 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>>>> Leaving aside that science did develop the means for gassing an
>>>> incredible lot
>>>> of people, the *motivation* for these acts were firmly based on
>>>> darwinism,
>>> Uh, no? There was neither natural selection involved, nor change over
>>> several generations. Why was it based more on darwinism than invading
>>> Russia
>>> was?
>>
>> As you mention it - yes, invading eastern Europe and later Russia was
>> along the
>> same lines. "Lebensraum im Osten" ("room to live in the east") was the
>> motto of
>> that.
>
> Neither had anything to do with Darwin or evolution. Nazis merely
> claimed they did. Nazis lied. What a surprise.
>
Actually, as I said already some place else, no they didn't. Hitler was
quite clear in the *one* speech that he made which actually mentions
Darwin. He considered Darwin to be *wrong* because Darwin's ideas
suggested that "fittest" was not the same as "most advanced", and he
actually dared suggest in his book that black people might one day be
the same as whites, and it was not evolution that made them live like
they did, but circumstances.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> If people where scared to death of space aliens from the dark matter
>> parts of the universe coming here to eat them,
>
> That would be Scientology.
>
See!
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>> I have accepted the media usage too, although I believe the fundamentals
>> of Christianity, I
>> would now hesitate to call myself a fundamentalist. "Fundamentalist"
>> and "fundamentalist" have been
>> destroyed as useful descriptive terms and become largely pejorative. :)
>
> .... also, some christian fundamentalists might consider "the fundamental of
> christianity" to be a different set of things than you do ;)
>
>
Indeed they must. To me some of the clearly fundamental thing, spoken by
Jesus
himself, are "Love your neighbor as yourself", "Do unto others as you
would have
them do unto you.", "Love your enemies.","Do good to them that
spitefully and hatefully
use you.", "Become as little children.", et cetera. True these are not
all of Jesus'
teachings, but they are a major part. It seems to me that anyone who
doesn't observe
a least these doesn't make a very good showing as a follower of Christ.
Of course they
may be only immature. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> no real connection
>> between believing in the fundamentals of something and being violent
>> about it.
>
> Except perhaps in religions that tell you everyone who doesn't believe
> as you do are subhuman, which is my point.
Or in anyone who regards those who disagree with him as subhuman or
moronic. :)
>
>> "Fundamentalist" and "fundamentalist" have been
>> destroyed as useful descriptive terms and become largely pejorative. :)
>
> Gee, I wonder who might have caused that?
The media and those who take up their usages (e.g. all of us to a
certain extent). Don't
take this to mean that media act from motives of religious or other
prejudices. They don't;
they have other concerns. And the media are not engaged in a
"conspiracy". Member of
the media do, however, follow and imitate one another.
David :)
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true
>>>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong."
>>>
>>> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
>>>
>> And that is an vast oversimplification. :)
>
> Why? If you have only one God and he created the universe and you're
> supposed to worship him, it pretty shuts down the "there are lots of
> ways to go about it" theory.
>
Why? I'm one person, but there are many ways to relate to me. :)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true
>>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong."
>>
>> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
>>
> Ok, minor point, but not always true. Hindu isn't mono-theistic, yet it
> still manages to generate nuts that think the solution to catching up
> with the US is "Vedic Science" and "Alchemy", and that the western
> versions of science are all "wrong", because they don't embrace total BS.
>
I think we can probably say that the human race is capable of generating
"nuts"
with or without the help of "religion". And it is certain that no matter
what one believes,
there will always be those who regard on as a nut. :)
A lot BTW: there is a SF/fantasy story by Isaac Asimov, I think, about
this man
who lives in mortal fear of being carried off by squirrels. Finally he
is. ;)
David
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true
>>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong."
>>
>> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
>>
> Ok, minor point, but not always true. Hindu isn't mono-theistic, yet it
> still manages to generate nuts that think the solution to catching up
> with the US is "Vedic Science" and "Alchemy", and that the western
> versions of science are all "wrong", because they don't embrace total BS.
I think "wrong" in that very first sentence was referring to morality, not
truth. The two are orthogonal.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No it wouldn't, since the moment someone worked out that spirits where
> not real, one of two things would happen. You "morally upstanding" kook
> would have the guy proving it put to death, to protect their position,
> or people would start questioning if any of it was valid at all, no
> matter how "moral" the system was that you came up with.
That paragraph is far more future-tense than it needs to be.
> Only something
> based on an understanding of what it is to be human, an animal, and what
> you *want* to make better, will give you a real moral system. Anything
> based on nonsense and invisible creatures falls prey to people making
> shit up that isn't moral, denying it *based* on the fact that the thing
> in question isn't real, or just flat out failing to come up with a moral
> system that is "actually" moral, even in the sense of what humans are.
Well said.
> was a guy named Lemark, who "did" advocate such an "evolution advances
> towards a single goal", but like Hitler's version, it was based on the
> religious ideal that man was "above" everything else, not equal to it.
He also didn't know how it actually worked, thinking it was conscious guidance.
> In reality, Darwin had nothing to do with Hitler at all, the ideas
> Hitler followed where more like Lemark's than Darwin's, and they existed
> for centuries prior to either of them writing about evolution.
And it still wasn't *natural selection*. It was, at best, eugenics.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-7-2009 3:44, David H. Burns wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> "David H. Burns" <dhb### [at] cherokeetelnet> wrote:
>>> For instance, the essential difference between Christianity and Judaism
>>> is the acceptance of Jesus as divine.
>>
>> A bit more than that, to all I know; Judaism does not even acknowledge
>> Jesus as
>> a prophet (which, for instance, Islam does).
>
> I think you are right, but they could accept him as a prophet
> misunderstood or misrepresented
> by the christians with little or no change in their beliefs.
IIRC the jews are waiting for one final prophet since before christ. So
they can never accept Christ as a prophet as that would imply that he is
the final one and the end of time was 2000 years ago. Which may be
contrary to every day experience.
The Muslims will not accept a new prophet after Mohamed unless it is the
end of time. Christ was before so there was not a real problem to give
him a status as a prophet for them. What surprises me everytime is that
some 'fundamentalist' (see other part of thread) will accept e.g. osama
bin laden (or any of a large group of other 'islamic' scholars) as a
prophet and don't see the contradiction.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> while the key feature of religion is, "There is one right and true
>>>> way, so failing to follow it is automatically wrong."
>>>
>>> Nope. That's the key feature of monotheism.
>>>
>> Ok, minor point, but not always true. Hindu isn't mono-theistic, yet
>> it still manages to generate nuts that think the solution to catching
>> up with the US is "Vedic Science" and "Alchemy", and that the western
>> versions of science are all "wrong", because they don't embrace total BS.
>
> I think "wrong" in that very first sentence was referring to morality,
> not truth. The two are orthogonal.
>
Perhaps, but its not much of a distinction when the extremists will
punish you for "being" wrong. Even Jewish people, who "generally" tend
to be about as sane as Catholics in some respects (a lot of
pronouncements that don't make much sense to the rest of us, but not
raving wackos prone to try to force everyone to act like them), never
the less have produced some cases, like one recently, where a bunch of
the Orthodox variety where marching in the streets to protest "other
people" not following their rules about the Sabbath. They literally
wanted everyone else in the country they where in to observe it with
them, and not 'work' on it. Some poor women reporter got on the wrong
street, ended up in the middle of them and got backed against a wall,
harassed and spit on over it. Luckily that was the extent of the
violence done to her. But... I am unclear how "marching in protest", or,
"spitting one people", with the express intent of **causing something to
happen** wasn't "work", and therefor breaking their precious insane ritual.
Doesn't matter how seemingly rational someone with religion is, there is
probably something they will get unhinged over. This wouldn't be too bad
if it was like someone getting unhinged over their favorite Football
team, and the result landed them in jail. It **is** a problem when they
don't land in jail, but you do, for offending them somehow, and what
they *do* get is patted on the back for "defending their faith from
infidels". They should end up in jail right along with the insane
Football fan, and their fellows should be embarrassed at it, not
praising. Its a mark of the level of insane involve that the reaction is
the precise opposite when it comes to "faith".
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
