Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 84
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    But, again, why would we put any stock in the product of Darwin's advanced monkey brain?
    watch it, pal!!!
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  2. #22  
    LOL. It's that same monkey brain which conjured up your god(s).
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  3. #23  
    I find that the discussion hinges on which investigative question you attempt answering: what or why. "What" is easily addressed within the disciplines of biology and physics. It is in addressing "Why" that philosophers have their say.

    That monkeys avoid harming one another, or behave in a manner that we would classify as self-sacrificing is observable. The motivation or rationale for such is not.

    Consider humanity. We "know" about evolution and natural selection. We understand that the "fittest" survive. But, we have no standard measures of "fitness" except that what ever ones of else are currently present, are obviously the "fit". In other circles, such a conclusionwould be classified as circular reasoning.

    I find self-sacrifice counter to an inate tendenancy of DNA to propogate itself, unless each member of the species has an equally inate ability to assess "fitness" so as to cacluate whether self or other ought survive (with the understanding that the species as a whole benefits). In anecdotal fashion, a review of publicized self-sacrificing events does not show an obvious trend towards fitness. People sacrifice their lives for others from all various walks of life, across social strata, of both genders, of varying ages. There is no rhyme or reason related to those saved. Rather, it seems to be a function of the character of the one making the sacrifice.

    Interstingly, we laud and applaud such characteristics, despite the obvious "unfitness" they represent.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo View Post
    LOL. It's that same monkey brain which conjured up your god(s).
    Good. Then we can agree that there's a similar leap of faith required to believe in either.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    I find self-sacrifice counter to an inate tendenancy of DNA to propogate itself, unless each member of the species has an equally inate ability to assess "fitness" so as to cacluate whether self or other ought survive (with the understanding that the species as a whole benefits).
    There may yet be a more general and as-yet undiscovered principle at work -- survival of the local group, survival of the species -- who knows?

    I am agnostic and "believe" in evolution in the sense that it is the best theory I've seen to date. I'm sure newer and better theories will some day come along to displace it, and that is a good thing, not a weakness.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Good. Then we can agree that there's a similar leap of faith required to believe in either.
    Right.
    Last edited by pdxtreo; 03/26/2007 at 01:03 PM. Reason: Clarity
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    Good. Then we can agree that there's a similar leap of faith required to believe in either.
    Darwin kinda' sounds like a downer to me . I don't think many believe Darwin to be any kind of a Profit . He's just one contributor to our on/going science . I don't have the ape phobia that Darwin had . To any rational mind our relations to apes would be obvious
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Without a Google here are some examples off the top of my head.....

    The ACLU's lawsuit over a tiny corner of the a CA County seal. The county was founded by a mission centuries ago. From there, the county grew to what it is today. As a token of remembrance to the historical foundlings of their county, there was a cross, due to the founding mission being a Christian mission. I am sure if it was a Jewish mission there would have been a Star of David or if it was a corn farm there would have been an ear of corn as it was a nod to history not religion. They sued the county costing the county tax payers tens of thousands of dollars because of the tiny cross in the corner of the seal demanding it be removed because it was a symbol representing Christianity. There are those who go to extreme lengths to deny God and try to wipe anything that may represent him in the public view out.

    There have been lawsuits against school districts because they were denying teachers to use historical documents because they reference religion in some way. Region is part of history. In order to understand history, religion is going to have be included. It can easily be taught as a weight of events in the past without preaching about their teachings.

    The Navy is handing out dishonorable discharges if a Chaplain references Jesus in a prayer. Let's see...chaplain....prayer....wouldn't there be some recognition of some form of Deity? I wonder if they have done the same to a non-Christian reference during a prayer? I didn't think the Gov was involved in demanding a methodology to saying a religious prayer?

    Employees being fired because of a reference to Christmas instead of Winter Holiday because it has Christ in it and hence might offend somebody.

    This is no way denying the actions of the extremes on the other side of fence, but to say only side side is guilty of your statement while ignoring the other may mean you are simply not aware of what lengths both sides have gone or maybe are biased toward one side of the argument.
    Everything you reference has nothing to do with protecting the individual's religious rights except for employees. And well, that's the private sector. Understanding the first amendment and it's application is understanding what it is to be an American.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    Darwin kinda' sounds like a downer to me . I don't think many believe Darwin to be any kind of a Profit . He's just one contributor to our on/going science . I don't have the ape phobia that Darwin had . To any rational mind our relations to apes would be obvious
    To any rational mind, the Model T's relationship to the í06 GT would be obvious too. Iím just not sure what that proves.
  10. #30  
    Multimedia
    Graphic
    Brain Injury and Moral Judgement
    "The findings are the most direct evidence that humans’ native revulsion to hurting others relies on a part of neural anatomy, one that evolved before the higher brain regions responsible for analysis and planning."

    That's very interesting as I have a very "thin" frontal lobe which has always seemed to be both a handicap and an advantage . I have no conceptual problem with killing either although I value all life and am saddened by any wast or irregard' . I find my lack of genetic or cultural ethics a boon to my developing personal morality .
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    To any rational mind, the Model T's relationship to the í06 GT would be obvious too. Iím just not sure what that proves.
    maybe that to say an 06 GT is a car .. as is a model T doesn't take much of a faith leap . But to say a 06 GT is a special being created by a supreme being. That would be a leap !
  12. #32  
    Actually... it seems more of a leap of faith to believe the GT just happened by mere random chance, and was not designed on purpose.

    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    maybe that to say an 06 GT is a car .. as is a model T doesn't take much of a faith leap . But to say a 06 GT is a special being created by a supreme being. That would be a leap !
    My point is that the latter is a work of evolutionary creation born of many of the same physical concepts as the former. With respect to your original argument, just because humans and apes look related or are related doesn't prove anything one way or another about the existence of God or God's hand in the formation of the physical world.
  14. #34  
    [QUOTE=hoovs;1226904]My point is that the latter is a work of evolutionary creation born of many of the same physical concepts as the former ]

    Evolutionary created cars ?. Born of the same Physical concepts ?,Hmmmmm. Brilliant ! So your saying that cars evolve ?


    [QUOTE=hoovs;]With respect to your original argument, just because humans and apes look related or are related doesn't prove anything one way or another about the existence of God or God's hand in the formation of the physical world.[/QUOTE


    I'm just saying that evolutionary studies , mechanical science , Biology , philosophy , or any other pool of rational study will never be able to disprove or dislodge an irrational or false belief if that belief is serving some important need and the believers only intent is to prove his belief
    Last edited by byronchurch; 03/29/2007 at 11:10 AM.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs View Post
    To any rational mind, the Model T's relationship to the í06 GT would be obvious too. Iím just not sure what that proves.
    I was really just responding to all the monkey ancestor phobia . It seems ridiculous to me as we share so much with them . There seems to be some strong emotional response by some people being compared to one of there closest relatives .
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    There seems to be some strong emotional response by some people being compared to one of there closest relatives .
    You cannot blame them....it is a natural knee jerk reaction when being compared to the likes of Munk!
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/27/2007 at 03:15 PM.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Everything you reference has nothing to do with protecting the individual's religious rights except for employees. And well, that's the private sector. Understanding the first amendment and it's application is understanding what it is to be an American.
    I originally stated that there were those who are trying to remove any reference of God or religion (or sometimes just Christian references) from any aspect in the public eye with the claimed reasoning of their fear that it may possibly offend someone.

    I gave 4 examples off the top of my head without any research (which I still have not taken the time to do). You replied that they had nothing to do with "individual's religious rights except for employees" 50% of my examples were directed at the individual's religious rights, the Christmas employees and the Chaplain offering a prayer.

    The other 50% seems to show a God phobia that seems to dominate many of these discussions with the left. The argument is "If it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then...." But that does not hold true with the these examples. Both of these specific examples had to do history, not teaching the principles of religion or God or how an individual must believe, behave, or worship. Yet that was the underlaying reasoning or fear behind them.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/27/2007 at 04:16 PM.
  18.    #38  
    I fully support all religious activities by people (or groups of people) in their private life (which includes display of religious artifacts on private property or business).

    However, I don't approve of the use of any public funds or property for this purpose. Even if all residents in that county/district/state are of the same religion.

    The cases of restrictions on religious practice in private life are very few (and wrong). Most of the time, it's about display of the cross on the statehouse lawn or public schools.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  19. #39  
    Well, that covers one of the 4 I listed.

    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    This is no way denying the actions of the extremes on the other side of fence, but to say only side side is guilty of your statement while ignoring the other may mean you are simply not aware of what lengths both sides have gone or maybe are biased toward one side of the argument.
    My whole point from the beginning was not to argue the merits of individual cases but was in response when the comment was made that only those who are religious are trying to force their views on others and those who do not want or believe in religion are not. I recognized there are far reaching actions by the religious and that there are far reaching actions by those who appose religion or God. The claim that those were not religious did this was denied with the assertion again that only the religious did this. I listed a few examples. Those examples where thrown to the side and were not recognized in any way. I think it is funny (or sad) how one sided a views can be sometimes.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 03/27/2007 at 05:21 PM.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Without a Google here are some examples off the top of my head.....

    The ACLU's lawsuit over a tiny corner of the a CA County seal. The county was founded by a mission centuries ago. From there, the county grew to what it is today. As a token of remembrance to the historical foundlings of their county, there was a cross, due to the founding mission being a Christian mission. I am sure if it was a Jewish mission there would have been a Star of David or if it was a corn farm there would have been an ear of corn as it was a nod to history not religion. They sued the county costing the county tax payers tens of thousands of dollars because of the tiny cross in the corner of the seal demanding it be removed because it was a symbol representing Christianity. There are those who go to extreme lengths to deny God and try to wipe anything that may represent him in the public view out. ")

    First : no-one would or could deny a God .. if it was here to deny . Anyone whose been here for long , Im sure has been inundated with stories of floods and wrath and eternal damnation and if the unlikely blessed event came down upon us No one I know would have the balls to deny him .
    What they do want to deny , is the right for any Religious group or Ideology to usurp or exploit our government for the promotion of there dogma . and its not a casual idea its VERY IMPORTANT . for everyone including religions In order for us to have the freedom of religion it must be SEPRIT . TOTALY. > No Crosses No Buddhas no Bibles No Prayers, NADA GODA !


    "There have been lawsuits against school districts because they were denying teachers to use historical documents because they reference religion in some way. Region is part of history. In order to understand history, religion is going to have be included. It can easily be taught as a weight of events in the past without preaching about their teachings. "


    Maybe someday in a saner time Religion wont pose such a threat to our liberty and liberty wont be such a threat to the religious . That would be nice but for now we need a law to KEEP IT SEPARATED . Some times laws are insensitive and troublesome but for now we still need them.


    "The Navy is handing out dishonorable discharges if a Chaplain references Jesus in a prayer. Let's see...chaplain...prayer...wouldn't there be some recognition of some form of Deity? I wonder if they have done the same to a non-Christian reference during a prayer? I didn't think the Gov was involved in demanding a methodology to saying a religious prayer?"

    I'm sure that some religious people would want access to a temple or spiritual council and I see no reason that it shouldn't be made available . But it should never be imposed or mandatory or part of a Governmental function

    Employees being fired because of a reference to Christmas instead of Winter Holiday because it has Christ in it and hence might offend somebody.


    Well This is one we should both agree on Lets keep Christmas a religious holiday and out of the marketplace !

    This is no way denying the actions of the extremes on the other side of fence, but to say only side side is guilty of your statement while ignoring the other may mean you are simply not aware of what lengths both sides have gone or maybe are biased toward one side of the argument.
    Yes the argument is to keep religion out of our government and the only people we are at lengths against are ones trying to keep it or put it in .
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions