Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism

2007-07-18T03:59:43Z

Cthx: /* Why Atheism is ridiculous */

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]" (FSM) is another word for "everything." The Flying Spaghetti Monster equals everything. Everthing is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. To deny that "He" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. his noodly appendages) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies (did you know that [[supercluster]]s of galaxies are shaped exactly like spaghetti threads, coincidence?)
Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstein included) believe that time is not absolute and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) is sentient. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand.[[ME]]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I suppose cut and paste is the sincerest form of flattery. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's what I actually wrote:

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Your argument has one fundamental flaw--you are assuming that God is everything which is something that is absouletly true. [[User:Lopku|Lopku]] 8:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:I've complied your argument and run it. It has nothing to do with God. Here's your argument:

pound-define GOD everything
int main(){
:everything exists by definition of thing;
:therefore, GOD exists;
:return 1;
}

Here it is after preprocessing:

int main(){
:everything exists by definition of thing;
:therefore, everything exists;
:return 1;
}

Where do you mention the omni-present flying fairy in the sky?
[[User:Cthx]]

* I've never spoken with, seen or heard any spagetti fly which was not first thrown, that's why I don't go off claiming I know what the Flying Spagett's Monster's will is.

* I believe that in the material world science is the only way to the truth: if the evidence says it's so, I tend to believe it's true.

* I believe human rights, democracy, honesty and equality for all are the highest universal values. I understand that each of these words can be twisted to drive a specific ideology and I do not support some of those political interpretations of these words.

* I believe multi-nationalism is a 50 year old hoax. I believe that "diversity" is a word used as a club to blunt the achievements of the most successful cultures on the planet while saddling them with the responsibility to clean-up messes they didn't create.

* I believe there would be no tax money is to spend on health care for the poor if the USA did not spend at least another $6 billion for each aircraft carrier.

* I believe reason and logic are worth more than blind faith. I believe that people who don't understand the logic of others call it blind faith so that they can denigrate their logic.

* I believe Jesus had much to teach, but he's been misinterpreted by [[User:Middle Man]].

* I believe religion is something between a person and his or her deity. I agree with our founding fathers that religion is an important part of public and private life but the belief in God doesn't not allow for the imposition of religion upon anyone.

* I am an American citizen and know that 96% of the world population wishes they were Americans too. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheism isn't ridiculous god answers prayers in three ways yes no and wait.
If you were praying to god to win the lottery you would either win, lose but consider gods answer to be wait.
In the win scenario you credit god for the win and if you lose god is telling you to wait he'll get to you.
If you pray to a cellphone to win the lottery you will either win or lose but assume that the awnser is wait.
What I'm getting at is that if you pray to god or a cellphone you will get the same resoult any win even with god or the cellphone on your side is just a coincdence. P.S: Its not a debate if their is only one point of view.[[ME]]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very forgiving, you may still repent for your blasphemy.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I'm not sure I'll ever understand your obsession with spaghetti, but at some point it stops driving your point and starts making you look really devoid of ideas. Your point is: God is as laughable and dubious an idea as the idea of a ''flying spaghetti monster''. In other words, you can't combat logic with logic, so you'll make Rosie O'Donnell-styled faces and weird-noises to prove your point. Oh, I get it ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's called sarcasm: I'm pointing out that if your "logic" can prove the existence of God, it can also prove the existence of Zeus, Ra, Shiva, Marduk and, yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all I have to do is say that one of them is everything).
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove his existence, there never is with supernatural beings.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Yeah that's real funny. I get it.

::It's a simple matter to prove that God exists. The hard part is figuring out what this means. It's also true that there's nothing easier to make fun of than something you don't understand. So it's no wonder you are so delighted with yourself.

::When you decide to grow up and talk like an adult, then pick the word that makes you happy: God, Marduk, Luck, Shiva, ''g'' (the imaginary catalyst, see [[Atheism vs. Deism]]). Only when you have a word to describe everything can you examine what God means or is. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 19:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

So you agree with me that the existence of Ra, Zeus or Marduk is equally plausible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I agree that it's pointless to argue about which religion is better with someone who does not acknowledge the existence of a deity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::If one starts out by stating that Atheism is ridiculous, just exactly who is supposed to take up the debate? Of course, believers view atheism as incorrect, just as adults view Santa as fiction. To whom is your discussion directed?--[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 14:55, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==Let Me Paint a Picture==

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.

A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.

Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==It's not a religion==

Uh, pastafarianism isn't actually a religion, it's a satire of religion, atheists don't actually believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, there use the concept to demonstrate logic flaws in religion.

And the the poster who stated that God is everything and by rejecting God atheists reject everything, atheists reject the concept of religion and a supernatural being who determines the outcome of the universe. They do not reject the universe or things which they believe to be real, and hence do not reject everything. And Einstein did not believe time was an illusion, he believed it was relative to the frame of reference of an observer, just as he believed mass and length were and that the speed of light was the only constant. [[User:DegreeOfProof|DegreeOfProof]] 00:41, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism

2007-07-18T03:59:00Z

Cthx: /* Why Atheism is ridiculous */

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "[[Flying Spaghetti Monster]]" (FSM) is another word for "everything." The Flying Spaghetti Monster equals everything. Everthing is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. To deny that "He" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. his noodly appendages) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies (did you know that [[supercluster]]s of galaxies are shaped exactly like spaghetti threads, coincidence?)
Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstein included) believe that time is not absolute and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) is sentient. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand.[[ME]]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I suppose cut and paste is the sincerest form of flattery. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's what I actually wrote:

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT) [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Your argument has one fundamental flaw--you are assuming that God is everything which is something that is absouletly true. [[User:Lopku|Lopku]] 8:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

:I've complied your argument and run it. It has nothing to do with God. Here's your argument:

#define GOD everything
int main(){
:everything exists by definition of thing;
:therefore, GOD exists;
:return 1;
}

Here it is after preprocessing:

int main(){
:everything exists by definition of thing;
:therefore, everything exists;
:return 1;
}

Where do you mention the omni-present flying fairy in the sky?
[[User:Cthx]]

* I've never spoken with, seen or heard any spagetti fly which was not first thrown, that's why I don't go off claiming I know what the Flying Spagett's Monster's will is.

* I believe that in the material world science is the only way to the truth: if the evidence says it's so, I tend to believe it's true.

* I believe human rights, democracy, honesty and equality for all are the highest universal values. I understand that each of these words can be twisted to drive a specific ideology and I do not support some of those political interpretations of these words.

* I believe multi-nationalism is a 50 year old hoax. I believe that "diversity" is a word used as a club to blunt the achievements of the most successful cultures on the planet while saddling them with the responsibility to clean-up messes they didn't create.

* I believe there would be no tax money is to spend on health care for the poor if the USA did not spend at least another $6 billion for each aircraft carrier.

* I believe reason and logic are worth more than blind faith. I believe that people who don't understand the logic of others call it blind faith so that they can denigrate their logic.

* I believe Jesus had much to teach, but he's been misinterpreted by [[User:Middle Man]].

* I believe religion is something between a person and his or her deity. I agree with our founding fathers that religion is an important part of public and private life but the belief in God doesn't not allow for the imposition of religion upon anyone.

* I am an American citizen and know that 96% of the world population wishes they were Americans too. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheism isn't ridiculous god answers prayers in three ways yes no and wait.
If you were praying to god to win the lottery you would either win, lose but consider gods answer to be wait.
In the win scenario you credit god for the win and if you lose god is telling you to wait he'll get to you.
If you pray to a cellphone to win the lottery you will either win or lose but assume that the awnser is wait.
What I'm getting at is that if you pray to god or a cellphone you will get the same resoult any win even with god or the cellphone on your side is just a coincdence. P.S: Its not a debate if their is only one point of view.[[ME]]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very forgiving, you may still repent for your blasphemy.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I'm not sure I'll ever understand your obsession with spaghetti, but at some point it stops driving your point and starts making you look really devoid of ideas. Your point is: God is as laughable and dubious an idea as the idea of a ''flying spaghetti monster''. In other words, you can't combat logic with logic, so you'll make Rosie O'Donnell-styled faces and weird-noises to prove your point. Oh, I get it ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it's called sarcasm: I'm pointing out that if your "logic" can prove the existence of God, it can also prove the existence of Zeus, Ra, Shiva, Marduk and, yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all I have to do is say that one of them is everything).
I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove his existence, there never is with supernatural beings.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Yeah that's real funny. I get it.

::It's a simple matter to prove that God exists. The hard part is figuring out what this means. It's also true that there's nothing easier to make fun of than something you don't understand. So it's no wonder you are so delighted with yourself.

::When you decide to grow up and talk like an adult, then pick the word that makes you happy: God, Marduk, Luck, Shiva, ''g'' (the imaginary catalyst, see [[Atheism vs. Deism]]). Only when you have a word to describe everything can you examine what God means or is. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 19:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

So you agree with me that the existence of Ra, Zeus or Marduk is equally plausible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::I agree that it's pointless to argue about which religion is better with someone who does not acknowledge the existence of a deity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::If one starts out by stating that Atheism is ridiculous, just exactly who is supposed to take up the debate? Of course, believers view atheism as incorrect, just as adults view Santa as fiction. To whom is your discussion directed?--[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 14:55, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==Let Me Paint a Picture==

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.

A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.

Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==It's not a religion==

Uh, pastafarianism isn't actually a religion, it's a satire of religion, atheists don't actually believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, there use the concept to demonstrate logic flaws in religion.

And the the poster who stated that God is everything and by rejecting God atheists reject everything, atheists reject the concept of religion and a supernatural being who determines the outcome of the universe. They do not reject the universe or things which they believe to be real, and hence do not reject everything. And Einstein did not believe time was an illusion, he believed it was relative to the frame of reference of an observer, just as he believed mass and length were and that the speed of light was the only constant. [[User:DegreeOfProof|DegreeOfProof]] 00:41, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?

2007-07-18T03:51:55Z

Cthx: /* It doesn't matter */

{{debate}}
jesus claimed to be the son of god...right?? according to christanity...

==According to GOD==
Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." That's according to the Jews of His time. The Son of God that became the sin offering for all of mankind. Need more? Read the rest of the Old and New Testament.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorta-kinda-but-certainly-not-as-clearly-as-you'd-expect==
This is, I think, a fairly well-known puzzle. I'm no expert on this. Briefly, in the New Testament, lots of ''other'' people call him the Son of God, but Jesus consistently calls himself the "Son of man"—and nobody's absolutely sure what he meant by that—and his references to his relationship to God seem more in the nature of hints than simple statements.
a serious question i think should be asked: Does jesus Love Bum Sex?
In John 9:35-37 seems ''fairly'' clear:
:Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.

Many others ''call'' him the Son of God. ''Mark'' opens with the words "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." And in the Annunciation, the ''angel'' tells Mary "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

When Jesus is asked about it, his replies can only be described as... puzzling or indirect. Thus, Luke 22:66-70:
:Art thou the Christ? tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe: And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go. Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God. Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. and incest be wrong

At this, the priests say "And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."

Another indirect reply is this, in Matthew 16:14-17:

:When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.Along with my father seated at the right hand will be all those wrongly jusdged by thos who seek to destroy originality.

This certainly is close to a simple "yes," but not quite.

The topic is discussed at length [http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/miscclaims.html here], but this seems to me like a clear case of "reading the Bible through stained glass." For example, this page says that "Matthew 26:64; parallel in Mark 14:61-4. The high priest asks Jesus directly if He is the Christ, and Jesus answers in the affirmative." Well, no, he doesn't. The affirmative would be "yes." What Jesus says is
:Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
They ''say'' that ''means'' "yes," but... well, that's not the same as ''saying'' "yes,'' is it? or is it?

I'm not saying that Jesus ''doesn't'' claim to be God. I'm saying to a non-expert it's ''puzzling'' as to why Jesus uses the roundabout language he uses, ''puzzling'' as to why he uses the phrase "Son of man" so often, and ''puzzling'' as to what, exactly he means by "Son of man" when he uses it
son of man could mean he had twp fathers joespeh and mark? forget mary girls give you cooties

The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia says "The expression is Christ's... It was not invented by the writers of the Gospels to whom it did not appear to be a favourite title, as they never use it of Christ themselves. The early Fathers were of the opinion that the expression was used out of humility and to show Christ's human nature, and this is very probable considering the early rise of Docetism. This is also the opinion of Cornelius a Lapide. Others, such as Knabenbauer, think that He adopted a title which would not give umbrage to His enemies, and which, as time went on, was capable of being applied so as to cover His Messianic claims..." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm] So, in other words, it's puzzling to experts, too. They think, they were of the opinion, but they weren't sure. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:57, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, there is the whole issue of the messianic secret to consider, too, cf. especially Wilhelm Wrede. "...that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand," and all that (Lk 8:10). But turning the question around, he never specifically says that he is ''not'' God, does he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's why I entitled the section "sorta-kinda." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not to my limited knowledge.

Bottom line.... Jesus never claimed to be gay or straight neither did he claim to be the son of God, and the only real textual support could be nothing more than a simple mistranslation. One would assume that the most fundamental belief of the Christian Church would be spelled out more clearly in a text crafted by God... however it is not. what matters is that he could have loved bum sex!

==Yes, Absolutely==

In John 8:58 he said: "Verily, verily I say unto you, ''before Abraham was, '''I am.''''' This reference to Exodus 3:14 was not lost on the jews: they tried to stone him for it. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 14:48, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

:Ever wonder how people can still have this question in their minds?Luke 24:44 "He (Jesus) said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." So that this has been spelled out throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation through the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms and yet people will continue to say that Jesus never claimed it. Their minds remain closed for whatever rationale they have chosen. Let us pray they remain closed for not much longer. I fear that for too many that at even at His second coming they will still retain a closed mind.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:20, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==It doesn't matter==

Just because a book written almost 2,000 years ago says he was god doesn't make it correct. Do you believe any other religious text on its supernatural claims? No doubt Jesus existed, and no doubt he was a good person, even a first class revolutionary, but he wasn't a deity. The most likely explanation for biblical supernatural events is that they are made up by people who wanted to be associated with Jesus because they admired him, and then these events were written down as true events. Let's put it this way. Someone wrote a comic about Batman 40 years ago. His exploits have now been copied by two movie directors over the last 50 years, adding details, taking characters, exanding story lines from the comic books. There is almost a cult following of Batman. In a few hundred years someone might unearth a text about this Batman character and think he was a real crime fighter. --[[User:stubbstarbuck|User:stubbstarbuck] 16:54, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hah hah. That may be true, but when you consider that the Bible is made up of writings written thousands of years apart, and yet all coincide to point to one Messiah, with no contradictions... You can't argue with anything like that. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:08, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmmm... ...especially since the Apostles conferenced with each other and for a thousand year period in European history (which I shall call "The Dark Ages," any heretical version of the "story" was nixed and its writer burned. What about the council of Nicea? Granted, if the authors of the books of the Bible hadn't shared notes and the Books were '''completely accurately''' preserved you might have a point.[[[User:Cthx]]

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-07-18T03:49:06Z

Cthx:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.
[[User:Cthx]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
::"Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life" How can you say something like that? To me that is sicker than any story of the Holocaust or the Gulags. A fertilized egg under normal conditions becomes more cells, and even more cells. It is simple science. What do you think you are? You are a group of cells with just a few more years progress. Just because you may die in a car crash tommorow doesn't mean I'll shoot you now and harvest your body parts for someone in need of a heart or a lung. How do you justify that your life is more important than someone elses? God created all human beings with worth and dignity from the moment of conception. Also just because, "Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away" doesn't make anything right. Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? These are HUMAN BEINGS that we are talking about. It is not our right or privelage to make the decision of life or death for them. Isn't that what a murderer is, someone who decides that another human is not deserving of life? --[[User:CRD|CRD]] 21:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that abortion is wrong, as it is the taking of a human life. However, using discarded embryos and aborted fetuses for stem cell research is not the same as condoning abortion. If the embryo or fetus is no longer alive, harvesting its stem cells is extremely similar to using the organs of a deceased person to save a living one, or using a cadaver for scientific research. --[[User:ac09]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered ''en masse'' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.
*Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few:
::::The ability to feel pain
::::The ability to think
::::The ability to have emotions
Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human.

*But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you ''know'' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. ''Potential'' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's ''just not right''?! If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells.

Q.E.D.
[[User:Cthx]]

Fairly recently it was discovered that stem cells could be obtained from umbilical cords, pleasing both sides of this debate, I would assume. Does anyone object to this? [[User:HKK]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies. Seriously? If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic. If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better. [[User:Cthx]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especialy when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less neccessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

Great! [[User:Cthx]]

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-07-15T17:54:56Z

Cthx:

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because ''life evolved to suit the Earth''. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

::BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 9:52, 27 June 2007

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archaeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformance to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

==Neither==
I don't think that the Theory of Evolution cares.[[User:Cthx]]

Binary system

2007-07-15T03:03:54Z

Cthx:

The binary system is a way of representing numbers in base 2, i.e. using only the digits 0 and 1. While it is impractical for human use, it is the mainstay of modern computing.

To increment a binary number, follow this rule:

1. Current digit is the end digit
2. Change the current digit
3. If current digit = 1
4. Then:
4a.Shift current digit to away from the end digit
4b.Goto step 2
5: Else:
5a:You're done.

A more concrete example can be found here:
http://woodgears.ca/marbleadd/index.html

The first 16 binary digits:
{|style="text-align:center"
!Decimal!!Colspan=2 |Binary
|-
|width=50px|0
|width=50px align="right"|0
|width=10px|
|-
|1
|align="right"|1
|-
|2
|align="right"|10
|-
|3
|align="right"|11
|-
|4
|align="right"|100
|-
|5
|align="right"|101
|-
|6
|align="right"|110
|-
|7
|align="right"|111
|-
|8
|align="right"|1000
|-
|9
|align="right"|1001
|-
|10
|align="right"|1010
|-
|11
|align="right"|1011
|-
|12
|align="right"|1100
|-
|13
|align="right"|1101
|-
|14
|align="right"|1110
|-
|15
|align="right"|1111
|-
|16
|align="right"|10000
|}

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Debate:Define torture

2007-07-15T03:00:48Z

Cthx: /* Other */

Torture needs defining because liberals have blurred the true meaning. Is torture to stand on one foot with a black hood over your head? Maybe it is when you cut a persons fingers off. Is torture a degrading naked pyramid of men? Or maybe it is hammering nails into someones skull. Is torture having a scary dog bark at your face? Maybe it is beating your face silly with brass knuckles. Is torture three square meals a day, tropical skies, a free Koran? Or maybe it is locked in a cold dungeon, no light, starving to death. Help, the issue is so distorted. [[User talk:Jpatt|Jpatt]]

Torture is any cruel or unusual punishment, forbidden by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the highest law of our Republic, assuming we still have a Republic. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So to call you a bad name, that is torture?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thee square meals a day, tropical skies and a free Koran? You make prison sound like club med. Answer honestly, who was treated worse: enemy combatants and terrorists held by US forces in Abu Graib, or innocent British sailors captured by the Iranians?

There is no real line where you can say 'interregation stops here, then torture begins.' Horrible things go on in American prisons, but no one raises holy hell. The fact of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a moral nation, based on individual rights and liberty. When the world hears we stick people in jail without trial and use techniques like water boarding...well, how are we any better than those we are trying to fight in their eyes? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I am not comparing prison to club med. I am comparing torture situations. Another America basher comments, way to Golz.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.''[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1]
:Well its a start...
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How do '''''you''''' suggest that we get information, Ask nicely?

::That might not work ... on the other hand there are aparrently people trained in non-torturous interrogation who do know how to get information out of people. Their success rate is quite high and the information is usually of good quality. Under torture people are likely to admit to anything. One never knows if the information acquired is any good or not. Then again ... if you just like being cruel to people...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::like what? truth serum?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind. Just carry on recruiting terrorists.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind, leave alone the terrorists so they can kill the innocent. Was there recruitment prior to 9/11?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that only American citizens should be protected by the constitution (even the 8th ammendment). We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and because we are the ones who will eventually win. I don't think that we should use anything that I personally would define as torture (sticking splinters up their fingernails, skining and salting them, etc.) but we could definately be doing alot better to persuade them to confess. I suggest that we:

# Regularly starve them for a week or so; nothing life threatening but we don't want them to get comfortable.
# when we ''do'' feed them it should be nothing very good.
# Put them in solitary confinment; we might do this already but I wouldn't know.
# We can certainly ''pretend'' that we're going to do something cruel. I suggest we have somebody realy good at special effects make a video to show them of some horrible torture method. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am all for that benjamin, but to the left, everything you mention is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a torture. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*my definition of torture: techniques that cause irreversible physical or psychological damage. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You know torure is not an effective means of getting accurate information, right? And you do know that the best way to get accurate information is, in fact, to be nice to them. It's like good cop bad cop, but they're already in prison so you don't even need a bad cop. Just the good cop.

:And Benjamin, while your ethnocentrism is to be applauded on this site, our various governmental documents don't make any allowance for all men to be created equal and certain unalienable rights... except then not so much for people that are different. And you say that "we are better than the terrorists because they attacked us." Well... how exactly do you know that the man you have in custody is a terrorist or was responsible for attacking us? So you're going to detain a man, deprive him of food on ''suspicion'' of being a terrorist? Well guess what: you can never let this man out because when you do, he's going to be a terrorist. And regardless of whether you let him out, his friends and brothers will be terrorists. And "they will be better than us because they wrongfully imprisoned my brother."

I thought we were discussing the ones that we ''know'' are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe we should abide by the laws we write and the treaties we sign, hm? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that we signed any treaties with radical islam. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::that'll probably require one-on-one therapy session with a psychologist over a 2 year treatment, ha ha ha. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: maybe the terrorists will abide by international law, hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Torture is also defined in the Geneva Convention. The fuzzy area is who the Convention covers, that's the real line that's been blurred.
And to Jpatt's original comment, the liberals didn't blur the line of what's torture, that's totally up to interpertation. Same as hazing laws in the US, they're vaguely worded to allow the legal system greater leeway in prosecuting and protecting rights. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

When liberals accuse the USA of torture, it is defintely been blurred because a slow painful death to me is torture, not inprisonment by America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If countries like the UK and US practise torture, then haven't we given up a bit of what makes us better than terrorists? JPatt's comment is a perfect example of the childish view of international affairs that has caused this problem - 'cause they're breaking international law, we can too! Cheney, get me those thumbscrews now!' You can't fight fire with fire. Torture just recruits terrorists - as was shown when Aussaresses justified torture in Algeria. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: To fight fire with fire or torture with torture, is just fubar. My point which is too complicated for Wiki, I was not asking for vague law interpretation, which one side doesn't adhere to and the other side blames it's leaders for breaking. It is a matter of treatment, suffering, unspeakable human behavior. Defining torture to seperate what is and what is not political fodder to accuse and point fingers. Calling you the name FAT, if overweight is cruel. Does it fit as torture? Black hooded standing on one foot, does it fit as torture? If you hate America, yes it does mean torture. I say hell no as I outlined what torture really is above.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: One other point I forgot to respond to. Torture recruits terrorists? Who was the US torturing when the WTC was attacked? I guess they were recruited before 9/11, when we were so comfy safe at home. It's the same method of operation liberals use to discredit why we are in Iraq, just recruits terrorists. Except, they were attacking us well before we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they were attacking us because no response after the USS Cole was bombed embolden them to do more harm. 2000 plus days after taking the fight to them, the homeland hasn't suffered.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: 'Wow! Because we're us, anything we do must be right!' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/moral-equivalence/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: 'They're worse than us; they've got to be, because they're not us!' Kerching, next. We should really get closer to the topic, though this is fun. :) [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::::'They are not us, so they have no moral' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

My litmus test: if The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we
call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/T0283300.html American Heritage]

:1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
:2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
:3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture Merriam-Webster]

:I'm waiting with considerable interest to see just what language Bush and Blair come up with to describe the treatment of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. I nominate [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/ "torture lite"] as the ugliest phrase to emerge in the last ten years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If you include "anguish of body or mind" in your definition of torture, then every criminal locked in jail in America is being tortured.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''My''' definition of torture? No, please, ''the dictionary's'' definition of torture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::doesn't matter, do you support freeing all criminals in jail? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Do you support distortion of overrefinement of a meaning or an argument? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Even if I don't, lawyers will.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and '''because we are the ones who will eventually win.'''"
Benjamin, did you not criticize another user in the discussion on morality for allegedly saying that might makes right?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, now that we've settled that, how about [[Debate:Define terrorism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

''I thought we were discussing the ones that we know are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --BenjaminS 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)''
Ah, "Innocent 'til Proven Guilty" is for wusses, eh?
You _are_ aware that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have had to be released after several '''years''' of imprisonment, right? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3501910.stm] Since the US Government generally (I hope) isn't in the habit of locking people up just for the fun of it, I think it's safe to assume that someone THOUGHT they 'knew' these guys were Terrorists, and turned out to be wrong.
It's hilarious to see members of the Small Government Party arguing for the infallability and unwavering righteousness of a bunch of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats with GUNS, but bureaucrats nonetheless. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

And for the 'definition of torture', why not break out the ol' Ouija board and ask some of the Suspected Terrorists who died under the tender care of Lynndie England, She-Wolf of the US? I suspect they'd have a few choice words on the subject. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Lynndie England wasn't so bad, she just mocked some guy's genital.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess that one guy whose corpse she was photographed grinning over just died of embarrassment? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Like you've never grinned during a funneral.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I can say without hesitation that I've never stood over the coffin at a funeral, grinned at the camera, and given a thumbs up. And I can say with even more certainty that I've never stood over the dead body of murder victim and done it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I don't believe any US Soldier has been convicted of murder of an inmate at Abu Griab. There has been an instance in Afganistan. No such thing as torture in Abu Griab, unless you are an American hater and site the black hood, naked pyramid and barkin dog as torture. What they did was wrong and hurt the credibility of our troops.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

"If The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not."
Wise words WJThomas, wise words.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Multiple definitions:
*Torture is painful or humilating treatment used to punish or coerce.
*Torture (as defined in law or treaty): such treatment which the goverment agrees to refrain from doing

Shining bright lights in a suspect's eyes to make him talk can be considered "torture", but most people have in mind things like cutting a man's ears or nuts off. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As a family member of a survivor of torture at the hands of the government of Argentina, I am saddened that Americans would even suggest some of the things you have been speaking of. Untill you have looked first-hand at the results of prolonged torture sessions, do not be so hasty to condem another human being to it.

::What's sad is that at one time, "most people" understood that torture involves far more sophisticated methods than simply maiming someone. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, all were methods of torture widely understood to be torture back in the 60s and 70s, when both living memories of the Second World War and the publication of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO were there to remind us. Ever read Solzhenitsyn's chapter on torture?

::Today there seems to be a concerted movement online to redefine the word "torture" to the point where it's meaningless. Apparently, if you want to countenance torture, but just can't get around that visceral reaction most decent people have to the word "torture," the next step is to just change common usage of the word -- right Ed? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is Torture==
I think when considering this discussion, one should acept that there are different threshholds, and different responses to pain.If any of you take the time to look at the Al Qaeda handbook, part of the evidence used in a trial in NY in 2003, I believe, you'll see they train their people to spill the beans at the first threat of physical abuse. The first fingernail you pull out, they are expected to scream bloody murder. In this way, we are led to believe we are getting true information. Sadly, this will almost always not be the case.

Further, remember that when you condemn these people to be tortured, you also condemn our soldiers to be tortured by them. So, at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly, why do you hate the troops? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::most information from confession can be verified for authenticity, and Al Qaeda usually just cut off soldiers' head without bothring to torture them.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not resorting to torture is one of the things that separate free countries from dictatorships.
Torture is also very inefficient: untrained prisoners will confess to anything to make the pain go away while trained prisoners will simply lie, or not talk at all.

Also consider what this was originally about: a war on terror.
If one side wants to claim moral superiority it has to stick with the Geneva conventions, no matter how cruel their enemies are.
If both sides practice the same ethics, neither side can claim to be morally superior: the war would be nothing more than a struggle for territory and resources.

If the United States were one of these two sides, its government would have a hard time explaining why the war is necessary and why it's not imperialism, to its own citizens as well as potential allies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Depends on your definition of torture. All free countries put some people in jail, which some people would consider torture.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

putting underwear on someones head is not torture. cutting someones head off w/ a dull, rusty blade is torture. So is slapping them with a wet codfish. or a wet cod PIECE. now THAT is torture. duh.
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Putting underwear on someone's head while making them stand nude, taking their picture, and/or putting them in a stress position for several hours and not allowing to sleep for long periods of time can definitely be a part of torture. People who trivialize what happened at Abu Ghraib by concentrating on the "underwear on the head" thing as if that were all that happened keep leaving out those bits. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It cannot be definetly defined as torture. Could be described as a means of gathering intelligence.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In college, I knew some people who wear underwear on their head on purpose.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

So if captured US soldiers were piled up naked you'd say their treatment would be acceptable?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Sounds like a frat party.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I am not excusing their actions MadMiddleMan. I am also not claiming it was torture.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Tell me, jpatt -- was sticking underwear on someone's head all that happened at Abu Ghraib? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This just hit the wires, torture now described as unscented soap, under inflated soccer balls and a noisy fan.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Cite please, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Note, folks, that Jpatt hasn't answered my question about whether or not sticking underwear on someone's head is all that happened at Abu Ghraib. JPatt doesn't answer because Jpatt knows that going into detail about what actually happened there reveals the moral bankruptcy behind Jpatt's attempts to trivialize torture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:::He's just being a [[moral relativity|moral relativist]]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other ==
I am for the following:

<pre>
waterboarding
sleep deprevation
light or darkness deprevation
reduction in food and water
solitary confinement no visitors
hot and cold environments
deception(making them believe something is happening when its REALLY not)
deprive them of clothes
make them sleep on a cement floor
hoods and handcuffs are good
no reading material of any kind

UNTIL the first nuke/bio weapon goes off on american soil...then the gloves come off...
</pre>

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:56, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

So you're an admirer of the manner in which the inmates of Soviet gulags were treated. Interesting. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

yeah right...i noticed you forgot to mention that in the gulags they were beaten, raped, killed
given electric shock and had body parts cutoff, burned, medically experimented on and were forced
to do hard labor. one might note 50 million died in gulags VS what 2-3 in US custody? nothing like i described aboved. typical liberal response of more fantasy than fact.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, Wally, Solzhenitsyn's famous chapter on torture in the gulags doesn't really describe much maiming, burning, medical experiements, etc. What he describes are all those things you think WE should be doing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe this debate to be inflated far beyond the proportions it should be. The Ammendment pertaining to cruel and unusual punishment was not protecting against bad food and sleep depravation. If it was, college would be unconstitutional. The laws were passed to protect United States citizens from being maimed and mutilated in ways reminisce of the medieval inquistions. In England in colonial times you could be inprisoned for multiple years with horrible conditions on a cold stone floor with no medical treatment and minimal food for not paying taxes. Tortures such as ripping out teeth / nails, beating, blinding, boiling, bone breaking, branding and burning, castration, choking, cutting, disfigurement, dislocation, drowning, flagellation, whipping and beating, flaying, roasting, genital mutilation, limb/finger removal, starvation, and tongue removal, and quatering were used. Horrible devices like the catherine wheel, the rack, the iron maiden, thumbscrews, the heretic's fork, and many, many more were used to implement terror among political prisoners, heretics, and anyone who so much as stepped out of line. Christ himself was nailed to a tree and left to die because he spoke out against Rome. We are not treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, we are treating them to a resort hotel. I respect human life and dignity, but obviously anyone who would blow themselves up to kill as many "infidels" as possible doesn't. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:CRD]] 10:39, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you figure soviet dissident Solzhenitysn was just a big ol' crybaby? And nobody who "respects human life and dignity" would mistake places like Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for a "resort hotel." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

People! Ann Coulter has already given us guidelines. It's not torture if:

* The same acts performed on a live stage have been favorably reviewed by Frank Rich of The New York Times;
* Andrew Sullivan has ever solicited it from total strangers on the Internet;
* You can pay someone in New York to do it to you;
* Karen Finley ever got a federal grant to do it;
* It's comparable to the treatment U.S. troops received in basic training;
* It's no worse than the way airlines treat little girls in pigtails flying to see Grandma.
citation: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=62

Debate:Is religion morally wrong?

2007-07-15T02:57:16Z

Cthx: /* Why Atheism is ridiculous */

{{debate}}
==Yes==
anything that teaches young children to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question, and then teaches them that anyone who does not believe what they do is wrong and needs to have their immortal soul 'saved' is morally wrong. as well as that, waging wars against "non-believers" or "infidels" and killing thousands of millions of people, puts religion in the morally wrong category. as in interesting aside, the link to this debate is actually titled "is athiesm morally wrong?" which may need to be fixed. --[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30 (EDT)
: Done. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::''Wha' ...?'' Anyone who thinks that religion teaches one "to ignore natural curiousity and to blindly believe what someone older then them tells them without question" just plain doesn't understand any religion to which I have ever been exposed. However, I'm pretty sure I can guess why your so confused.

::There is a belief, which is generally held by most religions and most people over the age of 30, that human nature is constant. Moral codes, philosophy and religion are built upon assumptions about the constants of human nature. In this way, moral codes are similar to alegbra. Algebra is built upon a foundation of unchanging constants. Math is unchanging. Human nature is unchanging. Therefore, each generation doesn't need to reinvent algebra. Similarly, each generation needn't rediscover the reason that people devised certain moral codes which were based upon countless generations of knowledge about human nature and where then incorporated into religion and philosophy.

::This does not mean that the field of mathemics should cease to expand. This does not mean that curiosity is bad. This means that we already know that 1+1=2. We already know what happens to civilizations and societies where wild sexual activities are encouraged. This does not mean that we stop digging up fossils. This does mean that we don't kill unborn children to expiriment on them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::(wow, first ever post on a debate page!) Everwill, I would argue that human nature '''is''' changing and most certainly can't be likened to algebra. Algebra is indeed definite. It always follows the same rules reagrdless of the complexity of the problem. Surely, you can't say that human nature is like that? The scale of variation is unimaginable!

:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

::I don't want to spend a lot of time defending something that is an elemental and accepted truth spanning time, civilizations and belief systems. This is because I'm not sure whether you're denying the fact that human nature is universal because you are ignorant (unlikely) or because you are intellectually dishonesty (my guess). In either case, it would consume far too much time to explain to you the definition of human nature to your liking. But I what I can posit in reply is an answer to your simple question: there are absolutes in morality, just as there are absolutes in algebra. For example, murder is always wrong. There is no compromise in this principle.

::''As a quick aside I must note that I always find it humorous when people (usually liberals) stereotype the upbringing found in fundamentalist religious groups.''

::To your point, it is true that "in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." But guess what, you've just proven my point. This is because, EVERY SINGLE human that ever reached adulthood was "brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher." '''DUH!'''

::It is possible that your theory is true. Perhaps, teachers and parents want to shield children from outside influences because "their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught!" But who do you think is most likely to have the child's best interests at heart? I would presume that a child's parents and that child's teachers want what is best for the child. I think you are implying that the pornographers, salesmen, MTV, rappers, strangers and passerby's---all of whom the child might find more interesting (and more permissive) than the parents and teachers---are better for the child? You think it's better that the child find out (the hard way) the lessons which the parents and grandparents into the mists of history, have already found out? Preposterous. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not argueing that modern celebrities are the way forwards by any means. The messages put forward by that group does not teach very good lessons for kids (or adults!). I'm merely pointing out that the near brainwashing of the young by their parents and teachers with regards religious teaching is also wrong and can teach a child "bad" things. An example would be homosexuality. Kids in religious families who think they might be gay receive no support from parents who believe that homosexuality is bad, simply because it is the parents belief. Surely a parents love for their child should come before their religion?

:::I am not being intellectually dishonest, just ignorant (ha like thats any better!). What I thought you meant by human nature isn't what is used in the definitions I found on the internet. I took human nature to be the general world viewpoint held by each individual person; where there is substantial difference!

:::I think argueing that children should accept what their parents tell them because they have learnt it from their experience is flawed. Every person has a different PoV so will experience things differently. If a child recieves all their advice from a parent who sees the world entirely differently to them, what will that child think of themselves? Is that fair on the child? A parent should be there for guidance, yes, but not for absolute teaching. To relate this to religion: religion is a predetermined set of "rules" that followers must stick to. Choosing a religion (and its rules) is a personal choice. Parents will naturally try to enforce their beliefs and rules on their children, thereby removing their choice to religion and actions, which is removing their freedom to be themselves. Surely that is a terrible wrong to do to that child? I am not argueing that children should be given no rules, nothing of the sort. I am merely saying that the rules given to a child by their parents should not be based on the religion of the parent(s) as that is a moral wrong to that child. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see. By your logic the child should have rules and the rules should come from the parent (sort of) but the parent shouldn't base the rule structure or belief set upon something found in religion. Instead, you believe that religion must be by a higher and more correct authority. And just who is that authority? ''Will & Grace''? Madonna & Britney? Who is this higher and more perfect authority? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You seem to enjoy mentioning celebrities...perhaps they have affected you more than you think. Their ability to corrupt is unbounded! I don't know what you mean by "religion must be by a higher and more correct authority". I am merely argueing for separation of of religious doctrine from a child's upbringing. Yes, make a child aware of their parents belief, why they believe it, etc., but don't "force it down their necks" or make them feel bad for "not believing". That is what I find to be morally wrong about religion: the automatic assumption of parents that their children should follow in their beliefs. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:47, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

a childs parents should bring up their children to be open to new ideas and to trust their senses and logic in ideological matters. religion of any kind does not allow this to be taught to children. as well as this, many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is a false characterization of religion, perhaps based in ignorance. Every major religion teaches personal accountability and free will. Therefore, religion encourages children (and everyone else) to "trust their senses and logic in ideological matters." Religion is a framework to assist in decision making. Religion does not take personal responsiblity or logic from anyone. (Perhaps you should read a bit of C.S. Lewis or Thomas Aquinas to better acquaint yourself with the value of logic to the Christian mind.)

::You state (no caps and no punctuation are all yours): "many parents have their childrens best interests in mind, they just do not know what their childrens best interests are." Who knows better what the child's best interests are? The media? The government? The child? Who?

::I'm glad we're having this discussion, mostly because it's apparent that you are the victim of the propaganda of another religion. You're repeating the mantra of the liberal religion, which teaches that all religions are equal and there are no moral boundaries. Your religion might be the "one true" religion, but I doubt it.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

The childs best interests are known only by the child itself. I do not mean to say that no parents ever get it right, or wrong, however what is in the childs best interests is not to foist a belief system on him/her without letting him/her have any choice or free will in the matter. The majority of religions (liberal or fundamentalist) do not encourage children to take advantage of their natural curiosity and explore all the possibilities of logic and science, as they see science as a threat to their belief system. Just as an example, the enactment of hell that occurs in an American state led by Pastor Ted Roberts which attempts to scare children into beliveing in God by scaring them with the sheer horror of the act. This would be dismissed as simply a fringe sect, however the supporters of this pastor, in his home state (i apologise for not knowing which state this is) number around 3 million. This is only one example of the methods used by religious leaders to force children into mindlessly believing what they are told. Another example is the muslim state of Saudi Arabia, where simply being of another faith or of no faith at all, is punishable by beheading. Note the similar use of fear tactics in both cases here. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 19 April 2007

::What you're trying to say makes sounds ridiculous to me, but perhaps this is because we have not agreed to what the meaning of the word "child" is. Please allow me to insert a few definitions so that I don't miss your point and vice-versa.

:::* ward --- someone incapable of making personal decisions for some reason or another. There are several types of ward:
::::* child --- This individual cannot make personal decisions because they have not reached maturity (generally 17 and under). Children might step into traffic. Children might drink poison. Children can be cultivated into giving sexual favors to pedofiles. For all these reasons and many more, "parents" (''defined below'') make decisions for parents.
::::** mental defective --- This individual has poor reasoning skills or does not understand reality. For this reason "parents" or care-takers must make decisions for the mental defective
::::** sick or enfermed --- This individual might be in a coma. This individual might be extremely sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Thus, caretakers or "parents" must make decisions for this individual.

:::* parent --- one (ideally of two) individuals responsible for the care and nuturing of a ward or child

:::* adult --- An individual who is mentally competant and mature and thus has the free will to make any decisions they want so long as they don't violate the laws of the community where they reside.

::Children, and in fact, all other wards, need people to care for them and to make decisions for them. I'm quite sure there are a good many teenagers who would agree with your ridiculous notion that children make should make their own decisions, but most adults and most parents today (and throughout history) have come to agree that it is both unwise and unsafe to grant complete and total freewill to children (perhaps most especially teenagers). This is because children don't alwasy make good decisions. Children are easily swayed and they don't have the normal defenses of doubt and fear of strangers to protect them.

::This is a plain, simple and accepted truth. I'm not sure what possible connection that has to anything Ted Roberts ever said or did. Whether Ted Roberts or Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler is a bogeyman or not, that doesn't change the fact that children need parents. I guess what you'll have to accept is that some parents will raise children who don't agree with your beliefs. I'm quite comfortable with the fact that not all parents or people agree with me. I much too busy and quite frankly don't feel the need to tell other people how to raise their children. I doubt you have any idea what any of the parents in former Pastor Robert's church are teaching their children. I thought liberals believed in tolerance and diversity? Why can't you tolerate their differences and celebrate their Christian diversity?

::What would you like to see in Saudi Arabia, a crackdown on parents? Do you want to take the children from their parents and raise them yourself? Have you ever considered the possiblity that the concept (called "fascism") of imposing your values upon others is wrong-heaed and evil? Don't you think Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live? Are you trying to suggest that the US should invade Saudi Arabia and replace the mullahs with ACLU? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:37, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No i am not attempting to say much of that, i think that you are right in that i have misunderstood the point that you were making. I do apologise for that. What i would like to say in regards to your previous point, is that while i agree that parents should have the role in making decisions for their children (with an increasing amount of input from the child as they grow older) at the same time, they should not force their beliefs onto their children and, where possible, educate them enough so that they have the intelligence and a high enough level or reasoning to be able to make their own decision in matters of faith and belief. While a lot of parents do this, i believe that the majority don't, although i am willing and hoping to be proven wrong. I do belive in tolerance and diversity, but that is what my main problem with religion is. Religion tends to preach the opposite of this, generally against other faiths but also against homosexuals and other groups that seem to break the rules of their faith. I do think that Saudi Arabians should be allowed to live the way they want to live, however i think that maybe a lot do not want to live the way they do, and that another large number would not want to live that way, if they were not devout muslims. I honestly think the US should keep out of the middle east in general, as the problems it has caused there seem to be greater then the amount solved, however that is not the topic on discussion here. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:56, 20 April 2007

:This debate title seems to be relatively unfocussed, but the debate itself seems to have settled down into a focussed discussion of whether or not it is morally right for religions to pass on their codifications, conventions and beliefs to their children in a manner which could be construed as 'indoctrination'. [[Richard Dawkins]] makes the point that it would not be acceptable in today's society to label children as 'a Democrat Child' or 'a Republican child', nor to set up schools which say that we are going to only teach 'Democrat' values in this school, and to only honour Democrats. However, it does appear to be acceptable to have 'catholic' scools, catholic, muslim and hindu children. Why is this? Any Religion and or Political Stance, when it comes down to it are idealogies, and have many parallels in the way they are dogmatic about the way that adherents should behave. They both present strong arguments as to the way that you should treat knowledge, evidence, and all present a very biased world view. This is fine if you are an adult, and you understand the rules, and you know that this is the way the world works, and that you have a choice about whether to question or to belive at all; but if you are an uimpressionable youngester you could be scarred for life: 'Give me a child until he is seven...."

There is a very strong argument to say that we should NOT allow people to present contraversial points of view to children AS IF these were uncontestable facts. This, after all, is the arguments of the creationists against evolution. They maintain children should be exposed to both points of view. However, I cannot imagine that any catholic school would suggest teaching that God may or may not exist, and allowing children to experience both the sacrament and the indoctrination ceremony of freemasons, and asking them to compare & contrast!--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 04:18, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Felix for articulating what i was attempting to say, and i apologise again to Everwill for not wording my arguement very clearly. Having attended an anglican school till i was 13, i never was fully concious that they did not present their teachings as anything other then indisputable fact and that we were expected to believe that without question. The other thing that struck me was that i was never allowed to avoid communion on the basis that i was an atheist, while one of my friends who was jewish was excused. It was almost as if they rathered that we believed in a god, even if it is a slightly different set of beliefs that come attached, than that we had no beliefs at all. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:30, 20 April 2007

::Bolly, it sounds like you're trying to impose your own parental issues on others. I understand that you thought you were an atheist and yoru parents wanted to impose their theistic beliefs on you. The fact is, they have every right to impose these theistic beliefs on you. After you come of age, you can think or do anything you like. It would appear that they weren't too oppressive and it would appear they were quite open-minded because they raised an atheist. It would appear that you are the one who is oppressive because you want to raise other children to think like you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

No, my parents are both atheists as well, the only reason i went to that school was because it was the best school in the area. However adults do not have the right to impose their theistic beliefs on their children, just as they have no right to impose their political ideologies on them. Children are trusting of their parents because in the majority of situations their parents are doing what is best for them. What i believe parents should do is to raise their children to be open minded about belief regardless of their own beliefs. Therefore any parents should educate their children about different faiths (including atheism although it is not really a faith) in a totally balanced and fair manner with no predjudice. This allows children to make up their own mind about their own personal beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:48, 21 April 2007

::Ever wonder why the religious school was the best school in the area? Have you ever once considered the possibility that this school was better because the religious school wasn't attempting to relearn the lessons of the past? This school already had a functioning set of moral codes and they didn't need to wander through the maze of pitfalls in our new ACLU-friendly world of multi-culturalist moral equivelancy? Or perhaps you think the school was better because of dumb luck?

::As defined above, adults do not have the right to impose their beliefs on children. However, ''parents'' have a right (and more importantly a duty) to impose their beliefs on children. Parents should educate their children in the way that feels best to them.

::But what you fail to comprehend is that '''anything''' you teach children is a view point. You're just upset because you want everyone else to teach your view point. Your viewpoint embraces moral equivalism and the belief that all religions are equal. That is a viewpoint. It may or may not be valid, but the fact is, it is a viewpoint. It is just another value-set. It may or may not be more valid than the values of another parent. That's an argument that can be had, but it's not at issue here.

::The issue is that you want other parents to teach their children what you believe. Furthermore, you think it's immoral that they won't teach their children your values. Don't you think that's a little silly? Do you think you're any different from the fundamentalist Christians who are upset because you're not teaching your child about Jesus? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 05:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Imposing values on other people's children==

Yes i did think about why my school was the best school in the area. The reason was that it was the richest, as it was a private school and charged massive fees for attendance. And its moral codes are almost indistinguishable from the school i attended after, which was an international college and had no religious affiliation. No adults do not have a right to impose their beliefs on children. Parents also do not have this right. To impose a personal belief on a trusting child is not morally right. Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe. I believe that all parents should teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice. Up until a certain age, say 13, children cannot believe in anything purely because it makes sense to them and, if allowed by their parents, many children do make up their own religion for a while or switch repeatedly between religions until they reach a point of maturity where they can make a choice based upon what they have learned. Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:37, 21 April 2007

::You absolutely don't make any sense. I always think ''ad hominem'' attacks are inappropriate, so I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking you, but based upon the evidence (spelling, grammatical & punctuation errors) I'm beginning to doubt your claim that your private school was the best in the area. Furthermore, I doubt that the religious indoctrination in your school was oppressive based upon the fact that you obviously attended the school, but don't share the school's values. I can't help but tell you that once again you have posted something which does not make logical sense.

::You wrote:
:::"''Exploiting childrens trust for theistic purposes is never morally right, whether the parent is teaching a religion or atheism.''"
::Of course exploiting anyone (most especially children) is never morally right. This is because according to Merriam Webster Online "exploit" means "to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage <''exploiting migrant farm workers''>". But you haven't laid even a meager basis for this wild accusation. Who are you accusing of exploiting children and for what gain? Are you trying to say that parents are exploiting their own children? What do parents gain from that?

::You write,
:::"''Yes they should educate them in the way they see fit however they should not impose upon them theistic beliefs, as these beliefs often stay with the child for life purely because they trusted their parents and not because they thought out exactly how the felt the world worked and how their beliefs fitted with that. No i do not want parents to teach their children what i believe.''"
::In the first sentence you describe your "beliefs" (which is just a different term for your "religion") and furthermore you demand that parents teach their children your values. In the second sentence you state the exact opposite. Perhaps the silliest thing you imply is that it is somehow dangerous or bad to trust your parents and teachers. If one can't trust ones parents or teachers, then who can one trust?

::I very seriously doubt you have learned much if anything through this process you describe above. I doubt you have tested how the world works to verify the claims of teachers and parents. For example, I'm pretty sure you trusted your Driver's Education teacher when he told you that "green means go". You didn't feel the need to experiment with driving on red first. I doubt you ever verified any claims made in the DMV Manual by using the scientific method and a double-blind study. I'm pretty sure that you trust that when you flip a light switch and turn on the boob-tube that electrons will serve your will and pleasure. But, I doubt you have actually flown a kite in a thunderstorm to verify that electricity exists. By the same token, I doubt you need to violate any of the Ten Commandments to agree that these simple laws are for the benefit of all of humanity. I'm sure you agree that children don't need to experiment with adultery, murder or lying. They're better off just taking their parents' word that these are bad things.

::The reason you agree is because it's just plain silly to waste time verifying every claim of trusted parents and teachers. Therefore, the issue for you is not that "children need to reason things on their own".

::The real issue for you is that you are an atheistic evangelist and you are frustrated because some people aren't open to receiving your message. You are frustrated because some people trust their parents more than they trust you.

::Buck up, trooper. You should satisfy yourself with the many victories of the secular progressive agenda. For example, traditional parents were forced to allow people like you to ban prayer and religious discussion from our schools. This should satisfy you. Now you can safely raise your children without fear that they will overhear a prayer and thus they might accidentally become infected with religion. You have successfully had the 10 Commandments removed from many courtrooms. Be happy because you've already won all you can logically win.

::The only thing left for you is to take away more freedom from others to practice their religion and teach their religion to their children. You're not satisfied with leaving them to do what they want to do. Instead, you want to teach other people's children to force parents (and I quote) to "''teach their children the logic and the mental reasoning that is needed for a child to make a choice about religion when the time comes for them to make that choice.''" Why do you feel the need to force other people not to talk about religion until the child is thirteen?

::My guess is that you believe this because you can't seem to understand that your personal opinion about religion '''is''' just another religion. I'm quite sure that you are trying to be a good person. I'm quite sure that you want to teach other people your religion because you want what's best for the child. But in America we have a concept called "Freedom of Religion". Because of our Freedom of Religion, you are prohibited from ramming your value-set down the throats of other people's children.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I admit you have quite easily picked out some flaws in the way i have argued my point, and you are right in about that paragraph where i contradict myself. I shall attempt to explain myself more clearly. I do not think all children should be taught my beliefs. That is the most important part. My beliefs are of the atheistic kind, as you already know. What i think is that children should not be indoctrinated into any religion or set of beliefs. If the person chooses at a later date to be a christian or muslim or atheist, good on them. But, to come to your point on how we trust what certain people tell us about certain things, like the driving instructor when it comes to driving and so on, children trust their parents. That is because the vast majority of parents do have their childrens best interests in mind all the time. However some do use this trust, often without intending to, to teach their child to believe what they believe about God, or lack thereof (you are right about exploiting, it was the wrong word to use in that situation). My arguement in a nutshell: Children should have freedom of religion. What i mean by that is that they should not be influenced by their parents. Because many people do not have freedom of religion, in America or elsewhere (i should point out that freedom of religion is part of the Australian constitution as well) as they did not realise they had a choice. They have always been brought up to believe that Christianity was right, or that Islam was right, etc. and because it is from their parents whom they trust, they do not question this, and they are often denied the tools with which to apply logic to religious arguements.

Just as an aside to my main point, the ten commandments aren't actually such a great set of morals to live by. The very first commandment violates freedom of religion : thou shalt worship no other god but me. Also, according to the commandments, disrespecting your parents results in being stoned to death. And to compound it, thou shalt not kill, does not apply to people who are not the same religion as you. When taken the way they were intended, they aren't such a good set of morals to live by. [[User:Bolly Ottihw:Bolly Ottihw]] 14:57, 23 April 2007
::I won't waste time defending the Ten Commandments, something I belive to be a foundation of everything good in Western Civilization. The courts have agreed to remove the Ten Commandments from public life and I am not in a position to change the law, so I obey the law.

::But I will repeat the following in the hopes that you might understand this concept. Your opinion about religion, in other words "your personal definition of freedom of religion" is just another religion. It is clear that you want other parents to teach your definition of "freedom of religion" to other children.

::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Age at which sex education should be taught==

Regarding the interesting tangent: to what particularly are you referring? Are you trying to debate the age at which sex education should be imposed upon children?

This is a complicated issue because there are several related factors. Most churches teach that sex outside of marriage is adultery, a sin and a mistake. But it is my personal opinion, that church and religion is a guideline and the morals espoused therein are ideals. Ideally one never lies. Ideally one never commits adultery. But here in the real world, there are a good many liars and adulterers (myself included in both counts). Additionally, most parents think that sex under the age of 18 is a mistake. Most everyone agrees that sex under the age of 16 is a mistake. Does it happen in the real world? Yes it happens. Beyond the basic biological functions of sex, sexuality is about morality. Certainly every child over the age of 13 should be taught something about the biology of sex. But what of the morality of the sex, the politics of sex and the religious or spiritual aspects of sex? These are much more complicated and personal issues and these issues should be handled within the family.

I think it's important to teach young teens "where babies come from." I think it's important to leave discussions about homosexuality, adultery and abortion to the family and church. But my original point is not that I presume to know how or when to push sex education. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:What i find interesting is that you assume that the church knows more about homosexuality than homosexuals. And regarding this, the church brings 2000 year old arguements to this subject without considering how it applies in todays society. In the past homosexuality would not have been profitable as it would not have benifited the tribe in anyway compared to heterosexual sex. In this age, there is no lack of benefit from not having children and so there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The other thing i disagree with is that here is a religious aspect to sex. Sex should be a coupling between two people who share a great love between each other. Again, that doesnt always happen, however it is essential that children learn this at the same time they learn about the biological side of sex. [[Bolly ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:47, 24 April 2007

::Of course, that's your opinion and your entitled to it. You've got a right to live your life however you want. For me the choice is obvious. On one hand I have 2000 to 10000 years of wisdom. On the other hand, there's some dude on the Internet {{strike personal remark|who doesn't know how to write proper English, but }} who claims to know more than the Church, and Thomas Aquinas. All I ask is that you let others live their lives the way they want. Is that too much to ask? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Did you just make a personal remark? (I should block your account for 1 second. ;-)

I apologize if I offended anyone. I don't believe in ''ad hominem'' attacks. I think they are rude and pointless. However, if someone admits that they don't write properly in a forum where writing is the only means of communication, then they have openned the door to commentary by others. I'm quite sure you're just kidding anyway, I hope this doesn't sound too stern. I'm just tired right now. I was up late, up early and I'm facing a long day. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists have it all figured out ... ==
My point above in ''Selective application of logic'' is that it looks very hypocritical for liberals to want to teach children about sex as young as possible, but the same crowd doesn't want to teach children religion until after they are suspectible to corruption and experimentation.

What amateur philosophers like Bolly don't seem to understand is that theologians, philosophers and generations of people with more time on their hands than all of us have already put a great deal of effort and experimentation into evolving a set of moral codes and sound religious creeds. Bolly is naive enough to expect the unreasonable notion that any '''one''' man can compete with the thoughts and knowledge of countless generations who have gone before him. He honestly thinks he can invent a personal philosophy and religious-code based upon his individual experiences. He believes that his own personal philosophy can rival the combined thoughts of generations of philosophers and theologians.

/begin rant: We as modern humans don't have to invent medicine, or geology, or build a TV set and write computer code. That's already been done by others! We can stand on their shoulders. Can you imagine how silly and presumptive it sounds to those former atheists like myself when they read that Bolly thinks he knows how the universe works and that he can definitively say that he understands the nature of God?

Bolly doesn't know the first thing about God or philosophy, but he wants to teach other people's children his credo of experiment with all religions and then become an atheist. I know why [[Thomas Aquinas]] and [[Socrates]] and even [[Aleister Crowley]] are famous (or infamous as the case may be), but I don't know why Bolly presumes to know what's best for other people's children. /end rant.

You don't have to invent moral codes or laws or waste time experimenting with life's dead-ends. You can look up the answer in the book of your choice and things will be so much easier for you.

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I have explained that it is not hypocritical, as i believe they should be taught at the same age, neither
before the other.

I am not naive enough to think that i can rival any of the great philosophers in logic and philosophy, however i dont think i would have any trouble outthinking Thomas Aquinas, for example. The reason for this is that he (and others like him) used their religious credibility to establish themselves as philosophical geniuses when in fact, he was not much smarter then anyone of the time, and certainly not smarter then the average uni graduate today. This can be amply demonstrated by his '5 proofs' of gods existence which are more full of holes than a swiss cheese.

To compare moral codes to medicing or geology is not an adequate comparison. The basic ideas of medicine and geology are based on sound proof and will not change much within the next thousand years. On the other hand, moral codes are always changing depending on the society that they are employed by. Look at the change in opinion about non-caucasian people over the past 200 years! only 100 years ago it was considered the height of stupidity to consider an african american the equal of a white man, yet today, even though there is still far to much prejudice in the world, it is generally accepted that there is no difference between any of the races of humanity. The great thinkers of one age would be considered backwards and redundant if they were transported in time to today.

I do not presume to know the nature of god. I do know, within myself, that god does not exist and i am content with that knowledge. You say you were an atheist, i would like to know what converted you to christianity.

No you do not need to waste time experimenting with dead ends, however because i believe in freedom of religion, i think it would only be fair that children are shown all the alternative modes of beliefs.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:00, 24 April 2007

::Fine. Show your children and leave others alone.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== This is an invalid question ==

I've stayed away from the debates on Conservapedia, and this one is an example of why. I'm only here now because I was asked for my input.

The problem with the question is that "religion" is not defined. On my [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philip_J._Rayment#.22Religion.22 Wikipedia user page] I've listed some of the main ways that the word "religion" is used:
{{QuoteBox|
# A set of beliefs on which one bases one's life
# Belief in a deity or deities (e.g. Christianity is a religion)
# A particular set of rituals (e.g. He is practising his religion)
# A particular broad set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Christian, Muslim, or Hindu?)
# A particular narrower set of beliefs (e.g. Which religion are you? Methodist, Baptist, or Catholic?) }}

I further say there:
{{QuoteBox|No. 2 is, in my opinion, an arbitrary subset of No. 1. People believe in multiples gods (polytheism), everything-is-god (pantheism), one god (monotheism) or no god (atheism). Pantheism and atheism don't fit into definition No. 2, yet to consider them somehow "different" is arbitrary and self-serving ... . Thus I use definition No. 1 in preference to No. 2, and argue that atheism (and related views such as secular humanism) are religions, every bit as much as Christianity is. The difference is simply how many gods one believes in.}}

So if "religion" is a worldview (or ''ideology'' if you prefer), then it follows that ''everybody has one'', by its very nature and definition. How can one then ask if it is morally wrong?

Of course the person who asked the question obviously didn't have that definition in mind. But which one did he have?

To a Christian, Christianity is No. 1: a core set of beliefs on which one bases one's life. I would hope that it is obvious even to atheists that one cannot help but base one's actions on one's beliefs. So in that sense, "religion" comes before children, because when dealing with children, one ''must'' deal with them according to one's beliefs. That is why everyone, even atheists, do so.

To an atheist (who conveniently would not describe atheism as a religion), "religion" is a "optional extra". And on that basis, clearly children's welfare should come before "optional extra" beliefs.

To recap, the problem here is that there is no definition of what is intended by "religion" in this question, let alone any actual agreement by opposing viewpoints.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

This is dead-on correct. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

We do not 'conveniently' choose not to describe atheism as a religion. Atheism is defined as : a lack of belief. Lack of belief is not a religion. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 12:02, 24 April 2007

:Atheism is not a lack of belief. It is an ardent ''belief'' that there is no God. And even ignoring that point, you ''do'' have core beliefs, which can be considered your worldview/ideology/religion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When split up: A-Theism. no-belief. I do not ardently believe god does not exist. I dont think god exists. If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic.

I do have core beliefs. That does not consitute religion except in your definition. And i would argue that that is not religion, that is simply morality dressed up. My worldview is not my ideology or religion, because it would be a really weird religion compared to the main ones around today.

[[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:57, 24 April 2007

:According to the Oxford dictionary[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/atheism?view=uk], the "atheism" means "the belief that God does not exist". The prefix "a-" can mean "without", but it can also mean "not", and "theism" is a reference to God, not just belief. Not all atheists hold their belief in no god as strongly, but for many atheists, it is a ''belief'' in no god.
:It is not "my definition". It is one of several dictionary definitions. The rest of your last two sentences don't make sense. You have not explained how atheism is not a religion yet Christianity is. As I quoted myself above, any such distinction is arbitrary and self-serving.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Bolly says, ''If evidence emerged that god was real and that it could be proved then i would acknowledge his existence. Until then i remain atheistic. '' Evidence for God lies around us in all directions and in all things. (See other topics herein for a few examples.) The reason you don't see evidence of God is your picture of God has nothing to do with what God is about. God is not some magical being. God is not flying spaghetti. God does not defy logic. God is logic. In your mind the great machine of the univers happened out of sheer luck. What's the difference between sheer luck and God? Aren't they the same thing? Hopefully I can give you a clue where to find God by telling you where to look.

God is in the details. The electrons are busy doing their thing. The subatomic particles are inside the protons hard at work doing whatever they do to make matter do what it does. Complex chains of molecules describe how to build a human being more efficiently than any code written by any programmer.

God is in the everyday. God is in the mother who cares for her child. God is in the man who jumps into freezing water to save a stranger. God is in the reason you feel good when you do good things, even when they aren't fun.

God is in the grandeur. God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time.

God is everywhere, everywhere but where you're looking. You're looking for god to do something other than what the universe already does. You're presumption is that the universe is fantastic, wonderfully complicated, a well-oiled machine, but you expect something over and above all of this. ''Yeah the universe is vastly complicate, but what have you done for me lately?''

The naivety of the atheist lies in the belief that the universe itself is not evidence of God. By Bolly's definition, God is only evidenced by something beyond the atheist's explanation and comprehension. By this definition you'll never find God, because if you could comprehended the magical proof of God and God could be explained, then it would not longer be magical and no longer beyond comprehension! [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely it is enough to gaze upon the vastness and awe inspring vistas of the universe without having to attribute it to some other being. Your above definition of god: "God is in the remotest galaxies filled with stars unknown and possibilities unconceived. God is in the bending of light and the relativity of time." seems to me to be more naive then my atheism. You are simply defining the universe but replacing it with god.

I would like to see some of this 'proof' of gods existence for so far i have seen nothing that comes remotely close to convincing me that god exists. On the other hand, there is no need for god in this world. Science has come very close to completly shut out godly influence in the creation of life and the universe.

The universe has not come about out of sheer luck. The strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and quantum theory all allow us to model the creation of stars, planets and black holes in a purely logical manner. If you wish to call that logic and those laws 'God' then you are free to do so. But then god is not a being who can be worshipped or who answers prayers or makes miracles. Then God simply becomes another name for the universe with no added baggage of being the creator. I trust that this dismisses your last point about the magical proof of god. You are welcome to call the universe what you will, however don't expect many people to address prayers to the law of gravity.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:50, 26 April 2007

:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, well i was arguing under the assumption that you are a theist, when you are in fact a deist. I do not believe in either type of god, or any kind of god whatsoever, the magical bogeyman, the sentient universe or whatever others someone comes up with. When you say 'we' though i am a little confused, as the majority of religious people seem to be theists. Please correct me if this is a wrong impression however. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 20:54, 28 April 2007

==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (''i.e.'' God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:That's not the God I know. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::As a godless, atheistic, morally-bankrupt existentialist, I have to say I disagree with this "assessment." If I am to take what you say at face value I come to the immediate conclusion that atheism is still correct. If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....

:::I think of the universe this way: I don't know how it came to be, but I assume it was a chemical and physical event, not supernatural. I know that this "stuff" doesn't have to have a plan in order to exist. There need not be a man in the sky to protect me from everything. I don't need to pray to something that I will succeed in life because there is no one listening. But, I'm not sad about this, I don't feel alone or unloved by the big ol' scary universe. Rather, I feel emboldened to take moral actions when I can.

:::Camus is my hero. His basic equation boils down to this: once a person realizes that there is no god they have two choices--suicide or a "faith flight." That is, if one accepts the religious view of things. If Camus is correct, and existence does indeed precede essence, then there is a third choice, the philosophy of moral action. Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.

:::Now, since I don't believe everything has a plan, and that I have a moral obligation to help my fellow man (and woman), I have an obligation to come to sites like this and try to fix them. Not by including so-called "liberal bias." Rather, the point is to make sure truth trumps propaganda. Wether I like it or not, I have a duty to help fix this garbage. I liken it to watching a child roll their tricycle toward the street. You, the adult, are standing there and you can see a truck bearing down on the child. Do you try and help her, or do you pray? I must take action and this website affords me a chance to help everybody. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You have mistaken my meaning, despite repeating exactly what I said:

::''If "god" is a synonym for "everything" then I am moved to think of the everything as all the mass in the universe. I am typing on some god, sitting on some god and had a delicious bowl of god for breakfast this morning. But I don't think that's what you meant....''

This is indeed exactly what I meant. So in fact, there is a god. The question is God sentient or not. Does God have thoughts, plans, etc. Or is the universe a jumble of meaningless matter that is and always was. A tangental thought to ponder: auantum mechancics seem to suggest that reality can change depending on the observer.

For those who say "this is not the God I know". Indeed it is the God you. Here's the line of logic:

::1. God = Everything
::2. Therefore God exists. (And the corrollary, atheism is ridiculous.)
::3. Now there is a choice: one can choose to believe that God is sentient; or one can deny the sentience of God despite overwhelming of evidence to the contrary.
::4. Then, if God is sentient then what can we mortals know of God? Where will we find His truths? We might find them in science. We find them in religion. We each find out own personal truth in different ways.

If you make it to step 4, the argument becomes which religion is best. Which truth makes the most sense to you. Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, they all have their own personal arguments. I won't waste time debating religion when atheists are in the room. It's pointless, because they haven't made the logical step to 3.

If your mind doesn't make the leap to step 3, there is no point in discussing morals. In fact, it's ridiculous to postulate morals or philosophy because the universe is meaningless. For those who are at this point in personal growth: thine only commandment is ''do what thou wilt''. It is pointless to do anything other than that which makes you happy if you get to step 2 but don't make the jump to step 3. However, if you can comprehend step two but don't believe in 3 then all this poppycock about morals and goodness is ridiculous. Furthermore, when an atheist discusses morals and philosophy it only only serves to prove there is a God. This is because the atheist's spirit (which he doesn't believe believe exists) nags and naws at him like the quite voices of angels.

If you make it to step one but can't make it to step 2, then you are a) either incapable of higher thought; or b) intellectually dishonest because you fear where this argument leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, what you are trying to do, in logic, is referred to as an [[enthymeme]]. However, your argument does not work. First, you must show HOW god equals everything. Otherwise you can say anything. Thus:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

:::But you tried to do something else. You tried to insert statements as if they are quantifiable terms. Sort of like saying, "E = mc2" ''Well what do those letters mean?'' "Elephants equal mustard and cows times themselves." You've defined nothing except a lack of basic logical principles.

Being intellectually dishonest would be if I said, well, "god likes strawberries more than cherries." When you ask ''why'' I'll say "because they taste better." Asserting your opinion as fact is what makes it less than true. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin, why do you care if a child rides into traffic on a tricycle? What do you gain if she is saved? What do you lose if she dies? It sounds a lot like your a theist to me. You obviously think the universe has some meaning or some order. If the universe has order and meaning then it only follows that you believe the universe is God. The next step to make is to find out where God best reveals his truth. You think that his truth is best revealed in the philosophical musings of your hero Camus. Camus wrote your Bible. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:34, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::It might be difficult to understand but I did not say that god=toast. I agree that God is not toast. Is "Everything" that is to say the universe as a whole sentient or not? Simple question. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:50, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Furthermore, by your example:

::#god = toast
::#therefore toast exists
::#a = b, thus b = c

By your definition, then it would be possible to know the true nature of toast. We pretty well already know how to make toast. It's a silly diversion from the question you are afraid to ask yourself. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

No it isn't. I have already asked myself--for years--if there is a god. I have come to the conclusion ther very likely isn't. I am not an atheist (they are 100% sure) but I sit at about 99.9% sure. I have diverted nothing--being intellectually honest with myself meant I had to realize there was no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As the one who said, "this is not the God I know", I reject the first point in the line of logic, that God equals everything. I am a monotheist, not a pantheist. God ''made'' the universe, He ''isn't'' the universe.
:Flippin, your counter-logic is wrong. Everwill's logic skipped a step. His logic was:
::1. God = Everything
::1A. We know that everything exists.
::2. Therefore God exists.

:So in order to match Everwill's argument from logic, your counter logic should have been:
::1. god = toast
::1A. we know that toast exists
::2. therefore god exists.
:But you got point 2 back to front.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Phil,

So as I understand it you think God is outside of the universe? God is apart from the universe. God is not everywhere at all times, rather he is somewhere else. Where is that somewhere else and what reason have you to believe (other than blind faith) that somewhere else exists? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
:God is a spiritual being. He is "outside" the universe—a physical place—in the sense that He is not part of it. But being an omnipresent spiritual being He is not confined to a physical place, so He is not outside in a geographical sense. He is everywhere at once, but not synonymous with the universe. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:39, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that God is not "confined" to anything. But I'm not sure there's any value to arguing the fine differences between "everything", the universe and God. We're not philosophers, and others have explored this better than we can. I think there is some value to helping atheists understand why the question is not whether God exist or not. The real question is whether God is an omnipresent sentience or not. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:09, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill, your argument that god = everything is preposterous. Firstly, i do not agree with the first statement you make, that god is everything. I would like some hard proof, or at least a convincing argument that god equals everything before the first premise of your argument.

If, for arguments sake, we assume that your first premise is correct, then the only question is, as you say, whether everything (or god) is sentient? Again, you can say so, however i want proof. I have yet to see a plan in the universe or everything. According to the current predictions by astronomers and physicists, the universe is set to expand for an indefinite period and that eventually all the stars will run out of hydrogen and go out, and that everything will spread further and further apart at faster and faster speeds until the universe tears itself apart. Can you explain the plan in this? It displays all the theories about gravity, dark matter, quantum theory and strong and weak nuclear forces. There is nothing to show an added level of intelligence in this everything.

Please do not assume that your first premise is correct until you show some evidence for this, otherwise your argument is entirely invalid.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:06, 26 April 2007

:::You must have made things pretty difficult for your alegbra teacher. The teacher presents the following:

::::''x + 1 = 2''
::::''X is'' unknown.
::::''Solve for X.''

:::To which you reply, "Prove that X is unknown and a mathematical value. X is a letter and has no value, thus algebra is entirely invalid."

:::Hopefully you see how silly your reply is, but I'll grant you that I may have given you too much credit above. Perhaps the concept is a little too complicated for you to understand as I presented above. I'll try harder.

:::If the word "God" is synomous with "everything" then I assume you believe God exists. If the word "God" means "magical bogeyman who meddles in the affairs of mankind" then I assume we agree that God does not exist. In the framework of the argument above, God means everything.

:::Now I'll put that aside and try to explain the concept without using words that offend your sensibilities. The universe shows organization and complexity beyond any single human's comprehension at every level. The components of a cell, atomic structures, galactic structures, geological structures, biologal structures. It's vastly intricate, interconnected and complicated. The universe functions like an immense machine and so far as we can tell, it will continue to function for quite some time and it functioned long ago.

:::With this knowledge one has to make a leap of faith, and science has taught us that the simple solution is usually the right solution. The simple solution is that the universe is organization implies design, design implies designer. The only other plausible choice is that the everything that every happens, happened or will happened is the result of something that makes a lottery ticket or a lightning strike look like a easy money and a daily occurence. Now, I respect your right to belive that, but I think it's sort of naive.

:::So you think the universe is randomness. I think the universe has order. Now to work back into the definitions presented above. I think God has order. You think God is randomness. Whether we call it God, the universe or everything, it makes no difference. I'm not trying to take away your right to believe what you want. I'm not trying to tell you to go to church. I'm just trying to find a common ground on which we can agree. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Alright, now i understand the point you were making. I do not agree with it, however I see now where you are coming from.

The reason that the whole of the universe is so incomprehensible to us, is because we evolved on a scale where the only distances that mattered were a couple of hundred kilometres to about a centimetre. That was all that was needed to survive as ''Homo erectus'' in a hostile world. It was not necessary for us to be able to understand a cell or an atom or a star. The complex machinery that is our brain is not built for such things as the universe or quantum theory. This is why it is so hard to comprehend.

The simple solution is the right solution in the majority of cases, however the simple solution in this case is not one of design. Darwin has already shown that while animals and plants may look designed they are in fact the end result of a massive series of gene mutations and adaptations. In this case, there is no designer and thus your point that organization implies design implies designer is proved wrong in the case of natural life. Simply because there is no such explanation for how the universe has come to be in such a way does not mean that there is no explanation that does not need to attribute it to a designer. Just think that 300 years ago, noone thought that something complex could come from something less complex as it balked common sense. However our common sense only applies to simple, mundane everyday things, not the huge distances and complexities of space or an atom.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007

==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
::::On what basis do can you decide that something is "moral"? If I saw a truck bearing down on a child, I would try and help her, because God loves her and He would want me to help, and I would be praying at the same time. But why would you help her? From an atheistic point of view, she is just an accidental combination of a bunch of chemicals facing a life of suffering, disease, and ultimate death. What's the point in helping? Why not just let chance shortcut the process and save her all those years of pain? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Because I feel an obligation to help her, as I said. Saying it is moral means nothing. It is the action one takes. I believe that it is right to keep someone alive rather than kill them (what the above example allows for). If I let her die, she cannot make her own decisions--I am taking away her inalienable right to decide her own fate, if you will. I have no right to hurt someone else--that takes away from their right to choose how they will spend their existence.

::Yes, she is accidental, as are you and me, but I have no right to infringe on the rights of a sentient human being by allowing them to die. Standing by and watching her die would make me just as guilty as putting a gun to her head and pulling the trigger. Morality is based on this single point: existence precedes essence. We are all responsible for our own choices with regard to how they affect others.

::I don't need a religion to tell me that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Just another quick note--don't you think you have an obligation to do something outside of a god's wrath? When you say "because god loves her" you tacitly give up the responsibility for taking action. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you feel an obligation to help her. But why? I'd say that it's because you've been raised in a country with a Christian heritage and have absorbed some of its values. But I'm asking what basis atheism provides for that. Why do you feel that it is "right". What if I "feel" differently? Who is right and who is wrong? Where did her "inalienable right to decide her own fate" come from? Does she in fact have such a right? I assert that you ''do'' need a religion—or more specifically, God—to tell you that, because atheism can't.
:::::I fail to see how I'm giving up responsibility for taking action. On the contrary, it's because God loves her that I have that responsibility.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, atheism has almost nothing to do with it. I don't think about, or believe in god the way you don't believe (I assume) in the flying spaghetti monster.

::But saying that "because god loves her...I have a responsibility" is equivalent to saying, "I'll go to Grandma's because it makes Mom happy." It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you.

::Finally, that "right to exist" could also be thought of as a prohibition against her death. That comes from the notion that even though our very existence is absurd, I don't have a right to decide how you will affect it. To throw my hands up and say "but who is right and who is wrong" is just reducing the argument to multiplicity, and thus relativism.

::I guess what I'm saying is I don't have a right to decide for that child so I will save her and let her make her own choice. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:::"''It isn't you who has decided anything, rather your fear of god's wrath that's made the decision for you''". On the contrary, I have ''decided'' to do what God would like, rather than do something for a selfish reason of it being something that ''I'' would like.
:::You say that the "right to exist" comes from the notion that you don't have a right to decide how you will affect it, yet by saving the girl you ''have'' decided to affect things. Yes, throwing your hands up is relativism, but the opposite of relatives is absolutes, and absolutes only come from God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes exactly, you have decided what god would like. Other people can have a different understanding, people such as Adolf Hitler who decided that god thought it was right that he should kill all jews, as they were "christ killers". Or the young man who shot a doctor who practised abortions because "god would have wanted me to do it". The fact that you have to interpret a book to decide your morals means that several different people can gain different moral codes from the same book, while there are very few people who would disagree that wanton killings would lead to society fracturing. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:17, 26 April 2007

::Adolf Hitler was an atheist. Beyond this factual error, I don't understand your point. We all decide what god would like. (It's call concept called ''free will''.) The underlying philosophy and truths found in all major religions are the same. Is this an accident? I suppose you would answer yes. In fact, the entire universe and everything that led to this moment is one collossal accident that happened for your benefit. Children have no idea what their parents endure to provide for them. In the same way the atheist scoffs at the mysteries of the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:03, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ottihw, no, I haven't decided what God would like. I have ''learnt'' what God would like be reading what He has told us. Everwill is correct that Hitler was an atheist, but I disagree that we can all gain different morals from the Bible. That is in effect saying that words have no meaning, so we can choose to understand them any way we want. Should I choose to understand your words any way I want, or should I presume that we are both using the same convention of English (in this case) language and that you mean what you've said? Besides, if you and I can both derive different morals from reading the Bible, how is it any better if we ''don't'' read the Bible? Surely that would mean even ''less'' restraint on what we choose our morals to be? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Which is another way of saying that Phil is a "strict constructionist" when it comes to the Bible. I think the mullahs in Iran (though they use a different book) agree with him in this way. I'm more of a deconstructionist and have more doubts about the Bible being the "Word of God". I think God's Words are way too complicated for one man or one book to describe. However, I would agree on 99% of the big picture with Phil and probably with the so-called atheists in here. That to me is evidence of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I happen to believe that God is clever enough to put things in words that we can understand. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

God is very clever indeed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

(copied below).

: Standard non-answer... How do you know they are accurate, which version? The differences are quite spectacular at times. Not to mention that even if one accepts your "one-step translation" proposition we are talking (in the case of Genesis) about an account put down long after the event itself (even by your time scale), and then translated from languages with enough nuances to allow for all these different translations that arise today... Not to mention that the "accurate enough to know what God was saying" ignores the reality that if people debate it to the degree we do today, it sure doesn't seem so crystal clear... I say the the story of Genesis clearly reads like a parable or metaphor... you believe it is clearly meant to be taken literally, though you allow that some portions of the Bible are not literal... I was asking for the magic footnote that tells us which is which? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::That was not a non-answer; it made valid points. The differences are not that spectacular. Why don't you accept the "one-step translation"? Look in almost any modern version and it will tell you that it was translated from the original languages. I tend to subscribe to the belief that Genesis was originally written in sections by the people that witnessed the events (e.g. Adam himself) and Moses compiled those handed-down written histories into the book of Genesis.
::People debate the Bible to the degree that they do because some people will do anything to avoid the implications of what it is teaching, including calling black white (actually, calling six days billions of years). But that doesn't mean that the text is ambiguous, just that some people will not take it at face value.
::Parable and metaphor have particular linguistic characteristics, and Genesis doesn't have those characteristics, so it is not parable nor metaphor (on the whole; some bits may be). You determine which is which by the language, just as you do in everyday life. If I said that "it's raining cats and dogs", would you wonder if I was being literal or not?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was an atheist. He was brought up a roman catholic, he made several references to God in his speeches and almost everyone who was close to him described him as a 'good practising catholic'. To call him an atheist is in complete denial of all the facts that surround him.

The reason that people can draw different morals from the bible is simple. The bible has been written by hundreds of authors over 900 years, many of whom described the same story in different ways and the vast majority were not written down until many years after the even they were describing. And of course, in the way of any community effort, the book has been 'improved' by several authors down the years, in different languages and often by people who had no idea about the event they were writing about. To call this text "the word of god" and to attempt to draw a single conclusion from this is just plain ridiculous. Why not have a look yourself, and look for the amount of contradictions and just plain weirdness in there.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007

:Please do not parade that old falsehood that Hitler was a Christian. Despite being raised as a Catholic and making out that he was invoking God in his speeches, he realised that the churches would never go along with his policies and planned on eliminating them[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/464].
:I can understand your scepticism towards the Bible, given your view on how it was written. But I reject your views on how it was written. Sure, it was written by quite a few different authors (but not "hundreds"), but under the guidance of God, so it had a single ultimate author. The vast majority was written by eyewitnesses, and the vast majority of the rest by people who knew the eyewitnesses. The Jews respected the Scriptures as God's Word and would not dare alter it, so it was generally not "improved" by other authors (the exceptions being things like authors close to the original authors anyway, as in Joshua writing the final part of Moses' Deuteronomy). And there are no contradictions; at the very least none that can be conclusively shown to be contradictions. Any "weirdness" is likely to be from you not understanding the customs of the time, etc.
:Now I'm sure you will reject most of what I've just said, but the point is that your ''conclusion'' about it's trustworthiness is based on your ''belief'' about how it came to be, yet you present that belief as though it was accepted or self-evident truth. It is neither self-evident nor is it accepted by a lot of people.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:56, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

There is not hard evidence on whether Hitler was in fact religious. The Vatican was a great ally to him in many cases and Goebbals and Himmler both wrote that he was a practising catholic. He refered to himself as the hand of God in many speeches. On the other hand he said things such as "Christianity is the greatest evil the world has seen since the Black Plague". Historians think that he was a Christain until around 1940 where he converted to agnostiscism or atheism. The main point is that most of his plans and programs had begun well before this such as the holocaust and the complete indoctrination of German children with his propoganda (almost like churches today). As an aside he could still be christian while disliking the church.

There is a point on which we cannot be reconciled. You believe that god guided the writing of the bible, i don't believe he exists and therefore that the writers were often flying by the seat of their pants as they wrote. However to deny that there were 'improvements' is a little bit ignorant. As an example, the story of the ressurection was not written until over 200 years after Jesus's death.

There are many contradictions in the bible, not the least of which come in the story of the birth of Jesus. John writes in his gospel that several of his followers were surprised that Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem, while of course, Mark and Luke write that he was born there. However while Mark has Mary and Joseph always having lived there, Luke gets them there by refering to a census of Israel by the Romans that results in Joseph having to return to his home town. Unfortunately for Luke, the records show that the census occured in 6 AD, after King Herod's death. As well as this, there are gospels that the church decided to leave out of the final version of the bible, including the gospels of Judas, Bartholomew, Nicodemus and Mary Magdalen. What was wrong with these gospels that was right with the four that were chosen? May it have been to the fact that some of them do not portray such a saintly image of Jesus as the others? The gospel of Thomas has stories of a young Jesus abusing his powers by turning his friends into goats or mud into sparrows.

My conclusion about its trustworthiness is based upon the facts that i have read that show that the bible is not such an accurate account after all. And if the writers were guided by god, then how could they have gotten some historical facts so wrong? The creation of the world, Noahs arc, the birth of Jesus, the ressurection and so on. This I think exposes exactly how innacurate the bible is as any sort of record or source of morals.

[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:35, 28 April 2007
:You say that the main point is that many of Hitler's program were started before he stopped being a Christian around 1940, but I'm not sure of the relevance of that as a "main point" when "around 1940" is not known for certain anyway. Secondly, the ''main'' point is not whether or not he was or thought himself a Christian, but whether or not he was acting according to Christian principles. He clearly was not.
:It's rubbish to claim that the record of the resurrection was not written until over 200 years after his death.
:Most bibliosceptic claims of contradictions in the Bible are nothing of the sort, and the one about Jesus' birthplace is a good example. John does ''not'' say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. What he says is that some ''people'' (note: not necessarily "followers") were puzzled by the fact that the Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, whereas Jesus came from the area of Galilee. Both are correct. Jesus was ''born in'' Bethlehem, but ''grew up'' in Galilee. No contradiction; your accusation was not supported by the evidence you provided.
:The issue of the census is not a ''contradiction'', even if Luke got is wrong. But there being a census in 6 AD doesn't preclude there being another census earlier, and in any case, Luke is recognised as being a very accurate historian.
:The "gospels" that you claim that the church "left out" were never "in" to begin with. They were never considered to be part of the Scriptures by the early church.
:Based on the above, your conclusions about the trustworthiness is based on "facts" that are not facts at all. I suggest that you question the trustworthiness of your sources that promulgate such nonsense as "contradictions" such as this.
:The historical facts are ''not'' wrong. Some people have a view that things happened differently, but have no documented evidence to support it, and your argument amounts to saying, "my view is right, so your view is wrong". That's not an argument.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions and Answers==
Plato showed how in a debate one asks questions so that the debaters can pursue the truth together rather than being adversaries. So what I can't understand is why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests? Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you? Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share? Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?

To be more specific you say ''Because I feel an obligation to help her''. What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? Will she pay you? What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

So here are my questions:

::''"Why would you do anything ever which does not serve your immediate self-interests?"''

:::* Atheist says: I might ask you the same thing. I have no short-term interest in this child's death. I have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer).
:::* Theist replies, because there is something, perhaps a spirit or a god, that imparts to ever soul the knowledge of good from evil and right from wrong. Doing evil moves you further from god and thus it does not feel good to do evil (''even when it feels good to do evil''!) This is a shorthand way of saying that when you commit acts which are pleasurable but evil, you feel shallow and empty inside. On the other hand, when one commit acts of kindness without any payback of any kind, one feels good inside. This is something most humans learn as they progress into maturity. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::''"Would you feel guilty about murdering a child to get what you wanted, if no one would punish you?"''

:::* Atheist says: Two parts there: I wouldn't murder a child--as I said--so what is there to feel guilty about? If no one would punish me presupposes I have done this act, so the question is invalidated by the former.
:::* Theist replies, I should hope you wouldn't murder a child, but your reply ducks the obvious answer. Of course I wouldn't murder a child to get what I wanted, but if I did murder a child to get what I wanted I would feel guilty. What causes that feeling of guilty? Is that not proof of a spiritual aspect of life?

::''"Is "good" just an animal instinct that we humans share?"''

:::* Atheist say: It certainly could be. ''"Or do you have a spirit which can discern right from wrong?"'' Reason allows me to discern right from wrong, as I said above. I am compelled to act according to this obligation to help others and not let them have their choice made by another.
:::* Theist says, what is this "reason" you are talking about in an athistic universe. Without God or morality, what is the difference between good and evil or right and wrong? From an atheistic (i.e. Satanic) POV right and wrong are silly concepts. "Good" is just an excuse to chump the strong from their rightful place at the top of the food chain. Don't you agree?

''"What obligates you? Do you have a contract of some kind? <s>Will she pay you?</s> What is the gain for you? What binds you to this vague notion of obligation? Why do you ''feel'' anything about her?"''

:::* Atheist says: Okay, now you're getting to the meat of the matter. I am obligated by this sense of everyone's right to exist. I have no more right to take you're life than I do to steal your bike. Not that those two are equal, but the line of demarcation is the same. It is only selfish in the sense that I ''gain'' when this child is allowed to grow up and make her own choices. If, in the process, I am killed, then I have served my principles. If she dies, then I took moral action and can feel good about my effort. However, if I let her die I am as guilty as any of those Nazi guards at Aushwitz who said ''"I was only following orders."''
:::* Theist replies: your answer implies the existence of God even if you can't see the forest for all the trees. Why does everyone have a right to exist? Because you said so? That makes no sense in your concept of reality. What if my country elects a leader, for the purposes of illustration let's call him ''Adolf Hitler''. Our leader through legal government manuevers manages to establish a process to eliminate what he sees as a cancer on our nation. By your reasoning that leader has a moral imperative to kill Jews BECAUSE he thinks it's best for the nation. From the theist stand-point, we believe that all life is precious, most especially human life. Therefore it doesn't matter what logic, rationale or legal manuevers Hitler makes, killing is wrong.

Atheist summary: As long as you have a choice, to defer your morality to a god, or priest or whatever you ask for figiveness is to shirk your duty to society--that being to think for yourself. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Theist summary: No one ever defers any choices to anyone ever. Each individual is always responsible for his own actions and choices. To clear up your confusion: a theist defers his choices to a priest about as much as a judge in a court room defers his choices to his first year law professor. Religion is a tool to help us understand God. Religion and religious leaders do not speak for God. An "atheist" who follows a moral code is just a theist who doesn't know much about his God because he's too afraid to trust others. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:In point of fact here, I have said I am not an atheist, I am more properly called an agnostic. An atheist, by definition, holds that they have the answer--that there is no god. As an agnostic I am open to the idea that a god exists, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Please don't refer to me as an atheist--it is a different thing altogether. Also, in addition to agnosticism, I am an existentialist--so you could also use that term if you like.

:Finally, I don't have a god-belief so I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done. I do things that I reason are beneficial to society, e.g. actions that foster growth, development and change. I abhor stifling debate and that seems to be the purpose of religion as it is used most of the time. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm comfortable with my approach to all questions. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

You claim that "I don't do things because something tells me a god wants them done". You do things because a little voice inside your head tells you to do things? Who is that little voice?[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't have a "little voice." That is superstition. I use reason. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

It's easy to dodge the obvious with semantics. There is absolutely no question you (and all human beings) have a "little voice", that's not a superstition, that's a fact. The argument is about what is the driving force behind that little voice.

You claim that you simply rationalize everything out through the use of reason, and you are perhaps superior to moral codes found in religion. For example, you won't kill the little child because as you say you "have a long-term stake in her survival (she may grow up and cure cancer)." But if killing the little child would give you a billion dollars, you would kill the child because of the risk versus reward principle found in rationalization. The odds of that little girl inventing a cure for cancer are pretty remote. Furthermore, you might not ever contract cancer. But with a billion dollars you could finance a health care system that would further benefit you and those you deem worthy. That's "reason" at work and to you way of thinking that's much better than silly and archaic notions like "good" or "evil". [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think you have more of a stake in believing that a "non-believer" would like to kill a child for some kind of gain. I don't see it that way. I don't think there is anything that would make me kill a child. That's silly.
::Also, I don't have a "little voice" in my head. People who do I deem to be psychotic or lying. Simple as that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

A hypothetical argument takes a certain statement as an assumption and attempts to analyze it. You seem to be (perhaps intentionally) misunderstanding the hypothetical in the form in which it is presented. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend like you really don't understand because of inability to communicate.

Let's change the hypothetical slightly, you state there there is nothing that would make you kill a child. Why would you never kill a child? I understand that you base this decision on reason, but I don't understand the basis of your reason. Is your reason based upon moral codes? Aren't "moral codes" just superstition to help supress the will of the strong? Is your "reason" based upon what most helps society or is your reason based upon what most helps you? Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?

As the wise philospher Camus/Flippin says, ''Simply put, one must make meaning of their own life and not wait for a god, or religion to do it for them.'' This is all well and good if one is perfect reasonable. But what about people who are unreasonable and who devise a meaning of life exemplified by people like Hitler, Jim Jones, Jeffery Dahmer, Stalin, and Charles Manson? By what right can we impose our value-system upon them?

By the same token, should each individual have the right, nay the duty, to devise his own code of laws and not wait for some legistlature or society to impose those laws upon them? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 15:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
.
==Trying to parse some of this==
:Since I consider myself a good communicator I will try and communicate with you.

:Okay, you said: "Why would you ever do anything to help society which ran counter to your own purposes?" How could one do anything that helped society that didn't help oneself? Maybe I should try and explain that by asking is there really anything that one can do that helps society, yet hurts the self? If one takes an action that helps society, like picking up garbage alongside the road, does not that act help society? And if we agree that it does, how is one harmed by it?

:A reasonable person might say that the individual could get a sunburn. The individual could be hit by a truck. These are true statements, but the probability of these things happening is low (for the truck) and not that dangerous (for a sunburn). But what is the value of picking up debris left by less reasonable citizenry? Do we not gain as a society by having less trash by the roadside?

:A reasonable person might also say, yes, but must I pick up all the debris along the roadside? My answer would be no. The responsibility for cleaning up roadsides is spread equally between us all. We have a shared responsibility to do this because it helps the individual ''and'' the society.

:Now, you also mention examples like Hitler who reasoned that murdering Jews would benefit him. But is Hitler an example of a reasonable man? Honestly? Hitler was more likely sociopathic, which is a disorder that affects one's ability to reason. If we rely on reason to tell us that what is of the greatest benefit for society is of the greatest benefit for the individual, then opposing someone like Hitler, or another damaged person, is reasonable. Thus, we not only have a right to oppose them, we have an obligation to oppose them. Just as we have an obligation to oppose trash on the roadways.

:I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children? Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

:Finally, why do you feel the need to paint me as something less than moral? I have explained this repeatedly yet you do not understand. Is the failure to communicate really mine then? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not trying to paint you as immoral. I've said repeatedly I think you are moral. But I'm trying to work withing your framework to understand the truth (according to you) and I'm trying to understand the source of your morality. Where (according to you) does moral authority flow from?

I thought you said that morals comes from "reason". But as you describe it it seems that morals don't come from "reason", but from your rationalizations. I don't understand why you think your rationlizations are any more valid than the rationalizations of any other person? Of course, millions of Germans agreed with Hitler's rationalization. They were not '''all''' sociopaths. I assume that we agree their rationalization was flawed, but why is it flawed? This seems to indicate that there is some higher moral authority than rationalization. Is there some absolute code of moral authority, or were the Germans simply wrong because they lost the war? What does it matter if they were morally wrong anyway? That was in the past. There is no spiritual world and there is no God. Today is a new day. This is a new minute.

I think you're trying to claim that certain rationalizations is more valid than other rationalizations. If some rationalization is more valid than others, then why don't we as humans attempt to find the true source of the best rationalization possible and then follow that reasoning? If that is not a religion, what is that?

Secondly, I suppose I find it difficult to believe that anyone does anything simply because of "reasoning" alone. In my experince people do good things because it makes them feel good, not because they rationalized and reasoned away the degree of goodness vs. the effort required. Like every other human being, you sometimes do some bad things. After the commission of these acts of badness, why do you feel ''guilty''? If the ends justify the means there shoudl be no such thing as guilt.

Thirdly, what is the point of morality? Who cares? Why not take from the system whatever you can whenever you can. Your actions will not stop the world from spinning. You will not stop the stupid morons who worship the flying spaghetti monster, so why not exploit them? Then you can better use their resources, since you have a higher level of rationalization? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 16:51, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::# Rationalization seems to make the unreasonable, reasonable. That is what religion is for.
:::# Reason, as I have stated serves as a guide. It then becomes automatic.
:::# What you describe are the acts of a person that is unreasonable. I have addressed that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:11, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

What you haven't address is this: who defines what is reasonable? The guy with the biggest gun? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:16, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==The Theist answers==
Here are my answers to your questions:

The theistic-denier states:

::I would not kill a child because doing so can only ''harm'' society. What in that describes to you a failure to communicate? Must one have a "god-figure" to stop them from killing children? If there were no god, would you kill children?

I can think of many incidents of killing children which would benefit society. Our society could harvest children from poverty-stricken regions where resources are depleted and food-shortages are chronic. This is good for the environment and greatly reduces the chance that their children will suffer from famine. Then we could use those children to reseach cancer, AIDs and other diseases. Rather than working on cadavers, young doctors could practice their trade on these children. Then we could pulverize the remains and feed them to hogs. This would provide more food for other people. If you are opposed to killing (because of some fear of the mythic god) you could just enslave the children instead. We have plenty of jobs they can do which will help society more than some miserable existence in a barren wasteland.

Working strictly from a framework of reason and rationalization, why not kill children to better serve society? Furthermore, of course, this rational begs the question: why is the society of any importance at all? Why is "society" any bigger than the individual?

::Please, as one human being to another, it is much easier if you call me an agnostic--which is what I am. I don't call you a gods-worshipper, or whatever. (Jesusfreak I know is a popular perjorative that I don't use either. I am trying to be respectful.) I don't fear god--that isn't the reason to do/not do anything. I don't want anyone to kill me, so I don't kill others. Religion gives those who don't know why they do things a reason to say why they did. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Additionally, the "agnostic" asks:

::Is a strong faith then a barrier to crime? And if so, why would a god allow that in a world/universe they control?

Please understand that at this point, I'm not trying to prove to you my point of view. I'm trying to understand your point of view. So, while I believe that faith is the strongest barrier to crime that I know of, I won't bother to explain why I think this to you because you are clearly more enlightened than I. You've advance beyond the need for some silly god-figure.

What I would like to know is; what is your barrier to crime in the atheistic framework? It appears (based on my example above) that it is something other than reasoning, because I've proven how killing children can be good for society.

I'd be more than happy to answer why God allows suffering in the universe, but the answer to that question is pointless if we don't agree that God exists. Let's not waste time. Hypothetically, I'm agreeing with your argument that the fact that there is suffering in the universe is evidence that there is no god. Let's proceed along your path and see where it leads. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:14, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Religious faith is no more a barrier to crime than atheistic, or agnostic, moral reasoning. In Toronto sometime in the 70's the police went on strike. It took two hours for the first bank to be robbed, and at then end of the strike $3 million worth of damage had been done to shops and almost every bank in the city had been robbed. The vast majority of people who were arrested as a result of the crimes were religious. I'm not suggesting that therefore religion encourages crime, it just shows that it isn't such a barrier to crime as you would think. There is also anecdotal evidence that there are very few atheists and agnostics in prison compared to christians.

:The agnostic and atheistic framework is different from what you seem to think. The value of life is the most important part of my beliefs. This is not because of god or the bible, this is simply because those were the morals that i was brought up with and because they make the most logical sense. If life was not valued, then mass murders would be common and unnoticed as greedy people killed and stole to take what they wanted. This would lead to the breakdown of society as a whole. That is why enslaving and killing third world children is wrong, as they have exactly the same right to life that i do.

:This moral framework is far more effective as a crime barrier because people who use it have thought about why they think things are right and wrong from their own POV. Your framework comes from a book that was writtn 2000 years ago, and therefore not all its morals are up to date with the changing zeitgeist. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:13, 26 April 2007

::You don't advance the argument by pointing to facts that don't answer my questions. This is what I call the ''magician's argument''. The magician's argument goes as follows: there is nothing in the hat therefore the rabbit from the hat must be magic. I don't care about your claims about religion of criminals. I'd like to have answers to my questions. As best as I can see your answer to my hypotheical question is to deny the framework of my hypothetical question. I can only assume that you refuse to answer this line of question undermines your belief set and that's why you won't answer.

::BTW, the reason I am pursuing this line of questions is not because I don't understand the atheistic point of view. I understand the false premises of atheism quite well. This is because for many years, I was an atheist. As I matured I came to realized just how much I didn't know. I still don't know what I don't know, but as the arrogance of youth recedes I begin to know how much I don't know. Thus, I realized atheism was naive and foolish, so I became an agnostic. Since that time, I learned more and came to believe that I am probably a [[deist]] but my search for truth continues. I may yet get more specific in my religious beliefs as I further mature. I will point out to you that it is a universal truth that as we get older we get wiser. It is not a coincidence that churches are full of old people. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:52, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what your point is here. Could you state, in just a sentence or two, what your hypothetical that we are ignoring is? Also, we may need to archive some of this (which I don't know how to do yet.) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 10:08, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The hypothetical (previously stated in a wildly exaggerated example) is: if in truth "reason" is your only guide and if in fact there is no soul, no spiritual world and no God, why do you do good things that don't follow reason? Why don't you do "bad" things that have perfectly good rationale? Your answer to the second question was: devise a better hypothetical because my reasoning is arbitrary and supports whatever rational I choose to follow. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Do you believe that there is absolute moral truth? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 17:57, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Please define an absolute moral truth? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:08, 26 April 2007

==A place for a few more answers==

From the Bible of the Good and Moral Atheist:

"We have evolved the ability to empathize, to share the motivations and feelings of those around us. From this, we
have gained the ability to sympathize with the plight of others, to understand what may be causing them distress or
pain, and to wish, for their sake, that their suffering would stop. Armed with this sympathy, we act in a moral way to
prevent the distress and suffering of others. Our opinions on what constitutes a moral course of action may differ, but
the underlying sympathy is the same."

"With sympathy for others and recognition of the similarities between people, we each build an internal code of the
morality of our actions. We seek to protect innocent children, for we were once children ourselves and needed
protection. We seek a society that does not foster immoral actions, in order to protect the members of society like
ourselves. We feel and internalize various plights and pains of others in this process, and develop a true morality.
American revolutionary and President Thomas Jefferson put it well when he wrote in an 1814 letter, “Nature [has]
implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us
irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.”

Though I am sure this will mean little to a "deist" it is useful to those who at one time tried to find god but realized that the effort was too intellectually dishonest for them to ultimately accept. I think, Everwill, if you are really interested in learning about this and not just baiting the less conservative folk here, you might do well to read some of this material. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/thebgma/BGMA.pdf

::This is exactly my point, but I don't want to jam it down the throats of our resident atheists. Although they don't yet realize it, if you are a moral atheist, you are not an atheist at all, but rather you are a [[deist]]. The slippery slope is: once you realize you are a deist, you begin the search through religions to find a deeper meaning of life and learn more about the true nature of God. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:53, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:But that's just it--I am not a deist because I do not accept there is a god that needs to exist. If that means you are going to call me an atheist, fine, whatever, but otherwise there is no reason to be condescending about "poor little atheists." It just isn't necessary. We feel, if I may be so bold, that ''you'' are the one who is lost. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:14, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Flippin this statement so far as I can tell doesn't seem to based upon reason but rather upon faith. As Thomas Jefferson (a deist) said, “Nature [has] implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses.” In your "Nature" means "good luck" or at the very difference "luck". I don't see any difference between "good luck" and God. You think these are unrelated concepts, but I'm not sure why. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

If I sound condescending it is because you are no different from a fundamentalist muslim. That is you refuse to critically examine your belief set objectively. To answer hypothetical questions will lead you in a direction you refuse to go. You demand that others prove the unprovable as evidence that there is a God. Understand this: we agree that God is neither a flying spaghetti monster, nor a bearded old man laying on a cloud. Relax, I understand your position completely, because I've been where you are. It's okay. Each finds his own path in due time.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe there is a reason it is "unprovable." Truth be told, I think what passes for "good luck" is also random. Just as the rest of universe, this computer I'm typing on and the bowl of Cheerios I had for breakfast. It occurred through chance that this came about--not by a bearded man in the sky waving a wand. If you are looking for fantasy, watch Harry Potter or read the bible. I live in a world of facts and evidence and am content to do so until my lamp is extinguished. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really have no idea what Harry Potter or the Bible has to do with the central question. After all this talking I have discerned (with much difficulty) that you attribute all that we see to "good luck". I call it "God" but I agree completely that whether it's just good luck or whether it is God this realization does not change reality. Other than that we are in complete agreement. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Good, we agree that god is a delusion based on random chance and superstition in the ill-informed mind. Glad to hear that, too. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

No. We agree that your misinformed characterization of the word "God" is the based on your perceptions about what you think God is. Since we agree that the universe is the product of luck, henceforth I will refer to the guiding force behind the universe as Luck so as to not offend your belief-set.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

''Don't you love how the Truth flows like water? No matter where you damn it up, it will still find the way. This is the miracle of Luck to me.'' [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

good lord this is boring.... [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

How 'bout I say "you win" and you evangelize someone else? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's "reasoning" for you ... heh ... [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, you win by attrition. Congrats. Now, I'll go back to not going to churc and telling school children there is no god. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Funny, you took the words right out of my mouth. ;-) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So, in fact this is not attrition or victory (I was never trying to win). Rather the discussion is at an end because you have refused to expand the boundaries of your perceptions. You came here believing that god was a myth and you continue to believe that god is a myth. You refuse to examine the implications of this possibility: myths are myths, but God is something else entirely. The thing you call Luck, I call God. That's called finding common ground. Your current problem is your very fearful of where that common ground might take you. It might shatter your arrogantly held belief-set.

::::See below regarding your concept of "Luck" (master of all the universe) if you seek further truth. If you choose ignorance, remain blissful and enjoy your life. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Which Religion is the true Religion?==

::You havea copy of the Bible in God's handwriting? Or you beleive that every step from initial writing, through every translation throughout time has been divinely guided to lay out His message clearly? So, which translation is the divinely guided one? And if He were so inclined to so specifically direct the writing ans subsequent translation of a book, might he not have made it a bit clearer which translation is correct, and which parts of the Bible can be taken literally and which are metaphors? You claim to know the difference... I've never seen that footnote anywhere in the Bible. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

This statement has nothing to do with this discussion. The arguments about "which translation" and "God's handwriting" are filed under "Which religion is the true religion?" and they have no bearing on whether atheism vs. deism. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:48, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The copies and translations of the Bible are very accurate, and accurate enough to know what God was saying. And the phrase "every translation through time" is quite misleading, as mot current English Bibles have been translated directly from the original languages, i.e. a one-step translation. It couldn't get much better than that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not prepared to defend the Bible as the "word of God", but I think it's an important question to examine, but I think it's a pointless discussion with those who haven't realized that there is a God. All your Bible proves to them is that someone wrote something a long time ago. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:16, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, but I am not someone who denies the existence of God, just one who does not accept that the Bible is literal truth. I personally beleive it to be mostly metaphorical, with some history thrown in, though I'd still never use it for a primary history source, even on mundane topics (i.e. who ruled where at what time... etc...) [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:22, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I am pretty much in agreement with you QNA. I'm willing to allow the possibility that Phil Rayment's opinions about the Bible is correct. At the same time, I doubt he's right about that. On the other hand, I think that denying the existance of God is silly. However, arguing the nature of God is a worthwhile endeavor. The Bible and other texts are useful in this exercise because we can learn a great deal from those who have gone before us and who have already had these same arguments.

::::I will say without equivocation that the "God doesn't exist because I don't believe in bearded guys in the clouds with a magic wand" is pretty much an argument made from a posiition of ignorance about what most knowledgeable people think about God and the universe. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good Luck==
Since all of the universe occurred out of good luck (according to Flippin), can we humans influence Luck? Should we attempt to commune with Luck? Do you think that hundreds of thousands of years ago, men (equally smart) pondered these same questions (since they didn't have a TV to occupied their evenings). Do you think luck, or perhaps Luck, resulted in the strange coincidence that after many generations the consensus view in every culture and society has always been that we can affect our luck by a combination of worshipping Luck and doing good things? [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 11:55, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No no no no no no no. The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well. Add to this the theory of evolution, and yes there are one or two holes there, but soon we will have filled them all. The process of life is an attempt to discover things. You may say that we believe that we came here due to luck however i do not believe this to be true. We came here because of a reason that i do not know. However i have faith that i will not remain ignorant forever, and that soon we will know and we need not invoke luck or god to describe how we got here.

::I sympathise with you because of your above description of how you came to be a deist, however there are a few things that you might need to consider again. Firstly that just because we dont know something does not mean that we will always not know it. Look at the progress science has made over the past 500 years. We have gone from believing that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the world is only 6000 years old, to the earth being just one planet revolving around an unremarkable star and is over 4 billion years old. Consider what we may discover in the next 500 years as our technology continues to progress and we begin to explore space outside the playground of the solar system. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, we have an explanation for how life started and a reason for the big bang that does not rely on some higher being.

::As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided. Yes a some people do because they have more experience and they have the foresight to use that to plan there future. However a large part of the human population does not use this experience at all, and simply assumes that they know best because they are older not because they are wiser. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:27, 27 April 2007

What's the difference between what you just said and what I just said? You wrote, "The universe came to be the way it is due to the laws of physics etc, that so far have been proven to be as true as anything can be and apply to the universe exceedingly well." Okay. we agree. So the universe is ordered. It has laws. How did the "laws" come about? Did the protons and electrons elect a neutron who decided what laws everyone should follow? I guess these laws are and always have been. I guess we were just lucky to have the Laws of Physics.

As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::We, as in humanity, do not know why the laws of physics happen to be the way they are. Maybe there was no choice, and for the universe to have come into existence these laws must have been the way they are. Or maybe there are other explanations. We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer. I simply accept that I do not know everything and then I attempt to find out why such things are the way they are. I do not think that we were lucky to have the laws of physics, I am confident that there is a solid scientific reason that does not allow any greater sentience to have a hand in things and that this reason will become evident in the not to distant future.

::I do not think there is more wisdom in youth than in age. That is the reason I said 'slightly misguided'. Not totally misguided and not completely idiotic. Just that there are old people who are not wise just as there are young people who are. I do not claim to be one of those young people, I am not wise in any sense, although I do hope to learn from my experiences and others and thus become wise. However many people do not use experience in this way and so do not become wise, just as some people pick up on things quickly and are. I do not doubt the foundations of the philosophies that provide me with such. I doubt the philsophies of Thomas Aquinas, St Anselm and any that have agreed with these two charlatans parading themselves as philosophers.[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:52, 28 April 2007

::''Bolly, '''please''' learn the conventions of colons to seperate text. (I'm tired of adding your colons.) I put instructions on your discussion page some days ago.''

==The Imaginary Catalyst==
There's a part of the concept you're having a very difficult time wrapping your head around. You wrote:

::''We simply do not know, however again, this admission of lack of knowledge does not mean that I decide that therefore God must be the answer.''

You don't know it but your making an argument of semantics not a argument of logic. It doesn't matter whether you call it Luck, God, or some as yet uknown catalyst, in the end all rational humans agree that SOMETHING is the answer. Once we agree that there answer then we can begin to examine by deduction the properties of that something. People tend to get hung up on words because it connects them to some childhood they are rebelling against or a childhood that they are attempting to validate.

Whether we call it God, Luck, Fate, No-alternative, the concept descriptor doesn't change the concept. In other to explain to others, I prefer to find use words which make sense to them, rather than fighting them about things that don't matter. Here's another way to look at it:

Do you remember the concept of ''i'', the imaginary number from mathematics? Conservapedia doesn't have an article about ''i'' yet, but you can read one from Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number | here]. The idea behind ''i'' is that some concepts are not fully understood but still can be examined in an objective manner. According to some Wikipedia editor,
:"''Many other mathematicians were slow to believe in imaginary numbers at first, including Descartes who wrote about them in his La Géométrie, where the term was meant to be derogatory.''"
Thus, I can understand why you are resistant to this concept. But if mathemeticians can do it, so can you.

Forget about "God", the word touches a fear deep in your psyche. The previous debater wanted to call it ''Luck''. How about for your benefit we call it ''g'', an as-yet unknown causation of the laws of physics and the origins of the universe as God. I agree we might one day learn all the properties of ''g'' but right now we don't know the properties of ''g''.

The atheistic proposition is we haven't discovered the imaginary catalyst yet, and therefore ''g'' doesn't exist. The deistic proposition is that it's silly to think that ''g'' doesn't exist just because we can't understand or define ''g''. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 09:45, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheism vs. Deism==
This debate has wandered far from the invalid question. I have reposted key parts of this debate under [[Atheism vs. Deism | Atheism_vs_Deism]] where I will continue discourse. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:23, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:P.s. This is the most ridiculus concept of information ever. {{unsigned|Christianlove}}
::Pardon? What are you referring to, and why should we take any notice when you don't provide any explanation nor justification? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Eyespot

2007-07-15T02:50:21Z

Cthx:

A light-sensitive region in certain [[protozoa]],<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> such as Euglena.

D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger <ref>D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58)</ref> used computer modeling of the evolution of eyes to find out if it was possible for there to be a smooth gradient of change from a pigmented eye spot to an [[eye]] with a lens and cornea, and how long such a transformation would take. They used highly conservative figures for the possible change in each generation. Many human traits are over 50% heritable, and they gave their model a lower figure. They also chose very conservative values for the amount of possible variation in a population. Using these figures, they calculated that through the mechanism of evolution an eyespot could evolve into an eye with a lens and a cornea in less than a half a million years.

This mechanism is contested by [[Young Earth Creationists]], who contend that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, and that in that context such a piece of evolutionary development would not be possible.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 <-A short video explaining the possible evolution of the eye.

Eyespot

2007-07-15T02:50:07Z

Cthx:

A light-sensitive region in certain [[protozoa]],<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref> such as Euglena.

D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger <ref>D. E. Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve" (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1994, v.. 256, pp. 53-58)</ref> used computer modeling of the evolution of eyes to find out if it was possible for there to be a smooth gradient of change from a pigmented eye spot to an [[eye]] with a lens and cornea, and how long such a transformation would take. They used highly conservative figures for the possible change in each generation. Many human traits are over 50% heritable, and they gave their model a lower figure. They also chose very conservative values for the amount of possible variation in a population. Using these figures, they calculated that through the mechanism of evolution an eyespot could evolve into an eye with a lens and a cornea in less than a half a million years.

This mechanism is contested by [[Young Earth Creationists]], who contend that the Earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, and that in that context such a piece of evolutionary development would not be possible.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4
^A short video explaining the possible evolution of the eye.

Eyespot

2007-07-15T02:48:21Z

Cthx:

User:Cthx

2007-07-15T02:44:45Z

Cthx:

Cthx:

Libertarian-leaning,
Evolutionist,
Just-the-facts,
Concerned that Conservatism isn't libertarian-leaning enough, and will demonstrate so.

{{User free software}}
{{User coder}}
{{User comp-5}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Geek}}
{{User faveband|Lemon Demon}}

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-07-15T02:36:00Z

Cthx:

Talk:Binary system

2007-07-14T16:14:42Z

Cthx: New page: Shouldn't we merge this with binary? I think so.

Shouldn't we merge this with binary? I think so.

Binary system

2007-07-14T16:13:44Z

Cthx:

Afferent nerve

2007-07-14T16:06:22Z

Cthx: correcting grammar

'''Afferent nerves''' carry information from the periphery of an organism towards its [[central nervous system]]. They are commonly called sensory neurons.

==References==

* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.

{{stub2}}

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

2007-07-14T16:05:09Z

Cthx:

{{debate-philosophy}}

So there must exist some objective truth? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is the ultimate failing point of postmodernist thinking. In philosophical terms, they say that each person has their own narrative (story), but any push of a meta narrative (overarching life story... eg. The Biblical God created the world and hs a plan for each of us) is viewed as oppressive. Of course then they become the oppressors because their meta narrative is that there should be no meta narrative :-). --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:45, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

This is the problem with all absolutes. They contradict themselves. We conservatives have the God given privilege to apply different standards to out own arguments than we apply to the arguments we oppose. How else could conservapedia be so incredible conflicted.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 10:51, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::If all absolutes contradict themselves, then is the claim "all absolutes contradict themselves" also a contradiction? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:54, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not sure what Rebiu meant, but I think it is important to realize (at least from my current understanding of it) 1) a meta narrative is required (without meta narrative, we have no purpose other than what we happen to scramble together ourselves), and 2) there can be only one meta narrative. In other words, saying there are multiple absolutes is a contradiction because there can only be one absolutely absolute. In terms of belief systems, it could be said that either Islam or the teachings of Jesus Christ are correct, or neither of them are. They cannot both be correct. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::As I said God has given me, as a conservative, the privilege to apply different standards to my arguments[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 16:39, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I sense some facetiousness in the tone of your writing. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I am very interested in where you got this message from God. Can you cite a bible passage? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 23:16, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That is facetious to me as I sense some facetiousness in all remarks that invoke divine inspiration in others, they usually do not agree. One does not need to validate their faith to other mortals. My relationship to god is between He and I.[[unsigned|Rebiu]]

::::God gives you the privilege because you are a sentient '''human being'''. Your privilege to "adjust" your reality to your political views is between you and your intellectual honesty (or lack thereof). [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 11:02, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Your facetiously toned attack on my faith amounts to a violation of the spirit of conservapedia. Your obviously facetious attitude towards faith base understanding is an attack on the foundations of the conservative movement. "The Devil hides behind a facetious tone."[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 11:27, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Not only that, but he also hides behind liberalism, homosexuality, evolutionism, Islam, and The Omen. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Step on me and get stung]] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::That is very interesting Scorpion, however it is completely irrelevant to the debate topic of anything said in this article.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 12:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, there is objective truth within structures based on postulates, eg, mathematics. Regarding the natural world, one could say: "There is no objective truth, but I am not certain of this." This statement is an opinion rather than an objective truth, & may be true without being contradictory. This approach mimics the scientific method in that useful relationships may be theorized, but they aren't absolutely true & may later be replaced by better theories.[[User:Tom Stockton|Tom Stockton]] 21:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Object Lesson in Logic'''

The title of this debate reads:

If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?

Logically this is equivalent to:
If there is no objective truth, then the claim "there is no objective truth" is an objective truth, and therefore invalidates itself.

If not X then ( if not X then X ) therefore X

We can subject this to Logical analysis.
X false means that (if notX then X) is false, and the whole of the first section is also false, which means that the entire structure is false.
X true means that (if notX then X) is true, and the whole of the first section is also true, which means that the entire structure is true.

So, if it is true that there is no objective truth then the answer to the question posed in the title is 'No'. On the other hand, if there is an objective truth, then the naswer to the question posed in the title is 'Yes'. I conclude that this entire debate is a complete waste of time, as it boils down to whether you think there is an objective truth or not.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:21, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::So is what you are saying true? Objectively speaking I mean. While I agree the debate is a waste of time it is made necessary by the legions of people who find it necessary to state as objective truth that there is no objective truth.

This has been considered already and often. Please see Godel's 1st Incompleteness Theory, or Alan Turing's Halting Problem. All formal axiomatic systems are incomplete, although each instance within the system may be provable.

For example ....

"For any consistent formal, computably enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true but not provable in the theory can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete."

Perhaps an easier way to think about it ....

"Roughly speaking, the Gödel statement, G, asserts: "G cannot be proven true". If G were able to be proven true under the theory's axioms, then the theory would have a theorem, G, which contradicts itself, and thus the theory would be inconsistent. But if G were not provable, then it would be true (for G expresses this very fact) and thus the theory would be incomplete."

All of this, at least in my mind, is not necessarily a waste of time -- self reference brings these formal logical systems (unfortunately or not) to their knees. The consequences of the debated question is where I think that we can find a more sublime and perhaps telling Truth. Reason has it's limits although I offer no evidence or explanation for what it cannot explain or those things of which it cannot make "sense". I do however, have my own ideas :) bumble70

While I believe in objective truth (I'm a social constructivist), the attack on post modernity/post-structuralism presented in the title is decidely weak. First, to claim that any descriptive statement (i.e. 'there is no objective truth') need be an objective truth to be meaningfull is to misunderstand what is ment by objectivity (in the context of post modern theory). The Post Modernist claim that there can be no objective truth is only referencing normative claims. (claims about how things should be.) They are not saying that there cannot be objectively true descriptive claims (i.e. claims that have no prescriptive content, i.e. 'you are 6 feet tall.') They would say that yes, you might be 6 feet tall, but whether that is good, bad, or otherwise is purely subjective.

therefore a postmodernist can coherently say "the statement there is no objective [normative] truth is objectively true," precisely because that statement is descriptive and not normative.

(It should be noted that post modernists might very well have an epistemological objection to knowing any descriptive truth- NOT because those truths don't exist, but because we are incapable of knowing them, for a variety of reasons. However this is an epistemological objection, and not relevant to the ontological question of whether or not objective [normative] truth exists as such.) ~Essariel 5-28-07

If objective truth did not exist than immediately following the most recent campus murdering spree in VA Tech, there would have been myriad pundits asking the question "Was this a bad thing to have occurred?" The fact that no one even considered that a question implicitly proves that there is in fact an objective truth and consequently an objective moral order. If you can't see that, you're really not trying to look.

Be careful with claims like that - I can think of at least one person who felt that massacre wasn't a bad thing, and although the vast majority of humanity may disagree with him, Cho clearly felt his actions were "good" enough under his own system of beliefs to carry them out. Objective truth is not a popularity contest.--[[User:Guybrush|Guybrush]] 1:25, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

"'We know that we know nothing,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge -- 'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute -- 'You cannot prove that you exist or that you're conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, or a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved."
:Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
[[User:Cthx]]

Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?

2007-07-14T16:03:11Z

Cthx: /* NO */

{{debate-religion}}

==NO==
Aside from God, might makes right. God dictates morality. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:18, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:How do you know? God said so? Sounds arbitrary to me.[[User:Cthx]]

It really depends how you define morality. If morality is what is right and wrong, as set down by God, then of course no m ists if God does not exist. However, many people would give morality a broader definition. For example, most atheists would say they attempt to hold to some set of morals which they believe to be right. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more SharonS. In debates, everything hinges upon what definitions you use. I personally would define morals as the "natural law inscribed on a man's heart" As the Bible dictates that God inscribed this law, no morals would exist without him. However, Athieist definitions set apart different definitions, which would provide different answers. [[User:BlackholeStorm|BlackholeStorm]]

umm..no....'''IF''' he did '''NOT''' exist do what you want and the guy with the most toys wins...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:47, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==
Morality is stored in our mind, and then we act according to this morality. People who believe in God get a morality through Christian education, the Bible, church, etc. People who don't believe make up their own morality. In my opinion (this goes to the censors out there, who already deleted this once, when it clearly DID NOT violate any Commandments or whatever) God does NOT interfere with morality in any way (unless you believe he taught morals to people long ago and they teach it to you now). Still, morality only depends on those who use it.
[[User:_Ace|_Ace]]

Man is still answerable to his fellow man. A morality dictated by God is replaced by a morality dictated by the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:29, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:In other words majority rules... might makes right. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ummm.... no? Might makes right is a little over simplistic. Look back in to the origins of religion and you will see that the moral code was based on how best for a community to survive. ""Fragile communities fragment when people steal, murder, commit adultery, lie, etc. God telling people what is right and wrong... that is might makes right. Morality ''not'' from God is people deciding what is best not just for themselves, but for the community. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Your view that "God telling people what is right and wrong... is might makes right" reveals a very limited view of God and implies that His motives are those that a selfish man would have were he to be given infinite power. Who would be better qualified to inform creatures who are limited in understanding and moral character than the infinite God who created them? Surely His wisdom is far superior to ours and although He is indeed mighter than we shall ever be, His credentials for informing us of what is right and wrong flow not primarily from His infinite power but rather from His infinite knowledge and perfect moral purity. We would do well to listen to Him. God (I am talking about the God of the Bible here, not the god of one's own understanding or definition) is by definition Holy, Right and Good. These things cannot be defined or have meaning apart from the Creator of the universe. --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 17:41, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Everything that God supposedly tells us to do in books like Leviticus are the very same kinds of rules that the leaders of a society would come up with to best survive. "God says" not to lie with with the same sex, because you can't get children and proliferate the society unless you procreate with the opposite sex. Same goes for lying, stealing, killing, etc. Those 'morals' are made for a primitive society that has to struggle to survive and are mostly irrelevant. For example, I'm sure all here have disobeyed at least some of God's morals he set down for us. Have you ever:
::::* Eaten bacon, pork, or ham? (''And the pig, though it has a split hoof completely divided, does not chew the cud; it is unclean for you.'')
::::* Owned or used a mule? (''Do not mate different kinds of animals.'')
::::* Grown more than one plant in a field or garden? (''Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.'')
::::* Worn polyester or any synthetic fabric? (''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'')
::::* Shaved your sideburns or trimmed your beard? (''Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.'')
::::* Stolen or lied?
::::* Married or attended the marriage of a non-virgin? (''If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.'')
::::* Gotten divorced and remarried? (''He [Jesus] answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."'')
::::* Had a brother who died with no children and not married his widow? (''"Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother."'')
::::Quite obviously, these morals set for us by God are terribly outdated. This leads me to believe that anyone who answers 'no' here is a hypocrite, since they are obviously not following ALL of God's morals, or else they would be in jail for disobeying society's morals, such as not stoning women to death because they had sex before marriage. [[User:Hargrimm|Hargrimm]] 23:14, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

In the absence of God's morality, what incentive does a man have to do anything other than that which gratifies himself? Why should anyone care about the good of the community?--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:11, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: Examine the golden rule and you will see some form of it in almost every religion and philosophy from Aboriginal beliefs to Zoroastrianism. Life is not necessarily defined by personal hedonism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:25, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::It doesn't take much intellect to realize that that which benefits the community benefits the members of that community. Including your straw man hedonist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:33, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe in god but I still believe everyone should be a good person no matter what. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean anything. You shoudl treat others how you want to be treated. What goes around comes around. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:But how can you know what "good" is without God? Anything else is just something made by a flawed human being. A perfect moral code can only be created by God. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 20:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::If you wish to take that stance, one could argue then how could man be imperfect? One of the biggest criticisms of Plato's forms was that imperfect cannot be derived from true perfection (an absolutely perfect being cannot create imperfection, it's not in their nature), thus if God is truly perfect, then humans must be perfect, yet Christians argue that is not the case. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:59, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

I do not recognize the existence of god. I do however have morals, thanks to [[Aesop]], the legitimate father of morals. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Assume God does not exist, and that my parents, me and all the other religious folks are simply wrong. Since there is no way to prove the non-existence of God, the (by assumption, falsely) religious amongst us still have a code that they follow that they regard as "morality." Rather than being derived from God, that moral code likely was derived either from other men or possibly arose as a result of certain fundamental qualities of mankind as social beings (social "animals" I suppose). If that were the origin of morality, would the resulting rules no longer be "morality." It's a semantic game at that point, but I'd have to say that, in substance, there would still be rules of conduct that we would each choose to follow. In such a world though, I fear that the moral relativists would be right to assert that no particular morality has any primacy. --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

there is no such thing as a perfect moral code. a moral code works only for the society that it was formulated for, however all moral codes across the world contain the same basic structure which must be in place for humans to live as a society. wanton killing of other members would lead to a breakdown in society as would stealing, adultery and other activities that reduce the trust of other members of the community. this is fairly solid proof that morals come from societies in general and that god has no say in the matter. these basic rules of society again come into play when animals coexist, wolf packs, tribes of chimpanzees and gorillas, schools of fish, and many other examples. if anyone wishes for a longer, more convincing argument on this subject, i recommend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, chapters 6 and 7. --[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:21, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questioning the Question==

If God does not exist, then all material in the bible, all theology and all material written by an army of believers is of highly dubious origin. At the very least it is 'informed speculation'; at its worst it is dangerous nonsense. That could (but does not have to) potentially mean that all 'morality' derived from a fear of hell, damnation and/or a vengeful god is invalid, and therefore irrelevant or even subversive. Many of our 'Rights and wrongs' are derived from this belief system, and our morality is the code which encapsulates the 'rights' (as opposed to the 'wrongs'). The 10 Commandments for example are an encoding of such values, which appear to rely for their validity and upon their enforcement upon a belief in an aggressive and vindictive deity.

However, there are alternatives. Humanists also derive moral codes without the need for a supporting deity. Transhumanists who believe that after a [[technological singularity]] has occured, human beings will transcend the form that we currently inhabit, are intensely concerned with ethical issues. God is nowhere in these debates; they are all about how we have a responsibility to the universe, the earth and our fellow creatures, both now and in the future. This is not about being 'right' or 'wrong', it is pragmatism and it is the responsible use of intellect and the application of prudence and common sense.

This means that morality based purely on a belief in God is highly fragile, for if someone chooses NOT to believe in God, their moral code fractures and they can basically behave with impunity. In medieval times where theological & scientific understanding of the world was in the hands of a few, and the horizons of the common people were limited, and the idea of God was an understandable extrapolation of the patriarchal system of family and local government, a god-based morality might have worked extremely well.However, a simple belief in a universal God in a world where we are citizens of a global community with different sets of core beliefs, different religions and therefore different moral codes, does not work at all, and, it can be argued leads to the very situation we find ourselves in today, with disillusioned sections of society who do not accept conventional moral and ethical norms of behaviour.

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 17:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Part of the reason for a moral code is simply to be able to function as a society. With no moral code whatsoever, our future as a race would be radically limited. Even without a biblical code to adhere to, we would have most likely developed a set of rules (do not kill each other, steal, etc) otherwise there would be none of the co-operation required for us to survive as a species. As a race, we are so inter-dependant on each other (for example, even the most powerful need people to work to provide food for them) that some basic morals are required so as we can co-exist and ensure our survival. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Common Good==
So then as your own deity you can transform morality to fit your own worldview? You also seem to say there is no right or wrong to base common sense on. Then as a Humanist you can create your own morality to whatever you feel will benefit your universe. I would question where you feel responsibility toward something greater, such as the universe, while at the same time rejecting something else greater than yourself that is acknowledged by your fellow creatures.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:No man or woman is an island. There is society, and there is consensus. Whatever makes society work, and perform its functions will be an effective moral code. Different societies will do it differently. It is not an individual choice. Look at it this way. In England we drive on the left; all other European countries drive on the right. This is purely convention and is completely arbitrary, but we do it to allow traffic to flow smoothly. It is also convention that we do not murder, pillage and rape. However, there are (and have been) occasions where moral codes have allowed these. In war we are allowed to murder people. Pillaging was a common event in historic times: the Romans, Greeks, the Vikings all engaged in it. Rape was a feature of life in medieval England; at one time the Lord of the Manor had the right to sleep with any new bride. All of these people had gods, and their behaviour was condoned by their theology. The fact is that some theologies (such as that of the Aztec's) required murder. Abraham was quite willing to kill his son, because he expected his god to require a sacrifice.
Morality = the set of conventions which allow a particular society to operate, that's all. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 20:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

==Of course?==

Anyone can come up with a moral code. The problem is that since its source is only human then it will subject to anyone wanting to change it. Inalienable rights will no longer exist since they merely come from people who will give or take them away whenever it's politically beneficial to whomever is in charge at the time. That would not be good for morale, would it? But of course, the question begins with the word if. If you are a godless individual then morality will be something you can change whenever it will benefit your behavior. A person who acknowledges God will not be able to play free and loose with morality set in stone. So then, who would you tend to trust your children with?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think I would trust my children with people who I know and have grown to trust, regardless of whence came their morals. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 19:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Anyone can come up with a moral code, and many do. However, society invents moral codes for its effective functioning and continued survival. It is not in our collective interest to have murder, mayhem and thievery rife. We need at least a consensus of behaviour from most people to have society function effectively, and in the main the moral code is devised to do just that. However, there are some biblical moral codes, such as 'an eye for an eye', which we have dispensed with because they are now deemed inappropriate. To kill a member of someone's family because one of their family has killed one of yours may have worked in biblical times, but not in today's society, where families are nuclear, and the code would end up destroying two families. Even the bible recognised this, when it was superseded by 'turn the other cheek'. Moral codes need to change according to circumstance and need. If there is an absolute code, backed up by a deity, things can never change, because there is always some sacred text which is held inalienable. A hard & fast code tied to a supreme deity also runs the risk of subversive re-interpretation of the code by deviants with vested interests (witness the re-interpretations of the Q'uran by radical scholars). We have seen how this can happen, and should not think that it is impossible to happen in the West. The existence of the US is testament to the fact that there were radically different interpretations of biblical moral codes in the 16th & 17th Centuries. In reality whatever moral code exists, and whatever its basis it will always be coloured with political expediency.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 19:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So you say that you would do away with having inalienable rights? Just because people have their own liberal interpretations of moral codes negates their usefullness? --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::You keep on bringing up inalienable rights? What do inalienable rights have to do with God? One can believe in the inalienable rights of freedom of expression and self determination without acknowledging God. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: "Inalienable" (or "unalienable") is a term in English common law. Property rights were alienable (could be sold) or inalienable (could only be inherited). Inalienable here simply means something which is taken to be fundamental, and therefore unquestionable. The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundlesss. claiming that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. In the piece above I was pointing out that some people hold their sacred texts to be unalienable, that is they cannot be questioned. This is a ''very bad thing'', especially where sacred texts are in conflict with one another, as it denies discussion and negotiation. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 04:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:It can be argued that those who accept Christianity are far more dangerous in straying from their morals than others, since any sin (aside from blasphemy) is forgivable. This, in effect, grants Christians a free pass to do whatever as long as they ask for forgiveness. I know the common responses, that repentance means making an effort not to commit such sins again, that Christians should want to live like Jesus and try not to sin, etc., but the fact remains that Christianity gives its followers the right to do almost anything they please. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: But not only Christians - any religion can be guilty of this. Look at the way that radical Islam has subverted the Q'uran to its own ends. It is the presupposition that there is a text 'revealed by God' which is the problem. By the very nature of language and human development, words change meaning over time, we constantly interpret and re-interpret. What words mean to one generation, may mean something completely different to another. The word 'gay' used to mean, light, jolly and carefree. 'Groggy' was a description of a course-grained material (grossgrain), not a state of semiconsciousness. If you suppose that a deity has revealed to you a text for all time, then because words change in meaning, it is clear that each generation will, by necessity, be forced into creating their own meanings from that text. This is where the danger lies. Let us assume that the 'revealed' word ''is'' the word of God. It is absolutly clear that not all re-interpreters of the code do, or even in principle ever could, agree; many are in conflict with each other, and some appear to be in direct contravention of the fundamental tenets of their faith. How can an ordinary person possibly be expected to decide what is right and what is wrong in this maelstrom? The fact is that we don't; moral codes are informed by, but not dictated by, religious beliefs. Moral codes are basically human social constructions, and are shared understandings of what is required to live peaceably, and ensure the continued survivial of our genes and memes into the next generation. A believer might claim that their 'god' has inspired them to do this, and I can't argue with that, as it is their belief. However, that does not explain why atheists, pagans and other non-monotheists would choose to live their lives according to the same shared moral codes as them. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 05:24, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Christianity does not give its followers the right to do almost anything they please. Nor do Christians have a free pass to do whatever. Anyone that hides behind a label they think will protect them from harm are mistaken. Chances are that they have abandoned all morality their religion requires of them. It seems that everyone here lives in some sort of Christianized society here. So that when the God word is invoked only the Christians are thought of. The Inalienable rights of morality that are common to all such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness don't need to come from God. You can let those things be given or taken at the pleasure of your local autocratic official by invoking the common good. Since there is no such thing as a moral right or wrong. When people are unable to discriminate between good or evil they will not recognise any moral wrong. A Humanist doesn't recognize any higher authority and may change the morality at their pleasure, whatever that may be. From the 1st Humanist Manifesto to the Amsterdam Declaration. The Christian can't do this since their original texts don't change. If you're a Humanist, what moral rights do you have that are guaranteed permanent? Or considered to be inalienable that won't be changed with a subsequent manifesto?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:27, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For the love of all that is good and decent, now you're saying a humanist can't recognize good and evil? These are not concepts that require a God! You are slandering large portions of the world population.

:::*Humanists can change their morals at a whim
:::*Humanists can't recognize good and evil

:::It's a shame your concept of God-given morals doesn't include one about civil behavior. Mine does, and my morals don't come from God. Funny how that works out. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:34, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Right, but it's alright when Christianity is being slandered here. I don't object to different viewpoints, even incorrect ones, without accusations of slander. I'm being as civil as anyone else on this. If you are a Humanist, you still haven't answered my question. It's an honest question? But if you won't then yes it would funny indeed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, no, it's not all right for Christianity to be slandered. You have made too points which are deeply offensive to people and aren't true. That's slander and it is uncivil. As for your question, please define "moral rights" and I'll give it a swing. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:17, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Human rights are basically moral rights. But how do you claim to derive these rights from? I claim inalienable moral rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being endowed upon me by my Creator. Freedom of speech and religion as well as the right to defend oneself would be moral and human individual rights. Are yours from God or an institution? If from God then they can't be taken away by others. If from an institution such as a government then they can be taken away in an instant. What is the guarantor of your rights that are human and moral? If God doesn't exist then moral rights and wrongs can be considered relative to the whim of those in authority over others. So that an individuals morality of right and wrong will be rendered meaningless. Savvy?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I derive those rights based on a couple things. The fact that, in general, my fellow man knows that the benefit of the community is to his benefit as well. And, failing that, that my fellow man knows that if he denies those rights to someone, that those rights will be denied him.

::::More importantly, morals are not rights. They are responsibilities. They are the responsibility of everyone that lives in a community.

::::And while the Declaration of Independence, which acknowledges a creator, enumerates those rights in a general way, it also dictatates that: to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. And that it is the Constitution of the United States, which does not mention a creator, which delineates and enforces those rights. Both documents, of course, are products of the Enlightenment. You should learn about the Enlightenment. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

If you consider this hypothetical you will be committing the unforgivable sin. You will not be able to take back this mistake so for the sake of you immortal soal do not go any further.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 14:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

Ever heard of "treat others as you want them to treat you"? In other words don't do things that you know will hurt people.
Sounds like a damn good moral code to me, and it's universal as well.

Jesus even said something like that, but you don't have to be religious to live by this rule.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I totally agree. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (I'm not a Christian and I don't believe God exists, but that doesn't mean that I can find nothing of value in the Bible). This idea is part of all major religions, and is equally at home in secular thought. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:51, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

Does morality exist, in the Christian, Biblical sense, that certain things are good because God tells us they are good, or does God tell us to do things because they are good? If God did not exist, would we still believe that it is wrong to take something that is not yours, or to kidnap and torture someone? I believe that the answer is a resounding "yes." I have never read the Bible. Before this year, I had never attended church. Yet somehow, I have managed to be a fairly good person, with stronger ethics and a better head on my shoulders than most of the people I have met at church. How can this be? The answer is simple. I derived my moral code from my good sense of how the world -- being what it is -- works, and what is beneficial or harmful to humans -- being what they are. The Bible and other religious works can be used as guidelines for living a good life, but I don't believe that any of them are inerrant. Humans, in general, have a degree of consciousness and intellect that allows them to make judgments on a moral statement, i.e., whether it is true and useful. Now, it's all well and good to say that we have the ability to make those kinds of judgments, but to whom, if anyone, do we owe responsibility? Well, as self-aware beings who feel emotions such as fear, happiness, sadness, and pity, and who live in communities and socities, we have an obligation both to ourselves and others. We are obligated to take care of ourselves and to live a good life, and we are obligated -- to the best of our ability -- to others to ensure that they have what is necessary to live a good life. Sorry if that was rambling an incoherent... I usually shy away from debates, so I'm not accustomed to proper debating style. :) Anyway... discuss. [[User:GrandSoviet|GrandSoviet]] 13:53, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?

2007-07-14T15:58:35Z

Cthx:

Out of interest, as a Catholic, socialist, scientist European, would many on hear say I was not Christian?

==Yes==
Of course. Conservative is not a religion. Conservatives believe in individual freedoms. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:08, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:I know from personal experience that my transition leftward began a while after I became an atheist.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:I strongly oppose that the most important value of conservatives is individual freedom. Actually, individual freedom is the most important principle of liberalism. In addition, you have to differentiate between value and structure conservatism. Most conservatives are value conservatives and as such regard the traditional values of family, religion, honor and truth or at least some of them higher than individual freedom. Structure conservatives prefer everything remains as it is, simply said, whereas value conservatives favor changes that give more importance to the values above. -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

One can't argue from the specific to the general. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
: unless the specific contradicts the general -- [[User:SchiFra|SchiFra]]

:What? First, my statement was to agree with you. Second, if something happens in one specific case then it must be generally possible.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 15:24, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:A non-religous conservative is often called a capitalist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::So sayeth you. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Who cares you are going to burn in hell for denying Jesus[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:How do you know that God won't send those who believe in him to Hell? Perhaps he wants people to think for themselves and he created the Church in order to test, not man's faith, but man's reason. After all, if God is omnibenevolant, wouldn't He dislike faith because He wants us to use our minds?[[User:Cthx]]

It really is subject to one's definition of conservative. As for the above comment, can you really say that all of the great non-christians in world history, many of whom were far more "christian" than some christians, should "burn in hell?"

well i do know there are some but, not that many given the whole...
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:Know your Renaissance eschatology: Dante sez: virtuous Pagans get a castle that's technically inside Hell, but all they have to suffer is knowing that they were wrong.[[User:Cthx]]

Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?

2007-07-14T15:58:20Z

Cthx:

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2007-07-13T22:48:51Z

Cthx: /* No */

{{debate-science}}

Post Your Thoughts

Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' Lateral gene transfer between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
#******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
#*******But natural selection does not select features that increase diversity in a population; it selects features that increase the odds of reproduction in an individual—and preference by an agricultural species greatly increases an individual's odds of reproducing.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.
#*'''Counter:''' Mendel's findings were incomplete, and were ignorant of certain structures such as chromosomes, or processes such as mutation. The latter presents a perfectly viable way for an organism to receive genetic code not present in its parents.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
#**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
#**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is a poor argument, since German and English did not descend from Latin.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
[[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]

==No==

There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that [[natural selection]] will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, '''without''' any need for supernatural intervention.

The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky '''illustrations''' and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence.

Both are earmarks of [[Pseudoscience]].

On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::'''Counter''': Except ''they'' have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. [[User:Cthx]]

The bible makes it clear how the species came into existence, and it gives us the most logical explanation we have. Is there any point in denying it? [[User:GodisTruth|'''Truth''']][[User_talk:GodisTruth |is power]] 13:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::'''Counter''': Yes, in that the Bible is most likely wrong: it is a collection of texts and stories. How is it "logical" to have species appear out of no-where? What happens to the air that was there before the animals appeared? Doesn't this supernatural Genesis contradict all natural laws we observe? If anything, this seems to be illogical.[[User:Cthx]]

Ayn Rand

2007-07-13T22:39:58Z

Cthx:

[[Image:Jhyu65.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Ayn Rand''', born '''Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum''' (1905-1982) was a Russian-born philosopher, screenwriter, and novelist, who used her novels to promote her philosophy, known as [[Objectivism]]. Her best-known novels are [[Atlas_Shrugged|''Atlas Shrugged'']] and [[The_Fountainhead|''The Fountainhead.'']] Although her philosophy differs in many respects from [[Libertarianism]], it also emphasized individual freedom, and her novels, particularly ''Atlas Shrugged,'' contain lectures that are considered touchstones for libertarian thinking.

While [[liberal]]s commonly associate Rand with [[conservative|conservatism]], she disagreed with social conservatives on key issues, most notably on the existence of [[God]] (as she was an [[atheism|atheist]]) and on traditional [[family]] values.

==Books Written==
*We the Living
*Anthem
*The Fountainhead
*Atlas Shrugged

==References==
Doherthy, Brian. 'Radicals for Capitalism a Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement.' New York: Public Affairs, 2007.
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer Ayn Rand Institute]
*[http://www.ios.org/ The Atlas Society -- home of The Objectivist Center]
*[http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page Objectivism Wiki]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rand, Ayn}}
[[Category:Authors|Rand, Ayn]]
[[Category:philosophers]]

Ayn Rand

2007-07-13T22:39:22Z

Cthx:

[[Image:Jhyu65.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Ayn Rand''', born '''Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum''' (1905-1982) was a Russian-born philosopher, screenwriter, and novelist, who used her novels to promote her philosophy, known as [[Objectivism]]. Her best-known novels are [[Atlas_Shrugged|''Atlas Shrugged'']] and [[The_Fountainhead|''The Fountainhead.'']] Although her philosophy differs in many respects from [[Libertarianism]], it also emphasized individual freedom, and her novels, particularly ''Atlas Shrugged,'' contain lectures that are considered touchstones for libertarian thinking.

While [[liberal]]s commonly associate Rand with [[conservative|conservatism]], she disagreed with social conservatives on key issues, most notably on the existence of [[God]] (as she was an [[atheism|atheist]]) and on traditional [[family]] values.

==Books Written==
*We the Living
*Anthem
*The Fountainhead
*Atlas Shrugged

==References==
Doherthy, Brian . 'Radicals for Capitalism a Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement.' New York: Public Affairs, 2007.
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer Ayn Rand Institute]
*[http://www.ios.org/ The Atlas Society -- home of The Objectivist Center]
*[http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page Objectivism Wiki]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rand, Ayn}}
[[Category:Authors|Rand, Ayn]]
[[Category:philosophers]]

Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?

2007-07-13T22:30:54Z

Cthx:

What Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged (and ofcourse in all of her books) is remarkable as to how the concepts stand the test of time. Liberals AND Conservatives hate her, except specific portions that they like to use. She rejoiced in "man" and "humanity" and defined a code of ethics/morality as part of her philosophical novels. Alan Greenspan used to be in her discussion group at one time. Atlas Shrugged will remain, in my opinion, the greatest book ever written. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Yes. Though she adamantly wants Objectivism to be completely purist, Objectivist clubs need to be less close-minded and bitter. I'm not saying that the philosophy itself should change, however.
[[User:Cthx]]

Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?

2007-07-13T22:30:41Z

Cthx:

Talk:Friedrich Hayek

2007-07-13T22:28:44Z

Cthx: New page: Is F.A. Hayek really a capitalist? He may support capitalism, but I think that he should fall under economics. User:Cthx

Is F.A. Hayek really a capitalist?
He may support capitalism, but I think that he should fall under economics.

[[User:Cthx]]

Friedrich Hayek

2007-07-13T22:27:54Z

Cthx: Removed bias through attributation and added in note about TRTSdom.

[[Image:Hayek.jpg|right|frame]]
'''Friedrich August Von Hayek''' (1899-1992) was a [[Nobel Prize]] winning economist and one of the most prominent member of the [[Austrian School of Economics]], a [[libertarian]] movement. Hayek emphasized our limited knowledge of the markets (and other subjects), and thus our need for the price mechanism to communicate essential information about supply and demand. His theories are that no centralized planner or government can manage the economy and that freemarket is the most efficient known allocator of resources.

==The Road To Serfdom==
His most famous book is [[The Road To Serfdom]].

Hayek has been compared to the philosopher [[David Hume]] with respect to his insistence that we should be "sensible of our ignorance."

{{DEFAULTSORT: Hayek, Friedrich A.}}
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Economics]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Capitalists]]

User:Cthx

2007-07-13T01:01:16Z

Cthx: New page: Cthx: Libertarian-leaning, Evolutionist, Just-the-facts, Concerned that Conservatism isn't libertarian-leaning enough, and will demonstrate so.

Cthx:

Libertarian-leaning,
Evolutionist,
Just-the-facts,
Concerned that Conservatism isn't libertarian-leaning enough, and will demonstrate so.

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-07-13T01:00:03Z

Cthx: /* No */

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-07-13T00:57:13Z

Cthx:

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-07-13T00:56:15Z

Cthx:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.
[[User:Cthx]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
::"Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life" How can you say something like that? To me that is sicker than any story of the Holocaust or the Gulags. A fertilized egg under normal conditions becomes more cells, and even more cells. It is simple science. What do you think you are? You are a group of cells with just a few more years progress. Just because you may die in a car crash tommorow doesn't mean I'll shoot you now and harvest your body parts for someone in need of a heart or a lung. How do you justify that your life is more important than someone elses? God created all human beings with worth and dignity from the moment of conception. Also just because, "Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away" doesn't make anything right. Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? These are HUMAN BEINGS that we are talking about. It is not our right or privelage to make the decision of life or death for them. Isn't that what a murderer is, someone who decides that another human is not deserving of life? --[[User:CRD|CRD]] 21:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that abortion is wrong, as it is the taking of a human life. However, using discarded embryos and aborted fetuses for stem cell research is not the same as condoning abortion. If the embryo or fetus is no longer alive, harvesting its stem cells is extremely similar to using the organs of a deceased person to save a living one, or using a cadaver for scientific research. --[[User:ac09]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered '''en masse''' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.
*Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few:
::::The ability to feel pain
::::The ability to think
::::The ability to have emotions
Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human.

*But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you '''know''' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. '''Potential''' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's '''just not right'''?! If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells.

Q.E.D.
[[User:Cthx]]