marc

Originally posted by: manticorefanI understand you were being partisan-ly derisive, that's ok...I do it a lot! I just wanted to clarify a little. Don't get too offended, I don't .quote> None taken. I tend to be a little too forceful in my comments and replies. I wasn't aware that Catholicism had adopted this scary set of ideas...quote>I used to think Catholicism was the most spiritually consistent of the Christian faiths- it is against all three types of murder (war, abortion, and the death penalty) but like you, I grew disappointed with the increasing amount of right-wing militarism within it, which is why I left the faith... why I stopped believing in any faith, actually. I'm still worried that so many televangelists spout this kind of stuff. I talk to my Christian friends and I'm assured "Don't worry, they're crazy, I don't listen to that guy(s)." But then you see how powerful these same evangelists are at gathering money, rousing supporters in mega-churches, and lining up politicians, and you wonder... if they really are as crazy and useless as so many people claim, why do they seem to have huge masses of followers? And a lot of the comments at FSTDT (the first link in my previous post) are worrying too- granted many of them could be fake, but quite a few seem to be genuine comments made by what are otherwise perfectly normal individuals. How could such an undercurrent of bigotry and hatred still exist in this country? Yeah, I know that Fred Phelps is a loony who only has the support of a few followers (ie- his inbred family), but Robertson, Buchanan, Falwell, Limbaugh and others had/have a lot of followers in their day. How is this possible? This is a genuine question from an outside observer. EDIT (To Hym's post below, to prevent multiple posts.): Sorry, I don't buy that nihilism at all. It seems like an excuse, not an explanation. Yes, we will always exhibit anger, but hatred? And there are definitely things we can do to wipe out hatred. One that has proven to be most effective is traveling around the world. It will blow your mind away. Once you see how many different cultures, lifestyles, and people there are, you'll come to appreciate and understand the unknown much better, and even appreciate your own culture more. So I would guess that it is fear- fear of the unknown, of the outside, of the different- that leads to our current hatred. Many of us think that the slightest change in our society (hispanic majority in the US within the next decade, gay marriage, vocal atheistic minority, etc) will bring our whole way of life crashing down. It won't. And this type of fear can be countered with common sense and exposure to other cultures.

Originally posted by: manticorefan You have a very active imagination, or you've been picking up on those subliminal messages from CNN. That broad brush of stereotypes you carry must be very heavy to wield.quote> They've done stuff like that in the past- beaten people, murdered people, blown up buildings, discriminated against the groups mentioned above in areas like housing, employment, social participation, marriage, etc. They've generally made their lives difficult. After all, part of the reason the suburban movement gained so much traction in the US was because whitey fled urban areas on account of the civil rights movement. And yes, you are right, the minorities I listed above have sometimes participated in such violence too (there are gang feuds between blacks and hispanics right now, for example), but they are nowhere near as racist or violent as some elements of the right wing. Jerry Falwell on gays: "Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical attack upon the family that will not only have a corrupting influence upon our next generation, but it will also bring down the wrath of God upon America." Rush Limbaugh on blacks: "Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population. Who the hell cares." ...And what he thinks of women: "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen." Pat Buchanan on our minorities: "Who are beneficiaries of the Court's protection? Members of various minorities including criminals, atheists, homosexuals, flag burners, illegal immigrants (including terrorists), convicts, and pornographers." Here's Patty Rob's thoughts on much of the left: "Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." "[Planned Parenthood] is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -- everything that the Bible condemns." The Elder Dubya on atheism: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Even "dear" Mother Teresa said of AIDs: "It is a just retribution for improper sexual misconduct." Gary Potter, president of Catholics for Christian Political Action: "When the Christian majority takes over this country, there will be no satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil." I've spared you by not putting in Ann Coulter's thoughts. I understand she is so rabidly virulent that even right wingers reject her. The left wing might spew a lot of (occasionally ridiculous) fervent political and social beliefs, but the right wing has been built up on a strong foundation of racism, xenophobia, and homophobia. A disturbingly high amount of right wingers in the public spotlight have spouted such disgusting beliefs. After all, it is a movement fearful of change and the outside world.<

Manticorefan, I think you mean Martin Niemöller, not Dietrich Bonhöffer. But thanks anyway for showing us why society needs "liberals" to protect our freedoms. Personally, I didn't see anything terribly upsetting with Wright's statements. A LOT of politicians "hang out" with disturbing people. The nut jobs Bush has put into power for the last 8 years have done far more damage than Wright's rantings. Ron Paul himself has said some crazy things; likewise for Huckabee. And even McCain, who I like because he has the courage to call these freaks what they really are, has grown worrying close to them, even though its probably only for votes. Anyway, none of us have the authority to talk for "God" like Wright did. We may say "God bless America;" that doesn't mean he actually will. Likewise, we may say "God damn America," and neither will he respond to that. By the way Manty, what is this "Radical Left" you keep talking about? The "Radical Left" threatens to give us higher minimum wages, universal healthcare, sick leave, socialism (*gasp*) and admittedly, bad things like obsessive political correctness and excessive litigation. On the other hand, the "Radical Right" threatens to harass (or worse, to discriminate against- and some of the craziest wouldn't even hesitate to resort to murder) our blacks, gays, abortion supporters, atheists, women, immigrants, multiculturalists, religious minorities, and other minorities. The "Radical Left" (To you, Obama and Hillary might fall into the category but I (and others, I bet) consider them center-right) threatens us with a true social democracy; the Radical RightTM threatens us with a theocracy. I'd prefer a social democracy over theocracy any day!

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Well firstly I don't have to sign up to the army to be able to state my view. So exactly where the hell do you get off saying so? I support the anti-whaling protests does that mean I should go and join Greenpeace?? Also I'm not in government so I didn't decide to take the country to war, so its hardly my whimsical policy. I do support the troops through other meansquote> Supporting a war is a lot more serious than supporting environmental groups and the like. Those advocating war should be the first to be willing to participate in it (fighting it, that is, not orchestrating it). I take part in fund-raising and my parents company donate money to charity that helps injured troops as well. In addition, my bother is in the British TA and could be called upon at any time to serve in Iraq. If I wanted to join the army I would, but I don't as I am pursuing an education at university. So maybe you should refrain from bul*** until you're aware of all the facts....ok??quote> Sure. This is very typical on internet forums- people claim as many military backgrounds/connections as possible to give themselves a sense of legitimacy. The "Flame Warriors" site calls this personality the "centurion." Even if you really do come from a military family, so what? That doesn't give you any advantages. What our troops don't need is people like you assuming the moral high ground and speaking ****.quote> You didn't even bother to respond to my points, but that's fine. However, I never claimed to have any moral high ground (if it's even possible to claim that), I just said that your rationale for this war was and still is bogus.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguyI supported the war and I supported for regime change, though did believe their were weapons, but primarily for regime change. Of course the situation has turned into a complete mess but I still support it and will always support the troops. We now have to focus all effort and support on re-building and leaving a country the government can run easily and one that has all its infrastructure repaired.quote> Really? Well, why don't you put your money where your mouth is, enlist, and go over and fight to achieve the goal of "reconstructing" the Iraqi state? Sorry, I don't participate in the squabbling here often, but I'm so sick and tired of armchair chickenhawks using our troops (American to me, British to you) to carry out their whimsical, crazy policies. It's regime change you wanted, is it? In the past, the CIA has done a very good job at covertly killing foreign leaders- we could have done that instead rather than launching a full invasion, right? And if regime change is so important to you, why was Saddam Hussein first on the list? Perhaps changing Pakistan's regime, which aids and harbors Al Qaeda, should have been a bit higher-up on the list after the Afghanistan War? Maybe changing Saudi Arabia's regime, which supports the fanatical Wahhabbist sect of Islam out to destroy western society, would be a little higher on the list of necessary "regime changes?" Saddam Hussein was a deranged, brutal man, but he hated Al Qaeda because they were a threat to his dictatorial, secular state. Don't give us this bull about "regime change"; there were and are worse regimes out there that pose a greater threat to us which need(ed) to be changed first. Here's a better recipe for "regime change": Let's wean ourselves off of oil and ignore all the neoconservatives and their warmongering goals. With our dependence on oil eliminated, we won't have to stick our fingers into the middle east whenever we need a new fix. With our need to meddle in middle eastern affairs gone, we won't need to finance and subsidize our middle eastern fortress (Israel) as much as we do now. We should eliminate our support for all of the middle east's monarchs, rulers, and dictators and give their people a chance to elect their own leaders. Right now we aren't giving them that chance- maybe that's why they hate us? Once our influence in the middle east is withdrawn, the guts of the fanatical islamist movement will be cut out and its support will wither away. Islamists will no longer be able to use the (often correct) claim that we meddle in their countries' affairs anymore. Any islamists who continue to resort to violence after that point will be that much easier to root out and eliminate, as they won't have the backing of millions of sympathetic, oppressed muslims angry at their perceived injustice willing to rise to their cause. That sounds like a more realistic "regime change" to me. And finally, to put a humorous (if possible) spin on the Iraq situation, here are two clips from Bremner, Bird, and Fortune which portray our involvement in the middle east far more accurately than the American media ever will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptzml1qQvZE

Originally posted by: manticorefan Oh please, an atheist site supporting atheism. quote> Apparently you didn't read the text. I sympathize with you- deeply philosophical and critical texts are just too hard to comprehend, it's just better to stick with the bible. And no, I don't watch televangelists, and never have. Most of them are charlatans who twist the Bible for their own purposes. They will be judged as well.quote> Listen to the judge judge the judges! EDIT: Sorry, it's just that fundietalk makes for some excellent comedy.

Originally posted by: Micah Many religious principles guided our country, even including some Islamic ones, which can be seen throughout the Supreme Court building. quote> Can you post some links for this? (I don't doubt you at all, I just find this fascinating and would love to read more about it, but can't find it mentioned anywhere. So if you have some sources... please post! )

Originally posted by: manticorefan Correction, atheism under communist enforcement has killed more people than all religious wars in all of human history combined, and did it in the last 100 years. quote> It's not nice to lie. Read this please. (I assume you read more than just the bible.) You are expressly allowed killing in times of self defense, defense of others, and war when necessary.quote> Since Christians can make up reasons for "self defense" and "war" whenever they want ("God told me to start one"), they can pretty much kill whenever they want. And here's what one of our founding fathers has to say about the matter: "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." -Thomas Jefferson And since our founding fathers are held in the highest regard, we should do exactly as they say- suppress Christianity in the US in favor of deism. EDIT: To Voar Toak: Yes, and is that encouraged among Christians? By the way, "I believe I've heard" statements may take you far in the faith-based world, but will get you nowhere in the scientifically/objectively analyzed world.

Originally posted by: Frankie_Grove Originally posted by: marcszar Originally posted by: Duke87 What's next, burning books? quote> It's already happening across the US. Religious folk are a medieval, primitive people. quote> Whats more primitive, practicing freedom of religion and expression; or denoucing ones beliefs with insults?quote> That wasn't an insult; it's a scientific observation.

Originally posted by: Duke87 What's next, burning books? quote> It's already happening across the US. Religious folk are a medieval, primitive people. (Humorous link.) EDIT: Duke, I COMPLETELY agree with you on your statement "Seriously, creationism and all these other nutty religious movements are destroying America." We have to push them back into the shadows where they belong. America was a country born out of the ENLIGHTENMENT, not out of religiosity. (Only the tinder-happy Puritans came here to practice their freaky religion freely, which itself was too nutty to be embraced even by crazy-religious 18th century Europe.) We will become an oppressive theocracy just like much of Europe was in the 18th century. America was founded as a liberal republic to escape that situation, and now fundies keep making up about how we have to return to our "Christian roots." -- Edited for language. Please do not use foul language. - Mike -- Edited for content that can cause an off topic argument. - Mike What's always struck me as odd is how Christians are so anti-abortion, but they support the death penalty and warfare. Your God sees everyone as equal (your bible says so), so what gives you the authority to deem certain individuals as "criminals" and kill them? (Would you guys kill a baby-faced criminal? ) According to your own belief system, only God has the right to decide who lives or dies, so why do you allow some types of killing over others? There is no loophole in the commandment "You shall not kill."

Originally posted by: JanYpe Originally posted by: schm0 Personally, I think that Creationism is a load of bull crap. No one believes that the sun orbits around the earth any more, do they?quote> Uh, think again. Sen. Brownback ®, Kansas, is currently running for the Republican ticket for President. Check out this post on his blog. He's got all sorts of great views. quote> That site is hilarious. quote> Pure hilarity! Schm0, thanks for the link! No wonder- Brownback's from Kansas. They need to pull their head out of the Dark Age's armpit and step out into the sunlight.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Usually I will not over-reach from the BLaM Home Site but in this rare occasion I will quote> Define "usually." (Just kidding, Palpatine. )

Originally posted by: Mikeaut1 At least the people that belong to a religious school believe in a higher being. quote> What good does that do for humanity as a whole and how does that help us in any way? How does having faith in an unknowable mystery solidify us as individuals and help us develop and advance? (Just to spark another debate ) Originally posted by: ShortStraw Just a quick note regarding the "futility and pointlessness" of this thread. I find this thread enlightening and valuable. I'm fascinated by the workings of the religously faithful mind and this thread offers many insights into that kind of mind. If your goal is to convert people away from their accepted faiths then you are wasting your time here. If your goal is to make your voice heard and enlighten others as to your viewpoint, then you are all succeeding admirably.quote> I agree! I may not agree with everyone in this topic, but I can't deny how extremely intelligent the points for both/multiple sides have been made... it really is sad that these types of productive debates never occur in schools. The only comments that annoy me are by outside attention seekers who post several times stating their amusement with the topic- eg: Palpatine001, we know you think this thread is pointless, so why do you post 500 times restating the same thing? Just don't read the topic! Those type of comments pollute an otherwise productive topic.

Originally posted by: Psycho_Teddy Also, where did you get the fact that the bacteria coincidentally coexisted without one evolving from the other? I would like to see a source on this one, if you would.quote> I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps I phrased it incorrectly... I wanted to say that some bacteria do happen to contain traits that make them resistant to some things and vulnerable to others. This is very obvious among populations- not all of us would die if we were all exposed to the 1918 flu, not all of us are equally vulnerable to the same diseases. What I meant in the penicillin example is that bacteria (like any other forms of life) have genetic diversity which allows some of them to be less vulnerable to antibiotics and thus be able to live to reproduce and pass on their genes.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 ...from the bacteria's PoV, those mutations were beneficial, they helped the germs survive death from antibiotics.quote> Well put- mutations can be beneficial. But in your example above, it's implied that germs mutate to develop resistance to antibiotics. This is never the case- it's impossible for a cell to "respond" to a condition by altering its traits- this would require genetic modification. Genetic modification NEVER occurs in an individual- it only occurs during reproduction or replication- I.e.- as the gene sequence is being copied from one cell to a new one or from a parent to an offspring, a mistake in gene duplication results in an altered genetic makeup in the offspring, and over time (many generations) may result in a seemingly altered life form. (Humans are, however, beginning to experiment with genetic engineering/modification outside of reproduction.) For example, 60 years ago, penicillin used to be a miraculous, catch-all antibiotic for may diseases. Now it is practically useless. Over the last 60 years, bacteria which were vulnerable to penicillin had been killed while the few bacteria which ALREADY (ie- purely coincidentally) happened to possess penicillin-resistant genes were able to survive and reproduce. So many of their offspring inherited penicillin resistance, resulting in the decreased effectiveness of penicillin in antibiotic treatments today. EDIT: Oh, and I should probably bring this up now because someone is bound to ask, "Well then, how do you explain mutations on account of radiation, pollution, chemicals, etc and other stuff that make animals grow multiple head and legs and stuff like that?" First of all, if you are exposed to a radioactive substance or the like, you will NOT grow extra stuff and see your body distort. The toxins will reside in you and interfere with your reproductive process, which means that your children can be born with three heads when a toxin interferes with the gene replication process during reproduction. You yourself will not mutate if you are exposed to radiation. The three-eyed fish in the lake near the nuclear power plant in the "Simpsons" did not grow an extra eye- it's parent may have been "normal" and the radiation from the plant may have interfered with gene replication when the parent was reproducing, resulting in a fish with three eyes. The word "grow" really has nothing to do with mutation.

Originally posted by: Voar Tok Barbarossa: Personally, I don't find what you said to be very logical at all. For example, one of the touted sources of life is that we came from some sort of oozy liquid or something to which energy was applied and it became alive. So, by that theory, I'm supposed to believe that something like the vanilla coke I'm drinking, if I apply electricity to it (since the theory generally cites the source of energy as probably being lightning) that my drink will eventually live. I think not.quote> You made a BIG leaping conclusion here... that Coke has the same "oozy liquid" in it as early Earth matter and that both would then be "brought to life" by applying energy to them. Broad generalizations about evolution are very typical of the anti-evolution crowd simply because they don't understand (or want to understand) the theory. If you don't understand evolution, DON'T debate it! Potentially life-forming liquid had certain enzymes, proteins, and other matter in it that managed to develop into organic compounds... this probably isn't possible with Coke. From my Bio textbook: "Synthesizing organic compounds requires energy. On the early Earth, lightning, sunlight, or heat from hydrothermal vents might have fueled the reactions. Stanley Miller was the first to test the hypothesis that the simple compounds that now serve as the building blocks of life can form chemical processes. He put water, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia in a reaction chamber. He kept circulating the mixture and zapping it with sparks to simulate lightning. In less than a week, amino acids, and other small organic compounds had formed in the chemical brew... (Starr, Taggart- Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 11th ed.)" Look at that! I quoted an actual book, not some stupid, nonsensical bible verse! (Sorry- I'm not referring to you here, Voar Toak, but to anti-evolutionists who think they can settle a debate by posting excerpts from fairy tales.) Your Paragraph 2: ...So, here's the question - why do people just die?...quote> Your Paragraph 3: ...As people get older, their cells are less likely to reproduce accurately, which means mutations go up, and the more mutations their are, the more abnormally things tend to work, and the more their overall health tends to suck. ...quote> Your second paragraph answered everything you asked in your first paragraph. I won't say what it is just yet, but one of America's most feared diseases is nothing more than a series of seemingly benign mutations.quote> Hey, you got one! You're right- mutation rates are VERY low, and there is no need to fear them. Mutations can also be beneficial depending on environmental pressures. I think it is perfectly acceptable to debate evolution on scientific grounds- and that it should be done more often. The problem with all the debate in our country is that it is being questioned on religious grounds (via "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design" proxies), which is completely unacceptable and irrelevant. EDIT: Barbarossa, it seems like you already made the same points.