http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031601951.html
Quote:
New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin has suggested that the slow recovery and rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina -- which has prevented many black former residents from returning -- is part of a plan to change the racial makeup and political leadership of his and other cities.
Ray Nagin is insane. I had my suspicions before, but I'm glad he's confirming it.
Also, if he wants to see a chocolate city, I would suggest Hershey, PA.
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/a...1&d=1174317226
Yep. It has NOTHING to do with the piss poor quality of life that was in these neighboorhoods before, the general lack of any desire for a lot of the poorer folks to return, the corrupt government in place, or insurance companies refusing to pay out settlements, as well as refusing to sell homeowner's insurance at reasonable rates to the area any longer.
Its just the white man keeping "chocolate city" from making a comeback.
I love this guy. I hope he stays mayor forever.
Yeah most of the NO residents are in other cities living a better life than they did in NO.
I don't understand what you're getting at. All that shit you just described is the white man trying to keep black man down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildkat
My favorite part of that comment was how he said it with the kind of swerve that a man would seduce a woman with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave
Not all. The only one where you can say that is the Insurance companies. Everything else Nagen and the citizens brought on themselves (elected officials). Nagen could have used the money sent to build the homes, but instead he used it to rebuild the Superdome (I could be wrong there, but I'm pretty sure I read and heard that somewhere). Like I said Flux, most of the residents from NO do not want to return. Since the opportunities in other cities to better themselves are greater. Philadelphia as a ton of NO residents. All of them are staying.Quote:
Originally Posted by flux=rad
Have they fixed NO's problems yet with the levy system?
Reason enough for no one to go back.
I was in New Orleans for Mardi Gras a few weeks ago. The tourist area of the French Quarter, (which was not heavly flooded, if at all) is about 95% pre Katrina. If you had never seen the city before you wouldn't even notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by haohmaru
Such as the park at Jackson Square being closed off.
Hell, Popeye's Chicken on Canal Street was boarded up.
There were over 100 more restaurants open this year than the previous years. Everyone was very happy to have tourists there again spending money.
There are still entire communities (think condo complexes as well as ghettos) that have no power and no one living in them. The areas affected were much more wide spread than what T.V really conveyed. I saw some nasty areas near the central lock-up (LOL! don't ask ;) ) where you could clearly see the flood line. There were some homes that look lived in, or have FEMA trailers in the yards, but there is still a lot of abandoned homes.
It's not just ghettos and projects that aren't fixed. I clearly saw what looked like lower middle class/middle class neighborhoods that were completely deserted.
Talking with locals, and overhearing conversations, everyone was talking about FEMA. Getting screwed by government inaction or just really slow help or no help at all.
I love New Orleans, but for personal reasons I don't think I'll ever go back. It's a shame what's going on there, both with the help AND that nut job Nagin. I think there is some truth about what he is saying, but I don't think it's racially motivated, more about what will be best for the city's economic future.
But you never know.
This latest bit from Nagin is just lunacy.
News flash. The Black man is keeping himself down these days.
See, this is a prime example of what the mayor is talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by JefmcC
IMFBTNQuote:
Originally Posted by Survival Kid
A lot of Black leaders and Black would-be leaders seem to have these delusions of grandeur. The claims rarely stand up to scrutiny.Quote:
Nagin . . . suggested that his assertion that New Orleans would once again be a majority-black city had made him a political target.
"Everybody in America started to wake up and say: 'Wait a minute. What is he doing? What is he saying? We have to make sure that this man doesn't go any further . . .' "
I'll tell you what Mayor Nagin should be looking at: footage of the rescue workers in New Orleans right after the flood. An overwhelming majority of the skilled emergency and medical rescue workers were Caucasian and an overwhelming majority of the police officers looting stores were not. There is a definite problem in the Black community as a whole with who the role models are and what children are brought up to believe constitutes success.
Whether you have a "chocolate city" is an asinine thing to preoccupy yourself with. How about giving your children positive political and academic role models and showing them that (real, formal) education is a better way out of poverty than sports and music? How about taking advantage of the opportunities previous generations fought and died for on the streets of the South and elsewhere instead of waiting for everything to fall into place at your feet?
Maybe people aren't coming back to NO because it's still under sea level in a fucking hurricane zone.
Nick nailed it. There are too many Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons out there who are using their own race to make a buck at its long-term expense. This idiot is in the same mold. He just doesn't market it as well.
I think I'm going to marry Ray Nagin. What a riot!
Not getting how leaving NO a flooded, shitty mess is going to start driving blacks from other cities.
There are plenty of qualified black leaders, Nick. In my city, they hold elected offices, run churches, teach at the colleges, etc. I see this problem coming from two different places: parents and media. I've noticed many black parents not living up to their roles and allowing their children to run amock. It wasn't too long ago that those videos of the two boys fighting were posted on TNL. Many may think that's an isolated incident but it isn't. I've been a witness to this type of parenting for years. When you're both poor and uneducated, you really don't know what to do with a human being in your care so you'll look at the easy way of raising the buggers. (This also applies to hispanics, too. My siblings don't care much about their education nor how to properly earn money. It's not that my parents didn't try but this is where the media part comes in.)
The media also glorifies violence, money and drug use. All these rap videos with rappers donning expensive jewelry, alcohol and other material objects are eye candy to the poor and uneducated. You see these rappers making money fist over dollar with nothing more than stringing a few lines together and you begin to think, "Well, he makes it look so easy I should do this!" My siblings are like this. I'm currently the only one who has graduated from college (and it'll probably stay that way) and they don't get why I bust my ass at a job that pays so little. They want the fast bucks and they want it now.
If blacks (or any minority) want to improve their lifestyle they need to be taught by responsible parents and their connection to the media limited. If we're going to point fingers let's go to the beginning of the line. Parents need to understand that children need a structured lifestyle in order to succeed. Let the television raise them and you're going to continue the same problems that plagued previous generations.
We are making nearly the same argument, but I am also chastising many Black leaders for wasting our time and trying to take almost all (if not all) the responsibility off the community itself. Stop making a stink about the chocolate content of cities and strive more to raise the Ph.D. content of your community.
There's a good deal of your problem right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
I guess not all pastors rub people the right way and I will admit they are very close-minded but they at least help the youths not to become hardened criminals. But I do agree with raising education. The differences now aren't so much the color of our skin but in the difference in our education.
I want to make a Religious leaders are scum statement, but they instill restraint through fear and coercion into a borderline retarded world public.
Religious leaders are okay, keep preaching that thou shalt not kill pls.
Fine. Let's abolish faith based organizations and watch happens afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
An increase in petty crimes and suicides in the short term, I'd wager. But if the goal is to educate people, then it is better in the long term to remove the crutch of religion. The individuals driving progress in science and technology, raising the standard of living in the world and making a real difference, don't tend to waste too much time in church listening to how the real reward is in the afterlife. Christianity is a slave religion and does nothing substantial for the Black community beyond giving some people something to be smug about.
The rappers and athletes may pay lip service to 'the Man upstairs," but how much of their success is actually due to a strong faith, and how closely do most of those stars adhere to the Scriptures? Realistically speaking, less time in the pews and more in the research labs would be a good start.
I'm just gonna say you have no idea what you're talking about, Nick. Because unlike half the yahoos on this board I actually respect you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
You speak as though science and faith are somehow mutually exclusive and even worse, as though Christianity has contributed nothing positive to this world. I suppose all those missionaries with graduate degrees from the likes of Stanford in Africa and other disadvantaged nations building wells, schools, orphanages and providing opportunities and aid that otherwise wouldn't even exist are just there because all the cool kids were doing it, right?
As for your statement "The individuals driving progress in science and technology, raising the standard of living in the world and making a real difference, don't tend to waste too much time in church listening to how the real reward is in the afterlife." How would you know? Have you even spoken to any of these people? I doubt it. And even you have spoken to some paltry handful, you have no idea what these people believe or don't save for what they choose to tell you. You're just making a blanket assumption based on some silly notion or personal bias you have that tells you that it's not possible to be a Christian and a scientist at the same time.
I can tell you for a fact that all four of my sisters have at least a Master's Degree in varying fields of the physical and/or behavioral sciences, one of whom is a member of the team of biologists that discovered the method to make the male birth control pill and all of them are hardcore Christians. That doesn't even include the fact that their offspring are intelligent beyond all reason.
The media sterotypes of retarded, primarly white, Christian, right-wing bible-thumpers has obviously grossly affected you're thinking on this matter.
I expect better from someone of your intellect Nick. I'm disappointed.
lol Christian defense.
On topic: It's not about race anymore - it's about class.
Yeah, as much as I relish any opportunity to jump all over anything pro-religious, you're way off base here. Regardless of how you may feel about religious dogma, churches (or mosques or what have you) can create a community with generally positive norms, and individuals who are a part of this community are probably less likely to commit crimes that go against those norms. The "fear of God" element like Mars described is there too, but I think a bigger social control is the "fear of the group's judgement."Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
Burg and I are disagreeing a lot lately. (But I'm not going to play the "I'm disappointed in you" card. Shame on you, Master of 7s. People do have different opinions, and airing the ones you have is part of the process of maybe getting better ones down the road. Save the "I expected better" jazz - though I know you probably did not meant it to be patronizing.)
To answer the previous three posts: religion as social engineering is slowly being phased out, and rightly so, in my opinion. Burg hit on it: it is more desirable to get people to act lawfully within a group or social contract than it is to impose morality based on a fear of hellfire. If we can instill a sense of ownership and community through educational and social programs (and the application of common sense) that begin in infancy, we will be a lot better off. It is insulting to say that the best way to deal with poor people is to hold them down with fairy tales as if they were children.
My experience with people that achieve and lay the foundation for the next generation is that they are driven by deep humanist convictions that are not necessarily exclusive of religious feeling. However, religion teaches you to be "fishers of men" while science and technology enable you to make a palpable difference in the quality of life for humanity as a whole for generations to come.
So while scientists can believe in a personal God, when you are looking for books to put in the hands of inner-city youth, there is no compelling reason in my mind to reach for the Bible first. Teach them to have analytical and flexible minds first, so that when they figure out there is no God, they won't take a "then I guess I have nothing to lose" attitude. Religious morality is so fragile in a world of diverse opinions and constant discovery. We should stop trying to take the easy way out and start brainstorming practical ideas.
Where else did we disagree?
I think religious dogma is bullshit, but I also think it's pretty low on the list of social evils, and probably is responsible for more good than harm, at least today. You're proposing some sort of utopia where everyone is super smart and super nice. I think a community structure is very beneficial even if the community exists for the worship of the equivalent of a spaghetti monster - and I think many churchgoers are in it more for the community then for God.
I mean, isn't the whole point just to get any books into the hands of inner city youth? Maybe the Bible or what have you is easier to swallow then quantum physics. You have to start somewhere.
If you're unfamiliar with the terminology (as a lot of people are), the bible is impenetrable.
It's bullet-proof?
My disappointment stemmed from your unfounded blanket statement that people who are making practical differences in the fields of science don't spend time in worship of forces greater than themselves. You're too rationally minded a person to make such a silly statement without some kind of foundation, allegorical or otherwise, so it surprised me that's all. No patrinization intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
I agree that people should have the mental flexibility to question the faith they are taught. Hell, my pastor encourages the congregation every week "Don't take my word for it. Study it for yourself. I'm only a man so my interpretation could well be wrong."
Thanks to him, a lot of retarded myths and ideas that I used to believe about the Bible were pretty much shattered and flushed down the sewer of bad dogma and theology.
At the same time, however, you are placing an unhealthy amount of faith in individual human beings abilities to govern themselves. Education does not a productive citizen make. The was someone who thought along same lines. "Give everyone an education and world will become a better place" or something along those lines. I can't remember his name (g0zen should know). Trouble with this line of thinking is that it ignories a ton of other social ills that no amount of education will solve like caste systems and classism.
Moreover, education only educates, it does not motivate. A lazy bum with a PhD is still a lazy bum. Individual personalities, aptitudes, talents and gifts cannot be ignored in favor of a "Let's just make em all scientists approach".
There are already too many people making a ton of money in lucrative careers and they are completely miserable because they aren't doing what they love and gifted to do. The biggest problem with black people is the stunted and destructively limited world view that so many of us have.
I mean for fuck's sake, one of my sisters who is a high school teacher, told me of a time when she showed her class a National Geographic video and none of the kids knew what a deer was when they saw it. They were genuinely baffled by the sight of it.
A broader world view is needed for urban youth before any benefit can come from education. Throw all the science you want at them, they still have to be willing to learn it.
An ideal solution, but completely unrealistic. There are too many external variables that can destroy such fragile constructs. Family dysfunction, peer abuse and influence, and just the flat out fact that shit happens and there's nothing you can do about it. Sudden deaths in the family, accidents that result in permanent disfigurement, or just the fact that a lot of people are just selfish, opportunistic assholes.Quote:
If we can instill a sense of ownership and community through educational and social programs (and the application of common sense) that begin in infancy, we will be a lot better off.
No, a more solid foundation is required. Ownership and community are only viable among people who share the same set of ideals.
Mastero7's made some rather interesting points so I would like everyone to at least take a second to read his post as well as Nicks instead of shifting into TLDR LOL@crazyJesusfreaks mode.
ok heres my two cents. On the whole religion thing. I think that Nicks comments are colored (as so SO many of the views of religion and God are these days) by the ills of mankind. And I believe that he is right in that regard. Religion has made a mess of things in many cases.
However we dont see that the church has done a lot of good. What good might you ask? Well you wont see any of that cause the news and such dont do stories on good deeds. No one sees how a church has instilled a seed of morality and intelligence in a man. No one speaks about how my own church had a hand in making me an upstanding citizen. I mean who gives a crap? Its all just fire and brimstone anyway amiriet?
Look. It stinks but I said it before and I will end up saying it till I get tired of saying it which is really soon cause I dont have that much patience for the circular nature of these kind of arguments.
Religion is founded in mandkind. Therefore it has the same failings of mankind. It also has the same positives of mankind.
The above statement also works for the world of science, mathematics, and academics at large. I can say so as someone that believes in God and someone that strives to improve his world through science as an engineer (notice I didnt say english major lol).
My Church didnt brainwash me. My church didnt have any crooked preachers that took my money and bought a pimped out caddy for which to get road head in with a buncha strippers. It happens far too much in this world, but not nearly as much as people are making it out to be nowadays. My church taught me well, and I learned from them that I need an education and I need to be a role model for future children. What more can be asked for?
In conclusion, yeah I agree that theres too much corruption in religion. However all of religion is not corrupt. If even one crooked reverend exists, its one too many. If there is one preacher that is scaring fire and brimstone into people and not teaching that God is good then that is one too many. If there is one pastor that is not teaching personal responsibility in life then it is one too many. But there are a lot of people out there that are doing it right.
Blanket statements are bad M'kay?
I went to a Catholic school for a number of years, by my own choice, to stay out of a shitty public school system. I am not a Catholic, not a Christian, not religious in the least. I went into it thinking a lot of the negative things people do about religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gymkata
I still don't think organized religion is for me. I do think that religious beliefs are responsible for a lot of bad things throughout history, certainly. Weak people do use them for a crutch. A lot of things said in this thread are absolutely true. At the same time, I also met some absolutely wonderful, selfless people who worked in the church. Great role models for all people, living out their beliefs and yes, practicing what they preached. The community was fantastic and it most definitely wasn't lost on me.
I don't like it when religion stifles scientific development either, mind you. At the same time, I also don't like it when science becomes a religion.
I'm going to take the cautious atheist stance here. Honestly being a true atheist is hard. I don't want it spread around either, because there are people who without the fear of some god will do anything and not regret it.
Societal justice aside, most people do not comprehend their own mortality in any meaningful way. Religion gets around that by acknowledging everyone's want of immortality but adds, "Should you act in a way that displeases me, the god, that eternity will certainly be feeling like one."
This turns obeying society's and religious laws into something for one's own pain avoidance benefit that's understandable to everyone. We all know pain, and we're certainly going to avoid any steps things that end up with an eternity in pain. With god we've got an all knowing watcher who sees the small crimes and large.
I think religion does massive amounts of harm, physical through its followers to displeasing minorities, emotional and mental to followers who do not conform enough and stifles science for fear of disproving any religious history that could cause doubt.
But I want people to believe because if nothing else, they're stupid, dangerous and society would easily collapse if everyone acted in their own benefit alone. I'm not so much for the hobbsian world.
I think the greatest harm religion does in a free society is setting people up from childhood forward with the bedrock belief that actions ought to be punished or rewarded on the basis of whether they're "right" or "wrong" as defined by the religion itself (as opposed to whether or not the action does demonstrable harm to another person or infringes upon that person's freedom, which is supposed to be the standard for outlawing something in a free society). This idea would be fine if they'd confine it to their own religious practices rather than trying to impose it upon society at large, but history has shown us that human nature simply does not allow for this.
Still I owe every major religion a beer or whatever for making sure their followers aren't trying to kill me. Totally an ego trip where large multinational organizations that have existed for hundreds of years are serving my interests.
The Catholic Faith has done more harm than good in society.
Theres so much confusion on "right" "wrong", imposing faith on one another, and the ideal that God is a watcher.
WRONG.
We can ignore the Ten Commandments, but we all know that Killing is wrong. Beating a woman is wrong. We all know this whether we learn it or not. Its something inside you that just knows. Some say its self concious or Jimney Cricket. Others say its God or the Holy Spirit. Either way we know not to do certain things.
Religion should NEVER impose itself on others if they don't want or ask for it. I know of a few that do and I see them as wrong. These groups are doing more harm than good and are giving the believers that are trying to help a bad name.
God is not a "Watcher" he sees what people do, so in that sense yes he watches. But he also acts by suggesting things to do and not do. Only catholics think that ... because well their religion is all messed up.
Only the Pastor and Bishop can speak to god. WRONG! YOU can too. That's why Jesus died.
If you sin you have pentance. Wrong. This is why Jesus died.
Good works gets you into heaven. WHAT? Jesus died so that wipes away all the old testament. He died ... you believe ... Welcome to heaven.
If heaven is an incomprehensible clusterfuck of words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Good to see the Protestant hatred for Catholics still continues to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Go preach somewhere else, we don't give a shit about Jesus here.
To be truthful (and I know that white people who want to pretend like white privilege, covert, and institutionalized racism don't exist, even though they are all very real things), the black community and the socially conscious community have already been saying that the way that they are going to rebuild is in favor of racial and socioeconomic change for a long time. It's really less of a race thing than a class issue. But race, gender, and other things are all tools of classism anyway.
I have read from blacks in NO who truly aren't going to be able to go back home. You may not want to believe it and may want to think that Ray Nagin is just insane, but he's just echoing the climate and reality of the people who actually lived it.
These particular black people's shoes are shoes that none of you will ever come close to walking in. So please, this time, don't push the ignorance.
Bear in mind that I am not blaming white people for Katrina, and nobody else is, we are blaming the social elite 1% of American society who controls the tide of the country through financial power in order to continue to become more wealthy, while exploiting you, me, and everyone else in a multitude of ways in order to further this agenda. These ways include psychological warfare, such as turning people of different races against each other, using political messages and war in order to keep us subjugated and poor as they continue to make money, and yes, indeed, profiting off of rebuildin during tragedies. These are also the same people who use religion to control others. These people aren't religious. They don't give a fuck about religion. They give a fuck about controlling a movement that has the most mindless lemmings. Generally, religion. Religion isn't even a bad thing, it's a tool of stratification. Just like racism and other types of divisive or groupthink cultural aspects.
Several people have caked up off of Katrina victims corpses, including the crooked Red Cross.
The reason why it's so hard to believe that this shit happens when it happens, for white people, is because as white people, you don't want to feel guilt. And when you have to admit that people who do damage to society on a corporate level are continuing to do so, you feel bad, because generally, they are white.
Well, I just want to say on behalf of everyone. It's NOT you. You don't have to feel guilty. Nobody blames any of the white people reading this when those people fuck everyone over. Even those people don't associate themselves with you. They are the people that exploit you.
I hope that at least one person read all the way through this.
TLDR (lollerskates)Quote:
Originally Posted by Do You Like Erotic?
But yeah....the big thing about the whole "white privelage" thing is that only 1% of white people truly benefit. Yeah theres day to day situations where white people would be more inclined to benefit; but once again its not as much as some people think. However all of white people get the stereotype of being Thurston Howells, Mr Monopoly guy, and Unca Scrooges. It sucks.
No one's proposing a society of scientists, at least not in this thread. No one here is saying all preachers are corrupt or that the Church has done nothing good in history. No one said that you can't be brilliant and believe in a personal God. My gripe is that we have this bad solution to the ills of Black society that we are holding up as "better than the alternative." As if Black people or any other race of people cannot come up with a moral code without the looming threat of eternal damnation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Christianity is simply not a good solution. It places too much importance on the afterlife and not enough on progress and success in this life. It has too little room for evolution of thought and new discoveries. It keeps people spinning their wheels and wasting their time on ancient fabrications. We learned this week that even chimpanzees exhibit some morality. Why can't you believe that we can find our way and make the world work without a god-based creed?
And it's time, with all this technology we have, to start building some common ideals that are not based in a value system you can easily renounce overnight because it is based on a Book. Stop believing in God and you lose your morality? Misinterpret a passage or a "sign" one moment and you can justify almost anything the next? That may be fine with MarsKitten, but I hardly feel safe with all these afterlife-believers in charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Damn it, if a thirty-five-year-old man still believes Santa Claus will give him a lump of coal if he lies, I don't see that as a good thing because it keeps him honest. I see that as pretty damn worrisome.
Fuck you! I built that hurricane machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Do You Like Erotic?
Although there has been good arguments on both sides, I think religion is a farce and stay in that yard. Your spiritual connection with God can be a personal thing, and it seems that religion politicizes that. You don't have to be an atheist to think religion is bullshit. I'd like to use the example that if the Catholic church sold all of it's art and sculptures they could probably get medications and whatnot to millions of Africans that are starving, instead they horde it all. What kind of message does that send? Why is ANY religion that rich? These are things that make me question the true nature of organized religion. I can have my connection with God when I go for a walk by the lake or a trip to the cottage, why should I spend time every Sunday in a building that is deemed holy? Some people like to feel that community strength I suppose, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
DYLE, lol. Paranoid much? It's all true, though.
Oh, for me, those things are called "logic" and "reasoning."Quote:
Originally Posted by Spent
You don't even know if you're speaking out against Catholicism or Protestantism. You should probably stick to arguing Captain America vs. The Punisher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
This thread sounds intense.
That's Iron Man, jackass.
Whatever.
back to the topic, ray nagin is black. I did not know this.
I don't know if I buy this. They have Bible translations for tards these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
I was referring to your standard NIV or KJV bible. Give either of those to a troubled youth and he'll call you queer He'd be right. That's about as useful as "Hugs, not Drugs"Quote:
Originally Posted by flux=rad
And on the other hand, present anything but KJV to an evangelical and they'll burn you as a witch.
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spent
Make no mistake I am not and never have advocated religion as an alternative. As I have stated dozens of times (yet no one seems to listen), I despise religion. I love my Catholic brothers, but I despise their backward ass religion. Religion, save for the pure kind, is and always will be man-concocted bullshit.
This is a sticking point for many thanks to the Catholic church and all that nonsense about poverty being a blessing. Seriously, anybody who actually believes God wants you to be poor has never read the Bible.Quote:
Why is ANY religion that rich?
No religion should be in control of that kind of wealth, ever.
But the people of God are supposed to be in possession of great wealth so that they can bless those around them. What's more useful to a starving homeless man? Your well wishings and prayers or a hot meal, clean clothes and a place to stay?
Money is a tool. People use it for all kinds of things good or ill. God's people are supposed to use it for the edification of others. Unfortunately, because they have no vision, too many trust religion to do what is right.
Teaching, encouragement, fellowship, exhortation. But more important than any of that, "Where two or more are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst." Yes, a relationship with God is personal, but you aren't the only one in the body of Christ and He isn't just your God. Why do you think the prayer of the saints begins "Our Father who art in heaven" and not "My Father who art in heaven"?Quote:
I can have my connection with God when I go for a walk by the lake or a trip to the cottage, why should I spend time every Sunday in a building that is deemed holy? Some people like to feel that community strength I suppose, but it doesn't make much sense to me.
The concept of Christians as a family isn't some pie-in-the-sky ideal. We are family therefore we are not to forsake the gathering of ourselves.
You perception of Christianity is cleary colored by pure hearsay and sterotypes as none of that is true. Catholocism and catholic dogma ≠ Christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick
A) Chimps are not humans. Of all the beasts in the animal kingdom, only the human rationalizes and premeditates murder.Quote:
We learned this week that even chimpanzees exhibit some morality. Why can't you believe that we can find our way and make the world work without a god-based creed?
B) I know human nature. Regardless of what people are taught as children, the nature of the beast is to seek after it's own well-being over others.
Without a higher standard of accountability man will only seek the well being of other insofar as it benefits him and no farther.
Well, when you find someone who can come up with ideas that 6 billion people, all of whom have their own thinking and views, can adhere to as a way of life instead of a flavor-of-the-week fad make sure to let me know becuase you will have found the anti-christ.Quote:
And it's time, with all this technology we have, to start building some common ideals that are not based in a value system you can easily renounce overnight because it is based on a Book. Stop believing in God and you lose your morality? Misinterpret a passage or a "sign" one moment and you can justify almost anything the next? That may be fine with MarsKitten, but I hardly feel safe with all these afterlife-believers in charge.
What are you talking about? The easter bunny still owes me 50 bucks.Quote:
Damn it, if a thirty-five-year-old man still believes Santa Claus will give him a lump of coal if he lies, I don't see that as a good thing because it keeps him honest. I see that as pretty damn worrisome.
So when the lioness goes out to the field to stalk a zebra its spur of the moment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
It's not murder if you're going to eat it.
Chimpanzees murder each other and even make war on other groups of chimpanzees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
It's survival. She has to eat and so do her cubs and the rest of the pride. Unless all the carnivores in wild turn into vegitarians all of a sudden, to kill is the way of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
Moreover, that's an inaccurate and nonsensical comparison because animals are not human beings. They function by instinct not intellect.
I said rationalize and predmeditate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint of Killers
It's pretty fucking hard to prove whether chimpanzees rationalize and premeditate anything.
If you are going to try to advocate science and theory, please spell correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
predmeditate is what buttcheeks first album will be entitled.
True, but we do share a common ancestor. Also, the second statement is bullshit. Like Josh and Saint said, the lion that's stalking the gazelle is premeditating its murder. The chimp that waits in ambush for a rival to come close so it can rip off its testicles and bite off its fingers rationalizes it to himself it when he's screwing all that chimp's mates and eating his food.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
There is nothing inherent to man which cannot be tied back to the evolution of natural instincts. The idea that man is 'set above the rest' is antiquated garbage.
While there is an inherent dose of self-interest in human behavior, the very fact that we've developed social systems shows that there is evidence that cooperation and reciprocation can be just as successful to the species. If we were all islands unto ourselves, or it was the 'war of all against all' then there would be no nations, cities, religions, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Higher standard of accountability? If you're trying that morality presupposes God then you're full of shit. Period. If you're only compelled to do good because you fear punishment or anticipate reward then you are not moral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
So you talk to him too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Human beings are animals. We were not so different from those chimps in our own behavior (there were even instances of inter-breeding) a few hundred thousand years ago. Oh, and I can point to fossil evidence to back this claim up. What do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
And the idea that chimps and humans are related just because 98% of our genomic sequences are similar isn't garbage?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
75% of a nematoads A, C, G, T sequences are similar to our own. Are we part worm too?
All DNA uses the same four nucleotide base acids. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymidine. The laws of chance insure that 25% of our DNA sequences will be similar to any living thing, plant, protazoan, paramecium, animal or otherwise.
Genetic homology ≠ common ancestry.
We haven't even sucessfully mapped the human genome in it's entirety yet so it is error to jump to any conclusions on shared ancestory based on studies that were inherently limited in scope due to insufficient technology.
When we have progressed to the technological point that we are able to view both chimp and human DNA in their entirety, I will lay odds that the 98% homology figure that has been stated for so many decades will end up being more like 40%.
As for the lion planning murder. No.
To kill and to murder is not the same.
The lion kills. It stalks it's prey. It pounces, it kills, it eats. There is purpose to it's hunting and that is survival as dictated by it's instincts. To my knowledge only humans and certain primates kill for sport.
Animals do not plan for the future and they do not dwell on the past, they live only in the now. If a squirrel stores nuts in the summer so it won't starve during the winter it because instinct compells it to do so. It doesn't have to be taught how to do it, it just does it. There is no thought or planning involved.
The human on the other hand dwells on the past. It remembers wrongs done to it before and/or in the present. It let's those thought fester in it's psyche until it becomes a grudge. It ruminates on the grudge until it turn into hatred. It feeds the hatred until it turns into malice and malice into murderous intent.
But the human has laws that govern it's society so it can't just run out with a club and beat the object of its murderous intent to death. It fears reprisal and punishment so it begins to plan how to kill without fear of consequence.
It stalks it's prey. Where do they spend time alone? What behavior patterns do they exhibit? How can I get them to trust me so I can easily manuver them where I want them when the time comes to strike?
It plans. When is the best time to strike? Where and when will I have the least likely chance to run into someone when I go to dispose of the body? What weapon will I use? Do I want to make them suffer or simply kill them and be done with it?
Then there is the fear. Do I really want to do this? Do I really want to kill someone? What if they fight or scream? What if someone finds out what I'm planning? What if I do it and someone discovers me? Will I have to kill them?
Then rationalization. Remember all that they have done to you. Remember why you hate them. Will you back out now? You've come this far. You said you'd do it, don't be a chicken shit. Are you a quitter? Are you gonna be like your dad and never follow through on what you said you will?
Resolution. They deserve death for their actions against me.
The human pounces, it kills, the deed is done. At first a giddy rush. It laughs. It looks at bloodied hands and feels a sense of tremendous power and authority. Then it is overcome with a sickening dread. It looks at the work of its hands and begins to panic. It abandons its plans of body disposal and flees the scene of the crime.
Regret and remorse. For the next three days the human exists in a fit of despair and guilt until the authorities come for it. To make it pay for it's crime.
So no, lions and other predatory beasts do not murder.
Therein what separates man from beast and why most statements comparing the behavior of animal to that of human is in error.Quote:
While there is an inherent dose of self-interest in human behavior, the very fact that we've developed social systems shows that there is evidence that cooperation and reciprocation can be just as successful to the species. If we were all islands unto ourselves, or it was the 'war of all against all' then there would be no nations, cities, religions, etc.
However, I will concede that apes are similar to humans emotionally in many ways. They feel love and hate, embarassment and indignation, joy and sadness much the same as we do. As such, Saint of Killers statement that it is hard to know wether a chimp premeditates murder or not is completely valid and logical.
Apes have already been proven to have limited reasoning and humanlike intelligence. So I can't say they don't have the capacity for murder.
This is truth. But the practice of moral behavior will, in time, produce a moral person who will do good regardless of consequence. The Great Wall was built one brick at a time.Quote:
Higher standard of accountability? If you're trying that morality presupposes God then you're full of shit. Period. If you're only compelled to do good because you fear punishment or anticipate reward then you are not moral.
Sarcasm noted.Quote:
So you talk to him too?
A healthy amount of skepticism that you obviously lack. You always make the insinuation that Christians are blind sheep that don't ask questions, but you immediately point to fossil eveidence like that instantly clears everything up. Nothing has been confirmed yet regarding human/chimp interbreeding. Just that it might have taken place. It's still under investigation.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff_Pocoroba
The only other animal that kills for fun is cats. Chimpanzee's fight over territory and mates and hierarchy. Cats just kill things for amusement.
You're right. Remembering the way my cat would always torture a mouse by catching it, letting it go, then catching it again reminds me of a National Geographic episode I watched that showed some orcas doing some really fucked up shit to a half-dead seal before they got around to killing it.
Belly flop FTW! SPLOOSH!
If based solely on that, then yes. But that's not at all what we use to denote common ancestry, for that we have transitional fossils.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Purely semantical distinction. Which you support only with a bunch of fluff that is anything but science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Wrong. Human behavior IS animal behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
No, it's an open question not a definitive statement. We can learn about chimp behavior the same way we can with small children. Just because they lack the capacity to speak or express themselves in an advanced manner doesn't mean they're not thinking mechanically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Or you can cut out the reward / punishment bullshit and do good things because you have a capacity for empathy. That's why atheists can always be just as moral as an Christian, moreso even, because rather than focus on garbage supernatural outcomes for your actions you instead reflect on how such actions would affect you in the other person's place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
LOL @ someone who 'talks to God' in the literal sense saying that I lack skepticism. I make claims based on available evidence, knowing that should new evidence arise I am obliged to rethink how I see things. Human and chimp interbreeding isn't wild conjecture, it's based on solid evidence. Far more than even the existence of Jesus, which you accept without ANY skepticism. So, before you presume to accuse me of illogical thinking you need to examine your own beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
75% =/= 98%. I don't think that's very hard to figure out. 98% is really fucking close. 75% is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Well considering that I believe it's around 50% of DNA is the same for all carbon based Earth life forms (a number I'm not 100% certain of as I was not a genetics guy, but I believe is the approximate, anyone who knows the exact numbers feel free to correct me) I'd love to take you up on that bet.Quote:
When we have progressed to the technological point that we are able to view both chimp and human DNA in their entirety, I will lay odds that the 98% homology figure that has been stated for so many decades will end up being more like 40%.
Bullshit. A moral person will practice moral behavior. An immoral person will not practice said behavior and will not be made into a moral person just through the threat of "eternal damnation".Quote:
This is truth. But the practice of moral behavior will, in time, produce a moral person who will do good regardless of consequence. The Great Wall was built one brick at a time.
Who said anything about interbreeding?Quote:
A healthy amount of skepticism that you obviously lack. You always make the insinuation that Christians are blind sheep that don't ask questions, but you immediately point to fossil eveidence like that instantly clears everything up. Nothing has been confirmed yet regarding human/chimp interbreeding. Just that it might have taken place. It's still under investigation.
Interbreeding =/= to common ancestory.
I didn't read this thread, but I saw the Weather Wizard, so I know it is serious up in here.
By all means, quantify hatred and malice then. You're trying apply logic to an action to where there is none save in the mind of the perpatrator.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
And if you think I just made all that stuff up, try actually sitting down and talking with murderers like I have.
Yes, but is it instinctual animal behavior? Humans do not function by instinct as I keep pointing out.Quote:
Wrong. Human behavior IS animal behavior.
I acknowledged that point.Quote:
No, it's an open question not a definitive statement. We can learn about chimp behavior the same way we can with small children. Just because they lack the capacity to speak or express themselves in an advanced manner doesn't mean they're not thinking mechanically.
Ok, I understand what the sticking point here is. You and others think doing good works for rewards is the primary motivator for Christians. Not so. The rewards in the hereafter are just a side benefit and they aren't even tangible rewards. They are metaphorical.Quote:
Or you can cut out the reward / punishment bullshit and do good things because you have a capacity for empathy. That's why atheists can always be just as moral as an Christian, moreso even, because rather than focus on garbage supernatural outcomes for your actions you instead reflect on how such actions would affect you in the other person's place.
No for a true Christian, the reward is the doing of the deed itself. No seasoned Christian who reads their Bible thinks they can earn their way into heaven, that isn't even possible.
Newborns commonly make the mistake, but not the older, more developed Christians.
LOL @ someone who consciously confines the scope of his faith to only what he can see, touch and measure telling me I need to examine my faith in the unseen.Quote:
LOL @ someone who 'talks to God' in the literal sense saying that I lack skepticism. I make claims based on available evidence, knowing that should new evidence arise I am obliged to rethink how I see things. Human and chimp interbreeding isn't wild conjecture, it's based on solid evidence. Far more than even the existence of Jesus, which you accept without ANY skepticism. So, before you presume to accuse me of illogical thinking you need to examine your own beliefs.
If Christopher Columbus had faith like yours he never would have proven the world is round. If aviation researchers had faith like yours they'd never have broken the sound barrier. Hell, Neil Armstrong never would have volunteered for what was potentially a disaster waiting to happen if he had faith like yours.
All humans have faith. It then becomes a matter of what you choose to put that faith into. For you it is science and I see nothing wrong with seeking answers through cold, hard facts and emperical analysis that says "This is the way it is, but is subject to change in the face of new evidence."
But to ignore all other aspects of universal existence (you expect me to believe you don't have a spirit or soul or that no life exists anywhere else in this incomprehensibly vast network of stars we call the Milky Way? nevermind the universe) simply because there is no objective proof of their being? I know you are smarter than that.
My faith is the product of a personal, subjective revelation of God, not what some preacher told me or even what I've read. I didn't even believe in God for the first 19 years of my life, Christianity was a complete load of bullshit as far as I was concerned and I used to mock people who told me I needed Jesus.
But me telling you this makes no difference anyway. There is no objective, scientifically quantifiable evidence of God's presence in the universe and there won't ever be. God can only be known subjectively and personally and even then, only when He chooses to reveal Himself to those who are seeking Him.
"So if it is subjective and personal, why won't you Christians just shut up and let it stay subjective and personal?" Believe me, we'd love to shut up and leave the world to it's own devices, but we aren't allowed to. We have a direct command to tell the world about Christ.
I think your problem with Christianity and religion in general is what you see as the rigid, stagnant nature of tradition and dogma wheras science is always changing and fluid. Science is always making new discoveries whereas Christianity is always preaching the same old thing it's been preaching for 2000 years. I'm probably wrong, but that what it seems like from this end.
98% of what they knew to be the human genome at the time. That statement was made in the 1960's. It is 2007. The more of the human genome they continue to map out, the lower that percentage drops.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Old, but still valid.Quote:
Who said anything about interbreeding?
Interbreeding =/= to common ancestory.
So why did you do it in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Urban legend, regrettably taught as fact in today's schools. Anyone who has looked out at the ocean from an elevated position - like, say, the medieval European ruling class with their seaside castles - is well aware of the earth being round. Columbus was simply seeking a more efficient trade route to Asia, not trying to prove any controversial beliefs true or false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
I call bullshit. So you're trying to tell us that real Christians don't believe that not sinning and doing good works means they're going to heaven? That they all do their good deeds out of the kindness of their heart, and not because they believe that it is the churches way and the church is their path to heaven?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
You were doing great up till that last paragraph. So this command... you have to do it to follow God and get to heaven then? Yet there's no rewards to work for that give reason for what Christians do? Hello contradiction. I have no problem with your religion... but when you start to say I need to live by your rules, well then we have a problem.Quote:
My faith is the product of a personal, subjective revelation of God, not what some preacher told me or even what I've read. I didn't even believe in God for the first 19 years of my life, Christianity was a complete load of bullshit as far as I was concerned and I used to mock people who told me I needed Jesus.
But me telling you this makes no difference anyway. There is no objective, scientifically quantifiable evidence of God's presence in the universe and there won't ever be. God can only be known subjectively and personally and even then, only when He chooses to reveal Himself to those who are seeking Him.
"So if it is subjective and personal, why won't you Christians just shut up and let it stay subjective and personal?" Believe me, we'd love to shut up and leave the world to it's own devices, but we aren't allowed to. We have a direct command to tell the world about Christ.
Really? So do you have numbers and articles that show the percentage has been dropping? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?Quote:
98% of what they knew to be the human genome at the time. That statement was made in the 1960's. It is 2007. The more of the human genome they continue to map out, the lower that percentage drops.
Interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with the earlier arguement still. I ask why you brought up inter-breeding because I don't remember anyone saying anything about that. Just that Humans and chimps are related.Quote:
Where?Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPerrin
Hmm...I'll have to research that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPerrin
Sweet Jesus! The church is the path to heaven?! Fuck no! Where are you getting that from?Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Not sinning and doing good works is what we are supposed to do anyway, it's not even an option. That's the baseline behavior that is required of and expected from all Christians. Is your boss gonna pat you on the back and say "Good job" everytime you come into work on time? Of course not, you're supposed to be punctual. There is leeway given to newborns, but not much before correction is enforced (I'm talking on a spiritual level not through the church).
Any rewards that come, both in this world in the form of financial gain and in the next in whatever form it takes, come from activating and exhibiting faith in God that goes above and beyond your personal limitations, walking out the plan He set up for your life, and continuous spiritual growth.
You cannot earn your way into heaven. That's impossible. Faith in Jesus is the only way you get in, period.
I think you will find that overwhelming majority of Christians don't particularly care what you do with your life. It's the Bible Belt, fundamentalist, right-wing extremist nut jobs that have access to network television and the political arena that give that impression we expect everyone follow what we believe, when the reality is that these idiots are just a very vocal minority.Quote:
You were doing great up till that last paragraph. So this command... you have to do it to follow God and get to heaven then? Yet there's no rewards to work for that give reason for what Christians do? Hello contradiction. I have no problem with your religion... but when you start to say I need to live by your rules, well then we have a problem.
As for the command to preach the gospel. It is a command. We don't have to follow it, we will still enter into heaven, but we will suffer judgement because we were not obedient. We honestly don't have to do a damn thing the bible says if we don't want to, but there is no spiritual growth if we don't and that's really the whole point.
The reward is spiritual growth and maturity and entry into new levels of faith, knowledge, wisdom and understanding. As I stated already, any physical/tangible rewards that come, come from growth in the things of God. It is the desire and will of the Father for His children to enjoy the fat of the land and works of our hands, but there are conditions that must be met beforehand and good works aren't enough.
I have articles I could site, but they are written by Christians. Christians with PhDs in biology and genetics, but Christians nevertheless so there is an obvious slant. As such they useless to this discussion.Quote:
Really? So do you have numbers and articles that show the percentage has been dropping? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?
Quote:
Interesting, but I don't see what it has to do with the earlier arguement still. I ask why you brought up inter-breeding because I don't remember anyone saying anything about that. Just that Humans and chimps are related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Every evangelical I've ever seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
But to come in late you would be fired from the job. A system of punishments is the same thing as a system of rewards essentially.Quote:
Not sinning and doing good works is what we are supposed to do anyway, it's not even an option. That's the baseline behavior that is required of and expected from all Christians. Is your boss gonna pat you on the back and say "Good job" everytime you come into work on time? Of course not, you're supposed to be punctual. There is leeway given to newborns, but not much before correction is enforced (I'm talking on a spiritual level not through the church).
But this is the Protestant Christianity only correct? I think Catholics and Orthodoxes think differently.Quote:
You cannot earn your way into heaven. That's impossible. Faith in Jesus is the only way you get in, period.
Judging by their voting pull I'd say it's a lot more then a minority. If it were such then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. Lets get the seperation of church and state thing going right and then everything is all good. You guys can do your thing and I'll do mine.Quote:
I think you will find that overwhelming majority of Christians don't particularly care what you do with your life. It's the Bible Belt, fundamentalist, right-wing extremist nut jobs that have access to network television and the political arena that give that impression we expect everyone follow what we believe, when the reality is that these idiots are just a very vocal minority.
It's not that they're Christian that would probably make me doubt it, being Christian does not mean someone cannot be a scientist. It's the fact that I'm sure they were written for Christian Journals and such who would make sure any article published is biased towards their view. It's like going to Foxnews for unbiased comments on the right, or looking to a Michael Moore film for unbiased comments on the left.Quote:
I have articles I could site, but they are written by Christians. Christians with PhDs in biology and genetics, but Christians nevertheless so there is an obvious slant. As such they useless to this discussion.
My bad. You were in the right there since Gozen brought that up.Quote:
Inter-breeding quotes
My mistake. For some reason I was misremembering this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
...as something you said out of the blue, not in response to Nick saying something about chimps exhibiting a rudimentary morality structure.Quote:
Of all the beasts in the animal kingdom, only the human rationalizes and premeditates murder.
Very hard to believe. The evangelicals are demonstrably numerous enough in America to pretty much have their way every election, so the represent a majority of the population, let alone Christians. And outside America, Christianity is overwhelmingly dominated by Catholicism, which you seem to acknowledge is even worse. Looks more like your sort is a virtually irrelevant minority.Quote:
I think you will find that overwhelming majority of Christians don't particularly care what you do with your life. It's the Bible Belt, fundamentalist, right-wing extremist nut jobs that have access to network television and the political arena that give that impression we expect everyone follow what we believe, when the reality is that these idiots are just a very vocal minority.
So no non-Christian geneticists have published a revised estimate? That would seem reason to call bullshit. Objective scientists aren't going to suppress something just because it (slightly) weakens the argument against creationism.Quote:
I have articles I could site, but they are written by Christians. Christians with PhDs in biology and genetics, but Christians nevertheless so there is an obvious slant. As such they useless to this discussion.
Urgh, that's not the way it's supposed to be preached.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
They do, but they also have some very warped theology that completely contradicts the bible. At the risk of being inflammatory, Catholocism is not Christianity and many Catholics aren't even Christians so Catholic dogma and theology shouldn't be used as a barometer. They have most of it right, but the rest is garbage, religious nonsense. Confessionals, celibate preists, brides of Christ, communion and mortal sin, the virgin mary, and a host of other bad dogma. There is no biblical foundation for any of that.Quote:
But this is the Protestant Christianity only correct? I think Catholics and Orthodoxes think differently.
Agreed. There are too many slack-jawed, mouth breathing lemmings standing in the way of scientific progress in this country. Stem-cell research should be further along than it is now.Quote:
Judging by their voting pull I'd say it's a lot more then a minority. If it were such then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. Lets get the seperation of church and state thing going right and then everything is all good. You guys can do your thing and I'll do mine.
Do they believe in and worship a person they call Jesus whom they believe to be the son of a monotheistic godhead?
Then they're Christians. The most famous verse of the Bible says so, albeit in more flowery language. Nice attempted cop-out.
I'd say you're going a bit far there. They're not your form of Christianity sure. But they're still a sect of Christianity. You guys just don't agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
The sunni's and the shiate's are still both Muslim, even though they don't agree.
That's not very encouraging. Up to this point every Christian I've run into (with the exception of a few) have been intelligent, rationally minded thinkers with a zeal for the things of God, but enough respect to not force their faith down people's throats.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPerrin
Hmm....looks like I need to travel more and see the reality for myself.
Hence why I deem the articles I read as useless to this discussion.Quote:
So no non-Christian geneticists have published a revised estimate? That would seem reason to call bullshit. Objective scientists aren't going to suppress something just because it (slightly) weakens the argument against creationism.
That's the problem. Many of them (at least in this country) don't believe. It's just the religion of their parents that they were forced into by virtue of being born into that household. The second they leave their parents home, they throw out all they were made to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPerrin
Some don't even believe in the Holy Ghost which makes no sense.
There are literally hundreds of sects of Christianity, but few to none of them presume to be "The one true church" with the secret to get into heaven. The second you hear someone preaching that the church will save you rather than Christ, you can pretty much assume that God isn't a part of that noise.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Anecdotal evidence is worthless here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Humans rely on instinct just as much as any animal. When we're hungry, we eat, when we're tired, we sleep. Just because we have refined processes of problem solving and language doesn't mean we don't also operate on instincts that are inherent to all other mammals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
You are the one who made the claim that morality required a higher authority. I think I've shown good reasons why that's just not a tenable position. I don't care whether most Christians, be they novice or veteran, believe in rewards as being tangible or tertiary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
This is ridiculous bunk. First off, Christopher Columbus didn't prove the world was round. That's grade school mythology. Hell, the year he sailed the ocean was the year that people began using the desk globe. Second, aviation researchers and Neil Armstrong didn't use blind faith in an outcome to guide their actions. They examined the evidence and made a decision to follow it to a conclusion that was predictable. Certainly there was an element of risk, but they weren't shooting in the dark. They had certainty, not faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
I don't have 'faith' in science. I have a certainty that comes from gaining an understanding of the field and the evidence presented. Faith implies absolute knowledge, of which I claim to have none. Whether or not humans are in any way predisposed to having some kind of faith has not been established.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Universal existence? WTF? Also, don't ask my why you should be expected to believe you don't have a soul, tell me instead why you would ever think you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
You accept all that you think you've experienced 'subjectively' with God without question. You don't apply Occam's Razor, what is more likely; that you're being routinely visited by a supreme being that no one else but you can see and communicate with or that you're suffering from some form of delusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
And this, I think, is the only thing we're going to agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Hilarious isn't it that an omnipotent, omnipresent being has to rely on his frail creations to spread the word of his existence? Seems very ineffective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Something like that. When bad science is exposed it is replaced by better science. When bad theology is exposed, it's held to all the more strictly and those who would attempt to replace it often find themselves roasting on the end of a stake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
If their evidence is valid then it doesn't matter about their religion. However, it's very common to find religious nutjobs posing as scientists spouting crap. Take, for example, Michael Behe or Kent Hovind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Ah, Mo7s is always good for a religious argument. Let me jump in with a couple points.
If all knowledge of religions were wiped from our minds and our history, people would still revert back to doing the exact same shit (good and bad).Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Not to disparage your faith, you know I'm a somewhat consistent (if cycnical) defender of religion. But it isn't special in that sense. It's in our nature to create that kind of structure and thinking for ourselves, moral guidelines, etc. No more than one of the religions in the world is right, but there are many things which are universal to all of them. Funny how that works.
That universality to me really legitimizes religion, not necessarily with regard to the truth of their particular mythos, but more that there is some sense of morality beyond cultural construct. It's human nature to believe in right and wrong and a sense of greater purpose, and there's probably a very good reason for that.
Religion didn't create human ethics. Human ethics created religion. Even if one of them was really created by God, we still made up the rest of them.Science is more like a picture gradually coming into focus than some kind of nebulous ever-changing mess that never stays the same. There are fundemental principles as old as science itself which still hold important today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Also, religion changes greatly as well. Christianity is quite different now from what it was like a thousand years ago, which was quite different than what it was 800 years prior, which is certainly different than what it was at the time of Christ, and obviously completely different than what it was before him. This is justified by saying that we have gradually become more educated and enlightened and our current interpretation of the text is more correct than the older one. Much like science is looking at the same world with gradually better understanding. They're really quite similar in this regard, but science is just more conscious of it.
This attitude is reflected in non-textual religions. African religions (and derivatives thereof like Santeria, Candomble, and Voodoo) are very fluid. Stories change from generation to generation and they seem to be aware of this fact, but they see then newer versions as better and more truthful and that doesn't create any sort of crisis of authenticity for them.
The narrow set of nearly-universal human ethics is simply an evolved form of species-preservation instincts; the only thing religion has to do with them is serving as a tool for their enforcement.
That's kinda what I was getting at, sans the apparent nihilism. I wouldn't trivialize their value in preserving the things that we, as a species, deem important.Quote:
Originally Posted by LordPerrin
Instinct is compulsory behavior that does not have to be taught and cannot be chosen. Birds do not have to be taught how or when to build a nest they just do it. Spiders don't build webs for the hell off it, they are compelled to.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Children do not know how to feed themselves, they have to be shown how use a fork/spoon/chopsticks/whatever and that the food goes in their mouths not on their heads. The fact that you think "hungry = eat" and that you know how to eat a bowl Cheerios without dropping it your lap is programming, not instinct. You can actively choose not to eat which would be impossible if it were an instinct.
And sleep? You're body will eventually shut you down, but you can choose to fight the need for sleep. All night cram sessions? Late night movie binges?
Instinct is a predictable pattern a genetically programmed behaviors.
There is no precedent to believe humans function by instinct.
Same thing.Quote:
They had certainty, not faith.
That's what faith is.Quote:
I don't have 'faith' in science. I have a certainty that comes from gaining an understanding of the field and the evidence presented.
No.Quote:
Faith implies absolute knowledge
So all the hundreds of quadrillions of stars in the Milky Way and only God knows how many galaxies in the universe and this little ball of dust in the middle of nowhere is all there is? Are you serious?Quote:
Universal existence? WTF?
It's all fine well to stay focused on the here and now, but have some imagination for pete's sake.
I was going to ask an existential question here, but realized the futility of it. Conceded.Quote:
Also, don't ask my why you should be expected to believe you don't have a soul, tell me instead why you would ever think you do?
LOL!:lol: I talk to God on a regular fucking basis like you talk to someone on the street. What makes you think I haven't lost my fucking mind and I'm just enjoying the ride?Quote:
You accept all that you think you've experienced 'subjectively' with God without question. You don't apply Occam's Razor, what is more likely; that you're being routinely visited by a supreme being that no one else but you can see and communicate with or that you're suffering from some form of delusion?
*points to words under my handle* That choice of words is not accidental.
Besides I'm not the only one He talks to. I know hundreds in my church who all report the same thing. So either we're all nuts (very likely if you know these people, but I love em anyway. :D) or there is truth in what I say about communing with God.
You aren't getting an argument out of me on this. I agree with you. Frankly it still makes no sense to me. Personally, I think God is nuts anyway.Quote:
Hilarious isn't it that an omnipotent, omnipresent being has to rely on his frail creations to spread the word of his existence? Seems very ineffective.
"M'kay so lemme get this straight. You love the world so much that You send Your Son to die for us?"
"That's right."
"Depsite the fact that You know that the majority of humans are going to reject Your gift?"
"Yes."
"You're nuts Father."
"Maybe....or maybe I know something you don't."
*pregnant silence*
"Or maybe You're just nuts"
*laughter*
Yeah, yeah. Shut up, it was funny at the time.
It's valid evidence, but it's slanted. I have no use for non-objective science.Quote:
If their evidence is valid then it doesn't matter about their religion. However, it's very common to find religious nutjobs posing as scientists spouting crap. Take, for example, Michael Behe or Kent Hovind.
Heh, reminds me of...Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
You were doing well till everyone died.
I don't think the comparison is valid. Firstly, religion can never truly change unless it allows the possibility of doubt in all its assertions. Science has that, and acknowledges revolutionary shifts in its theories. To be a Christian, you've simply got to accept the divinity of Christ based on zero evidence and after you've accepted it you must not question that belief in any way, shape, or form. That's not science. Just because there have developed schisms within the dogma and doctrine of the religion isn't the same as when science is willing to concede that there isn't and there never was an aether and that relativity is the way it was and always has been, based solely on evidence through observation and testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
But again, it's not evidence based. The stories change solely because the people who tell them change, not because they're getting any closer to the truth through better observations or valid testing methods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Children know damn well how to eat. When their mother presses them against their breast she doesn't have to hold open their mouth with one hand and squirt the milk in with the other (though that would be kinda hot). The baby knows instinctually how to suckle from its mother. Just because it doesn't pop out of the womb with the ability to order a big mac at the drive thru doesn't mean it isn't just as motivated by instinct as the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Also, there are plenty of animals that can make a decision not to eat. There have been studies done where chimps would give up food if they felt like the chimp next to them was being given something sweeter. Or if a chimp had to choose between hitting a switch that dropped food and another that opened a window to show them a potential mate on the other side, they smack the hell out of the window one. There are plenty of cases where animals are able to override one instinct for another, humans do the same.
Wrong. There's ample precedent. Look around you, see other people? Then guess what, you're seeing the product of the biological instinct to reproduce. It's not something people do just because they want to, or because of some holy book, it's written into their very being that they will want to sexually reproduce. And sure, you can fight it, but doesn't mean you still aren't drawn to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Are you joking? Faith doesn't require evidence, that's why it's faith. People who have 'faith' in God don't use that as a way to acknowledge their deep empirical understanding of a divine presence, they use it as armor to prevent themselves from accepting the deep contradictions inherent in such beliefs. Evidence (or lack thereof) tells you God very likely does not exist, but your faith allows you to continue to hold that belief without good reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
I never said I knew for sure that there was no comparable human life on other planets, but I'm not going to believe in something just because the results of it being true would be interesting. I'm compelled by the evidence, and there is just no evidence yet that points to there being any other civilizations in the observable universe. That's just the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
If you realize this, then why not do the smart thing and get yourself real professional psychiatric help? It's an illness like any other, and left untreated could potentially worsen over the years. You wouldn't leave a gaping wound that had gotten infected alone like that, would you? You'd seek medical help. Well you've got a wound, and you need help.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Again, apply Occam's Razor; What is more likely? That out of all the world's population you and some of your fellow parishioners are chosen by a divine, omnipotent being to be contacted or that you're all suffering from some form of mental illness or self-delusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Present it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of 7s
Well, to play devil's advocate here, the law of statistics would say that somewhere within the universe there is another civilization out there, somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
True, there is statistical conjecture that is enough to compel us to look, but we've not found anything yet resembling evidence.
I thought exactly this after my last post. Ok conceded, humans have one instinct.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Faith damn well does require evidence or it doesn't grow. The only ones who use it the way you're tallking about are the ones who are afraid to or discouraged from questioning what they believe. I've been a Christian for 13 years and have had plenty of time to question everything. I finally just decided to accept what I and hundreds of millions of other know to be truth.Quote:
Are you joking? Faith doesn't require evidence, that's why it's faith. People who have 'faith' in God don't use that as a way to acknowledge their deep empirical understanding of a divine presence, they use it as armor to prevent themselves from accepting the deep contradictions inherent in such beliefs. Evidence (or lack thereof) tells you God very likely does not exist, but your faith allows you to continue to hold that belief without good reasons.
If thing wasn't real, I wouldn't be doing it.
Blech, so dry and literalist.Quote:
I never said I knew for sure that there was no comparable human life on other planets, but I'm not going to believe in something just because the results of it being true would be interesting. I'm compelled by the evidence, and there is just no evidence yet that points to there being any other civilizations in the observable universe. That's just the way it is.
I don't define insanity the same way you do. You see it as a deviation from normal behavior, which is a relative concept anyway, and a distorted sense of reality.Quote:
If you realize this, then why not do the smart thing and get yourself real professional psychiatric help? It's an illness like any other, and left untreated could potentially worsen over the years. You wouldn't leave a gaping wound that had gotten infected alone like that, would you? You'd seek medical help. Well you've got a wound, and you need help.
I see insanity as an elevated sense of reality through spiritual awakening, growth and enlightenment. Spiritual people behave differently than the average person, regardless of culture.
When I say I've lost my mind, I mean just that. I've lost my mindfulness of the world and it's ways.
Hmm....that out a population of 6 billion more than 1/3 of those all believe more or less the same thing? Sounds like you need to apply the razor yourself.Quote:
Again, apply Occam's Razor; What is more likely? That out of all the world's population you and some of your fellow parishioners are chosen by a divine, omnipotent being to be contacted or that you're all suffering from some form of mental illness or self-delusion?
What's more likely? That 2 billion of us are suffering from the exact same mental illness or that we know something you don't.
Hell, why limit it to just Christianity? 98% of the world believes in God in some form or another. Applying the razor makes it seem pretty likely that you're the mentally ill one here.
Here.Quote:
Present it then.
I want to reply to some of the arguments in this thread, but there is too much to wade through with all this abuse of the quote feature. Let's try summarizing more and having no more than three quotes per post.
It's useful when done in moderation, but too much of it makes the arguments harder to follow and gives the appearance of quibbling.