|
|
| Re: TESCOs vs Walmart (240886) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (241700) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Aug 27 20:29:34 2007, in response to Re: TESCOs vs Walmart, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 19:41:59 2007. hypermarketsAn amazing word to describe some of the larger Super Wal-Marts and Super Targets and other big box stores that hasn't yet appeared in common American English vocabulary. I suspect it's because the hypermarkets aren't commonplace here in the Northeast. Oddly, my first trip to a hypermarket was in Ottawa, Canada* several years ago, where a Loblaws had supermarket, bulk items area, optometrist, clinic, gym, daycare centre, bank, and community meeting rooms. It looked leagues better than any of the markets here in New York, and the employees were helpful, knowledgeable, and food tasted slightly better... *Gloucester Town Centre if you're anal in the former city of Gloucester. The mall has its own stop on the Transitway, but the majority of the patrons traveled via cars. |
|
|
| (241706) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 21:15:25 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 20:02:10 2007. Watch it! The Bundys may take exception to your discussing their in-laws! 8-) |
|
|
| (241712) | |
Re: nonsense |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 22:02:51 2007, in response to Re: nonsense, posted by monorail on Sun Aug 26 23:40:19 2007. No he doesn't. |
|
|
| (241713) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Mon Aug 27 22:06:08 2007, in response to Re: TESCOs vs Walmart, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Aug 27 20:29:34 2007. We don't have very many of these types of stores in the LA area either. I travel a lot for work and I often see WalMart Supercenters in small towns. The people there either call them by their name and I think that I've heard them generically referred to as "super stores" for obvious reasons.As much as I dislike the idea of these types of stores putting local mom and pop stores out of business so that we can send our money to China, I have to admit that it is nice to actually be able to buy stuff in these towns if I need it. Many towns that now have super stores had nothing but a couple of shitty grocery stores and no department stores so it's a huge upgrade for the people that live there. |
|
|
| (241716) | |
Re: nonsense |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 22:11:59 2007, in response to Re: nonsense, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 22:02:51 2007. think she does |
|
|
| (241725) | |
Re: skool prare |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 22:30:16 2007, in response to Re: skool prare, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 27 14:36:42 2007. 
|
|
|
| (241727) | |
Re: skool prare |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Aug 27 22:32:00 2007, in response to Re: skool prare, posted by monorail on Sun Aug 26 23:35:15 2007.  The Chery QQ |
|
|
| (241729) | |
Re: skool prare |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 22:34:19 2007, in response to Re: skool prare, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon Aug 27 22:32:00 2007. mon cheri? |
|
|
| (241730) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 22:35:03 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Sun Aug 26 18:54:36 2007. Considering that America is more religious than England, it seems that our system works better in getting people to be religious. |
|
|
| (241733) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 22:42:01 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 22:35:03 2007. That is a very interesting point.Our size is part of that. The US and Russia have something in common: lots of xenophobic peasants who live in the interior of the country, don't particularly like the coasts (corrupting influences, you know), don't know the UN from Disneyland and couldn't care less. Whatever their pastor doesn't teach them in Sunday School can't be important... |
|
|
| (241739) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 23:02:59 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Aug 26 22:01:15 2007. You've never met me! |
|
|
| (241740) | |
Re: skool prare |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Mon Aug 27 23:07:36 2007, in response to Re: skool prare, posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 22:34:19 2007. No: Mon Cheri |
|
|
| (241741) | |
Re: skool prare |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 23:12:14 2007, in response to Re: skool prare, posted by JohnL on Mon Aug 27 23:07:36 2007. reminds me of someone |
|
|
| (241773) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Aug 28 00:42:27 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 27 20:07:50 2007. Please, please, please don't remind me of Xenophon of Ephesus...Lacking a classical education, that was bound to arouse my curiosity, so I googled him. Xenophon of Ephesus is known for a novel called "The Ephesian Tale of Anthia and Habrocomes". Young newlyweds are taken as slaves and separated. They face dreadful perils in their attempts to remain true to each other and reunite. Wikipedia says: "If An Ephesian Tale is an absorbing tale of love and improbable adventure, it is also a tract to prove that Diana of the Ephesians (who was equated with Isis) cares for her loyal devotees." I suppose somebody must have worshipped the wrong god (not Isis). Based on the plot as described in Wiki, it all sounds pretty exciting to me! |
|
|
| (241780) | |
Re: nonsense |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 01:51:48 2007, in response to Re: nonsense, posted by monorail on Mon Aug 27 22:11:59 2007. Now you're calling Olog-hai a she? |
|
|
| (241794) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 08:18:43 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:41:02 2007. ""where is a wealth of evidence, with respect to Jesus, "False. There is a wealth of faith and mythology, not evidence. Oe must believe it by Christian faith. By contrast, Jewish faith generaly does not support a resurrection." False there is a wealth of evidence, it's just evidence you won't accept because of your faith blinding you (like all the other non-Christian faiths). Jewish faith does support an escatological (end-of-time) resurrection, or it did in the first century AD, but that was probably changed as an anti-Christian polemic. It didn't support one-off resurrection, like Jesus', so the disciples would be completely alien to the concept (though Jesus told them, they didn't listen and enforced their own prejudices on the matter) Right, OK, the evidence. First of all - the oldest NT manuscripts we have are 100 years after the events, however there is a great wealth of evidence to suggest that these hadn't changed over the 60-70 years since they were written, or that they are different from the texts used to translate Bibles today. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they are based on eyewitness sources, and that the earliest book was 1 Corinthians written about 20-25 years afterwards, though the passion narrative of Mark (including the resurrection) came from a source that was pre-37AD, due to the lack of calling the High Priest by his name - you wouldn't call Clinton "the President", without introducing him. The New Testament is by far the most aatestable 1st Century Document. The sheer number of manuscripts and their date make it far more reliable than anything else we have, such as Julius Caeser's 'Gallic Wars'. If they were secular documents, no one would have any problem with their accuracy, however because they aren't people are instantly prejudiced, and despite the evidence, by faith (with no proof), reject them out of hand as historical sources. There are many contemporary secular witnesses backing up the historicity of the Gospel narratives and the testimony of Paul and the early Church as well. Thallus, writing at about the same time as Paul wanted a credible argument against the Christian faith. He chose the sky darkening for three hours from noon to 3pm, on Good Friday. He claimed that this wasn't God showing he was bringing down judgement, but a solar eclipse. It seems he couldn't deny that for three hours in the middle of the day it was like night, but his weasel words to try and debunk it failed - Good Friday was when solar eclipses couldn't happen, as the moon was on the wrong side. Nethertheless, Thallus' attempt at discrediting Christianity, just cements it further. Josephus refers to Jesus being a miracle worker, who was "a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man". Seeing as he was an anti-Christian, Jew, he couldn't deny that Jesus lived and worked miracles, and shockingly goes as far as saying that he might not have been just a man. Tacticus, a Roman historian, confirms that Jesus was crucified under Pilate. He then says that the faith had a new lease of life after that - "The deadly superstition, thus checked for a moment [ie, between the arrest and resurrection of Jesus], broke out afresh in Judea, the first source of the evil" OK, another Roman who hated Christianity is providing evidence that it's true - more on that later. OK, so we have secular evidence that the Bible is reliable in the basics - that Jesus died and that the movement rose up again not long after that death. We also have good dates for much of the New Testament - while eyewitnesses are still alive. We also have that the sources are eyewitness accounts, some of which were written down, into the Pre-Markan Passion Source within a decade, more like 5 years after the events. Ok, now onto the evidence of the New Testament. Jesus was killed on the day before Passover by a crack team of executioners. They were asked to double check that he was dead, which they did. He was buried in a tomb, watched by women as that happened. Several Roman Soldiers were dispatched to be guards on the tomb. On the Sunday morning, several of the women that saw Jesus' burial returned to finish off the job. The massive stone sealing the tomb was rolled away, the grave clothes were left as-was, just with no body inside. The guards had fled. The women went and got some of the followers who had deserted Jesus two days before - all of them were surprised and scared that Jesus wasn't there. Over the course of the next 6 weeks Jesus appeared to many people, ex-followers and those who hadn't followed him, doubters and cynics. He appeared to over 500 at one time, most of whom were alive 25 years later, when the New Testament was starting to be written. He ate fish, had people put their hands into his wounds - he was a physical body, OK, a physical body that could appear out of nowhere. His followers, 50 days after the events at Passover, then proclaimed on the streets that Jesus was resurrected and now had ascended into Heaven, and didn't change their story after being thrown in prison, flogged, close friends executed. They had changed completely from deserters afraid of association with Jesus for fear of their lives, to martyrs, killed for their insistence that Jesus had rose from the dead. OK, lets reinforce that story. That women found the tomb (Mark, for instance doesn't mention Peter) would be a massive embarrassment to the Gospel writers - their testimony would count as nothing. However, because that is what happened, Mark (and the others) reluctantly put it in - they were concerned with facts. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 writes down the wealth of witnesses to the fact that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. That there were eyewitnesses about at the time of writing, any major discrepancy (eg the sky not going dark on Good Friday, or the preaching to a great many in Jerusalem at Pentecost, or the appearance of Jesus to 500 at once) would undermine the whole thing. The Jewish authorities, and the Roman authorities tried to discredit the fledgling faith. The best they could do was "the disciples stole the body out of the tomb". But hang on - the disciples (male at least) had pretty much all gone into hiding in fear of their lives. There were Roman Soldiers guarding the gate, all of whom were found unhurt (though very scared as the punishment for fleeing their posts was death). Why would men, afraid of being killed be killed for moving the body (an abhorrent thing for them, as devout Jews) of the leader who they presumed finished? Why would men, who were scared of death suddenly become totally unafraid and also not grieving their friend who they spent 3 years with? How could 500 people, of mixed belief all hallucinate at the same time? How could the number of believers, just 50 days after the event be over 3000 and growing daily in the city where it had all happened? Richard Swinburne, a philosophy professor writes "The resurrection of Jesus, if it occurred... would clearly be a violation of natural laws which only God could bring about." and also, in a book, he looks at the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. He sees that the the evidence "makes it very probable indeed [he has an appendix full of probabilities, and gets 97% likelihood] that God became incarnate in Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead". He started from a completely open base, no assumptions on the existence or nature of God. A professor of Law and Humanities states the obvious "The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether it has occurred. The problem of miracles, then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not philosophical speculation." Sir Edward Clarke, a lawyer wrote "as a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of he evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling". Lord Darling, a former Lord Chief Justice says "In its [the resurrection story's] favour as a living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring a verdict that the resurrection is true". |
|
|
| (241795) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 08:18:44 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Aug 27 17:41:02 2007. ""Can you scientifically prove that?"Yes, actually. Compare the vast number of religions out there now. Do Hindus believe in Jesus' resurrection? Do Buddhists? What about Jews? They generally reject the New Testament. What about Mormons? Do you accept the Book of Mormon in the whole, as you would the Bible? What about the Quran? Are all the truths there the same as in the New Testament? oh, if that's your idea of scientific proof, I could porve the flying spaghetti monster. A complete travesty of proof - you haven't proved it, just asserted that as people believe different things, whichever one you choose is true. You haven't proved, you've asserted, and you haven't used science at all. The simple fact is that, scientifically and logically, x doesn't equal not x. So the Hindu's many gods cannot be true if atheism's no god is true, or monotheism's one god. likewise Islam's Mohammed is a prophet contends with Judaism's view that he isn't. The list of conflicting differences go on and on. As there are some many incompatibilities between the different worldviews, it cannot be that all are true - either one is true, or we are all wrong, and no worldview held by anyone is right. Some might have some things right, but not everything, but only one can be true. The truth of the Qu'ran and the Book of Mormon fall flat on their faces, when compared with history, especially the BoM. The Quran is harder to show (not least because of it's deliberate lack of historic context, though the traditions and so on that help interpret the Quran, putting in the context, have Mohammed living in a 9th century, not a 7th century context), as most of the people who've debunked the historicity of it, and found that it's just bits taken from other holy books of the area, mixed in with a bit of 9th century propaganda against Christianity and Judaism, haven't published their work, or have gone into hiding to avoid being killed by Muslim extremists. Hindus and Buddhists would believe in Jesus' resurrection - Hindu's just assimilated him into their religion and treat him as another one of their gods, and Buddists deny some of the facts and change it so that Jesus fits their view that he just reached enlightment. |
|
|
| (241796) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 08:29:46 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 27 12:59:21 2007. I would have a problem with nativities on public land because it's an exclusively religious symbol. Same thing with prayers. I don't consider "under God" to be a prayer (it's too bad the Supreme Court copped out and didn't rule on this issue). |
|
|
| (241797) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 08:38:03 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by BIE on Mon Aug 27 14:24:18 2007. They should be removed BY CONGRESS, no Courts. |
|
|
| (241803) | |
Re: nonsense |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Tue Aug 28 09:28:20 2007, in response to Re: nonsense, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 01:51:48 2007. thought she was a sheyou mean she's a he? |
|
|
| (241809) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 09:57:07 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 08:18:43 2007. If you were secure in your faith, you would not have to wear it on your sleeve and stick it in other people's faces to convince yourself of its value. If you're looking for my approval to be a Christian, you don't need it - but the converse is true too - I don't need your approval to not be one.Ultimately, the issue is that you fear that somehow your faith will be taken from you, or that you will fail, or that, like the reformed whore (the most pious and yet the most obnoxious among us), you will fail to "save" us from some heresy - never mind that heresy is a religious concept that not everyone feels bound by. Maybe a better approach is for you to go to a church of your liking, attend a religious school of your liking (you seem to favor the Christian equivalent of a madrassa, or perhaps a pre-Vatican II Catholic Church) and not worry about forciby converting other people. I should point out something else -Mel Gibson's views on Catholicism are an excellent example of someone who advocates as you do. It turns out, though, that what he's realy expressing is his ethnic and cultural hatred more than anything else. He (mis)uses religion to justify his own phobias. Are you sure you're not doing the same thing? "The New Testament is by far the most aatestable 1st Century Document. The sheer number of manuscripts and their date make it far more reliable than anything else we have, such as Julius Caeser's 'Gallic Wars'. " False statement. The sheer number of manuscripts simply meant somebody was writing a lot. Anne Rice and Stephen King are very prolific - doesn't make their works non-fiction. One of the strengths of the Old Testament is that there is corroboration for various events in it. For example, the exodus from Egypt, though suffering from mistranslation, describes a very wet year in the Nile Delta, the biological consequences of a flood, and a military victory by the Jews over an Egyptian Army not suited to infantry combat in the reeds. By contrast, you rely solely on the New Testament to support itself - therefore, it collapses on itself. "If they were secular documents, no one would have any problem with their accuracy," See above. You're getting paranoid. however because they aren't people are instantly prejudiced, and despite the evidence, by faith (with no proof), reject them out of hand as historical sources." There is no such thing as evidence by faith. Evidence by faith is an oxymoron. The New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, is not primarily a historical text. It is a political text, an advertisement for one brand of monotheistic religion. "He chose the sky darkening for three hours from noon to 3pm, on Good Friday. He claimed that this wasn't God showing he was bringing down judgement, but a solar eclipse. It seems he couldn't deny that for three hours in the middle of the day it was like night, but his weasel words to try and debunk it failed - Good Friday was when solar eclipses couldn't happen, as the moon was on the wrong side" So we can conclude the darkening didn't happen at all, or it was allegorical. "Several Roman Soldiers were dispatched to be guards on the tomb. On the Sunday morning, several of the women that saw Jesus' burial returned to finish off the job. The massive stone sealing the tomb was rolled away, the grave clothes were left as-was, just with no body inside. The guards had fled. The women went and got some of the followers who had deserted Jesus two days before - all of them were surprised and scared that Jesus wasn't there. Over the course of the next 6 weeks Jesus appeared to many people, ex-followers and those who hadn't followed him, doubters and cynics." Very similar to modern fantasies. Hundreds of people claim to see aliens coming out of spaceships. They all describe the aliens the same way - slanted eyes, particular kind of face, etc. All the drawings look similar. There are repeated "eyewitness accounts" of being taken up in the spaceships. The only trouble with the story, though, is the "aliens" were originaly drawn by an artist for NBC, who was creating a character for television show. The rest was hucksterism gone out of control amid a scientificaly illiterate audience. A professor of Law and Humanities states the obvious "The only way we can know whether an event can occur is to see whether it has occurred. The problem of miracles, then, must be solved in the realm of historical investigation, not philosophical speculation." You have no evidence. As to Edward Clarke, you do him an injustice. His accomplishments are well-known, but they are in politics and law: Link here |
|
|
| (241821) | |
Re: TESCOs vs Walmart |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 11:24:05 2007, in response to Re: TESCOs vs Walmart, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Aug 27 20:29:34 2007. I go to supermarkets whenever I go to the rest of the country because they're just so much better that it's worth the trip, even if all I buy is some snacks. |
|
|
| (241822) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 11:32:26 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Mon Aug 27 13:08:19 2007. Surely serving the people, in a democracy is to follow their will.America is not a democracy nor should it be. Real democracy would lead to a tyranny of the majority. If 90% of Kansans didn't want evolution to be taught in schools, it doesn't matter, because the government must also serve the other 10%. |
|
|
| (241827) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 11:41:41 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 11:32:26 2007. I agree with your reasoning, except: America IS a democracy. It isn't a "pure" democracy, just as our "free markets" are not PURE either - they have regulations so that people don't get trampled. |
|
|
| (241854) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 28 12:43:22 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Aug 27 23:02:59 2007. I thought it was a valid qualifier. Heh. We'll have to do something about that some day. :) |
|
|
| (241861) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 13:21:12 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 09:57:07 2007. "If you were secure in your faith, you would not have to wear it on your sleeve and stick it in other people's faces to convince yourself of its value. If you're looking for my approval to be a Christian, you don't need it - but the converse is true too - I don't need your approval to not be one."I am secure in my faith, very very secure - if I wasn't sure, I wouldn't be putting it to the test right now. I'm wearing it on my sleeve because it's true, and the consequences of it being true is that I have to wear it on my sleeve, as it's the most important thing for everyone - a matter of life and death. I have to tell other people, to allow them a free chance to decide. I chose not to stick it in your face, but you constantly said I was wrong, so I felt justified to show why I am right. I'm not looking for your approval, I'm looking to fight the intolerance and ignorance of yourself. "Ultimately, the issue is that you fear that somehow your faith will be taken from you, or that you will fail, or that, like the reformed whore (the most pious and yet the most obnoxious among us), you will fail to "save" us from some heresy - never mind that heresy is a religious concept that not everyone feels bound by. Maybe a better approach is for you to go to a church of your liking, attend a religious school of your liking (you seem to favor the Christian equivalent of a madrassa, or perhaps a pre-Vatican II Catholic Church) and not worry about forciby converting other people. I should point out something else -Mel Gibson's views on Catholicism are an excellent example of someone who advocates as you do. It turns out, though, that what he's realy expressing is his ethnic and cultural hatred more than anything else." I can't and don't try to forcibly convert people - I just stated lots of facts that you said don't exist. You also seem to be seeking to stifle my freedom of speech, and saying that I shouldn't be able to speak to people who aren't Christians. I also see that you are having to resort to ad hominem to try and score points. You seem very very threatened by this all, as if you realise that it's true but you don't want it to be. I don't seem to favour a mandrassa, I favour a school that teaches facts of importance, like "if you follow Jesus you will not perish eternally", not brushing them under the carpet, like the state schools in both the UK and the US do. As for ethnic and cultural hatred - while ethnicity holds no bounds, I do have a hatred of this culture, the one which is apathetic to the truth, seeks selfish gain and is so scared of upsetting other people that they taboo viewpoints in case they offend people (unless those people are the majority, like in the evolution case in the US (though I'm not part of that majority)). "He (mis)uses religion to justify his own phobias. Are you sure you're not doing the same thing?" Are you sure that you aren't? Your intolerance of me seems, using your agnostic faith, and the circular reasoning that atheists use are seemingly being used to justify and cover up your theophobia and fear of the truth. You can't seem to handle the truth, so you make excuses and reasons as to why it's not true in the hope that goes away. "False statement. The sheer number of manuscripts simply meant somebody was writing a lot. Anne Rice and Stephen King are very prolific - doesn't make their works non-fiction." While it doesn't make the New Testament true, it makes it a far more reliable manuscript. As both the Gospel accounts and Acts, as well as the Gallic Wars are deliberately written as non-fiction, rather than as fiction, that makes the history given in the NT far more reliable as that in the Gallic Wars. Other things come into it. Anne Rice and Steven King, as far as I know, didn't intend to write their books as covering real events. "One of the strengths of the Old Testament is that there is corroboration for various events in it. For example, the exodus from Egypt, though suffering from mistranslation, describes a very wet year in the Nile Delta, the biological consequences of a flood, and a military victory by the Jews over an Egyptian Army not suited to infantry combat in the reeds. By contrast, you rely solely on the New Testament to support itself - therefore, it collapses on itself." Seeing as what we were discussing was the NT, and I didn't want to write a book, I chose to leave out the historicity of the OT, and the archaeological evidence for the NT. ""If they were secular documents, no one would have any problem with their accuracy," See above. You're getting paranoid." No I'm not, that's a quote from FF Bruce, an expert in this field. It's simply true that, because the documents are religious, that people reject them. Look at you - you reject the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus in schools, but you allow the teaching of, say, Julius Caesar existing, which is less historically certain. You reject the first one, simply as it has religious significance. Luke wrote as a historian. His writings have a far better manuscript testimony than any of his contemporaries, yet we take the contemporaries word as truth, but not Luke, because his history isn't secular. If you can take the Gallic Wars, which we only have 10 copies, all dating to 1000 years later, as history, why can't you take Luke with thousands of copies dating to 100-200 years later all testifying back to it being written about the time when the events happened? I think it's you who is getting paranoid, you are resorting to taking down my evidence by attacking me, not it. "however because they aren't people are instantly prejudiced, and despite the evidence, by faith (with no proof), reject them out of hand as historical sources." There is no such thing as evidence by faith. Evidence by faith is an oxymoron." I never said evidence by faith - learn to read - I said that they reject the validity of the evidence, despite the evidence. They cannot prove why they can ignore the evidence, they just believe that it's wrong. By faith they ignore the evidence, because of their believes that such a thing can't happen. "The New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, is not primarily a historical text." Though parts of it are histories. Try reading Luke-Acts. It was written by a doctor, in the style of Greek histories and was to be used as evidence at the trial of Paul before his trip to Rome (with the last few chapters added on) - he would have been let off had he not appealed to the Emperor - the Roman authorities couldn't find anything to say that he was spreading lies. It is a political text, an advertisement for one brand of monotheistic religion." so's the OT. so's the newspaper. Just because the 'Independent' (a UK paper) blamed Katrina directly on the oil rigs in the sea, doesn't mean the events described in there are false, just the reasoning. The NT does have that biased explanation of the events, but you try and give another explaination - no one, to my recollection has. "So we can conclude the darkening didn't happen at all, or it was allegorical." Evidence that we can conclude those things? Thallus couldn't get round the darkness to try and debunk the validity of the Christian texts, so he came up with a reason. Just like the Independent's crap reason above, it made no sense at all. "Very similar to modern fantasies. Hundreds of people claim to see aliens coming out of spaceships." at the same time? with them all verifying that they saw one? People who didn't believe that Jesus had rose again (which is all of them initially), even people who had never met Jesus? Why did they stop after 40 days (with the exception of Paul)? Where was the body of Jesus - if it was just hallucinations, then the body would still be somewhere? They would have been very good hallucinations, as the hallucination could teach them what they didn't know, eat, be touched, etc. The hallucination theory has been looked at over the years, many times, by physiologists. If they were hallucinations, then the minute that someone touched him, or was in the room and couldn't see him then the whole thing would have been realised as just madness. "You have no evidence." No, you have decided to ignore the evidence that I have put forward (which wasn't all of it, but for length reasons I only used some of it). Can I ask you to prove to me why my evidence is invalid? You seem to just assert that it is! "As to Edward Clarke, you do him an injustice. His accomplishments are well-known, but they are in politics and law:" Surely if I quote him, it's not me, but him that is doing himself an injustice? However, you would think a lawyer would know what evidence would look like, wouldn't you? By saying there is none, perhaps you are doing him the greater injustice? |
|
|
| (241862) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 13:33:03 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 11:32:26 2007. though of course, they fail to serve the 90%, which last time I checked, were people too! That's just as much tyranny, only this time by the stateThen again, if it's true, then teach them it, if it's not then don't, regardless of objections of people. If the truth hurts, then tough! |
|
|
| (241864) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 13:59:11 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 13:21:12 2007. "I am secure in my faith, very very secure - if I wasn't sure, I wouldn't be putting it to the test right now."If you were secure you wouldn't need to test it at all. "but you constantly said I was wrong" You're not wrong about choosing to be a Christian - only in insisting that Christianity is singularly connected with the physical world through a resurrection. It misses the point entirely. "I can't and don't try to forcibly convert people - I just stated lots of facts that you said don't exist. " Advocating for religious proselytizing in public school is part of forcing your religion down other people's throats. "I don't seem to favour a mandrassa, I favour a school that teaches facts of importance, like "if you follow Jesus you will not perish eternally", That is the definbition of a madrassa. It is exactly the same as someone telling you "If you do as Mohammed you will not perish eternally." There is no difference between the two. I public school, this would amount to SHDM (Same harassment, different mythology). "While it doesn't make the New Testament true, it makes it a far more reliable manuscript." Same for Ann Rice. The creatures in her novels must, therefore, be real. "Look at you - you reject the teaching of the resurrection of Jesus in schools, but you allow the teaching of, say, Julius Caesar existing, which is less historically certain." Actually, the opposite is true. There's some doubt in some historical circles whether Jesus of Nazareth was even a real person, and not some made-up character. However, more likely than not he did exist. "Luke wrote as a historian" No, he wrote as an advocate, an advertiser, for his chosen religion. "even people who had never met Jesus?" Even people who never met the aliens. 8-) "I said that they reject the validity of the evidence, despite the evidence." No, they reject the mythology presented as if it were evidence. Religion doesn't require physical proof; in fact physical proof is irrelevant. There is no objectivity in religion, though religious imperative can motivate people, like Charles Darwin, to explore the beauty of the world and describe it, or Bach, to write music. But in the end, religion serves the people who create it and subscribe to it, and people have created and subscribed to many religions. |
|
|
| (241866) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 14:04:59 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 13:33:03 2007. "though of course, they fail to serve the 90%,"No they don't. They serve them very well. |
|
|
| (241870) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 14:23:06 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 14:04:59 2007. they don't give them what they want, but teach them facts (which of course, isn't a bad thing). When the fact is evolution, you have no objection, but when the fact is anything else that may offend, you seem to consider it horribly objectionable.Seeing as evolution is effectively a religious issue in the States, surely this breaks the separation of Church and State, with the State favouring one religious view over another? It's inflicting the view of the minority (in this case) on the majority. |
|
|
| (241871) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 14:28:08 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 14:23:06 2007. "they don't give them what they want,"Sure they do. "When the fact is evolution, you have no objection," Evolution is the lynchpin of all biology and medicine. "Seeing as evolution is effectively a religious issue in the States" No, evolution is an issue of scientific illiteracy. Itis an example of misuse of religion by ignoramuses who feel their political power is threatened by it. Christians, Jews, Moslems and others have all made important contributions to our understanding of evolution. Often, no surprise, the folks who push creationism are as ignorant and bigoted about their religion as they are about science. |
|
|
| (241881) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 15:09:02 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 13:59:11 2007. If you were secure you wouldn't need to test it at all."I don't need to test it, but if I thought it was a house of cards, then surely I wouldn't be putting it through robust debate? "Advocating for religious proselytizing in public school is part of forcing your religion down other people's throats." When have I advocated that - I'm advocating teaching something that is true. Surely teaching evolution is religious proselytizing, forcing them to abandon their religious views if they are a creationist, yet you seem to be advocating that, even though I can't see a difference - they are both facts, just rely on different types of evidence. "That is the definbition of a madrassa. It is exactly the same as someone telling you "If you do as Mohammed you will not perish eternally." There is no difference between the two. I public school, this would amount to SHDM (Same harassment, different mythology)." Except that one isn't a mythology, only you call it one. I bring you back to English Language - there is a 'mythology' that the Scottish play is a study on the nature of human evil and there is one where the Scottish play was a way to make money and get the King's favour. Yet you seem perfectly happy to let children study English Lit "as it's constitutional", even though they will be forced to conform to the first 'myth', or get bad marks. The Constitution of the US makes no difference as to the morality of imposing 'myths' on people. You see, by your own reasoning (which is a 'myth' you want to enforce on people, first of all me) that there is no difference between saying "Islam is right" and "the founding fathers were good people". However you'll happily let the latter be taught in schools. You have double standards. "Same for Ann Rice. The creatures in her novels must, therefore, be real." The genres are different, as you say. Ann Rice is fiction. The New Testament is non-fiction persuasive writing. "Actually, the opposite is true. There's some doubt in some historical circles whether Jesus of Nazareth was even a real person, and not some made-up character. However, more likely than not he did exist." Increasingly small circles, who are considered by the mainstream to have prejudiced against the texts, due to their religious significance. In the 50s it was lots, however, just as 150 years ago people thought the atom was the smallest particle, scholarship moves on. The current view is that he did exist, was killed and that the tomb was empty in the morning of that Easter day, with his followers soon afterwards spreading the message that he had risen from the dead. That is modern scholarship, which treats the New Testament like any other source - examining the bias, reliability and so on of the source. "No, he wrote as an advocate, an advertiser, for his chosen religion." Indeed, just as history books through the ages try to persuade you that these things happened. We can't see if the pilgrim fathers came on the Mayflower from Plymouth (well initially Southampton), but we go and look at the history books, that persuade you, through evidence of eyewitness testimonies and so on that they did. This is no different from Luke's approach, other than the events that Luke describes have religious importance. He wrote it to say "these things really happened, it's actually the Jews that are lying, not Paul who they've arrested and sent to you for supposedly doing". He wrote it very much in the style of Greek History books, with the prosecution able to cross reference the witnesses, the vast majority of whom were still alive. Paul was found not guilty (though couldn't be freed due to a legal oddity that because he appealed to Caesar, he had to go to Rome). Are you saying that lawyers and historians never tell the truth? "No, they reject the mythology presented as if it were evidence." Though you reject them as myths based on the evidence of another myth - that things that can't be proven by science are myths. This is exactly what I thought, and have said, you'd do - because of your faith in that statement being true, you reject the evidence. "Religion doesn't require physical proof;" It doesn't indeed - a great many are despite of the physical proof. "in fact physical proof is irrelevant." why is it irrelevant? surely if the religion is true, they would be physical proof to help justify the truth of such a thing. It's irrelevant because you don't want it to be relevant, as it would undermine your argument, as you have none. "There is no objectivity in religion," Evidence? Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Christianity all hold their religion to be objectively true, as do many others. You have decided that there is no objectivity in religion because your religion demands that there isn't. You have a go at me for stating my beliefs as fact, and then do it yourself. "though religious imperative can motivate people, like Charles Darwin, to explore the beauty of the world and describe it, or Bach, to write music." Indeed "But in the end, religion serves the people who create it and subscribe to it," tell that to Paul - an impoverished, abused, tortured person who gave up his rich life having religion serve him with wealth, respect and so on because he changed his religion. Tell that to the thousands who subscribe to Islam across North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia, who have nothing but oppression (in the main) because of it. "and people have created and subscribed to many religions." indeed they have, however, that is irrelevant to truth claims - just as lots of people do believe it doesn't make it more true, and just because few believe it doesn't mean it's not true. |
|
|
| (241885) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 15:34:14 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 15:09:02 2007. "if I thought it was a house of cards, then surely I wouldn't be putting it through robust debate?"Of couse you would, to convince yourself. But you're free to do that, as you like. "I'm advocating teaching something that is true" True to the religion as interpreted by someone who believes the story. "Surely teaching evolution is religious proselytizing, forcing them to abandon their religious views " No. It is science. We can teach the earth is round, but that might offend someone who's religion demands the earth is flat. Therefore, we teach evolution, despite the religious objections. "Ann Rice is fiction. The New Testament is non-fiction" Unsupported assertion. The New Testament is at best parable and advertising. "Islam, Judaism, Atheism, Christianity all hold their religion to be objectively true, as do many others." And they all make unprovable claims. "tell that to Paul - an impoverished, abused, tortured person who gave up his rich life having religion serve him with wealth, respect and so on because he changed his religion." That's true of other religious figures in other religions. "Tell that to the thousands who subscribe to Islam across North Africa," North African berbers practiced Islam and to this day have a pretty good standard of living. Tunisia and Morocco have always been places of tolerance for both Muslims and other religions, in contrast to Saudi Arabia. The despotism in Egypt is tribal, not religious; the opposition to it borrows the Sufist Islam as a radical crutch. Tunisia today has better human values than the Vatican. |
|
|
| (241902) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 16:22:15 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 14:28:08 2007. ""they don't give them what they want,""Sure they do." how? what these 90% want is to not learn about evolution, yet you make them learn it. It's absurdities like that, that make no logical sense (not x = x again, or say 0=1) that explain why your world view that, even though the initial statement is an absurdity Evolution is the lynchpin of all biology and medicine." I think you'll find that it's not - Chemistry is - trust me, I know a lot of biologists and medics - medicine in the UK doesn't often even require biology to get in. They all, however, require Chemistry. Evolution is a part of biology, definitely not it's linchpin. I studied Biology with top grades till effective graduation - we studied natural selection for a couple of weeks in year 10, and that was pretty much it. IIRC, my exam paper had just one question on natural selection, worth a pitiful amount of marks. It had far more on the Chemistry of respiration, photosynthesis and so on. "No, evolution is an issue of scientific illiteracy." It is, but it's also effectively one of religion, namely the interpretation and truth of Genesis 1, and it poses questions on the existance of God. Richard Dawkins always goes down (well he did before he started just assert absurdity of it and using selective sampling, treating the minority as the whole and ad hominem) the evolution route to undermine religion, for instance. You still haven't adequately explained why teaching something (namely evolution) in schools is any different to teaching (assuming correct, which I believe it is, as do a vast wealth of historians) that Jesus rose again from the dead. Both offend people's religious views, both are true. Yet one you think is not only neutral, but beneficiary, but the other you are passionately against. Let's take a 'hypothetical' (air quotes as it's the situation now, just most people outside 1st century history in the Middle East deny what the scholars have found to be true) situation. Let's say that the resurrection of Jesus is proved to be a historical event. Would you let it be taught in schools, as it is true, and to deny it would be historical ignorance? if not, why? "It is an example of misuse of religion by ignoramuses who feel their political power is threatened by it." Indeed it is. I'm not condoning the teaching of creationism one bit, but more interested as why you have double standards, based on your religious views, as to what should be taught in schools, but want to deny the right of others to have that same thing. "Christians, Jews, Moslems and others have all made important contributions to our understanding of evolution." Indeed. the problem is when you extrapolate Darwin's theories (which most theists happily believed) into shaping everything, not just biology - such as Spencer's 'survival of the fittest' being applicable to everything. Evolution, however, has become more than just Darwin's work, but a secular philosophy, that's justified communism, capitalism, fascism. It's due to both the secular side and the religious side being unable to see the difference from biological evolution and the philosophy that applies it to all sorts that has created the problem, and made evolution a religious and philosophical issue. "Often, no surprise, the folks who push creationism are as ignorant and bigoted about their religion as they are about science." Likewise those who push no teaching of religious things as true, even if the evidence and scholarship says they are, are just as bigoted |
|
|
| (241905) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 16:26:54 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 16:22:15 2007. "It's absurdities like that, that make no logical sense (not x = x again, or say 0=1) that explain why your world view that, even though the initial statement is an absurdity"whoops, didn't finish that sentence: It's absurdities like that, that make no logical sense (not x = x again, or say 0=1) that explain why your world view that, even though the initial statement is an absurdity, "things that cannot be proven by scientific means are all true" after all, the opposite can be true (as it cannot be proven by science), if the first statement is true "things that cannot be proven by science are all false", which then makes the first statement false, and therefore absurd - it can't be true! |
|
|
| (241911) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 16:45:30 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 16:22:15 2007. "Chemistry is - trust me, I know a lot of biologists and medics -"Perhaps you should pay closer attention to them. "Evolution is a part of biology, definitely not it's linchpin." False. Chemistry describes the nuts and bolts, but evolution describes how the nuts and bolts got there and why they do what they do. I love chemistry, and always did well in it, but evolution is in the driver's seat in biological chemistry. "I studied Biology with top grades till effective graduation - we studied natural selection for a couple of weeks in year 10, and that was pretty much it." Piss-poor coursework. You could get an A there and the grade wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. We got a heavy dose of natural selection, statistics and genetics in both high school and college. (I am not saying every high school does so; I was lucky to attend a good one). It was essential to undersanding the development of organisms. Medical school here in the US is a post-BA program requiring 2 years of college biology. "namely the interpretation and truth of Genesis 1, and it poses questions on the existance of God." No it does not. Evolution in no way threatens the idea of a god's existence or not. It doesn't support it, either. The two ideas are not prerequisites to each other. However, scientific evidence is a prerequisite to evolutionary theory, whereas it is not a prerequisite to belief in a god or subscribing to a brand of religion. But since religions come in competing brands, that is why we leave the prosyletizing out of public school while discussing evolution in science class (and math class, as in algorithms and probabilities). "Both offend people's religious views, both are true" One is demonstably true by onbjective scientific means. The other is part of a mythology. "Evolution, however, has become more than just Darwin's work, but a secular philosophy, that's justified communism, capitalism, fascism" Evolution describes a reaction and adaptation to conditions. It makes no value judgments about these changes. Some changes enhance survival, and some changes do not. I recommend you read up on genetic algorithms. Evolution "justifies" nothing - it merely explains the process of adaptation. Subscribing to a religion is also often a reaction and adaptation to a sociological, political or psychological condition. |
|
|
| (241917) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 17:07:39 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 15:34:14 2007. "Unsupported assertion. The New Testament is at best parable and advertising."Unsupported Assertion. Do you want me to quote some scholars? You evidence to back that up, if you will... "And they all make unprovable claims." As do you. that one for instance. Yet however you treat your view that they can't be objectively true, as objective true. Pot, meet Mr Kettle. "That's true of other religious figures in other religions." Indeed, which further undermines your statement about religion being for the wealth and happiness. "North African berbers practiced Islam and to this day have a pretty good standard of living. Tunisia and Morocco have always been places of tolerance for both Muslims and other religions, in contrast to Saudi Arabia. The despotism in Egypt is tribal, not religious; the opposition to it borrows the Sufist Islam as a radical crutch." In terms of freedom, we're talking the level of North Korea (for Libya). (see link below). Who cares if the despotism is tribal, the freedom for Muslims is still low - there's no freedom inside that wide net of Islam (well, some, but not much - you can't be a Sufi, for instance). "Tunisia today has better human values than the Vatican." this would make that seem unlikely (it doesn't have the Vatican, sadly). The best Muslim majority country is Turkey, at 3.5. Morocco is the best North African country, followed by Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt (a massive improvement, it used to be at 6.5 just a couple of years ago) at a hopeless 5.5, and Libya at 7, which is the lowest score possible. OK, some of these low scores would be because it's horrific to not be a Muslim in these places (or at least not be a Muslim or "person of the book", though that's 2nd class status anyway) but a lot of these are because of the imposition of Islamic rules on Muslims who don't even want them. Tunisia being "not free" hardly sounds the place that is tolerant. |
|
|
| (241940) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 18:14:09 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 13:33:03 2007. The people can learn about this at home or in private religious school. The people who don't want to learn this then don't have to. |
|
|
| (241942) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 18:15:52 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 16:22:15 2007. how? what these 90% want is to not learn about evolution, yet you make them learn it.School was NEVER about learning what you want to learn. If some student hates math, should he not be taught it? What if 90% of people hated math? |
|
|
| (241951) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 18:43:20 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 16:45:30 2007. "Perhaps you should pay closer attention to them."Why? So I can prove myself right when they tell me how much learning of Chemistry they need to do? "False. Chemistry describes the nuts and bolts, but evolution describes how the nuts and bolts got there and why they do what they do." No, that's Physics and the need for things to survive (which underpins evolution, but isn't anything explained by it (nor science)). Evolution has nothing to say on the everyday running of organisms, unless of course, you treat like a religion. I can't think of much medicine that uses evolution. Gene therapy isn't here yet, IIRC (and that's genetics, though it is also basically artificial mutations) and so on. Evolution doesn't tell you why they do what they do - it tells you nothing more than how they got there, and what they are going to change to. Unless you are dealing with huge scale zoology, there's not much biology that isn't chemistry, mechanics and physics to explain what they do - they respire to produce energy and grow, this electric shock causes the muscle to contract, which in turn causes the arm to pivot. Then you have the complex chemistry of DNA splitting. Still not evolution, though of course, mutations can still happen. Why they do it is to keep surviving - that's why they might evolve. We knew that organisms did stuff like grow, etc to survive far before evolution and natural selection entered the scientific psyche. Piss-poor coursework. You could get an A there and the grade wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on. so coming top of my year, at a top ten school in the country in year 9 external tests, getting 97% in the test, and at then GCSE having literal piss poor coursework meaning that I was 10% down in the exam. I got an A overall, which put me in the top 15% of the country sitting three sciences (which was the top 20% - others did double science or single science), despite my not caring about jumping through hoops while writing up some crappy simple experiments that were the official ones (with us doing more interesting ones the rest of the time). Last time I checked, on average, English and American students were about the same standard (if not English being slightly better), so therefore my marks in exams would very much put me at the high end in the US, regardless of the 'low' standard of exams in the UK. "We got a heavy dose of natural selection, statistics and genetics in both high school and college." I did have a few questions on genetics, involving dominant and recessive genes, and likelihood (statistics) of getting them "It was essential to undersanding the development of organisms." though of course, not that much on how they actually live their lives, just how they reproduce and over time change. That's a good one - Evolution is vital to understand how organisms change. That's only a small bit of biology. Medics do not need to understand that I evolved from an ape to cure me - they need to pick the right drug, which came about through the study of the chemical reactions that it would make. Of course, Evolution plays a part in medicine and biology, but you are massively over stating it. "One is demonstably true by onbjective scientific means. The other is part of a mythology." only because you chose to call it a 'mythology' due your own 'mythology'. How come you are allowed to assert stuff that you haven't even attempted to prove as truth, when by it's own standards it's mythology? Seems like rather hypocritical double standards to me. I've at least shown evidence (which you dogmatically reject out of court) - you've shown me no evidence why scientific proof gets a special status. You can't make something true by just asserting it, especially a statement that makes itself false by it being true. "No it does not. Evolution in no way threatens the idea of a god's existence or not. It doesn't support it, either." I know it doesn't do either of those things, however evolution is being taken to extremes and these extremes are being touted as science (causing an uproar and a change in view back to Creationism to 'successfully' fend off the attack). The philosophical brand of evolution (see Dawkins for details) is being treated as science, and does threaten the idea of a god's existence. It's also been used to justify a wide range of things. In effect it is a religion. Careful safeguards need to be put into effect that all that is taught is simply that: *Genetic mutations cause changes that may or may not be beneficial to survival. *The ones that are beneficial are transmitted to the next generation more effectively and become more dominate in the species. *Over time part of a species might change so radically as to become a completely new species. (OK, it's a bit over simplistic in the technical details, but that's all that's been proven). "Evolution describes a reaction and adaptation to conditions. It makes no value judgments about these changes. Evolution "justifies" nothing - it merely explains the process of adaptation." I know that, you know that, however a lot of people do not know that. however evolution as a philosophical system is being touted as science, and seemingly is getting treated as science by a lot of people. |
|
|
| (241961) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 19:29:28 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 18:43:20 2007. "I can't think of much medicine that uses evolution"Antibiotics, antivirals, chemotherapy, all depend on understanding of evolution. "it tells you nothing more than how they got there, and what they are going to change to. " Look up plasmids. "only because you chose to call it a 'mythology'" No, because you cannot call it science, nor fact. "I know that, you know that, however a lot of people do not know that. however evolution as a philosophical system is being touted as science, and seemingly is getting treated as science by a lot of people." Just as a lot of people mistake religious mythology for fact. Fix both problems at the same time, and the world will be a better place. :0) |
|
|
| (241963) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 19:30:28 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Aug 28 18:15:52 2007. There are students, who, when you mentionmath, make the sign of the cross or threaten you with a clove of garlic. |
|
|
| (241988) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by soton si on Tue Aug 28 19:59:22 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Aug 28 19:29:28 2007. "No, because you cannot call it science, nor fact."may I ask why that is other than your assertion? I never once called it science, but fact last time I checked was something that was true. Can you tell me why, assuming that the historical evidence is there (for the sake of argument), why I cannot call such a thing fact? Or is it down to your 'myth' that you asserting as fact, while having a go at me for asserting what you call a 'myth' as fact. Your 'myth', may I remind you, is your believe that anything that cannot be proven scientifically or physically is a myth. I'm still waiting for any sort of attempt at proof, other than constant assertion, that this is a true statement. Scientific or physical would be preferable, otherwise, of course, it'll still be a 'myth' that you are asserting as truth in order to say that I cannot assert 'myths' as truth, because they are 'myths' (and making your argument void, as it's hypercritical). In fact, I won't bother replying again, until you have proved that you understand reason and logic. there's little point in talking further until you do as you will continue to dogmatically state your view until that is the case. |
|
|
| (242454) | |
Xen Eph Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Aug 30 07:15:28 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Aug 28 00:42:27 2007. Xenophon of Ephesus is known for a novel called "The Ephesian Tale of Anthia and Habrocomes". Young newlyweds are taken as slaves and separated. They face dreadful perils in their attempts to remain true to each other and reunite.What I was alluding to is that they worshipped an awful lot of gods in that novel (including Isis), but what got them into the difficulties in the first place was Habrocomes irritating Eros (!!!) by not believing in him. Based on the plot as described in Wiki, it all sounds pretty exciting to me! It reads a bit too much like a fairytale -- it is a work of absolutely no literary finesse whatsoever. But it is a good story! I can't seem to find an e-text of it anywhere, but an English translation (which I find slightly overly literal) exists in print in Collected Ancient Greek Novels, which unsurprisingly includes quite a few similarly awful/enjoyable literary works (Contents Page, along with pp125-8 here). |
|
|
| (242469) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Aug 30 10:17:43 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by JohnL on Sun Aug 26 21:40:24 2007. 'And there is a significant difference between the US, where there is a constitutional separation of church and state, and the UK, where there is an established church'Another significant difference between the USA and the UK is that in the US, where you do not have organised prayers or religious education in state schools, over 90% of the population claim to be believing and practising religious people, whereas in the UK, where there are organised prayers and religious education in state schools[with an opt-out clause for parents who don't want these for their children], tne vast majority of people are effectively non-religious and attendance at services of most denominations is falling. Compulsory religion in school is the best way known of killing off religious impulses in the young. |
|
|
| (242475) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Aug 30 11:00:55 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by Fytton on Thu Aug 30 10:17:43 2007. I think there is a definitional problem here. Americans are probably more reluctant to admit that they are no longer practising their religion. Among those baptized Roman Catholic, for example, there is no way a majority of those are going to church just about every week. |
|
|
| (242480) | |
Re: nonsense about atheism |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Aug 30 11:49:08 2007, in response to Re: nonsense about atheism, posted by AlM on Thu Aug 30 11:00:55 2007. 'Americans are probably more reluctant to admit that they are no longer practising their religion.'I am reassured. I was beginning to think that religious loonies had completely taken over the USA, to the serious detriment of civil liberty and the freedom of speech. |
|
|
| (653974) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 24 01:43:26 2010, in response to new school prayer, posted by monorail on Fri Aug 24 07:19:06 2007. Wonder if you posted this out of genuine concern or because it popped up in an email. |
|
|
| (653979) | |
Re: new school prayer |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Aug 24 02:06:06 2010, in response to Re: new school prayer, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Aug 24 01:43:26 2010. He left it as a time capsule knowing you'd go sniffing for the truffle. Congrats! You found it! :) |
|
|
| (654014) | |
Re: new school prayer (corrected version) |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Tue Aug 24 08:43:42 2010, in response to Re: new school prayer (corrected version), posted by RonInBayside on Sat Aug 25 09:17:44 2007. That's better..... |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||