Neanderthal sex boosted immunity in modern humans

[Gerald]

Sexual relations between ancient humans and their evolutionary cousins are critical for our modern immune systems, researchers report in Science journal.

Mating with Neanderthals and another ancient group called Denisovans introduced genes that help us cope with viruses to this day, they conclude.

Previous research had indicated that prehistoric interbreeding led to up to 4% of the modern human genome.

The new work identifies stretches of DNA derived from our distant relatives.

In the human immune system, the HLA (human leucocyte antigen) family of genes plays an important role in defending against foreign invaders such as viruses.

The authors say that the origins of some HLA class 1 genes are proof that our ancient relatives interbred with Neanderthals and Denisovans for a period.

At least one variety of HLA gene occurs frequently in present day populations from West Asia, but is rare in Africans.

The researchers say that is because after ancient humans left Africa some 65,000 years ago, they started breeding with their more primitive relations in Europe, while those who stayed in Africa did not.

"The HLA genes that the Neanderthals and Denisovans had, had been adapted to life in Europe and Asia for several hundred thousand years, whereas the recent migrants from Africa wouldn't have had these genes," said study leader Peter Parham from Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

"So getting these genes by mating would have given an advantage to populations that acquired them."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14673047


Note: 26 August 2011 Last updated at 11:15 GMT

[Anthony W.]

Things I didn't need to know... Lol

[CaptainHaplo]

I call bull chips on this...
If neaderthals possessed increased immunity, then alot of people I work with would not be nearly as sick as they are.....

[Gerald]

I call bull chips on this...
If neaderthals possessed increased immunity, then alot of people I work with would not be nearly as sick as they are.........A bit like the subconscious sick of this song,

http://youtu.be/ntLsElbW9Xo

[STEED]

This explanes why the Human Race has no Moon base or a man landing on Mars. Our evolution progress was slowly down by a load of randy Neanderthal's going at it like the clappers. :rolleyes:

[Platapus]

Personally, I am against allowing marriages between Neanderthals and Denisovans.

If they want to live together, then they should have that right. But Marriage should be between two homo sapiens.

This is just another attack on the sanctity of marriage. :stare:

Next thing will be equal rights for Australopithecus!!!! :stare::stare::stare:

A line has to be drawn. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

:rotfl2:

I would support you on that, but I'm too lazy to go look up the big words.

[nikimcbee]

Personally, I am against allowing marriages between Neanderthals and Denisovans.



http://chzsomuchpun.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/thats-racist.gif?w=316&h=338

I'm all for equal rights!

You should be able to marry what ever you want whenever you want.

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/70633-1934.gif

[Schöneboom]

This explains how many hot women choose their boyfriends. Arrgh!

[Rilder]

But... I thought the Christian God created humans thousands of years after the Neanderthals... are you saying that Neanderthals time traveled into the future to steal our womenfolk? :rotfl2:

[Platapus]

But... I thought the Christian God created humans thousands of years after the Neanderthals... are you saying that Neanderthals time traveled into the future to steal our womenfolk? :rotfl2:


Sounds like the only reasonable explanation.

[CaptainHaplo]

Amazing how everything has to be turned into an attack on Christianity....

[Tribesman]

But... I thought the Christian God created humans thousands of years after the Neanderthals... are you saying that Neanderthals time traveled into the future to steal our womenfolk?
No no no. god made them all one day, the DNA isn't really from neanderthals as they were animals under man and that would be bestiality and god says no sex with animals OK.
This rogue DNA is obviously from the unearthly giants who used to come and have sex with human women and eat all the food until the humans in gods other wisdom got angry about the food and rose up against them ....apart from those human women who liked it with giants so much they didn't reallly care about the food issue.

[Morts]

Amazing how everything has to be turned into an attack on Christianity....
More like an attack on ignorance, which is really what creationism is.

[Blood_splat]

This would explain Carrot Top.
http://www.gamblersdata.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/3779-party_carrot_top.jpg

[CaptainHaplo]

Well one thing about Subsim that always made it feel like home was that members could discuss things reasonably. Instead its just "attack" what you don't like - discussion be naught needed. "Attack" just because you can, even if your flaming of whatevr you don't like has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Never waste an opportunity to slam others who don't agree with your views, eh?

Didn't used to be like that, and its kinda sad it has gotten that way now.

[Tribesman]

Well one thing about Subsim that always made it feel like home was that members could discuss things reasonably.
It's rather hard to have a reasonable discussion on any science with a cretinist and it is equally hard to discuss the tenets of faith with a "christian" who doesn't know his own religion.:yeah:

[Rilder]

Amazing how everything has to be turned into an attack on Christianity....

For the record my wasn't an attack I was just poking a little fun. :O:

[CaptainHaplo]

Rilder, unfortunately the atmosphere in subsim has gotten to the point where nearly any comment related to Xtianity is met with ridicule. While you may have meant it in fun, note that more than one person decided to then "pile on". Humor is great - we all enjoy it, its just unfortunate that some here have to react with hostility to anything that mentions the Almighty.

[Sailor Steve]

Didn't used to be like that, and its kinda sad it has gotten that way now.
You have a selective memory. It has indeed always been like that. Perhaps you have forgotten Subman1 and Frame57, who took every opportunity to ridicule anything that wasn't Christian or Conservative, which was of course hardly a Christian attitude. This week there are more atheists than believers, and next year the pendulum might swing the other way. Or not.

I thought Platapus's post was extremely witty. Rilder's I thought was a little too harsh. On the other hand should people not say what they think? At what point does a joke become an attack?

My biggest problem with General Topics these days is the number of people who post here but seemingly no longer post anywhere else. GT is for all things not concerning subsims, but it is still part of Subsim.com. If GT was closed down tomorrow what would most of you do?

[Tribesman]

unfortunately the atmosphere in subsim has gotten to the point where nearly any comment related to Xtianity is met with ridicule.
Comments related to Christianity are met as comments about Christianity.
Comments about Islam are met as comments about Islam.
Comments by "christians" on Christianity are met in the same way as a "druid" would be met if he was talking about the faerie folk living in that ancient whitethorn over there while he was pointing at a sycamore tree.

I thought Platapus's post was extremely witty.
On so many levels too.

[Castout]

Amazing how everything has to be turned into an attack on Christianity....

Yeah. If you really don't believe in God why hate the idea so much. So many of these people are anti-religion and anti God instead simply not believing in the concept of God. In plain words: They hate the very idea and notion of God and they lash it out on the believers. That too me is another form of radicalism, no better than Islamic fundamentalist.

More like an attack on ignorance, which is really what creationism is.

This is too. The word most atheists don't understand is tolerance. I tolerate atheist beliefs. I expect the same from them.

[Castout]

My biggest problem with General Topics these days is the number of people who post here but seemingly no longer post anywhere else. GT is for all things not concerning subsims, but it is still part of Subsim.com. If GT was closed down tomorrow what would most of you do?

Post in GT in another forum :O:

Honestly submarine simulation is now a dying genre.

[Tribesman]

If you really don't believe in God why hate the idea so much. So many of these people are anti-religion and anti God instead simply not believing in the concept of God. In plain words: They hate the very idea and notion of God and they lash it out on the believers.
And that is absolute bollox.

The word most atheists don't understand is tolerance. I tolerate atheist beliefs. I expect the same from them.
The issue people have in that vein is not really about tolerance of religion or anything even remotely like that.
That is purely an issue where people no matter what their religious or non religious views are objecting to "religion" being sold as science.

Honestly submarine simulation is now a dying genre.
No it was a niche genre and remains a niche genre.

[CaptainHaplo]

You have a selective memory. It has indeed always been like that. Perhaps you have forgotten Subman1 and Frame57, who took every opportunity to ridicule anything that wasn't Christian or Conservative, which was of course hardly a Christian attitude. This week there are more atheists than believers, and next year the pendulum might swing the other way. Or not.

I thought Platapus's post was extremely witty. Rilder's I thought was a little too harsh. On the other hand should people not say what they think? At what point does a joke become an attack?

My biggest problem with General Topics these days is the number of people who post here but seemingly no longer post anywhere else. GT is for all things not concerning subsims, but it is still part of Subsim.com. If GT was closed down tomorrow what would most of you do?

Steve,

Perhaps I do have a selective memory. Comes with old age, I guess. Just because one side does it doesn't make it "right" or ok for the other to do so. Both should be called out for it. I thought that was the purpose of the rules and having moderators - to keep the flaming of others and their thoughts to a minimum so that civil discussion could take place. I remember there use to be very good political debates on many subjects in GT - done with class and respect. Take Mookie - he and I disagree vehemently on a slew of topics - but he has always been respectful and reasonable in his discussions - as I hope I have. Skybird tends to be another example of the same thing - people can be reasonable and discuss things without having to mock someone with an opposing opinion.

At one time there was a guy here who followed me around and had to post after just about every one I made. Name was Tribesman, and no matter what was said, he had to find a way to ridicule it and attempt to denigrate me, personally as well. Thing is, he tended to do the same to others. I finally got to the point where I had to put him on my ignore list simply because it seemed to be personal for him. Its gotten that way anytime something regarding Xtianity is mentioned. It doesn't even have to be mentioned by a person of faith - people will relate anything they can to the subject just to hold it up for ridicule. Anything faith related is a personal affront to some people and they react by ridiculing the subject and anyone who chooses to associate with it.

The Radio Room forum is not the place for flaming, spewing, or otherwise mouthing off. We do not allow posts where people are called idiots, morons, etc.

I just did a quick search and found ole Tribesman still is following me around. Pity - but it showed up something. Search the word "cretinist" and you will find him using it to denigrate and insult anyone who chooses to put faith in the Bilblical Creation. Even using his own reference to the definition, the word is an insult. But multiple times he has been allowed to use it without repercusion. Unfortunately, the GT forum has gotten to where this is allowed. Just as starred out words have become much more the norm, so has the lack of common courtesy regarding certain topics or in speaking with other people. Both losses are a pity. At least one is being addressed.

As for your point on GT - I only post here and in the PC subforum nowadays with the occasional foray into the Other Games section. I don't have SH5, am getting the hang of Actuv and can't contribute there yet. SH3/4 w/GWX are not even installed (am changing pc's soon). Between work, my children (am a single parent) and all that life entails, I don't have the time to visit and post in every forum, nor do I feel like it. Just because I don't currently play subsims doesn't mean Subsim.com can't be a home for me, or others in similiar situations. Sorry you seem to feel that should not be the case.

[Tribesman]

Name was Tribesman, and no matter what was said, he had to find a way to ridicule it and attempt to denigrate me, personally as well.
Indeed, "false preacher", "un-christian" and "hypocritical" were common terms relating to Haplo posts.

I finally got to the point where I had to put him on my ignore list
That magic ignore list which amazingly stops me from pointing out how often you show how your personal "christianity" is in direct contradiction with the book.

I just did a quick search and found ole Tribesman still is following me around.
Yes because despite the protestations from "christians" it is the bible bashers who don't know their bible who are the people who are insulting Christianity.

Search the word "cretinist" and you will find him using it to denigrate and insult anyone who chooses to put faith in the Bilblical Creation.
Cretnists are generally people who don't know the book they are putting their "faith" into, as such they themselves insult what they claim to stand for.
It is impossible to denigrate and insult such people for putting their faith in the bible as they clearly are not.
As a basic rule cretinists lack the faith they rather loudly claim to have.:woot:

[CaptainHaplo]

Indeed, "false preacher", "un-christian" and "hypocritical" were common terms relating to Haplo posts.

Sigh.... Still personally attacking people because you can't debate rationally I see. Go outside, see the sun and feel the wind and breath the fresh are on occason. You might find the world isn't a place where you have to lash out all the time.

That magic ignore list which amazingly stops me from pointing out how often you show how your personal "christianity" is in direct contradiction with the book.

No, that useful ignore list that has kept me from having to endure your personal harrassment simply because we have differing opinions. Contrary to what you would prefer everyone think, you are not able to judge me or my views and beliefs. You can try, but your judgements are of no consequence, thus you were relegated to the ignore list.

Yes because despite the protestations from "christians" it is the bible bashers who don't know their bible who are the people who are insulting Christianity.

Internet stalk people much? Nice of you to admit thats what you have been doing with me for what - a couple of years of more now? Amazingly, other than your admission that you follow me around and try to insult me continually, I am astounded by the rest of the sentence. You are actually correct: "it is the bible bashers who don't know their bible who are the people who are insulting Christianity.". Those that don't know the Bible and bash it are those who insult Christianity. Well done on that at least.

Cretnists are generally people who don't know the book they are putting their "faith" into, as such they themselves insult what they claim to stand for. It is impossible to denigrate and insult such people for putting their faith in the bible as they clearly are not. As a basic rule cretinists lack the faith they rather loudly claim to have.:woot:

Funny, review the definition you pointed to in this post: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1073843&postcount=51

It does not say what your claiming now (oops - busted - gotta change your story!). It does however make it clear that "cretinists" are worthy of being mocked. It is an insult, and you clearly use it as such. Backpedaling was a good try, but if anyone were actually concerned about the disrespect and lack of courtesy here, you'd get hammered. Somehow I would have thought that Neal and Takeda would have put a stop to intentional, blatent and now admitted harrassment. Guess your lucky that the moderators have turned a blind eye to your continued antics.

[Gerald]

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3552/neanderthalzoom.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/24/neanderthalzoom.jpg/)

[Tribesman]

Sigh.... Still personally attacking people because you can't debate rationally I see.
It is a perfectly rational debate, you don't know your scripture, you have very little understanding of theology, you make cliams about your "faith" that repeatedly show how little of the faith you claim to follow you understand.
All perfectly rational, all directly relating to what you write , what you claim and all are things that you repeatedly ran from as you are unable to address them.:yep:

Amazingly, other than your admission that you follow me around and try to insult me continually,
English no good for you?:rotfl2:
Read what was written:88)


You are actually correct: "it is the bible bashers who don't know their bible who are the people who are insulting Christianity.". Those that don't know the Bible and bash it are those who insult Christianity. Well done on that at least.
So you don't understand english, or do you:har::har::har::har::har:
Read what was written:88)
You are one of those bible bashers

Funny, review the definition you pointed to in this post
A perfectly valid definition.
It does not say what your claiming now (oops - busted - gotta change your story!).
You are having English problems again Haplo:har::har::har::har::har:
Read what was written:88)
Read through the statements and work out what the words mean, it is very easy.
Besides which even if you ignore the basic facts, that link was to rubbish the claim that it wasn't a word.
So as what you wrote would be an example of you trying to misrepresent something does that constitute a lie which a Christian would think is an example of a "christian" commiting a rather silly sin:yeah:

Is this in fact a rather good illustration that perhaps the reason why your "christianity" is so un-Christian and your bible knowledge is so full of huge gaping flaws might be simply because you have difficulty with language?:|\\

[Takeda Shingen]

It's rather hard to have a reasonable discussion on any science with a cretinist and it is equally hard to discuss the tenets of faith with a "christian" who doesn't know his own religion.:yeah:

I haven't seen any discussion regarding Christianity in this thread. What I is do see a few people trying to score some cheap points at the expense of some others' core beliefs, and one other person continuing to troll someone he doesn't get along with. Thankfully, most of the members of this forum are above this sort of behavior.

[MH]

LOL to this thread.
Maybe you should start talking about islamophobia and meaning of words in Koran.:rotfl2:

[Takeda Shingen]

LOL to this thread.
Maybe you should start talking about islamophobia and meaning of worlds in Koran.:rotfl2:

As I said, most of the members are above this sort of behavior.

[Gerald]

Quite right Tak, but some "are" happy that the thread gets out and changes shape ... which is certainly not uncommon in GT ... and the result becomes inevitable, the thread is closed.

[Tribesman]

I haven't seen any discussion regarding Christianity in this thread.
Indeed, it has been touching on "christianity" which is different.

[Sailor Steve]

Perhaps I do have a selective memory. Comes with old age, I guess. Just because one side does it doesn't make it "right" or ok for the other to do so. Both should be called out for it.
And I didn't say differently. I just pointed out your comment "Didn't used to be like that, and its kinda sad it has gotten that way now", and mentioned that it has always been like this. Wrong? Perhaps, and maybe it should be more controlled. But where to draw the line?

I thought that was the purpose of the rules and having moderators - to keep the flaming of others and their thoughts to a minimum so that civil discussion could take place. I remember there use to be very good political debates on many subjects in GT - done with class and respect. Take Mookie - he and I disagree vehemently on a slew of topics - but he has always been respectful and reasonable in his discussions - as I hope I have. Skybird tends to be another example of the same thing - people can be reasonable and discuss things without having to mock someone with an opposing opinion.
I agree, but I wouldn't know where to begin. If I had my way it would be a lot more controlled, but given my background and tendencies, it would probably end up being over-controlled, and everyone would leave. :dead:

As for Tribesman, I've tried to get him to see the difference between debating someone and ridiculing them, but he doesn't seem to know or care, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Regarding this particular thread, Platapus only mildly insulted those who oppose gay marriage. Rilder on the other hand did indeed mention the Christian God, but his only attack was on the belief in creationism, not Christianity itself. I think you saw a lot more in it than was actually there.

Just because I don't currently play subsims doesn't mean Subsim.com can't be a home for me, or others in similiar situations. Sorry you seem to feel that should not be the case.
I don't feel that way at all, and I wasn't referring solely to you. On the other hand I notice that there are a handful of people who never take part in any of the "fun" threads. That says a lot to me.

But I agree. Just because GT needs to be a little looser than other forums doesn't mean it should be open to trolling and personal attacks, which at this point it certainly is. On the one hand I think you overreacted to the original posts in this thread. On the other I don't think that, or anything else, warrants the treatment you've been recieving. It needs to stop, and for good.

[Takeda Shingen]

Indeed, it has been touching on "christianity" which is different.

From where I am sitting, it looks a lot more like trolling, which is something different indeed.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Yeah. If you really don't believe in God why hate the idea so much. So many of these people are anti-religion and anti God instead simply not believing in the concept of God. In plain words: They hate the very idea and notion of God and they lash it out on the believers. That too me is another form of radicalism, no better than Islamic fundamentalist.



This is too. The word most atheists don't understand is tolerance. I tolerate atheist beliefs. I expect the same from them.
haha. hahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHa! oh the hypocracy...

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/331.html)" -Voltaire

However, the reason religion gets bashed is because of its over-extending of its boundaries. lotta people saying they want a bigger role of religion in politics, and creationism taught in schools, and religion's involvement in yet another form of discrimination, the hating of gays, and the attack on atheism.

Spare me your "but IM the victim" nonsense.

[Armistead]

I'm all for mating and I play sh4, all I can add to the debate....:)

[Rilder]

My biggest problem with General Topics these days is the number of people who post here but seemingly no longer post anywhere else. GT is for all things not concerning subsims, but it is still part of Subsim.com. If GT was closed down tomorrow what would most of you do?

I personally don't play Silent hunter much, both IV and V are installed I just haven't been able to get lost in them like I used to be able to. I do however tend to hang around General Game Discussion and even Tanksim to see if anything has been posted in the World of Tanks threads, (Though I HATE the backround on that subforum)

Usually though if the community is good then I'll stick around even if I don't play the game, I barely if ever play Dwarf Fortress these days but I'm on the Bay12 forums ALL the time, I even stick around on an IRC channel for a game I don't play because a few of the people who hang out on it are very close friends to me. When your interested in being in a community then why shouldn't you stick around just because you don't play much anymore?

[Sailor Steve]

Wasn't referring to you, Rilder. I sometimes see people who I've never seen on any other forum, and I wonder how they got here. Anyway, it was nothing more than my opinion, which counts for pretty much nothing.

And that's as it should be.:sunny:

[Reece]

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/70633-1934.gif
Even with that big Mongo!

[Tribesman]

From where I am sitting, it looks a lot more like trolling, which is something different indeed.
Is it though?
If someone writes in a topic complaining that people are attacking Christianity then that becomes a topic for debate.
Since the best way to debate is to get to the core of the issues, which in regards to Christianity must have scripture and theology very high on the list.
If it is easily demonstrated that a complaint about Christianity is from someone whose knowledge is so bad on the subject that it is frequently directly contradictory to it its cores then it does establish a lack of validity in that persons position.
Once that is established then nearly every topic where that person brings up Christianity can be handled in the same way.
It could even be said that Haplo with his "christianity" is repeatedly trolling Christians.:03:

[CaptainHaplo]

It is trolling (or worse) when you admit - as you did (and which is demonstrated by a quick forum search) that you purposely follow a specific individual and repeatedly post after him/her with the intent and outcome to demean and diminish your target.

The history of your actions is right in the search field. Anyone can look at it. You have continually and intentionally followed and launched personal attacks against me, even during the very long time I have ignored you. You have never wanted discussion, you have wanted to start drama. Discussions are for people who can hear (or in this case: read) you. You did this because you have a personal beef. Subsim isn't the place for that. Its for conversation, not flaming individuals.

And whats sad, at the end of your above post, you prove the point. You first say its about Xtianity - but your last statement shows - you were/are really just trying to make it all about me - in a negative way - yet again.You just can't let it go....

[Hottentot]

On the other hand I notice that there are a handful of people who never take part in any of the "fun" threads. That says a lot to me.

Everyone come to the comment thread!
(We have cookies too.)

I'm all for mating and I play sh4, all I can add to the debate....:)

That's surprisingly lot. Before reading this post, I was staring in disbelief and shaking my head. After reading it, I was smiling and soon started laughing. Thanks, Armistead. :up:

Edit @Haplo:

Its for conversation, not flaming individuals.I agree. Which is why in the other thread concerning religion I asked you a direct and (in my opinion) reasonable question regarding what you said. You chose to ignore it, yet I assume I am not on your ignore list. I'm just curious if you missed it or if it was intentional (the thread has now sunk, so no point in dwelling on the question, but I became honestly curious now that you put it that way.)

[Osmium Steele]

I recall reading an article which stated that there is no "red hair/fair skin/freckles" gene in the various strains of the human genome which migrated out of africa.

Since the genes controlling these attributes are seemingly connected, they could not have evolved in the short time since homo sapiens sapiens migrated to Europe.

The conclusion was that neanderthals were a bunch of gingers, and they did not disappear, but became modern Europeans through interbreeding.

Interesting, if true.

[Penguin]

I recall reading an article which stated that there is no "red hair/fair skin/freckles" gene in the various strains of the human genome which migrated out of africa.

Since the genes controlling these attributes are seemingly connected, they could not have evolved in the short time since homo sapiens sapiens migrated to Europe.

The conclusion was that neanderthals were a bunch of gingers, and they did not disappear, but became modern Europeans through interbreeding.

Interesting, if true.

*closes zipper of his pants* Sorry, just came back from the Neanderthal...:O: (I live only a couple of kilometers away)

I read articles about it too, the most common theory is that homo sapines and Neanderthals lived side-by-side for some time and besides killing each other there certainly was some little shagging ;)
What is still unclear if the Neanderthals died out with or without our help - some people argue that they were absorbed by the modern humans.

[Hottentot]

some people argue that they were absorbed by the modern humans.

I know another interesting theory that has spawned from this idea. You know how in good old fairy tales there are sometimes trolls and such, that are basically like human beings, but bigger, hairier, uglier, stronger and whatnot. The theory is that such stereotype of a humane but not kind humane monster is in fact a reminder of the neanderthal people, left in the collective subconscience of the modern people whose ancestors fought and eventually absorbed them. It's not a conscious choice anymore than being afraid of spiders.

The punchline is, that I learned this from a high school history book. So take with a huge grain of salt. But I thought it was a funny idea.

[NeonSamurai]

Is it though?
If someone writes in a topic complaining that people are attacking Christianity then that becomes a topic for debate.
Since the best way to debate is to get to the core of the issues, which in regards to Christianity must have scripture and theology very high on the list.
If it is easily demonstrated that a complaint about Christianity is from someone whose knowledge is so bad on the subject that it is frequently directly contradictory to it its cores then it does establish a lack of validity in that persons position.
Once that is established then nearly every topic where that person brings up Christianity can be handled in the same way.
It could even be said that Haplo with his "christianity" is repeatedly trolling Christians.:03:

I think the issue, is not that you are debating this stuff, but the ammount of ridicule and insult you lace into your arguments. I have no issue with people taking on other peoples views that they disagree with (this is after all a forum, not anyone's personal soap box, where they can say what ever they want and not be challenged). But there is a fine line between pointing out how absurd a person's views may be, and trolling them. A line you seem to like to dance around.

The irony to me though is that, although your points may be valid and even clever, your posting style looks childish, petty, and makes it hard to take seriously. Heaping ridicule in, in the end only does a disservice to yourself, plus it will get you into trouble.


Anyhow I would suggest you take a time out from your crusade on CaptainHaplo, before I have to give you one. That and I again strongly encourage you to drop the ridicule. You want to rip his statements to shreds, be my guest, just show a modicum of respect when doing it.

[Tribesman]

It is trolling (or worse) when you admit - as you did (and which is demonstrated by a quick forum search) that you purposely follow a specific individual and repeatedly post after him/her with the intent and outcome to demean and diminish your target.

:har::har::har::har::har:
Learn English
when you admit

you purposely

demean and diminish
You fail again:rotfl2:

The history of your actions is right in the search field.
Indeed, which shows your last attempt at "search" in this field to be a flat out misreprestantion of facts, some people might say that a flat out misreprestation is a lie, which of course a Christian would say is a sin:rotfl2:

You have continually and intentionally followed and launched personal attacks against me
Really? Against you or your much stated view of scripture and Christianity?

You have never wanted discussion
Where would you like to start, gensis, enoch, job.... hey try augustine...you run a mile every time.:know:(see below)
Even your last attempt on scripture and slavery was so far off the mark it a was a pitiful display of "christian" ignorance flying in the face of everything.
To try and make imaginary scripture fit your "christian" views rather than a link of scripture and Christianity in support of your viewpoint shows it all.

Discussions are for people who can hear
(further below)
...............

Which is why in the other thread concerning religion I asked you a direct and (in my opinion) reasonable question regarding what you said. You chose to ignore it, yet I assume I am not on your ignore list. I'm just curious if you missed it or if it was intentional
:yeah:Below delivers.

You are exceptionaly vocal in your "christian" views and supposed attacks on Christianity, yet your views are often very contrary to the tenets of that religion, the attacks are not on a personal level but they are on your own stated views about a religion you loudly claim to have.
Whenever it is pointed out that your views are contrary to scripture or fly in the face of theology you run a mile from debate and just repeatedly post the same old easily disproven nonsense again and again.
Use your search funtion to get a paraphrased version from Hippo on "christians" with views like yourself.
I think it comes up third on the forum search for "cretinism":yep:
But make sure you read it and don't try and say that it stated something that it doesn't like you have already done many times in this topic.:woot:

[Tribesman]

Hottentot, if you look at that "old fairy tales" I alluded to it earlier, it exists in Christian scripture too, though they have been argiung for a couple of thousand years about what it really means and how to make it match with other bits.

[Takeda Shingen]

Is it though?
If someone writes in a topic complaining that people are attacking Christianity then that becomes a topic for debate.
Since the best way to debate is to get to the core of the issues, which in regards to Christianity must have scripture and theology very high on the list.
If it is easily demonstrated that a complaint about Christianity is from someone whose knowledge is so bad on the subject that it is frequently directly contradictory to it its cores then it does establish a lack of validity in that persons position.
Once that is established then nearly every topic where that person brings up Christianity can be handled in the same way.
It could even be said that Haplo with his "christianity" is repeatedly trolling Christians.:03:

Semantics. You know what you are doing, and I think you should know better than to try that with me.

[Penguin]

I know another interesting theory that has spawned from this idea. You know how in good old fairy tales there are sometimes trolls and such, that are basically like human beings, but bigger, hairier, uglier, stronger and whatnot. The theory is that such stereotype of a humane but not kind humane monster is in fact a reminder of the neanderthal people, left in the collective subconscience of the modern people whose ancestors fought and eventually absorbed them. It's not a conscious choice anymore than being afraid of spiders.


This would make an interesting thesis subject for an antropologist. You had to research old myths in the Neanderthals habitant and compare them with legends from other world regions, if they also mention "trollish" creatures.
It doesn't neccessarily have to be a collective subconscience, just stories passed on for thousands of years, like the big flood story which you find in many cultures.

Hottentot, if you look at that "old fairy tales" I alluded to it earlier, it exists in Christian scripture too, though they have been argiung for a couple of thousand years about what it really means and how to make it match with other bits.

This would fit, as the good ole Neanders were also found in biblical regions.
Can you link to the post where you wrote about it?

[Tribesman]

Penguin. It is in #13.

[Paul Riley]

Next thing will be equal rights for Australopithecus!!!! :stare::stare::stare:



LMFAO

[Sailor Steve]

:har::har::har::har::har:
Learn English
when you admit

you purposely

demean and diminish
You fail again:rotfl2:
And you troll again. This kind of post needs to stop.

[Paul Riley]

And you troll again. This kind of post needs to stop.

I dont want to get enveloped in any more feuds in here,once is enough for me and i've learned my lesson (2 weeks in the cooler was bad enough) but I dont know why Tribesman or others do it.Its getting tedious now and its not fair on those of us that have valid arguments/opinions.We are all individuals and should be treated with respect and be given the benefit of the doubt at all times.None of us are perfect,sure I said some bad things in the past,but i've learned,and it wont happen again,I certainly wont be 'baited' by anyone anymore at the very least.This constant flaming all the time is wrong,and as Steve said above,it should stop.
I thought trolling and being rude in general was an offence anyway?.

[Paul Riley]

I dont want to get enveloped in any more feuds in here,once is enough for me and i've learned my lesson (2 weeks in the cooler was bad enough) but I dont know why Tribesman or others do it.Its getting tedious now and its not fair on those of us that have valid arguments/opinions.We are all individuals and should be treated with respect and be given the benefit of the doubt at all times.None of us are perfect,sure I said some bad things in the past,but i've learned,and it wont happen again,I certainly wont be 'baited' by anyone anymore at the very least.This constant flaming all the time is wrong,and as Steve said above,it should stop.
I thought trolling and being rude in general was an offence anyway?.

Sorry I had to post that,I just felt I should after my recent similar experience,resulting in a 2 week ban.Its really none of my business this particular squabble so...ergh...whatever ;)

[Sailor Steve]

No need to apologize, Paul.

Its getting tedious now and its not fair on those of us that have valid arguments/opinions.
Or even if the argument is invalid. As I've said many times, I don't know anything. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, it just means that I know that no matter how hard I think my facts may be, it could still turn out that I'm wrong. The same is true for others. When I say I don't know anything I'm also implying that you (not you, Paul, but the generic "you") don't either. I don't know that Christianity is false, but I do see no evidence at all for the existence of a God, so I argue from that viewpoint. On the other hand the Christian also doesn't know for a fact that he's right. What if it turns out the Muslims are right? That said, ridicule is the lowest form of debate, and serves no one.

Ridicule Creationism if you like, but you don't know that they're not the ones who are right. Of course the ancient Greeks could have been right too, and they don't allow for that possibility. On the other hand, arguing that Creationism has no scientific value and is not based in science at all is a valid argument, whether it's true or not.


I thought trolling and being rude in general was an offence anyway?.
It is, but General Topics is somewhat looser than other forums, and some leeway is allowed. I not too long ago had debates with a couple of other members, and the more I countered their arguments the more they turned away from the topic itself, one of them finally telling me I was old and should step aside for the younger generation and the other accusing me of being "unchallengeable" and "a fixture on Subsim". While the latter point is true (but I'm not the only one) the first was nothing of the kind. But neither of them crossed any lines regarding the rules, and I never suggested that they should be stopped, censored or punished in any way.

But some people see the need to attack and ridicule, and they shouldn't. As pointed out by others, that only dimishishes the person who does it.

[Tribesman]

Ridicule Creationism if you like, but you don't know that they're not the ones who are right. Of course the ancient Greeks could have been right too, and they don't allow for that possibility. On the other hand, arguing that Creationism has no scientific value and is not based in science at all is a valid argument, whether it's true or not.

The great thing about creationism is that it can be validly dealt with from either a religious or scientific viewpoint.
From a religious viewpoint it just doesn't stand up which is why such things have been a contentious issue for Christianity for two thousand years, and from a scientific viewpoint it is an absolute joke.

[Sailor Steve]

The great thing about creationism is that it can be validly dealt with from either a religious or scientific viewpoint.
From a religious viewpoint it just doesn't stand up which is why such things have been a contentious issue for Christianity for two thousand years, and from a scientific viewpoint it is an absolute joke.
Nice way to sidestep the subject, which is you attacking not the idea but the people who adhere to it.

[nikimcbee]

*closes zipper of his pants* Sorry, just came back from the Neanderthal...:O: (I live only a couple of kilometers away)

I read articles about it too, the most common theory is that homo sapines and Neanderthals lived side-by-side for some time and besides killing each other there certainly was some little shagging ;)
What is still unclear if the Neanderthals died out with or without our help - some people argue that they were absorbed by the modern humans.

I don't remember if they've been able to map Neanderthal's DNA? Their were either now signs of N-DNA or it was totally drowned out by the modern DNA and you can't tell it's there. This stuff has always facinated me, especially when it comes to language.:D

[MH]

I have red somewhere that Neanderthals had been the smart ones and Homos the cute ones.

[Sailor Steve]

I have red somewhere that Neanderthals had been the smart ones and Homos the cute ones.
You have a problem then, because they were all homos.

Homo Erectus
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo Sapiens

[Schöneboom]

http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos/geicos-caveman-17th-annual-night-of-100-stars-oscar-gala-d7BFyF.jpg

It's just not fair! :stare:

[MH]

You have a problem then, because they were all homos.

Homo Erectus
Homo Neanderthalensis
Homo Sapiens

Damn homos....they just stick it everywhere. :D

(I meant Homo Sapiens-need to be more anal when posting)

[Sailor Steve]

Damn homos....they just stick it everywhere. :D

(I meant Homo Sapiens-need to be more anal when posting)
I figured that was what you meant. It was just such a good oportunity. :O:




Of course Homo Erectus is the funniest of all.

[Buddahaid]

I figured that was what you meant. It was just such a good oportunity. :O:




Of course Homo Erectus is the funniest of all.

I've heard good things about his Vegas tour.

[Tribesman]

Nice way to sidestep the subject, which is you attacking not the idea but the people who adhere to it.
No sidestep there Steve, it is attacking the idea and those people who still hold to the idea long after they are unable to defend it from either a religious or scientific viewpoint.
The whole thing with that idea is that those who hold it do seem to only further undermine their own position if they try and actually address it.

To take it back to one of the platypus levels in the original witticism.
If someone was to espouse micegenation it is perfectly acceptable to take that idea apart isn't it, it is also very easy(just like creationism).
Is it not also perfectly acceptable that once those views have been taken apart and the roots of their foundation fully exposed with the aid of the person who is actually stating those views to call it as it is and address that person as a racist with racist views and an idea based on racism?

[MH]

Has anyone seen anything taken apart...i admit though that the conclusion statment is very good but a bit over used and with no backing substance.

[Tribesman]

Has anyone seen anything taken apart...i admit though that the conclusion statment is very good but a bit over used and with no backing substance.

You will need to go back through the numerous creationism topics, there have been plenty.
You could use Haplos method and search for "cretinism" though the one he posted did happen to be in a topic he did not partake in(though the same ideas were still taken apart).
Leaving aside any science and leaving aside the origin and composition of the books a very quick method for you MH is to simply take a western Christian collection of books and start at the begining, see how many lines you can read before it becomes apparant that a literal interpretation cannot stand.

[Gerald]

@Schöneboom! Nice girl,:up:

[Sailor Steve]

No sidestep there Steve, it is attacking the idea and those people who still hold to the idea long after they are unable to defend it from either a religious or scientific viewpoint.
And again you pretend innocence. You consistently attack the person, and claim it's attacking the idea. Personal attacks are not allowed - period.

You could use Haplos method...
And after claiming to be in the right you immediately turn around and do it again. I don't like name-calling, but you have "Troll" written all over you.

[Tribesman]

And again you pretend innocence. You consistently attack the person, and claim it's attacking the idea.
Really???????
Read what was written again.

And after claiming to be in the right you immediately turn around and do it again.
It is repeating a suggestion he made, how is that attacking him?

[Sailor Steve]

Really???????
Read what was written again.
I've read everything you've written, and this is a constant running theme with you

It is repeating a suggestion he made, how is that attacking him?
"Haplo's method" is a direct insult to the person. Even if you think his methods are wrong, you're still attacking him, not his ideas.

[Tribesman]

I've read everything you've written, and this is a constant running theme with you

You have been having problems with reading what I have written lately, what was the last big one...Oh yeah, imaginary links that I refused to respond to which contained imaginary arguements that I didn't answer :hmmm:

"Haplo's method" is a direct insult to the person.
suggesting the search funtion as suggested by Haplo is an insult?????
Sorry Steve you have really lost it there.

[CaptainHaplo]

I've read everything you've written, and this is a constant running theme with you


"Haplo's method" is a direct insult to the person. Even if you think his methods are wrong, you're still attacking him, not his ideas.


Steve,

Its not worth the time. Let it go. There are more interesting things to worry about. Thanks for pointing out the obvious though.

[Krauter]

.Its getting tedious now and its not fair on those of us that have valid arguments/opinions.We are all individuals and should be treated with respect and be given the benefit of the doubt at all times.None of us are perfect,sure I said some bad things in the past,but i've learned,and it wont happen again,I certainly wont be 'baited' by anyone anymore at the very least.This constant flaming all the time is wrong,and as Steve said above,it should stop.
I thought trolling and being rude in general was an offence anyway?.

Personally I find all the trolling and flaming annoying as heck. Not because it's rude and ignorant to other people, which in itself is annoying and shows the lack of respect that I had come to expect between members here at Subsim, but because it clogs up the threads with useless banter when others are trying to actually debate and talk and display fact and further encourage learning.

Take for example, the post about the possible connection between trolls and monsters in folklore and with the existence of Neanderthals in our subconcience. Interesting stuff, and I'm sure if the thread were pursuing a debate on that I'm sure we'd find something interesting, but instead we're wasting our time arguing with someone who, obviously, is unwilling, or cannot see a way, to change his ways while Mods stand idly by bantering with him as well. Brig him and be done with it, because he's not going to change as can be seen through multiple other threads where these attacks have occurred. Otherwise ignore it and move on.

No need to apologize, Paul.


Or even if the argument is invalid. As I've said many times, I don't know anything. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, it just means that I know that no matter how hard I think my facts may be, it could still turn out that I'm wrong. The same is true for others. When I say I don't know anything I'm also implying that you (not you, Paul, but the generic "you") don't either.


I believe you were the one that told me this, and it's actually had a great impact on how I debate with people in person, on the internet, or even go about arguing points in essays in school, but it goes something like:

The point of a debate is not to "win" per se, but rather to further increase one's knowledge on the subject.

Anyways, just wanted to share some thoughts on the subject.

Cheers,

Krauter

Edit: Also, it amazes me how an innocent thread about Neanderthals and our ancestors getting raunchy turns into an argument about religion and such :D

[Hottentot]

There are more interesting things to worry about.

Obviously.

[CaptainMattJ.]

well, i think the whole thing has been blown out of proportion.

i dont think tribesman directed as much emotion as he was given back by steve and haplo. He acted out of line, but i think hes just controversial and argumentative. I think everyone just got a little too emotional.

arguments tend to escalate, even on subsim.

@Krauter i believe you try to see the idealism of these threads, but fact is that people are controversial, and as innocent as it may be, anything that can be related to such things as politics and religion will ultimately end up becoming an argument on such things.

i come here to find more reasoned discussion, but turns out that there are rarely any arguments that result in someone giving way. everyone sticks to their guns, and it takes alot to get many people to take such things into much deliberation. People who believe in religion and those who dont never get anywhere with each other, because if it did, there would be less banter. but such is human emotion and thought. People are just Stubborn.

[Tribesman]

Take for example, the post about the possible connection between trolls and monsters in folklore and with the existence of Neanderthals in our subconcience. Interesting stuff, and I'm sure if the thread were pursuing a debate on that I'm sure we'd find something interesting
Indeeed, but some get way too emotional and are really unwilling to debate at all.
I would welcome any discussion on the folklore and Christian scripture and the strange beings which crop up alongside humans....but some people have a real problem with scripture and marrying it to their views which are apparently based on....scripture:03:

because it clogs up the threads with useless banter when others are trying to actually debate and talk and display fact and further encourage learning.

You mean like encouraging someone to read the books they are supposedly basing their views upon?
Come along Krauter learn for yourself, start at the begining and see how many lines you can read before biblical literalism begins to fall apart.
If you are unwilling to do that or do it and are unwilling to accomodate what you have learnt into your view then you would be displaying that you are uninterested in debate and wish to discourage learning.

[antikristuseke]

Has anyone seen anything taken apart...i admit though that the conclusion statment is very good but a bit over used and with no backing substance.
you mean creationism taken apart?
If so, i take a stab at it here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1207106&highlight=creationism#post1207106

[NeonSamurai]

you mean creationism taken apart?
If so, i take a stab at it here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1207106&highlight=creationism#post1207106

Oh no not that thread again.

[antikristuseke]

Sorry, but he did ask and I answered to the best of my ability :cry:

[NeonSamurai]

As long as it doesn't get resurrected again :shucks: once was enough

[MH]

you mean creationism taken apart?
If so, i take a stab at it here http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1207106&highlight=creationism#post1207106

Good stuff.:salute:

[Sailor Steve]

i dont think tribesman directed as much emotion as he was given back by steve and haplo. He acted out of line, but i think hes just controversial and argumentative. I think everyone just got a little too emotional.
Tribesman never gets emotional. It's what makes him so effective. It seems you haven't read too much of his "work".

[Tribesman]

Tribesman never gets emotional
That simply isn't true Steve.

Oh no not that thread again.
That was a good thread, it contained plenty of good arguements and some very good links.

[Sailor Steve]

That simply isn't true Steve.
Fair enough, but we can only judge people on a forum by the way they post.

[Krauter]

You mean like encouraging someone to read the books they are supposedly basing their views upon?
Come along Krauter learn for yourself, start at the begining and see how many lines you can read before biblical literalism begins to fall apart.
If you are unwilling to do that or do it and are unwilling to accomodate what you have learnt into your view then you would be displaying that you are uninterested in debate and wish to discourage learning.

As my religious views are something not up for discussion on a board like this, I will not read any biblical literations provided by you, or anyone else, I guess I'm not up to debate and learning, but that's your view I guess.

[Krauter]

@Krauter i believe you try to see the idealism of these threads, but fact is that people are controversial, and as innocent as it may be, anything that can be related to such things as politics and religion will ultimately end up becoming an argument on such things.

i come here to find more reasoned discussion, but turns out that there are rarely any arguments that result in someone giving way. everyone sticks to their guns, and it takes alot to get many people to take such things into much deliberation. People who believe in religion and those who dont never get anywhere with each other, because if it did, there would be less banter. but such is human emotion and thought. People are just Stubborn.

Such is the human nature, both to be stubborn and hard headed, as well as naive, but I remember a while ago when threads, to me at least, seemed to be a little more civil and at least a little ring of respect within them.

[Howard313]

:hmmm:
You know, it's amazing how one small joke comment can turn a thread that was intended to be about neanderthals and modern humans getting it on into a debate on Christianity, Atheism, and Theology in general.

[Krauter]

:hmmm:
You know, it's amazing how one small joke comment can turn a thread that was intended to be about neanderthals and modern humans getting it on into a debate on Christianity, Atheism, and Theology in general.


Edit: Also, it amazes me how an innocent thread about Neanderthals and our ancestors getting raunchy turns into an argument about religion and such :D
:D..

[Tribesman]

I will not read any biblical literations provided by you, or anyone else
Interesting, so much for debate and learning then, is choosing your own choice of bible and starting at the beginning too much of a challenge for yourself?

I guess I'm not up to debate and learning, but that's your view I guess.
It was you who brought it up and set the outlines.

Isn't it funny that you chose to pipe up in a topic and complain how people are not up for learning and debating yet have plainly steadfastly refused to even view any material no matter what the source on the topic as your views on the subject are not up for any discussion here.:hmmm:
It does suggest that when you said......
The point of a debate is not to "win" per se, but rather to further increase one's knowledge on the subject.
....you were talking bollox as far as applying it to yourself goes.

[Hottentot]

Not trying to speak for Krauter, but now that I browsed trough the first page and the OP again, I really don't see why anyone should debate his/her religious views on a thread that originally had nothing to do with religion. What if someone wanted to discuss for example, uh, something as wild as how "Neanderthal sex boosted immunity in modern humans"?

[MH]

I would be just great lol

[NeonSamurai]

That was a good thread, it contained plenty of good arguements and some very good links.

True, but the thread ultimately didn't go anywhere, and I doubt changed any minds. In all the debates, etc I have been involved in here, I seriously doubt I have ever changed anyone's stance to any great degree, particularly those active in the debate. It is one of the reasons why I tend not to bother anymore, not worth my time I feel.

Isn't it funny that you chose to pipe up in a topic and complain how people are not up for learning and debating yet have plainly steadfastly refused to even view any material no matter what the source on the topic as your views on the subject are not up for any discussion here.:hmmm:

My mentor at university always proposed the thought that one should only be willing to debate half of what one thinks or believes, and withhold the other half, but that one should change around what one is willing and unwilling to debate, so that at some point you are willing to debate everything, just not all at once.

His reasoning was that a closed mind will be open to nothing, but being too open is also a bad idea as it could rip everything you believe in out from under you (something people cannot take, which is dangerous to ones mental stability). So one should go for the middle ground, and be open to debating only some things at a time.

As for the religious, very very very very few are open to any form of true debate about their own beliefs, or the religion they follow. Most inwardly know there are plenty of flaws and problems with what they believe in, and will become quite hostile when those flaws are exposed to them. This is simply because they wish to hold on to their faith, and do not want it challenged at all (for fear of loosing it).

I have always proposed the idea that it is better to focus on the core message and values of a faith, rather than all the other stuff (my mother would call it oberglober (sp?)). The stories, miracles, extreme things, and stuff written a very long time ago, are always very vulnerable to rational critique. They serve mostly to inspire the uneducated (and generally ignorant) with tales of magic and wonder. Keep what makes sense to you, and discard the rest. Obsessing over the details of a religious book I feel is not a good thing, and frequently leads to division. Most are just stories either to teach a message, or come from ancient mythology. Most of the stuff in the Bible goes very far back, predating even the Torah. These stories and beliefs have tended to cycle and repeat throughout human history.

[Tribesman]

But Hottentot, doesn't it mean he becomes the very thing he complains about:hmmm:

True, but the thread ultimately didn't go anywhere
It could be said that the topic was done by post #3:03:
But I suppose that is because young earth cretinism is the easiest to demolish, whereas old earth cretinism starts with them half demolishing their own claims and "intelligent" design starts with them saying they are just flying blind and making it up as they go along as its kind of errrr...too hard to understand.

My mentor at university always......and repeat throughout human history.
that is one fine statement:salute:
One part though....
"As for the religious"....Really hits it as it is those who shouldn't do shout the loudest at percieved attacks on their faith when the reality is that it is they who are attacking their faith as they have a very weak one.

[MH]

"As for the religious"....Really hits it as it is those who shouldn't do shout the loudest at percieved attacks on their faith when the reality is that it is they who are attacking their faith as they have a very weak one.

Weak one?
So its like you have to be a fundamentalist or its just a bluff thing?

[Tribesman]

Weak one?

Yes a very fragile one.

So its like you have to be a fundamentalist or its just a bluff thing?
Pardon?

[Krauter]

Interesting, so much for debate and learning then, is choosing your own choice of bible and starting at the beginning too much of a challenge for yourself?


No the fact that I have no faith in religion is mostly why I don't want to debate anything having to do with religion. I'm fine with accepting the fact that I don't have faith in a higher power. I'm also fine in accepting that each and every person has the right to believe in, in their own way, a religion.

It was you who brought it up and set the outlines.

Isn't it funny that you chose to pipe up in a topic and complain how people are not up for learning and debating yet have plainly steadfastly refused to even view any material no matter what the source on the topic as your views on the subject are not up for any discussion here.:hmmm:
It does suggest that when you said......




....you were talking bollox as far as applying it to yourself goes.

Might I ask what "outlines" I set up? As far as I can see I set no outlines other then showing a little respect.

Like I said, I have no desire to change my views on the topic of religion, so I believe that I don't have the right to try and change another persons view either. Name me one point here where I spoke of wanting to change someones view on religion, as you seem to on numerous occasions, and I will backtrack immediately.

If I were up for learning and debating, as you put it, I'd post something relevant to learning and debating. What I instead posted were my thoughts on what I am seeing in this thread.

Since you didn't understand my post for what ever reasons, I'll break it down.

- I'm finding the numerous trolling and flames present in GT annoying. Mainly because it shows unwillingness to learn and further knowledge, but also because it shows the lack of mutual respect that I believed was present on this forum.

- I find the fact that we're wasting time arguing with someone who is unwilling to change, or does not see the problem that so many others do very annoying.

- I find the fact that mods are bantering back and forth with this individual, who has shown no inclination to change, as well as the fact that they're not taking one side or the other, i.e.: ban him or leave him alone, annoying.

- I believe that the point of a debate is not to "win" but rather to increase ones knowledge, or that of your "opponent" and help everyone out in the end.

Better?

Cheers,

Krauter

[Sailor Steve]

I have always proposed the idea that it is better to focus on the core message and values of a faith, rather than all the other stuff (my mother would call it oberglober (sp?)). The stories, miracles, extreme things, and stuff written a very long time ago, are always very vulnerable to rational critique. They serve mostly to inspire the uneducated (and generally ignorant) with tales of magic and wonder.
Unfortunately the predominant faith in the Western World is founded on the concept that one of those miracles is the single most important event in history. On the positive it seems to me that everything else (young earth, rapture, even the historicity of the Bible) should be irrelevant. On the negative it means that the supernatural stories cannot be kept out of the discussion, no matter how hard one tries.

[Tribesman]

No the fact that I have no faith in religion is mostly why I don't want to debate anything having to do with religion.
Faith isn't needed to debate religion, indeed it can be a handicap to debating the subject.

I'm fine with accepting the fact that I don't have faith in a higher power. I'm also fine in accepting that each and every person has the right to believe in, in their own way, a religion.


What has that got to do with anything in regards to debate?

Might I ask what "outlines" I set up? As far as I can see I set no outlines other then showing a little respect.

the topics mentioned, the folklore and the presentation of material for discussion, facts and debate. you complain that they are lacking but are not in the slightest interested in participating.
It appears you are just popping in to slag people off.

Since you didn't understand my post for what ever reasons, I'll break it down.

Do you not understand that as well as making assumptions you are doing many of the things you are complaining about?

[Tribesman]

Unfortunately the predominant faith in the Western World is founded on the concept that one of those miracles is the single most important event in history.
Is that the bit where the carpenter got nailed to a tree until he was dead for saying "be nice" and he came back later and said "I mean it, be nice"?

[Sailor Steve]

Well, I was intentionally being non-specific as I wanted to address the problem with the debate, not have the debate itself.

[Krauter]

Faith isn't needed to debate religion, indeed it can be a handicap to debating the subject.

I agree that it can be a handicap when debating religion. But as I have no intention to debate religion then I believe that my having no faith isn't a factor..


What has that got to do with anything in regards to debate?

How do I, if I have no faith, have a right to try and "educate", or debate, about religion with someone when i don't have any faith? See above.


the topics mentioned, the folklore and the presentation of material for discussion, facts and debate. you complain that they are lacking but are not in the slightest interested in participating.
It appears you are just popping in to slag people off.

Like I said, i was "popping in" to voice my opinion. Also, as I have not taken part in these debates, nor do I feel inclined to, I feel that I shouldn't have to participate, it's my decision after all. In regards to the folklore material, I was merely using that as an example, and after all, I am interested to see where that could lead.


Do you not understand that as well as making assumptions you are doing many of the things you are complaining about?

I'm sorry but I don't see it that way at all..

[Tribesman]

How do I, if I have no faith, have a right to try and "educate", or debate, about religion with someone when i don't have any faith?
So you couldn't discuss some Viking epics because you know about thunder, what about some greek classics could you discuss them if you don't believe in nymphs?

Like I said, i was "popping in" to voice my opinion. Also, as I have not taken part in these debates, nor do I feel inclined to, I feel that I shouldn't have to participate, it's my decision after all. In regards to the folklore material, I was merely using that as an example, and after all, I am interested to see where that could lead.

A good example you chose too, however you got it backwards, it is the people who are being vocal about their folklore who repeatedly refuse to discuss it.

I'm sorry but I don't see it that way at all..
Different people different perceptions, thats life.

@Steve
Well, I was intentionally being non-specific as I wanted to address the problem with the debate
Well it is the biggy when it comes to that belief set, so "single most important" is pretty specific.:03:

[Krauter]

So you couldn't discuss some Viking epics because you know about thunder, what about some greek classics could you discuss them if you don't believe in nymphs?

I would consider those different as Viking epics and greek classics aren't as big an issue today as they were in their times. What happened if you were to debate Viking epics or greek mythology in the time that they were truly believed in? You would be damned as a heretic and most probably killed..


A good example you chose too, however you got it backwards, it is the people who are being vocal about their folklore who repeatedly refuse to discuss it.

Where should people draw the line between folklore and faith? To refuse to discuss folklore compared to faith is different imo.

[Tribesman]

I would consider those different as Viking epics and greek classics aren't as big an issue today as they were in their times. What happened if you were to debate Viking epics or greek mythology in the time that they were truly believed in? You would be damned as a heretic and most probably killed..

Yeah, heaven forbid that someone should claim that the earth orbits the sun.

Where should people draw the line between folklore and faith? To refuse to discuss folklore compared to faith is different imo.
The thing there (and which was the initial angle on that vein) is the interchangability of the two.
The earlier was in reference to some tales which mainstream Judeaism don't have as such but the Askumites do, in the same way those texts aree also in the local Catholic and Orthodox books but not in the western chuches, yet mainstream judaism and western christianity both have references to the same things in their texts but omit the books themselves, so which is folklore and which is faith?
Are similar beings such as Hottentot related to folklore or religion? after all in the main they had their origins in the religions didn't they, or the mythologies if you want to put it that way.
How is it possible to debate when a meaningless line is drawn between things which can be viewed as one and the same?

[Sailor Steve]

@Steve

Well it is the biggy when it comes to that belief set, so "single most important" is pretty specific.:03:
You wink but you missed the point, which is that I didn't want to bring up the debate again but just to point out the problems with the debate itself. The thread was actually about something else, but people want to keep arguing this. I didn't.

[Lord_magerius]

Thought I'd jump into this thread to see how long before the bickering about religion and such started. Page one, good job everyone :up:

[Hottentot]

I would consider those different as Viking epics and greek classics aren't as big an issue today as they were in their times. What happened if you were to debate Viking epics or greek mythology in the time that they were truly believed in? You would be damned as a heretic and most probably killed.

Actually, from what I've understood, at least the Greek were pretty relaxed with these things. I have asked this from a scholar specializing in the area and she replied that it was perfectly possible to be even an atheist in the ancient Greece. And rather common to be a person who simply didn't care one way or the other.

I think the Romans inherited some of this from them, seeing how their idea of religion was sort of like a pact. We do our thing properly, the gods favor us. We mess up and the gods won't favor us. The lack of dedicated priesthood likely helped this.

Are similar beings such as Hottentot related to folklore or religion?

Can I become a religion? Pretty please? (Sorry, couldn't resist. Carry on.)

[Tribesman]

Can I become a religion? Pretty please?
You could, in the episode with the Chelonistsit was demonstrated to Brother Brutha that one man with belief is all a religion needs

[Hottentot]

I don't think one is enough (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0080.html), I really like the idea of big explosions and doomsday stuff and thundering voice more.

[joea]

I think the Romans inherited some of this from them, seeing how their idea of religion was sort of like a pact. We do our thing properly, the gods favor us. We mess up and the gods won't favor us. The lack of dedicated priesthood likely helped this.



Didn't the Romans combine religous and political duties? Like when the role of pontifex maximus was subsumed in the imperial office?

[Hottentot]

Didn't the Romans combine religous and political duties? Like when the role of pontifex maximus was subsumed in the imperial office?

At least after Augustus it went like that: the emperor was also the "high priest", though as far as I know, "priest" in Roman context is not to be understood the way we understand it. Priest was a person who handled the relations with the gods, somewhat like a diplomat would handle relations with foreign people.

That way it would make sense that religion and politics were intertwined way before Augustus too: if the gods don't favor you, then how do you prosper in politics either? And the early Rome was all about pacts with their close neighbors. An empire is not build by waving a magic wand.

But I hasten to add that it has been three years since I studied anything even remotely related to the antique and even then it was at very rudimentary level (an obligatory basic course in university). So if someone knows better, please correct me.