George
2007-08-22 02:54:05 UTC
Discussion:
(too old to reply)
Mike
2007-08-24 03:22:02 UTC
I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
George
2007-08-28 01:09:50 UTC
Post by Mike
I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
I take it you've not spent much time in the halls of higher education.I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
George
George
2007-08-28 01:09:53 UTC
Post by Mike
I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
Really? Was Jerry Falwell 'petulant' when he said "The ACLU's got to takeI did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
a lot of blame for this", in reference to 9/11? Was Pat Robertson
'petulant when he said "There is no such thing as separation of church and
state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to
take it anymore"? Dawkins speaks the truth and you think he's being
petulant, probably because you are afraid of the truth. No one ever said
the truth had to be pretty or mannerly. It just has to be the truth.
George
Mike
2007-09-04 01:21:22 UTC
Post by George
On another thread ("Hilarious Dawkins Satire Video") you accused me ofPost by Mike
I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
I take it you've not spent much time in the halls of higher education.I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
attacking Dawkins rather than answering his argument. Is this not the
very thing you're doing to me here?
To answer you, I've spent a good 5 years in what you would call
"higher education" and have a degree and diploma to show for it.
As it was, Dawkins *was* being petulant. He didn't have a proper
answer for the question - no surprise there - and so he used the smoke-
screen of humour to hide the fact.
A greater man would have admitted the possibility he might have been
wrong, and replied with dignity and restraint while still maintaining
his atheist stance. Dawkin's response was rather crude and
unnecessary.
Mike.
George
2007-09-05 02:12:39 UTC
Post by Mike
attacking Dawkins rather than answering his argument. Is this not the
very thing you're doing to me here?
Umm, no. The point, Mike, is that people who've spent their livesPost by George
On another thread ("Hilarious Dawkins Satire Video") you accused me ofPost by Mike
I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
I take it you've not spent much time in the halls of higher education.I did, for a while. But ultimately it shows Richard Dawkins and both
his best and worst. Best - for being able to argue his point with
humour. Worst - for thinking nothing of behaving extremely rudely and
thinking nothing of belittling a delegate who did nothing more than
ask a genuine question.
At first I thought he was just being funny. It didn't take me long to
realise he was being petulant.
Mike.
attacking Dawkins rather than answering his argument. Is this not the
very thing you're doing to me here?
attaining higher education tend to be a bit, well, testy when someone asks
a question that has such an obvious answer. So while you view his answers
as being "petulent", I don't. I will note that you apparently didn't have
a problem with his answers other than the way he presented them, since you
didn't rebute any of them, but merely decided to attack his method of
response. Do you think that the god of the Bible is any more valid than
the gods of ancient Greece, or Rome, or of the Mayan gods? If so, why is
your one god any more valid than their multiple gods? What evidence do you
have for the existence of any god, for that matter?
Post by Mike
To answer you, I've spent a good 5 years in what you would call
"higher education" and have a degree and diploma to show for it.
As it was, Dawkins *was* being petulant. He didn't have a proper
answer for the question - no surprise there - and so he used the smoke-
screen of humour to hide the fact.
His point was what we believe is most often a result of our upbringingTo answer you, I've spent a good 5 years in what you would call
"higher education" and have a degree and diploma to show for it.
As it was, Dawkins *was* being petulant. He didn't have a proper
answer for the question - no surprise there - and so he used the smoke-
screen of humour to hide the fact.
within the framework of the culture in which we reside. He pointed out
that the questioner likely lives in a Judeo-Christian culture that holds to
certain beliefs. Someone living in a different culture would hold to
different beliefs. Which belief is right? Which is wrong? For him, and
most other atheists, it's a meaningless question. So who's the more
petulent, the person who asks the question "what if you're wrong" or the
person who answers it in the manner in which Dawkins answered it?
Post by Mike
A greater man would have admitted the possibility he might have been
wrong, and replied with dignity and restraint while still maintaining
his atheist stance. Dawkin's response was rather crude and
unnecessary.
Mike.
Poor insulted you. Shall I send you flowers on Dawkin's behalf?A greater man would have admitted the possibility he might have been
wrong, and replied with dignity and restraint while still maintaining
his atheist stance. Dawkin's response was rather crude and
unnecessary.
Mike.
George
Mike
2007-09-06 02:19:05 UTC
Post by George
attaining higher education tend to be a bit, well, testy when someone asks
a question that has such an obvious answer.
If this is the case then they need to go back into higher educationPost by Mike
On another thread ("Hilarious Dawkins Satire Video") you accused me of
attacking Dawkins rather than answering his argument. Is this not the
very thing you're doing to me here?
Umm, no. The point, Mike, is that people who've spent their livesOn another thread ("Hilarious Dawkins Satire Video") you accused me of
attacking Dawkins rather than answering his argument. Is this not the
very thing you're doing to me here?
attaining higher education tend to be a bit, well, testy when someone asks
a question that has such an obvious answer.
and learn wisdom as well as knowledge. Testiness is what I would
expect if a delegate asked Dr. Dawkins about elementary biology - this
is his area of expertise. However, the question was not about biology.
It was about philosophy, and unfortunately Dr. Dawkins is *not* a
philosophy expert. Perhaps he thinks he is.
Look at his response. When you are faced with an axiomatic question
there are two responses. The first is what you see from Richard
Dawkins, Jerry Falwell, and others who don't quite "get" the depth of
the question. Ridicule and lampooning - they don't know how to answer
the question and so side-step it in order to cover up the fact - or
worse. The second is along the lines I suggested - to accept the
difference in points of view but to still maintain your own position
using reason and civility. Whether you prefer the first approach or
the second is up to you.
Post by George
So while you view his answers
as being "petulent", I don't. I will note that you apparently didn't have
a problem with his answers other than the way he presented them, since you
didn't rebute any of them, but merely decided to attack his method of
response.
I don't agree with some of his conclusions - or rather assumptions -So while you view his answers
as being "petulent", I don't. I will note that you apparently didn't have
a problem with his answers other than the way he presented them, since you
didn't rebute any of them, but merely decided to attack his method of
response.
but he is entitled to his POV and to express it.
Post by George
Do you think that the god of the Bible is any more valid than
the gods of ancient Greece, or Rome, or of the Mayan gods? If so, why is
your one god any more valid than their multiple gods? What evidence do you
have for the existence of any god, for that matter?
I've said how I came to faith elsewhere. Mine is an evidential faith -Do you think that the god of the Bible is any more valid than
the gods of ancient Greece, or Rome, or of the Mayan gods? If so, why is
your one god any more valid than their multiple gods? What evidence do you
have for the existence of any god, for that matter?
one based on cause and effect. Yet for someone like Richard Dawkins,
and I suspect yourself as well, the "evidence" of personal experience
is somehow inadmissable. That's his (and your) loss.
Post by George
within the framework of the culture in which we reside.
Which is fine, but it was first introduced by the drawing up of aPost by Mike
To answer you, I've spent a good 5 years in what you would call
"higher education" and have a degree and diploma to show for it.
As it was, Dawkins *was* being petulant. He didn't have a proper
answer for the question - no surprise there - and so he used the smoke-
screen of humour to hide the fact.
His point was what we believe is most often a result of our upbringingTo answer you, I've spent a good 5 years in what you would call
"higher education" and have a degree and diploma to show for it.
As it was, Dawkins *was* being petulant. He didn't have a proper
answer for the question - no surprise there - and so he used the smoke-
screen of humour to hide the fact.
within the framework of the culture in which we reside.
strawman in the shape of a god-that-noone-could-possibly-believe-in,
and then this strawman was used to "prove" the point. Sorry, but if
you're going to indulge in that sort of fallacy then I for one am
unimpressed. He was funny though.
Post by George
Which belief is right? Which is wrong? For him, and
most other atheists, it's a meaningless question.
So who's the more
petulent, the person who asks the question "what if you're wrong" or the
person who answers it in the manner in which Dawkins answered it?
"What if you're wrong" can be taken on three levels. It is either aWhich belief is right? Which is wrong? For him, and
most other atheists, it's a meaningless question.
So who's the more
petulent, the person who asks the question "what if you're wrong" or the
person who answers it in the manner in which Dawkins answered it?
retort, a challenge, or a genuine inquiry. Only if it is a retort can
you regard it as petulant. If it is a retort, would it not be better
to treat it as a challenge and answer properly rather than engage in a
tit-for-tat slanging match?
As it was, I believe the question was meant as both a challenge and a
genuine inquiry. Has Dawkins thought about the possibility of
fallacies in his theories? Has he considered the possibility of error
in his thinking? What is his response to that? At that level his
response largely fails on both counts - he fails to answer the
challenge, deflecting the question back at the question rather than
answering it, and only meets the challenge with mockery and a
strawman.
Post by George
Dawkins has not insulted me. I doubt he would be able to. But IPost by Mike
A greater man would have admitted the possibility he might have been
wrong, and replied with dignity and restraint while still maintaining
his atheist stance. Dawkin's response was rather crude and
unnecessary.
Mike.
Poor insulted you. Shall I send you flowers on Dawkin's behalf?A greater man would have admitted the possibility he might have been
wrong, and replied with dignity and restraint while still maintaining
his atheist stance. Dawkin's response was rather crude and
unnecessary.
Mike.
believe he is doing the scientific community a great disservice by
behaving in the way he does.
Mike.
b***@juno.com
2007-08-28 01:09:48 UTC
I notice that Dawkins failed to actually answer the question.
He quickly changed the subject to irrelevant fake religions.
This is the very typical evasiveness of atheists when confronted with
their own eventual damnation.
He quickly changed the subject to irrelevant fake religions.
This is the very typical evasiveness of atheists when confronted with
their own eventual damnation.
George
2007-08-29 04:19:58 UTC
Post by b***@juno.com
I notice that Dawkins failed to actually answer the question.
He quickly changed the subject to irrelevant fake religions.
This is the very typical evasiveness of atheists when confronted with
their own eventual damnation.
All religions are fake and irrelevant. Didn't you know this? Poor dear.I notice that Dawkins failed to actually answer the question.
He quickly changed the subject to irrelevant fake religions.
This is the very typical evasiveness of atheists when confronted with
their own eventual damnation.
George
b***@juno.com
2007-08-31 01:37:38 UTC
You wish.
Unfortunately for you, several religions exist, which happen to have
been the foundations of world civilizations.
Becuase of this, all major world religions that have been the
foundations of world civilizations, are worthy of our careful study.
Especially since some of them claim that eternal damnation might
result, if we fail to pay attention.
Unfortunately for you, several religions exist, which happen to have
been the foundations of world civilizations.
Becuase of this, all major world religions that have been the
foundations of world civilizations, are worthy of our careful study.
Especially since some of them claim that eternal damnation might
result, if we fail to pay attention.
George
2007-09-04 01:21:18 UTC
Do I? Do you believe that Zeus exists? Do you believe that the Aztec Gods
are real? Why is yoru God real, but all others are not real? Why does the
ten commandments insist "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (which
implies that there is more than one god), yet Islam-Judao-christianity
insists that there is only one god?
Civilizatilon started because people realized that the world is a hostile
place and that there is safety in numbers. Dr. Nick Brooks, a Senior
Research Associate at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, using
evidence from archaeological digs and the palaeoclimatic record, claims
that significant changes in social organization have coincided with abrupt
climate change. But Brooks isn't referring to yet another ancient
civilization collapsing. Rather, he suggests that the changes societies
undergo can be adaptive responses to climate change. In fact, Brooks argues
that what we call civilization is in fact the by-product of these social
adaptations to environmental change. "There is widespread evidence that
climatic and environmental stress played a major role in the emergence of
early civilizations, and that aridification in particular acted as a
trigger for increased social complexity associated with urbanization and
state formation," says Brooks.
George
are real? Why is yoru God real, but all others are not real? Why does the
ten commandments insist "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (which
implies that there is more than one god), yet Islam-Judao-christianity
insists that there is only one god?
Post by b***@juno.com
Unfortunately for you, several religions exist, which happen to have
been the foundations of world civilizations.
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/culture_weather.shtmlUnfortunately for you, several religions exist, which happen to have
been the foundations of world civilizations.
Civilizatilon started because people realized that the world is a hostile
place and that there is safety in numbers. Dr. Nick Brooks, a Senior
Research Associate at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, using
evidence from archaeological digs and the palaeoclimatic record, claims
that significant changes in social organization have coincided with abrupt
climate change. But Brooks isn't referring to yet another ancient
civilization collapsing. Rather, he suggests that the changes societies
undergo can be adaptive responses to climate change. In fact, Brooks argues
that what we call civilization is in fact the by-product of these social
adaptations to environmental change. "There is widespread evidence that
climatic and environmental stress played a major role in the emergence of
early civilizations, and that aridification in particular acted as a
trigger for increased social complexity associated with urbanization and
state formation," says Brooks.
George
b***@juno.com
2007-09-12 02:02:07 UTC
Both Zeus and the Aztec gods probably existed, as demons. And they may
still exist as those demons still.
Because Christianity has survived and prospered. If God exists, he
would assist the true religion to prosper. Christianity has prospered.
Thus, it is a reasonable thesis, to postulate that God has assisted
Chrisitianity to prosper. This type of evidence is sociological in
nature.
However, we know that God exists independently of sociology..... due
to biochemical complexity. Therefore, the various major living
religions are the most likely to be true, out of the myriads of tiny
or dead pretenders. You can count the serious giant living religions
on one hand.
And Christianity is the most likely to be true out of that small
handful, due to the cultural dominance of the Christian civilization.
Cultural dominance is a function of how closely your civilization's
belief-scaffolding corresponds with the structure of reality. Now, God
is the most important feature of the structure of reality.
Correct belief in Him, and trust in Him..... dare I say "love" for
Him...... leads generally to cultural dominance. Simply because God
likes to keep His promises. "I know the plans I have for you, says the
LORD.... plans to prosper and not to harm you...."
There is only one capital "g" God.
And His name is:
I AM THAT I AM.
The above passage in Exodus is a powerful witness to the fact, that
God is the ground of our very existence, or "being." The question of
Being that Heidegger proposed, is already answered by Moses long ago.
I find myself compelled by the very audacity of the claim, to put my
faith in the God that Moses wrote about. No other demonic false god
dared to make this claim.
that naturalism is true before having proven such.
<snip>
still exist as those demons still.
Because Christianity has survived and prospered. If God exists, he
would assist the true religion to prosper. Christianity has prospered.
Thus, it is a reasonable thesis, to postulate that God has assisted
Chrisitianity to prosper. This type of evidence is sociological in
nature.
However, we know that God exists independently of sociology..... due
to biochemical complexity. Therefore, the various major living
religions are the most likely to be true, out of the myriads of tiny
or dead pretenders. You can count the serious giant living religions
on one hand.
And Christianity is the most likely to be true out of that small
handful, due to the cultural dominance of the Christian civilization.
Cultural dominance is a function of how closely your civilization's
belief-scaffolding corresponds with the structure of reality. Now, God
is the most important feature of the structure of reality.
Correct belief in Him, and trust in Him..... dare I say "love" for
Him...... leads generally to cultural dominance. Simply because God
likes to keep His promises. "I know the plans I have for you, says the
LORD.... plans to prosper and not to harm you...."
Post by George
ten commandments insist "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (which
implies that there is more than one god), yet Islam-Judao-christianity
insists that there is only one god?
When the Bible refers to small "g" gods, it is referring to demons.ten commandments insist "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (which
implies that there is more than one god), yet Islam-Judao-christianity
insists that there is only one god?
There is only one capital "g" God.
And His name is:
I AM THAT I AM.
The above passage in Exodus is a powerful witness to the fact, that
God is the ground of our very existence, or "being." The question of
Being that Heidegger proposed, is already answered by Moses long ago.
I find myself compelled by the very audacity of the claim, to put my
faith in the God that Moses wrote about. No other demonic false god
dared to make this claim.
Post by George
Civilizatilon started because people realized that the world is a hostile
place and that there is safety in numbers.
This is not only unproven, it is also naively simplistic and assumesCivilizatilon started because people realized that the world is a hostile
place and that there is safety in numbers.
that naturalism is true before having proven such.
Post by George
Research Associate at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, using
evidence from archaeological digs and the palaeoclimatic record, claims
that significant changes in social organization have coincided with abrupt
climate change.
This is a bizzarre rabbit trail.Research Associate at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, using
evidence from archaeological digs and the palaeoclimatic record, claims
that significant changes in social organization have coincided with abrupt
climate change.
<snip>
George
2007-09-13 00:49:07 UTC
Post by b***@juno.com
Both Zeus and the Aztec gods probably existed, as demons. And they may
still exist as those demons still.
So your God is good while everyone else's God is evil? My, but that is aBoth Zeus and the Aztec gods probably existed, as demons. And they may
still exist as those demons still.
bit arrogant, isn't it?
Yes, I'm sure the inquisition and the Crusades had something to do with
that.
Post by b***@juno.com
If God exists, he would assist the true religion to prosper. Christianity
has prospered.
Thus, it is a reasonable thesis, to postulate that God has assisted
Chrisitianity to prosper. This type of evidence is sociological in
nature.
However, we know that God exists independently of sociology..... due
to biochemical complexity. Therefore, the various major living
religions are the most likely to be true, out of the myriads of tiny
or dead pretenders. You can count the serious giant living religions
on one hand.
Gee, you are drumming up an 80 year old hypthesis that has long been beenIf God exists, he would assist the true religion to prosper. Christianity
has prospered.
Thus, it is a reasonable thesis, to postulate that God has assisted
Chrisitianity to prosper. This type of evidence is sociological in
nature.
However, we know that God exists independently of sociology..... due
to biochemical complexity. Therefore, the various major living
religions are the most likely to be true, out of the myriads of tiny
or dead pretenders. You can count the serious giant living religions
on one hand.
soundly refuted by the world's scientists. Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps you should learn a few lessons from this little cartoon:
Loading Image...
Post by b***@juno.com
And Christianity is the most likely to be true out of that small
handful, due to the cultural dominance of the Christian civilization.
Dominance by force of arms is not evidence that your religion is any moreAnd Christianity is the most likely to be true out of that small
handful, due to the cultural dominance of the Christian civilization.
valid than anyone elses. It is, however, solid evidence of the intolerance
of one cultural tradition with regard to another.
Post by b***@juno.com
Cultural dominance is a function of how closely your civilization's
belief-scaffolding corresponds with the structure of reality. Now, God
is the most important feature of the structure of reality.
Poppy cock. Cultural dominance is a function of which culture is theCultural dominance is a function of how closely your civilization's
belief-scaffolding corresponds with the structure of reality. Now, God
is the most important feature of the structure of reality.
strongest, not on whether ot not a cultural paradigm or religion is
superior.
Post by b***@juno.com
Correct belief in Him, and trust in Him..... dare I say "love" for
Him...... leads generally to cultural dominance. Simply because God
likes to keep His promises. "I know the plans I have for you, says the
LORD.... plans to prosper and not to harm you...."
Word salad.Correct belief in Him, and trust in Him..... dare I say "love" for
Him...... leads generally to cultural dominance. Simply because God
likes to keep His promises. "I know the plans I have for you, says the
LORD.... plans to prosper and not to harm you...."
Post by b***@juno.com
There is only one capital "g" God.
Really? Where in the ten commandments is the word "demon" mentioned?Post by George
ten commandments insist "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (which
implies that there is more than one god), yet Islam-Judao-christianity
insists that there is only one god?
When the Bible refers to small "g" gods, it is referring to demons.ten commandments insist "thou shalt have no other gods before me" (which
implies that there is more than one god), yet Islam-Judao-christianity
insists that there is only one god?
There is only one capital "g" God.
Perhaps you should ask the Jews what the old testament means. After all,
they wrote it:
Post by b***@juno.com
I AM THAT I AM.
The above passage in Exodus is a powerful witness to the fact, that
God is the ground of our very existence, or "being." The question of
Being that Heidegger proposed, is already answered by Moses long ago.
I find myself compelled by the very audacity of the claim, to put my
faith in the God that Moses wrote about. No other demonic false god
dared to make this claim.
Question: How do you know that God exists? Christian answer: Because theI AM THAT I AM.
The above passage in Exodus is a powerful witness to the fact, that
God is the ground of our very existence, or "being." The question of
Being that Heidegger proposed, is already answered by Moses long ago.
I find myself compelled by the very audacity of the claim, to put my
faith in the God that Moses wrote about. No other demonic false god
dared to make this claim.
Bible tells me so. Question: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Christian answer: Because it is the word of God. In other words, God is
because God is. Circular reasoning.
Post by b***@juno.com
that naturalism is true before having proven such.
Not proven? Hahaha. That's funny. Is the world a hostile place? Yes.Post by George
Civilizatilon started because people realized that the world is a
hostile
place and that there is safety in numbers.
This is not only unproven, it is also naively simplistic and assumesCivilizatilon started because people realized that the world is a
hostile
place and that there is safety in numbers.
that naturalism is true before having proven such.
Was it more hostile to people 4,000 years ago than it is today? Yes. Why?
Civilization. Safety in numbers. Even Musk oxe in the arctic understand
this simple concept. What was the life expectency of the average Middle
Eastern nomad 4,000 years ago? About 20 years. The life expectency of the
average villager in Europe during the middle ages was about 30 years. The
average life expectency in modern cities worldwide is about 63 years.
Next.
Post by b***@juno.com
What? No refutation? Is this all you've got? It is well known that thePost by George
Research Associate at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, using
evidence from archaeological digs and the palaeoclimatic record, claims
that significant changes in social organization have coincided with
abrupt
climate change.
This is a bizzarre rabbit trail.Research Associate at Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, using
evidence from archaeological digs and the palaeoclimatic record, claims
that significant changes in social organization have coincided with
abrupt
climate change.
Anasazi Indians, in the Western U.S. had a thriving civilization that
simply disappeared practically overnight about 1,000 years ago. Its demise
coincided with a long-lasting severe drought that struck the entire
Southwestern U.S. Coincidence? I think not.
George
Matthew Johnson
2007-09-13 00:49:07 UTC
In article <zMHFi.6491$***@trnddc07>, ***@juno.com says...
[snip]
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
[snip]
[snip]
Post by b***@juno.com
And Christianity is the most likely to be true out of that small
handful, due to the cultural dominance of the Christian civilization.
Cultural dominance is a function of how closely your civilization's
belief-scaffolding corresponds with the structure of reality.
That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "culturalAnd Christianity is the most likely to be true out of that small
handful, due to the cultural dominance of the Christian civilization.
Cultural dominance is a function of how closely your civilization's
belief-scaffolding corresponds with the structure of reality.
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
[snip]
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
b***@juno.com
2007-09-14 02:55:51 UTC
Post by Matthew Johnson
That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
Orthodox Christians are included in the set of cultural dominance. ItThat is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
For example, Russia is Orthodox Christian, and is fairly dominant in
its own way. They had a weird rabbit trail where they tried atheism
for a while, but that terrible nightmare is finally over, now that the
Berlin wall has fallen.
b***@juno.com
2007-09-14 02:55:51 UTC
Post by George
So your God is good while everyone else's God is evil? My, but that is a
bit arrogant, isn't it?
It is simply factual. Arrogance does not enter into it.So your God is good while everyone else's God is evil? My, but that is a
bit arrogant, isn't it?
And Atheism is far more arrogant, since according to atheism, all
previous generations were wrong, and only the tiny fraction of modern
atheists have finally figured things out.
The Crusades were largely failures, and the Inquisition mostly only
affected Spain. Christianity has prospered in SPITE of these two
things, not BECAUSE of them.
Post by George
Gee, you are drumming up an 80 year old hypthesis that has long been been
soundly refuted by the world's scientists. Why am I not surprised?
Like I keep telling you, why don't you read the new book that AntonyGee, you are drumming up an 80 year old hypthesis that has long been been
soundly refuted by the world's scientists. Why am I not surprised?
Flew is coming out with this November? Then you will finally
understand what I mean when I say that biochemistry proves that God
exists. It really does. I'm not kidding.
Yes, I don't feel like re-typing the same stuff over again. Would take
too long. Trust me, biochemistry is way too complex to have "just
luckily happened" with no God guiding the process.
Post by George
Dominance by force of arms is not evidence that your religion is any more
valid than anyone elses. It is, however, solid evidence of the intolerance
of one cultural tradition with regard to another.
Force of arms had virtually nothing to do with it. Christianity hasDominance by force of arms is not evidence that your religion is any more
valid than anyone elses. It is, however, solid evidence of the intolerance
of one cultural tradition with regard to another.
mostly spread by persuasion, with a few minor aberrations here and
there.
Post by George
Poppy cock. Cultural dominance is a function of which culture is the
strongest, not on whether ot not a cultural paradigm or religion is
superior.
But the reason WHY a certain culture is strongest, is based on theirPoppy cock. Cultural dominance is a function of which culture is the
strongest, not on whether ot not a cultural paradigm or religion is
superior.
religion and worldview. Their outlook on life.
I suggest that you read Toynbee.
Where's the Thousand Island dressing?
Post by George
Really? Where in the ten commandments is the word "demon" mentioned?
Perhaps you should ask the Jews what the old testament means. After all,
Any false god is nearly always the manifestation of a demon. Just askReally? Where in the ten commandments is the word "demon" mentioned?
Perhaps you should ask the Jews what the old testament means. After all,
people in Africa who have to deal with witch doctors. I had a friend
who went there on a short term mission trip, and she experienced it a
little bit.
Post by George
Question: How do you know that God exists? Christian answer: Because the
Bible tells me so.
Nope. I know that God exists because of the modern science ofQuestion: How do you know that God exists? Christian answer: Because the
Bible tells me so.
biochemistry.
And that is just one proof among many. Other proofs include the
Anthropic principle, the impossibility of crossing an infinite stretch
of (past) time to arrive at the present moment, and many others.
Post by George
Question: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Christian answer: Because it is the word of God.
Wrong again. I know the Bible is correct because the civilization thatQuestion: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Christian answer: Because it is the word of God.
is based on it, happens to be culturally dominant. (And I am talking
about ALL the Christian based cultures here, including the Orthodox
ones, in case Matthew is reading this).
This is what would be expected of the true religion. The true religion
would be assisted by God to become world-dominant. Why? Because God
loves us all, and wants us all to be saved eventually.
I said nothing of the kind. Your mind is obviously unable to break out
of your pre-set categories and boxes.
Post by George
Not proven? Hahaha. That's funny. Is the world a hostile place? Yes.
Was it more hostile to people 4,000 years ago than it is today? Yes. Why?
Civilization. Safety in numbers. Even Musk oxe in the arctic understand
this simple concept. What was the life expectency of the average Middle
Eastern nomad 4,000 years ago? About 20 years. The life expectency of the
average villager in Europe during the middle ages was about 30 years. The
average life expectency in modern cities worldwide is about 63 years.
Next.
This fails to prove that civilization was started ONLY because ofNot proven? Hahaha. That's funny. Is the world a hostile place? Yes.
Was it more hostile to people 4,000 years ago than it is today? Yes. Why?
Civilization. Safety in numbers. Even Musk oxe in the arctic understand
this simple concept. What was the life expectency of the average Middle
Eastern nomad 4,000 years ago? About 20 years. The life expectency of the
average villager in Europe during the middle ages was about 30 years. The
average life expectency in modern cities worldwide is about 63 years.
Next.
environmental hostility. Civilization may have had another cause in
addition to mere environmental hostility, such as God telling some
people to start up a Civilization. (On Mt. Sinai, say)
Post by George
What? No refutation? Is this all you've got? It is well known that the
Anasazi Indians, in the Western U.S. had a thriving civilization that
simply disappeared practically overnight about 1,000 years ago. Its demise
coincided with a long-lasting severe drought that struck the entire
Southwestern U.S. Coincidence? I think not.
Climate change may or may not cause a Civ. But God also might haveWhat? No refutation? Is this all you've got? It is well known that the
Anasazi Indians, in the Western U.S. had a thriving civilization that
simply disappeared practically overnight about 1,000 years ago. Its demise
coincided with a long-lasting severe drought that struck the entire
Southwestern U.S. Coincidence? I think not.
something to do with it. You haven't proven anything here.
And again, I suggest that you read some Toynbee. He is a good
historian, very rewarding to read.
George
2007-09-17 01:58:31 UTC
Post by b***@juno.com
Extraordinary claims are not facts unless they are backed up withPost by George
So your God is good while everyone else's God is evil? My, but that is
a
bit arrogant, isn't it?
It is simply factual. Arrogance does not enter into it.So your God is good while everyone else's God is evil? My, but that is
a
bit arrogant, isn't it?
extraordinary proof. Where's the beef, Bimms?
Why is your God real and everyone else's false, in your view? The fact is
that there are no facts to substantiate your arrogant claims, only excuses
and rationalizations.
Post by b***@juno.com
And Atheism is far more arrogant, since according to atheism, all
previous generations were wrong, and only the tiny fraction of modern
atheists have finally figured things out.
Are you suggesting that atheism is a modern phenomenon? A brief glimpse atAnd Atheism is far more arrogant, since according to atheism, all
previous generations were wrong, and only the tiny fraction of modern
atheists have finally figured things out.
the literature suggests otherwise? And Bimm, previous generations weren't
privy to all the scientific data that the current generation has available.
Now I know that you prefer to believe that Aristotle and others were right
and the earth is the holy center of the universe, but such beliefs, in
light of modern scientific inquiry is, to say the least, delusional.
Post by b***@juno.com
The Crusades were largely failures, and the Inquisition mostly only
affected Spain. Christianity has prospered in SPITE of these two
things, not BECAUSE of them.
Flew is coming out with this November? Then you will finally
understand what I mean when I say that biochemistry proves that God
exists. It really does. I'm not kidding.
Umm, why would I want to take the word of a literature professor in mattersThe Crusades were largely failures, and the Inquisition mostly only
affected Spain. Christianity has prospered in SPITE of these two
things, not BECAUSE of them.
Post by George
Gee, you are drumming up an 80 year old hypthesis that has long been
been
soundly refuted by the world's scientists. Why am I not surprised?
Like I keep telling you, why don't you read the new book that AntonyGee, you are drumming up an 80 year old hypthesis that has long been
been
soundly refuted by the world's scientists. Why am I not surprised?
Flew is coming out with this November? Then you will finally
understand what I mean when I say that biochemistry proves that God
exists. It really does. I'm not kidding.
of biochemistry, Bimm? That's like expecting me to accept the word of a
diesel mechanic in matters of brain surgery. I realize that you aren't
kidding, that's what makes your suggestion so funny.
Post by b***@juno.com
Yes, I don't feel like re-typing the same stuff over again. Would take
too long. Trust me, biochemistry is way too complex to have "just
luckily happened" with no God guiding the process.
Bimms, luck had nothing to do with it, and no scientist in his right mindYes, I don't feel like re-typing the same stuff over again. Would take
too long. Trust me, biochemistry is way too complex to have "just
luckily happened" with no God guiding the process.
would ever claim that it does. I do notice that more than one creationist
NOT in his right mind make that claim/lie. Why is that, Bimms? Natural
selection is not random, and neither are chemical reactions. Reactions
follow specific chemical principles. You cannot throw calcium and chorine
together and expect the product to be calcite. Reactions are very specific
and predictable.
Post by b***@juno.com
mostly spread by persuasion, with a few minor aberrations here and
there.
Oh, ok. I see that you are in denial mode. Perhaps you should read "GreekPost by George
Dominance by force of arms is not evidence that your religion is any
more
valid than anyone elses. It is, however, solid evidence of the
intolerance
of one cultural tradition with regard to another.
Force of arms had virtually nothing to do with it. Christianity hasDominance by force of arms is not evidence that your religion is any
more
valid than anyone elses. It is, however, solid evidence of the
intolerance
of one cultural tradition with regard to another.
mostly spread by persuasion, with a few minor aberrations here and
there.
Science after Aristotle", by G.E.R. Lloyd, and pay particular attention to
entitled "the deline of ancient science". when you are through reading that
entertaining little ditty, then you should read up on Constantinople, the
Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition.
Post by b***@juno.com
religion and worldview. Their outlook on life.
Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, as well as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine wouldPost by George
Poppy cock. Cultural dominance is a function of which culture is the
strongest, not on whether ot not a cultural paradigm or religion is
superior.
But the reason WHY a certain culture is strongest, is based on theirPoppy cock. Cultural dominance is a function of which culture is the
strongest, not on whether ot not a cultural paradigm or religion is
superior.
religion and worldview. Their outlook on life.
disagree with you.
It's your salad. If you want dressing, bring your own.
Post by b***@juno.com
people in Africa who have to deal with witch doctors. I had a friend
who went there on a short term mission trip, and she experienced it a
little bit.
What evidence do you have for the existence of demons? Keep in mind thatPost by George
Really? Where in the ten commandments is the word "demon" mentioned?
Perhaps you should ask the Jews what the old testament means. After
all,
Any false god is nearly always the manifestation of a demon. Just askReally? Where in the ten commandments is the word "demon" mentioned?
Perhaps you should ask the Jews what the old testament means. After
all,
people in Africa who have to deal with witch doctors. I had a friend
who went there on a short term mission trip, and she experienced it a
little bit.
anecdotal evidence is not science. In ancient times, people believed that
anyone who had a seisure was possessed by demons. Clue: These aren't
ancient times, Bimms. We understand what causes seisures and have
effective treatments for them. Stop demonizing what you don't understand.
Post by b***@juno.com
biochemistry.
Lies do not help your credibility, Bimms.Post by George
Question: How do you know that God exists? Christian answer: Because
the
Bible tells me so.
Nope. I know that God exists because of the modern science ofQuestion: How do you know that God exists? Christian answer: Because
the
Bible tells me so.
biochemistry.
Post by b***@juno.com
And that is just one proof among many. Other proofs include the
Anthropic principle, the impossibility of crossing an infinite stretch
of (past) time to arrive at the present moment, and many others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#CriticismsAnd that is just one proof among many. Other proofs include the
Anthropic principle, the impossibility of crossing an infinite stretch
of (past) time to arrive at the present moment, and many others.
Post by b***@juno.com
is based on it, happens to be culturally dominant. (And I am talking
about ALL the Christian based cultures here, including the Orthodox
ones, in case Matthew is reading this).
Hahahahaha!!! You really should get your head out of dominionism's arsePost by George
Question: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Christian answer: Because it is the word of God.
Wrong again. I know the Bible is correct because the civilization thatQuestion: How do you know the Bible is correct?
Christian answer: Because it is the word of God.
is based on it, happens to be culturally dominant. (And I am talking
about ALL the Christian based cultures here, including the Orthodox
ones, in case Matthew is reading this).
and have a look around.
Post by b***@juno.com
I said nothing of the kind. Your mind is obviously unable to break out
of your pre-set categories and boxes.
Now that is the pot calling the kettle black. Congratulations.I said nothing of the kind. Your mind is obviously unable to break out
of your pre-set categories and boxes.
Post by b***@juno.com
environmental hostility. Civilization may have had another cause in
addition to mere environmental hostility, such as God telling some
people to start up a Civilization. (On Mt. Sinai, say)
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2006/2006-09-07-03.aspPost by George
Not proven? Hahaha. That's funny. Is the world a hostile place? Yes.
Was it more hostile to people 4,000 years ago than it is today? Yes.
Why?
Civilization. Safety in numbers. Even Musk oxe in the arctic
understand
this simple concept. What was the life expectency of the average Middle
Eastern nomad 4,000 years ago? About 20 years. The life expectency of
the
average villager in Europe during the middle ages was about 30 years.
The
average life expectency in modern cities worldwide is about 63 years.
Next.
This fails to prove that civilization was started ONLY because ofNot proven? Hahaha. That's funny. Is the world a hostile place? Yes.
Was it more hostile to people 4,000 years ago than it is today? Yes.
Why?
Civilization. Safety in numbers. Even Musk oxe in the arctic
understand
this simple concept. What was the life expectency of the average Middle
Eastern nomad 4,000 years ago? About 20 years. The life expectency of
the
average villager in Europe during the middle ages was about 30 years.
The
average life expectency in modern cities worldwide is about 63 years.
Next.
environmental hostility. Civilization may have had another cause in
addition to mere environmental hostility, such as God telling some
people to start up a Civilization. (On Mt. Sinai, say)
Post by b***@juno.com
something to do with it. You haven't proven anything here.
In the absense of evidence of a God, and the abundant evidence of thePost by George
What? No refutation? Is this all you've got? It is well known that
the
Anasazi Indians, in the Western U.S. had a thriving civilization that
simply disappeared practically overnight about 1,000 years ago. Its
demise
coincided with a long-lasting severe drought that struck the entire
Southwestern U.S. Coincidence? I think not.
Climate change may or may not cause a Civ. But God also might haveWhat? No refutation? Is this all you've got? It is well known that
the
Anasazi Indians, in the Western U.S. had a thriving civilization that
simply disappeared practically overnight about 1,000 years ago. Its
demise
coincided with a long-lasting severe drought that struck the entire
Southwestern U.S. Coincidence? I think not.
something to do with it. You haven't proven anything here.
forces of nature, there's nothing to prove.
George
George
2007-09-17 01:58:32 UTC
Post by b***@juno.com
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
Let's see the number hands here who know of or have experienced ostracismPost by Matthew Johnson
That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys
"cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
Orthodox Christians are included in the set of cultural dominance. ItThat is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys
"cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
at the notion of leaving one's Church. My guess is that it is rampant in
Christianity, particular in the protestant sects. Of course, many other
relgions also deomonize those who "lose the faith", although Christianity
appears to have it down to a science (possibly the only thing scientific
about it). Of course, in centuries past, punishment for such "crimes" was
much, much worse. And you wonder why Christianity is so widespread. Let
me clue you in. It isn't because it is a benevolent religion.
Correction. Orthodox Christianity is the dominant religion in Russia,
followed by Sunni Islam.
Oh, and by the way, despite the previous dominance of Marxism in Russia,
the Orthodox Church survived that period relatively intact.
George
Matthew Johnson
2007-09-17 01:58:36 UTC
Post by b***@juno.com
We are? Then why is the West still so opposed to us?Post by Matthew Johnson
That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
Orthodox Christians are included in the set of cultural dominance.That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
Post by b***@juno.com
It
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
I wish that were really true. But I just don't see it that way.It
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
Post by b***@juno.com
For example, Russia is Orthodox Christian, and is fairly dominant in
its own way.
And yet Russia feels a strong need to identify the _West_ as "culturallyFor example, Russia is Orthodox Christian, and is fairly dominant in
its own way.
dominant" -- and in opposition to Russia.
Post by b***@juno.com
They had a weird rabbit trail where they tried atheism
for a while, but that terrible nightmare is finally over, now that the
Berlin wall has fallen.
You have no idea how close they came to going back to that when Zyuganov ran forThey had a weird rabbit trail where they tried atheism
for a while, but that terrible nightmare is finally over, now that the
Berlin wall has fallen.
President against Yeltsin. If Zyuganov had won, his right-hand man Anpilov would
have run the purges, murdering all the "new Russians".
The nightmare itself may be over, but there are still significant, lingering
after-effects.
Smug reasoning about "Christian cultural dominance" coming from people who
instinctively think 'Christian' = 'Protestant' does not help the world deal with
these after-effects -- or with anything else either.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2007-09-17 01:58:36 UTC
Post by b***@juno.com
We are? Then why is the West still so opposed to us?Post by Matthew Johnson
That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
Orthodox Christians are included in the set of cultural dominance.That is easy for you to say, since you are in the party that enjoys "cultural
dominance". Don't expect those outside that party to agree.
Post by b***@juno.com
It
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
I wish that were really true. But I just don't see it that way.It
is Christianity that is world dominant, in all of its forms. Not just
in population numbers, but also in virtually every other way
imaginable.
Post by b***@juno.com
For example, Russia is Orthodox Christian, and is fairly dominant in
its own way.
And yet Russia feels a strong need to identify the _West_ as "culturallyFor example, Russia is Orthodox Christian, and is fairly dominant in
its own way.
dominant" -- and in opposition to Russia.
Post by b***@juno.com
They had a weird rabbit trail where they tried atheism
for a while, but that terrible nightmare is finally over, now that the
Berlin wall has fallen.
You have no idea how close they came to going back to that when Zyuganov ran forThey had a weird rabbit trail where they tried atheism
for a while, but that terrible nightmare is finally over, now that the
Berlin wall has fallen.
President against Yeltsin. If Zyuganov had won, his right-hand man Anpilov would
have run the purges, murdering all the "new Russians".
The nightmare itself may be over, but there are still significant, lingering
after-effects.
Smug reasoning about "Christian cultural dominance" coming from people who
instinctively think 'Christian' = 'Protestant' does not help the world deal with
these after-effects -- or with anything else either.
--
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
-----------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)