Upchurch's angry rant [Archive]

Nyarlathotep

23rd January 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Or else you will cast a spell upon me?

My question was serious. A conversation is supposed to be balanced, right? Upchurch wants the schools to teach his kids in-line with his take on things. Therefore, he wants the schools to teach everyones kids in-line with his take on things, because there's no way the schools can teach the kids different things, according to the diverse views of their parents.

So, what's the solution?

Schools only have so much time and resources. Sheer pragmatism prevents them from being able to teach the kids every crackpot theory to come along int he name of "equal time". If they start teaching creationism (oh excuse me, "intelligent design") in science class why shouldn't Holocaust deniers start demanding equal time in history classes, or Flat Earthers in Geography? For that matter they barely have time to give kids the prevailing theories in any given area, they don't even have time to go into competing theories that are nonetheless taken seriously much less ones like "intelligent design" that nobody except for a handful of fundies accepts. Forcing schools to do makes a US Public School education (something that already is nothing to be proud of) even more worthless.

frisian

23rd January 2004, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Schools should teach science. Science changes as experimentation proves or disproves scientific hypothesies. ID is not science

Agreed. ID relates to the supernatural. Science doesn't measure the supernatural, nor pretend to do so.

Dancing David

23rd January 2004, 01:30 PM

As long as they discuss all CREATION MYTHS equally, I like the one where the cow licks the ice myself. Intelligent design is why we have cancer and other disorders.

c4ts

23rd January 2004, 01:31 PM

Creationists are trying to get their BS propaganda into education through politics. Typical.

El Greco

23rd January 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

I think that is why some people came together on an island and tried to create a government that did not favor one religion over another.

Of course. But it seems that the overwhelming majority of the islanders still want their kids to learn about Jesus Christ. They may have said that all religions will be treated the same, and then take it back. It's the majority's house, as much as this is Randi's forum.

Jas

23rd January 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by frisian

Truths? Like what?

Oh, I don't know. Testable ones, maybe?

Unless you have some way of disproving men in sky, pink unicorns, and leprechauns?

RussDill

23rd January 2004, 01:36 PM

What really confuses me is how they expect someone to spend equal time going over evolution and the origin of simple life and intelligent design. The first should already take weeks in a high school biology class, now they are going to split that in half and go over intelligent design for how long? WTF, how many days of goddidit, what is the test at the end like? The only thing they would have to do is present all the "evidence" for intelligent design which would include a teacher lying to their students.

frisian

23rd January 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Jas

Oh, I don't know. Testable ones, maybe?

Unless you have some way of disproving men in sky, pink unicorns, and leprechauns?

Testable by naturalistic methods implies fact?

Upchurch

23rd January 2004, 01:52 PM

Sorry I've not been posting. For the first time in my life, I've been motivated to write my congresswoman. Or, rather, the seven dunder-headed colleauges of hers that are sponsoring this attempt to stunt Missouri children's educational progress.Originally posted by hgc
Uppy wants his kids to be taught science in a science class, not religion. He wants people to get religious instruction any other place than a public school. Almost. I wouldn't mind if instructional design were taught in public school, as long as it was taught in the philosophy classrooms where it belongs rather than in the science classrooms where it doesn't.

lifegazer

23rd January 2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Your question is not serious because you're only interested in fighting about the material vs immaterial.

Fundamentally, I think that's what we're all doing here.

Schools should teach science. Science changes as experimentation proves or disproves scientific hypothesies. ID is not science

I have no objection with schools teaching science that is true.
There is no truth in any of the following facts and no science exists to say that these are facts:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

Yet you all don't mind your kids being brainwashed by such "scientific" assumptions. Ironic.

neither is your runny philosophical diarreha.
You would have to expel the air from your head to understand my philosophy. :p

Upchurch

23rd January 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Fundamentally, I think that's what we're all doing here. No it isn't. You have your own threads to babble in and get attention. Quit trying to hijack this one. This is a serious issue for me.

lifegazer

23rd January 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I wouldn't mind if instructional design were taught in public school, as long as it was taught in the philosophy classrooms where it belongs rather than in the science classrooms where it doesn't.
Science has no definite evidence to be teaching our kids about metaphysical issues (see my last post).

Hexxenhammer

23rd January 2004, 02:00 PM

Hijack! Hijack!

Liegazer, this is about ID being taught in schools. Not about your, sophmoric at best, ideas. Express an opinion that addresses this without making this into another 13 page flame war about YOU.

editted to erase an "about".

Hexxenhammer

23rd January 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by frisian

Testable by naturalistic methods implies fact? Yes. Fact "as best we know". Fact reviseable by more testing.

Upchurch

23rd January 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Science has no definite evidence to be teaching our kids about metaphysical issues (see my last post). Nor does it try (see my last post).

lifegazer

23rd January 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
No it isn't. You have your own threads to babble in and get attention. Quit trying to hijack this one. This is a serious issue for me.
You're way out of line. This issue is really about God v's materialist-science.
Whilst I agree with you, to a point, about not having religion rammed down your kids' throats, I think you are being a hypocrite by suggesting that your kids should have materialist-science rammed down their throats. That aint the solution either, especially since materialist-science is full of assumptions and unproven conclusions.

frisian

23rd January 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Yes. Fact "as best we know". Fact reviseable by more testing.

As best we know? That is pretty vague. So you don't believe fact is truth or that which is true?

lifegazer

23rd January 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Hijack! Hijack!

Liegazer, this is about ID being taught in schools. Not about your, sophmoric at best, ideas. Express an opinion that addresses this without making this into another 13 page flame war about YOU.

editted to erase an "about".
I've not mentioned my philosophy. I'm here merely to highlight the hypocrisy of the original complaint.

The idea

23rd January 2004, 02:13 PM

Notice the name:

HOUSE BILL NO. 911

"They destroyed the World Trade Center in the name of their God. We'll destroy biology education in the name of our God."

Upchurch

23rd January 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by The idea
"They destroyed the World Trade Center in the name of their God. We'll destroy biology education in the name of our God." Not just biology. From the bill:All science taught in Missouri public elementary and secondary schools, including material concerning physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology, or other science topics shall be standard science. All standard science course materials and instruction shall meet the following criteria:My emphesis.

Upchurch

23rd January 2004, 02:36 PM

From this article (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/search.nsf/sitesearchresults?openview&type=1&ch=News&query=evolution) (top match):For instance, after science standards were changed in Kansas, a physics teacher was not allowed to teach the big-bang theory. A chemistry teacher could not teach the periodic table.

Nyarlathotep

23rd January 2004, 02:43 PM

The way politicians try to distort language in order to get what they want never ceases to amaze me. This is from the article Upchurch pulled his quote from:

State Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, said she decided to co-sponsor the bill as a way to make sure children are given "intellectual freedom." Davis said she has received more e-mail on this bill than any other she has sponsored.

I find the way this legislator defines a bill that says teachers may not teach certain things and must teach other things, regardless of the scientific communities view of thoise things, as being about "intellectual freedom". The gall alone of this person absolutely floors me.

hammegk

23rd January 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
No it isn't. You have your own threads to babble in and get attention. Quit trying to hijack this one. This is a serious issue for me.
Waaah! I'd say it is an equally serious issue for non-materialists.

You actually can't see that the issue here is body or spirit or dualism? And the fact that some posters here blather as if materialism/atheism was a 100% certainty doesn't make it a tautology.

Let science teaching start with the mention that the existence of an objective world is a postulate, macro evidence to date implies it very likely is physical, but that remains a postulate rather than a fact.

sparklecat

23rd January 2004, 02:56 PM

Ya know, from a practical point of view, it may not be such a bad idea. Many Christians now don't have the slightest idea of what evolutionism actually says because they're kept by those around them from learning it. If both views were being taught side by side, then that might cut down somewhat on those who homeschool their children to keep them from learning what they don't agree with, and let the children see for themselves which theory is better.

I can dream, right? :p

triadboy

23rd January 2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by frisian

Truths? Like what?

There never was or could be a global flood.

Language differences are not the result of a paranoid god worried for His survival.

The future cannot be predicted.

Miracles do not happen.

People didn't live for hundreds of years 6000 years ago.

There was never a guy who was bodily resurrected into 'heaven' (wherever the hell that is)

etc

etc

etc

Suddenly

23rd January 2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

There never was or could be a global flood.

Now you have me thinking. What if I took like 2 billion people with wheelbarrels and dumped all the land into the sea. Wouldn't, if we levelled off the "earth" part of the planet, there be enough water to cover the whole planet, and thus have a global flood?

Just a small glimpse of what it is like to live in my mind. Anyone have a rock?

Dorian Gray

23rd January 2004, 10:25 PM

/sarcasm on

Look on the bright side, Upchurch. At least they still don't allow gay marriages!

/sarcasm off

Just horrible. Here's the worst part, potentially:
psst Don't complain about this, scientists, or we might cut off your research grant money.
Some scientific research could also be considered a 'matter of national security' or even 'religion' in certain instances. I know, I sound paranoid conspiracist, but this could happen under current acts and laws. They already use Patriot Act statutes to seize computers for drug and tax evasion criminals that have nothing to do with terrorism.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

Potential kids should receive scientific truths - not myth. Yes, just turn them all into a bunch of calculators. ;)

Zep

24th January 2004, 01:56 AM

Hey, Uppy! What you might ALSO do is come live in Australia, where we don't have this sort of nonsense happening any more. Last state government that tried this sort of silliness was tossed out ignominiously in the 1980's. Public schools in all states get straight science and no religion (except as part of "social sciences" study). And if you want any particular brand of religion taught to your children then there are many "church schools" that will oblige.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Schools only have so much time and resources. Sheer pragmatism prevents them from being able to teach the kids every crackpot theory to come along int he name of "equal time". If they start teaching creationism (oh excuse me, "intelligent design") in science class ...What, are you saying that science has now in fact "established" that God doesn't exist?

I don't see why they can't at least bring up the notion of "intelligent design" in the classrooms, and leave it up to the students to further their research if they are so inclined.

In fact I don't see why the theory of intelligent design has to be incompatible with the theory of evolution in any way whatsoever. It would be foolish to say that man (or creatures like him) were the only intelligent creatures in the Universe -- and hence the "origin of."

While I think the important thing here would be to encourage the students to discuss the whole thing in a "rational sense." In which case most of the curriculum would entail the study of evolution ... with the possible exception that it might have all come about via intelligent design.

EternalUniverse

24th January 2004, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

There never was or could be a global flood.

Language differences are not the result of a paranoid god worried for His survival.

The future cannot be predicted.

Miracles do not happen.

People didn't live for hundreds of years 6000 years ago.

There was never a guy who was bodily resurrected into 'heaven' (wherever the hell that is)

etc

etc

etc

Acutally, one of the aims of science is to create theories which predict the future. Induction plays a huge part of theory-building in science. For example, if I drop an object on Earth, it will go to the ground via gravity. I get your point though. we can't be 100% sure of the accuracy of any prediction (because of the nature of induction), but a clarification was needed.

CWL

24th January 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, are you saying that science has now in fact "established" that God doesn't exist?

Science has "established" nothing of the sort. Science doesn't work that way. What can be said is the "God hypothesis" hasn't been established by means of the scientific method, nor has the theory of "Intelligent design". Evolution on the other hand has.

The important thing is to teach the kids about the scientific method - why it is reasonble to assume that theories that are backed up by empirical evidence are true, as opposed to theories which are merely products of fiction.

Once the kids understand the difference, I would be prepared to agree that they can judge for themselves when presented with different theories. In fact, I think discussing the theory of evolution versues "intelligent design", "creationism" or whatever, may be a very useful lesson in understanding how the scientific method works and why it isn't "just another viewpoint or religion".

But creationism/intelligent design taught as an "equally valid theory"? No way. It simply isn't.

Mercutio

24th January 2004, 06:33 AM

I think I would like to see ID covered in a science class. Ideally, it would be covered under the topic "what is science?" toward the beginning of the semester or year. It would not take much to demonstrate its failings, and these could be touched on throughout the rest of the class, very briefly as needed.

This way ID does not get to be a martyr, it does not get to bee a boogeyman in the dark that "might be the real truth, except that scientists are afraid to show you it". Nah...you want the cockroaches to run, you must shine a light on them.

Of course, if we measure "contribution to scientific knowledge" by any objective operational definition (say, # of peer-reviewed studies published), the percentage of time ID would be talked about under my plan would dwarf its actual contributions to science...but maybe we can rotate different creation myths each year...

CWL

24th January 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
I think I would like to see ID covered in a science class. Ideally, it would be covered under the topic "what is science?"

My thought exactly - and the sooner the topic in question is taught to the kids, the better.

Checkmite

24th January 2004, 07:22 AM

I posted a few resource links in Upchurch's thread in PCE&H, if anybody cares to peruse them... :)

triadboy

24th January 2004, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, just turn them all into a bunch of calculators. ;)

I know you were joking - but I'd much rather my child be a calculator in the real world than a sheep in a fantasy world.

Tricky

24th January 2004, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, just turn them all into a bunch of calculators. ;)
Better than turning them all into a bunch of Ouiji boards. ;)

CWL

24th January 2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

Better than turning them all into a bunch of Ouiji boards. ;)

...or E-meters. :p

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2004, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, are you saying that science has now in fact "established" that God doesn't exist?

The theory of evolution does not say that God doesn't exist, nor does it say that he does. It doesn't adress his existence at all. The simple fact is that evolution is supported by the weight of the evidence and is accepted to be true by the vast majority of biologists whereas Intelligent Design is a theory supported only by a group of religious fundamentalists (including a handful of scientists who can't reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs) and the politicians who want to pander to that group. From the standpoint of acceptance among the scientific community it is on par with the notion that aliens built the pyramids, the difference being that people who believe in ancient astronauts don't have a powerful political lobby willing to force that "theory" into schools.

I don't see why they can't at least bring up the notion of "intelligent design" in the classrooms, and leave it up to the students to further their research if they are so inclined.
Again why can't they bring up the theory that the Earth is flat or hollow in Geography class, or bring up ancient astronauts in history class? The answer is time, money and resources. The schools are hard pressed to teach the basics as it is, they don't have time to teach every off the wall theory that some crackpot demands equal time for. In the field of history (and I would be willing to bet that this is true in science too) they don't even have time to teach alternate views that may not be commonly accepted but aren't terribly controversial either. Given that, taking half the time that our students would spend learning about something that is about as close to an accepted fact as you get in science and replacing it with learning about something that biologists almost universally agree is bunk but has been forced into the curicculum for political reasons seems asinine to me.

In fact I don't see why the theory of intelligent design has to be incompatible with the theory of evolution in any way whatsoever. It would be foolish to say that man (or creatures like him) were the only intelligent creatures in the Universe -- and hence the "origin of."

On the contrary, intelligent design states that life was created pretty much "as-is". This is about as incompatible with evolution as you can get. As for other intelligent life in the universe, I think it is very likely. If I were to somehow learn that we were the only intelligent life in the universe I would be incredibly surprised. However that does not imply that they made us. And if they did, what made them?

While I think the important thing here would be to encourage the students to discuss the whole thing in a "rational sense." In which case most of the curriculum would entail the study of evolution ... with the possible exception that it might have all come about via intelligent design.

That's all well and good except for one thing. That is not how the Missouri statute that Upchurch's original post is complaining about reads. The statute demands that evolution and intelligent design be given equal time and weight. Bringing up the fact that there are alternate theories and encouraging discussion is all well and good but forcing Intelligent design to be taught side by side with evolution regardless of the evidence is doing a disservice to every child in Missouri.

Upchurch

24th January 2004, 09:32 AM

There seems to be a great deal of confusion (oddly held by a small group of people) as to what science actually is. Specifically, when we talk about the study of science, we're talking about natural science. Just for hammegk's sake, let's start with some definitions:

Science (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=science)

a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
Natural Science (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Natural+Science)

any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomenaObjective (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=objective)

1 b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3aSubjective (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=subjective)

3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b So, generally, we we speak of science as a field, we're speaking of natural science, which is specifically concerned with objective, repeatable observations of the physical (i.e. material) world. Now, occasionally, the line gets blurred between the natural science and behavioral science (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=behavioral+science), which looks at patterns in subjective data. They are really two different kinds of things with different methodologies.

Often on this board, we find posters who would rather redefine words to conform to their prefered view points than acknowledge that there preferred view points are inconsistant with the terms they use. It happens from time to time that the meanings of words change, but one cannot call an orange an "apple" and expect everyone else to go along with the arbitrary change in definition.

CWL

24th January 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
It happens from time to time that the meanings of words change, but one cannot call an orange an "apple" and expect everyone else to go along with the arbitrary change in definition.

Now there's a quote for you. Well put, Upchurch!

As to the blurred line between behavioural science and natural science, it might be worth pointing out that both disciplines are united by the fact that they concern themselves with the collection and evaluation of empirical data - which of course is the core of the scientific method.

What we really are discussing is in reality not creationism vs. evolution. It is the more profound question of whether what kids are taught in school should be based on findings based on the scientific method as opposed to "findings" based on fiction and fantasy.

I personally don't mind fiction and fantasy, but I make sure to keep track of where to draw the line between fiction/fantasy on the one hand and reality on the other. That's really what this debate is all about...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th January 2004, 10:31 AM

Hammegk said:
Let science teaching start with the mention that the existence of an objective world is a postulate, macro evidence to date implies it very likely is physical, but that remains a postulate rather than a fact.
What in the living hell does that have to do with teaching evolution or ID?

Get a new gig, Hammy.

~~ Paul

CWL

24th January 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What in the living hell does that have to do with teaching evolution or ID?
Where there's a will, there's a way...

hammegk

24th January 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

What in the living hell does that have to do with teaching evolution or ID?

That was my response-before-the-fact to Uppie's "objective" link.

Get a new gig, Hammy.

~~ Paul

Yeah, I know, I should follow you lemmings who appear to believe that linking "I think" with "we assume that an objective physical world exists" to prove that Evolutionary Theory is bulletproof and the only choice remaining after noting the illogic of dualism is to conclude "spirit does not exist".

I agree 0.999repeating = 1.0 How many 9's does science have?

CWL

24th January 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Yeah, I know, I should follow you lemmings who appear to believe that linking "I think" with "we assume that an objective physical world exists" to prove that Evolutionary Theory is bulletproof and the only choice remaining after noting the illogic of dualism is to conclude "spirit does not exist".
Where does the "spirit" enter into this then?

And besides, who has concluded that the "spirit does not exist"? There is a subtle but rather important difference between disregarding a certain hypothesis (for which there is a lack of evidence) and concluding that the hypothesis is false.

I agree 0.999repeating = 1.0 How many 9's does science have?

Depends on the theory. "Science" isn't "an alternative system". As far as I understand it, it's simply a method for obtaining knowledge.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 11:43 AM

Upchurch

24th January 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

*applause* Well, there you are, hammegk. You've managed to convince lifegazer. With a mental powerhouse like him on your side, you'll have the rest of the world convinced in no time! You're biggest problem now is deciding which books to start re-writing first. ;) :D

:rub:

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, there you are, hammegk. You've managed to convince lifegazer. With a mental powerhouse like him on your side, you'll have the rest of the world convinced in no time! You're biggest problem now is deciding which books to start re-writing first. ;) :D

:rub:
This is a very poor response to evolution's failures to answer all the questions. Still, when answers fail you, there's always the mass bullying to rely on.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Science has "established" nothing of the sort. Science doesn't work that way. What can be said is the "God hypothesis" hasn't been established by means of the scientific method, nor has the theory of "Intelligent design". Evolution on the other hand has.If science has established nothing of the sort, then why do you insist on calling it a crackpot theory?

The important thing is to teach the kids about the scientific method - why it is reasonble to assume that theories that are backed up by empirical evidence are true, as opposed to theories which are merely products of fiction. Again, what do you mean by a product of fiction?

Once the kids understand the difference, I would be prepared to agree that they can judge for themselves when presented with different theories. In fact, I think discussing the theory of evolution versues "intelligent design", "creationism" or whatever, may be a very useful lesson in understanding how the scientific method works and why it isn't "just another viewpoint or religion".Either God exists or He doesn't exist, in which case why can't it be discussed "rationally" alongside any other scientific theory?

But creationism/intelligent design taught as an "equally valid theory"? No way. It simply isn't. Well I would tend to differentiate between intelligent design and creationism -- or, I believe such a differentiation should be made -- as the one implies taking things out of the Bible too literally, and the other that of a creative hand in the creation of the Universe (as we know it), be it via the means of evolution or whatever.

Upchurch

24th January 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Still, when answers fail you, there's always the mass bullying to rely on. Mocking. I'm not "bullying", I'm "mocking".

...or have you two redefined those words already? Did I miss a memo?
This is a very poor response to evolution's failures to answer all the questions. Answer all what questions? It answers the questions it sets out to answer. What more could one ask?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th January 2004, 12:27 PM

Lifegazer said:
This is a very poor response to evolution's failures to answer all the questions.
All the questions? Wow, that's a lot to ask from evolution. Does ID answer all the questions? If so, I'm there.

~~ Paul

CWL

24th January 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If science has established nothing of the sort, then why do you insist on calling it a crackpot theory?
Did I ever? I would much rather insist on calling it a theory which lacks evidence.

Again, what do you mean by a product of fiction?
As opposed to a product based on empirical evidence.

Either God exists or He doesn't exist, in which case why can't it be discussed "rationally" alongside any other scientific theory?
False dilemma. Which particular "God" are you referring to? The "God" of the Old Testament? The "God" of the Quaran? Thor? Odin? Chutullu? Bootsy Collins?

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Answer all what questions? It answers the questions it sets out to answer. What more could one ask?
Well it doesn't answer anything significant, does it?
"Evolution" didn't cause life. You cannot prove that it did.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

All the questions? Wow, that's a lot to ask from evolution. Does ID answer all the questions? If so, I'm there.

~~ Paul
Actually, I think that 'God' just about wraps it up, yes. See you there then.

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I think that 'God' just about wraps it up, yes. See you there then.

Replacing all scientific inquiry with the answer "Goddidit" is about the surest recipe I can think of for a return to the Dark Ages.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Did I ever? I would much rather insist on calling it a theory which lacks evidence. Well since you were responding to my reply to another post which, is very similar to yours, I could only take it to mean you were reiterating what they had to say. Especially when you say such things as, "merely a product of fiction."

As opposed to a product based on empirical evidence.To suggest there's a possible "design" behind the creation of the Universe -- indeed with all its immutable laws -- is not beyond establishment by empirical evidence. In fact what more need we say about it than that?

False dilemma. Which particular "God" are you referring to? The "God" of the Old Testament? The "God" of the Quaran? Thor? Odin? Chutullu? Bootsy Collins? The one that suggests we are not alone this Universe.

CWL

24th January 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I think that 'God' just about wraps it up, yes. See you there then.

Again, like I asked Iacchus, which particular "God" are you referring to? The "God" of the New Testament? Aphrodite? Hathor? Elvis? Ame-No-Mi-Kumari?

CWL

24th January 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Well since you were responding to my reply to another post which, is very similar to yours, I could only take it to mean you were reiterating what they had to say. Especially when you say such things as, "merely a product of fiction."
As far as I can tell it is. However, you are free to prove me wrong by providing examples of empirical evidence which indicate that your theory is correct.

To suggest there's a possible "design" behind the creation of the Universe -- indeed with all its immutable laws -- is not beyond establishment by empirical evidence. In fact what more need we say about it than that?

"Immutable laws"? Which particular "laws" are you referring to? "The laws of nature"? The "laws of nature" are but Man's attempt to describe the properties of the Universe. That the Universe happens to have certain properties is not reason alone to conclude that there is an "intelligent design". What do you mean by "intelligence" in the context anyway?

The one that suggests we are not alone this Universe.
And which particular one is that? Mbomba (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mbomba.html) perhaps?

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Mocking. I'm not "bullying", I'm "mocking".

...or have you two redefined those words already? Did I miss a memo?
Answer all what questions? It answers the questions it sets out to answer. What more could one ask? And the first thing that a bully does is begin to mock, just to see how far he can go ...

Tricky

24th January 2004, 01:23 PM

The best test of a scientific theory is it's usefullness as a predictive tool. In this, evolution is pretty much unequalled among scientific theories. One of the very first examples of this was when Darwin proposed that in order for evolution to be correct, there must be a way for organisms to pass on their characteristics to their offspring. This had actually been verified at the time by Mendel, though Darwin didn't know it. Later, the discovery of DNA further cemented the truthfullness of Darwin's prophecy.

Evolution has make countless other predictions that have come true. They predicted that human genes would more closely resemble genes of animals they had assigned to our same family. The gene mapping projects have borne this out. It has predicted that intermediate fossils between related groups would be found. This has been shown time and time again, as we fill in more of the gaps in the fossil record.

But here's the one biggest prediction one where evolution kicks ID's figurative ass. Evolution states that there must be unsuccessful lines and extinct species. It is how natural selection works. Intelligent design must make the opposite statement, because designing things to fail cannot possibly be called intelligent.

It is the total failure of ID to make any useful predictive statements that removes it from the category of science, and places it into philosophy.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Replacing all scientific inquiry with the answer "Goddidit" is about the surest recipe I can think of for a return to the Dark Ages.
But as an explanation for everything, it works out just dandy.

I actually have an interest in science. It's a sound practise. It just boils my blood to see it tainted by materialistic philosophy. And when assumptions about the nature of reality are made, we are talking a major tainting of science, by an unfounded philosophy.

Many of you don't seem to comprehend that an idealist can be a scientist. I have no idea why that is.
Science is the study of universal order/behaviour. But the truth of the matter is that universal origins or the origins of this order, are metaphysical and should be left alone by the scientists to the philosophers.
Science shouldn't be teaching the kids anything about universal origins or life's origins.

My own opinion is that philosophy should be taught to kids. They should learn to debate these issues openly, whilst young, and not have their minds closed by one side or the other before they become adults.

CWL

24th January 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
My own opinion is that philosophy should be taught to kids. They should learn to debate these issues openly, whilst young, and not have their minds closed by one side or the other before they become adults.

Science isn't a "side". It's a method. In fact it is a method which cannot be said about any other "method" that I have heard of.

For instance you can't "keep an open mind" as a Christian creationist. What's written in the Bible cannot be questioned or disproved. The very opposite applies to any and all modern scientific theories. It is only by repeatedly attempting to falsify a theory that it's worth can be evaluated.

So I am all for keeping an open mind (only not so open that my brains fall out).

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Again, like I asked Iacchus, which particular "God" are you referring to? The "God" of the New Testament? Aphrodite? Hathor? Elvis? Ame-No-Mi-Kumari?
That's another argument. I go with the non-finite version of God, as reason would concur with that definition.
Don't forget that I personally have as much of an axe to grind against religion as I do with science.
My point for participating within this thread, is to show the hypocrisy of upchurch's complaint.

I think the possible solution to this, is to teach such things in philosophy class, letting the kids know that we're still not sure about the cause of certain things, but have two main ideas.
Remember too that philosophy is not religion, but that philosophy allows for the possibility of a God. So any theistic debate would be along philosophical lines.
Hence, both parties get their kids to learn both possibilities, whilst still encouraging those kids to keep an open-mind till, at least, adulthood.
Everyones a winner, since science is purified of unfounded philosophy and can teach the things she actually knows. Philosophy regains her vital importance. And both possibilities are taught.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Science isn't a "side". It's a method. In fact it is a method which cannot be said about any other "method" that I have heard of.

There is no method in assuming:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

... no method whatsoever. These conclusions are assumed upon the philosophy that only the material realm exists. This isn't science. To be honest, it's not even philosophy either, since pure philosophy should never (and can never) assume axioms to yield meaningful conclusions.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by CWL

As far as I can tell it is. However, you are free to prove me wrong by providing examples of empirical evidence which indicate that your theory is correct.

"Immutable laws"? Which particular "laws" are you referring to? "The laws of nature"? The "laws of nature" are but Man's attempt to describe the properties of the Universe. That the Universe happens to have certain properties is not reason alone to conclude that there is an "intelligent design". What do you mean by "intelligence" in the context anyway?Do you believe the whole universe is arbitrary by design? If so, why does it tend to remain constant from one end to the next?

Or, what about the Universe's most highly evolved creature, man? Would you say that man is predisposed to creating things via "intelligent design" or, does everything he do come about arbitrarily?

Whereas if man is capable of doing this, is it not also possible that it's merely a reflection of a some higher creative intelligence in the Universe?

And which particular one is that? Mbomba (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mbomba.html) perhaps? There is only one sun in the sky, which in the spiritual sense can only suggest one thing, One God.

However, since we are all manifestations of this one God, then our "interpretation" of this God will vary, from one person to the next ...

Upchurch

24th January 2004, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

These conclusions are assumed upon the philosophy that only the material realm exists.Your ignorance is showing. There is no axiom of science that says that only the material world exists. If you're going to whine about something, at least know what it is first.
This isn't science.Well, you got that part right anyway. What you've descibed above is simply materialism, not science.
To be honest, it's not even philosophy either, since pure philosophy should never (and can never) assume axioms to yield meaningful conclusions. Boy, now you are showing that you don't even understand what philosophy is, let alone science. One of the fundamental components of philosphy is understanding what your assumptions (a.k.a. philosophical underpinnings) are.

Didn't you ever go through this stuff in school?

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

But here's the one biggest prediction one where evolution kicks ID's figurative ass. Evolution states that there must be unsuccessful lines and extinct species. It is how natural selection works. Intelligent design must make the opposite statement, because designing things to fail cannot possibly be called intelligent.Yes, but how can you compare success without the backdrop of failure? Or, how can you decry that which is intelligent, without something stupid (or less succesful) to compare it to?

Whereas what is good, without evil set in contrast to it?

Upchurch

24th January 2004, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but how can you compare success without the backdrop of failure? Or, how can you decry that which is intelligent, without something stupid (or less succesful) to compare it to? Yes, there is some intelligent design in the world, my computer for example. There is also evolution through naturalistic processes, which shows no sign of intelligent design. We understand what it means for something to be designed intelligently and what it means for something to happen with no intelligent design at all.

Is your point that we have the tools to identify when something is intelligently designed and when it isn't?

Dymanic

24th January 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

In fact I don't see why the theory of intelligent design has to be incompatible with the theory of evolution in any way whatsoever
Well I do. That evolution cannot 'see the future' is an important principle in modern evolutionary theory. The claim that the process is influenced in any way by intelligence, or that it includes any form of intent, is not merely a philosophical, but a scientific claim. As such, it's value is based on evidence -- which in this case, is entirely nonexistant.

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Evolution" didn't cause life. You cannot prove that it did.Of course, evolutionary theory makes no such claim. Abiogenesis is a an interesting mystery, but one that evolutionary theory doesn't even attempt to solve. It never ceases to amaze me how ID'ers never seem to get that. The General Assembly of the state of Missouri seem also to be confused about this (or maybe it's just that in their haste to do whatever will make them popular among the voting public, they didn't bother to look much at the actual science).

CWL

24th January 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]Do you believe the whole universe is arbitrary by design? If so, why does it tend to remain constant from one end to the next?

I have no reason to believe that neither the whole Universe, nor part thereof (with the exception of course of manmade objects) has been "designed" at all, so I don't. Give me a reason and I might just change my mind.

Or, what about the Universe's most highly evolved creature, man? Would you say that man is predisposed to creating things via "intelligent design" or, does everything he do come about arbitrarily?
Firstly, what has this got to do with proving that the Universe has been designed by an "intelligence"?

Secondly, "the Universe's most highly evolved creature"? We know nothing of the sort. The most highly evolved creature of this planet perhaps - in a sense. We're not very good at living at the bottom of the ocean for instance. There are jellyfish which are more evolved than us in that sense...

Whereas if man is capable of doing this, is it not also possible that it's merely a reflection of a some higher creative intelligence in the Universe?

Possible? Yes. Evidence that it is so? No.

Your arguments look rather circular to me.

There is only one sun in the sky, which in the spiritual sense can only suggest one thing, One God.
Actually if you go out and look up in the sky on a clear night you will find that there is in fact a myriad of suns in the sky. What does this suggest "in the spiritual sense"?

Oh - they're called "stars" by the way.

However, since we are all manifestations of this one God, then our "interpretation" of this God will vary, from one person to the next ...

And the evidence for "this one God", of which we are all supposedly "manifestations", is...?

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, there is some intelligent design in the world, my computer for example. There is also evolution through naturalistic processes, which shows no sign of intelligent design. We understand what it means for something to be designed intelligently and what it means for something to happen with no intelligent design at all.

Is your point that we have the tools to identify when something is intelligently designed and when it isn't? No. I'm saying we have the means of determining what intelligent design is, based upon the "immutable laws" which exist in holding everything together. Or, did you bother to read my previous reply?

Whereas the fact that man is intelligent by nature, only adds to the fact that there is a creative intelligence behind the Universe.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Your ignorance is showing. There is no axiom of science that says that only the material world exists. If you're going to whine about something, at least know what it is first.

Then without that axiom, please explain to this forum how and why science is teaching our kids theories that have no basis, such as, again:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

... Or do you intend to deny that these things are taught as science?
You know yourself that science has been tainted by materialism. It's obvious in her teachings.

Well, you got that part right anyway. What you've descibed above is simply materialism, not science.

Exactly my point. Hence materialism has tainted the purity of science. Take this very thread as an example: "evolution did it" - as a reference to life's origins - and parroted by probably 75% of the skeptics in here. Evidence that these people are victims of establishment brainwashing.

Boy, now you are showing that you don't even understand what philosophy is, let alone science. One of the fundamental components of philosphy is understanding what your assumptions (a.k.a. philosophical underpinnings) are.

That's dandy, as long as one has the sincerity to profess that ones conclusions are founded upon assumptions.
But pure philosophy should not be tainted with any guesswork.

Didn't you ever go through this stuff in school?
No, they don't teach philosophy in English schools. That's a crime, imo.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Well I do. That evolution cannot 'see the future' is an important principle in modern evolutionary theory. The claim that the process is influenced in any way by intelligence, or that it includes any form of intent, is not merely a philosophical, but a scientific claim. As such, it's value is based on evidence -- which in this case, is entirely nonexistant.Yes, but wouldn't you conclude that this would have been the intelligent way to go about it? If in fact there were a God? If so, then you are acknowledging the intelligence behind the design. Or, are you disavowing any notion of intelligence behind the theory of evolution?

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

*applause*

I hate to break it to you, but the majority opinion is that there is a god, and there are spirits. So if you don't want to be a lemming, believe the opposite. Also, it seems rather silly to believe something just because everybody else doesn't, simililar to believe something just because everyone else does

Upchurch

24th January 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

... Or do you intend to deny that these things are taught as science?
You know yourself that science has been tainted by materialism. It's obvious in her teachings. Your biggest problem (or one of your many problems, I suppose) is your sloppiness. You said that it was an axiom of science that only the material realm exists, which of course applies that it also assumes that nothing else does. Science says nothing about, neither for nor against, anything outside of the material world. You're not even paying attention to what you are saying, let alone what anyone else says.
That's dandy, as long as one has the sincerity to profess that ones conclusions are founded upon assumptions.
But pure philosophy should not be tainted with any guesswork. I would challenge you to point to a philosophy that doesn't have assumptions, but I think we're all well versed in your inability to be blind to your own assumptions.
No, they don't teach philosophy in English schools. That's a crime, imo. Not even in college? Shame. It would have done you a lot of good to learn something about the subject.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Your biggest problem (or one of your many problems, I suppose) is your sloppiness. You said that it was an axiom of science that only the material realm exists, which of course applies that it also assumes that nothing else does. Science says nothing about, neither for nor against, anything outside of the material world. You're not even paying attention to what you are saying, let alone what anyone else says.

I'll concede to the point that there is no official line supporting materialism. But there is an underlying assumption that what science is studying exists externally to our awareness of it. I.e., that there is a real external-realm of matter & spacetime.
And of course, there are also those teachings I mentioned - which you failed to address. No surprise there then.

I would challenge you to point to a philosophy that doesn't have assumptions, but I think we're all well versed in your inability to be blind to your own assumptions.

Something exists.

Something is having the experience of being 'me'.

That experience is comprised of an awareness of sensations, thoughts and feelings.

All three sentences are absolutely true.

You make a fool of yourself each time you express doubt about this. You cannot argue that 'nothing' exists, or that there is no sort of existence. Neither can you argue that 'nothing' is having the experience of being me.
And since 'me' is an experience had via sensations, thoughts & feelings, you cannot deny the third one either.

So you whistled a merry tune and waltzed away from the thread in question. Hence, you lost the opportunity to see God. You were given that opportunity and frowned at it. Your loss squire.

Likewise, this thread is an exhibition of the bias that resides within you.

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is a very poor response to evolution's failures to answer all the questions. Still, when answers fail you, there's always the mass bullying to rely on.

Well firstly, evolution is not meant to answer all questions, so if you ask, why is the sky blue, and the theory of evolution doesn't answer it, don't act all surprised. Second, what questions has evolution not answered? (besides those that it isn't supposed to answer)

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well it doesn't answer anything significant, does it?
"Evolution" didn't cause life. You cannot prove that it did.

Right, you are critizing something you have *never* studied (once again). If you wish to find fault with evolution, study it first, who knows, maybe you'd be surpised with what you learn (gasp, lifegazer, learn something new? never...).

Anyway, if you had every bothered to study it even in the smallest bit, you'd know that evolution is a theory that has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

BTW, could you please try to be just a tad more ignorant? The above is good, but the more ignorant you come off as, the easier it is to discredit you.

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, I think that 'God' just about wraps it up, yes. See you there then.

No, it just passes the buck. It is like saying, where did life come from..well, an alien civilazation designed us. It answers the question, but only creates another, where did the alien civilization come from?

Saying "god did it" is the same. Except, unlike the alien civilization thing, it is an unanswerable question. You cannot answer the question of "why" god did anything. You have merely passed the buck.

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:49 PM

Dymanic

24th January 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but wouldn't you conclude that this would have been the intelligent way to go about it? If in fact there were a God?If there were a God, I don't understand why he would bother with the whole thing in the first place. But...no, I'd say it was an incredibly wasteful, lazy, and cruel way to go about it.
If so, then you are acknowledging the intelligence behind the design.This is starting to sound a lot like Searle's Chinese room argument; sophisticated function indicates intelligence and intent.
Or, are you disavowing any notion of intelligence behind the theory of evolution?I think it's a lot more intelligent than any of the proposed alternatives.

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then without that axiom, please explain to this forum how and why science is teaching our kids theories that have no basis, such as, again:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

... Or do you intend to deny that these things are taught as science?
You know yourself that science has been tainted by materialism. It's obvious in her teachings.

If you are so convinced that it is so horribly tainted, please, publish a paper proving that some basic conclusion is wrong. Win a nobel prize, have fame, etc.

Exactly my point. Hence materialism has tainted the purity of science. Take this very thread as an example: "evolution did it" - as a reference to life's origins - and parroted by probably 75% of the skeptics in here. Evidence that these people are victims of establishment brainwashing.

No body in here claimed that evolution says anything about the origin of life. Once again, you are arguing against points that you made up all on your own. Good one.

That's dandy, as long as one has the sincerity to profess that ones conclusions are founded upon assumptions.

Alright, I'll be waiting right here for you to start admitting that your philosophy is based on assumptions.

But pure philosophy should not be tainted with any guesswork.

Your philosophy is far from pure. And besides, philosophy cannot get beyond "I exist" without some axioms.

No, they don't teach philosophy in English schools. That's a crime, imo.

The true crime is how little you yourself have studied any philosophy.

RussDill

24th January 2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Something exists.

Something is having the experience of being 'me'.

That experience is comprised of an awareness of sensations, thoughts and feelings.

All three sentences are absolutely true.

You throw extra unneccessary words in there whose definitions are subjective, so depending on their definition, the above is true, or not necessarily true. You rely on the subjectiveness of the definitions of these extra words for your argument. Take out the fluff, your argument goes away.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
If there were a God, I don't understand why he would bother with the whole thing in the first place. But...no, I'd say it was an incredibly wasteful, lazy, and cruel way to go about it.And yet I thought most of you "evolutionary" types stood in awe of how the process of evolution works? I know that I find it "awe-inpsiring." ;)

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 04:12 PM

Russ, what do you want your kids to be taught in school? Where does life originate from, Russ?

Dymanic

24th January 2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

And yet I thought most of you "evolutionary" types stood in awe of how the process of evolution works? I know that I find it "awe-inpsiring."
I'd say it was an incredibly wasteful, lazy, and cruel way to go about it if there were a God behind it. I think the reason I find it awe inspiring is that such sophistication can emerge as the result of cumulative random changes.

lifegazer

24th January 2004, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

Something exists.

Something is having the experience of being 'me'.

That experience is comprised of an awareness of sensations, thoughts and feelings.

All three sentences are absolutely true.

You throw extra unneccessary words in there whose definitions are subjective, so depending on their definition, the above is true, or not necessarily true. You rely on the subjectiveness of the definitions of these extra words for your argument. Take out the fluff, your argument goes away.
Show me the colour of your fluff, that I may sweep it up.
If you do, I suppose you should transfer over to my thread.

Hutch

24th January 2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If so, then you are acknowledging the intelligence behind the design. Or, are you disavowing any notion of intelligence behind the theory of evolution?

Intelligence behind the design....I've always found that a most interesting comment...sitting here without a Gall Bladder that got yanked 12 years ago with no change in my life or health, with two intact tonsils that serve no useful purpose and occassionally make me sick, and a veriform appendix that may yet require surgery and removal lest it kill me, as it has done to uncounted numbers of humans thoughout time....

Intelligent design? I want a refund.

Edited to correcty typos

Hutch

24th January 2004, 04:32 PM

CWL

24th January 2004, 04:34 PM

Er, Iacchus? Remember this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870287499#post1870287499)?

A designer cat caught your tongue?

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

I'd say it was an incredibly wasteful, lazy, and cruel way to go about it if there were a God behind it. I think the reason I find it awe inspiring is that such sophistication can emerge as the result of cumulative random changes. Yes, but when you begin to design something "creative," don't you begin with the most rudimentary elements and "work" your way up?

Yes, it is inspiring how sophistication (through design) can come about.

CWL

24th January 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Hutch

Intelligence behind the design....I've always found that a most interesting comment...sitting here without a Gall Bladder that got yanked 12 years ago with no change in my life or health, with two intact tonsils that serve no useful purpose and occassionally make me sick, and a veriform appendix that may yet require surgery and removal lest it kill me, as it has done to uncounted numbers of humans thoughout time....

Intelligent design? I want a refund.

Let's not forget nipples on men. There's "intelligent design" for you.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by CWL

Let's not forget nipples on men. There's "intelligent design" for you. Well, since men and women tend to mirror each other "reciprocally," then it stands to reason they should have certain things in common. Otherwise it would be necessary to create two separate creatures -- without procreation? -- and that would be wasteful and prohibitive.

Nyarlathotep

24th January 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, since men and women tend to mirror each other "reciprocally," then it stands to reason they should have certain things in common. Otherwise it would be necessary to create two separate creatures -- without procreation? -- and that would be wasteful and prohibitive.

I have read this four times. I don't understand it. I don't think it's that you are going over my head, I am pretty sure that it is because what you wrote makes absolutely no sense.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I have read this four times. I don't understand it. I don't think it's that you are going over my head, I am pretty sure that it is because what you wrote makes absolutely no sense. It's like the manufacturing process, where you have more than one option to build from (i.e., male versus female) which, when you do decide, it's hard to conceal the fact that the other option existed as well. Such is the process of procreation anyway ... as opposed to building two "stand alone" products.

Tricky

24th January 2004, 05:37 PM

I realize that this is a straw man, but I'm goint to put it forth anyway. I have had similar conversations, both in these forums and in other places, so while it may not represent the style of the ID people here, it does represent some. I will call my characters ID (Intelligent Designist) and DA (Devil's Advocate)
---
ID: There is obviously intelligent design because we see things that would have taken intelligence to produce.

DA: But we also see things that are incredibly stupid, like evolutionary dead-ends and vestigial organs

ID: That could be part of the plan. The Designer knew failure was important.

DA: Are you sure you know how the Designer planned this?

ID: Of course not. We cannot know how the Designer works.

DA: If you don't know how the Designer works, how can you claim it is designed?

ID: Because it is obvious that it had a purpose.

DA: Yet you have no idea what that purpose is.

ID: I don't know all of it, but I can see some obvious things, like the ascent of thinking beings.

DA: How do you know the designer likes thinking beings?

ID: Because he wouldn't have created them if he didn't want them.

DA: But you admit he has created lots of things to fail.

ID: Yes, but not Man.

DA: Once again, you are assuming you know the mind of the designer. It sounds very much like you are creating Him in your image.

ID: No, we were created in HIS image.

DA: He created lots of stuff. Isn't it just anthropocentric to assume that WE are the ones in His image? Why not jellyfish.

ID: Because they don't think.

DA: You don't know that. All you know is that they don't think like you.

ID: Tests have shown that they don't think.

DA: Human-designed tests. Again, I ask, how do you know what the Designer wants? How do you know what his concept of "intelligent" is?

ID: I just know.
----
And this is usually how it ends. The believer in ID eventually is reduced to admitting that his belief in ID is simply faith that the Designer sees things the same way he does. It is a particularly convoluted form of egomania that causes these people to claim to know the mind of God.

Regnad Kcin

24th January 2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe the whole universe is arbitrary by design? If so, why does it tend to remain constant from one end to the next?

Or, what about the Universe's most highly evolved creature, man? Would you say that man is predisposed to creating things via "intelligent design" or, does everything he do come about arbitrarily?

Whereas if man is capable of doing this, is it not also possible that it's merely a reflection of a some higher creative intelligence in the Universe?

There is only one sun in the sky, which in the spiritual sense can only suggest one thing, One God.

However, since we are all manifestations of this one God, then our "interpretation" of this God will vary, from one person to the next ... Astounding. And not in a good way.

Dymanic

24th January 2004, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

Yes, but when you begin to design something "creative," don't you begin with the most rudimentary elements and "work" your way up?

Perhaps the way *I*, as a human, design things is not a perfect analogy, but I'd say that a trivial observation is that in any design process, components are assemblies of simpler components, down to the level of basic elements. This says nothing, however, about care (i.e., intent) on the part of a designer. That manifests itself in several ways. One is anticipation of future need to modify a design -- but what we see in biological evolution are designs that are obviously the result of poor planning (the Panda's thumb, and the optic nerve in humans being popular examples). Another is modularization; to minimize the increasing possibility of undesirable side-effects that accompanies an increase in complexity, and to facilitate meaningful testing of experimental design elements, each component should, to the best extent possible, have but one primary function -- but what we see in biological evolution are designs which include multiple superimposed functionality, a practice guaranteed to result in designs which function well only within narrow ranges of parameters.

CWL

24th January 2004, 06:53 PM

Iacchus? Yo-hoo!

Are you simply ignoring this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870287499#post1870287499)?

Not very sporty of you, old chap.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Iacchus? Yo-hoo!

Are you simply ignoring this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870287499#post1870287499)?

Not very sporty of you, old chap. I already looked. So what's your point? Is it because I didn't bother to answer?

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Perhaps the way *I*, as a human, design things is not a perfect analogy, but I'd say that a trivial observation is that in any design process, components are assemblies of simpler components, down to the level of basic elements. This says nothing, however, about care (i.e., intent) on the part of a designer. That manifests itself in several ways. One is anticipation of future need to modify a design -- but what we see in biological evolution are designs that are obviously the result of poor planning (the Panda's thumb, and the optic nerve in humans being popular examples). Another is modularization; to minimize the increasing possibility of undesirable side-effects that accompanies an increase in complexity, and to facilitate meaningful testing of experimental design elements, each component should, to the best extent possible, have but one primary function -- but what we see in biological evolution are designs which include multiple superimposed functionality, a practice guaranteed to result in designs which function well only within narrow ranges of parameters. And yet how can you "plan" for anything without a diversity of elements to choose from? Indeed there has to be a whole a variety of things, at all different levels, in order to provide for the transcendent qualities of both mind and spirit.

Mercutio

24th January 2004, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet how can you "plan" for anything without a diversity of elements to choose from? Indeed there has to be a whole a variety of things, at all different levels, in order to provide for the transcendent qualities of both mind and spirit. WTF? Where did the planning take place? Were the "diversity of elements" part of the plan? And WHY must there be a whole variety of things in order to provide for transcendence?

You don't really have a whole lot of respect for your own arguments, do you?

I'm sorry, Iacchus and Lifegazer, but I almost pity you. Honestly, If my dog was in the condition your arguments are in, I'd shoot her and consider it a kindness. I really and truly hope that you are merely trolling; if you honestly believe the tripe you have put on display in this thread, you deserve a refund of any money you spent on schooling. On the other hand, if this is trolling, you really ought to, if either of you has a moral bone in your body, apologize to Upchurch for what you have done to his serious question.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by CWL

I have no reason to believe that neither the whole Universe, nor part thereof (with the exception of course of manmade objects) has been "designed" at all, so I don't. Give me a reason and I might just change my mind.And which reason would "you" prefer? It would seem I've given you plenty of reasons already.

Firstly, what has this got to do with proving that the Universe has been designed by an "intelligence"?It takes intelligence to know intelligence for one thing. Or, at the very least the fact that we are conscious and are capable of knowing such things.

Secondly, "the Universe's most highly evolved creature"? We know nothing of the sort. The most highly evolved creature of this planet perhaps - in a sense. We're not very good at living at the bottom of the ocean for instance. There are jellyfish which are more evolved than us in that sense...I think we can be reasonably certain, by virtue of our capacity to think and reason things out, that we are the most intelligent species of "the known" universe.

Possible? Yes. Evidence that it is so? No.We "are" the evidence.

Your arguments look rather circular to me.Do you mean in the sense that day follows night? And, that a circle represents unity and the completion of things?

Actually if you go out and look up in the sky on a clear night you will find that there is in fact a myriad of suns in the sky. What does this suggest "in the spiritual sense"?

Oh - they're called "stars" by the way.Yes, in fact all I do see is stars. And what could that possibly mean, aside from the fact that the sun is the center of "our" existence?

So you see, this could construed as evidence if one were really up to it.

And the evidence for "this one God", of which we are all supposedly "manifestations", is...? Like I said it takes intelligence to acknowledge intelligence.

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Mercutio
WTF? Where did the planning take place? Were the "diversity of elements" part of the plan? And WHY must there be a whole variety of things in order to provide for transcendence? Hey, why don't you raise your voice up to the guy upstairs like that (as if He really did exist), and don't bother me again about it, Okay?

You don't really have a whole lot of respect for your own arguments, do you? I beg your pardon?

I'm sorry, Iacchus and Lifegazer, but I almost pity you. Honestly, If my dog was in the condition your arguments are in, I'd shoot her and consider it a kindness. I really and truly hope that you are merely trolling; if you honestly believe the tripe you have put on display in this thread, you deserve a refund of any money you spent on schooling. On the other hand, if this is trolling, you really ought to, if either of you has a moral bone in your body, apologize to Upchurch for what you have done to his serious question. Am merely replying to the barage of questions which have been leveled at me about it. Sorry, if we can't all think alike. ;)

Tricky

24th January 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, in fact all I do see is stars. And what could that possibly mean, aside from the fact that the sun is the center of "our" existence?
But you said something to the effect of "One sun means one God." Well there are lots of suns, so by your own reasoning, that means lots of gods. Or perhaps each solar system has it's own god who can't do anything outside of that solar system. It's really hard to tell what you mean when you keep making such self-contradictory statements.

Originally posted by Iacchus
It takes intelligence to know intelligence for one thing. Or, at the very least the fact that we are conscious and are capable of knowing such things.

If you scroll back to my little idealized debate, you will note that I mentioned how ID people seem to think that their kind of intelligence is the same as the Designer's intelligence. This amounts to collossal hubris, and you have verified your own exaggerated sense of self-importance by your own words. God could be anything. It doesn't have to be like you (and I certainly hope it's not. :p )

Iacchus

24th January 2004, 09:23 PM

Have posted a new thread, So, what is Intelligence Design? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34454) if you would care to address your comments there. Thanks!

RussDill

24th January 2004, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

Do you mean in the sense that day follows night? And, that a circle represents unity and the completion of things?

this one got me laughing quite a bit, yes iacchus, a truly complete circle.

lifegazer

25th January 2004, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Mercutio
I'm sorry, Iacchus and Lifegazer, but I almost pity you. Honestly, If my dog was in the condition your arguments are in, I'd shoot her and consider it a kindness.

I haven't actually presented an argument for ID here. I have merely exhibited the hypocrisy and bias apparent within the original complaint.
Science cannot explain life, or consciousness, or the universe itself. Them's the facts.

I really and truly hope that you are merely trolling; if you honestly believe the tripe you have put on display in this thread, you deserve a refund of any money you spent on schooling. On the other hand, if this is trolling, you really ought to, if either of you has a moral bone in your body, apologize to Upchurch for what you have done to his serious question.
Absolute tosh. Apologise for upsetting his closed-minded philosophical attitude to metaphysics?

CWL

25th January 2004, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And which reason would "you" prefer? It would seem I've given you plenty of reasons already.
I would like to see some empirical evidence. I would like to see a theory on the basis of which it is possible to make accurate predictions. So far you have given me nothing of the sort.

It takes intelligence to know intelligence for one thing. Or, at the very least the fact that we are conscious and are capable of knowing such things.
First off, there are many forms of "intelligence". Again, you need to define what you mean by "intelligence". However, even if you do define it, the mere circumstance that our species has evolved a particular brand of "intelligence" does nothing for your case.

I think we can be reasonably certain, by virtue of our capacity to think and reason things out, that we are the most intelligent species of "the known" universe.
Again, depends on what you mean when you say "intelligence".

We "are" the evidence.
No, we are not. On the contrary we "are" evidence of the theory of evolution. There have been many examples of this pointed out to you in this thread.

Do you mean in the sense that day follows night? And, that a circle represents unity and the completion of things?
No I mean "circular" in the sense that your conclusion is a premise for your arguments. Look:

Question: How do you know there is a God (a supreme intelligence)
Answer: Because we are intelligent and God obviously made us in his image (we are a reflection of God).

Can you not see why the above is blatantly fallacious? You do not provide any evicence, you simply presume (without any reason) that God exists.

Let's try it in the form of a simple syllogism (always popular on this forum):

1) Only an intelligent God would make intelligent beings
2) We are intelligent
3) Therefore there is a God

In order for the conclusion 3) to be true, both 1) and 2) have to be true. We know that 2) is, but we know nothing of 1). We know that there are intelligent beings (namely ourselves), but in order for us to know 1) to be true we would have to know with certainty that (a) there is a God and (b) that there is no other possible means for intelligent beingst to evolve - i.e. the very matters which you are trying to prove by your reasoning.

Maybe it becomes clearer to you now why this reasoning is fallacious? It's circular. Not valid reasoning. Proves nothing. See?

Yes, in fact all I do see is stars. And what could that possibly mean, aside from the fact that the sun is the center of "our" existence?
Tricky has already adressed this one above, illustrating the point I was trying to make. With your own reasoning: many suns = many gods. (Not that I understand what the heck suns have to do with gods.)

So you see, this could construed as evidence if one were really up to it.
No I don't see, and it couldn't nomatter how much one is up to, for or against it.

Like I said it takes intelligence to acknowledge intelligence.
You are fitting facts to the theory my friend.

Mercutio

25th January 2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Science cannot explain life, or consciousness, or the universe itself. Them's the facts.
Well, it's some of the facts (and that's only if I give you "consciousness", which science can understand, but which you cannot)...the other half of the story is that no other system can explain life either. You imply that science is limited and that there is more explanatory power in your world view. There most certainly is not.

Oh, and given the progress of science...you may wish to substitute, for "cannot explain", the phrase "has not, as yet explained". Otherwise you create an artificial dead-end.

Dymanic

25th January 2004, 07:53 AM

It seems to me that what we're seeing here is a competitive struggle between ideas in meme-space. It is a process of natural selection. The ID meme is at a distinct disadvantage, being completely unsupported by evidence. The Missouri statute is an attempt by some (from outside the scientific community) who prefer this idea (obviously for reasons other than evidence) to bolster it by artificial means (in accordance with long-standing tradition). Any success they achieve will be limited to the tiny corner of the world subject to their authority. Its main effect will be that students unfortunate enough to have had the ID meme forced upon them will discover that ignorant hayseed superstitions are useless as tools for breaking new ground in science.

I'd like to see them try it in California.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by CWL

I would like to see some empirical evidence. I would like to see a theory on the basis of which it is possible to make accurate predictions. So far you have given me nothing of the sort.From the thread, So, what is Intelligent Design? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34454) ...

Originally posted by Tricky

As you well know, no two biblical scholars interpret the Bible the same way. If none of them are definately wrong, then you must admit that there is no absolute "truth" in the bible, but only what your own mind interprets. That is fine in philosophy, but when it comes to explaining how the world works, I require a little more objectivity.Originally posted by Iacchus

As I had said before, the absolute truth is very much like the sun in the sky, by which a whole myriad of truths -- in effect life on this planet -- can be derived. Yes, and each one has a unique relationship with, that "absolute truth."Please note that I no longer intend to post on this thread. If you would like to continure your discussion here please visit my new thread, So, what is Intelligent Design? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34454) And feel free to repost your reply (above) if you like.

RussDill

25th January 2004, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Russ, what do you want your kids to be taught in school? Where does life originate from, Russ?

well, considering the complexity of abiogenesis, it really doesn't seem to have place at a pre-college level. I don't think it is necessary to teach anything about the origin of life at a pre-college level. Do we teach the origin of electric and magnetic phenomenom at the pre-college level (electrodynamics)? no, do we talk about the effects anyway, sure.

I cannot tell you with certainty where life originated from, but I can tell you how and WHY life most likely originated. Your philosophy cannot answer both those questions.

RussDill

25th January 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Show me the colour of your fluff, that I may sweep it up.
If you do, I suppose you should transfer over to my thread.

The color of my fluff? Answer to clear, coherent critizism of your philosophy is to pick a fight? I suppose that should be another addition for "lifegazer is a ...?"

RussDill

25th January 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, since men and women tend to mirror each other "reciprocally," then it stands to reason they should have certain things in common. Otherwise it would be necessary to create two separate creatures -- without procreation? -- and that would be wasteful and prohibitive.

where are a man's milk glands then? Where is his uterus? The genetic structure between a man and a woman differs more than a woman and a female ape. The Y chromosome is something completely unique to males.

Roadtoad

25th January 2004, 01:35 PM

Okay, I'm coming into this one late, so if this has been covered before, forgive me. And, no, I haven't read the whole thread, yet, but I plan on it.

Upchurch is correct in this. First, because we're discussing science, which focuses on PROVABLE TRUTH. In other words, you and I can go into the laboratory, and following the same procedures duplicate what has been done before. This relates to whether you're pouring vinegar into a beaker filled with baking soda, or splitting atoms. As a good science teacher I had once asked of us, how do you duplicate God?

Secondly, even if you're choosing to follow creationism, how can you refute what you do not understand? We were using the Advanced Christian Education homeschooling system for our kids when they were younger. Trust me, I thank God for National Geographic and their discussions of evolution. I had to argue with my kids, particularly as they were reading books which "refuted" evolution, explaining to them that while Pastor was a nice man, he had his head up his @$$ when it came to science. (Actually, Pastor was not a nice man, he was actually something of a pr***, and I'm glad we're done with that crowd. I'll never go to another Nazarene Church again. Ever.)

Third, and this is perhaps the most critical thing about this: It is intellectually dishonest to play games like this with your child's education, and it is equally dishonest to play games like this with yourself. This is NOT science. It's religion. Pure and simple. If you want to be able to continue to practice your religion without Federal interference, you need to keep it out of state sanctioned and funded forae. Simple as that.

lifegazer

25th January 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
well, considering the complexity of abiogenesis, it really doesn't seem to have place at a pre-college level. I don't think it is necessary to teach anything about the origin of life at a pre-college level. Do we teach the origin of electric and magnetic phenomenom at the pre-college level (electrodynamics)? no, do we talk about the effects anyway, sure.

I cannot tell you with certainty where life originated from, but I can tell you how and WHY life most likely originated. Your philosophy cannot answer both those questions.
We're discussing what to teach kids, pertaining to the origin of life.
I'm guessing that most skeptics here would like their kids to be taught that life evolved through material processes. The question still remains as to whether ID is associated with these processes.

RussDill

25th January 2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

We're discussing what to teach kids, pertaining to the origin of life.

Nothing, afaik, is being taught at the pre-college level regarding the origin of life. It is far too complex a topic.

I'm guessing that most skeptics here would like their kids to be taught that life evolved through material processes. The question still remains as to whether ID is associated with these processes.

ID isn't science, so it doesn't belong in a science class. You could say a magical fruit basic created and everything and explains everything is no reason to explain it in the classroom

Tricky

25th January 2004, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

We're discussing what to teach kids, pertaining to the origin of life.
I'm guessing that most skeptics here would like their kids to be taught that life evolved through material processes. The question still remains as to whether ID is associated with these processes.
If ID were associated with these processes, would it in any way lead to greater knowledge? Would it provide any testable hypotheses? If so, I would like to see how.

Besides, as we know ID is being used as a sword against evolution, or more correctly a hole punch. ID provides no alternate mechanics of how humans arose, it just tries to poke holes in the mechanics we have. As such, it is totally useless because scientists everywhere are trying to punch holes in the theory of evolution. They are constantly looking for errors that should be corrected. That is what scientists do. But unlike ID proponants, they try to fix the world's body of knowledge, not just wail that it is broken.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

If ID were associated with these processes, would it in any way lead to greater knowledge? Would it provide any testable hypotheses? If so, I would like to see how.

Besides, as we know ID is being used as a sword against evolution, or more correctly a hole punch. ID provides no alternate mechanics of how humans arose, it just tries to poke holes in the mechanics we have. As such, it is totally useless because scientists everywhere are trying to punch holes in the theory of evolution. They are constantly looking for errors that should be corrected. That is what scientists do. But unlike ID proponants, they try to fix the world's body of knowledge, not just wail that it is broken. But what if God does exist? Or, let's say He decides to drop out of heaven one day and take a spin in this Corvette we just built for Him? Wouldn't that demonstrate that He were the True Operator (or spirit) behind the machine?

Tricky

25th January 2004, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But what if God does exist? Or, let's say He decides to drop out of heaven one day and take a spin in this Corvette we just built for Him? Wouldn't that demonstrate that He were the True Operator (or spirit) behind the machine?
Yes it would. That is exactly the kind of evidence that would convince me. It is also exactly the kind of evidence that has not been produced. You can say "what if" until the cows come home, and you have not added a single ort of useful information to human knowledge.

Let me know when your God "drives through" in a way that is obvious to everyone. I would truly love to see it. But I ain't holdin' my breath.

Iacchus

25th January 2004, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Yes it would. That is exactly the kind of evidence that would convince me. It is also exactly the kind of evidence that has not been produced. You can say "what if" until the cows come home, and you have not added a single ort of useful information to human knowledge.

Let me know when your God "drives through" in a way that is obvious to everyone. I would truly love to see it. But I ain't holdin' my breath. What, you're not holding your breath? Sounds to me like you've been tossing the dice (all this time) on something which may or may not exist.

RussDill

25th January 2004, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, you're not holding your breath? Sounds to me like you've been tossing the dice (all this time) on something which may or may not exist.

I'll remind you again to start believing in, praising, and sending money to (via paypal, to Russ.Dill@asu.edu) pink unicorns, or else a pink unicorn will kick you in the nads. Would you rather just toss the dice, or send me money.

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

26th January 2004, 12:40 AM

As skeptics we aren’t out to discover the truth because we already know it! We are just in an intense battle to defend against any possible paradigm changes that fools may try to use in order to replace truth with delusions! Nothing can change our position!

Iacchus

26th January 2004, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by RussDill

I'll remind you again to start believing in, praising, and sending money to (via paypal, to Russ.Dill@asu.edu) pink unicorns, or else a pink unicorn will kick you in the nads. Would you rather just toss the dice, or send me money. No, just don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Iacchus

26th January 2004, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
As skeptics we aren’t out to discover the truth because we already know it! We are just in an intense battle to defend against any possible paradigm changes that fools may try to use in order to replace truth with delusions! Nothing can change our position! Wow, that's amazing!

While I can see you're getting dangerously close to 666 too! :D

Hmm ... Another interesting coincidence ... 120 + 021 = 141 ... Now there are those darned arbitrary 0's again!

40 x 3 (+) 3 x 07 = 141

47 + 74 = 141

Hmm ... While here it is I had just gotten back from Lincoln City, Oregon, and I was driving down 141st Street, with a row of cars parked alongside it (alonside of a car dealership), and there it was, what appeared to be a brand new silver Lincoln Continental and, on the license plate it said ... WAR 749.

And of course 7 x 49 = 343 ... or, 320 + 023 = 343.

Now isn't that strange?

Hmm ... I wonder if four eggs in a basket don't in fact look like four Zero's? What, another sock puppet!?

Iacchus

26th January 2004, 05:31 AM

Oh, did you know that 74 x 9 = 666?

Wow! Amazing!

Tricky

26th January 2004, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
What, you're not holding your breath? Sounds to me like you've been tossing the dice (all this time) on something which may or may not exist.
The errors of Pascal's Wager have been discussed here many times, but let us know if you need a refresher.

I am not betting on any of the myriad of gods which have been suggested by humans over the centuries. To make such a choice, one would need to be well informed about every single concept of god, lest he choose incorrectly and be doomed to whatever place non-believers go for that particular deity. The safest "bet" is not to play this game. For some reason, you have apparently decided that one mythology is better than another.

Nyarlathotep

26th January 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, did you know that 74 x 9 = 666?

Wow! Amazing!

And 7*49=343 so what's your point?

Upchurch

26th January 2004, 08:16 AM

In another thread, hammegk inadvertently brought up an interesting point. Or, rather, he said something that lead me to an interesting point.

Many proponents of teaching ID in the science class make the argument that althernate "theories" should be presented to the children and they should be allowed to make up their own minds about which is correct. However, when it comes to presenting alternate lifestyles, e.g. homosexuality, in the classroom, these same groups tend to decry this as forcing the subject on their kids and say that these matters should be taught by the parents and/or the church and the school should stay out of such matters.

Now, on the surface, it seems that the inherent hypocracy runs both ways. Usually, those who are against ID being taught in the science class are for teaching that homosexuality as an possible lifestyle. I count myself as one of these people.

One should always endevor to avoid hypocracy, because it stems from inconsistancy. So, last night and this morning, I thought through why I'm okay with one but not the other and I think I've figured it out.

It all comes down to a matter of goals and preparing our children for their futures. In science, the goal is to familiarize the children with principles, properties, and methodologies of science. As noted previously in this thread, ID "theory" is antithetical to what science is as it circumnavigates the scientific methodology and jumps straight to the conclusion (or, rather, jumps straight from the conclusion). As I've stated before, I'm absolutely fine with ID being taught, but in the philosophy and/or religion classrooms.

The goals of sexual education in schools include preventing pregnancy, preventing disease, and preparing children for the changes their bodies and psyches will be going through. Obviously, the first goal is unrelated to homosexuality, but the other two are directly applicable. It does a child little good to know how to avoid catching an STD from a member of the opposite sex if they only have sexual relations from members of the same sex (hopefully later in life than sooner). Further, if homosexuality is indeed genetic, and it certainly seems to be, they need just as much guidance as to the nature of those feelings and what they mean as a heterosexual child does.

I think my feelings about the two issues are mutually consistant. I invite anyone who thinks the reverse on both issues to either rebutt my analysis or, better, to explain why their views are not inconsistant.

Starrman

26th January 2004, 12:02 PM

lacshus
What, you're not holding your breath? Sounds to me like you've been tossing the dice (all this time) on something which may or may not exist.

I once again refer to Homer's wager - far more sensible than Pascal's:

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making the real god madder and madder." - Homer Simpson

Iacchus

26th January 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

And 7*49=343 so what's your point? Just a continuation of the synchronicty which occurred in Upchurch's thread, Upchurch's question (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870288534#post1870288534). While it goes beyond that when RussDill kept insisting (in another thread) that I explain why I should add the two "arbitrary 0's" when adding ... 320 + 023 = 343.

hammegk

26th January 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
In another thread, hammegk inadvertently brought up an interesting point. Or, rather, he said something that lead me to an interesting point.
Or we might say Uppie finally understood something he read even though it was not presented in spoon-size bites.

[blather removed]

I think my feelings about the two issues are mutually consistant. I invite anyone who thinks the reverse on both issues to either rebutt my analysis or, better, to explain why their views are not inconsistant.

Uppie, you continue to act as if your analysis of a given moral question via logical secular humanism becomes fact and that society at large will instantly accept your analysis. To damn bad for you that it isn't so.

"Life"is inconsistent; too bad, huh?

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Uppie, you continue to act as if your analysis of a given moral question via logical secular humanism becomes fact and that society at large will instantly accept your analysis. To damn bad for you that it isn't so.er... hammegk, I think I was rather obviously prompting for a dialogue. I wasn't asking anyone to instantly accept anything. I was putting forth an opinion and asking anyone if they wanted to counter it.

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning....:rolleyes:

From Computer Ethics, Deborah G. Johnson, 3ed., p. 27:[Philosophical analysis] involves expressing a claim and putting forward an argument or reasons for the claim, and it involves critical examination, then it might be reformulated into a revised argument, perhaps rejecting aspects of the original argument but holding on to a core idea. The revised argument, then, has to be critically examined, and so on, with ongoing reformulation and critique. Philosophers often refer to this process as a dialectic (which is related to the word dialogue). We pursue an argument to see where it goes and to find out what you would have to know or assert to defend the argument and establish it on a firm footing.(Please pardon any typos)

That's what I'm trying to do. You sound like you're trying to pick a fight.
"Life"is inconsistent; too bad, huh? Not only is life inconsistant, it is complex. Too complex to just boil down to *I exist* and think that it's all figured out. But that's just my opinion.

27th January 2004, 10:38 AM

Please tell me that when this idiotic bit of religious propaganda was introduced into the chambers it was laughed right down the aisle and out the door.

Please?

Didn't that happen?

27th January 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Let science teaching start with the mention that the existence of an objective world is a postulate, macro evidence to date implies it very likely is physical, but that remains a postulate rather than a fact.

A better way to phrase it might be to say that "Science rejects the idea of insane deific solicpcism".

That is, science rejects the idea that we're all just fever dreams in something's head.

That is the ONLY thing necessary, that allows external verification. Once we have that, we can move forward.

Why do I say "insane"? Because no sane entity, I submit, would create a system such as the one we exist in.

It's the same issue as evolution. No "intellegent" entity would ever design people and animals in such a poor fashion, unless that entity was a sadist, at least, and then we'e back to "insane".

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by jj
Please tell me that when this idiotic bit of religious propaganda was introduced into the chambers it was laughed right down the aisle and out the door.Don't know about the laughing, but it's gone through its first and second readings, Nothing else is scheduled for it so far. Hopefully, those reps have accomplished whatever point they were trying to make (or win whatever votes), moved on to other things, and aren't going to push this anymore.

Roadtoad

27th January 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Don't know about the laughing, but it's gone through its first and second readings, Nothing else is scheduled for it so far. Hopefully, those reps have accomplished whatever point they were trying to make (or win whatever votes), moved on to other things, and aren't going to push this anymore.

One can hope, but I'm not holding my breath. Don't forget, I used to be one of those.

RussDill

27th January 2004, 01:10 PM

OK, I'll try to point out the fluff and ambiguities here.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Something exists.

All you know is that "I exist". To say "something" exists is to speculate about things beyond yourself.

Something is having the experience of being 'me'.

Unnecessary beyond "I exist". You are merely trying to say that you don't have to be the one experience being you. You have not proven that something else can have the experience of being you.

That experience is comprised of an awareness of sensations, thoughts and feelings.

Assumes the qualities of the experience, catagorizing them, when the catagories a) may not apply, and b) other catagories exist.

All three sentences are absolutely true.

So really, all you have is:

I exist

everything else is useless fluff.

lifegazer

27th January 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by RussDill
"Something exists."

All you know is that "I exist". To say "something" exists is to speculate about things beyond yourself.

Actually, saying that something exists acknowledges that "I" do not know what I am, but acknowledges the existence of something (yet undefinable) having the experience of being 'me'.
I would love to say that "I" exist, but then philosophers would say that the qualia which constitute 'me-ness' might just be epiphenomenon of matter. Saying something exists anticipates this response.

"Something is having the experience of being 'me'."

Unnecessary beyond "I exist". You are merely trying to say that you don't have to be the one experience being you. You have not proven that something else can have the experience of being you.

'Me' is a construct of given qualia, thoughts & feelings. I do not give myself these experiences. Therefore I (lifegazer) am the experience of the thing which is having the experience of being lifegazer.
'Me' is not the thing which is having the experience, but the experience of that thing. You see?

"That experience is comprised of an awareness of sensations, thoughts and feelings."

Assumes the qualities of the experience, catagorizing them, when the catagories a) may not apply, and b) other catagories exist.

What? The experiences are self-evident in that they constitute that self (they are 'me' so 'i' know what they are). They are intangible mind constructs given to the awareness of 'me'.

Dancing David

27th January 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
In another thread, hammegk inadvertently brought up an interesting point. Or, rather, he said something that lead me to an interesting point.

Many proponents of teaching ID in the science class make the argument that althernate "theories" should be presented to the children and they should be allowed to make up their own minds about which is correct. However, when it comes to presenting alternate lifestyles, e.g. homosexuality, in the classroom, these same groups tend to decry this as forcing the subject on their kids and say that these matters should be taught by the parents and/or the church and the school should stay out of such matters.

Perhaps it comes down to which class the subject should be taught in. Hamme says that they should start the science calss with the caveat that science is based upon the study of the material world which can not be proved to exist.
I am not sure if he would be happy if all ministers and preachers were required to give a similar warning at the start of church!

I am total;y comfortable with the idea of ID being covered in a philosophy class or a religous tudies class. But until it meets the threshold of science, it should not be taught as sceince.

I would agree if they could come up with something that demonstrates ID rather than random design through contingent evolution. Even something as vauge as the 'proof' of evolution would be sufficient ;)

I think that the issue I have is having known young people who are gay, they did not set out on a course to be gay, they just are attracted to the same sex in a romantic/sexual fashion. It actualy has an evolutionary benefit too.

Now, on the surface, it seems that the inherent hypocracy runs both ways. Usually, those who are against ID being taught in the science class are for teaching that homosexuality as an possible lifestyle. I count myself as one of these people.

But again , where would you be teaching about homosexuality as a lifestyle, probably not in religous studies class. Most likely in a classs that students would have to get thier parents permission to attend in the first place. Students can also opt out of sex ed too.

One should always endevor to avoid hypocracy, because it stems from inconsistancy. So, last night and this morning, I thought through why I'm okay with one but not the other and I think I've figured it out.

I think it is an issue of justice based upon a religous prejudice, you are more open minded than I am.

-snip-
I think my feelings about the two issues are mutually consistant. I invite anyone who thinks the reverse on both issues to either rebutt my analysis or, better, to explain why their views are not inconsistant.

I think that while I enjoy conversations with hamme, this is one issue where he just resorts to insults because he knows that his arguments are weak and based upon prejudice. Every where that he inserts the word gay or homosexual, if you insert the word Jew, it shows that nature of a bais in operation.
This are things that no american would suggest be applied on the basis of a religion, but it is okay on the basis of a behavior that hasn't been proven to harm others. Simply because of a religous bigotry with a very weak mythological basis.

Found your proof yet HammeGK?

If you can demostrate that homosexuality actualy harms the practioners the way that say 'heroin use' does then I can agree. But HIV will not do it for me, it is not a 'gay' disease , you will note that in Africa it is mainly a disease of hetero sexuals.

hell HammeGK, I can argue that homosexuality is good for the economy and society at large. ;)

Upchurch

27th January 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that while I enjoy conversations with hamme, this is one issue where he just resorts to insults because he knows that his arguments are weak and based upon prejudice. Well, that certainly seems to be the case based on the severness of the reaction my post got, which consisted entirely of personal insults.

hammegk

27th January 2004, 05:03 PM

I am glad that both of you are prejudice free. Nope, I'm not.

Derailing the thread even further, the expectation of liberals to me is that any specific moral position is debatable and that the status quo should be willing to adjust their views based on the logic of secular humanism.

This board has many examples -- incest & polygamy for example -- and now I'm mentioning that widespread agreement as to the harmless nature of homosexuality may not be apparent; it is not to me at least. Perhaps I am alone in this belief, although I think the majority here in the US share my view on this behavior. For one generation I agree that little harm is justifiably identified. If one of you will mention *any* successful multi-generations society that as appeared as more than a historical footnote and who agreed that homosex is value neutral wrt heterosex, that would improve your argument imo.

One implication of your approach is that a cultures' morals are as subject to act by act consideration as is any other area science can examine by component pieces. I wonder, actually worry, if an effect similar to dissecting "life" occurs before you find "the answer" to each specific question that can be raised.

Why should I be required to demonstrate to you that specific behaviors outside the norm are harmful, rather than you as proponents demonstrating that the proposed change provides added value to increase probable societal success? It feels good & I wanna is where you are now as I see it.

Shifting topics, jj said
A better way to phrase it might be to say that "Science rejects the idea of insane deific solicpcism".

That is, science rejects the idea that we're all just fever dreams in something's head.

That is the ONLY thing necessary, that allows external verification. Once we have that, we can move forward.

Why do I say "insane"? Because no sane entity, I submit, would create a system such as the one we exist in.

It's the same issue as evolution. No "intellegent" entity would ever design people and animals in such a poor fashion, unless that entity was a sadist, at least, and then we'e back to "insane".
You have tossed this at me several times now, and I have no idea what you think it has to do with my worldview as an idealist monist. Care to explain?

Ceinwyn

27th January 2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
I am glad that both of you are prejudice free. Nope, I'm not.No, of course you're not.
Derailing the thread even further, the expectation of liberals to me is that any specific moral position is debatable and that the status quo should be willing to adjust their views based on the logic of secular humanism.

This board has many examples -- incest & polygamy for example -

WHOA NELLIE. Who exactly are you accusing of incest and polygamy here? Thems fighting words, cowboy.

- and now I'm mentioning that widespread agreement as to the harmless nature of homosexuality may not be apparent; it is not to me at least. Perhaps I am alone in this belief, although I think the majority here in the US share my view on this behavior. For one generation I agree that little harm is justifiably identified. If one of you will mention *any* successful multi-generations society that as appeared as more than a historical footnote and who agreed that homosex is value neutral wrt heterosex, that would improve your argument imo.

One implication of your approach is that a cultures' morals are as subject to act by act consideration as is any other area science can examine by component pieces. I wonder, actually worry, if an effect similar to dissecting "life" occurs before you find "the answer" to each specific question that can be raised.

Why should I be required to demonstrate to you that specific behaviors outside the norm are harmful, rather than you as proponents demonstrating that the proposed change provides added value to increase probable societal success? It feels good & I wanna is where you are now as I see it.

Shifting topics,
You have tossed this at me several times now, and I have no idea what you think it has to do with my worldview as an idealist monist. Care to explain?

Okay, so you don't like men having sex with men. I bet you like women getting together, hm? Ever see those late night movies, where sometimes really beautiful women kiss? You like those, right?

That's homosexual too, so I guess it's bad. You're back to the Sears catalogue dude.

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
Derailing the thread even further, the expectation of liberals to me is that any specific moral position is debatable and that the status quo should be willing to adjust their views based on the logic of secular humanism.It isn't so much that any moral position is debatable, although that is certainly a consequence, as it is that any moral position should be defensible. The process of defending a position requires debate. The only reason it seems "secular" in any way is because "God said so" is a fundamentally weak answer in a culture that supports many gods who are all saying different things.
If one of you will mention *any* successful multi-generations society that as appeared as more than a historical footnote and who agreed that homosex is value neutral wrt heterosex, that would improve your argument imo. How about Greek and Roman Empires? Yes, they eventually fell, but all things eventually fall and the Roman Empire controlled a good hunk of their known world before they did.
Why should I be required to demonstrate to you that specific behaviors outside the norm are harmful, rather than you as proponents demonstrating that the proposed change provides added value to increase probable societal success? It feels good & I wanna is where you are now as I see it.We Americans have such a mixed history of handling people who are different. On the one hand, we hold the very ideals of freedom, liberty, and equality. On the other hand, we all but wiped out the native Americans and we enslaved and subjecticated whole generations of people. Here we have an opportunity to do the right thing and live up to our ideals rather than fall back on old habits. Our default position should be to allow people to follow their own conscience. The government should only intervene when someone harms another.

That's actually a traditionally conservative position, when you think about it.

Dancing David

28th January 2004, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by hammegk
I am glad that both of you are prejudice free. Nope, I'm not.

I am full of prejudice. I try to decide that upon which my prejudice is based. Like when I walk down a sidewalk that has street thugs blocking the way. I respond immedeatly and emotionaly to the situation. There is no way around certain reactions.
What harm is done by homosexual marriage is the question I have asked, and so far you haven't responded.

Derailing the thread even further, the expectation of liberals to me is that any specific moral position is debatable and that the status quo should be willing to adjust their views based on the logic of secular humanism.

That I understand and agree with, I just happen to base my ethics and moral on a standard of harm. If the behavior is harmful only to the one engaging in the behavior, I still frequently decide that it is wrong/immoral. A good example would be the slow death of heroin addiction or alcoholism (assuming these individuals don't drive while intoxicated). I think that killing yourself is wrong and that it is something people shouldn't do. But this may be a case where legislation does not do the whole trick.

I use a logic of harm reduction in my moral POV, so I ask what harm does homosexual marriage do?

This board has many examples -- incest & polygamy for example -- and now I'm mentioning that widespread agreement as to the harmless nature of homosexuality may not be apparent; it is not to me at least. Perhaps I am alone in this belief, although I think the majority here in the US share my view on this behavior. For one generation I agree that little harm is justifiably identified. If one of you will mention *any* successful multi-generations society that as appeared as more than a historical footnote and who agreed that homosex is value neutral wrt heterosex, that would improve your argument imo.

I could respond that all cultures undergo transformation so I don't see the argument as valid, it is not as though christian culture is the same one thatw as practised 2000 years ago.
But that would be a counter based ouitside my POV.

Would you please point to cultures that tolerated homosexuality that were actualy destroyed by it?

One implication of your approach is that a cultures' morals are as subject to act by act consideration as is any other area science can examine by component pieces. I wonder, actually worry, if an effect similar to dissecting "life" occurs before you find "the answer" to each specific question that can be raised.

I would argue that my morals are not based upon a case by case scenario, they are very consistent.
But legislation in our country is another matter.
And again you show me the harm, and then I can decide. As of yet I see no harm in homosexual marriage.

Why should I be required to demonstrate to you that specific behaviors outside the norm are harmful, rather than you as proponents demonstrating that the proposed change provides added value to increase probable societal success? It feels good & I wanna is where you are now as I see it.

Because my morals are based upon a reduction of harm, including what people call ethics. So from my POV, the only reason to judge a behavior as wrong or immoral is the harm factor. Which is also what I said in the incest thread.
[/B]

HammeGK, I do not ever say that you should agree with my morals, but I do really believe that my morals and most moral systems come down to harm reduction. If there is another basis for you morals, that is great! What is it?

On the societies of homosexuals that die out. Hmm, wasn't it the greeks that were so mysoginist that they viewed the greatest love to be between two men? Oh, I forgot they are a mere footnote, as is all of history?

Then there is the issue of hidden homosexuality, it is really weird how a society will condemn homosexuality on one hand and then allow it on the other. There is a book that discusses homosexuality in islamic nations, turns out that there is a lot of forcing sex on younger brothers in that scoiety. Something that the bigger boys used to do in english schools to all the littler boys too.

My feelings are definitly based upon personal bais, my personal experience has led me to believe that the fear of homosexuality is irrational and a cultural prejudice.
At one point in my youth almost all of my friends experiemented with homosexuality, I was the only commited hetero in the bunch, some are now hetero and some are now gay. I see no real difference in the life paths they have taken due to thier sexual preference.

On the societal issue:
Homosexuality is a useful trait to a society, they produce wealth but do not produce offspring. Therefore they increase the networth of society.
There are evolutionary strategies that would lend benefit to homosexuality. If a gay sib helps to raise (I was going to say rear)thier neices and nephews then that is a very good strategy to help rpomote your own genes without being reproductive.
There is a lot of debate on the actual percentage of homosexuals in the population the highest figure is ten percent, so society will not die out that tolerates homosexual marriage, there is no danger that the whole society will stop reproducing. Many gay people alos do not realize they are gay until after they have had kids any way.

HammeGK, I do not ask you to accept liberal values at all, but I do ask, what basis is there for saying that homosexual behavior is harmful.

Peace

Hexxenhammer

28th January 2004, 07:30 AM

Anyone care if I bring this back to the topic at hand?

Here in Minnesota we're in the process of re-writing all the educational standards because the old ones were universally deemed idiotic. The standards are then debated by the state government. Apparently the science standards teach evolution at many levels in a strong way. They even teach the nature of theories and how they are always being revised and changed.

So here is the testimony of a guy against the new science standards:Robert Frey of Norwood, who opened his testimony by plunking the large femur bone replica on the witness table, said the standards represent a "false and humanistic worldview" and "pseudo-science.''
The bone, he said, represented an example of the large-size humans that once roamed earth, which he considers about 6,000 years old.
Frey linked the teaching of evolution to increasing teenage sexual activity and a decrease in college-entrance exam scores.
From here:
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/living/education/7784487.htm

editted to fix link.

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
So here is the testimony of a guy against the new science standards: From here:http://www.twincities.com/mld/twinc...ion/7784487.htm Hexx, the link doesn't work. I got an error message. I'd like to know what data Frey has to back his claim.

Hexxenhammer

28th January 2004, 07:47 AM

Fixed the link.

The guy has no evidence. He has a replica femur from a giant. I'm not so worried about creationism in Minnesota anymore.

More dangerous is the school board member who thinks "more alternatives" need to be taught. "More alternatives" sounds so reasonable but in this case is very dangerous.

Hexxenhammer

28th January 2004, 07:49 AM

This guy is more dangerous:
Dave Eaton, a member of the Minnetonka School Board and the science standards writing committee, submitted a minority report to the Senate on the evolution issue. He suggested two changes to the standards.
"We agree with the evolutionists that the state should not try to insert religion into biology classes,'' he said.
"But some evolutionists go too far when they insist that evolution should be taught completely without criticism.''

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 07:53 AM

I noticed the article didn't mention which other "theories" were to be presented.

Hexxenhammer

28th January 2004, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I noticed the article didn't mention which other "theories" were to be presented. More from this Dave Eaton jerk that partially answers that: http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/12/19_mccalluml_newstandards/ One of the four is Dave Eaton, an engineer and Minnetonka School Board member, who says students should know that there is scientific criticism of key aspects of evolutionary theory, even though the biblical theory of creationism isn't being taught.
"We are very clear in our document that we're not advocating creationism. We're interested in accurate science, and creationism gets into things based on Scripture, and that's not something that belongs in the science classroom," he said.
To me, this is insidious. If he was being upfront, he'd add "Intelligent Design theory does belong in the classroom," because that is obviously what he means.

Hexxenhammer

28th January 2004, 09:46 AM

I'm proven right! Here's a story from a UMM biology professor about his encounter with the Minnesota Education Commissioner and this Dave Eaton Dork at a town hall meeting on the new MN education standards.http://pharyngula.org/comments/P73_0_1_0_C
I attended the town hall meeting to discuss the draft Minnesota Science Standards in Willmar, MN last Wednesday. The audience (and, as it turns out, the Department of Education members on the podium) was overwhelmingly creationist and vocal. A few of us science & reason types did get up to speak, but it was to a chorus of disapproval from the audience, while the creationist speakers got a chorus of amens, instead.

Here's part of what he said to them about intelligent design.Finally, intelligent design cannot be considered science. I would like to bring one of the science standards in this document to your attention. On page 22, it says, "Students will know that scientific explanations must meet criteria to be considered valid, including that they must be consistent with experimental and observational evidence about nature, logical, respect the rules of evidence, be open to criticism, and report methods and procedures." Intelligent design violates all these principles. It does not meet proper scientific criteria, it is not consistent with any experimental or observational evidence, it is illogical, it dispenses with evidence, it is not open to criticism, and it does not have any methods or procedures to report. By these standards, it cannot be taught as science.

And about Dave Eaton:One member of the science committee was also there, a Dave Eaton. He said that 1) microevolution was an indisputable fact, but macroevolution and origins were contentious, 2) that more and more scientists were accepting the theory of intelligent design, and 3) that intelligent design was now being taught in classes at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities. Sound familiar? These are classic lines of argument from intelligent design creationists. I've since confirmed that Eaton, a member of the science standards committee, is an active promoter of ID, who has also worked to get it introduced into his local school district in Minnetonka. (Eaton's claims have been debunked on Mark Isaak's excellent "Index to Creationist Claims", a very handy resource...except for the one about it being taught at UMTC. That's just a plain, outright, dishonest distortion: there is apparently a seminar taught by a professor of engineering on the subject, but you can find a crank or three in every large university -- and it is not being taught as a serious element of the biology curriculum, as I suspect Eaton was trying to imply.)

So the situation here in Minnesota seems to be that our new standards are good and scientifically sound but are under attack before they have even been approved because of our own Education Commissioner and a vocal minority of fundies.

hammegk

28th January 2004, 05:07 PM

Reinstating the hijack -----

Originally posted by Upchurch
It isn't so much that any moral position is debatable, although that is certainly a consequence, as it is that any moral position should be defensible. The process of defending a position requires debate. The only reason it seems "secular" in any way is because "God said so" is a fundamentally weak answer in a culture that supports many gods who are all saying different things.
I will address your debate issue below with an analogy; re God, who ordered him up? I didn't. Morality is taught by family, peers, media, etc.

How about Greek and Roman Empires? Yes, they eventually fell, but all things eventually fall and the Roman Empire controlled a good hunk of their known world before they did.
Are you contending homosex was a reason they were great? I could be wrong but opine that debauchery goes right along with decay & death. Maybe they were great because slavery was ok too?

Our default position should be to allow people to follow their own conscience.
Guided in personal behavior by some shared moral values, you bet.

The government should only intervene when someone harms another.
Government will do as it will save for ballots (or bullets).

Originally posted by DD

What harm is done by homosexual marriage is the question I have asked, and so far you haven't responded.

.... I just happen to base my ethics and moral on a standard of harm. If the behavior is harmful only to the one engaging in the behavior, I still frequently decide that it is wrong/immoral.

I use a logic of harm reduction in my moral POV, so I ask what harm does homosexual marriage do?

I could respond that all cultures undergo transformation so I don't see the argument as valid

Would you please point to cultures that tolerated homosexuality that were actualy destroyed by it?
" to each specific question that can be raised.

I would argue that my morals are not based upon a case by case scenario, they are very consistent.
But legislation in our country is another matter.
And again you show me the harm, and then I can decide. As of yet I see no harm in homosexual marriage.

Because my morals are based upon a reduction of harm, including what people call ethics. So from my POV, the only reason to judge a behavior as wrong or immoral is the harm factor.

..... I do really believe that my morals and most moral systems come down to harm reduction. If there is another basis for you morals, that is great! What is it?

Again we see our problem. Let's try an analogy; morality is giant program with lot's of subroutine calls ( which may, or may, not make other calls). The subroutine names are things like Incest, Polygamy, Adultery, Sodomy, etcetc.

You seem to be stating that look, this main program call should not even be in here since by human reasoning it makes no near term sense (no harm, in your view): Let's just erase it. You do not know the reason the social coding was made, or what other suboutines may call it, yet let's get rid of it.

I say the burden of demonstrating "no harm" falls on you, and for that matter, why are we changing if it does not actually provide a positive benefit?

On the societies of homosexuals that die out. Hmm, wasn't it the greeks that were so mysoginist that they viewed the greatest love to be between two men? Oh, I forgot they are a mere footnote, as is all of history?

Then there is the issue of hidden homosexuality, it is really weird how a society will condemn homosexuality on one hand and then allow it on the other. There is a book that discusses homosexuality in islamic nations, turns out that there is a lot of forcing sex on younger brothers in that scoiety. Something that the bigger boys used to do in english schools to all the littler boys too.
Yup, been used as form of subjugation stronger male to weaker male for thousands of years. How much has actually changed? The area of human sexuality certainly continues to make people do strange things, anyway.

I noted your cost/benefit analysis, but don't agree the postive or at least no harm proof has been met. Back to my subroutine analogy, some get called daily, some monthly, and some for the first time after 3 generations have passed.

ca3799

28th January 2004, 05:34 PM

Upchurch, forgive me for not slogging through the whole five pages of evolutionary v ID debate. I may be repeating something that is already posted, but I just had dinner and all the ID talk...well, you know.

Anyway, after Kansas and Illinois, the IDers came to Texas a couple of months ago, and have now moved on to your state. We review our books every six years, and the ID'ers, after much effort, went home unhappy with Texas' decision. Thankfully they won't be back very soon and we're safe from the ID babble for now.

What I'm reading now about ID'ers and textbooks is that they are rallying not so much to include ID in the texts, but to have "flaws" in the sciences, evolution particularly, highlighted in textbooks. They seem to be hoping that by stressing flaws in evolution theory, they will instill in kids a doubt the ability of science to find answers to important questions, and of course reduce the conflict of what kids are taught on Sundays. They don't spend alot of time looking for flaws in math, geography, or english, etc. - just science- "Evil-ution" in particular (I have actually seen it written that way!).

Anyway, you have my sympathy for having to deal with this problem. I'm afraid your state's position may be weaker than ours with more local control (and therefore less control) politically than ours, although I could be wrong about that.

The people who came to our state seemed to come from The Discovery Institute in Washington State (http://www.discovery.org/).

I got some information from the National Center for Science Education(http://www.natcenscied.org/). I also got info from Texas Citizens for Science (http://www.txscience.org/). You will want to watch out for pro-science sounding organizations that are really ID'ers in disguise. A fun article I saw was called "How We Threw the Bums Out" by a small group that managed to discredit some ID'ers when they went to Kansas by forming a group of flat-earthers (http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/november2000/melott.html). Then there was all that Zogby poll crap.

Gotta run..

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Are you contending homosex was a reason they were great? I could be wrong but opine that debauchery goes right along with decay & death. Maybe they were great because slavery was ok too?Not at all. you saidIf one of you will mention *any* successful multi-generations society that as appeared as more than a historical footnote and who agreed that homosex is value neutral wrt heterosex, that would improve your argument imo. Both the Greek and Roman Empires were successful multi-generational societies that appeared as more than a historical footnote and had a neutral, or even accepted, view of homosexuality. I have no idea what the actual effect of homosexuality was on the greatness of those Empires nor am I advocating slavery (where'd that come from?). I was just answering your question. Does this "improve my argument" in your opinion?

Upchurch

28th January 2004, 08:01 PM

Originally posted by ca3799
Anyway, you have my sympathy for having to deal with this problem. I'm afraid your state's position may be weaker than ours with more local control (and therefore less control) politically than ours, although I could be wrong about that.Thanks for the info and the sympathy, ca3799. Welcome to the forum!

Dancing David

29th January 2004, 06:28 AM

Originaly posted by HammeGK
Again we see our problem. Let's try an analogy; morality is giant program with lot's of subroutine calls ( which may, or may, not make other calls). The subroutine names are things like Incest, Polygamy, Adultery, Sodomy, etcetc.

You seem to be stating that look, this main program call should not even be in here since by human reasoning it makes no near term sense (no harm, in your view): Let's just erase it. You do not know the reason the social coding was made, or what other suboutines may call it, yet let's get rid of it.

I say the burden of demonstrating "no harm" falls on you, and for that matter, why are we changing if it does not actually provide a positive benefit?

Okay so what you are saying, to clarify the anolgy is that is is like virus software and that there is the data file that scans for the 'behavior' and then if the bahavior matches something is the data file the 'main' program is called into play. The manin in this case being the scan and the response ot a positive hit by the scan.

The program call is modified quite frequently by society, and it is very hard to not just throw straw, I would really like to mention Jim Crow and the jewish pogroms. But just that teaser will do.

We as a society do invoke the 'cleanup' program in different ways at different times based upon the morals of a given time period, especialy regards sexuality.
-at one time it was considered acceptable to beat your wife with a stick as long as it was no wider than your thumb (an anecdotal derivation of the rule of thumb.
- at times the 'sodomy' laws applied to hetero couples as well until the data file and response was modified in the name of personal freedom.

So apparently the scan file can be modified and data sets removed.

The response of the cleanup program after a hit is variable as well
-having money will always, always ,always reduce the response of the program
-there are mitigating factors :in some states there is the Romeo and Juliet provision which states that the cleanup program will not be invoked in statutory rape if the age difference between the two minors is below a set amount.
-there was a time when there was no response from the program for domestic violence, not only has the data set been modified but the program response is still changing
-there are times that there was a response from the program for marriage between two individuals of different races but not for the rape of slaves by thier owners

So while the program anology holds I contend that the program is adjusted all the time by society.

Why change any law if it doesn't provide any actual benefit, for the greater freedom of the individual.

Me prove that there is no harm? So there is no harm then, the law is almost always based upon the premise of preventing harm.
And in the law the burden is always on the demonstration of harm.

And note I am for the disestablishment of religion any how, wether or not civil union is allowed between same sex couples.

daenku32

29th January 2004, 01:36 PM

Politicians acting as Scientists???

"(c) Complex forms in proteins, enzymes, DNA, and other ... imply intelligent design was necessary for the first life on earth."

Stop the molecular studies people! Here is all we need! All studying of the possibility that no ID was necessary is clearly wrong! So it has been decided.

In fact, let's just stop all scientific study alltogether.

RussDill

30th January 2004, 08:40 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109939,00.html

ATLANTA — The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

Upchurch

30th January 2004, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by RussDill
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109939,00.html

ATLANTA — The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time." Yeah, I saw that over in politics. It's the most incredibly stupid idea I've heard in a long time. Well, there's still lifegazer, I suppose, but it's the worst idea in politics.

lifegazer

30th January 2004, 01:26 PM

Ahem. Still not faced upto your own bigotry I see. Perhaps your studies in philosophy will wake you up a bit.

hammegk

30th January 2004, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
.... I have no idea what the actual effect of homosexuality was on the greatness of those Empires nor am I advocating slavery (where'd that come from?). I was just answering your question. Does this "improve my argument" in your opinion?
Well, maybe you can actually see some of the concern I keep mentioning. You have no idea what effect slavery had on their greatness either, yet we'll change our rules homosex=good, slavery=bad. Does this mean I'm for slavery? No, it's a behavior the slaves themselves had no control over, and neither of us know how much GrecoRoman homosex was really just another form of masturbation (and of course demonstration of power) for the owners engaging (in same sex) manual-oral-anal activities.

Originally posted by DD
Okay so what you are saying, to clarify the anolgy is that is is like virus software and that there is the data file that scans for the 'behavior' and then if the bahavior matches something is the data file the 'main' program is called into play. The manin in this case being the scan and the response ot a positive hit by the scan.
The response is the moral judgement: Yes ok, or No don't do that. And each subprogram for a specific behavior may or may not call other subprograms.

The program call is modified quite frequently by society, and it is very hard to not just throw straw, I would really like to mention Jim Crow and the jewish pogroms. But just that teaser will do.
Unfortunately societies may become psychotic and no longer respond to moral values.

So apparently the scan file can be modified and data sets removed.
Of course, completely ignored as the pogroms, or revised to stop wife-beating. IIRC in the wife-beating case, what changed was English common law -- not personal morality.

The response of the cleanup program after a hit is variable as well
-having money will always, always ,always reduce the response of the program
-there are mitigating factors :in some states there is the Romeo and Juliet provision which states that the cleanup program will not be invoked in statutory rape if the age difference between the two minors is below a set amount.
-there was a time when there was no response from the program for domestic violence, not only has the data set been modified but the program response is still changing
-there are times that there was a response from the program for marriage between two individuals of different races but not for the rape of slaves by thier owners

In every case you are confusing morality with then current Law.

Why change any law if it doesn't provide any actual benefit, for the greater freedom of the individual.
Because it's so much more fun to worry about what others do rather than what I do. What you see as "freedom" I may see as a reduction in freedom because my nose iis in the way.

Me prove that there is no harm? So there is no harm then, the law is almost always based upon the premise of preventing harm.
And in the law the burden is always on the demonstration of harm.
Morals provide guidelines for individual self-control -- which should assist in control of individuals thoughts. Law provides penalties for specific behaviors.

And note I am for the disestablishment of religion any how, wether or not civil union is allowed between same sex couples.
Morals are a function of religion, but much less so than they are functions of the society as a whole -- parents, peers, media, schooling, etc. imo.

Upchurch

30th January 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
neither of us know how much GrecoRoman homosex was really just another form of masturbation (and of course demonstration of power) for the owners engaging (in same sex) manual-oral-anal activities.Given some of the art from that time, I think it's safe to say that homosexuality then was no different than homosexuality now. As they say (in Ecc. 1:9), "there is nothing new under the sun."

The fact is that homosexuality has been around for a long time and has not had a greatly adverse effect on society.

hammegk

30th January 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

The fact is that homosexuality has been around for a long time and has not had a greatly adverse effect on society.

Yeah, what the hey: who would care about condoning behaviors at worst value-neutral, or even with positive effects/affects. Let's just stick to changing our mind on those not so (obviously & near-term) "greatly adverse" in consequences.

You present my side better than I do, thanks. ;)

Upchurch

30th January 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

who would care about condoning behaviors at worst value-neutral, or even with positive effects/affects. Let's just stick to changing our mind on those not so (obviously & near-term) "greatly adverse" in consequences.

You present my side better than I do, thanks. ;) Whoa there, cowboy. I said homosexuality had no adverse effect on society. Bigotry, violence, and oppression, against homosexuals or minority, often does have adverse effects on society. History is full of examples that are often resolved violently or with the near-extinction of entire societies.

hammegk

30th January 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Whoa there, cowboy. I said homosexuality had no adverse effect on society. Bigotry, violence, and oppression, against homosexuals or minority, often does have adverse effects on society. History is full of examples that are often resolved violently or with the near-extinction of entire societies.

I agree that Bigotry, violence, and oppression have unfortunate effects for individuals.

However those attributes mark all succesfull multi-generational societies I can think of. Without them the barbarians are inside the walls in no time for the usual rapine, pillage, and destruction.

I note your personal opinion; that & some cash will get you somewhere. Now if you would care to demonstrate that the adverse effects to luckless individuals outweigh the favorable effects for the society as a whole?

Upchurch

30th January 2004, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
However those attributes mark all succesfull multi-generational societies I can think of. Without them the barbarians are inside the walls in no time for the usual rapine, pillage, and destruction.So you're saying that bigotry is essential to the success of society? Any bigotry or did you have something specific in mind? I'm wondering just how you draw a connection between hating blacks, gays, jews, or Chinese, for example, to protecting our society from outside invaders. Sounds similar to the argument that 9-11 happened because of the gays...
Now if you would care to demonstrate that the adverse effects to luckless individuals outweigh the favorable effects for the society as a whole? I'd like you to show how there is, in fact, a danger.

hammegk

31st January 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
So you're saying that bigotry is essential to the success of society?
No, I didn't say that was what I think. I'm saying it is an attribute that has characterized all sucessful societies (and yup, all human nature). It'll continue to be a human attribute (you say "failing") imhsho until genetic engineering "fixes" the tendency. An alien invasion would be helpful, so all of us could hate the same thing for a change, although I'm afraid some humans would still hate other humans for no good reason. Or you can switch off the us vs them switch with electrical/biochemical/??? mind enhancement.

Who's altruism will you trust (sort of an opposite of bigotry) to make sure everyone gets their treatments on schedule?

Any bigotry or did you have something specific in mind?
Each of us pick & choose, don't we? We can of course pretend we don't, and that will be the case until some external reality change forces each of us to take difficult -- life sustaining, selfish-gene -- decisions.

I'd like you to show how there is, in fact, a danger.
And you are one of the persons stating there is none. I believe the burden is on you to demonstate -- show the historical analog would be a good method -- that there is not.

Upchurch

31st January 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

And you are one of the persons stating there is none. I believe the burden is on you to demonstate -- show the historical analog would be a good method -- that there is not. You want me to show that there is not an ambiguous, undefined danger that you are asserting is there? I can't read your mind, hammegk. What danger to society are you refering to that only bigotry can defend against? I'm fairly certain there are no more barbarians around waiting storm the walls and rape and pillage our villiage.

Are you refering to (non)threats like Iraq? Or space aliens? Or actual threats like Al-Queda? What? Are you saying that in order to protect ourselves from Al-Queda, we must be bigoted against middle-easterners? I don't even understand what your talking about. I can't demonstrate something when you are the one that understands how there is a connection.

Dancing David

31st January 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by hammegk

I agree that Bigotry, violence, and oppression have unfortunate effects for individuals.

However those attributes mark all succesfull multi-generational societies I can think of. Without them the barbarians are inside the walls in no time for the usual rapine, pillage, and destruction.

I note your personal opinion; that & some cash will get you somewhere. Now if you would care to demonstrate that the adverse effects to luckless individuals outweigh the favorable effects for the society as a whole?

Hmmm.

Why that is rather a novel approach to what makes a society tick HammeGK, if you feel that those are the basics of a civil society. I find myself that I would name the opposite to what you have named, in that society is made of cooperative individuals. We as societies may find it useful and cost effective to implement certain duties of a society but your analyisis is like slanted in a particular direction.

Bigotry: whole libraries of literature speak to the universal nature of humankind, humans also seem to be well developed in Tolerance and Cooperation. A humans reaction in a crowd is rather typical of social animals. Bigotry doesn't hold societies tother,I would like to see how Hamme you feel that bigotry is more useful than cooperation for an operational sociaty.
Violence: what is this ? The nature red in tooth and claw? My how positivly victorian of you. If humans were really predisposed to violence, why isn't there a whole lot more of it. Societies in and of themselves are designed exactly to reduce violence. That is the whole purpose of social conventions of things like: driving on the 'correct' side of the road. If humans behaved as baboons then we would all be slapping and punching and growling with each other to get to the checkout lanes.
I suppose that you base this on some, people don't kill each other because society tell them not to argument. I thought you had to have the consent of the governed. But not using violence is the highest form of social interaction.

Oppression: yeah right HammeGK. I respectfully submit to you that american society is against that from the start.

These are not societal values like cooperation, tolerance, patience, following social mores.

The barbarian is always at the gate Hammegk, we are the barbarians for jebubs sake! Barbarian society is a society you doofus! What further bigotry do you just heap on barbarians. Our society is full barbaric behaviors in of itself.

There are positive forces that make societies work HammeGK. Gaming theory and cultural anthropology might point you in a new direction. But 'the suppression of the masses' is more a 'philsophical' notion of the role of a society. We are after all societies composed of individuals constantly involved in social currency exchange. Sucsessful societies rely upon the meaningful exchange of goods, services and knowledge. For goodness sake the economics of almost any situation make cooperation betwen individuals the hallmark of a sucsessful society.

Now if you would care to demonstrate that the adverse effects to luckless individuals outweigh the favorable effects for the society as a whole?

Yeah right hamme, the system that alows the powerful to rob us blind, the business Man to pollute our air and land and all sorts of chicanery that is neither moral or even legal. Insider trading and fleecing the masses is much more destructive to our society than allowing two people of the same gender some sort of civil union. The free market system destroys more lives than the advent of homosexual marriage ever can.

Luckless individuals have always been oppressed by the violent bigotry of the upper classes man! (Sorry , that is very hard to type with a straight face.) :)

:swell the Internationale, drop the red cutain:
Brothers and sisters, you have only to throw off the repressive yoke of the chuch and the plutocrats, rise up and throw off the chains that the rich want you wear for thier benefit! Join together to overthrough the petty aristocrats and thier modern henchman of Free Market Economics, Globalization, Intelligent Design and the Automobile!
:swing shot out over the crowd of angry peasant with torches:

hammegk

31st January 2004, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

You want me to show that there is not an ambiguous, undefined danger that you are asserting is there? I can't read your mind, hammegk. What danger to society are you refering to that only bigotry can defend against? I'm fairly certain there are no more barbarians around waiting storm the walls and rape and pillage our villiage.
Since you are willing to judge societies' near-term -- say years to decades -- and I prefer to consider decades to centuries, it is tough to agree on much.

Are you refering to (non)threats like Iraq? Or space aliens? Or actual threats like Al-Queda? What? Are you saying that in order to protect ourselves from Al-Queda, we must be bigoted against middle-easterners? I don't even understand what your talking about. I can't demonstrate something when you are the one that understands how there is a connection.
Nor do I have a clue as to the basis for your rant, since I said no such thing. See my next comment, please.

Originally posted by DD

hammegk said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that Bigotry, violence, and oppression have unfortunate
effects for individuals.

However those attributes mark all succesfull multi-generational societies I can think of. Without them the barbarians are inside the walls in no time for the usual rapine, pillage, and destruction.

I note your personal opinion; that & some cash will get you somewhere. Now if you would care to demonstrate that the adverse effects to luckless individuals outweigh the favorable effects for the society as a whole?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why that is rather a novel approach to what makes a society tick HammeGK, if you feel that those are the basics of a civil society. I find myself that I would name the opposite to what you have named, in that society is made of cooperative individuals. We as societies may find it useful and cost effective to implement certain duties of a society but your analyisis is like slanted in a particular direction.
I state that human nature still exists and societies that endure recognize it; you appear to disagree.

Bigotry: whole libraries of literature speak to the universal nature of humankind, humans also seem to be well developed in Tolerance and Cooperation. A humans reaction in a crowd is rather typical of social animals. Bigotry doesn't hold societies tother,I would like to see how Hamme you feel that bigotry is more useful than cooperation for an operational sociaty.
Violence: what is this ? The nature red in tooth and claw? ....

.........

But not using violence is the highest form of social interaction.
There are positive forces that make societies work HammeGK. Gaming theory and cultural anthropology might point you in a new direction. But 'the suppression of the masses' is more a 'philsophical' notion of the role of a society. We are after all societies composed of individuals constantly involved in social currency exchange. Sucsessful societies rely upon the meaningful exchange of goods, services and knowledge. For goodness sake the economics of almost any situation make cooperation betwen individuals the hallmark of a sucsessful society.
Er, yes. Cohesiveness is something that sucessfull societies also exhibit.

The barbarian is always at the gate Hammegk, we are the barbarians for jebubs sake! [quote][b]
I think not. Islamofascists may become so. Or, are they are filling that role now? The World at large don't seem like our buddies, and I don't foresee anytime soon they will become so.

[quote][b]
Yeah right hamme, the system that alows the powerful to rob us blind, the business Man to pollute our air and land and all sorts of chicanery that is neither moral or even legal. Insider trading and fleecing the masses is much more destructive to our society than allowing two people of the same gender some sort of civil union. The free market system destroys more lives than the advent of homosexual marriage ever can.

Luckless individuals have always been oppressed by the violent bigotry of the upper classes man! (Sorry , that is very hard to type with a straight face.)

:swell the Internationale, drop the red cutain:
Brothers and sisters, you have only to throw off the repressive yoke of the chuch and the plutocrats, rise up and throw off the chains that the rich want you wear for thier benefit! Join together to overthrough the petty aristocrats and thier modern henchman of Free Market Economics, Globalization, Intelligent Design and the Automobile!
:swing shot out over the crowd of angry peasant with torches:

And your anti-capitalist anti-USA rant demonstrates what, did you think? I didn't find it very enlightening. :(

Upchurch

1st February 2004, 05:18 AM

Wow. The amount of evasion, strawmen, and personal attacks in those few sentinces are amazing. It's like you've given up trying to defend a position and are just reacting.

This isn't productive in a rational debate. Your bigotry is nothing more than an emotional reaction based on your social norms. When you're comfortable enough with yourself and your feelings and can come back to the table and talk about it rationally, that's wonderful.

I'm sorry, hammegk. I should not have been pushing your buttons like that.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Since you are willing to judge societies' near-term -- say years to decades -- and I prefer to consider decades to centuries, it is tough to agree on much.

I am thinking of society as the social interaction between individuals, can you really say that the society that produced King Ethelred led directly to George the Third and George the Sixth? The society is composed of the induviduals in a given moment. I would kindly offer that you are reffering to things that society do, but are not part of what creates and holds together a society. the way that children are raised in a society is more important to a society that bigotry,violence and oppression.
It is kind of like the whole self and mind thing, the society does not exist beyonf\d the people who make it. The byzantine empire derived it's thoughts from christian theology but to say that the byzantine empire wa a sociatal descendant of christ whould be a mistake, in my tiny opinion.
I would like to continue this discussion, I am just arguing that the actual basis of a society is much more than something like law enforcement

Nor do I have a clue as to the basis for your rant, since I said no such thing. See my next comment, please.

I would say that cooperation, tolerance and the things that lead to social cohesion are the basis of society. I would like you to explain why bigotry, violence and oppression lead to the rise of society. I just happen to believe that bargining, negotiation and cooperation are what create sucsess full societies.
The rant is what it is.

I state that human nature still exists and societies that endure recognize it; you appear to disagree.

I would just comment that you place a high value on those three behaviors and that they are not the basis for creating a society. Societies that endure find ways to cope with bigotry, violence and oppression.
Again if you can demonstrate how in game theory or economics, those three values lead to sucsess in a society then we can discuss it.
I also just happen to have a personal belief that social cooperation is the defining characteristic of homo sapiens and is there fore a very strongly held opinion.

Er, yes. Cohesiveness is something that sucessfull societies also exhibit.
[\b]
I would just suggest that the cohesiveness is what actualy makes a society function, not just exhibit. Cooperation between memebers, division of labor and economies of scale are dependant upon social cooperation.
[b]

And your anti-capitalist anti-USA rant demonstrates what, did you think? I didn't find it very enlightening. :(

I should have made it clearer that i was lampooning myself. maybe there is an emoticon for self lampoon? ;(

It is not an anti-capitalist rant, it is an expression of sixties pseudo commie rap, and probably straight from Marx. The church and convetional morality are just the whip and chains that hold back the working classes man. ;)

I meant it to be a lampoon of itself. Of course i can't help the fact that the upper calsses do oppress the working people through violent bigotry!

(;))

Dymanic

1st February 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I would say that cooperation, tolerance and the things that lead to social cohesion are the basis of society. I would like you to explain why bigotry, violence and oppression lead to the rise of society. I just happen to believe that bargining, negotiation and cooperation are what create sucsess full societies.

I have to say that I find myself largely in agreement with hammegk on this point. It is an interesting (and somewhat disturbing) line of thought. The actual basis of a society seems to have more to do with a payoff matrix than with genuine cooperation. Bigotry and oppression are cohesive forces for the society as a whole, though they are had at the expense of individual freedom. 'Oppression', in fact, could really be used almost interchangably with 'cooperation' to refer to any subjugation of personal freedom to the larger societal interest.

As an example of bigotry, violence, and oppression leading to the rise of society, the modern urban street gang comes to mind.

hammegk

1st February 2004, 10:13 AM

Or islamofascism.

Uppie & DD will never understand and admit they are just arguing that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- this time -- will result in utopia.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by hammegk
Or islamofascism.

Uppie & DD will never understand and admit they are just arguing that "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -- this time -- will result in utopia.

Yeah which is only slightly worse than repulofacism.

Maybe your ideas can be encapsulated in such cute little sound bytes hamme, but I feel that you have just shown the weakness of your position by reponding in such a weak fashion.

I am not a utopian minded person in the least. I even feel that there is a place for creationism in the schools, just not in the 'science' class. If there needs to be more of a debate on evolution, I think there is a good one already extant, in biology itself.

To Hamme and Dynamic:

So I can retort by pointing to the most pacifist society imaginable, is that going to make my point? Like maybe a buddhist sangha?

Do you think that the average person lives thier lives as a street thug? I will remember that and laugh uproariously, each time I can see that the vast majority of people do not act that way , even in a facislamic state.

Stop for a minute, did you wrestle the clerk at the grocery store to get your groceries? Did you engage in anything other than peaceful social exchange in most of your day? In evolutionary theory there is a place for creatures that do engage in lethal combat in the pursuit of mates, but most mammals don't. there is a major biological advantage in reducing the amount of violence a memeber of a species inflicts upon other memebrs of it's own species.

Hamme: I am still waiting for the basis of bigotry as being more than a way for a group with power to maintain power. I am so glad that you feel those who fought the civil rights movement were the better parts of society. And how you seem to throw away the values of personal freedom and liberty in the name of social darwinism. You haven't stated the specific harm in either case, the tolerance of homosexuality or keeping creationism from the science class room.

Present the harm and then we can entertain your notions. I am not one to say that atheism should be taught in religous studies or that materialism is the basis of philosophy. So why should a bunch of religous kooks be allowed to set pi to the value of three for convenience?

As part of living in the US I have my values challenged every day. So what, makes them stronger. Keep science in the science class room and religion in the sunday school. Unless preachers are going to start with a disclaimer.

Dymanic

1st February 2004, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

there is a major biological advantage in reducing the amount of violence a memeber of a species inflicts upon other memebrs of it's own species.
Excellent point. That's exactly what I mean by a 'payoff matrix'. It even works inter-species. A predator often risks injury pursuing and overcoming its prey; getting fed isn't always everything, getting fed without getting hurt is the trick. A prey animal who can convincingly demonstrate a willingness to defend itself vigorously may persuade even a much larger predator to seek a less expensive meal elsewhere.

When a society provides a framework within which individuals can satisfy their needs without the risks involved in taking what they need by violence, the vast majority choose to avail themselves of that. When that framework breaks down -- say by a runaway inflation which makes the medium of exchange worthless -- you'll likely see previously peaceful folks wrestling not only with grocery clerks, but with each other, cops, armed soldiers, whatever.

I am still waiting for the basis of bigotry as being more than a way for a group with power to maintain powerI think that bolsters the argument that it acts as a cohesive force in a society. Observing that doesn't necessarily include any value judgements about that being a good thing. Maybe it all depends on how you define bigotry. If there's gonna be an us, there's gotta be a them. Is that not the essence of bigotry, regardless of how the distinction is made?

Can we, as a 'society' of skeptics, honestly claim to be immune?

Dancing David

2nd February 2004, 07:50 AM

The origins of marking groups is a well established series of ideas in anthropology, it is a way of reducing friction between groups that bump into each other. Clearly defined territiories and clearly marked individuals lead to a decrease in friction in the marginal areas.

The other thing that people forget is that most of human history was spent at population levels so low that there was almost no contact between 'rival' groups. Yet artifacts travel from one side of the world to the other. Some would say that the could be evidence for nasty behavior. But if we look at groups like the !Kung prior to thier being swamped, there is this thing where high prestige items are shared with other people. Which some people believe is the reason why these artifacts travelled so far, all before the rise of agriculture. sea shells usualy travelled the farthest, although there is one 'mother' figure that travelled about 1,000 miles.

hammegk

2nd February 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wow. The amount of evasion, strawmen, and personal attacks in those few sentinces are amazing. It's like you've given up trying to defend a position and are just reacting.

This isn't productive in a rational debate. Your bigotry is nothing more than an emotional reaction based on your social norms. When you're comfortable enough with yourself and your feelings and can come back to the table and talk about it rationally, that's wonderful.

I'm sorry, hammegk. I should not have been pushing your buttons like that.
Here, let me fix that.

Wow. The amount of evasion, strawmen, and personal attacks in those few sentinces are amazing. It's like you've given up trying to defend a position and are just reacting.

This isn't productive in a rational debate. Your bigotry is nothing more than an emotional reaction based on your social norms. When you're comfortable enough with yourself and your feelings and can come back to the table and talk about (some actual subject) rationally, that's wonderful.

I'm sorry, Uppie & DD I should not have been pushing your buttons like that.

One actual subject that appears to elude you is "Are moral systems greater than the sum of their parts?". Chop all the trees you wish, and I'll remain concerned.

From my personal view, evolution as science is correct; recall I would like the disclaimer that it assumes materialism/atheism. Your actual opponents want even more. As always individuals are free to make their own moral choices -- that being what morality is --, and society=Law is free to place artificial boundaries on specific behaviors.

Dymanic

2nd February 2004, 10:00 AM

So you're strolling across the savannah, carrying a nice fat chunk of meat in your carrying basket, when you suddenly realize you are surrounded by lions. What do you do? No-brainer. You drop the meat, and try to make a graceful exit. But that isn't cooperation exactly, is it? It's not like you started out with your first priority being concern about starvation among the local lion population. It's appeasement. Might work if you were surrounded by hostile humans as well. (In fact, it's not much of a stretch to the notion that it might work if you were threatened by an erupting volcano; toss in a virgin once in a while -- same basic idea).

I think there is something at work here that is of the nature of a Biological Prime Directive: "Thou shalt maximize thine own gain, whilst minimizing thine own effort", and that acknowledgement of this is the basis of cooperation between humans. A reasonable expectation then is that others will act in a manner which they percieve to be in their own best interests -- including violence if necessary -- but, because it is risky and expensive, ordinarily only as a last resort.

Grocery stores tend to be for-profit enterprises; serving humanity is not their first priority. A hungry person might be tempted to simply take what he wanted and walk out. That would be an act of violence which would likely be met with violence -- men would come (equipped with a wide range of devices designed specifically for this purpose) and attempt to take him prisoner. At night (in another act of violence) the doors to the store are locked to discourage hungry people from absconding with food (and, especially, booze). Lock technology has come a long way over the centuries.

It's all based on violence, and the threat of violence. For so long, so much human energy has been devoted to creating and fine-tuning structures and systems intended to make violence the most expensive way for humans to compete with one another, that (in most places) we can actually walk around right out in the open without even carrying weapons.

I'm really just kind of exploring here.

Thanz

2nd February 2004, 01:43 PM

Skimmed some of this thread, so I apologize if I am repeating here.

First, Upchurch, I mostly agree with what you have said, and have said the same thing myself previously - ID should be taught, but in a philosophy/religious studies course. I see it as an interesting "proof" for the existence of God, rather than as a scientific theory.

In thinking about the issue more, however, aren't there some aspects of ID that should be examined in a science class? As I understand it, the 'science' theory underlying ID is irreducible complexity. I seem to recall that the eye is a popular example. Wouldn't it be valuable to investigate whether the eye could have evolved? Shouldn't we look at evidence (if there is any) and if not, at competing theories for the eye? Isn't this the kind of investigation that science should be doing - if only to test evolution?

BTW, Upchurch, you should move to Canada. We have homosexual marriages, don't teach ID as science (even in the Catholic schools!) and we didn't just invade another country on false pretenses. What more could you want?

Upchurch

2nd February 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
BTW, Upchurch, you should move to Canada. We have homosexual marriages, don't teach ID as science (even in the Catholic schools!) and we didn't just invade another country on false pretenses. What more could you want? Every time Bush & Co. does something stupid, my wife and I joke about escaping to Canada. We make that joke a lot...:(

Dancing David

2nd February 2004, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic
So you're strolling across the savannah, carrying a nice fat chunk of meat in your carrying basket, when you suddenly realize you are surrounded by lions. What do you do? No-brainer. You drop the meat, and try to make a graceful exit. But that isn't cooperation exactly, is it? It's not like you started out with your first priority being concern about starvation among the local lion population. It's appeasement. Might work if you were surrounded by hostile humans as well. (In fact, it's not much of a stretch to the notion that it might work if you were threatened by an erupting volcano; toss in a virgin once in a while -- same basic idea).

I agree with the premise that you would drop the food and run like heck, I am not sure that isn't a run like heck strategy. But lets us assume first off the man is not a noble hunter but a small scavenger, bone evidence does suppot this to some extent. Most scavengers are social to some extent and cooperation has a big pay off in being able to drive other scavengers off the kill.

I think there is something at work here that is of the nature of a Biological Prime Directive: "Thou shalt maximize thine own gain, whilst minimizing thine own effort", and that acknowledgement of this is the basis of cooperation between humans. A reasonable expectation then is that others will act in a manner which they percieve to be in their own best interests -- including violence if necessary -- but, because it is risky and expensive, ordinarily only as a last resort.

the use of violence comes at a very high cost to weak little homo sapiens sapiens, all the more reason to minimise it. A lot of hunting strategies that are sucsessful are traps and fish wiers that involve little to no risk.
The rational for being violent does not arise in the horticultural era but in the agricultural era. It is not until the rise of agriculture that there is really a payoff for fighting the neighbors. the risk is outweighed by the benefit.

Grocery stores tend to be for-profit enterprises; serving humanity is not their first priority. A hungry person might be tempted to simply take what he wanted and walk out. That would be an act of violence which would likely be met with violence -- men would come (equipped with a wide range of devices designed specifically for this purpose) and attempt to take him prisoner. At night (in another act of violence) the doors to the store are locked to discourage hungry people from absconding with food (and, especially, booze). Lock technology has come a long way over the centuries.

Yes, and in large areas of the country we leave our doors unlocked and our house unguarded. Why because our ancestors used to have one ounishment for those who were not cooperative with society. I really believe thatw e are monkeys who are adapted to following our social mores.(That is more feul for hamme's fire)

Doors are locked, is that really a deterent, if you have never been an anti-social it is hard to express how calm and docile most humans are.

It's all based on violence, and the threat of violence. For so long, so much human energy has been devoted to creating and fine-tuning structures and systems intended to make violence the most expensive way for humans to compete with one another, that (in most places) we can actually walk around right out in the open without even carrying weapons.

thats is the ultimate means of enforcement yes, but sense police make such a small percentage of the population, I am suggesting that there is a large amount of cooperative behavior.
I think that we are actualy in agreement, you see the pay off in violence reduction, I see the payoff in cooperation. So they are both win-win strategies.

Did you know that the army has a hard time training people to kill?

I'm really just kind of exploring here.

Me too. But I have always believed that cooperation in a society reduces the amount of time wasted on dominance behaviors.

Dymanic

2nd February 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

I have always believed that cooperation in a society reduces the amount of time wasted on dominance behaviors.
Much of human activity is still concerned with dominance. It has just become abstracted to a degree that makes it less obvious than it is with other primates. That's exactly what this push for the teaching of ID in public schools is all about. Dominance.

Dancing David

4th February 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic

Much of human activity is still concerned with dominance. It has just become abstracted to a degree that makes it less obvious than it is with other primates. That's exactly what this push for the teaching of ID in public schools is all about. Dominance.

Hmm... and here I thought it was fear, they are afraid that there children will not agree with the idea of creation as presented in the bible.

But dominance can be caused by fear, it is all rather circular, the level of dominance in homo sapiens is less than that in chimps and certainly less than in baboons. Although stess does bring out domionance bahaviors.

Subtle dominance would be a way of avoiding violence. Hmm.

Dymanic

4th February 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Hmm... and here I thought it was fear, they are afraid that there children will not agree with the idea of creation as presented in the bible
I think it is helpful to view Christianity as, first and foremost, a political system.
the level of dominance in homo sapiens is less than that in chimps and certainly less than in baboons
I'm not so sure about that. It would be a tricky thing to quantify under any circumstances.

Dancing David

5th February 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Dymanic

I think it is helpful to view Christianity as, first and foremost, a political system.

I agree, but it is my personal belief that the whole creation thing is not about politics. I beleieve that it is fear that their children will choose differently if given options. So no secular humanism, or it will rot their brains...

I'm not so sure about that. It would be a tricky thing to quantify under any circumstances.

that is a very good point, you have stated that dominance in humans is a subtle beast and therefore hard to to define observationaly. We could apply for a grant i guess, I think the most obvious place for observable dominance would be the work place.

In the 'other' primates, dominance is usualy easy to quanify as observable behaviors.

In humans it is more subtle, especialy when you get into the wide variety of vocalizations and eye rolling behaviors.

Upchurch

25th August 2004, 10:56 AM

I check up on this from time to time and Missouri HB 911 has been Referred: Special Committee on General Laws (http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/action/aHB911.htm) back in May.

I don't know what this means, per se, but I take it that the bill isn't as dead as I had hoped it was.

bignickel

25th August 2004, 11:03 AM

Well, Upchurch, it was just alot more important for them to concentrate on Amendment 2.

Now that they've imposed their religious ideas of marriage on us, they can imposed their religious ideas of science as well.

:rolleyes:

Upchurch

25th August 2004, 11:09 AM

Well nothing to worry about, I'm sure. It's not like anyone who co-sponsored the bill is on the SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON GENERAL LAWS (http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/commit/com187.htm) or anything....

....aw, frell. (Davis and Phillips)

-=Vagrant=-

27th August 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
In thinking about the issue more, however, aren't there some aspects of ID that should be examined in a science class? As I understand it, the 'science' theory underlying ID is irreducible complexity. I seem to recall that the eye is a popular example.

The "inventor" of IC, Michael Behe made it clear that Irreducible Complexity should be studied only in biochemical systems, not whole organs.

The eye is not IC, since we can remove parts from it and it can still see.

kuroyume0161

27th August 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by frisian
Testable by naturalistic methods implies fact?

Observable implies fact.

Testable by carefully constructed and repeatable methods implies SCIENCE.

Evolution is a FACT.

Evolutionary Theory is SCIENCE.

ID has never been observed.

ID is religion disguised as scientific hypothesis.

fuelair

30th November 2006, 04:14 PM

Fundamentally, I think that's what we're all doing here.

I have no objection with schools teaching science that is true.
There is no truth in any of the following facts and no science exists to say that these are facts:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

Yet you all don't mind your kids being brainwashed by such "scientific" assumptions. Ironic.

You would have to expel the air from your head to understand my philosophy. :p

Your braindroppings defame philosophy, and I had previously not realized how truly pathetic your mental abilities were. This single post made me realize how abysmally I had overestimated your capacity for knowledge and thought while so badly underestimating your processing and integrating inabilities. I must apologise for that error.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

Kopji

30th November 2006, 08:12 PM

Upchurch

1st December 2006, 11:35 AM

Why is it I always write so much better when I'm taking classes? This was some good stuff.

Canadian Malcontent

1st December 2006, 04:38 PM

Damn straight Upchurch!
I am more pissed than you!!!
Who do those fat cats in the state capital think they are!!!
I think the next statewide ballot needs an 'initiative' where folks can vote on including 'Creation' in the bill, AND making 'Creation' first and foremost, placing it BEFORE the 'theories'.

I'm with you Upchurch

Roboramma

2nd December 2006, 03:29 AM

fuelair

3rd December 2006, 02:40 PM

huh?

CM is apparently a lifegrazer fan - I am assuming that from the fact that he PM'ed two notes to me indicating some dislike for my writing which after explanation appears to be my trashing (which I find so easy to do) of lifegrazers comments on wanting idiocy/incompetant ignorance taught as science in the schools.

lifegazer

3rd December 2006, 04:14 PM

appears to be my trashing (which I find so easy to do) of lifegrazers comments on wanting idiocy/incompetant ignorance taught as science in the schools.
?
Feel free to explain to anyone reading this how you "trashed" what I said. By the way, I'm hoping for a better response than "I say it's rubbish, therefore it's trashed."... which is basically what you did a couple of days ago.

Let's examine what you were shouting about:
Lg: I have no objection with schools teaching science that is true.
There is no truth in any of the following facts and no science exists to say that these are facts:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

Yet you all don't mind your kids being brainwashed by such "scientific" assumptions. Ironic.[highlights added]

Firstly, note what I say in the very-first line.
Now, regard 1, 2 & 3. If you think science has proven any of those as facts, then you're a complete lunatic that knows nothing.

Zygar

3rd December 2006, 05:32 PM

... If you think science has proven any of those as facts, then you're a complete lunatic that knows nothing.

Personal attacks are unnecessary. Stick to the facts.

Science has not proven ID. Which makes your argument superfluous.

Besides, these things do not need to be proven to hold more water than ID. Brain science has theories which have enough evidence that they should not be ignored. Not that they are being taught in school. Teaching evolution does not teach that we have answered the questions. They are just an excuse ID proponents use to pop their heads in a discussion where they do not belong.

fuelair

3rd December 2006, 05:53 PM

?
Feel free to explain to anyone reading this how you "trashed" what I said. By the way, I'm hoping for a better response than "I say it's rubbish, therefore it's trashed."... which is basically what you did a couple of days ago.

Let's examine what you were shouting about:
Lg: I have no objection with schools teaching science that is true.
There is no truth in any of the following facts and no science exists to say that these are facts:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

Yet you all don't mind your kids being brainwashed by such "scientific" assumptions. Ironic.[highlights added]

Firstly, note what I say in the very-first line.
Now, regard 1, 2 & 3. If you think science has proven any of those as facts, then you're a complete lunatic that knows nothing.

Thanks for proving my point again - I really enjoy these little discussions!! And by the by, I rarely bother shouting - only when you or others try to trash science for your primitive beliefs. You are free to believe them, you are (unfortunately) free to force them on your own children, if any, but to allow this stupidity to be taught in a school that purports to educate as opposed to indoctrinate would be a crime - with or without a law against it. Have an interesting day:) .

lifegazer

4th December 2006, 12:45 AM

Science has not proven ID. Which makes your argument superfluous.

Besides, these things do not need to be proven to hold more water than ID. Brain science has theories which have enough evidence that they should not be ignored. Not that they are being taught in school. Teaching evolution does not teach that we have answered the questions. They are just an excuse ID proponents use to pop their heads in a discussion where they do not belong.
What utter rubbish.

There is not a single fact that science proves. Deal with it and get your head out of the sand.

lifegazer

4th December 2006, 12:47 AM

Thanks for proving my point again - I really enjoy these little discussions!! And by the by, I rarely bother shouting - only when you or others try to trash science for your primitive beliefs. You are free to believe them, you are (unfortunately) free to force them on your own children, if any, but to allow this stupidity to be taught in a school that purports to educate as opposed to indoctrinate would be a crime - with or without a law against it. Have an interesting day:) .

You're a complete pratt. Answer my previous post or shut up. Stay away from me, I find you to be a complete bore. I can only assume that you are very young, in which case I apologise for not giving you time to grow up.

Canadian Malcontent

4th December 2006, 02:12 AM

Maybe the smarmy anti-religious attitude of the 'evos' as well as the coincidence of the evo push with that of the gay rights/planned parenthood propagandists attack on public school children has something to do with the overwhelming community and political response.
Yeah you can teach evo theory as a theory just dont try to tell little Johnny that God didn't make the world and everything in it.
And more importantly dont try to teach little Johnny that its healthy normal and acceptable for one one to repeatedly and vigourously penetrate the anus of another with his penis.
And dont try to tell little Mary that it is healthy normal and acceptable to
to kill tiny babies growing inside a mommy.
Its not so much what you do sometimes as it is how you do it and the company you keep.
When the wholesome American people were moved to take a stand by the above trends in education they drew the line at keeping Creation.
Did you expect them to fight half a battle?
Did you evos separate yourselves from the homosexuals ( those desperate to propagandize children, Rosie O'Donnell) and the baby killers?

slingblade

4th December 2006, 03:01 AM

Did you evos separate yourselves from the homosexuals ( those desperate to propagandize children, Rosie O'Donnell) and the baby killers?

Only by about the length of a hallway. He's 24 now, so it would be weird if he slept in our room with us. We gave him the spare bedroom, instead.

Tricky

4th December 2006, 04:24 AM

Double post

Tricky

4th December 2006, 05:21 AM

?
Feel free to explain to anyone reading this how you "trashed" what I said. By the way, I'm hoping for a better response than "I say it's rubbish, therefore it's trashed."... which is basically what you did a couple of days ago.

Let's examine what you were shouting about:
Lg: I have no objection with schools teaching science that is true.
There is no truth in any of the following facts and no science exists to say that these are facts:-
(1) Consciousness emerges from matter.
(2) Life (evolution) emerges entirely from material processes.
(3) The universe began entirely through material processes.

Yet you all don't mind your kids being brainwashed by such "scientific" assumptions. Ironic.[highlights added]

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, science doesn't "prove" anything. It gives evidence. So here's what the evidence shows

Things which have been objectively and repeatably shown to have arisen from non-material processes. - zero
Things which have been objectively and repeatably shown to have arisen from material processes. - every single thing for which we have good evidence of the origin.
So no, science hasn't "proved" that consciousness, life, or the universe arises from material processes. But given the track record so far, I think you can understand why scientists might pick material over non-material as a more likely source. In fact, you have to wonder why anyone would choose to believe in a method with such a poor record as non-materialistic origins.

lifegazer

4th December 2006, 09:25 AM

Upchurch

4th December 2006, 10:23 AM

Upchurch

4th December 2006, 10:29 AM

Neither of the above are true. They are just believed to be true based upon the prior assumption that the universe is real. What you write, above, is very naive... showing a complete misunderstanding of the metaphysics at-hand.
Is that not a reasonable assumption? So far, the best I've seen from you is a rationale to suspect that it might not be true, but nothing to show that it isn't.

And your understanding of the facts has been corrected time and time again. Don't you think it is a little presumptuous to assume that you have them right this time, given your track record?

Tricky

4th December 2006, 10:33 AM

Neither of the above are true. They are just believed to be true based upon the prior assumption that the universe is real. What you write, above, is very naive... showing a complete misunderstanding of the metaphysics at-hand.
You are right in one sense. I know nothing about metaphysics. I don't even know if they exist. Of course, you don't either, so we're even there. Do you just assume they exist? Would that make you "very naive"?

But I'll stake my "assumption that the universe is real" against your "metaphysics exist" and two parallel universes to be named later. First one with evidence wins.

Foster Zygote

4th December 2006, 11:09 AM

Caution
Responding to old Lifegazer posts is like a scene from the movie 'The Keep': German troops left to guard an old castle, find silver-looking crosses embedded in the walls. Thinking they are valuable, one is pried off by a greedy guard. The act wakes a demon who begins stalking the unwelcome castle guests.

You got that right. A thread nearly two and a half years old is revived and suddenly Lifegazer, who hasn't posted since October, is back. He must have an amazing sense of smell.

Foster Zygote

4th December 2006, 11:21 AM

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, science doesn't "prove" anything. It gives evidence. So here's what the evidence shows

Things which have been objectively and repeatably shown to have arisen from non-material processes. - zero
Things which have been objectively and repeatably shown to have arisen from material processes. - every single thing for which we have good evidence of the origin.
So no, science hasn't "proved" that consciousness, life, or the universe arises from material processes. But given the track record so far, I think you can understand why scientists might pick material over non-material as a more likely source. In fact, you have to wonder why anyone would choose to believe in a method with such a poor record as non-materialistic origins.

More than ever, I'm convinced that Lifegazer's personal philosophy is just the means to an end. It would explain the amorphous and variable nature of his arguments at least. His philosophy itself is less important to him than the behavior it facilitates. His primary objective seems to be declaring himself to be mentally superior to everyone. It's my opinion that his 'philosophy' is secondary to convincing himself that he is a great genius. Basically, he'll never admit the flaws in his arguments because his arguments support his fantasy.

KingMerv00

4th December 2006, 11:25 AM

Neither of the above are true. They are just believed to be true based upon the prior assumption that the universe is real. What you write, above, is very naive... showing a complete misunderstanding of the metaphysics at-hand.

I don't assume the universe is real. I acknowledge that I cannot escape from whatever it is I am experiencing and that my experiences follow what appear to be the laws of nature. I could wrong. Maybe I am a brain in a jar but I have no reason to think so.

If you discover a "Truman Show" escape hatch to reality, let me know.

Sceptic Realist

4th December 2006, 11:55 AM

What utter rubbish.

There is not a single fact that science proves. Deal with it and get your head out of the sand.

Indeed? So Earth is still the center of the solar system?

Further, just what the hell does Religion prove? Certainly not fact. It flys in the very face of fact. Its sole basis for credability is faith. Is that what you want to teach children? How to accept whatever people tell them as the truth, blindly and without question?

Zygar

4th December 2006, 01:16 PM

What utter rubbish.

There is not a single fact that science proves. Deal with it and get your head out of the sand.

Science has never proven any fact? Then we'd better all get rid of these computers upon which we are conversing. Science hasn't proven that they exist.

Let's all go read the bible. Oh no! We can't! Science never proved the ability to make a printing press! Maybe God can make the Bible appear out of thin air right in my hand so I can read it!

And my heater! My heater can't keep me warm because science hasn't proven that it could even work! Let's all raise our voices to God and pray that he allows me to feel warm despite the unreliability of heat!

lifegazer

4th December 2006, 04:23 PM

Is that not a reasonable assumption?

No, since there is nothing reasonable about it. We've both been discussing this long-enough to know that there are zero sound-arguments to support the existence of a real world beyond and apart from the experience of it.
Basic metaphysics. In fact, that's the point - science cannot tell us any metaphysical facts.

You're moaning that your schools are teaching kids unfounded facts about God [of the bible I assume]. That's a fair point. What's unfair is that you think kids should be brainwashed into believing that science alone is the path to metaphysical truths... when it can never even give us a single truth, ever.

The actual truth is that only philosophy can free us from the unfounded bias of religions and scientific-realism.

Tricky

4th December 2006, 05:06 PM

No, since there is nothing reasonable about it. We've both been discussing this long-enough to know that there are zero sound-arguments to support the existence of a real world beyond and apart from the experience of it.
Basic metaphysics. In fact, that's the point - science cannot tell us any metaphysical facts.
There are metaphysical facts? Why don't you share one with us?

You're moaning that your schools are teaching kids unfounded facts about God [of the bible I assume]. That's a fair point. What's unfair is that you think kids should be brainwashed into believing that science alone is the path to metaphysical truths... when it can never even give us a single truth, ever.
Science is the path to what works. Objectively. Repeatably. Predictably. If that isn't truth, then I'd like to hear what you think is truth.

The actual truth is that only philosophy can free us from the unfounded bias of religions and scientific-realism.
Okay, I wave my hand and you are free of scientific-realism. What do you do now? Give us an example of the wonders that your philosophy will provide.

KingMerv00

4th December 2006, 05:54 PM

No, since there is nothing reasonable about it. We've both been discussing this long-enough to know that there are zero sound-arguments to support the existence of a real world beyond and apart from the experience of it.
Basic metaphysics. In fact, that's the point - science cannot tell us any metaphysical facts.

You're moaning that your schools are teaching kids unfounded facts about God [of the bible I assume]. That's a fair point. What's unfair is that you think kids should be brainwashed into believing that science alone is the path to metaphysical truths... when it can never even give us a single truth, ever.

The actual truth is that only philosophy can free us from the unfounded bias of religions and scientific-realism.

You've been asked a few times:

What is the difference between material world and the world of our experiences?

fuelair

4th December 2006, 06:07 PM

Neither of the above are true. They are just believed to be true based upon the prior assumption that the universe is real. What you write, above, is very naive... showing a complete misunderstanding of the metaphysics at-hand.

Well, let's just say one of you is (well) naive (to avoid a more accurate term out of temporary kindness). And it isn't Tricky.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

fuelair

4th December 2006, 06:11 PM

You've been asked a few times:

What is the difference between material world and the world of our experiences?

He couldn't possibly answer in any meaningful way - and hasn't in all his posts about it in his own and real threads (I am doing him the courtesy of accepting that he and his posts are not real since he seems to need to believe that.). It has been often suggested that he needs courses in philosophy if he is going to try to spout it - and he seems to have no interest in taking that logical step.

Canadian Malcontent

5th December 2006, 03:45 AM

I am just pointing out what it is that ticks off the organized Christians, what fuels their propaganda machine.
At some point you will have to accept and respect the beliefs and faith of the better part of the nation.
In another thread someone wondered if civil war was an eventuality, bluto wisely pointed out that the 'Christians' cannot be beat.
Some advice;
Do NOT claim the right to tell little Johnny that God DIDNT make the world and su and stars etc.

P.S. I do not stand in judgement of people for their nature or choices, I suggest only that minors are in the care and protection of their parents primarily and that that relationship should not be violated. That relationship includes religious instruction or at least some churchgoing for the majority of us and has for hundreds of years.
If it aint broke dont fix it.

Tricky

5th December 2006, 04:51 AM

I am just pointing out what it is that ticks off the organized Christians, what fuels their propaganda machine.
At some point you will have to accept and respect the beliefs and faith of the better part of the nation.
A faith is not a conscious entity. There is no point in respecting a belief or a faith because they are not capable of recognizing this. It is, however, possible to respect people who hold those faiths by saying, "I respect your right to disagree". But this does not mean that you should refrain from criticizing beliefs and faiths which contain obvious evidential and logical errors. It would be dishonest to discuss something like religion and not say what you believed to be true, which in my case is, "there is no evidence for any God or gods." If dishonesty were required, then it would show lack of respect by Christians to profess their belief in God while non-Christians are present. That is patently ridiculous.

I'm sorry, CM, but Christianity does not have or deserve a magic shield that prevents them or their children from being exposed to and even taught things which oppose their beliefs. The reasoning is obvious. If every piece of knowledge were subjected to religious censorship before it could be taught, no knowledge would pass the test. Somebody would object. Pagans might object to chemistry class because it denies their faith that the universe is composed of the four elements of earth, air, fire and water, and demand that nothing contradictory be taught.

So how do we decide what gets taught? There is only one fair way and that is the one that treats all religious beliefs the same: Secularism. What gets taught in science class is determined by the evidence for it and that only. Do you agree that is fair?

In another thread someone wondered if civil war was an eventuality, bluto wisely pointed out that the 'Christians' cannot be beat.
Some advice;
Do NOT claim the right to tell little Johnny that God DIDNT make the world and su and stars etc.
I have the right to tell little Johnny absolutely anything, at least, anything that doesn't violate a law. So do you. Christians have TV and radio stations pumping their beliefs out on the airwaves, plus one or more houses of indoctrination (commonly known as churches) in every neighborhood. But that is not enough. They want to silence competing voices. It would almost sound like some Christians want to be dictators who silence their opposition. I'm just glad that most Christians don't feel this way. I'm just sorry that some apparently still do.

P.S. I do not stand in judgement of people for their nature or choices, I suggest only that minors are in the care and protection of their parents primarily and that that relationship should not be violated. That relationship includes religious instruction or at least some churchgoing for the majority of us and has for hundreds of years.
If it aint broke dont fix it.
If you want complete control of what your child hears, then you'd better lock them away and throw away the TV. I'm sorry if it disturbs you, CM, but kids don't always wind up believing the exact things their parents did. I'm betting your opinions differ somewhat from those of your parents, maybe even because of some things you learned from sources other than them. In my opinion, this is a good thing. Don't feed kids on a bland diet of only one thought. Life is a smörgåsbord of ideas. Let's eat!

Ossai

5th December 2006, 05:59 AM

Canadian Malcontent
I am just pointing out what it is that ticks off the organized Christians, what fuels their propaganda machine.
At some point you will have to accept and respect the beliefs and faith of the better part of the nation. Funny that. Christians are the majority of the nation and they are the ones that have set policy, law, decency standards etc. It is a loud minority of fundamentalist that seem to have all the problems with the rest of the country.

In another thread someone wondered if civil war was an eventuality, bluto wisely pointed out that the 'Christians' cannot be beat. The Germans lost WWII.

Ossai

5th December 2006, 06:15 AM

Can I now site Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) and claim the thread is dead?

Canadian Malcontent

5th December 2006, 07:29 AM

Can I now site Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) and claim the thread is dead?

I am chastised and hereby withdraw and apologise for any reference to nazi's further I promise nit to make such reference in the future.

Ossai, the German Government of the 30's and early 40's was not Christian, they in fact swore to belief in 'The Theory of Fire and Ice'.
The 'Christians"' showed them the error of their ways. Those 'theorists'!

Tricky, evolution is an ok theory and has its place in the school system, as does demonstrable knowledge of biology that may pertain to the theory of evolution.
Respect for faith going back hundreds of years in and being the cornerstone of our society and family structure is respect for people and their family.
I. do not suggest or ever would that you keep quiet about what you think feel believe etc. I revel in your right to self expression.
What I am suggesting is that it is disrespectful and hurtful to tell a child that God did NOT create the world etc. and also that to do so would be a LIE and the antithesis of the values you profess because you do not KNOW and cannot PROVE it. Allow us Christians whose efforts and values gave you everything you have and ever will have our indulgence in our silly lttle story. Allow little Johnny his awe of his daddy until he hits puberty and starts to think daddy is a fool as all little Johnnys do.
Why must you insist in forcing grade 4 children to accept that there is no God? What is the root of your motivation to combat a story?

fuelair

5th December 2006, 07:41 AM

I am chastised and hereby withdraw and apologise for any reference to nazi's further I promise nit to make such reference in the future.

Ossai, the German Government of the 30's and early 40's was not Christian, they in fact swore to belief in 'The Theory of Fire and Ice'.
The 'Christians"' showed them the error of their ways. Those 'theorists'!

Tricky, evolution is an ok theory and has its place in the school system, as does demonstrable knowledge of biology that may pertain to the theory of evolution.
Respect for faith going back hundreds of years in and being the cornerstone of our society and family structure is respect for people and their family.
I. do not suggest or ever would that you keep quiet about what you think feel believe etc. I revel in your right to self expression.
What I am suggesting is that it is disrespectful and hurtful to tell a child that God did NOT create the world etc. and also that to do so would be a LIE and the antithesis of the values you profess because you do not KNOW and cannot PROVE it. Allow us Christians whose efforts and values gave you everything you have and ever will have our indulgence in our silly lttle story. Allow little Johnny his awe of his daddy until he hits puberty and starts to think daddy is a fool as all little Johnnys do.
Why must you insist in forcing grade 4 children to accept that there is no God? What is the root of your motivation to combat a story?

Actually, Germans (Nazis) did indicate a belief in God on their Uniform belts (Gott mit uns) (God is with us).

Tricky

5th December 2006, 07:45 AM

Tricky, evolution is an ok theory and has its place in the school system, as does demonstrable knowledge of biology that may pertain to the theory of evolution.

LOL. Yeah, it's pretty darn "ok", considering how much of modern medicine is based on it. We use it in the oil business too. Paleontological markers let us know where we are in the stratigraphic section. If evolution didn't work, they would be worthless.

Respect for faith going back hundreds of years in and being the cornerstone of our society and family structure is respect for people and their family.
And I reiterate. You don't respect "faith". You respect people. Yes, I know that the phrase "please respect my beliefs" is commonly applied, but technically, if you do so, you are respecting the person.

I. do not suggest or ever would that you keep quiet about what you think feel believe etc. I revel in your right to self expression.
What I am suggesting is that it is disrespectful and hurtful to tell a child that God did NOT create the world etc. and also that to do so would be a LIE and the antithesis of the values you profess because you do not KNOW and cannot PROVE it. And I suggest that such a thing rarely if ever happens. No matter what science discovers about the origin of the universe, you are always free to add on "as God planned it". Science takes no position on God. It does, however, take positions on statements about the origin of the earth, and if they are demonstrably false, it demonstrates.

And it would not be a "LIE". To be a lie would mean that you know something is true, yet deny it. It is more properly called, "an opinion". There are far too many people crying "liar liar" when most often, a person can simply and honestly be mistaken.

Allow us Christians whose efforts and values gave you everything you have and ever will have our indulgence in our silly lttle story. Allow little Johnny his awe of his daddy until he hits puberty and starts to think daddy is a fool as all little Johnnys do.
No. I refuse to shut up to little Johnny, especially during the years where he learns the most, which are pre-puberty. If Daddy deserves his awe, Daddy will get it. Kids are like that. My parents were Christians, yet I have no feelings that they misled me even though I eventually stopped being a Christian. And I am still in awe of them. Love doesn't know any religion.

Your "silly little story" will have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. No protectionism for preferred ideas. What you are asking for is to have complete control of the first 13+ years of his life in order to indoctrinate him into your religion.

Upchurch

5th December 2006, 08:15 AM

No, since there is nothing reasonable about it. We've both been discussing this long-enough to know that there are zero sound-arguments to support the existence of a real world beyond and apart from the experience of it.
However, in all this time, you have come up with just as many sound arguments why such a thing couldn't exist. Lacking a viable counter theory, what we are left with is a more or less neutral position that has the advantage of being self-consistent and matching with our experiences.

Again, I ask, is it not a reasonable assumption, given that it fits our experiences and is self-consistent?

Basic metaphysics. In fact, that's the point - science cannot tell us any metaphysical facts.heh. I'm with Tricky on this one. The term "metaphysical facts" is almost an oxymoron.

You're moaning that your schools are teaching kids unfounded facts about God [of the bible I assume]. That's a fair point. What's unfair is that you think kids should be brainwashed into believing that science alone is the path to metaphysical truths... when it can never even give us a single truth, ever.
Despite your repeated claims to the contrary, science makes no metaphysical claims. Science would still be science if we were mere brains in a jar.

The actual truth is that only philosophy can free us from the unfounded bias of religions and scientific-realism.
Your truth may or may not actually be True, but the only fact of the matter is that you can't actually know if it is. You can only have faith that it is.

Upchurch

5th December 2006, 08:52 AM

Respect for faith going back hundreds of years in and being the cornerstone of our society and family structure is respect for people and their family.
Are you kidding me? I live in a country whose very existance is due to Christian sectarian religious persecution. And even those people who fled such persecution to come here then often practiced the same on others once they got here.

Respect for other people's religious beliefs is only a recent development in our society and even now it is not widely valued. I would go so far as to argue that it is valued less by the very religious, but I have no figures to back that up, just my own experience.

Allow us Christians whose efforts and values gave you everything you have and ever will have...
I know some Greeks, Romans, Muslims, and Pegans who would have something to say about that.

Ossai

5th December 2006, 09:28 AM

Canadian Malcontent
Ossai, the German Government of the 30's and early 40's was not Christian, they in fact swore to belief in 'The Theory of Fire and Ice'.
The 'Christians"' showed them the error of their ways. Those 'theorists'! How many excepts from Mien Kafue do you want? How about the Catholic backing of the National socialist party, especially early on? How about the …

Respect for faith going back hundreds of yearsArgument of ignorance.

in and being the cornerstone of our society and family structure is respect for people and their family. The traditional family, isn’t. We’ve knocked that cornerstone out, what next Biblical marriage? One man, multiple wives and a few concubines.

What I am suggesting is that it is disrespectful and hurtful to tell a child that God did NOT create the world etc. Which god? Your bigoted attitude is showing.

and also that to do so would be a LIE and the antithesis of the values you profess because you do not KNOW and cannot PROVE it. Are you stating that you can prove (offer overwhelming evidence) that god created the world? If so, begin the presentation.

Allow us Christians whose efforts and values gave you everything you have and ever will have our indulgence in our silly lttle story. My values aren’t Christian, as in they did not originate from Christians. In fact most Christian values aren’t Christian. I’ve never actually meet anyone that claimed to be Christian that actually followed Christian values (debatable on whether or not to include the OT rules because of the contradictory sayings of Jesus in the bible).

Why must you insist in forcing grade 4 children to accept that there is no God? What is the root of your motivation to combat a story? Reality. Most people, by grade 4 have already figured out that there is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy and other childhood tales. The bible is just one more bit of worn-out and overused mythology.

Ossai

Upchurch

5th December 2006, 09:36 AM

Argument of ignorance.
I've heard of Argument From Ignorance, but never Argument Of Ignorance.

Oddly appropriate.

Foster Zygote

5th December 2006, 09:38 AM

What I am suggesting is that it is disrespectful and hurtful to tell a child that God did NOT create the world etc...
Teaching the theory of evolution by natural selection in public schools does not amount to telling students that God did not create the universe. Science itself has nothing to say about the existence of any supernatural phenomena other than that there is no known evidence of their existence. Even an atheist biology teacher would be flat out wrong to tell students that Darwinian theory offers proof that God doesn't exist and that they should all become atheists.
...and also that to do so would be a LIE and the antithesis of the values you profess because you do not KNOW and cannot PROVE it.
By your own reasoning I submit that it would then be a lie to tell children that God does exist unless you can prove the existence of God. Again, science has nothing to say about the supernatural. Evolutionary theory does not say that there is no god or gods.
Allow us Christians whose efforts and values gave you everything you have and ever will have our indulgence in our silly little story.
Wow! Everything I have or ever will have? It seems to me that I owe a great deal to many pre-Christian cultures like the Babylonians and the Greeks for example. Not to mention all those men and women of science who have made the modern world possible. Or even our early ancestors who invented tools and agriculture. Yes, Judeo/Christianity has had a measurable impact on my life, not always for the better, but I hardly see how it qualifies as the sole provider of everything I have. Care to back that up?
Why must you insist in forcing grade 4 children to accept that there is no God? What is the root of your motivation to combat a story?
There are plenty of people who fully accept the theory of evolution and think that religion has no place in public schools who are still theists and even Christians. The real root of the problem, as I see it, is that many Christians have tied their faith to beliefs about the physical world that are, as Tricky mentioned, demonstrably false. If people insist on claiming that the world is 6000 years old and that all life was created just as we see it today then they are going to have to back those claims up with evidence if they want them taught in public school science classes. Currently the evidence for an Earth that is over four billion years old and for the theory of evolution are overwhelming. The evidence of a 6000 year old earth just doesn't stand up. But at no time does science tell students that God does not exist.