|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
No offense ment by this
No offense ment by this, but it seems from my POV that religion has been the cause of a good majority of the worlds problems. Wars, well, actually mainly wars. But am i the only one wh sees this?
Also you have countries like America, that i basically a christian country, who reall go over the top, like gays are wrong, blacks are wrong, good made the world in 6 days and then we bug him on the sunday i really dont get it.
The main argument for religion is It gives people hope etc etc, but really i think its just daft. Anyone else?
Also you have countries like America, that i basically a christian country, who reall go over the top, like gays are wrong, blacks are wrong, good made the world in 6 days and then we bug him on the sunday i really dont get it.
The main argument for religion is It gives people hope etc etc, but really i think its just daft. Anyone else?
I agree.
What causes the worlds problems is human nature.
We steal because we are naturaly greedy.
We rape because we are naturaly lustfull.
We make war because we are naturaly violent.
We lie because we are naturaly dishonest.
We kill because we are natualy hatefull.
Human nature is the problem, religion promoting immutable, unchanging morals is the cure.
We steal because we are naturaly greedy.
We rape because we are naturaly lustfull.
We make war because we are naturaly violent.
We lie because we are naturaly dishonest.
We kill because we are natualy hatefull.
Human nature is the problem, religion promoting immutable, unchanging morals is the cure.
I don't think that religion is the cause of most wars. Most wars are now about encomnies and a demostration of power.
That being said I don't think that human nature is inherently bad. Everyone is capable of being good if taught to behave that way
That being said I don't think that human nature is inherently bad. Everyone is capable of being good if taught to behave that way
Religion is rarely a cause of a war. It is a very often used excuse for war however.
Religion is often associated with war. It is a part of an identity. when identities collide, be it individual or national, it is an element that is brought in. Often it serves as a rallying point to incite action. This can bring about the final steps to war, but it often brings abou the final steps out of war.
It is tied to the imagry of war and the symbolic villinization of the enemy. While there is not an enemy needed to be religious, it is easy to cast those we do not like as being the enemey. If they are not for us, they are against us type imagery. The world is not so simple as borderline personalities would like to believe, nor does anyone really want to piss off someone with borderline personallity disorder or antisocial personality disorder...
That brings us back to religion. It can be a tool used to incite. Peace or War...
It is tied to the imagry of war and the symbolic villinization of the enemy. While there is not an enemy needed to be religious, it is easy to cast those we do not like as being the enemey. If they are not for us, they are against us type imagery. The world is not so simple as borderline personalities would like to believe, nor does anyone really want to piss off someone with borderline personallity disorder or antisocial personality disorder...
That brings us back to religion. It can be a tool used to incite. Peace or War...
| Assiez wrote: |
| I
That being said I don't think that human nature is inherently bad. Everyone is capable of being good if taught to behave that way |
If they are not taught, then they naturaly do such things.
What child is taught to lie? They, however lie nonetheless.
| Yantaal wrote: |
| No offense ment by this, but it seems from my POV that religion has been the cause of a good majority of the worlds problems. Wars, well, actually mainly wars. But am i the only one wh sees this?
Also you have countries like America, that i basically a christian country, who reall go over the top, like gays are wrong, blacks are wrong, good made the world in 6 days and then we bug him on the sunday i really dont get it. The main argument for religion is It gives people hope etc etc, but really i think its just daft. Anyone else? |
As stated earlier, religion can be used as an excuse to make war. It can also be used as an excuse to make peace, but most people refuse to see that point of view.
As far as America believing that gays are wrong, it doesn't, the bible does. No where does the bible say that blacks are wrong. If God made all man and isn't a respector of persons, then no one race is better than the other.
You are supposed to "bug" God everyday not just on the days you go to worship.
Also, there is more than religion than giving hope. It's hard to explain, but I don't look at the way I worship as a religion. To me, religion is just a point of view. I believe God exist. I believe He made the word and everything on it and in it. I also believe that He is love and being love, can't be used for war. That is man's doing not God's.
No, religion is not the main cause. Humans are just evil by nature, their evil tendencies create the friction and problems between the nations. Islam, however, happens to be responsible for the most part. I'm talking the radical kill-people Islam, not Islam in general.
I agree with soulfire--religion in general isn't the cause of most modern wars. Modern wars are started by greed for money and power.. It's just corrupted mankind at it's best.
So what say you about WWII? did hitler not disagre with a few religions and the hole fuss in Iraq and the other country, all religious wars surly?
And people always say about religious morals, do you think that without religioin the world would plungle into chaos because people wont know whats right or wrong?>
And people always say about religious morals, do you think that without religioin the world would plungle into chaos because people wont know whats right or wrong?>
Yes, actually if there were no religion in the world, I do think it would fall into utter chaos. If religion were never around, what would we have to base the difference between right and wrong?
Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. Don't murder, don't lie about your neighbor, don't steal.
I realize some consider it fiction, but within it's pages are real life lessons on how we should live, how we should conduct ourselves. Have you ever read the Bible or the Kuran? I may not have read all of the Kuran, but from what I've read, it is a lot like the Bible, teaching love not hate.
One day, sit down and read them with an open mind if you haven't already. The words in them just might surprise you.
Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments. Don't murder, don't lie about your neighbor, don't steal.
I realize some consider it fiction, but within it's pages are real life lessons on how we should live, how we should conduct ourselves. Have you ever read the Bible or the Kuran? I may not have read all of the Kuran, but from what I've read, it is a lot like the Bible, teaching love not hate.
One day, sit down and read them with an open mind if you haven't already. The words in them just might surprise you.
I agree completely...
I'll repeat again for emphasis: religion in general does not cause wars.
Do you ever look into these things, such as WWII? Why would Hitler want to purge the Jews? To create a better, more powerful world.
Iraq? The whole reason the US got into that war was: 1) To stop the terrorist attacks 2) to gain better control and influence of the nations with control of the largest oil reserves. Where's the religion in that?
I admit that the terrorists attacked the US as part of their holy war--that is religiously based. However, those terrorists follow the words of men, not a book such as the Kuran or the Bible. Of course that's not true for all of Muslims, but the Islamic-related attacks were under the command/leadership/instruction of corrupted men, not the religion itself.
Even if this was not the case, how can you base all of your judgements and opinions on a single misunderstood religion of which you know next-to nothing? If you had at least researched Islam a little, you might have realized that it did not start the current war. That was initiated by corrupted men in power.
I'll repeat again for emphasis: religion in general does not cause wars.
Do you ever look into these things, such as WWII? Why would Hitler want to purge the Jews? To create a better, more powerful world.
Iraq? The whole reason the US got into that war was: 1) To stop the terrorist attacks 2) to gain better control and influence of the nations with control of the largest oil reserves. Where's the religion in that?
I admit that the terrorists attacked the US as part of their holy war--that is religiously based. However, those terrorists follow the words of men, not a book such as the Kuran or the Bible. Of course that's not true for all of Muslims, but the Islamic-related attacks were under the command/leadership/instruction of corrupted men, not the religion itself.
Even if this was not the case, how can you base all of your judgements and opinions on a single misunderstood religion of which you know next-to nothing? If you had at least researched Islam a little, you might have realized that it did not start the current war. That was initiated by corrupted men in power.
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
| Religion is rarely a cause of a war. It is a very often used excuse for war however. |
I agree with that, People are the cause of the problems, with more respect for everyone it will be much better.
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
| Religion is rarely a cause of a war. It is a very often used excuse for war however. |
In which case religious conflicts are the cause. People in Israel want to fulfill the prophecies, of the temple being rebuilt by (and under the control of) Jews. Right now Muslims occupy most of that area, with the Temple of the Rock, if memory serves. One religion never specifically states, "You WILL go at war with the people of this other religion." But because the people within each religion cannot agree on virtually anything, there is much chaos.
The religions themselves are not actively causing it, but they are an excuse for people to fight. "He's of this other religion, I must kill him!"
The religions themselves are not actively causing it, but they are an excuse for people to fight. "He's of this other religion, I must kill him!"
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Humans are just evil by nature, their evil tendencies create the friction and problems between the nations. Islam, however, happens to be responsible for the most part. I'm talking the radical kill-people Islam, not Islam in general. |
Humans are not evil by nature.. every child is born with no evil, or good... it is the circumstances that the child grew up.. makes him evil or good... if you think hard... all evil people are made by this society itself.. for example.. when you don't give food or water to a starving child in streets... even when he asked help from you... his only way to survive in this world is to steal some food..
Islam is not responsible for any thing happening around... I know you are talking about the radicals... but I am writing this to all... the truth is.. The Holy Qur-an is written as codes.. and you need people who have knowledge to interpret that to people in common language.. and the problem occurs.. when Imams.. interpret that codes to us.. in the way that they get profit.. and according to their own personal interest...
For the guy who said.. terrorist attacks was a part of holy war.. it is wrong.. A war is considered only as Al-Jihad (holy war) when>
1) Fight to protect (defend) the Religion
2) Fight to protect (defend) Land
3) Fight to protect (defend) your Family
any other reason is not Al-Jihad.. it was the wrong translation given to the terrorists attack by the US Government.. to get more people to their cause of illegal/immoral/evil/unhuman.. wars..
| Soulfire wrote: |
| No, religion is not the main cause. |
| Soulfire wrote: |
| Islam, however, happens to be responsible for the most part. |
It's hard not to end up contradicting yourself, when you try to defend something which you don't truly believe in.
Let me clear up the confusion here - you don't want to say that religion is not at fault.
All you want to do is deny that your own religion can be so.
| Soulfire wrote: |
| I'm talking the radical kill-people Islam, not Islam in general. |
What kind of specific Islam is that ?
I thought Islam was the Koran's teachings. And that the Koran supported killing other men no more than does the Bible.
What have you got against Islam ?
Can we call America's "pre-emptive" invasions of other countries as "kill-people Christianity" ? (and I'm not even comparing the scale of killing involved)
Does Christianity own Bush government's actions ?
Does Islam own certain terrorists' actions ?
Your words very clearly show your bias.
| swapnalokam wrote: |
| Humans are not evil by nature.. every child is born with no evil, or good... it is the circumstances that the child grew up.. makes him evil or good... if you think hard... all evil people are made by this society itself.. for example.. when you don't give food or water to a starving child in streets... even when he asked help from you... his only way to survive in this world is to steal some food.. |
Ah, which philosophy is this again? Was it John Locke that started it? (Belief that we all, as children are born as "blank canvases" on which our environment and influences paint our personality). There is a difference between a child's want to survive and an evil nature, which you don't appear to be seeing. Luckily these tests haven't been performed on any human children, but monke/ape babies have been grown in controlled environments only to succumb to self-mutilation and other self-inflicted injuries. When confronted with others, they tend to try and kill without any though. By evolution's theories, we should act no different. So how can you say we don't have a sinful nature? Self-mutilation is no means of survival, last time I checked...
While the environment of a child largely influences whoe he/she becomes, a sinful nature is inherited. I guess you'd have to be around children to know, though, because I'm not sure there's any hard proof I can show you. Have you ever had a child before? Before they're even 2 (before they've even had the environment in which they would learn evil), many will say "no" to almost anything, will laugh at other's misfortune, will lie to get what he/she wants.
I wish I could comment on Islam, but I don't know enough about it. From what I've seen, though, it appears that the people holding respectable office within Islam are the corrupted people. I'm pretty sure soulfire was referring to these radicals, and not Islam as a religion. I see no contradiction.
One last thing that irked me: "All you want to do is deny that your own religion can be so. "
How can you say that? Do you have any proof? Not all Christians are as self-absorbed as you, I'm glad to say.
| Juparis wrote: |
| ...but monke/ape babies have been grown in controlled environments only to succumb to self-mutilation and other self-inflicted injuries. When confronted with others, they tend to try and kill without any though. By evolution's theories, we should act no different. |
I think you are wrong here. What evolution theory states monkey and human behavior is identical. That is an absurd statement and tends to undermine your ability to convince anyone of your position. (and are you using evolution to prove your point? lol)
| Quote: |
|
So how can you say we don't have a sinful nature? Self-mutilation is no means of survival, last time I checked... While the environment of a child largely influences whoe he/she becomes, a sinful nature is inherited. I guess you'd have to be around children to know, though, because I'm not sure there's any hard proof I can show you. Have you ever had a child before? Before they're even 2 (before they've even had the environment in which they would learn evil), many will say "no" to almost anything, will laugh at other's misfortune, will lie to get what he/she wants. |
Uh, at 2 they have had 2 years of learning based on parents, siblings, friends, etc. Your BELIEF is that a child is born with an evil nature. That's fine, but don't pretend it's a fact. And inherited? I assume you are not refering to DNA inheritence, but a general "man is evil"sort of thing, right?
| Quote: |
| I wish I could comment on Islam, but I don't know enough about it. From what I've seen, though, it appears that the people holding respectable office within Islam are the corrupted people. |
Sorta like in the US, no? off the point, but I can't resist
| Quote: |
|
One last thing that irked me: "All you want to do is deny that your own religion can be so. " How can you say that? Do you have any proof? |
Oh, NOW, you demand proof? Prove the evil nature of a child. No dogma,
proof.
I say that misguided/corrupt religion (religious leaders) have caused many problems in the past and still cause them now. ex. Crusades, Jihad, Wars over jerusalem.
If there was a religion that WASNT corrupt (sounds fairly improbable, i know), then it would cause problems.
If there was a religion that WASNT corrupt (sounds fairly improbable, i know), then it would cause problems.
Certainly not, if anyone says so they are being absurd.
99% is too high, but it is surely the cause of some wars. Probably in the range of 30% - 70%. But it gets mixed up with cultural differences too, so its always going to be fuzzy.
I don't agree with Soulfire that people are born evil (not the vast majority, anyway). I think that people are born selfish, and that is a bit milder. It's also easier to overcome - and most people aren't evil and not extremely selfish. There is altruism out there.
I don't agree with Soulfire that people are born evil (not the vast majority, anyway). I think that people are born selfish, and that is a bit milder. It's also easier to overcome - and most people aren't evil and not extremely selfish. There is altruism out there.
Generally yes. Most religions are very dogmatic and aggresive - most notably christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism and other BIG religions. However there are also religions that are not dogmatic nor aggresive. These do not make any problems. However such religions are small and not widely known - because they are not agresively spreading.
And yes, 99% seems to be exagerrated. The actual value is high but lower than that.
And yes, 99% seems to be exagerrated. The actual value is high but lower than that.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| I think you are wrong here. What evolution theory states monkey and human behavior is identical. That is an absurd statement and tends to undermine your ability to convince anyone of your position. (and are you using evolution to prove your point? lol) |
I was using evolution's theory to disprove itself--and you seem to agree, since "What evolution theory states monkey and human behavior is identical" (unless this is just bad grammar? Not so useful in rhetoric, I remind you) "Humans evolved from monkeys." If that's so, why would we exhibit such different behaviors, mental capacities, and nutrient-requirements? It makes no sense.
Additionally, I'd like to bring up that no inter-specie specemin has been discovered. Just a few bones of mutated or mutilated bones that look (coincidentally) like the matyr between man and ape. If evolution was true, we'd still have hundreds of the ape-men walking around everywhere. Yet, for some odd reason, apes decided to stop evolving? Again, it makes no sense.
| Quote: |
| Uh, at 2 they have had 2 years of learning based on parents, siblings, friends, etc. Your BELIEF is that a child is born with an evil nature. That's fine, but don't pretend it's a fact. And inherited? I assume you are not refering to DNA inheritence, but a general "man is evil"sort of thing, right? |
Would you prefer I cite earlier? Any earlier an age, and I'd have cries of "THAT'S NO TRUUU!1!!" or some made up reports to say "it depends" at best. 2 is a solid age, but if you'd rather I not use it, then sobeit.
Even at birth, all a child wants is what's best for him (general use of the male form; not sexist). Don't you think that's a little selfish? They want food, they want sleep, they take no consideration for others. Hmm.... My point is that babies do not have the mental capabilites to do what is good or even learn what is good except through religion or the social code. Without these influences, any child would succumb to insanity (because of the lack of influences) and self-mutilation (a desparate desire for death, since there is only confusion when living.. and somehow evolution supports this??).
It is my KNOWLEDGE that men are evil. It is there nature. Only through the good influences of parents and the still-somewhat-religiously-based social code, can a man ever hope to achieve good morals.
| Quote: |
| Sorta like in the US, no? off the point, but I can't resist |
Haha, I kind of agree. I'm not against President Bush (he's done far more than any other candidate would have), but there are some other not-so-holy people holding office.
| Quote: |
|
Oh, NOW, you demand proof? Prove the evil nature of a child. No dogma, proof. |
Do you not know how to read English? I assumed you did, but wrongly, perhaps?
I asked if you had any proof--that is a far cry from demanding it.
Proove the goodness of a child. No dogma, just proof.
Just like I have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is evil, you have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is good (or even nuetral). You have to rely on basic logic and comparisons. Since you support evolution, I tried using apes. But for some reason, even though they should be "identical" to us, it doesn't satisfy you. Neither side will get anywhere here.
| Juparis wrote: |
|
I was using evolution's theory to disprove itself--and you seem to agree, since "What evolution theory states monkey and human behavior is identical" (unless this is just bad grammar? |
No, you aren't. Again, there is nothing in evolution to say man and any simian will behave identically. You aren't using evolution, you are making things up...not a valid argument. Anddo I need to say it again? Evolution does NOT say we desceneded from monkeys. Please write that down for yourself and quit trying to pass it of as fact. The theory is that somewhere in the distant past we had the same ancestors. This is not the same as saying we evolved from monkeys. Is that clear yet?
| Quote: |
|
Additionally, I'd like to bring up that no inter-specie specemin has been discovered. Just a few bones of mutated or mutilated bones that look (coincidentally) like the matyr between man and ape. If evolution was true, we'd still have hundreds of the ape-men walking around everywhere. Yet, for some odd reason, apes decided to stop evolving? Again, it makes no sense. |
You reallly shouldn't argue this point until you understand the theory a bit better. No inter-species fossils are needed since we didn't evolve from apes. (BTW-what word were you looking for when you said 'matyr'. I don't understand). And why would ape-men be walking around? because apes are supposed to evolve into men? That is absurd. Apes followed a separate evoluton that suited their ecological niche.
| Quote: |
| Uh, at 2 they have had 2 years of learning based on parents, siblings, friends, etc. Your BELIEF is that a child is born with an evil nature. That's fine, but don't pretend it's a fact. And inherited? I assume you are not refering to DNA inheritence, but a general "man is evil"sort of thing, right? |
Would you prefer I cite earlier? Any earlier an age, and I'd have cries of "THAT'S NO TRUUU!1!!" or some made up reports to say "it depends" at best. 2 is a solid age, but if you'd rather I not use it, then sobeit.
Even at birth, all a child wants is what's best for him (general use of the male form; not sexist). Don't you think that's a little selfish? They want food, they want sleep, they take no consideration for others. Hmm.... My point is that babies do not have the mental capabilites to do what is good or even learn what is good except through religion or the social code. Without these influences, any child would succumb to insanity (because of the lack of influences) and self-mutilation (a desparate desire for death, since there is only confusion when living.. and somehow evolution supports this??).
It is my KNOWLEDGE that men are evil. It is there nature. Only through the good influences of parents and the still-somewhat-religiously-based social code, can a man ever hope to achieve good morals.
| Quote: |
| Sorta like in the US, no? off the point, but I can't resist |
Haha, I kind of agree. I'm not against President Bush (he's done far more than any other candidate would have), but there are some other not-so-holy people holding office.
| Quote: |
|
Oh, NOW, you demand proof? Prove the evil nature of a child. No dogma, proof. |
Do you not know how to read English? I assumed you did, but wrongly, perhaps?
I asked if you had any proof--that is a far cry from demanding it.
Proove the goodness of a child. No dogma, just proof.
Just like I have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is evil, you have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is good (or even nuetral). You have to rely on basic logic and comparisons. Since you support evolution, I tried using apes. But for some reason, even though they should be "identical" to us, it doesn't satisfy you. Neither side will get anywhere here.[/quote]
| Juparis wrote: |
|
I was using evolution's theory to disprove itself--and you seem to agree, since "What evolution theory states monkey and human behavior is identical" (unless this is just bad grammar? |
No, you aren't. Again, there is nothing in evolution to say man and any simian will behave identically. You aren't using evolution, you are making things up...not a valid argument. Anddo I need to say it again? Evolution does NOT say we desceneded from monkeys. Please write that down for yourself and quit trying to pass it of as fact. The theory is that somewhere in the distant past we had the same ancestors. This is not the same as saying we evolved from monkeys. Is that clear yet?
| Quote: |
|
Additionally, I'd like to bring up that no inter-specie specemin has been discovered. Just a few bones of mutated or mutilated bones that look (coincidentally) like the matyr between man and ape. If evolution was true, we'd still have hundreds of the ape-men walking around everywhere. Yet, for some odd reason, apes decided to stop evolving? Again, it makes no sense. |
You reallly shouldn't argue this point until you understand the theory a bit better. No inter-species fossils are needed since we didn't evolve from apes. (BTW-what word were you looking for when you said 'matyr'. I don't understand). And why would ape-men be walking around? because apes are supposed to evolve into men? That is absurd. Apes followed a separate evoluton that suited their ecological niche.
| Quote: |
| Even at birth, all a child wants is what's best for him (general use of the male form; not sexist). Don't you think that's a little selfish? They want food, they want sleep, they take no consideration for others. |
And that makes them evil?
| Quote: |
|
Do you not know how to read English? I assumed you did, but wrongly, perhaps? I asked if you had any proof--that is a far cry from demanding it. Proove the goodness of a child. No dogma, just proof. Just like I have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is evil, you have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is good (or even nuetral). |
The point is that I didn't say they are good! You said they were evil and I asked you to back it up. I think your english skills are the ones in question, my friend. You made a statement, I asked you to back it up.
Last edited by HoboPelican on Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sorry that last reply got split up. I'm typing on a laptop and with a busted hand and It got away from me somehow
Maybe I'll try again when the pain recedes unless a new absurdity raises it's head
Maybe I'll try again when the pain recedes unless a new absurdity raises it's head
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| No, you aren't. Again, there is nothing in evolution to say man and any simian will behave identically. You aren't using evolution, you are making things up...not a valid argument. Anddo I need to say it again? Evolution does NOT say we desceneded from monkeys. Please write that down for yourself and quit trying to pass it of as fact. The theory is that somewhere in the distant past we had the same ancestors. This is not the same as saying we evolved from monkeys. Is that clear yet? |
Oh, my bad. I meant to type in "apes" and not "monkeys." Monkeys aren't the same as apes, didja know? (That part I wasn't making up)
Ok, just kidding there, but still, even if we did have the same ancestors, where are their bones? I'll repeat--all we've found are a few remaining skeletons of deformed/mutilated people. There is no concrete proof, it's is another theory that composes the Theory (of evolution). A very weak basis, if you ask me.. (But, seeing as you didn't, I'll continue)
| Quote: |
|
You reallly shouldn't argue this point until you understand the theory a bit better. No inter-species fossils are needed since we didn't evolve from apes. (BTW-what word were you looking for when you said 'matyr'. I don't understand). And why would ape-men be walking around? because apes are supposed to evolve into men? That is absurd. Apes followed a separate evoluton that suited their ecological niche. |
I admit I don't know the full theory as well as I should, however...
(I originally meant "martyr" for emphasis, but seeing as we no longer descended from them, I can't use that word)..
So if apes followed a completely separate evolution, how is possible that we have the same ancestors? I smell somethin' fishy 'round here... or should I say, "ape-y"
| Quote: |
| And that makes them evil? |
The whole concept of evil is based on greed, vanity, and deceptiveness. That's all a newborn exhumes! Have you not noticed that a child will do whatever it takes to get what's best for him? "Oh, how nice." No, sorry but that's not the "nice" everyone here seems to think children are. Do you have evidence that says otherwise in children?
| Quote: |
| The point is that I didn't say they are good! You said they were evil and I asked you to back it up. I think your english skills are the ones in question, my friend. You made a statement, I asked you to back it up. |
As far as English is concerned, my skillz are teh uber-1337.
(Though I do type with an olde style)
You asked me to back up my post on a completely different subject. I did. You denied the evidence and cried that I was ever-so-rudely demanding proof from you on a rash statement that you made (not even related to the original debate). Perhaps you're thinking that you were for some reason exempt from backing up your own comments? I'm still waiting for any evidence supporting your original slander. Until then, my evidence (whether you accept it or not) on the current topic is sufficient to end the debate.
Hehe, all-in-all I think I enjoy debates too much.
Hey, We agree!
I enjoy a good argument, too!
Actually, the bones found in Olduvai Gorge aren't "people" in the genetic sense. They are examples of an earlier species that was a precursor to man, according to the theory. There are LOTS of pre-human remains to back up the theory. Just do a bit of searching on your own [and leave 'disprove' out of your search string:) ]
One or both of us are being verrrrry dense. I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure I said a different BRANCH of evolution. As in, we both evolved from an older species. No direct connection, just different branches of the same tree.
Well, this gets down to it, now. If you are going to equate mindless need for survival with evil, well, I'll now know what you mean. Personally, I don't think animal instinct is evil. I think you have to have knowledge that what you are doing is hurting some other thing. To me that makes infants free of evil since I believe they do not KNOW they are biting the teat that feeds them
WTF is that, anyway? Just curious.
Cried? Using a little hyperbole there? Hoping misdirection will make you point for you?
you wish
I enjoy a good argument, too!
| Juparis wrote: |
|
Ok, just kidding there, but still, even if we did have the same ancestors, where are their bones? I'll repeat--all we've found are a few remaining skeletons of deformed/mutilated people. There is no concrete proof, it's is another theory that composes the Theory (of evolution). A very weak basis, if you ask me.. . |
Actually, the bones found in Olduvai Gorge aren't "people" in the genetic sense. They are examples of an earlier species that was a precursor to man, according to the theory. There are LOTS of pre-human remains to back up the theory. Just do a bit of searching on your own [and leave 'disprove' out of your search string:) ]
| Quote: |
| I admit I don't know the full theory as well as I should, however...
(I originally meant "martyr" for emphasis, but seeing as we no longer descended from them, I can't use that word).. So if apes followed a completely separate evolution, how is possible that we have the same ancestors? I smell somethin' fishy 'round here... or should I say, "ape-y" |
One or both of us are being verrrrry dense. I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure I said a different BRANCH of evolution. As in, we both evolved from an older species. No direct connection, just different branches of the same tree.
| Quote: |
| The whole concept of evil is based on greed, vanity, and deceptiveness. That's all a newborn exhumes! Have you not noticed that a child will do whatever it takes to get what's best for him? "Oh, how nice." No, sorry but that's not the "nice" everyone here seems to think children are. Do you have evidence that says otherwise in children?
|
Well, this gets down to it, now. If you are going to equate mindless need for survival with evil, well, I'll now know what you mean. Personally, I don't think animal instinct is evil. I think you have to have knowledge that what you are doing is hurting some other thing. To me that makes infants free of evil since I believe they do not KNOW they are biting the teat that feeds them
| Quote: |
| As far as English is concerned, my skillz are teh uber-1337. |
| Quote: |
| You asked me to back up my post on a completely different subject. I did. You denied the evidence and cried |
Cried? Using a little hyperbole there? Hoping misdirection will make you point for you?
| Quote: |
| ...that I was ever-so-rudely demanding proof from you on a rash statement that you made (not even related to the original debate). Perhaps you're thinking that you were for some reason exempt from backing up your own comments? I'm still waiting for any evidence supporting your original slander. Until then, my evidence (whether you accept it or not) on the current topic is sufficient to end the debate. |
you wish
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| What causes the worlds problems is human nature.
We steal because we are naturaly greedy. We rape because we are naturaly lustfull. We make war because we are naturaly violent. We lie because we are naturaly dishonest. We kill because we are natualy hatefull. Human nature is the problem, religion promoting immutable, unchanging morals is the cure. |
This is a huge oversimplication of everything. I'll post more later but I'll simply state this kind of thinking is not productive, cliche and unoriginal, this kind of diatribe is what lumps human beings into embracing determinism. Also, religion can cause problems, and can be considered an opiate for the masses, although I would daresay that religion is really the cause behind such animosity and atrocious acts as war, more approriately wars of preemptive strikes and wars by proxy (think the Cold War). It's rather an inherent fear of differences as well as other such factors that people may benefit by expoiting. Religion is a farce and is exploited in order to explain away why people behave irrationally and fear others so much. People cling to the ideals they are taught, they breathe them and they would rather soon die than accept the beliefs of things os foreign. I can prove this to myself anytime I want, when I post something that seems to go against a status quo, and people just start flaming my person.
Religion is only the cure for the common man. Those that can rise beyond such shackles need no moral standard imposed by religion. I myself am not Christian, yet I do not do many things which are regarded sins by Christians, although most Christian people I know have sinned far more than I. these people obviously need to believe in something so narrow and dogmatic just to keep themselves in line. This is not the only reason to turn to religion of course and I am generalizing a bit, but my point is religion is only a necessity for the common man, a man lacking in any moral fiber and must be spoonfed someone else's. The first laws ever written down, even prior to the ten commandments, were social morally inclusive laws, very similar to the ten commandments and were written by a society and not dictated by a god. Religion and law are two tools which keep the weak and unruly in their place, as well as keeping them feeling satiated and safe. Toss in tv and fastfood and you have the idea of how most people get through their meek little lives without any such problems or ponderings.
A very well-developed and sophisticated post, dyrtyrice. I must say I've been missing those and would love to discuss the topic further later. But right now it's late, so I'm only asking for some proof before I decide to flame you.
You said people would rather die than to accept foreign beliefs. I guess this was so on a few recorded occasions, but can you really say that of today? People are so desparate to live, I'm confident Mr. John Smith would become involved in any religion if he truely thought he'd die otherwise. I myself have phased in and out of stages with Christianity and Buddhism. I'd say I'm still a Christian, but I'm not sure I've found a denomination that I can say, "yes, I believe 100% of their taught doctrine." I always try to keep my mind open to new ideas; even when it doesn't threaten my life. That being said, I'd love to hear more of your opinions, since your posts thus far have been very sophisticated and offered a new point of view, for me..
Your second paragraph especially contained some views I haven't heard from others. At least, not in the same sense... (or something). You mention the first laws, and no religious influences at the time of their writing. I'd like to ask; do you have a source to cite from, or perhaps an alternate thought/logic that would shed some more light on this? As I've seen (which isn't much, I know), the human society has become more and more detached from religion. But before 0 A.D., people were largely devout. Even the kings or leaders of the area were known to be religious. Sadly, this is only part of (what little I know of) the Bible. I'd cite, but I'm not sure you'd take the Bible as accurate historical truth (especially since it wasn't mean to be a historical document in the first place).
Please, shed some light in this tired person's mind.
Last edited by Juparis on Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total
You said people would rather die than to accept foreign beliefs. I guess this was so on a few recorded occasions, but can you really say that of today? People are so desparate to live, I'm confident Mr. John Smith would become involved in any religion if he truely thought he'd die otherwise. I myself have phased in and out of stages with Christianity and Buddhism. I'd say I'm still a Christian, but I'm not sure I've found a denomination that I can say, "yes, I believe 100% of their taught doctrine." I always try to keep my mind open to new ideas; even when it doesn't threaten my life. That being said, I'd love to hear more of your opinions, since your posts thus far have been very sophisticated and offered a new point of view, for me..
Your second paragraph especially contained some views I haven't heard from others. At least, not in the same sense... (or something). You mention the first laws, and no religious influences at the time of their writing. I'd like to ask; do you have a source to cite from, or perhaps an alternate thought/logic that would shed some more light on this? As I've seen (which isn't much, I know), the human society has become more and more detached from religion. But before 0 A.D., people were largely devout. Even the kings or leaders of the area were known to be religious. Sadly, this is only part of (what little I know of) the Bible. I'd cite, but I'm not sure you'd take the Bible as accurate historical truth (especially since it wasn't mean to be a historical document in the first place).
Please, shed some light in this tired person's mind.
Last edited by Juparis on Sun Apr 09, 2006 9:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Haha, I almost forgot to reply to you, HoboPelican (how does a pelican become a hobo anyway?)
Ok, I obviously have had little or no research into the topic. Whatever's on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic is the extent of what I know.
If I have time, I'll look into the Olduvai Gorge--I wasn't aware that we could genetically detect their status on humans; I think I assumed that all their DNA was unrecoverable, but I might have mixed that up with mammoths...
Dense? Ok, that's probably me. -raises hand-
I always kinda rush through these things. I see what you mean now, though.
Again, I rushed through this. I had some other chores, but wanted to prove my point before I did..
I can tell now that I tried using some pretty weak blows--thinking about it for a few moments, I can't agree with what I said either. I'd say my mouth talks faster than my mind, but it would have to be fingers, and I make quite a few errors, so I'd have to think somewhat before posting..
This debate has enlightened me as to how stubborn I can be when it comes to debates. (at least it's a friendly discussion, right? no low blows, as far as I'm concerned)
I'm not sure what to say. I'd like to think that children are evil, but perhaps not from birth. I'd say it's a natural trait we all inherit, but I've got nothing to back me up.. Just an opinion.. shall we settle at that? ( I recall a baseball/curling offer somewhere instead?)
Haha, it's a sort of "gamer" slang. It started with just gamers, but I'm pretty sure more than gamers use it. It started with typical mispellings (teh instead of the) and somehow spread to other words--even using numbers to replace letters (where 1337 = leet = elite). I use it constantly, in a sort of sarcastic way to make fun of those that talk it seriously.. At leest I dont tauk leik tihs.
hehehe, I think I was exaggerating just as much as you were earlier. We even now?
Yea, well, right now I don't care. I may just be tired, but dragging on small off-topic points becomes a drag, y'know?
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| Actually, the bones found in Olduvai Gorge aren't "people" in the genetic sense. They are examples of an earlier species that was a precursor to man, according to the theory. There are LOTS of pre-human remains to back up the theory. Just do a bit of searching on your own [and leave 'disprove' out of your search string:) ] |
Ok, I obviously have had little or no research into the topic. Whatever's on the Discovery Channel or National Geographic is the extent of what I know.
If I have time, I'll look into the Olduvai Gorge--I wasn't aware that we could genetically detect their status on humans; I think I assumed that all their DNA was unrecoverable, but I might have mixed that up with mammoths...
| Quote: |
| One or both of us are being verrrrry dense. I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure I said a different BRANCH of evolution. As in, we both evolved from an older species. No direct connection, just different branches of the same tree. |
Dense? Ok, that's probably me. -raises hand-
I always kinda rush through these things. I see what you mean now, though.
| Quote: |
| Well, this gets down to it, now. If you are going to equate mindless need for survival with evil, well, I'll now know what you mean. Personally, I don't think animal instinct is evil. I think you have to have knowledge that what you are doing is hurting some other thing. To me that makes infants free of evil since I believe they do not KNOW they are biting the teat that feeds them |
Again, I rushed through this.
I had some other chores, but wanted to prove my point before I did..
I can tell now that I tried using some pretty weak blows--thinking about it for a few moments, I can't agree with what I said either. I'd say my mouth talks faster than my mind, but it would have to be fingers, and I make quite a few errors, so I'd have to think somewhat before posting..
This debate has enlightened me as to how stubborn I can be when it comes to debates.
(at least it's a friendly discussion, right? no low blows, as far as I'm concerned)
I'm not sure what to say. I'd like to think that children are evil, but perhaps not from birth. I'd say it's a natural trait we all inherit, but I've got nothing to back me up.. Just an opinion.. shall we settle at that? ( I recall a baseball/curling offer somewhere instead?)
| Quote: |
| WTF is that, anyway? Just curious. |
Haha, it's a sort of "gamer" slang. It started with just gamers, but I'm pretty sure more than gamers use it. It started with typical mispellings (teh instead of the) and somehow spread to other words--even using numbers to replace letters (where 1337 = leet = elite). I use it constantly, in a sort of sarcastic way to make fun of those that talk it seriously.. At leest I dont tauk leik tihs.
| Quote: |
| Cried? Using a little hyperbole there? Hoping misdirection will make you point for you? |
| Quote: |
| you wish |
Yea, well, right now I don't care. I may just be tired, but dragging on small off-topic points becomes a drag, y'know?
If you dig deep enough in world affairs, you will find that the root of war is religion. However only a handful know that. Most common exuses are economy etc etc.
| Juparis wrote: |
| Haha, I almost forgot to reply to you, HoboPelican (how does a pelican become a hobo anyway?) |
You do any job that comes along to get back in the air
| Quote: | ||
Yea, well, right now I don't care. I may just be tired, but dragging on small off-topic points becomes a drag, y'know? |
I do, bro, I do. Gets hard to read it all, for an old guy like me.
'hte' for 'the'?
I was doing that years ago! I swear, between the net and ebonics, the english language is going down the tubes! Just another eample of evolution
L8R, all.
| Juparis wrote: | ||||||||
I was using evolution's theory to disprove itself--and you seem to agree, since "What evolution theory states monkey and human behavior is identical" (unless this is just bad grammar? Not so useful in rhetoric, I remind you) "Humans evolved from monkeys." If that's so, why would we exhibit such different behaviors, mental capacities, and nutrient-requirements? It makes no sense. Additionally, I'd like to bring up that no inter-specie specemin has been discovered. Just a few bones of mutated or mutilated bones that look (coincidentally) like the matyr between man and ape. If evolution was true, we'd still have hundreds of the ape-men walking around everywhere. Yet, for some odd reason, apes decided to stop evolving? Again, it makes no sense.
Would you prefer I cite earlier? Any earlier an age, and I'd have cries of "THAT'S NO TRUUU!1!!" or some made up reports to say "it depends" at best. 2 is a solid age, but if you'd rather I not use it, then sobeit. Even at birth, all a child wants is what's best for him (general use of the male form; not sexist). Don't you think that's a little selfish? They want food, they want sleep, they take no consideration for others. Hmm.... My point is that babies do not have the mental capabilites to do what is good or even learn what is good except through religion or the social code. Without these influences, any child would succumb to insanity (because of the lack of influences) and self-mutilation (a desparate desire for death, since there is only confusion when living.. and somehow evolution supports this??). It is my KNOWLEDGE that men are evil. It is there nature. Only through the good influences of parents and the still-somewhat-religiously-based social code, can a man ever hope to achieve good morals.
Haha, I kind of agree. I'm not against President Bush (he's done far more than any other candidate would have), but there are some other not-so-holy people holding office.
Do you not know how to read English? I assumed you did, but wrongly, perhaps? I asked if you had any proof--that is a far cry from demanding it. Proove the goodness of a child. No dogma, just proof. Just like I have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is evil, you have no concrete-scientific-proof that a child is good (or even nuetral). You have to rely on basic logic and comparisons. Since you support evolution, I tried using apes. But for some reason, even though they should be "identical" to us, it doesn't satisfy you. Neither side will get anywhere here. |
This guy knows what hes talking about big time. I think that religion is just a small part though, not 99%
evolution vs. creationism seems like a different topic, unless we are trying to show how religion can bring out the most defensive parts of our phsyche.
| Juparis wrote: |
| religious conflicts |
I'm not sure I know what you mean here...
Are you referring to the intolerant people that make up each religion, causing these conflicts, or religions themselves, which (for the most part, anyway) teach the opposite?
I forgot which point you're trying to proove.
Are you referring to the intolerant people that make up each religion, causing these conflicts, or religions themselves, which (for the most part, anyway) teach the opposite?
I forgot which point you're trying to proove.
i would tend to agree
my basic view on religion is that it is more personal than most tend to believe, i believe that a lot of these problems are caused by the feeling that it is necessary to rally behind your religion (which makes sense)
however, i don't like to have other people telling me what my beliefs and my opinions are. so i don't side with people who say god hates gays and that kind of shit
my basic view on religion is that it is more personal than most tend to believe, i believe that a lot of these problems are caused by the feeling that it is necessary to rally behind your religion (which makes sense)
however, i don't like to have other people telling me what my beliefs and my opinions are. so i don't side with people who say god hates gays and that kind of shit
| Juparis wrote: |
| I'm not sure I know what you mean here...
Are you referring to the intolerant people that make up each religion, causing these conflicts, or religions themselves, which (for the most part, anyway) teach the opposite? I forgot which point you're trying to proove. |
the idea that humans are naturally violent, etc etc etc bascially humans are evil.
Why? coz "Adam and Eve" at the naughty fruit, so god made us all scum, making god the probem, and the cure, its like finding the cure to a disease and then starting an epidemic so you will profit from the sale of your cure...
Why? coz "Adam and Eve" at the naughty fruit, so god made us all scum, making god the probem, and the cure, its like finding the cure to a disease and then starting an epidemic so you will profit from the sale of your cure...
@Martson:
I wasn't sure what side you are on, though I'll repeat. Religion is not the problem. The people that make up religion are. By "religious conflicts," I was referring to intolerant people that make up some religions, not the religions themselves..
@Yantaal:
Adam and Eve sinned, bringing sin into this world and to be inherited through everyone from that point on. It was Adam and Eve that "made us all scum," not God. If you buy an apple, are you the one that makes it rots, that introduces the fruit flies and worms? In the same way, God did nothing to corrupt the world; He made it perfect and we are the ones to blame. Some people are too vain to accept that, however.
I wasn't sure what side you are on, though I'll repeat. Religion is not the problem. The people that make up religion are. By "religious conflicts," I was referring to intolerant people that make up some religions, not the religions themselves..
@Yantaal:
Adam and Eve sinned, bringing sin into this world and to be inherited through everyone from that point on. It was Adam and Eve that "made us all scum," not God. If you buy an apple, are you the one that makes it rots, that introduces the fruit flies and worms? In the same way, God did nothing to corrupt the world; He made it perfect and we are the ones to blame. Some people are too vain to accept that, however.
i thoght they ate the aple,a nd god made everything nasty to punnish ou rbitch asses...
of course this is all in the hyothetical that this actually happened
of course this is all in the hyothetical that this actually happened
Again: Just because you buy an apple, does that mean you're the one that makes it rot?
And what if there's just one mysterious brown spot? If you cut the brown spot out (and assuming this apple was magically alive, somehow), it's going to hurt the apple. But yet, you're only helping it by removing the infected area, which could spread more rapidly otherwise.
In the same way, God took away some of the blessings he had given humans. Sin has still spread, and this is not to say God failed, but we do deserve to be punished. Just because God loves us enough to punish us doesn't make Him evil.
And yes, by your beliefs, this is only hypothetical.
And what if there's just one mysterious brown spot? If you cut the brown spot out (and assuming this apple was magically alive, somehow), it's going to hurt the apple. But yet, you're only helping it by removing the infected area, which could spread more rapidly otherwise.
In the same way, God took away some of the blessings he had given humans. Sin has still spread, and this is not to say God failed, but we do deserve to be punished. Just because God loves us enough to punish us doesn't make Him evil.
And yes, by your beliefs, this is only hypothetical.
| xalophus wrote: | ||||||
It's hard not to end up contradicting yourself, when you try to defend something which you don't truly believe in. Let me clear up the confusion here - you don't want to say that religion is not at fault. All you want to do is deny that your own religion can be so.
What kind of specific Islam is that ? I thought Islam was the Koran's teachings. And that the Koran supported killing other men no more than does the Bible. What have you got against Islam ? Can we call America's "pre-emptive" invasions of other countries as "kill-people Christianity" ? (and I'm not even comparing the scale of killing involved) Does Christianity own Bush government's actions ? Does Islam own certain terrorists' actions ? Your words very clearly show your bias. |
The specific Islam would be the Muslims who TERRORIZE and KILL for THEIR god. I have NOTHING against Islam, if you would read the "Islam in general" part of the statement.
Are you telling me you support terrorism? Yikes!
No, we cannot call America's invasions killing people Christianity, because there is NO religion involved in gov't. He didn't go to war for Christianity, he went because EVERYONE was saying they had nukes. Religion had NOTHING to do with it.
| Soulfire wrote: |
|
No, we cannot call America's invasions killing people Christianity, because there is NO religion involved in gov't. He didn't go to war for Christianity, he went because EVERYONE was saying they had nukes. Religion had NOTHING to do with it. |
Just lurking being constantly amazed by people.
But I just will stick my nose in here to once again state that it is not true that "everyone" said Iraq had WMDs. It's pretty well documented that there was a lot of conflicting info and Bush selectively choose what to believe. I've posted refs in a couple places around here and will do it again if I have to, but even if you dispute the refs, please don't state "EVERYONE" said they had nukes, becuase that is simply incorrect.| Juparis wrote: |
| @Martson:
I wasn't sure what side you are on, though I'll repeat. Religion is not the problem. The people that make up religion are. By "religious conflicts," I was referring to intolerant people that make up some religions, not the religions themselves.. |
Religion without followers ceases to exist, yes.
Just like a building will fall without support beams.
However, just because a religion has followers does not mean that the religion itself is causing all these wars. The people are.
If a building collapses in on itself, do you say "It's the Blueprints' faults! They made it fall!" or do you look to the construction crew, who wandered off of the original plans depicted in the blueprints, thus causing the fall?
Just like a building will fall without support beams.
However, just because a religion has followers does not mean that the religion itself is causing all these wars. The people are.
If a building collapses in on itself, do you say "It's the Blueprints' faults! They made it fall!" or do you look to the construction crew, who wandered off of the original plans depicted in the blueprints, thus causing the fall?
| AftershockVibe wrote: |
| Religion is rarely a cause of a war. It is a very often used excuse for war however. |
 |