insane
-
Posts
3510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by insane
-
-
Social Darwinism is something completely different!!
Social Darwinism is based on Darwinism, meaning it is not completely different... it is in fact natural selection from a social angle, quite similar if you ask me.
World War 2 was NOT being started by atheist Social-Darwinists, it was started completely in whole by Adolf Hitler!While Hitler wasn't an atheist, he certainly didn't prescribe to any one religion and he was a social Darwinist. Atheists in the Nazi regime also rose quickly in the ranks (source) . It would appear that a largely atheist and entirely secular regime that believed in social Darwinism started world war 2 and used it to justify the murder of six million Jews.
I didn't mean for this to become a massive tangent; my point was that during our societies' "wonderful" secularization has come more bloodshed than ever before... it was just a sidenote, not meant to be argued against.
Protip: WWII also had economic grounds for justification, not just the social Darwinist aspect. In fact, it had a lot of root causes beyond the social Darwinist aspect. Picking that out as the major - in fact, even as a major reason for WWII is to blatantly ignore everything that happened in the two decades before it.Yep, I wasn't arguing for social darwinism being the main cause, I was arguing that religion had little or nothing to do with the most disgusting display of human action in history. I just thought it was a little ironic that one of religions biggest proponents was used as justification.
Hitler's extermination of the Jews was religiously motivated.If you mean it was motivated through his antisemitism, then sure... but that's more of an anti-religious motivation. Hitler wanted to keep a religiously neutral state (source)
-
Or is it because religion somehow got involved in politics? US in particular. Not only that, broadcasting religious, political views in the Middle East is offensive specifically to Muslims... lol
I don't believe the US or religion had anything to do with the start of any of the major wars in the 20th century. All of the US vs. Muslim stuff has taken place in the 21st and is completely minuscule to the bloodshed occurring in the World Wars (which were secular in nature... World War 2 being started by atheist Darwinists, actually). Note that you left out my example of the holocaust and WW2... the bloodiest, most disgusting show of injustice the world has ever seen, justified by Darwinism.
-
You could say that but I wouldn't equate religious faith to faith that science works. That's drawing a huge bow in my books. The scientific process is much more obvious and self-evident to me. I'd call it a truism.
That's the thing though. You find the scientific method obvious. I find God obvious. You believe God needs to be proven. I believe the scientific method should be proven. Neither can be proven (you can't test the scientific method by the scientific method...). We're just different creatures, you and I.
Sorry, I don't agree at all. I think it decreases belief because it makes people more critical in their thinking. To some of these people an anthropomorphic figure with qualities x, y, z simply doesn't make any sense.No apology necessary; in my experience I've found "intellectuals" (aka. atheists) to be extremely arrogant... I know if I didn't believe in God I'd probably think alot more highly of myself. Belief in God requires quite a bit of humility, wouldn't you agree? I think acknowledging that there is a higher purpose that you (science) can have no bearing or effect on would be extremely humbling. It's also interesting to note that you used the term *critical* thinking. Have you ever known a humble person to be critical?
-
Hey guys, Newton isn't exactly representative of the majority of religious people.
Just pointing it out, in case you forgot.
Bringing him up doesn't exactly disprove that intelligent people are less likely to believe.
I know, mate. Just disproving the idea that religious people necessarily reject science. Obviously Newton isn't representative of all believers, but that wasn't the point I made.
I think what happens is that as intelligence rises, tendency to see faith as valid drops. Just like as faith rises, tendency to see intelligence as valid drops. That might be why Christians (faith-believers) might be perceived as unintelligent and why scientists (knowledge-seekers) may be perceived as faithless.
What I don't agree with is scientists that reject faith when their entire system (the scientific method) is taken on faith. I also think Christians that reject science as unbiblical are in the wrong - the Bible has nothing to do with science or knowledge - it's a book describing the character of God, to be read as something else is erroneous.
So I would agree that intelligence decreases the chance of believing in God, but it's not because belief in God is unintelligent - I believe intelligence decreases belief because intelligent people tend to be more arrogant and are more likely to reject ideas that make themselves seem inferior.
What's also interesting to note is that while people often blame religion for wars and world turmoil, the 20th century, seeing a massive rise in atheism and secularism, was the bloodiest and most turmoil-filled century our history has ever seen. If religion caused the crusades (crusaders were religious), then Darwinism caused the holocaust (Nazis were Darwinists).
-
Brain, all your heart does is pump blood. There's no "feelings" in that.
You clearly don't understand the metaphorical idea behind the heart.
I think for most people it would be their heart. People always say they're going to be rational and take love slowly, but as soon as anyone meets someone they fall for rationality is the first thing to go. I say heart.
-
The Golden Rule? I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Do you mean which ethical stance subscribes to that view?
I mean how can you state
"I was under the impression that the basic freedoms came with the caveat that exercising your liberties should not negatively impact someone else's ability to do the same."
this as true? Why should expressing our freedoms not limit the freedoms of others?
-
-
And what if a person cannot reproduce because of medical issues? They aren't human either?As well, you said gays can't reproduce and are therefore against nature. What about those that are born a certain way, and can't reproduce? Should we considered them not human for the way they were born, and treat them like animals?
No, but those people seek help and are generally pitied by people for that reason. It's not like there's "sterile pride day"... people don't like finding out that they're sterile, in fact, it's a very sad thing - their body isn't working the way it should. So going by your analogy, gays should be pitied, not celebrated, and seek help for their condition.
I don't see your point. There are always anomalies in nature. Things that differ from the 'standard'. There are no real standards in nature as nature is chaotic and things are always changing. 'standards' or norms are just things that we humans make because we can't stand to see chaos, and therefor must find order in that chaos.If there are no real standards in nature and everything is chaotic then stop giving homophobes a bad rap; afterall it's just the standard they've made for themselves.
-
people can still believe that the Earth is flat, or everything revolves around it, and be right despite science proving them wrong.
How do you figure?
Oh, and Nadril - I wouldn't make a blanket statement like "two homosexuals kissing is wrong", or something like that. God makes it clear in the Bible that the heart behind the action is just as important as the action itself, thus the intentions behind the kiss, etc are important. So it's possible that two heterosexuals kissing would be seen as wrong in God's eyes as well, given their heart attitude behind the action.
-
(Sorry if mentioned before)
But the bible is old. Times change and so do beliefs..The bible is nothing but a guideline to the way we should live in the catholic eye...But you cant just say everything it says is right. Gay marriage is right. It doesn't matter its still love and that is what marriage is about.
You're both not understanding. You can say it's old and it's just a belief all you want but if the Christian God exists then the Bible will remain true no matter how old it is. Ambassador gave an example where things (math, science) remain true regardless of time.
You can't just say the Bible doesn't apply because it's just full of beliefs, that's a self-refuting statement. If things don't apply because they're merely beliefs then your beliefs don't apply to me, including those just stated.
-
So they've basically created a system where they accept homosexuals as long as they don't have sex and don't get married?
Just for the record, the church doesn't forbid homosexuals from marrying; the church forbids homosexuals from marrying each other. Any gay man can marry any woman he wants, just like any straight man is forbidden to marry any other man. It's not a question of gay rights, it's a question of the definition of marriage.
If god really didn't intend people to be gay, he'd surely put some almighty holy barrier up every time gays have sex, or just make it impossible in the first place - but nope, you can do it.Yeah, God must have intended people to conduct nuclear warfare too because he didn't stop the Americans from dropping one on Japan.
-
Being homosexual doesn't mean that you simply become in able to make a baby. If the world some how depended on a homosexual person having a child (for some strange reason, even though overpopulation is often times an issue) that person could still make a baby with another female/male (depending on their gender). They may not like it, but they aren't completely unable to do so.
Say there's two male-female couples. Couple one contains a heterosexual male and female. Couple two contains a homosexual male and female. You have to bet on one of the couples promoting their species through reproduction. You're telling me that you don't obviously bet on couple one? If you do bet on couple one, you're telling me that couple one has an evolutionary advantage over couple two as their genes are passed onwards and the species survives. Of course couple two could reproduce, but are you going to bet on them over couple one? No.
Blindness impairs vision. On the other hand, homosexuality does not impair reproductive ability. I don't see what you hope to achieve by comparing the two.It totally impairs it. Maybe not to the extent that blindness impairs vision (although 70-80% of blind people can be cured to an extent), but no homosexual animal (besides a human) is going to reproduce. The only reason a homosexual human would reproduce cannot be explained in natural terms. Therefore I don't see how, from a purely evolutionary standpoint, homosexuality is not seen as a defect when the heterosexual gene (if one exists) is much more conducive to the survival of the species?
And by the same logic, you could say all men have the reproductive impairment/defect of not being able to reproduce. So what?That's like saying all ears have the defect of not being able to smell. It's just a stupid statement without any relevancy to this debate.
-
Blindness is an impairment. Explain how homosexuality is an impairment.What do you mean by "normal species functioning", and how does it apply to homosexuality and not blindness?Blindness is a visual impairment, and homosexuality is a reproductive impairment. Surely from an evolutionary standpoint homosexuality can be viewed as a defect?
-
Would you say it's natural in the same way blindness is natural?
That's more of a departure from normal species functioning though. Homosexuality is just a variation of an attribute of normal species functioning.
What do you mean by "normal species functioning", and how does it apply to homosexuality and not blindness?
-
Its unnatural to be gay whether you like it or not.
Why do people continually say crap like this? It isn't 'unnatural' to be gay. It happens in nature, both wild and civilized, and by the dictates of nature, i.e. by biological and environmental factors.
Would you say it's natural in the same way blindness is natural?
OT: As long as homosexuals don't sue churches for not allowing homosexual weddings in their buildings, then I don't really care. I don't see the point of any marriage other than a Christian marriage anyways.
-
Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P
Hilarious. :roll:
Renaissance "beauty" was much different from today. A man would see beauty in a plump woman because her weight suggests that she is well-fed (ie: wealthy).
Nowadays, men look at plump women with disgust, simply because the media has changed our views on beauty.
I don't understand what your problem is. If the media defines beauty, then people without media access should have no definition of beauty. The reason this sounds so stupid is because you and I both know that although the media has a large effect on what people find beautiful, it does not set the definition.
-
So universal beauty ideals common for every culture is a myth, it's all dependant on what the media tells us?Yes, our own ignorance is also to blame. But the real factor here is the media. As we've said, the media sets the image, and society follows it. The fact that the media deceives us into accepting it is even more infuriating (see the Evolution video).Yeah, and those in isolated countries without media access don't find anything beautiful :P
-
Nothing really to be honest.
I mean, the FYE (music store) gift card wasn't that needed consider I get most of my music....otherwise, but I'll find something to get with it. :P
Because of downloading music most music stores (at least in Canada) have started to sell more than CD's and DVD's because they would go out of business otherwise. I know HMV in Canada has taken to selling iPods and Wii/Xbox360 games.
-
Looking at your picture and the fact that you want to gain muscle is telling me that you are going to be gaining weight, not losing it.
-
Yeah, that's why in a longer article they quote the female killer as SAYING they were intentionally imitating mortal combat. Because mortal combat had nothing to do with it and video games are never the cause of any negative action. Gosh, you guys are the bias ones, you didn't even do any research before blaming the article as bias. Ridiculous.
Christ insane, you make it sound like no one has ever lied to hopefully get a shorter sentance.
The fact is is that mortal kombat DOES NOT HAVE WRESTLING MOVES IN IT. It's a lie and it is a bad one, I'm amazed you can't see that.
If you're going the avenue of lying to make a shorter sentence, then it would further support my point. Saying "wrestling moves" is much shorter than <>. The paper wouldn't go through with actually writing out the specific names because it would be a waste of column space and most readers wouldn't understand. Hence "wrestling moves".
Did you not see where I quoted the actual criminal as saying she was practicing mortal kombat moves? Or is the criminal lying for absolutely no reason as well?
-
Hence the quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
The coiner of that phrase has obviously never studied logic or more specifically the complex cause. It's not like these two were going out to murder a 7 year old girl any way they could. They said that they were practicing mortal kombat moves and she died as a result. Just like it's actually people using guns that kill people, it's these people practicing mortal kombat moves that killed this girl.
Heather Trujillo, 16, and her boyfriend, Lamar Roberts, 17, of Westminster, are being held on $100,000 bond. Zoe died on Dec. 6 from blunt force trauma to her brain and central nervous system. According to the Weld County Coroner her right wrist was broken, her body had more than 20 bruises, her neck muscles were bleeding and skin near her tongue had been torn. According to the arrest affidavits, Trujillo told investigators she and Roberts were babysitting Zoe (Garcia) and her twin, 3-year-old sisters, while their mother worked at the Corral Bar about five blocks away. Trujillo said they were acting out the video game "Mortal Combat" by savagely hitting and kicking Zoe, even dropping her on her side, which broke. -
The fact that these "moves" came from mortal combat is only a poke at the gaming industry. The article is obviously biased and should of just said these teens killed a young girl, which they did. Regardless of the games, it was their choice of actions which led them to this situation.They were using wrestling moves on her, none of which have ever been in mortal kombat. Pulling in the came is just a cheap way to put the blame on something.
Its sick, yeah.
And I agree with Lionheart that the video game spin is just a bias towards the industry. They could have got those moves from watching a wrestling match.You can manipulate any accident to make it look like it happened because someone played a game or watched a video. Here's a scenario:A boy tries to learn to fly from jumping off the roof and dies. Media could say "Boy dies trying to re-enact Dragonball Z."
Yeah, that's why in a longer article they quote the female killer as SAYING they were intentionally imitating mortal combat. Because mortal combat had nothing to do with it and video games are never the cause of any negative action. Gosh, you guys are the bias ones, you didn't even do any research before blaming the article as bias. Ridiculous.
-
I contend that we are both theists. I just believe in one more God than you do. When you understand why I dismiss all other possible Gods, you will understand why I believe in mine.
Hey? I don't quite understand, would you mind rephrasing that?
You seem to be saying that atheists are theists and they believe in every god but yours while you believe in every god, including the Judeo-Christian one.
Actually, he can't honestly make the claim that I am a theist at all, for I have not claimed to believe in any god. To be a theist, you have to believe in at least one. :lol:
And you can't honestly make the claim that I am an atheist at all, for I have not claimed to lack belief in any God. The quote that Korskin paraphrased is one of the stupidest quotes I have ever read.
Further, going "one god further" is not as simple as you think. Going from two gods to one god, is a LOT different than going from one god to no gods at all, and you all know this. The entire quote is rubbish.
-
Sex sells. That's all that matters. No matter how many people agree with you sex still sells.
His/her point is that "sex selling" is detrimental to human sociology.
Intelligent people = 'less likely to believe in God'
in Off-Topic
Posted
Actually the entire reason I brought up Hitler/social Darwinism being responsible for the holocaust was because of the oft appearing "Christianity is responsible for the Crusades" argument. It's interesting to note that many people think it's okay to blame religion for a slaughter started by religion applied in an incorrect, immoral way, but at the same time turn around and disagree when someone blames science for a slaughter started by science applied in an incorrect, immoral way. That's putting science on a subjective pedestal.