Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:19 pm**

Chris7He wrote:What do you mean by it is on?

Don't f*ck with Guiscard. He's very well-read. :wink:

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:13 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
Chris7He wrote:What do you mean by it is on?

Don't f*ck with Guiscard. He's very well-read.

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:41 pm**

Carebian Knight wrote:If I didn't take them to church and religious classes, they would never go and never care.

Then your religion isn't worth it with "eyes wide open", is it. Better drill it into their brain while they are young and can't get away.

Carebian Knight wrote:Either way I do it, their decision would be based on what they've learned in the past, So make them go to religion classes, about 7 years. Then don't make them go for 7 years. This puts them at 18, they can make their decision then. They've spent time in both, they can decide which is better.

Yes...after they have been brainwashed that "this is the way". If you truly want them to "find there own way", you will let them. But that obviously isn't what you want. You want them to grow up with your beliefs right or wrong and there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT at least say what you mean and don't sugar coat it by saying "when they are 18 they can make their own choice". You already made that choice for them 18 years ago.

(or whenever you DO have kids)

Posted: **Wed Nov 28, 2007 10:07 pm**

nothing better then blind zealots...or better termed, "the army of christ"... :wink:

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:46 am**

Backglass wrote:
Carebian Knight wrote:If I didn't take them to church and religious classes, they would never go and never care.

Then your religion isn't worth it with "eyes wide open", is it. Better drill it into their brain while they are young and can't get away.

Carebian Knight wrote:Either way I do it, their decision would be based on what they've learned in the past, So make them go to religion classes, about 7 years. Then don't make them go for 7 years. This puts them at 18, they can make their decision then. They've spent time in both, they can decide which is better.

Yes...after they have been brainwashed that "this is the way". If you truly want them to "find there own way", you will let them. But that obviously isn't what you want. You want them to grow up with your beliefs right or wrong and there is nothing wrong with that.

BUT at least say what you mean and don't sugar coat it by saying "when they are 18 they can make their own choice". You already made that choice for them 18 years ago.

(or whenever you DO have kids)

Many people that I know went to religion classes just like me. Most of them, no longer believe in God. They weren't brainwashed, few kids pay attention in church. They only start paying attention once they are older.

I don't have to give them the other side of the story, school does that.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:04 am**

continuous evolution definitely - can't believe any sane scientist to claim otherwise...

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:22 am**

If you believe that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father, who can make you live forever if you tell him telepathically that you submit to him, and who can get rid of the evil that you are born with just because once a talking snake persuaded a woman to eat an apple, then I don’t think creationism is such a massive leap of imagination.

I can't remember where i read that description of xianity but i liked it

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 7:36 am**

Carebian Knight wrote:Many people that I know went to religion classes just like me. Most of them, no longer believe in God. They weren't brainwashed, few kids pay attention in church. They only start paying attention once they are older.

Then why make them go in the first pace? They are finding their own way...right?

Carebian Knight wrote:I don't have to give them the other side of the story, school does that.

"the other side"... :roll:

. You mean reality?

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:17 pm**

heavycola wrote:If you believe that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father, who can make you live forever if you tell him telepathically that you submit to him, and who can get rid of the evil that you are born with just because once a talking snake persuaded a woman to eat an apple, then I don’t think creationism is such a massive leap of imagination.

I can't remember where i read that description of xianity but i liked it

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

"-In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

-The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

-The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

-Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to that top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.

-If you murmur thoughts privately in you head, the fatherless man, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world."

There's more but you get the drift. The closest thing I could think of to what you said.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:25 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
heavycola wrote:If you believe that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father, who can make you live forever if you tell him telepathically that you submit to him, and who can get rid of the evil that you are born with just because once a talking snake persuaded a woman to eat an apple, then I don’t think creationism is such a massive leap of imagination.

I can't remember where i read that description of xianity but i liked it

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

"-In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

-The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

-The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

-Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to that top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.

-If you murmur thoughts privately in you head, the fatherless man, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world."

There's more but you get the drift. The closest thing I could think of to what you said.

A little part of me dies inside every time I here someone quote recent Dawkins...

I used to respect him so much but now I find him simply farcical.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:31 pm**

Guiscard wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
heavycola wrote:If you believe that a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father, who can make you live forever if you tell him telepathically that you submit to him, and who can get rid of the evil that you are born with just because once a talking snake persuaded a woman to eat an apple, then I don’t think creationism is such a massive leap of imagination.

I can't remember where i read that description of xianity but i liked it

Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion

"-In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.

-The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life.

-The fatherless man himself came alive after being dead and buried three days.

-Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to that top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.

-If you murmur thoughts privately in you head, the fatherless man, and his 'father' (who is also himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world."

There's more but you get the drift. The closest thing I could think of to what you said.

A little part of me dies inside every time I here someone quote recent Dawkins...

I used to respect him so much but now I find him simply farcical.

He is an excellent biology writer for sure. The Selfish Gene is without a doubt one of my favorite books. I still enjoyed The God Delusion though. Why do you think he's absurd?

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:33 pm**

THE DAWKINS DELUSION

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:36 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:THE DAWKINS DELUSION

Indeed...

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:38 pm**

Neoteny wrote:He is an excellent biology writer for sure. The Selfish Gene is without a doubt one of my favorite books. I still enjoyed The God Delusion though. Why do you think he's absurd?

Indeed. I found a great deal of interest in the selfish gene.

The God Delusion simply gets to preachy for me. Mounting such a moral crusade against Theism unfortunately marks him out as just about as bad as those who picket funerals or knock on our doors preaching. It isn't that I disagree with what he has to say, or that I think it necessarily a bad thing that more people will read intelligent criticisms of Theism itself... I just find it a bit hypocritical.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:39 pm**

Neoteny wrote:Why do you think he's absurd?

Because he's a better writer than he is philosopher, and a better biologist than he is writer.

He's not that good a biologist.

In short, his books amount to little more than cheap sophistry.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:39 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Why do you think he's absurd?

Because he's a better writer than he is philosopher, and a better biologist than he is writer.

He's not that good a biologist.

In short, his books amount to little more than cheap sophistry.

Ha! Sophistry. How ironic. And I'm sure you've read his publications in peer-reviewed magazines and are making judgements based on his science and not on personal opinion...

There is no doubt that Dawkins is passionate in his endeavors against religion. I have to take the point of view that he is being reactionary to current opinion (primarily) here in the United States. I don't think that is enough to compare him to funeral picketers or door-knockers, though perhaps to the level of televangelist. Particularly to those who are active in the "intellectual" circles, I can see how Dawkins might be getting a little redundant, but I think it is purposeful in that he is desperately trying to get his message across; desperate because of the size and influence of his opponent. While I may not agree with him on every issue, I cannot say that his most recent book was farcical. It is very much appropriate, if not in your area, in mine.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 3:55 pm**

Neoteny wrote:
Ha! Sophistry. How ironic. And I'm sure you've read his publications in peer-reviewed magazines and are making judgements based on his science and not on personal opinion...

Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Neoteny wrote:There is no doubt that Dawkins is passionate in his endeavors against religion. I have to take the point of view that he is being reactionary to current opinion (primarily) here in the United States. I don't think that is enough to compare him to funeral picketers or door-knockers, though perhaps to the level of televangelist. Particularly to those who are active in the "intellectual" circles, I can see how Dawkins might be getting a little redundant, but I think it is purposeful in that he is desperately trying to get his message across; desperate because of the size and influence of his opponent. While I may not agree with him on every issue, I cannot say that his most recent book was farcical.

He's passionate about it but so's your average Jehovah's witness or televangelist. There's plenty of decent proponents of atheism out there, but Dorkins isn't one of them. He's like the Ted Haggard of Atheism.
He should stick to what he's at least reasonably good at, biology, or at least read up a little before making an arse of him self trying to philosophize.

Neoteny wrote:It is very much appropriate, if not in your area, in mine.

Old Dicky D lives just down the road from me :lol:

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:17 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
Ha! Sophistry. How ironic. And I'm sure you've read his publications in peer-reviewed magazines and are making judgements based on his science and not on personal opinion...

Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Huh, so you're judging he is not a very good biologists because you don't agree with his philosophy?

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:24 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Neoteny wrote:It is very much appropriate, if not in your area, in mine.
Old Dicky D lives just down the road from me

I think he's referring to the ultra-religious areas of the US. Of course America isn't the only place with religious nuts, but the Bible Belt especially has a high proportion.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:09 pm**

just to kind of add a little to the dawkins issue. I think something i stumbled across in a class today was fairly relavant to some of the issues that might get dawkins riled up. Since social science and specficially modernity are things ive probably gone over a time or two, it seems fair to claim that part of the movement towards defining expertise has in a lot of ways created psuedosciences out of the desire for previously enchanted arenas to take on airs of disenchantment (this thread being a brillant example).

Dawkins probably on some level is a bit miffed that people in this country in many areas give a fair amount of credence to creation science. Ive been told to check out answersingenesis a fair number of times, which to a biologist i would imagine is pretty disappointing (to use a mild term). The fact that people are more vested in coming up with psuedosciences rather than supporting present scientific research has probably led in no small part to the Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris's of current scholarship.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:12 pm**

got tonkaed wrote:just to kind of add a little to the dawkins issue. I think something i stumbled across in a class today was fairly relavant to some of the issues that might get dawkins riled up. Since social science and specficially modernity are things ive probably gone over a time or two, it seems fair to claim that part of the movement towards defining expertise has in a lot of ways created psuedosciences out of the desire for previously enchanted arenas to take on airs of disenchantment (this thread being a brillant example).

Dawkins probably on some level is a bit miffed that people in this country in many areas give a fair amount of credence to creation science. Ive been told to check out answersingenesis a fair number of times, which to a biologist i would imagine is pretty disappointing (to use a mild term). The fact that people are more vested in coming up with psuedosciences rather than supporting present scientific research has probably led in no small part to the Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris's of current scholarship.

Indeed. I find it constantly amazing that Americans on the whole give any credence to creationism. In the UK, if you expressed a vehement belief in creationism, declared that the Earth were only thousands of years old and that evolution was bunk probably 80-90% of people would think you entirely ridiculous. I went to Catholic school from 11 to 14 and even there they pretty much accepted evolution as valid and proven.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:17 pm**

Guiscard wrote:
Indeed. I find it constantly amazing that Americans on the whole give any credence to creationism. In the UK, if you expressed a vehement belief in creationism, declared that the Earth were only thousands of years old and that evolution was bunk probably 80-90% of people would think you entirely ridiculous. I went to Catholic school from 11 to 14 and even there they pretty much accepted evolution as valid and proven.

I think in a lot of ways its a pretty simple education problem. Since people dont know much of the background information behind why people dont want religion taught in science classes, they tend to cite some kind of fairness argument for equal time. And even worse, most teachers do not know or care to know some of the regulations that their districts and states have passed.

If i was to hazard a guess, i believe a large part of the issue has to deal with the nature of the seperation of church and state. Its always been a little uneasy when you speak to religious conservatives, and i think because a lot of these doctrines arent brought into discourse outside of their ingroups, they dont really get challenged.

In a lot of the country, theres one specific worldview and it dominates. And as the US becomes less of a hegemonic power over the next couple of decades, i would expect that to increase.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:46 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:Well, no, my judgements are based mainly on his philosophy,which is farcical, and holds only a populist legitimacy, and yes, is best described as tortuous sophistry.

Oh good. You admit that you don't know what you're talking about. If you haven't read his science, you can't say it's bad science.

One difference between Dawkins and Haggard: Dawkins isn't a hypocrite. Yes, Dawkins is passionate about his opinions. Who isn't?

Thanks, Frigidus, for explaining that statement for Napoleon.

I agree with get tonkaed as far as education goes. I didn't receive any sort of teaching of evolution until an AP Bio class my senior year. If I hadn't taken that class, who knows what might have happened...

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:40 pm**

Sorry it is taking so long. I have read through lots of th stuff. I know I will miss some but it is not on purpose. I will try to get to Neoteny post as well. These next few are responding to everything up to his first one.

Stopper wrote:Urban Dictionary wrote:
Literally, "Too long; didn't read"
Said whenever a nerd makes a post that is too long to bother reading.
Yeah. That's you, that is, WidowMakers. You're a nerd.

I am pretty sure that most people here already know I am a nerd. I am in charge of the store for an online turn-based strategy site. I have spent hours making and revamping maps for that site. I would like you to find someone here who spends that much time on the site who IS NOT a nerd.

Stopper wrote:I think we can all agree that WidowMaker's posts suffer from the problem of TL:DR.
To that end, I've decided to have a quick read through and make a revised version, by stripping out all the bits that have been discussed, rehashed, and otherwise done to death elsewhere (either here on CC or anywhere else) and left only the truly original bits. This way he should be able to get the proper response he deserves.

Well I am sorry that you felt it was too long. This discussion cannot be "wrapped up" in 15 sentences. It is sad to think that you will never read anything longer than the comics or a children's book (anything longer than 60 pages). You are really missing out on a lot of information. I wonder how you got through school without reading. If 60 pages are too long, I am sure you had issues with the length of you textbooks.

There have been some people who have read it all. Regardless of how they feel or what there opinion is, I appreciate the time they took which can help further discussion.

Posted: **Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:41 pm**

jiminski wrote:Evolution has been measured.
it has been empirically studied in the case of short lived creatures.
Not just bacteria but also in more complex life-forms such as insects.

I would be interested in seeing your data on what "evolution" has been measured. There are many ways people confuse the terms evolution. Some say any change in DNA is evolution. Some say natural selection is evolution. But I will say again,
For the purpose of this discussion:
EVOLUTION is that change from one species to another.
That is what we are really talking about in this area. Can and do mutations produce enough change to create a different species through evolution.

Genetic variation has been measured but change from species to a different species (what we are actually arguing about) has never been seen.

jiminski wrote:Widow has put in a admiral amount of work on this and his arguments, if not compelling, should be respected due to him giving it a real go in the absence of much to work with!

But come on this is very much like still arguing that the world is flat.
I mean really; have you been to outer-space and witnessed the shimmering blue orb first had? I haven't! hey perhaps outer-space as a concept is all fabricated too.

Perhaps the fact that a sea-ships mast disappears over the horizon is not to do with the curvature of the Earth but the curving of the 'visibility-plane' under the holy-spritational force.

Really anything can be argued; argued with a little more sincerity and leg-work, i could put in a good case for the Earth being flat... but it's not... is it?

Well if you want to use the argument that "I have never been there so it might not be true" means that every text book that gives information based on another persons personal experience cannot be trusted. This is not a valid argument.

I am sorry but you could not put together a good case for a flat earth. There are tests and observations that stand up to scientific scrutiny. Those would prove the earth is not flat but a sphere (more or less).

Evolution is not provable (as I have said in my TL:DR post).
Please someone can show me:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encycloped ... s_ev_2.htm

Conquer Club

Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View