Definition of a Idiot

[Roamy]

Now here is a true idiot - Just want I want to do with my life;


Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, an American imprisoned in Iran on charges of evangelizing, was sentenced this morning to eight years in prison.According to the American Center for Law and Justice, Abedini was verbally sentenced in Tehran by Judge Pir-Abassi, known as the “hanging judge,” to eight years in prison for threatening the national security of Iran through his leadership in Christian house churches. He will serve the time in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison, known as one of the most brutal.

Read more: Iran sentences American pastor Saeed Abedini to 8 years in prison | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/27/iran-sentences-american-pastor-saeed-abedini-to-8-years-in-prison/#ixzz2JDHcB3ja)

[gloomyDAY]

*an

Also, there's no way in hell that I'm clicking on a link to Fox News. I don't need the malware.

[zormm]

ridiculous rules

[anthonyvop]

Now here is a true idiot - Just want I want to do with my life;


Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, an American imprisoned in Iran on charges of evangelizing, was sentenced this morning to eight years in prison.According to the American Center for Law and Justice, Abedini was verbally sentenced in Tehran by Judge Pir-Abassi, known as the “hanging judge,” to eight years in prison for threatening the national security of Iran through his leadership in Christian house churches. He will serve the time in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison, known as one of the most brutal.

Read more: Iran sentences American pastor Saeed Abedini to 8 years in prison | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/27/iran-sentences-american-pastor-saeed-abedini-to-8-years-in-prison/#ixzz2JDHcB3ja)


Whether you agree with his beliefs or not(And I don't) a moral man would acknowledge the mans right to freedom of expression and his heroic work to exercise that right.

Especially when he new that he would be targeted by those who fear people making up their own minds.

[Roamy]

right Tony but a sane man would have practiced in the Iranian section of NY. NOT in Iran

[gloomyDAY]

Whether you agree with his beliefs or not(And I don't) a moral man would acknowledge the mans right to freedom of expression and his heroic work to exercise that right.

Especially when he new that he would be targeted by those who fear people making up their own minds.I absolutely agree with you Tony. This is similar to the atheists in America who are trying to make sure there is a definitive separation of religion from state, as stated in the Treaty of Tripoli. Christian fundamentalists are mimicking Iran's theocracy by forcing people to give a religious oath prior to high school graduation (http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20130122arizona-bills-push-patriotic-oaths-schools.html). Standing up against such draconian laws is indeed -as you stated, Tony- heroic work.

[gadjo_dilo]

Standing up against such draconian laws is indeed -as you stated, Tony- heroic work.

I can't see anything "heroic" in something that is meant to be foredoomed to failure.
But maybe that's the reason I wear eyeglasses......

[henners88]

I think we know from some of the debates here that some people don't like foreigners giving opinions on matters in their country, yet this can be defended? Hmmm, this guy was rather stupid IMO.

[Knock-on]

Got to admit, it's a bit braindead going to Iran to preach Christianity. Bit like me going to the deep South to preach Gun Control and Racial Tollerance to the Redknecks :D

[A FONDO]

Both islam and christianity must be banned all around the world. The have led to the murder, torture and misery of hundreds of millions of people, only for a fistful of persons to become richer/more powerful.

[D-Type]

SlowSon, just to satisfy my curiosity could you please tell us where you are from and what religious beliefs you have, if any.

[anthonyvop]

Got to admit, it's a bit braindead going to Iran to preach Christianity. Bit like me going to the deep South to preach Gun Control and Racial Tollerance to the Redknecks :D

Because it would just display you ignorance of the United States. Visit that great "Southern" Cities of Boston and Philadelphia and then tell me about racial tolerance. Then later visit those iconic Southern States of Idaho, Indian and Montana and tell me how they are more than willing to give up their rights to bear arms.

[BDunnell]

Because it would just display you ignorance of the United States.

If you are to accuse others of ignorance, it might be as well to ensure your spelling is accurate. 'Your' ignorance, in this case. Same goes for the original poster with regard to the thread title.

As for the subject, everyone should be allowed freedom of expression, and everyone else should be free to tell them if they're talking nonsense and/or consider their views to be wrong and damaging.

[Starter]

Both islam and christianity must be banned all around the world. The have led to the murder, torture and misery of hundreds of millions of people, only for a fistful of persons to become richer/more powerful.
Sad but true.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Sad but true.

Just as a matter of fact, the two regimes that killed most people ever that is the Nazi and Soviet ones, were atheist.

[schmenke]

Just as a matter of fact, the two regimes that killed most people ever that is the Nazi and Soviet ones, were atheist.


Just to add a little perspective...

It's estimated that between 1 and 2 million people were killed during the Christian crusades, at a time when the world population was only about 350 million.

Sorry, off topic here.

[Gregor-y]

Just as a matter of fact, the two regimes that killed most people ever that is the Nazi and Soviet ones, were atheist.

In 12 and 75 years, each? Don't bet on it. Pogroms in your own country were probably a lot more devastating over a few centuries.

[donKey jote]

Sorry, off topic here.

Idiot. :andrea: :p

[gloomyDAY]

Just as a matter of fact, the two regimes that killed most people ever that is the Nazi and Soviet ones, were atheist.False. Pope Pius the XII couldn't care less for the Jews, and remained silent as the Germans began the annihilation process. Also, Hitler was Catholic.

Soviets were not in the business of eradicating just any religious individual, but they were making sure that nobody would stand against the authority. Unfortunately, that included the Orthodox Church and some of its members. The majority of the 20 million dead during The Purge were political prisoners.

Rudy, you're wrong. Atheism had nothing to do with the deaths of these people. Just another power struggle in the world.

[Gregor-y]

Not to mention both nominally atheist countries were following established *religious* traditions in those regards, not making new habits up along the way.

[Starter]

Just as a matter of fact, the two regimes that killed most people ever that is the Nazi and Soviet ones, were atheist.
Don't forget Pol Pot's Cambodia. I'd still go with the religious ones, over time, though.

[Rollo]

Both islam and christianity must be banned all around the world. The have led to the murder, torture and misery of hundreds of millions of people, only for a fistful of persons to become richer/more powerful.

Would you like to back up your theory that Christianity has led to murder, torture and misery of hundreds of millions of people? I think you'll find that the real reason is the lust for greed and power by people, not because they were following any principles in the bible. This is really a very large form of fallacy by association.

Religion is very often used as an excuse by both people who want to carry out bad things, people who want to blame religion for bad things being done. In both cases, an objective look at whether or not the religion in question was to blame is almost never undertaken.
In short, this is a lazy argument to make.

[TheFamousEccles]

With regard to the original thread topic, to my mind he is one less evangelistic god-botherer in circulation. What is needed is a system of cooperation between supposedly Christian and Muslim states to incarcerate each others overly evangelical citizens on a one for one basis, thus slowly and in a spirit of solidarity rid the world of religious types. It would be for the greater good.

[BDunnell]

With regard to the original thread topic, to my mind he is one less evangelistic god-botherer in circulation. What is needed is a system of cooperation between supposedly Christian and Muslim states to incarcerate each others overly evangelical citizens on a one for one basis, thus slowly and in a spirit of solidarity rid the world of religious types. It would be for the greater good.

I think we're getting a bit silly here, to be honest. I'm vehemently atheist, but in no way would I ever advocate 'ridding the world of religious types'.

[Rollo]

thus slowly and in a spirit of solidarity rid the world of religious types. It would be for the greater good.

If I walk down a busy street in any major city, I find evidence of both amorality and a very strong adherence to the worship of the dollar.

Religion for want of a better word is a set of practices based on or that follow as a result of one's faith. To put it more simply: Faith is where and what you believe in; Religion is what you do about it.
Everyone who has ever been born on this planet has believed in something, even atheists. Atheists might not believe in god/s but they do believe in an absence of them; by definition this is still a belief in a position. It follows that everyone who has ever lived has their own unique religion of sorts (including atheists), and although it might not necessarily be an organised religion, the fact still holds true that everyone has their own religion.

I could take this to its logical hyperbolic conclusion and suggest that because everyone has their own religion (even if its unorganised), then to "rid the world of religious types" is to rid the world of all people.

[TheFamousEccles]

Rollo, you are probably right. I agree with your point about faith, but I can't adhere to the idea of religion, organised or not. Believe me, I was born into a catholic family and was even an alterboy, but my personal experiences of Catholicism in particular and religion in general is one of lack of tolerance and adherence to dogma that (to my mind) preys upon the weak and fragile, to it's own ends.

I probably wouldn't mind so much if (at least in Australia) the various religious organisations got their collective noses out of the public financial trough. Throughout the western world (and in many 'eastern' societies) the separation of church and state is diminishing, to the increasing disenfranchisement of those who don't believe in imaginary friends. Personally, I have no problem with individuals believing whatever they want, but I just don't want to pay for it, have it impose it's lifestyle on me or restrict what I can or cannot do.

[Starter]

Would you like to back up your theory that Christianity has led to murder, torture and misery of hundreds of millions of people? I think you'll find that the real reason is the lust for greed and power by people, not because they were following any principles in the bible. This is really a very large form of fallacy by association.

Religion is very often used as an excuse by both people who want to carry out bad things, people who want to blame religion for bad things being done. In both cases, an objective look at whether or not the religion in question was to blame is almost never undertaken.
In short, this is a lazy argument to make.
Bull****, if the parties involved base their actions on supposed direction from their religion (god), then it's religion based. Makes no difference whether its middle ages crusaders or modern Taliban. That they are taking said religious direction completely out of context makes no difference.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Just to add a little perspective...

It's estimated that between 1 and 2 million people were killed during the Christian crusades, at a time when the world population was only about 350 million.

Sorry, off topic here.

More often than not people waved religious flags to disguise their earthly interests. For instance, Albigensian crusades were a campaign of the lords of Northern France to wrestle the control of Languedoc from the Counts of Toulouse and Kings of Arago. One of the most prominent victims of the crusaders was Pere I, the King of Arago, who had a nickname "el Catolic" and was as pious and devout a Christian as his enemies were, if not more. Getting facts straight...

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think you'll find that the real reason is the lust for greed and power by people, not because they were following any principles in the bible.

To that I would add that once people give in to their greed and last for power, they go against God because as the Bible famously declares, you cannot serve two Lords at the same time.

[A FONDO]

First of all, I want to share something on-topic I just read: Few years ago, a group of south-korean missioneers went in Afghanistan to preach christianity to the locals. Dont know what actually happened with them, but after that story the Afghan government completely forbid any citizens of South Korea to enter the country anymore :s hock: :laugh:



SlowSon, just to satisfy my curiosity could you please tell us where you are from and what religious beliefs you have, if any.

Well, I have my own image of God, the universal laws, the origin of the universe and its beings. That belief has been formed after reading dozens of sources of any type, origin and period. My nationality can only mislead you and it is not important if one has enough brains to think on his own, make his own opinions and is open to learn from foreign cultures. I’ll just say I’m from a very old european country that had had its own doctrine before christianity and islam were even “created”.


Would you like to back up your theory that Christianity has led to murder, torture and misery of hundreds of millions of people? I think you'll find that the real reason is the lust for greed and power by people, not because they were following any principles in the bible. This is really a very large form of fallacy by association.

Religion is very often used as an excuse by both people who want to carry out bad things, people who want to blame religion for bad things being done. In both cases, an objective look at whether or not the religion in question was to blame is almost never undertaken.
In short, this is a lazy argument to make.

Yes there were no principles of murder and torture in the initial definitions of christianity, islam, comunism but the powerful people who used them for their deeds have exploited them so much that now they are wicked. What Jesus and Mohammed actually said and did is just a marginal percentage of what their religions teach. The bible has been rewritten several times and its principles modified in the branches of ortodox, catolicism, protestantism. Also is some countries that didn’t want to accept that new sect, the christianity was masked over their own “paganic” traditions, celebrations and rituals. All of this in order to manipulate the masses, control countries, empires and whole regions.

So, in 21st century, with all these advancements in information access and sharing all over the world, there's no place for things like christianity and islam anymore.

[Knock-on]

Because it would just display you ignorance of the United States. Visit that great "Southern" Cities of Boston and Philadelphia and then tell me about racial tolerance. Then later visit those iconic Southern States of Idaho, Indian and Montana and tell me how they are more than willing to give up their rights to bear arms.

OK, I admit you're probably right on this one and conceed that the majority of the US of A is rascist and Gun mad and not just the Deep South. Thanks for putting us right on that.

I was just using the Deep South as an example as most of my experience is from there but thanks for putting me right. :D

[gadjo_dilo]

So, in 21st century, with all these advancements in information access and sharing all over the world, there's no place for things like christianity and islam anymore.

Advancements in information access and sharing all over the world......
Nah....When I think of the "quality" of about 90% of these information I think there’s still enough place.
(Sorry, just a bitter observation).

[A FONDO]

Yeah, but people can choose on their own what to read, accept/reject and believe in. Still better than somebody else decide it for them, isn't it?

[Rudy Tamasz]

Yeah, but people can choose on their own what to read, accept/reject and believe in. Still better than somebody else decide it for them, isn't it?

99 per cent of each person's knowledge is secondary knowledge, which you can only verify logically, rather than empirically. It means whatever you read, make sure it holds waterr from the logocal standpoint.

[Rudy Tamasz]

You need to spell correctly too... ;)

[gadjo_dilo]

Yeah, but people can choose on their own what to read, accept/reject and believe in. Still better than somebody else decide it for them, isn't it?

Continuing my bitter observation: unfortunately in this 21st century people choose to read less than before and what they usually read is rubbish.

To set the record straight before some angry guy will jump at my throat: those present on this forum are excluded from this rule. With one exception: me.

[Bagwan]

Testify , Fausto !
Yeah , that guy is a dope , but , to be fair , it's likely one of the rules of his sect , to go out and "witness" or "testify" .

One of the craziest ideas in any religion , is that one has to believe one is right about that whole thing , without doubt .
And , part of that is the preaching .
You need to justify an idea that is basically un-provable .

I watched most of a doc last night , about the Texan battle over how to teach Darwin's theory of evolution in the schools .
The religious right attached itself to the word "theory" in the debate with scientists , and insisted on wording that entered doubt into the science .

The slant of the doc was towards the scientific community , and their struggle to keep the textbooks telling the science as the scientists see it .
This struggle was shown vividly by one segment , where they started the meeting with a long , drawn out prayer , about how they wished to be guided to the "right" decisions about the topic .

And , farther down the twisted road , the dynamic of the politician , hoping to not pi$$ off his starry-eyed constituents , lobbied back and forth between the right and the scientific , scratching for middle ground .

And , then , there were the publishers , horribly nervous at the thought of having to print new textbooks , with new dodgy wording , just for Texas .


If you can't show proof for the talking snake , then you need to cast doubt on evolution as a "theory" .
And , those Muslims must have it wrong , too .

[Starter]

You need to spell correctly too... ;)
Which witch needs to spell correctly? It can make a difference. :D

[Rudy Tamasz]

Which witch needs to spell correctly? It can make a difference. :D

The one who pontificated about "logocal" things...

[anthonyvop]

If you are to accuse others of ignorance, it might be as well to ensure your spelling is accurate. 'Your' ignorance, in this case. Same goes for the original poster with regard to the thread title.

As for the subject, everyone should be allowed freedom of expression, and everyone else should be free to tell them if they're talking nonsense and/or consider their views to be wrong and damaging.


Jeez. Sorry I have fat fingers and have some problems typing on my smart phone. Of course it takes a small mind to jump on a spelling error instead of actually debating logically.

And

Everyone should be allowed freedom of expression. I was. I was expressing how his hatred of the USA is based on ignorance.

What is a real shame is so many countries like the UK, France, Germany etc claim to be free and yet have draconian laws against speech, thought and expression.

Sad!

[BDunnell]

Jeez. Sorry I have fat fingers and have some problems typing on my smart phone. Of course it takes a small mind to jump on a spelling error instead of actually debating logically.

Excuses, excuses. You always write the same way. If I'm typing something on a smart phone, I always correct my spelling and grammatical errors. It's not hard. But this is beside the point.



Everyone should be allowed freedom of expression. I was. I was expressing how his hatred of the USA is based on ignorance.

What is a real shame is so many countries like the UK, France, Germany etc claim to be free and yet have draconian laws against speech, thought and expression.

I very much — and very genuinely — agree with you about freedom of expression. What I find strange is that I have never, living in two of the countries you mention, come a cropper as a result of these alleged restrictions. Strange, that.

[Rollo]

I very much — and very genuinely — agree with you about freedom of expression. What I find strange is that I have never, living in two of the countries you mention, come a cropper as a result of these alleged restrictions. Strange, that.

It's also strange to think that all three (the UK, France, Germany) have a wider range of expressions and opinions of ideology expressed through their print media than the USA does.

Does a paper like Le Monde or Neues Deutschland exist in the US... at all?

[Starter]

It's also strange to think that all three (the UK, France, Germany) have a wider range of expressions and opinions of ideology expressed through their print media than the USA does.

Does a paper like Le Monde or Neues Deutschland exist in the US... at all?
Print media here is not quite dead, but I wouldn't loan it ten bucks if I expected to get the money back..

[Spafranco]

This may have been mentioned already so excuse the double post.

Evidently, Arizona is seeking to have a law in place to prevent atheist high school kids from graduating.

[Tazio]

Because it would just display you ignorance of the United States. Visit that great "Southern" Cities of Boston and Philadelphia and then tell me about racial tolerance. Then later visit those iconic Southern States of Idaho, Indian and Montana and tell me how they are more than willing to give up their rights to bear arms.I wouldn't put it that strongly but I do find some of the stereotypes about citizens of The United States of America in many cases either absurd or meant as a joke. I can say without fear of recrimination I have never made a serious claim as to the "type" of people that come from European (or any other) countries or how they singularly differ by region. For the members who think they know what Americans are like; IMO you would have to have lived here many years, traveled extensively, and be a scholar on human behavior to have a fair grip on our demographics, which by the way have enough deviations, and variances that IMO invalidate generalizations.

[gadjo_dilo]

I wouldn't put it that strongly but I do find some of the stereotypes about citizens of The United States of America in many cases either absurd or meant as a joke. .... For the members who think they know what Americans are like; IMO you would have to have lived here many years, traveled extensively, and be a scholar on human behavior to have a fair grip on our demographics, which by the way have enough deviations, and variances that IMO invalidate generalizations.

OK. I raise my hands and I surrender: I used to be one of those knobheads. But I've changed my opinion since I've met you. :p

[Knock-on]

Jeez. Sorry I have fat fingers and have some problems typing on my smart phone. Of course it takes a small mind to jump on a spelling error instead of actually debating logically.

And

Everyone should be allowed freedom of expression. I was. I was expressing how his hatred of the USA is based on ignorance.

What is a real shame is so many countries like the UK, France, Germany etc claim to be free and yet have draconian laws against speech, thought and expression.

Sad!

While I agree with you about spelling (I really fail to see why some people feel superior or that their point is somehow more valid if they run it through a spell checker :rolleyes: ), I think you're way wide of the mark if you think I hate Americans or the US of A.

Perhaps you think that because I don't agree with some of your views somehow equates to me hating your Country. That's very sad and singleminded for someone who expresses to champion freedom of expression or is your belief in free speech dependant on whether people share your views?

[Starter]

That's very sad and singleminded for someone who expresses to champion freedom of expression or is your belief in free speech dependant on whether people share your views?
Freedom of expression needs to be tempered with respect for other's views. Failure to do so can result in a sharp rap in the mouth at the local pub. :D

[BDunnell]

Freedom of expression needs to be tempered with respect for other's views.

Why? There are lots of views for which I have no time whatsoever. Why should I 'respect' them? I respect the fact that people should be allowed to express them, but, to my mind, saying that I should respect someone's view with which I disagree completely is tantamount to saying that I shouldn't express an opinion as to whether said opinion is nonsense.

[Starter]

Why? There are lots of views for which I have no time whatsoever. Why should I 'respect' them? I respect the fact that people should be allowed to express them, but, to my mind, saying that I should respect someone's view with which I disagree completely is tantamount to saying that I shouldn't express an opinion as to whether said opinion is nonsense.
You do like to argue, don't you? This part of your quote: "I respect the fact that people should be allowed to express them", is, of course, the operative part. And the sense of my post.

[BDunnell]

You do like to argue, don't you?

To you, arguing — to me, merely stating a view contrary to yours. I don't like having arguments at all.


This part of your quote: "I respect the fact that people should be allowed to express them", is, of course, the operative part. And the sense of my post.

Well, what you said was, 'Freedom of expression needs to be tempered with respect for other's views', which is somewhat different.

[Rollo]

If you can't show proof for the talking snake, then you need to cast doubt on evolution as a "theory" .
And, those Muslims must have it wrong, too.

And if you can't disprove it, you have something which is unfalisfiable which again comes back to a position of faith anyway.

This sounds a little like Popper's turkey, which every day stuck its head out of the turkey house and expected to get fed. There was nothing in its world which would indicate that after December 25, its world would have changed drastically.
A turkey has no knowledge in its world in July which would lead it to believe anything other than when it sticks its head out of the turkey house in the morning, it will get fed. The one vital piece of knowledge which might change its behaviour, is not only unknown but completely unknowable. The implication that what you don't know and also what you have no way of even knowing or deducing, has serious implications.
Likewise, even if every raven you have ever seen in your life is black, even though you have no reason at all to suspect that there is such a thing as a white raven, to categorically deny the existence of a white raven with certainty, requires you to have met and catalogued every raven that ever existed. If this sounds silly, then think of white swans. The absolute unthinkable happened in Western Australia when lo and behold, black swans were found in abundance.
For a thing to be categorically classified as non-existing, requires that it be proven for all cases not to exist. It is easier in the world of mathematics to prove such a statement but as soon as you move to a subject with more parameters and far more variables where black and white do not hold, then a hard position is futile.

This more or less is why this statement is correct:


One of the craziest ideas in any religion , is that one has to believe one is right about that whole thing , without doubt .
And , part of that is the preaching .
You need to justify an idea that is basically un-provable .


It is also why science itself falls under exactly the same criteria as religion here (and if you're like Mr Dawkins, actually is). Even if you hold a position in science which you believe is "right about that whole thing, without doubt", the first piece of evidence which falsifies the position, destroys that position. What happens though if something comes along to destroy that position?
Never mind the fact that an estimated 95-99% of the observable universe is "missing". When science itself concedes that it can't even prove the existence most of the universe, you really begin to wonder about any hard position of belief at all.

I personally have major problems with the idea of evolution on the basis that whilst alleles migrate within genes, they don't jump them. This poses a problem when it comes to the spontaneous addition of new genetic material which underpins the very concept of evolution. How can something evolve when there isn't a mechanism to add information to a genetic string? How did nothing but blind chemistry originate DNA code anyway? At any rate, don't the laws of thermodynamics suggest that things tend towards a state of entropy?

It may be helpful to look at Nature magazine (287) and "Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila". Experiments on fruit-flies no matter how often you try and deliberately change their genetic code, still doesn't produce any real evolution at all.
Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus won the The Nobel Prize in "Physiology or Medicine" in 1995 for basically designing and running an experiment which in 120,000 generations fails to show that evolution can take place. It could be that to successfully run such an experiment requires a timeframe longer than recorded history and if so, you're still back where you started, at a position of faith.

Links:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v287/n5785/pdf/287795a0.pdf
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1995 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1995/)




I watched most of a doc last night, about the Texan battle over how to teach Darwin's theory of evolution in the schools.
The religious right attached itself to the word "theory" in the debate with scientists, and insisted on wording that entered doubt into the science .


Apart from the fact that even as a Christian I still don't think that religion should be taught in schools (your whole country is really truly religiously strange on so many levels), there is always a level of doubt when it comes to science. A "theory" can only really remain that because eventually better models to describe the world come along.
Incidentally, even Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation which was published in 1687 has been proven not to work, both at very small scale and perhaps bizzarely at the monumentally massive scale. I had read somewhere that the life expectancy for any given theory in science except in mathematics is about 250 years. This means to suggest that even the theory of evolution itself, will be chucked out by the scientific commnuity in roughly 96 years.

Really Mr Bagwan, all you've done is expressed your position of faith, which although perfectly rational is still precisely that.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Why? There are lots of views for which I have no time whatsoever. Why should I 'respect' them?

I don't see why you need to express your disrespect so publicly and loudly, either. Has the fine art of respectfully agreeing to disagree been completely forgotten or just disposed as unnecessary?

[Knock-on]

I don't see why you need to express your disrespect so publicly and loudly, either. Has the fine art of respectfully agreeing to disagree been completely forgotten or just disposed as unnecessary?

Quite agree. It's pretty obvious what Starter was saying and I understood it completely.

Basically it was to state your view but accept that others may have a contrary opinion and they have the same right to state it as you. Whether you agree with it or not or even if you choose to consider their opinion or discard it out of hand is your perogative but respect their right to say it.

[Knock-on]

Freedom of expression needs to be tempered with respect for other's views. Failure to do so can result in a sharp rap in the mouth at the local pub. :D

In my opinion, people should post as they would discuss down the pub. I don't think I'm much different on here than I am in real life but suspect that others on here are keyboard warriors hiding behind a screen :)

[BDunnell]

In my opinion, people should post as they would discuss down the pub. I don't think I'm much different on here than I am in real life but suspect that others on here are keyboard warriors hiding behind a screen :)

The difference is that none of my friends at the pub come out with anything I consider to be as disagreeable as some of the stuff on here.

[BDunnell]

I don't see why you need to express your disrespect so publicly and loudly, either. Has the fine art of respectfully agreeing to disagree been completely forgotten or just disposed as unnecessary?

Why should one always 'agree to disagree'? On important issues, I think that's a cop-out.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Why should one always 'agree to disagree'? On important issues, I think that's a cop-out.

One shouldn't. We only have to remember that on important issues the alternative to a cop-out is a fight, on non-important ones it's an endless and meaningless debate. I like neither. I'd rather quit and get back to minding my own business.

[Rudy Tamasz]

The difference is that none of my friends at the pub come out with anything I consider to be as disagreeable as some of the stuff on here.

Sounds like you've found a true harmony there as opposed to here.

[BDunnell]

One shouldn't. We only have to remember that on important issues the alternative to a cop-out is a fight, on non-important ones it's an endless and meaningless debate. I like neither. I'd rather quit and get back to minding my own business.

On this, I very much respect your opinion.

[BDunnell]

Sounds like you've found a true harmony there as opposed to here.

Something like that. I'd hope this would always be the case with one's real friends.

[Bagwan]

At one time there was belief that the earth was flat .
It was never truly disproven until we went to space and saw it from there .

We don't seem to have stumbled on another talking snake , though .

I get that this is a theory , this Darwin thing , but 120,000 generations of fruit flies , all identical , doesn't disprove the theory .
It could cast doubt for those looking for it .

Genetic mutation , where sometimes there happens to pop up a white bear , instead of a black one , is actually pretty common .
But , as of now , there seem to be only 6 .
This particular mutation , is one that does not make it easier to exist , and scientists have found them in only one place .

At the other end of the country , we have mutations similar , in coyotes , but the reason for the white colour has been mooted to have been interbreeding with a yellow lab somewhere back in the coyote history .

So , we have two mutations , both displaying the same white colour , but only one we can attribute to a mixing of the gene pool through breeding .

Without human intervention , neither will survive .

And , across the world , every single day , we have children born with genetic mutations , who don't survive .
We have people who are recommended to not breed , as the likelyhood of certain mutations , ones likely to be terminal , are well known .

Gene mutation seems not to be in doubt .

If the weather turns much colder , and snow appears year-round , then both the "Spirit" bear , and the white coyote may survive on thier own , due to being able to hide in the snow , but the likelyhood is that they will not , as the adoption of that segment of genes makes them vulnerable in thier environment .

I realize this doesn't prove the theory , but I am at a complete loss as to how this would all fit with a "divine design" .
What could possibly be the logic that would produce such an animal(or human) which cannot survive ?



And if you can't disprove it, you have something which is unfalisfiable which again comes back to a position of faith anyway.

This sounds a little like Popper's turkey, which every day stuck its head out of the turkey house and expected to get fed. There was nothing in its world which would indicate that after December 25, its world would have changed drastically.
A turkey has no knowledge in its world in July which would lead it to believe anything other than when it sticks its head out of the turkey house in the morning, it will get fed. The one vital piece of knowledge which might change its behaviour, is not only unknown but completely unknowable. The implication that what you don't know and also what you have no way of even knowing or deducing, has serious implications.
Likewise, even if every raven you have ever seen in your life is black, even though you have no reason at all to suspect that there is such a thing as a white raven, to categorically deny the existence of a white raven with certainty, requires you to have met and catalogued every raven that ever existed. If this sounds silly, then think of white swans. The absolute unthinkable happened in Western Australia when lo and behold, black swans were found in abundance.
For a thing to be categorically classified as non-existing, requires that it be proven for all cases not to exist. It is easier in the world of mathematics to prove such a statement but as soon as you move to a subject with more parameters and far more variables where black and white do not hold, then a hard position is futile.

This more or less is why this statement is correct:



It is also why science itself falls under exactly the same criteria as religion here (and if you're like Mr Dawkins, actually is). Even if you hold a position in science which you believe is "right about that whole thing, without doubt", the first piece of evidence which falsifies the position, destroys that position. What happens though if something comes along to destroy that position?
Never mind the fact that an estimated 95-99% of the observable universe is "missing". When science itself concedes that it can't even prove the existence most of the universe, you really begin to wonder about any hard position of belief at all.

I personally have major problems with the idea of evolution on the basis that whilst alleles migrate within genes, they don't jump them. This poses a problem when it comes to the spontaneous addition of new genetic material which underpins the very concept of evolution. How can something evolve when there isn't a mechanism to add information to a genetic string? How did nothing but blind chemistry originate DNA code anyway? At any rate, don't the laws of thermodynamics suggest that things tend towards a state of entropy?

It may be helpful to look at Nature magazine (287) and "Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila". Experiments on fruit-flies no matter how often you try and deliberately change their genetic code, still doesn't produce any real evolution at all.
Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus won the The Nobel Prize in "Physiology or Medicine" in 1995 for basically designing and running an experiment which in 120,000 generations fails to show that evolution can take place. It could be that to successfully run such an experiment requires a timeframe longer than recorded history and if so, you're still back where you started, at a position of faith.

Links:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v287/n5785/pdf/287795a0.pdf
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1995 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1995/)




Apart from the fact that even as a Christian I still don't think that religion should be taught in schools (your whole country is really truly religiously strange on so many levels), there is always a level of doubt when it comes to science. A "theory" can only really remain that because eventually better models to describe the world come along.
Incidentally, even Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation which was published in 1687 has been proven not to work, both at very small scale and perhaps bizzarely at the monumentally massive scale. I had read somewhere that the life expectancy for any given theory in science except in mathematics is about 250 years. This means to suggest that even the theory of evolution itself, will be chucked out by the scientific commnuity in roughly 96 years.

Really Mr Bagwan, all you've done is expressed your position of faith, which although perfectly rational is still precisely that.

[gadjo_dilo]

I realize this doesn't prove the theory , but I am at a complete loss as to how this would all fit with a "divine design" .
What could possibly be the logic that would produce such an animal(or human) which cannot survive ?

As someone who more and more often asks this question replacing " such an animal( or human )" with myself and still couldn't find the answer, I rather think the problem consists in our incapacity to know the real purpose of the "divine design".

[Tazio]

I believe in giving folks on an individual level a wide berth, and a lot of latitude in their ponderings, and projections of the infinite. I'm not opposed to religion; in fact I think spirituality is our most precious gift. It is our interconnectedness to the infinite whatever you believe that is. It is a personal thing with me and don't have any problem with discussing it with friends, family, or even on this forum if someone wanted to know badly enough how I found a power greater than myself. It is based in the natural world and is something I feel very strongly about, so strongly that it isn't up for debate. I will debate my right to hold this belief however.

[Firstgear]

Genetic mutation , where sometimes there happens to pop up a white bear , instead of a black one , is actually pretty common .

I don't think you can classify a change in color a mutation. It's more like the recessive gene coming forward, or something. You can breed all kinds of animals for certain characteristics, including color. That doesn't make any of them mutants. If it did, then at least one of my kids would be a mutant, seeing as all three of them have different colored hair. Heck I'd even have to call myself a mutant - as my hair was quite blonde as a child, but is now much darker.

[Firstgear]

...but getting back on topic. Maybe this guy deliberately went there, expecting to get arrested, to hi-light the persecution of christians in Iran.

[gloomyDAY]

...but getting back on topic. Maybe this guy deliberately went there, expecting to get arrested, to hi-light the persecution of christians in Iran.A martyr like Jesus.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I don't think you can classify a change in color a mutation. It's more like the recessive gene coming forward, or something. You can breed all kinds of animals for certain characteristics, including color. That doesn't make any of them mutants. If it did, then at least one of my kids would be a mutant, seeing as all three of them have different colored hair. Heck I'd even have to call myself a mutant - as my hair was quite blonde as a child, but is now much darker.

We are all mutants in some way with regards to our DNA. If we weren't then we would all look the same.

The simple fact is that Darwins theory of evolution has got stronger and stronger with time.We understand evolution more than we understand the 'theory' of gravity. The origin of life may still be up for debate but we can be certain that every single living thing on the planet had a common ancestor.

[schmenke]

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8474/8434257218_81f186d8f3.jpg

[anthonyvop]

A martyr like Jesus.

No This guy actually exists. Jesus on the other hand is a person who has no contemporary documentation that proves he actually existed.

[gloomyDAY]

What was Mr. Abedini thinking? For a guy with a cool sounding last name, it seems so bizarre that he'd put himself into such peril. Christianity is a "protected religion" in Iran, but they cannot evangelize. I guess an American dude who's in Iran to preach Christianity would be asking for it.


No This guy actually exists. Jesus on the other hand is a person who has no contemporary documentation that proves he actually existed.I meant Jesus from the New Testament (aka Yeshua). The Bible, in my opinion, is a work of fiction, but shouldn't be shunned because it's a classical piece of literature.

[gadjo_dilo]

Jesus on the other hand is a person who has no contemporary documentation that proves he actually existed.

But if he didn't existed at all ( I mean as a real person - let's forget for a minute the religious issue of his relation to God ) then how could it become possible to "launch" a religion of such magnitude as christianity?????!!?!?

Then we talk about a man who lived 2000 years ago. We hardly get evidence of people who lived then. However, to my poor knowledge his name is mentioned in some documents, many of them non-christian. Cornelius Tacitus talked about him and I'm sure his documentation was based on the Roman Senate archives. Let's not forget that Palestine was a roman province and in their archives they had data about births and deaths.
Even in the official Juddaism his existance is not denied.

[henners88]

But if he didn't existed at all ( I mean as a real person - let's forget for a minute the religious issue of his relation to God ) then how could it become possible to "launch" a religion of such magnitude as christianity?????!!?!?
I'm sure Jesus was a real person but that was back in a time when populations didn't have access to the wider world. Not that its anyway the same in terms of outcome but Nazi Germany gathered its support through well carried out marketing and the belief one man was doing things for the good of the people. They didn't have access to the internet or TV and most didn't have the capacity to question. More primitive times lead to more primitive beliefs. Just my opinion anyway and I have no problem with others believing what they want so long as it doesn't try and influence my life. :)

[gadjo_dilo]

They didn't have access to the internet or TV and most didn't have the capacity to question.
Access to the internet or TV doesn't necessarily make you more clever and knowledgeable. When I hadn't access I used to read the classics of literature and watched art movies, now when I had access I read tabloids online and watch indian and southkorean soaps.

More primitive times lead to more primitive beliefs.
However what you call a primitive belief has a fundamental contribution to european civilization.

[henners88]

Access to the internet or TV doesn't necessarily make you more clever and knowledgeable. When I hadn't access I used to read the classics of literature and watched art movies, now when I had access I read tabloids online and watch indian and southkorean soaps.
No it doesn't, but it enables an individual to seek more scope on a particular topic and see how certain views are interpreted elsewhere. Religion is based on belief rather than proven fact and I don't accept that stance on anything else in daily life so I think I would be a hypocrite to give religion a special pass. Scientific breakthroughs have to be analysed and proven beyond reasonable doubt before they are allowed to be claimed as fact, yet many shy away from questioning religion because of its sensitive nature and mass following. I'll never be able to accept that and don't see why someone else's belief in something unproven should have any impact on my life. Mickey Mouse may well have been a real life large mouse who played with Walt Disney at the end of his garden as a boy, but I'd demand proof for such a far fetched belief regardless of how many people had read his diaries and formed a movement on this basis. :)


However what you call a primitive belief has a fundamental contribution to european civilization.
Unfortunately that is something I am unable to change.

[gadjo_dilo]

I'll never be able to accept that and don't see why someone else's belief in something unproven should have any impact on my life.


And if someone has a belief in something that can be proved you'll be able to accept the impact on your life even if it's negative? :confused:

[BDunnell]

And if someone has a belief in something that can be proved you'll be able to accept the impact on your life even if it's negative? :confused:

It is generally easier to accept the impact of something, whether positive or negative, if that something's existence can actually be proved.

[donKey jote]

It is also why science itself falls under exactly the same criteria as religion here (and if you're like Mr Dawkins, actually is).

I disagree Rollo, science is not a religion. Children aren't born "Scientians" like they are Muslim or Christians. Science is about applying human -not divine- knowledge to understanding our surroundings. Unlike religion's bibles, the scientist's book is being written and rewritten as we speak, as new theories come and supersede older ones, as our collective knowledge evolves ( ;) ).



I personally have major problems with the idea of evolution on the basis that whilst alleles migrate within genes, they don't jump them.
Barbara McClintock and the Discovery of Jumping Genes (Transposons) | Learn Science at Scitable (http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/barbara-mcclintock-and-the-discovery-of-jumping-34083)



Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus won the The Nobel Prize in "Physiology or Medicine" in 1995 for basically designing and running an experiment which in 120,000 generations fails to show that evolution can take place. It could be that to successfully run such an experiment requires a timeframe longer than recorded history and if so, you're still back where you started, at a position of faith.

Links:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v287/n5785/pdf/287795a0.pdf
The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1995 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1995/)

yet we also see viruses and bacteria evolve in less than a human generation.




Apart from the fact that even as a Christian I still don't think that religion should be taught in schools (your whole country is really truly religiously strange on so many levels), there is always a level of doubt when it comes to science. A "theory" can only really remain that because eventually better models to describe the world come along.
Yes, I agree 100% about keeping religion out of schools, but don't see the problem with there always being a level of doubt. Are we really so insecure? Many of us can live with this doubt and have absolutely no problems with calling anything a theory. I really don't need to invoke any higher immutable being for reassurance or guidance.



Incidentally, even Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation which was published in 1687 has been proven not to work, both at very small scale and perhaps bizzarely at the monumentally massive scale.
So long as it works well enough for us to calculate trajectories, mantain a fleet of satellites, send people to the moon, rockets into space... a grand unified theory would be great and they are working on it, but even then it would still be a theory.

[gadjo_dilo]

It is generally easier to accept the impact of something, whether positive or negative, if that something's existence can actually be proved.
Really? :confused:
I hope you'll never have the sweet experience to live under a dictatorship.

[gadjo_dilo]

Unlike religion's bibles, the scientist's book is being written and rewritten as we speak, as new theories come and supersede older ones, as our collective knowledge evolves ( ;) ).



How I have another dilemma. We may fight here considering theories that are valid today but after a number of years scientist will again reconsider it and prove I was a fool. In the meantime I'd realise that I missed a few dear friends due to endless talking on this forum.... :confused:

[donKey jote]

aww gadjo :kiss: http://i46.tinypic.com/hv9ul3.gif
http://i412.photobucket.com/albums/pp209/caz_cmk1/shrek/th_Donkey-5.jpg

[Bagwan]

I don't think you can classify a change in color a mutation. It's more like the recessive gene coming forward, or something. You can breed all kinds of animals for certain characteristics, including color. That doesn't make any of them mutants. If it did, then at least one of my kids would be a mutant, seeing as all three of them have different colored hair. Heck I'd even have to call myself a mutant - as my hair was quite blonde as a child, but is now much darker.

Bigger , more scientific heads labelled it a mutation , not a recessive gene , not me .

[Rudy Tamasz]

[quote="donKey jote"]Unlike religion's bibles, the scientist's book is being written and rewritten as we speak, as new theories come and supersede older ones, as our collective knowledge evolves ( ;) ).

Exactly. That's what I heard first from a priest. He penned a textbook on astronomy and he's best qualified to explain why the Church doesn't need to twist its creed each time a new discovery changes our views of the world. Universal things stay the same exactly because they are universal.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Religion is based on belief rather than proven fact and I don't accept that stance on anything else in daily life so I think

Henners, 99 per cent of things you know are secondary knowledge. Do you mean you go on to doublecheck all of them?

[donKey jote]

Exactly. That's what I heard first from a priest. He penned a textbook on astronomy and he's best qualified to explain why the Church doesn't need to twist its creed each time a new discovery changes our views of the world. Universal things stay the same exactly because they are universal.
The Church? Which one? Talk about universal.... :laugh:

[BDunnell]

Really? :confused:
I hope you'll never have the sweet experience to live under a dictatorship.

I have no idea what you mean by that, I must say.

[BDunnell]

Henners, 99 per cent of things you know are secondary knowledge. Do you mean you go on to doublecheck all of them?

At least it is possible to double-check those subjects within one's knowledge if one wants to.

[BDunnell]

By the way, lest anyone think I'm being rude in not responding, I think it's fairly pointless getting into these subjects — you have your beliefs, I have mine, and no-one's going to be swayed by any counter-argument.

[Starter]

By the way, lest anyone think I'm being rude in not responding, I think it's fairly pointless getting into these subjects — you have your beliefs, I have mine, and no-one's going to be swayed by any counter-argument.
Well, it can and does happen. But you are correct that it's not a common occurrence by any stretch.

[Tazio]

Access to the internet or TV doesn't necessarily make you more clever and knowledgeable . When I hadn't access I used to read the classics of literature and watched art movies, now when I had access I read tabloids online and watch indian and southkorean soaps.

However what you call a primitive belief has a fundamental contribution to european civilization.

Now I have another dilemma. We may fight here considering theories that are valid today but after a number of years scientist will again reconsider it and prove I was a fool. In the meantime I'd realise that I missed a few dear friends due to endless talking on this forum[/B]. Lol Gadji, but true ;)
I agree with you, however I think henners88 comments can't be completely discounted. First of all news was relayed through the western world 2000 years ago rather rapidly, whether it was official Roman doctrine or of those that opposed it, and were subjugated by it. And I believe that many scholars every bit as intelligent as we are now simply didn't have references as rapid as we do now. My personal belief is that Jesus was the first successful non-violent revolutionary to affect the western world, no more or less. Plus he was not responsible for The Spanish Inquisition, or the amount of technology in science and math, (Ever heard of the "The Antikythera Mechanism?” Ancient Greek Computer's Inner Workings Deciphered (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/11/061129-ancient-greece.html)), genius in art and literature that was lost from The Ancient inhabitants of the Empires of Rome, Greece, and Egypt, only to be rediscovered (by men like Da Vinci) after what we refer to generically as "The Dark Ages." I also believe that ancient Native Americans at the time we started to destroy their world were in far better harmony with the cosmos than we (the collective) are now. Ponder the following exerpt from a letter written by Edgar Allen Poe to to a contemporary "man of letters" in 1844:
I have no faith in human perfectibility. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active — not more happy — nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago. The result will never vary — and to suppose that it will, is to suppose that the foregone man has lived in vain — that the foregone time is but the rudiment of the future — that the myriads who have perished have not been upon equal footing with ourselves — nor are we with our posterity. I cannot agree to lose sight of man the individual, in man the mass. Here are a couple vids that explain what scholars in the employ of Greece knew over 2,000 years ago
Disclaimer: Some of what is stated as fact in these vids has to be conjecture.
Carl Sagan on Eratosthenes - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnHn03QQ8lU)
Carl Sagan on the great library of Alexandria - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixnM7S9tLw)
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet 1.5.166-7

[Rudy Tamasz]

By the way, lest anyone think I'm being rude in not responding, I think it's fairly pointless getting into these subjects — you have your beliefs, I have mine, and no-one's going to be swayed by any counter-argument.

Hey, you've just copped out! ;)

[anthonyvop]

I very much — and very genuinely — agree with you about freedom of expression. What I find strange is that I have never, living in two of the countries you mention, come a cropper as a result of these alleged restrictions. Strange, that.


Not really. A lot of people liked living under Stalin or Mao. Your just another of the many that don't care about rights until you want to use them and they tell you that you can't.

[anthonyvop]

It's also strange to think that all three (the UK, France, Germany) have a wider range of expressions and opinions of ideology expressed through their print media than the USA does.

Does a paper like Le Monde or Neues Deutschland exist in the US... at all?

If there was a demand it would exist. That is a fact.

But the idea that there is more freedom of expression in the major European powers is laughable at best.

[BDunnell]

Not really. A lot of people liked living under Stalin or Mao. Your just another of the many that don't care about rights until you want to use them and they tell you that you can't.

Naturally, Tony, I bow to your massively superior knowledge of me than I possess myself.

[Starter]

Naturally, Tony, I bow to your massively superior knowledge of me than I possess myself.
About doggone time too! :D :p :D

[BDunnell]

About doggone time too! :D :p :D

Yes, hilarious. He is, too.

[gadjo_dilo]

I have no idea what you mean by that, I must say.
As usual…. :laugh:
I know it's not your intention but your replies to my posts always make me feel like I’’m the answer to the title of this thread. :laugh:

I don’t have any intention to sway anybody’s belief and I don’t need respect for my opinions since even myself have lots of doubts about them. A consensus on what we’re generally talking here is imposible since we belong to different cultures, have different backgrounds, education and experiences of life. But I‘d be happy to make you understand why I think like this as well as I’m trying to understand you.

Coming back to your latest misunderstanding and taking into account your proverbial rigorousness I’ll try to reiterate our sayings and explain myself:
1.Henners88: I'll never be able to accept that and don't see why someone else's belief in something unproven should have any impact on my life.
2. Me: And if someone has a belief in something that can be proved you'll be able to accept the impact on your life even if it's negative?
3. You: It is generally easier to accept the impact of something, whether positive or negative, if that something's existence can actually be proved.
4. Me: I hope you'll never have the sweet experience to live under a dictatorship.

Explanation:
Now in a religion we should worship God(s), in a dictatorship we should worship the dictator .
It’s the cult of God(s) – an entity which ( until now ) couldn’t be materially proven vs. the cult of a personality who’s still alive and whose beliefs and acts have a major impact on his subjects life.
There was a time when I faced these two at the same time. Family taught me to worship God. It was up to me to go to the church, to pray, to fast, to respect traditions. Sometimes I did sometimes ( mostly nowadays) I didn’t, but never felt any constraint from the church.
At the same time society taught me to worship the dictator and no matter how much I tried to avoid this I had to eat my personal ratio of sh*t as a condition to survive. The dictator has a few stupid beliefs but firmly planted in his mind. Putting them in practice had a strong impact on my life even if I couldn’t see why his utopic plans should have been affected me.

[henners88]

And if someone has a belief in something that can be proved you'll be able to accept the impact on your life even if it's negative? :confused:
Sorry I haven't opened this thread for some days.
My answer to the question is no I wouldn't accept it, but at least if something was happening as a matter of 'fact', it would go some way to help me understand the implications of it and how to react. Somebody telling me how to live my life because of something they have read but can't actually prove is a very different thing.

[gadjo_dilo]

Sorry I haven't opened this thread for some days.
My answer to the question is no I wouldn't accept it, but at least if something was happening as a matter of 'fact', it would go some way to help me understand the implications of it and how to react. Somebody telling me how to live my life because of something they have read but can't actually prove is a very different thing.
Now if you read what I wrote above you know how I reacted after understanding the implications. The fact that I only tasted it with a teaspoon unlike some guys who were feasting with the ladle couldn't made me happier. :devil:

[henners88]

Henners, 99 per cent of things you know are secondary knowledge. Do you mean you go on to doublecheck all of them?
I must admit I don't have time to do such things, but I seem to come into contact with religion everyday of my life be it through the news or on the street. Its something which is forced upon us whether we like it or not and unfortunately its something that impacts on so many life's, yet doesn't contain a clear cut explanation. I'm a practical person who enjoys life and celebrates with those I love and can see. Perhaps I ask too many questions and am cynical when told something exists but nobody has any evidence to back it up? As I have said I have no problem with others choosing that route if they wish, but when others make decisions based on their faith and it then has an impact on my life, I feel very uneasy about it. I suppose I feel civilisation has evolved to a point where we can understand many things, not all of course. I feel we have the technology and the wisdom to investigate things our ancestors took at face value and because previous generations had said so. One day we'll get an answer, it might not be in our lifetime and it may not be welcomed on a grand scale. Each to their own too of course. :)

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'm a practical person who enjoys life and celebrates with those I love and can see. Perhaps I ask too many questions and am cynical when told something exists but nobody has any evidence to back it up?

I can perfectly understand your views. I grew up in an atheist country, after all. However, even as the Church puts the trust in God above all, it is not averse to the rational type of cognition, either empirical or logical. You can read a lot of works by the fathers of the Church, which have to do with logical justifications of faith. I find John of Damascus especially convincing, but there are many others. Just FYI:
CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I (John of Damascus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm)

[henners88]

I shall give it a read, cheers :)

[gadjo_dilo]

Hen, if you read that and provide evidence you did, I'm ready to convert to Islam. :devil:

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I personally have major problems with the idea of evolution on the basis that whilst alleles migrate within genes, they don't jump them. This poses a problem when it comes to the spontaneous addition of new genetic material which underpins the very concept of evolution. How can something evolve when there isn't a mechanism to add information to a genetic string? How did nothing but blind chemistry originate DNA code anyway? At any rate, don't the laws of thermodynamics suggest that things tend towards a state of entropy?


.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics only apply in an isolated system. Life on earth isn't an isolated system because we have energy supplied by the sun. What the laws of thermodynamics do not allow is life after death.

When you die if you do end up in heaven, the first question you should ask god is 'how do fridges work then?'

[schmenke]

...and more importantly, does the light really go out when the door is closed?

[Tazio]

Hen, if you read that and provide evidence you did, I'm ready to convert to Islam. :devil: If he at least reads the reads the spark notes will you wear a Berka to work for a week? :kiss: :angel:

[gadjo_dilo]

You should have known me by now, Doc... :(
I'm the all or nothing type.
If he reads that like Don Jiji read Manual of the Warrior of Light then we risk to fall into ridiculous. :laugh:

Besides, I'm always in for a good laugh but I could never mock about holy things.

P.S. When I was a student I had a pal who was probably the most beautiful girl from the university. She was the attention seeker type although she didn't need to. I remember she used to wear a big black scarf with golden coins wrapped on her head in arabian style. Don't think that people were shocked.

P.S.2 Next time when you'll think of a challenge you may suggest wearing an indian sari. I'm sure I'd do a perfect match with the Bollywood style shirts of the guy who sits next to me. ;)

[Tazio]

You should have known me by now, Doc... :(
I'm the all or nothing type.
If he reads that like Don Jiji read Manual of the Warrior of Light then we risk to fall into ridiculous. :laugh:

Besides, I'm always in for a good laugh but I could never mock about holy things.P.S. When I was a student I had a pal who was probably the most beautiful girl from the university. She was the attention seeker type although she didn't need to. I remember she used to wear a big black scarf with golden coins wrapped on her head in arabian style. Don't think that people were shocked.

P.S.2 Next time when you'll think of a challenge you may suggest wearing an indian sari. I'm sure I'd do a perfect match with the Bollywood style shirts of the guy who sits next to me. ;) What a hypocrite, you mock me knowing full well I am a "Holy Man" the seventh son of a seventh son. :devil:

[gadjo_dilo]

What a hypocrite, you mock me knowing full well I am a "Holy Man" the seventh son of a seventh son. :devil:

Doc, with all the respect I have for you I have to warn you: the Drunken posting is elsewhere. :kiss:

BTW, I'm serious whenever I post here. ;(

[Tazio]

Doc, with all the respect I have for you I have to warn you: the Drunken posting is elsewhere. :kiss:

BTW, I'm serious whenever I post here. ;( Hmmmm... you claim to be ready to convert to Islam if a man you don't know from Adam reads a text as short as:
CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I (John of Damascus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm)
yet claim you are serious when you post on these boards? Surely you are not always serious are you? :dozey:

[gadjo_dilo]

Hmmmm... you claim to be ready to convert to Islam if a man you don't know from Adam reads a text as short as:
CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I (John of Damascus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33041.htm)
yet claim you are serious when you post on these boards? Surely you are not always serious are you? :dozey:

They say that size doesn't matter...
(And I underline that I'm talking only about the text). :devil:

And you still don't know what tests henners should pass before I convert.

[Tazio]

And you still don't know what tests henners should pass before I convert.Do tell as I may have missed something and be specific about the post number. Thanks in advance.

[gadjo_dilo]

No. He'll prepare in advance and I'll spoil the party.
BTW, he didn't show his face lately. I bet he's thoroughly studying.

[Tazio]

phft...yes I'm sure he is :rolleyes:

[Rudy Tamasz]

What a hypocrite, you mock me knowing full well I am a "Holy Man" the seventh son of a seventh son. :devil:

"Holy Man" is a Deep Purple song, while "Seventh Son of A Seventh Son" is an Iron Maiden song.

[gadjo_dilo]

"Holy Man" is a Deep Purple song, while "Seventh Son of A Seventh Son" is an Iron Maiden song.

Rudy, I'm impressed.

But poor Doc....
I thought he's drunk. I feel awful now.

[Tazio]

Rudy, I'm impressed.

But poor Doc....
I thought he's drunk. I feel awful now.Let me assuage your fears dear I have not been drinking; I've been following the first F1 practice of the season on Autosport. Now why don't you you produce something of substance in regard to post #100, and #101 other than innuendo, and insult...if it pleases m'lady? :wave:

[gadjo_dilo]

Probably because I'm a dumb who thinks that everybody runs a mediocre life like mine....
:colour:

[Tazio]

Oh great nothing like a good old fashioned Catholic guilt trip being laid on me. :uhoh: :s pinhead: ;)