Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Now, you yourself have admitted to being right wing (although not extreme), and sometimes come across as being intolerant. Maybe thats what Justanothernoob meant

I find it interesting that people (not aimed at you in particular Jerrek) are willing to accept the Bible as proof (and let's face it, the bible could be fictional), but dismiss Evolution as unproven.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Like many, you call for absolute proof of evolution, but are happy to believe as Gospel words in a book written 2000 years ago with tales of magic and gods. Its faith I guess that makes the difference.

I have more faith in science myself.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Jerrek doesn't except definitions from the oxford dictionary (or dictionary.com) he says they are left wing biased.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yep. I remember...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Looks like at least one person in the US had decided to take things into his own hands...

same sex marrage

Looks like this is going to be decided one way or the other in the courts now, should be an interesting fight!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The theory makes perfect logical sense:

Random mutations that can be inherited (science has proved this bit)
Those who can't survive the current conditions (which are subject to change) die preventing their genes from being passed on, it's as simple as that.

It's hard to prove that we specifically came from monkeys, but that doesn't debunk the entire theory.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Ah, I see the movable goal posts are back out of storage again...!

Firstly I was not talking about *archaeological* discoveries (the study of man's past through the material remains of his culture), I was talking about the nonsensical claim that the eye "proves" the existance of god because if you take any part away from it, it stops working.

Secondly absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.

No, it takes a *scientific* stance which says that if you're going to claim something, it's a good idea to back it up with demonstrable facts and *permit* those facts to be analysed and scrutinised by others to determine their validity or falsity, not simply say "That's what it says in the Bible, therefore it's right".

I suggest you look a bit deeper into what some of the "Concerned Christian" or "Moral Minority" groups out there are actually saying about the idea of *anything* to do with gays viz http://www.godhatesfags.com/ for instance.

I suggest you research the phrase "separate but equal" eg http://boston.indymedia.org/feature/...9615/index.php

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think we have to clarify something about the difference between science and religion - one of the biggest confusions (deliberately, I think) in the whole creationism debate is to equate the position of a key part of Christianity with that of a small part of the body of science. I don't think they're remotely comparable in scope or size.

In particular the language used is important here -
proof:

'The Bible proves...'

'Science proves...'

Those usages equate biblical and scientific knowledge through terminology, and as say I don't think they're comparable. Scientific proof doesn't really exist as a concept, mathematical proof does and is much, much harder. Science tends to use hypothesis and theory, for very valid reasons, to whit:

All scientific theories are one step away from refutation, as they exist to lay out an explanation of observed phenomena on the basis of evidence and new evidence can come along at any time to upset the apple cart. In the case of religion no new evidence has come along for an awfully long time (ever?) hence religious beliefs are not open to refutation in this way. Hence scientific theories and religious beliefs are not comparable. Good scientists are willing to change or abandon theories in the face of new evidence. You quite often see religious anti-science arguments along the lines of 'you can't be right, you keep changing your mind, I don't change my mind, therefore I'm right'. I think this, as usual, misses the point.

belief:

'I believe in Jesus Christ our saviour'

'I believe in evolution'

Again equating biblical and scientific knowledge. I try and be careful to use belief to mean 'I accept this as so but I can't actually present any evidence' and prove to mean 'I accept this and have solid evidence I am willing to put forward to back me up.

I don't often use either word in fact, belief is too shaky and open to question and prove is too open to refutation. Science provides a decent half-way house, 'hypothesise' meaning 'I'm putting forward a view, here's the evidence I've gathered'. This separate word is required due to the emotional connotations of both 'proof' and 'belief'.

Going back to the start, therefore, if we are to compare biblical creationism with scientific evolution, we need to compare like with like. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader the rewriting of the Book of Genesis as a scientific theory, then we can compare directly. Alternatively rewrite On the Origin of Species as the Book of Darwin.

As a parting word on this etymological mayhem, the word belief really doesn't have a lot of meaning beyond the emotional - a police officer who went into a courtroom and said 'I believe the defendant did it' and didn't present any evidence would be told to get out and stop wasting everyone's time.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

And this all relates to fascism, HOW EXACTLY? You have failed to answer my question.


However, regarding what you said, a few points:

- why should MY wealth be transferred by the government? Why can't I help people on my own accord?

- "your support of George Bush and his cabinet" -- What about this?

- "which is certainly a somewhat less than democratically elected dictatorship of the rich, they seem to be as often as not millionaires, and certainly are quite happy to line pockets of the rich at the expense of those who will end up paying for the borrowing." -- Explain in detail the following:

-- How is the current administration a dictatorship?

-- How do they line the pockets of the rich?


You have FAILED to demonstrate how my views are fascist, and you are exactly proving my point that you have no clue what fascism is and you're using it as a cool word to throw around to make me look bad. When confronted with WHY and HOW, you just say "I've said my piece" and imply you're right, everyone is wrong. Who is intolerant now?





BBKing, I'm using Hitler's own words how he described what nazism (fascism's brother) is. He implemented a Nazi state. Now I want you and others to explain how I fit into the beliefs, because as I pointed out, it is clearly the opposite of what I believe and quite similiar what socialists believe.



Actually no. Charity, perhaps, not not forced charity by the government. That isn't charity, that is stealing. And I thought all of you have to pay this national insurance!



And as I've said several times over, BRING ARGUMENTS to support your point, and ARGUMENTS to counter my points. However, you keep falling into this hole of attacking the author.

Second, I believe I've also quoted Hitler, a man who implemented Nazism, and I've also quoted the goals of Nazism.

Now bring some arguments to the table.


Please clearly explain how you relate right-wing capitalism to evolution.

One is a theory to explain the origins of the universe, the other is an economic and social model of individual freedom.

They are not related.


Please explain this too.


Please provide a citation where I said this.

I do believe I've said I should be allowed to have religion form my opinion. I never said the government and church should marry.



Well my apologies. I should have said radiometric dating.



Fascinating. Yes I'm aware some dictionaries love to apply right-wing to fascism and nazism, but please, bring ARGUMENTS TO THE TABLE.. I have supplied ample evidence. Just saying "because they said so" isn't enough. EXPLAIN to me how fascism is right-wing, and I guarantee you if you can do that, I'll change my mind.


Then by all means!!!! Present the proof here and I will believe it! PLEASE!


Aaah, excellent point! And I prefer to put my faith in God rather than humanity.


I'm not accepting it, because, it doesn't make sense. All I'm asking for is an explanation. That is all.



[quote]Please provide me with proof of this. I do not believe you.






All I'm asking for is clarification how and why you put fascism on the right (not just a definition from some dictionary), and, conclusive proof of evolution.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Top Post BBK sage words as always.

At the risk of being shot down is this perhaps an ideal closing point for the debate which has become so polarized neither side is going to back down?

IMHO Now is the time for all good men/women to politely agree to disagree and move on.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

To quote Philip K Dick: Reality is that which, when we cease to believe in it, still exists!

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Oh well if that's *ALL* you're asking for...!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

OK all, I rarely start off threads that have direct religious connotations, but the 'gay marriage' thread really is getting waaaay off topic. I'm having trouble wading through posts discussing Evolution, homosexual union, fascism and the definition of truth, reason and belief all in the same thread.

So, can I respectfully suggest that we move discussion of the theory of our origins to this new thread - a lot of valid points and questions have been raised that deserve discussion with out distraction, I think. :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Of course that option is open to you, but with the views you have expressed on various threads in this forum I cannot seen you being inclined to do so voluntarily.

Perhaps through their attempts to equate unquestioning obedience of the government with being patriotic. The prevailing attitude in the USA seems to be that if you show even the slightest iota of dissent you are branded as being unpatriotic. FUD can be a powerful tool.

The government's policies are primarily dictated by the lobbyists of big business.


That's ok then, you've got Hitler on your side :rolleyes:

No, it's called taxation. It has been suggested many times before, but you really should go and get a dictionary.

Why don`t you bring some arguments to the table then. You complain about people attacking the authors whose articles you post links to, but if that is all you can bring then where are your arguments.

If you are going to make such basic errors then why should be have any faith in the veracity of any statements of "fact" you make? You can be the first one to pounce if anyone makes even the slightest error in their posts, but you can`t handle it when the same treatment is given to your tirades.

You've probably never heard of it, but there is this thing called Google, but that would mean that you would have to pull your head from the sand. I suspect that it would be beyond you to research your own sources that refute your arguments as then you'd have a hard time arguing against said source.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I didn't say I thought you were a fascist, in fact I don't think I've ascribed any characteristics to you. I did wonder why you were partly relying on Hitler's own words to support your view that you weren't a fascist. Surely there are more credible sources around?

Incidentally, the party Hitler joined in 1919 (called the German Worker's Party at that time) was definitely right wing. As early as 1920 he thought that Socialism and Jewry were linked in some plot to bring down Germany, which hardly makes him a Socialist. His backing at the time was from conservative intellectuals and the military, both anti-socialism, and they saw him as a useful propagandist.

Quotation:
New thread anyone?