|
On September 18 2010 06:23 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote:
Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism. What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other.
I don't think it would make sense for a god to use evolution as a means to produce intelligent human beings. We are supposed to be modeled after his own image, and if that means any life at all, when there goes half the reasoning. Evolution being a fact completely disproves any christian sentiments and ideals from my perspective.
|
On September 18 2010 11:35 synapse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
If nothing else, it's a sign of vitality. I'd say more a sign of American stupidity...
Stupidity, ignorance, and corporate sponsorship.
|
There is a difference between real conservatism and the Republicans we have in office now. I would prefer to not be in the Middle East right now, but who knows, it may have prevented an attack on our own soil.
But what do I know, I'm just a retarded teabagger.
Save the trees, kill the babies!
|
On September 18 2010 15:51 bumatlarge wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 06:23 WilbertK wrote:On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote:
Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism. What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other. I don't think it would make sense for a god to use evolution as a means to produce intelligent human beings. We are supposed to be modeled after his own image, and if that means any life at all, when there goes half the reasoning. Evolution being a fact completely disproves any christian sentiments and ideals from my perspective.
If you want to discuss further I suggest opening another thread.
|
On September 18 2010 17:53 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 15:51 bumatlarge wrote:On September 18 2010 06:23 WilbertK wrote:On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote:
Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism. What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other. I don't think it would make sense for a god to use evolution as a means to produce intelligent human beings. We are supposed to be modeled after his own image, and if that means any life at all, when there goes half the reasoning. Evolution being a fact completely disproves any christian sentiments and ideals from my perspective. If you want to discuss further I suggest opening another thread.
please don't
|
On September 18 2010 06:15 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote:
religion shouldn't get taught in school) I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
Yeah absolutely right. Aim of religion in school should be to explain different believes but definitly not try to convince pupils of them. The solution in germany in regards of this isn't too bad I'ld guess but still not perfect.
Creationism in school is the worst idea I've ever heard for a school reform. School has to be scientific and lead to the pupils understanding things on their own, while creationism is the worst kind of pseudo science there is. Arguing with wrong facts, based on believes instead of science, but trying to disguise them as science.
Humanism should be the thing beeing teached... my school had a compromise by teaching us the techniques used to analyse texts etc., and mainly used humanistic texts as examples to do so. Also our teachers were open minded in general which helps alot even when they hold back their personal opinions.
|
On September 18 2010 06:15 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote:
religion shouldn't get taught in school) I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
Really? Are you sure that drawing the line there makes any sense?? I mean, why not start mandatory, state-directed courses in culture, economics and politics? On some level I agree that schools should be about more than just helping people to prepare for the job market, but singling out religion is giving it too much credit. The reality is that rifts in beliefs about what's right and what's wrong (morality, ethics,..) go way beyond religion, even for religious people. Who's going to decide which identity topics get covered and in what way? What current subjects are going to be downgraded in favor of these new ones?
Don't get me wrong, I like your idea. It just strikes me as problematic on several levels. Also, religion isn't rocket science and as long as there's diversity in schools, kids will automatically learn a thing or two about the different beliefs.
|
United States1472 Posts
People saying humans were modeled after God = LOL. That would only work if there were lots of Gods and all the A+ student Gods created worlds far the hell away from this one, while we got the "special" God who still uses crayons and has to have someone wipe the snot off his nose.
|
On September 18 2010 21:21 wadadde wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 06:15 WilbertK wrote:On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote:
religion shouldn't get taught in school) I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs. Really? Are you sure that drawing the line there makes any sense?? I mean, why not start mandatory, state-directed courses in culture, economics and politics? On some level I agree that schools should be about more than just helping people to prepare for the job market, but singling out religion is giving it too much credit. The reality is that rifts in beliefs about what's right and what's wrong (morality, ethics,..) go way beyond religion, even for religious people. Who's going to decide which identity topics get covered and in what way? What current subjects are going to be downgraded in favor of these new ones? Don't get me wrong, I like your idea. It just strikes me as problematic on several levels. Also, religion isn't rocket science and as long as there's diversity in schools, kids will automatically learn a thing or two about the different beliefs.
I'm not drawing the line there. I support the teaching of mandatory courses in culture, economics and politics as well. I just assumed that those were already mandatory, as they are in Holland. Now those mandatory courses are very basic, as I think they should be. It's good to make sure everybody has a basic understanding of all these subjects. But you can't devote years to all that, or you won't have time left to properly prepare students for the job market (which isn't unimportant either).
:EDIT:
You're right that as long as schools are diverse, kids will automatically get in touch with different beliefs. But in reality not all schools are divers (at least not in Holland). Forcing schools to be diverse is as least as much of a headache as supporting a basic course in religious studies.
But I agree, I'm talking about what I'd like to see. I'm not saying it's all easy to put in practice. I don't have all the answers.
|
On September 18 2010 15:52 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 11:35 synapse wrote:On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
If nothing else, it's a sign of vitality. I'd say more a sign of American stupidity... Stupidity, ignorance, and corporate sponsorship.
I think the very arguments provided in this thread disproves the corporate sponsorship argument. The vast majority of that money go to the opponents of the tea party. Those are the very back-room dealings which the tea party idealism is revolting against.
As for stupidity, let us not pretend that the broad revulsion we feel for the ideals of the tea party has anything to do with the passion of the intellect. For one thing, the members of this forum who are among the most eager to call other stupid, are themselves fond of reductionism when convenient to the limitations of their knowledge (I personally find the term "Occam's razor" to be so overused here, that it has become little better than an embarrassed excuse.)
In our application, the intellect is synonymous with belief in progress, and not much more. This idolatry of the intellect (rather than possession of it) transforms us into a queer cult of people.
It's this fundamental oversight which drags the entire validity of the argument down. What we detest is not what we claim we detest. We claim to detest the processes whereas what we really detest are the aims. We claim to detest the power of a class of people who have been given insufficient schooling and acquaintance with modern ideas, whereas what we really detest are people who make certain intellectual choices. Once our own choices are decided, the rest is group-think, really no different from the thought process of the other side.
The difference is not that we're smart and they're dumb. The difference is that we like masturbation.
|
This is excellent! I couldn't be happier for Americans. What your system has always lacked is diversity, and it seems that you are finally going to get some. I can only hope that now the Democrats also splinter off so that we can start to see some truly dynamic politics, with the people being properly represented.
|
On September 19 2010 01:58 Ramsing wrote:
This is excellent! I couldn't be happier for Americans. What your system has always lacked is diversity, and it seems that you are finally going to get some. I can only hope that now the Democrats also splinter off so that we can start to see some truly dynamic politics, with the people being properly represented.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but this Christine O'Donnell character should really be running for the House of Reps and not the Senate. If you're really concerned about Congress being filled with inexperienced hicks while wanting to preserve the democratic principle, I suggest repealing the 17th amendment.
|
While I have actually been to Tea Party rallies unlike 99% of the people in this thread O'Donnell was a poor choice but lets compare her competition. Koons, lol, is a self avowed marxist. So lets see what the great state of Delaware has given itself as choices for senate. A completely far right bible excessive nut who would make absolutely stupid decisions on all social policy. Or a completely far left nut who would rubber stamp every single spending and taxing bill in his quest for a social utopia through socialism.
When will people understand that we need NORMAL people in powers of office and that the current system is so thoroughly broken that it needs to be replaced. Does anyone actually truly think that McCain would of not done almost the exact same things Obama has? If so you are blinded by political nonsense from people like Maher or Limbaugh for your respective side.
There is a reason congress's approval rating is 11% Dem's have been in power since 2006 and after getting presidency in 2008 had a total complete majority. They could have and still can literally ram any bill they want through the GOP might as well not even be there but they still get blamed for everything guess whats gonna happen if the GOP does sweep and gets both houses back, you guessed it THE SAME THING. Wake up people it's a game even if you don't agree with the Tea Party what they stand for you should. The majority of us right wing extremists are actually pretty normal and don't bible hump or spew that the end of the world is coming and just want the same old shit out of D.C. to end.
|
At LegendJRG -
A well thought out arguement. It's true, we really do need normal people. The problem is normal people mostly can't bother with politics because the very nature of politics disgusts us. Those who CAN lead do not desire the power, they desire what is best for both us, the country and themselves (unless you are a saint or Mother Teresa or one of the rare few, then you are truly selfless and a person to be admired).
On a slightly humorless note, if the Americans on this thread ( I myself included) think that crime rates are bad, imagine a area where masturbation is not allowed.
|
Aahh humanity, you never cease to amaze me! I wonder if, just imagining for a second, how the rest of the world would react if people like this actually wound up to rule the most "powerfull" nation on the planet atm. I for one would cut every single tie to the U.S and just bunker up for the inevitable armageddon.
|
On September 19 2010 02:27 Reaper9 wrote:
On a slightly humorless note, if the Americans on this thread ( I myself included) think that crime rates are bad, imagine a area where masturbation is not allowed.
This would be interesting. I wonder what would happen with an entire population of sexually frustrated males, what mayhem they could achieve!
|
On September 19 2010 03:01 unkkz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2010 02:27 Reaper9 wrote:
On a slightly humorless note, if the Americans on this thread ( I myself included) think that crime rates are bad, imagine a area where masturbation is not allowed. This would be interesting. I wonder what would happen with an entire population of sexually frustrated males, what mayhem they could achieve!
Just look at those poor, religious fundamentalist Muslims. There's a reason a bunch of virgins in heaven is so appealing! No offense intended! =P
|
On September 19 2010 01:51 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 15:52 Severedevil wrote:On September 18 2010 11:35 synapse wrote:On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
If nothing else, it's a sign of vitality. I'd say more a sign of American stupidity... Stupidity, ignorance, and corporate sponsorship. I think the very arguments provided in this thread disproves the corporate sponsorship argument. The vast majority of that money go to the opponents of the tea party. Those are the very back-room dealings which the tea party idealism is revolting against. As for stupidity, let us not pretend that the broad revulsion we feel for the ideals of the tea party has anything to do with the passion of the intellect. For one thing, the members of this forum who are among the most eager to call other stupid, are themselves fond of reductionism when convenient to the limitations of their knowledge (I personally find the term "Occam's razor" to be so overused here, that it has become little better than an embarrassed excuse.) In our application, the intellect is synonymous with belief in progress, and not much more. This idolatry of the intellect (rather than possession of it) transforms us into a queer cult of people. It's this fundamental oversight which drags the entire validity of the argument down. What we detest is not what we claim we detest. We claim to detest the processes whereas what we really detest are the aims. We claim to detest the power of a class of people who have been given insufficient schooling and acquaintance with modern ideas, whereas what we really detest are people who make certain intellectual choices. Once our own choices are decided, the rest is group-think, really no different from the thought process of the other side. The difference is not that we're smart and they're dumb. The difference is that we like masturbation.
No. What I find amusing (she's not likely to become my problem after all, so revulsion is a bit far fetched) is how anyone can be so dumb/ignorant/whatever to actually believe such drivel. (Equally amusing: that actually a majority of rep. voters give such a "moron" their vote.)
I certainly don't think of people with different religious/political/social/ideological positions as idiots. However when someone can not find his own arse with both hands, or see the factual fallacities in humans riding on dinosaurs 4000 years ago.
When someone thinks 2+2=5 I don't "detest the aim". I detest the stupidity that led him to this conclusion. (While evolution might no be as universally "proven" as math, it's pretty damn close.)
Edit: Also I'm aware that a big part of it is being able to feel superior to someone like her and her voters.
|
GOP should be terrified of this development. They are just starting to gain steam again after the debacle that was the mid-2000s; the last thing they need is a splintered faction of pissed and barely coherent Tea Party members wresting control from their cherished "Reagan Republican" base.
I thought this would be a perfect time for the "socially moderate / fiscally conservative" Republicans to reassert themselves. It would appear I gravely underestimated the power of fear, anger and the American sense of pissed-off entitlement.
|
I still believe that the Obama administration and the Dems need to be given some more time. You can't stick someone in office for 2 years and expect everything to be fine. Everything takes time. The economic recession didn't just develop overnight and cleaning the mess up will take time. Patience, patience........
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
