:21).
God will lay waste to entire cities and make the lands desolate (Jeremiah 4:7).
God will set people, animals, and even plants on fire because of his anger (Jeremiah 7:20).
God will send so much evil that people would rather be dead than suffer (Jeremiah 8:3).
God will give away the property of men, including their wives, to other men (Jeremiah 8:10).
God will kill young men, and their children will die from a famine (Jeremiah 11:22).
God will cause everyone to become drunk so father and son will kill one another (Jeremiah 13:14).
God will not hear the cries of the people or acknowledge their sacrifices (Jeremiah 14:12).
God will make people hungry enough to eat their own children and friends (Jeremiah 19:9).
God will burn entire cities with the inhabitants still inside (Jeremiah 50:32).
God will break people’s bones and knock their teeth out with stones (Lamentations 3:1-16).
God will force fathers and sons to eat each other and scatter their remembrance (Ezekiel 5:10).
God will be comforted by killing everyone with pestilence, plagues, and swords (Ezekiel 5:12-13).
God will lay dead bodies around idols and spread their bones around the alters (Ezekiel 6:5).
God will kill righteous men and forget their good deeds if they ever turn to sin (Ezekiel 18:24).
God will turn daughters into whores and wives into adulterers (Hosea 4:13).
God will kill children when they come out of their mothers’ wombs (Hosea 10:14).
God will tear people apart and devour them like a lion (Hosea 13:8).
God will kill children and unborn fetuses because their parents worship other gods (Hosea 13:16).
God will sell the children of Israel into slavery in a far away land (Joel 3:8).
God will kill inhabitants of entire cities if they have a corrupt government (Micah 3:9-12).
God will consume every living thing from the face of the earth (Zephaniah 1:2-3).
God will send people to steal Jerusalem, rape the women, and enslave the rest (Zechariah 14:2).
God will send plagues on people and animals to rot away tongues and eyes (Zechariah 14:12-15).
And that doesn't even begin to touch the stuff in Revelations.
Now, you tell me what your morals are, and how they could possibly be derived from the religion of the Bible. If you can do that then I will tell you how I derive my morals. However, I think that you will find that your morals are probably far in advance of the Bible's and thus God. You will find that while religion may have had some influence, your morals and ethics are derived largely from non-Biblical sources.
I don't deny that atheist have caused horrific tragedies, but religion is still the all time leading cause of such horrors. You can count all the horrors derived from atheism on your fingers and toes, the tally of religions is far beyond that. Funny that you mention Hitler, because his motives and ideals were fueled by the Christian religious beliefs of the time. It is Christians who traditionally hated the Jews. Why do you think that Jews sided with the atheistic communists rather than Christians in those countries that had Communist revolutions?
And Eugenics? Pleeeasse! Read your Old Testament, it is the original textbook for eugenics and genocidal xenophobic behavior.
ALL christians are not in on the ID debate. FUNDAMENTALISTS are, but they are a vanishingly small but vocal group (kinda like commie pinko ultra left wing libs)
My religion is the Roman Catholic church, which supports Science in general and Darwins theory in specific.
My problem with ATHEISTS (note: not SCIENTISTS) is that they are trying to push SCIENCE as an alternative for religion. It is not (I know you think it is) and never can be.
SCIENCE is independent of ethics or morals (see entire previous posts in this thread). Religion is all about ethics and morals. Government without ethics and morals would be a travesty. But that is what Atheists are pushing for.
Simple answer to shut me up, and I WILL ADMIT I AM WRONG is
Explain to me using the scientific method, or point me to a resource that will do so, how your ethics and morals are derived as a SCIENTIST (or ATHEIST for that matter).
ATHEISM is responsible for just as horrific tragedies as religion bub, check your history books on Leninist Russia, and be sure to look up EUGENICS and Hitler's little party of jew extermination.
Not that I agree, but why is it unfair for atheists to promote science as a replacement for religion? Don't religions seek to promote themselves over others? Don't the non-religious deserve the right to proselytize their beliefs just as religions have?
Do you seriously think the Bible is the source of your ethics and morals? Have you ever read it? There are few morals and ethics in there at all. The Bible supports all kinds of behavior that modern morals would condemn.
Here is just a small example of the Bible's "morals and ethics":
Anyone who goes uncircumcised is to be exiled from his people (Genesis 17:14).
If a man has sex with a menstruating women, both are to be exiled (Leviticus 20:18).
A man who marries a mother and daughter must burn in a fire (Leviticus 20:14).
If two men have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).
If a mother and son have sexual relations, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:11).
If a man and daughter-in-law have sex, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:12).
If a man has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:15).
If a woman has sex with an animal, both must be put to death (Leviticus 20:16).
Anyone who attacks his mother or father must be put to death (Exodus 21:15).
Anyone who curses his mother or father must be put to death (Leviticus 20:9).
Anyone who commits murder must be put to death (Leviticus 24:17).
Anyone who commits adultery must be put to death (Deuteronomy 22:22).
Anyone who commits perjury must be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-19).
Anyone who commits kidnapping must be put to death (Exodus 21:16).
Anyone who disobeys a judge or priest must be put to death (Deuteronomy 17:12).
Anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death (Exodus 35:2).
Anyone who does not worship God must be put to death (2 Chronicles 15:13).
Any strangers approaching a sanctuary must be put to death (Numbers 17:7).
Any prophet who tries to turn you against God must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:5).
Any prophet who makes a wrong prediction must be put to death (Deuteronomy 18:20-22).
Family members who tempt you with other gods must be put to death (Deuteronomy 13:1-5).
If an ox gores someone, the ox and its owner must be stoned to death (Exodus 21:29).
Anyone who claims to talk with spirits must be stoned to death (Leviticus 20:27).
A stubborn and rebellious son must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
Any woman who has had premarital sex must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:21).
Anyone who worships another god must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).
Anyone who curses or blasphemes must be stoned to death (Leviticus 24:14-16).
Break the neck of your donkey’s firstborn or kill a lamb instead (Exodus 34:20).
If a city worships other gods, kill everyone in it and burn it (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).
But you may say that is all in the past, God is loving and forgiving now, Jesus gave us a New Testament. The God "of Love and Forgiveness" also promises to show us his "morals and ethics" in the future:
God will kill men, have their children smashed, and have their wives raped (Isaiah 13:15-16).
God will punish children for the iniquities of their fathers and distant ancestors (Isaiah 14:21).
God will lay waste to entire cities and make the lands desolate (Jeremiah 4:7).
God will set people, animals, and even plants on fire because of his anger (Jeremiah 7:20).
God will send so much evil that people would rather be dead than suffer (Jeremiah 8:3).
God will give away the property of men, including their wives, to other men (Jeremiah 8:10).
God will kill young men, and their children will die from a famine (Jeremiah 11:22).
God will cause everyone to become drunk so father and son will kill one another (Jeremiah 13:14).
God will not hear the cries of the people or acknowledge their sacrifices (Jeremiah 14:12).
God will make people hungry enough to eat their own children and friends (Jeremiah 19:9).
God will burn entire cities with the inhabitants still inside (Jeremiah 50:32).
God will break people’s bones and knock their teeth out with stones (Lamentations 3:1-16).
God will force fathers and sons to eat each other and scatter their remembrance (Ezekiel 5:10).
God will be comforted by killing everyone with pestilence, plagues, and swords (Ezekiel 5:12-13).
God will lay dead bodies around idols and spread their bones around the alters (Ezekiel 6:5).
God will kill righteous men and forget their good deeds if they ever turn to sin (Ezekiel 18:24).
God will turn daughters into whores and wives into adulterers (Hosea 4:13).
God will kill children when they come out of their mothers’ wombs (Hosea 10:14).
God will tear people apart and devour them like a lion (Hosea 13:8).
God will kill children and unborn fetuses because their parents worship other gods (Hosea 13:16).
God will sell the children of Israel into slavery in a far away land (Joel 3:8).
God will kill inhabitants of entire cities if they have a corrupt government (Micah 3:9-12).
God will consume every living thing from the face of the earth (Zephaniah 1:2-3).
God will send people to steal Jerusalem, rape the women, and enslave the rest (Zechariah 14:2).
God will send plagues on people and animals to rot away tongues and eyes (Zechariah 14:12-15).
And that doesn't even begin to touch the stuff in Revelations.
Now, you tell me what your morals are, and how they could possibly be derived from the religion of the Bible. If you can do that then I will tell you how I derive my morals. However, I think that you will find that your morals are probably far in advance of the Bible's and thus God. You will find that while religion may have had some influence, your morals and ethics are derived largely from non-Biblical sources.
QUOTE
ATHEISM is responsible for just as horrific tragedies as religion bub, check your history books on Leninist Russia, and be sure to look up EUGENICS and Hitler's little party of jew extermination.
I don't deny that atheist have caused horrific tragedies, but religion is still the all time leading cause of such horrors. You can count all the horrors derived from atheism on your fingers and toes, the tally of religions is far beyond that. Funny that you mention Hitler, because his motives and ideals were fueled by the Christian religious beliefs of the time. It is Christians who traditionally hated the Jews. Why do you think that Jews sided with the atheistic communists rather than Christians in those countries that had Communist revolutions?
And Eugenics? Pleeeasse! Read your Old Testament, it is the original textbook for eugenics and genocidal xenophobic behavior.
Interesting...
But your point is specious. Are you really curious what my beielfs are on circumcision and the like? Not really. You are just quoting old testament, and likely from the King James Version. We use the New Revised Standard Version, which is quite similar.
From wiki on Roman catholic
So we have not only the bible, but a rich tradition spanning 2000 years and our morals and ethics are derived from both, as interpreted by our clergy.
So, most likely you have no idea of what the Roman Catholic church is about, or the differences between the different christian faiths.
So we have not only the bible, but a rich tradition spanning 2000 years and our morals and ethics are derived from both, as interpreted by our clergy.
So, most likely you have no idea of what the Roman Catholic church is about, or the differences between the different christian faiths.
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) "
So you see my church has no problem with higher learning and accepting science.
And as far as my ethics and morals are concerned, they are sharply described by my church through its interpretation of the bible and tradition. I am certain you have no desire for me to elaborate in specific.
What I am trying to get across to you, is that today in modern society, religion is ALL ABOUT ethics and morals. Each religion embodies a code of beliefs that establish what they are.
Science is about facts and dealing with the known and knowable.
Religion is all about ethics and morals for dealing with life in its unknown and unknowable situations. Like Love, Honor, Duty, Courage, Friendship, Trust.
These are things necessary in life, and science gives you no direction in them.
But your point is specious. Are you really curious what my beielfs are on circumcision and the like? Not really. You are just quoting old testament, and likely from the King James Version. We use the New Revised Standard Version, which is quite similar.
From wiki on Roman catholic
QUOTE
The teachings of the Catholic Church are derived from two sources, firstly the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible) and secondly the Sacred Tradition. Both are ultimately governed and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.
So we have not only the bible, but a rich tradition spanning 2000 years and our morals and ethics are derived from both, as interpreted by our clergy.
So, most likely you have no idea of what the Roman Catholic church is about, or the differences between the different christian faiths.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The teachings of the Catholic Church are derived from two sources, firstly the Sacred Scriptures (the Bible) and secondly the Sacred Tradition. Both are ultimately governed and interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church. |
So we have not only the bible, but a rich tradition spanning 2000 years and our morals and ethics are derived from both, as interpreted by our clergy.
So, most likely you have no idea of what the Roman Catholic church is about, or the differences between the different christian faiths.
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
"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) "
So you see my church has no problem with higher learning and accepting science.
And as far as my ethics and morals are concerned, they are sharply described by my church through its interpretation of the bible and tradition. I am certain you have no desire for me to elaborate in specific.
What I am trying to get across to you, is that today in modern society, religion is ALL ABOUT ethics and morals. Each religion embodies a code of beliefs that establish what they are.
Science is about facts and dealing with the known and knowable.
Religion is all about ethics and morals for dealing with life in its unknown and unknowable situations. Like Love, Honor, Duty, Courage, Friendship, Trust.
These are things necessary in life, and science gives you no direction in them.
If you knew for a fact that there is no God would you still have a moral code and behave in an ethical manner?
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - (Albert Einstein)
QUOTE (Rusty Shackleford+Dec 4 2007, 01:13 AM)
If you knew for a fact that there is no God would you still have a moral code and behave in an ethical manner?
First, atheists have been trying to prove that for THOUSANDS of years, and even using pure philosophy, (see Aquinas) it cannot successfully be done either way.
Science will NEVER know everything about anything. It is a practical impossibility. Every new discovery just creates more questions, and usually makes us aware of how much more we do not know. Besides, it is impossible to prove a negative.
It is used to discover the known and knowable.
Religion is properly used to give guidance on the unknown and unknowable.
Does it matter so much to you what we believe, if our ethics and morals are good and beneficial? What if we believed a giant chicken sneezed and caused the Big Bang? So long as we do not force our beliefs on you, you are just fine. If our beliefs curtail your freedoms or pursuit of happiness, then fine, we should find a way to stop that.
NOTE: this does not include removing all reference or content of religion from government and all publicly funded entities. Fairness and equal access to be sure, including Atheism.
First, atheists have been trying to prove that for THOUSANDS of years, and even using pure philosophy, (see Aquinas) it cannot successfully be done either way.
Science will NEVER know everything about anything. It is a practical impossibility. Every new discovery just creates more questions, and usually makes us aware of how much more we do not know. Besides, it is impossible to prove a negative.
It is used to discover the known and knowable.
Religion is properly used to give guidance on the unknown and unknowable.
Does it matter so much to you what we believe, if our ethics and morals are good and beneficial? What if we believed a giant chicken sneezed and caused the Big Bang? So long as we do not force our beliefs on you, you are just fine. If our beliefs curtail your freedoms or pursuit of happiness, then fine, we should find a way to stop that.
NOTE: this does not include removing all reference or content of religion from government and all publicly funded entities. Fairness and equal access to be sure, including Atheism.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 3 2007, 05:11 PM)
It is an attempt but here is where they are going, this is the founders of the science "foundational principals"
So what kind of ethical or Moral guidance are you going to get from that? None that is good, if any at all. Nature is red in tooth and claw, is that the ethic and morality you search for? Survival of the fittest?
Sigh.... You asked, I provided... I'm not going to explain things like the prisoner's gamble and the use of ethics as a survival tool in social organism....
Read the page and use the links section to read more or ignore it, it's up to you.
So what kind of ethical or Moral guidance are you going to get from that? None that is good, if any at all. Nature is red in tooth and claw, is that the ethic and morality you search for? Survival of the fittest?
Sigh.... You asked, I provided... I'm not going to explain things like the prisoner's gamble and the use of ethics as a survival tool in social organism....
Read the page and use the links section to read more or ignore it, it's up to you.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 3 2007, 08:22 PM)
So you see my church has no problem with higher learning and accepting science.
History shows your claim to be erroneous.
Link
When theists are in power and people live under a theocracy, theists most defiantly do have a problem with science. Only in a secular non-theistic society can science or any intellectual pursuits proliferate freely.
Your other arguments of the origins of morals and atheism being the cause of so much death is more theistic apologist nonsense that has been shown to be just as erroneous as your claim quoted here.
The origin of the U.S. legal system alone proves the claims that morals, laws and such comes from religion to be erroneous. But since when are knee-jerk and devout theists interested in facts over dogma?
History shows your claim to be erroneous.
Link
QUOTE
Giordano Bruno (1548, Nola – February 17, 1600, Rome) was an Italian philosopher, priest, cosmologist, and occultist. Bruno is known for his mnemonic system based upon organized knowledge and as an early proponent of the idea of an infinite and homogeneous universe. Burnt at the stake as a heretic by the Roman Inquisition, Bruno is seen by some as the first "martyr [1] for science."
When theists are in power and people live under a theocracy, theists most defiantly do have a problem with science. Only in a secular non-theistic society can science or any intellectual pursuits proliferate freely.
Your other arguments of the origins of morals and atheism being the cause of so much death is more theistic apologist nonsense that has been shown to be just as erroneous as your claim quoted here.
The origin of the U.S. legal system alone proves the claims that morals, laws and such comes from religion to be erroneous. But since when are knee-jerk and devout theists interested in facts over dogma?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Dec 4 2007, 09:31 AM)
History shows your claim to be erroneous.
Link
When theists are in power and people live under a theocracy, theists most defiantly do have a problem with science. Only in a secular non-theistic society can science or any intellectual pursuits proliferate freely.
Your other arguments of the origins of morals and atheism being the cause of so much death is more theistic apologist nonsense that has been shown to be just as erroneous as your claim quoted here.
The origin of the U.S. legal system alone proves the claims that morals, laws and such comes from religion to be erroneous. But since when are knee-jerk and devout theists interested in facts over dogma?
I wanted to keep that whole post here because it's worth re-reading, but I'm only responding to the bold section, and only to reinforce the point.
It is only since the waning of the catholic church's power that it has come to accept science. Currently, it is my understanding the evolution is considered dogma by the catholic church (with the caveat that it is guided by God.) This is a VERY recent development, and the church opposed evolution for many many years. Astronomy is another scientific area that the church supports, and once again, this is only very recently. Fact is, until the last half of the 20th century, the catholic church has done more to hinder science than to further it.
Wikipedia - History of the Roman Catholic Church
Link
When theists are in power and people live under a theocracy, theists most defiantly do have a problem with science. Only in a secular non-theistic society can science or any intellectual pursuits proliferate freely.
Your other arguments of the origins of morals and atheism being the cause of so much death is more theistic apologist nonsense that has been shown to be just as erroneous as your claim quoted here.
The origin of the U.S. legal system alone proves the claims that morals, laws and such comes from religion to be erroneous. But since when are knee-jerk and devout theists interested in facts over dogma?
I wanted to keep that whole post here because it's worth re-reading, but I'm only responding to the bold section, and only to reinforce the point.
It is only since the waning of the catholic church's power that it has come to accept science. Currently, it is my understanding the evolution is considered dogma by the catholic church (with the caveat that it is guided by God.) This is a VERY recent development, and the church opposed evolution for many many years. Astronomy is another scientific area that the church supports, and once again, this is only very recently. Fact is, until the last half of the 20th century, the catholic church has done more to hinder science than to further it.
Wikipedia - History of the Roman Catholic Church
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 3 2007, 03:35 PM)
Okay, so how does that little blurb describe your position on Abortion, Death Penalty, Torture, Gun Control?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY EUGENICS
How many people does Eugenics benefit? How many people does it harm? Estimate for an unlimited time scale.
I am of course assuming you mean human eugenics, since it's worked out very well with animals. As for humans...not so much. The Spartans died because of it, and the Nazi's didn't come to such a great end either.
Abortion is an arguable benefit to the parents depending on their current societal stresses. In other words, if you're rich and well off, the detriment to the mother isn't worth the loss of a possibly beneficial life. If you're poor, sick or otherwise crippled in your ability to raise the child, then most likely you are creating a burden for yourself and society.
The death penalty is only useful when it saves money. Regardless of execution, that person is already considered a waste and a drain on society.
Gun control really doesn't have a moral component, gun usage very often does. There are low crime countries with very high gun ownership, and low crime countries with almost no gun ownership. It's more a question of how much security is available or needed in relation to the gun policies.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY EUGENICS
How many people does Eugenics benefit? How many people does it harm? Estimate for an unlimited time scale.
I am of course assuming you mean human eugenics, since it's worked out very well with animals. As for humans...not so much. The Spartans died because of it, and the Nazi's didn't come to such a great end either.
Abortion is an arguable benefit to the parents depending on their current societal stresses. In other words, if you're rich and well off, the detriment to the mother isn't worth the loss of a possibly beneficial life. If you're poor, sick or otherwise crippled in your ability to raise the child, then most likely you are creating a burden for yourself and society.
The death penalty is only useful when it saves money. Regardless of execution, that person is already considered a waste and a drain on society.
Gun control really doesn't have a moral component, gun usage very often does. There are low crime countries with very high gun ownership, and low crime countries with almost no gun ownership. It's more a question of how much security is available or needed in relation to the gun policies.
QUOTE (Corvidae+Dec 4 2007, 02:54 PM)
How many people does Eugenics benefit? How many people does it harm? Estimate for an unlimited time scale.
I am of course assuming you mean human eugenics, since it's worked out very well with animals. As for humans...not so much. The Spartans died because of it, and the Nazi's didn't come to such a great end either.
I'll focus on just this one topic...Eugenics, since it perfectly illustrates my personal objections to Science being used as a First Source to derive Ethics and Morals.
Eugenics has also been concerned with the elimination of hereditary diseases such as hemophilia and Huntington's disease. However, there are several problems with labeling certain factors as "genetic defects":
In many cases there is no scientific consensus on what a "genetic defect" is. It is often argued that this is more a matter of social or individual choice.
*What appears to be a "genetic defect" in one context or environment may not be so in another. This can be the case for genes with a heterozygote advantage, such as sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease, which in their heterozygote form may offer an advantage against, respectively, malaria and tuberculosis.
*Although some birth defects are uniformly lethal, disabled persons can succeed in life.
*Many of the conditions early eugenicists identified as inheritable (pellagra is one such example) are currently considered to be at least partially, if not wholly, attributed to environmental conditions.
The idea of Eugenics is a practical and direct result of simple logical thought based on scientific discovery.
The practice results in the most heinous discrimination and inhuman behavior, as we now societally consider it. Inter-racial relationships, Genetic disease, undesirable traits all become death sentences. All based on science and sound logic. It provides the MOST benefit for the MOST people.
But as Kirk once said "Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many."
I am of course assuming you mean human eugenics, since it's worked out very well with animals. As for humans...not so much. The Spartans died because of it, and the Nazi's didn't come to such a great end either.
I'll focus on just this one topic...Eugenics, since it perfectly illustrates my personal objections to Science being used as a First Source to derive Ethics and Morals.
QUOTE (wiki+ EUGENICS)
Eugenics has also been concerned with the elimination of hereditary diseases such as hemophilia and Huntington's disease. However, there are several problems with labeling certain factors as "genetic defects":
In many cases there is no scientific consensus on what a "genetic defect" is. It is often argued that this is more a matter of social or individual choice.
*What appears to be a "genetic defect" in one context or environment may not be so in another. This can be the case for genes with a heterozygote advantage, such as sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease, which in their heterozygote form may offer an advantage against, respectively, malaria and tuberculosis.
*Although some birth defects are uniformly lethal, disabled persons can succeed in life.
*Many of the conditions early eugenicists identified as inheritable (pellagra is one such example) are currently considered to be at least partially, if not wholly, attributed to environmental conditions.
The idea of Eugenics is a practical and direct result of simple logical thought based on scientific discovery.
The practice results in the most heinous discrimination and inhuman behavior, as we now societally consider it. Inter-racial relationships, Genetic disease, undesirable traits all become death sentences. All based on science and sound logic. It provides the MOST benefit for the MOST people.
But as Kirk once said "Because the needs of the one... outweigh the needs of the many."
While people can, have and still argue about positive aspects of people adopting eugenics, the historical application of eugenics has little to do with science. Pseudoscience perhaps, but not science.
I might be wrong, but it was my understanding that the idea of eugenics was a philosophy to improve humans through an altruistic stance toward society. Today, eugenic supporters focus on what individual couples can do to improve the species through prenatal testing and screening for disease and malformations.
You made the claim that atheist seek to based morals on science or seek to replace religion with science in this function? Speaking as an atheist, I would be interested in seeing your supportive material for this claim. Science seeks to replace the nonsense put forth by religion and other mythologies with verifiable and testable facts. Since religion is meant to encompass all, it is not valid to demand that what challenges part of religion also address the same scope of topics.
One need not have religion or be literate in science to have a solid moral structure. In fact, most of our society operates without religious laws far better than if we actually had religious-based laws.
I might be wrong, but it was my understanding that the idea of eugenics was a philosophy to improve humans through an altruistic stance toward society. Today, eugenic supporters focus on what individual couples can do to improve the species through prenatal testing and screening for disease and malformations.
You made the claim that atheist seek to based morals on science or seek to replace religion with science in this function? Speaking as an atheist, I would be interested in seeing your supportive material for this claim. Science seeks to replace the nonsense put forth by religion and other mythologies with verifiable and testable facts. Since religion is meant to encompass all, it is not valid to demand that what challenges part of religion also address the same scope of topics.
One need not have religion or be literate in science to have a solid moral structure. In fact, most of our society operates without religious laws far better than if we actually had religious-based laws.
Do you really need someone or something to tell you right from wrong?
QUOTE (gmilam+Dec 4 2007, 05:06 PM)
Do you really need someone or something to tell you right from wrong?
Are you really ready to accept EVERYONE's personal interpretation of right and wrong?
Are you afraid of setting standards? Of any kind?
Are you really ready to accept EVERYONE's personal interpretation of right and wrong?
Are you afraid of setting standards? Of any kind?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Dec 4 2007, 04:57 PM)
While people can, have and still argue about positive aspects of people adopting eugenics, the historical application of eugenics has little to do with science. Pseudoscience perhaps, but not science.
"Eugenics was founded by "Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin." It was used in the United States to recommend controlling immigration, compulsory sterilization, segregation, prohibition of marriage by leading scientists and leaders.
I might be wrong, but it was my understanding that the idea of eugenics was a philosophy to improve humans through an altruistic stance toward society. Today, eugenic supporters focus on what individual couples can do to improve the species through prenatal testing and screening for disease and malformations.
Many people view that as just killing them earlier and immoral. And it is not a small minority either, the numbers of those in opposition are greater.
You made the claim that atheist seek to based morals on science or seek to replace religion with science in this function? Speaking as an atheist, I would be interested in seeing your supportive material for this claim. Science seeks to replace the nonsense put forth by religion and other mythologies with verifiable and testable facts. Since religion is meant to encompass all, it is not valid to demand that what challenges part of religion also address the same scope of topics.
Okay give me your system of laws that is based on "verifiable and testable facts." The scientific method is completely free of ethics and morals, it is not a replacement for religion. You are just suggesting your atheism is not a religion. Your atheism only exists in opposing religion, it suggests chaos and anarchy are acceptable. They are not.
One need not have religion or be literate in science to have a solid moral structure. In fact, most of our society operates without religious laws far better than if we actually had religious-based laws.
Literate in science, true, solid moral structure....BS. Not the same thing. All laws are "religious-based". Laws represent an enforceable body of ethics and morals, which do not exist outside "religion".
"Eugenics was founded by "Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin." It was used in the United States to recommend controlling immigration, compulsory sterilization, segregation, prohibition of marriage by leading scientists and leaders.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Dec 4 2007, 04:57 PM)
I might be wrong, but it was my understanding that the idea of eugenics was a philosophy to improve humans through an altruistic stance toward society. Today, eugenic supporters focus on what individual couples can do to improve the species through prenatal testing and screening for disease and malformations.
Many people view that as just killing them earlier and immoral. And it is not a small minority either, the numbers of those in opposition are greater.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Dec 4 2007, 04:57 PM)
You made the claim that atheist seek to based morals on science or seek to replace religion with science in this function? Speaking as an atheist, I would be interested in seeing your supportive material for this claim. Science seeks to replace the nonsense put forth by religion and other mythologies with verifiable and testable facts. Since religion is meant to encompass all, it is not valid to demand that what challenges part of religion also address the same scope of topics.
Okay give me your system of laws that is based on "verifiable and testable facts." The scientific method is completely free of ethics and morals, it is not a replacement for religion. You are just suggesting your atheism is not a religion. Your atheism only exists in opposing religion, it suggests chaos and anarchy are acceptable. They are not.
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+Dec 4 2007, 04:57 PM)
One need not have religion or be literate in science to have a solid moral structure. In fact, most of our society operates without religious laws far better than if we actually had religious-based laws.
Literate in science, true, solid moral structure....BS. Not the same thing. All laws are "religious-based". Laws represent an enforceable body of ethics and morals, which do not exist outside "religion".
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 4 2007, 11:57 AM)
Are you really ready to accept EVERYONE's personal interpretation of right and wrong?
Are you afraid of setting standards? Of any kind?
Standards have been set. It can't be helped, man is a social creature.
Personally, I believe the Golden Rule to be a good guideline. It has been suggested over the years by many people - religious and non-religious alike.
Are you afraid of setting standards? Of any kind?
Standards have been set. It can't be helped, man is a social creature.
Personally, I believe the Golden Rule to be a good guideline. It has been suggested over the years by many people - religious and non-religious alike.
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 4 2007, 12:14 PM)
Laws represent an enforceable body of ethics and morals, which do not exist outside "religion".
QUOTE (deadbeat+Dec 4 2007, 08:08 AM)
First, atheists have been trying to prove that for THOUSANDS of years, and even using pure philosophy, (see Aquinas) it cannot successfully be done either way.
Science will NEVER know everything about anything. It is a practical impossibility. Every new discovery just creates more questions, and usually makes us aware of how much more we do not know. Besides, it is impossible to prove a negative.
It is used to discover the known and knowable.
Religion is properly used to give guidance on the unknown and unknowable.
Does it matter so much to you what we believe, if our ethics and morals are good and beneficial? What if we believed a giant chicken sneezed and caused the Big Bang? So long as we do not force our beliefs on you, you are just fine. If our beliefs curtail your freedoms or pursuit of happiness, then fine, we should find a way to stop that.
NOTE: this does not include removing all reference or content of religion from government and all publicly funded entities. Fairness and equal access to be sure, including Atheism.
You still didn't answer my question. You concentrated on the wrong part of it I think. So I will rephrase it:
If there was no God, would you still behave in a moral and ethical manner?
If you would still behave in an ethical and moral manner without a God, then you must admit that your morals don't come from religion.
If you would not behave in an ethical and moral manner without a God, then I suggest you have no morals and ethics at all.
Derek nailed it with this quote from Einstein:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - (Albert Einstein)
Science will NEVER know everything about anything. It is a practical impossibility. Every new discovery just creates more questions, and usually makes us aware of how much more we do not know. Besides, it is impossible to prove a negative.
It is used to discover the known and knowable.
Religion is properly used to give guidance on the unknown and unknowable.
Does it matter so much to you what we believe, if our ethics and morals are good and beneficial? What if we believed a giant chicken sneezed and caused the Big Bang? So long as we do not force our beliefs on you, you are just fine. If our beliefs curtail your freedoms or pursuit of happiness, then fine, we should find a way to stop that.
NOTE: this does not include removing all reference or content of religion from government and all publicly funded entities. Fairness and equal access to be sure, including Atheism.
You still didn't answer my question. You concentrated on the wrong part of it I think. So I will rephrase it:
If there was no God, would you still behave in a moral and ethical manner?
If you would still behave in an ethical and moral manner without a God, then you must admit that your morals don't come from religion.
If you would not behave in an ethical and moral manner without a God, then I suggest you have no morals and ethics at all.
Derek nailed it with this quote from Einstein:
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - (Albert Einstein)
QUOTE (Rusty Shackleford+Dec 4 2007, 07:07 PM)