The Satanic quality of the Internet

[MH]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

The whole theory behind that is that you cannot accelerate yourself to such a speed, and so far it has proven true. That doesnt mean, for all intents and purposes, that you cannot travel "faster" than light. Instead of accelerating yourself through space, why not move space out of the way. You are not accelerating, therefore E=MC^2 does not apply and you can reach a destination as quickly as you build your machine to do so, which could be faster than light could reach the same destination from the same distance.
.

Was talking about particles ,neutrinos...but again the properties of neutrinos are in question so it might be bad example.

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Those are examples that religion has denied the basic rights of the few. But we cannot deny people to believe whatever they want to. people can say things that they truly dont believe, yet not act on them. When those people do act upon those beliefs in a way that infringes on other's rights is when intervention is required. Theres not much more people can do.

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I always wonder when reading such postings whether it is really that difficult to argue and defend ones own opinion without distorting what the other said, or whether it is just the easier path of defamation that is being taken due to own laziness or lack of arguments that could hold their ground.

...me lazy

As for the scientifically based ugly ideologies the argument stands.
I think the few past centuries show and in particular last century.A period when religion was less relevant than earlier that the bloodshed and conquest, including killing on industrial scale had become even more intensive.
In some cases it can be attributed to advancement in weaponry in others to applying Darwinian laws about survival of the strongest races therefore making racism a science ...for example or used in the name of social engineering.Yet the fact is that the "enlightenment" did not really prevent it...sometimes led to it.

The "enlightenment" made religion merely a less effective tool in political game while other ideas replaced them.

I can agree that religion may hold us back when it comes to scientific advancements but i can hardly say that it is root of all evil.

When it comes to Judaism and local (why local is a long story that dates back to 48)orthodox i probably like them even less than you do (not sure though...)but still they don't try to convert anyone or conquer others.
They simply are closed club that is trying to preserve itself.
God dam it...most of they don't even recognise Israel.
Israel is Zionist sin till Messiah comes to sort things out.


..........

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

Really...now why don't you ask Skybird about denying basic rights of few based on his purely logical (in his view)social reasoning then....
Or maybe reflect on some ugly ideologies that took in some inspiration on Darwin theory of evolution.


..............

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Exactly what rights is he denying in this particular argument?.

I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Also please explain your second statement. I seem to be missing your point.

Post 50

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

I was referring to his interesting/economical reasoning behind gays rights in some other threads which may approach the issue from different angle but go in par with religious stance.

While I completly disagree with Skybird on that subject I found his arguments to be the only anti-gay-marriage arguments to be worthwhile. He made good and reasonable points.

Post 50

Again I disagree. While some benighted people have tried to use Darwinism to that end, it doesn't refute the basic tenets of the theory of Evolution. Are you saying you believe Skybird adheres to that concept?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

While I completly disagree with Skybird on that subject I found his arguments to be the only anti-gay-marriage arguments to be worthwhile. He made good and reasonable points.

Yes he made reasonable points.

Again I disagree. While some benighted people have tried to use Darwinism to that end, it doesn't refute the basic tenets of the theory of Evolution. Are you saying you believe Skybird adheres to that concept?

I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I was trying to counter Sky,s argument about religion being root of all evil.
It is about how things for political reason can taken out of context manipulated and used for "reasonable" brainwashing....behold... no religion involved in mass murder,conquest and "spread civilisation crusades".
A case when ethics goes to trashcan in the name of science and greater good instead of religion.
While religion may try deal with ethics, science is more about greater good and facts while ethics might be elusive.

Simply dot buy the blame religion thing.


(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)

But you personally made no arguments. All you did in this case was attack, insult and troll. Again, if you won't discuss it reasonably, please stay out of it. This constitutes a personal attack and will no longer be tolerated.

Read again, I am personally making the arguement of using his own arguements.
Answer the question put forward in the first post then make that statement again.
You may notice that it avoids the broad brush pitfall you pulled crank up on, which strangley enough is the same broad brush which Sky is using.

The second post clarifies the arguement put forward in the first.

The third is a quick serious of accurate counters and the reference to "zeal" is included to highlight how he is the same as those he says he is against.
Did you get the two references in the 4th and see which of his claims they countered? I was tempted to cross reference to his arguement about PC gone mad, which in reality was a legal ruling to deal with the legacy of the racist policy of honourary white people to further highlight it as a pattern but considered the point stood well enough itself.
The second part of the 4th deals with the very same notion you yourself have pulled him up over, if I recall correctly your arguement can be simply paraphrased as ... how are you and your arguements any different than those people and arguements you are saying are wrong, your intolerance loops to put you in the same category as that which you say must be got rid of.....please correct me if I have mistated on that angle about freedom of speech and intolerance and the self contradictory nature of the arguements put forward.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Yes he made reasonable points.



I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I was trying to counter Sky,s argument about religion being root of all evil.
It is about how things for political reason can taken out of context manipulated and used for "reasonable" brainwashing....behold... no religion involved in mass murder,conquest and "spread civilisation crusades".
A case when ethics goes to trashcan in the name of science and greater good instead of religion.
While religion may try deal with ethics, science is more about greater good and facts while ethics might be elusive.

Simply dot buy the blame religion thing.


(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)

A relgion is a cult that is formed around an ideology. I think its fair to say these ideologies base on a.) superstititon on the one and and b.) the self interest for power and priviliges of priesthoods of said religions.

Ideologies have two effects. 1. they motivate for future deeds/behaviour. 2. they serve as justifications for future AND past deeds/behaviour.

If the ideology preaches attack and conquest, the ethnic cleansing of new territories, the supression of females, the torture of infidels and apostates, and so on and on (I have the old testament on mind!), and if the ideology preaches about a magic skycaptain who threatens all this if his tyrannic orders are not met, and who executes mass murder as a penalty< for disobedience; if for his sasdistic joy he terrorises fathers to kill their sons to prove something, calling them back just in last minute in one story - and not calling them back in another story! - if all this is like it is, and muczh more blood and gore being told: then a motivating justifying ideology turns into a problem, becasue the rules and ethics and morals coming from that hardly can be called ethical, moral, humane. They are barbaric.

We should feel blessed an gifted that the morals of the est'S modenr present DO NOT BASE on Christian values. Else pour place would be like Afghanistan, probably.

I remind of the radical attitude of fundamentalist Chriostian in the US, a group mainly deriving from the bible belt, that by all what I have read about them in n o way are any different, any less medieval, any less inhukmane than the Taliben in Afghanistan. Maybe that is why these christians sometimes are referred to as the American Taliban. Thes people are ruthless and do not even shy away from murder and assassination, whoich they ocasionally carry oput - in context with the battle over abortion, for example.

At the same time such people, people like them, time and again show massive intellectual deficits. I cannot put it any other way.

Totalitarianism, mind control, supremacism are what keeps ideologic fundamentlaists together and oincreases their strength to change the world. That'S why the church calls for obedience, that'S why Islam is as openly totalitarian in its control claism as it is, that'S why Chriostian fundamentalists are so extremely aggressiove againmst others, espoecially atheists. The worst thing you can call yourself in the US seems to be "atheist". And up into the highest ranks of political and social representations you can find statements questioning whether an atheist should be allowe dto hold public office, can even be called an American, can even be called a civilised human being. Accusations of lacking human nature coming from a medieval Taliban, well that's rich, isn't it!

I mentioined the experiment done in I think the 60s, by Israeli professor Tamarin, who looked how expopsition to religious teachings changed 1000 children's attitude towards genocide. The result - for which he was fired by his university (!) - was that the same biblic story of once again some tribe getting mowed down and pushing over the cliff of extinction, was met with disgust and moral outage if names and places were chnaged to some fictional historic event in Chinese history. But when the same story was told in the opriginal bilbical context, the vast majority found the genocide justified because it was the will of God.

Nice, eh?

The new testament is not much better, and only in the immediate preachings of Jesus you see a slightly different concepotion of God being given. But even Jesus repatedly referred to the woman as being inferior and the the foreign infidel must get pushed down and attacked. Not that without that I would see Jesus as any more holy than he is. If he existed, which to me is absolutely not a certainty, he still was a normal human, with a mind speaking some reaosnmable things for which they claim he was assassinated by those feeling threatened by this reason, and he still was a brainchild of his time and as a human could not completely escape being influenced by it. So even, by all sympathy for sermon on the mount and cleansing of the temple - leave Jesus the humanity that he had, and take the later emerging written fixings of hear-say about his claimed life with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that throughout history the moral and ethical standards caused and demonstrated by religions are far, far inferior to those basing on other grounds or were lived by people - sometimes under threat to their life for being herectis! - not signing it to relgion club membership. And no other mtoviation there has been in history, not poltics and not economics, that has caused, motiavted, called for and afterwards justified so much violent barvbaric excesses and wars, like the three theistic desert dogmas. Their historic record is a nightmare.

I personally fear very strongly that the US is developing into a theocratic police-state regime. That's why I cannot laugh about creationist museums anymore. In Europe, we maybe get the same thing, just in Islamic translation.

That'S why I am against religious schoolo lessons, and relgious clubs being allowed to nfliuehjce the small and weak, the unedcuated and unexpereinced children. I call it child abuse, and I mean it exactly lioke that. Let people get education, let them grow up, and when they are in their mid-twenties, let them decide by themselves whether they want to replace reality with fiction that eithe lets them live in a sugar-coated lie, or allows them to turn out the worst in them and become Taliban at worst, no matter whether Christain or Islamic ones. The chikldren are innocent, and their minds are unformed and defenceless to manipulation - that'S why religions fight so bitterly to get access to them as early as possible, and why they all have formed traditions to claim club possession over them from cradle on, if it could be legally managed.

To me, all this equals crime against humanity, and child abuse. Disgusting. And no sign of a sense for moral responsibility anywhere.

This should - once again - explain why I want the three desert dogmas brouight down. They are dangerous, and unfortunately they win in influence throughout the world. And that deeply concerns me. It doesn't matter whether it is Islam which is fundamentalist from A to Z, or Chroistzian church which is funda,mentlaist in parts of it and in some sects. Fundamentalists are a dangerous breed in both cases, as are Jewish extremists as well. Let'S show them all their place under the big stone in the garden, and make sure they stay there.

P.S. Yu said that no religion calls for global crusade and conquest. You are wrong. Islam does, both by deed and by scripture. Catholicism does, both by deed and by scripture, though today in a less military form (ignoring some Christian sectarians for the moment). The Vatican still implies demand for dominat rulership over all other Christian sects and chruches, too. Radical Jews demand ethnical cleannsing and theocratic totaliatrianism at least in the polaces they claim for themselves: the socalled holy land. Islam and radical Christians as well as Catholicism try actively to push into and gain ground in schools, education systems, law making, courts. All seek special status, regarding the law, and tax duties, for themselves, all of them want to establish parallel law systems for its members and special treatement for their priesthood.

I mentioined the experiment done in I think the 60s, by Israeli professor Tamarin, who looked how expopsition to religious teachings changed 1000 children's attitude towards genocide. The result - for which he was fired by his university (!)

If he was fired from his university for the experiment he did in 1966 why was he still there conducting the same studies in the same university in 1973?
Could it be that the story as presented isn't true?

Besides which does anyone care to spot the gaping flaw in the study, or rather the huge flaw in what it is being presented as
It is an easy one to spot and does come very nicely to a militantly extreme atheist ideology from which you could draw a comparison.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

I dot follow you here...its not about whether theory of evolution is true.

I thought you were saying he's one of the people who worship Evolution like it was a religion. Sorry If I misunderstood.

(did not try to call Sky names or imply anything)

I didn't think you were.

[Skybird]

I go with the evolution theory because it is the most convincing, ergonomic, elegant and simple explanation on the matter that we have gotten so far, well tested, and supported by plenty and plenty of evidence. Occam's razor - and it cuts relatively effortless here. Also, it's explanatory potential is immense. It'S one of the most fundemantal theories science has ever come up with. A mind-booster.

If these reasons qualify for having a "biased" attitude, or a relgious spirit, then I cannot help it and words do not mean anything anymore, it seems.

Also, alternative ideas given especially from the field of creationists and religions, by academic standards have been shown false and flawed so fundamentally and so often that I do not waste time arguing with them anymore. If somebody takes the tales by the Brothers Grimm for reality, then this is not a case for scientific debate, but for a therapist, sorry. And creationist museums were man is depicted beside or riding on dinosaurs "hand in hand" and a sign under the scene saying the world has been created 6000 years ago, then this is an illustration of the intellectual maximum credible accident.

There were other scientific attempts to explain the origin of man and species. The aquatic ape theory, for example, or the attempt to use neoteny to explain certain details where the classic savannah theory was weak. But all these theories failed to stand the test for general validity, may have sounded elegant, yes - but by far did not offer the general valdity the Darwinian model offers, and also offer not the immense explanatory potential. That'S why Darwin, and not Sir Allistair Hardy or somebody else, became the dominant paradigm in the field of evolution theories. It is common scientific procedure.

When somebody comes up with a model that has stronger explanatory potential, and his claims are shown in critical analysis to stand such tests and examinations, when it makes better predictions or allows a simplier, more elegant explanation - then Darwin will be left behind where his theory has shown to have been surpassed. But I do not expect to see that very soon. Or ever in the forseeable future - Darwins model is very very strong in argument and evidence.