Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 06, 2015, 02:06:57 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 830
76  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of "Liberal Triumphalism" on: June 11, 2015, 05:05:42 pm
Again, how is a belief system that wants all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished allowing only one ideology (it's own) to exist, not fundamentalist?

What definition of "fundamentalism" are you using?

It sounds more like you are using fundamentalist, the way various leftists/rightists use fascist/communist, not the historic definition from the days of Machen and Fosdick, nor the more recent "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestant" of more recent years.

Why is there an argument over semantics? I think the point I was trying to make was pretty clear.

The entire debate between you and BRTD hinges on the definition of fundamentalism. If "fundamentalism" means "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestantism", then by definition, BRTD's view is not fundamentalist. You dispute that with him, so I assume you define it differently.

So I ask again: what is your definition of fundamentalist?

I genuinely have no idea what on earth you are talking about. Is this an American thing? 'Fundamentalist' is usually used at least in day to day language 'here' to pejoratively refer to philosophies (not just religions) perceived carrying a self pretence of being the sole objective truth. I just stated that it is an ideologically fundamentalist position, or as Antonio perhaps better put it 'totalitarian' position to want all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished in favour of your own.
77  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of "Liberal Triumphalism" on: June 11, 2015, 04:37:43 pm
Again, how is a belief system that wants all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished allowing only one ideology (it's own) to exist, not fundamentalist?

What definition of "fundamentalism" are you using?

It sounds more like you are using fundamentalist, the way various leftists/rightists use fascist/communist, not the historic definition from the days of Machen and Fosdick, nor the more recent "separated, ultraconservative, low church Protestant" of more recent years.

Why is there an argument over semantics? I think the point I was trying to make was pretty clear.
78  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of "Liberal Triumphalism" on: June 11, 2015, 12:03:53 pm
Again, how is a belief system that wants all other belief systems, ideologies and systems of non belief abolished allowing only one ideology (it's own) to exist, not fundamentalist?
79  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Opinion of "Liberal Triumphalism" on: June 11, 2015, 05:56:23 am
How can you say fundamentalism get's abolished too, when this theology wishes for all other belief systems and all other religions to be, as you put it 'abolished.'

That's the very definition of religious fundamentalism, whether it's a conservative hellhole or liberal hot air.
80  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Do we have souls? on: June 10, 2015, 07:05:12 am

It's the first time I've been aware of you stating that you believed that humans have souls, that's all.
81  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Do we have souls? on: June 10, 2015, 05:58:33 am
I definitely feel so, and I understand that it is one of those things that we will never get a true answer on

That's new Smiley
82  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you a Creationist? on: June 09, 2015, 10:47:02 am
I apologize for the manner in which I posted but at the very least, the Earth had a beginning nearly 5 billion years ago, and this is not contested.  As for the Big Bang Theory, it still is the predominant view among cosmologists to my understanding.

Of course that part is not contested. Nor is the Big Bang contested; the question is whether the Big Bang erupted from a singularity, or whether it has always existed as a quantum potential. We can only talk about our own universe, because we cannot (yet) determine if other universes exist and what the conditions are there. Note that we cannot talk about ‘before’ the Big Bang because ‘before’ is a time linked notion. Time is part of space time and that only came into existance during the Big Bang. You cannot do anything if there is no time in which to do it nor can you ‘do’ or be a thing that ‘does’ if you lack matter and energy. Both did not exist prior to the Big Bang. Now there are some theories that consider that prior to the Big Bang there was ‘time’ of sorts but there is no change as a result of time progressing as there is no matter or energy with which to initiate any changes. This is hypothesised simply because the laws of physics appear to be time immutable; they pay no attention to time.

Now if you want to pop god into that bit ‘before’ then it means the the universe held within it before it existed, before it emmited time, energy, mass etc a deity endowed with omnicience that was ‘separate’ before seperation and capable of ‘thinking’ and upon thinking ‘doing’ without matter or energy. It was capable of being something so omnicient (and apparently continues to be so, amused as it is by human affairs) even while using an unfathomably high use of energy (possibly more than the universe currently contains, violating the laws of conservation) and continues to do so.

Now I happen to think that what people try to do is ‘retrofit’ Christian teaching to fit into scientific understanding. And where god is found wanting, when we look for an explanation then god is endowed with qualities by his believers to always make sure he escapes both scrutiny and detection. Everything must be suspended to sustain that belief, or that ‘cause’

There are huge consequences for Christianity when you actually understand what evolution means;

If you’re looking for the metaphor underneath the metaphor isn’t that perhaps a tacit acknowledgement that Genesis isn’t actually telling us anything? Wink

The main thrust of my argument was more on the latter half of what I posted earlier. But I’ll respond to your point. With respect to Genesis as a handy metaphor, there has never been an ‘idyll’ in the evolutionary sense. Genesis specifically mentions an idyll in which essentially we were both protected and secondly had command of the land around us (with the insinuation that man has had access to farming and had domesticated animals from the get go; an easy mistake to make given that Genesis is a facsimile of other Sumerian creation myths) We have always struggled against nature. If there is any ‘idyll’ in which people want for nothing and indeed are bombarded with comforts that they don’t actually need relatively speaking, contemporary society is pretty close! Our intelligence has led us towards an idyll, not away from it. In terms of gaining intelligence/knowledge and losing our ignorance, again Genesis fails as a metaphor. If we are made in the ‘image of god’, then with evolution in mind, Neanderthals were made almost in the image of god. At what point in our evolution does god decide that we are close enough to his likeness to be special? To touch very briefly on the ‘just so story’ part of Genesis, it’s worth noting that Gods ‘punishment’ for the snake in removing it’s legs made it a more effective hunter Cheesy

To touch on something I’ve argued before, the Neanderthals ritualistically buried their dead. They buried them with flowers and trinkets; offerings and gifts to the dead. More than likely they were involved in ritualistic and spiritualistic behaviour. But they were not human. DNA evidence suggests that Neanderthals and Sapiens diverged from a common ancestor some 400,000 years ago. If both us and the Neanderthals ritualistically buried their dead which is suggestive of spirituality (and I say ‘suggestive of’ for the same reason that early Homo Sapiens show the same traits) then our common ancestor, Heidelbergensis that may date as far back as 1.3 million years may also have done the same. We have less physical specimens that survive in a social setting but recent findings from Spain suggest that they may have been the first ‘Homo’ to bury their dead. They also knew how to make and use rudimentary paints. So potentially the emergence of spiritual awareness and ritual predates mankind as we know it by as much as 1 million years.

There’s something deceitful in suggesting that humans, in their current iteration, are somehow ‘first and finest’. Indeed, the latest line of thinking on Neanderthals is that they displayed their intelligence so aptly they were perceived as potential mates and effectively diluted their own line. Given that both Sapiens and Neanderthals were successfully mitigating the difficulties caused by environmental changes, they came into increasing contact with each other. We know from cave paintings that they were capable of abstract thought. Their brains were bigger than ours with larger parts devoted to vision and simple function in turn producing different thought processes and perceptions of the world. Place them in today’s context, without the pressures of immediate survival and it’s feasible that their brains would make a better or different ‘sense’ of things than ours currently do.


The Christian understanding of the universe and our place in it is left wanting. It’s even a terrible metaphor for the universe and our place in it. I think that evolution and our understanding of the formation of the universe really does challenge the tenets of the faith. However I can see in eastern philosophies, in strands of Hinduism, Buddhism etc some more nuanced (and accurate) thought and I think that’s exactly where TexasGurl was coming from.


83  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you a Creationist? on: June 09, 2015, 06:03:02 am
'There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our thoughts.'--Bertrand Russell

I mean, the scientific consensus is that the Earth had a beginning, and the "Big Bang Theory" certainly suggests a beginning of sorts.  I happen to believe in a Creator God, as most members on this subforum do.  I think the quote is a bit disingenuous. 
My point was that not everyone believes in evolution or creationism, like 1.5 billion Hindus and Buddhists who don't necessarily think we should have to choose one or the other.


My point is that science, which many secularists and anti-religious folks deify to an incredible degree, points to both the Earth and the universe having an actual beginning.  As far as what Buddhists and Hindus believe, those are faiths and have no bearing on your Russell quote. 

Really? There’s recent research to suggest that the Big Bang did not begin with a singularity, and instead existed forever as a quantum potential before ‘collapsing’ into the Big Bang. And that’s only for this universe that we can observe. So as much as you wish to mock TexasGurl (whom I note you’ve ‘labelled’ as something without giving her the opportunity to tell you what she believes in) for quoting Bertrand Russell, in such a context Russell is not wrong in his statement. Why do you think Buddhism, making similar points to Russell in it's cosmological claims, is somehow different? Or Hinduism where the traditional Hindu cycle of the universe claims that the universe is actually a ‘multiverse’ with no origin and remains in flux. The description of the multiverse in the Rig Veda as being ‘so unlimitedly large, they move about like atoms in you’ even

All this ties in neatly with the tentative theory that there are multiple universes (and radiation patterns, currently being mapped gives weight to this) and that the ‘Big Bang’ was the beginning of ours, but not necessarily the beginning of others.

Each ‘exhalation’ creates a universe and that each universe lives for ‘100 Brahma years’ (some 311 trillion years) and then is annihilated. However there are an infinite number of ‘brahmas’. Even the age of this planet, 1 ‘day of Brahma’ is estimated at 4.32 billion years (it is actually 4.54) That was only understood in within our lifetimes.

It's a damned good creation story.
84  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Do we have souls? on: June 09, 2015, 05:53:43 am
No.

I suppose you can theorise a soul as a sort of ‘spiritual facsimile’ of your conscious being that isn’t subject to death, you may even wish for material thoughts and the manner in which you identify ‘self’ to be something ‘other’ than the vessel of your body. If there is a soul, there is no evidence that that it is ‘informing’ you in a manner different from or in addition to your own consciousness. If your soul had even a very limited. If the soul is acting behind the scenes, then it’s following exactly the same processes as your body and isn’t guiding you any more or any less than your consciousness is in making moral choices. Therefore I don’t believe you can say that it exists independently or even co-dependently of your consciousness. When your brain can no longer sustain the electrochemical patterns that make up your consciousness, the 'you' part of the physical process dies. Consciousness doesn’t go anywhere when it ceases any more than the ‘flame’ or the ‘spin’ or the ‘fall’ goes somewhere when the energy that sustains it ceases. It just stops. And that’s okay.

Consciousness, laden with materialism can still be beautiful.

Identity is part of consciousness. As a gay man, I find other men beautiful and fulfilling and I enjoy ‘doing the fulfilling’ as a man. Yet I have a paternalistic drive, one that cannot ever be fulfilled strictly biologically. It cannot ever accord with my physicality or my consciousness. I am a gay man who is married to a gay man and I would like to raise children with him. I can only ever do that through adoption, or through surrogacy and only because those options are available to me. If they were not available, then my desire to raise children with my partner would still be there. I don’t think I could argue that this is somehow ‘distinct’ from my biology.

I also think it is somewhat dangerous to suggest that the answers to identity issues, whether to do with sexuality or trans* matters need to be found outside of biology and placed within metaphysics, because compartmentalising identity into something outside of the ‘self’ and outside of scientific and sociological study is effectively (and I know this may not be the intent) dismisses it as worthy of that level of attention or afforded a level of protection. It’s a very heteronormative thing to do; ‘oh you’re a trans man or a man who loves other men; that’s different, it’s identity related; let’s look outside of biology’.  Furthermore ‘souls’ (being the metaphysical playthings that they are) are often subject to people of a religious/spiritual persuasion saying they know more about your soul than you do; it’s from god, or it’s karma that you’re reborn as x and so in. So you can end up losing part of your identity to people with power (see homosexuals being pressured to physically change their gender in Iran for example)







85  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Are you a Creationist? on: June 08, 2015, 05:06:19 pm
What is this shambles. Leave her alone.
86  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the socialist avatars on: June 08, 2015, 02:39:43 pm
Socialism is embarrassing.

#ireland
87  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Republican Congress Maintains Cuban Travel Restrictions on: June 08, 2015, 12:47:28 pm
If they allow us the Cuban cigars, maybe we'll talk.

What would you do with them?...
88  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Britain Considering a Written Constitution After 800 Years on: June 08, 2015, 11:00:19 am
It’s almost impossible to write a constitution, because there’s very little that you need to codify. It seems to be when you want to define something, it’s usually easier in Britain to define what something isn’t rather than what it is (The 1998 Scotland Act defined what powers the Scottish Parliament didn’t have, rather than what it did, which made that governance much easier). That way you aren’t trying to retroactively define limitations.
89  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Pennsylvania on: June 07, 2015, 10:39:53 am
My husband's home state. I enjoyed my visit. 5 stars
90  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the new Socialist avatars on: June 06, 2015, 10:30:26 am
Re: the color.

The dark red wasn't picked completely at random.  Obviously it needed to be somewhere on the 'red' scale but different enough from Dem red, and I figured pink wouldn't go over too well (unless you're French), so I picked the same shade that Dave uses for >90% on his maps.  Not that that's symbolic in itself, but I wanted to use a color shade that felt somewhat familiar.

You could have picked a uh... Scotland shaped red Cheesy
91  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How has the preceding poster changed recently? on: June 05, 2015, 12:19:26 pm
He changed his underwear this morning.

I hope...
92  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Atlas Morality Poll Results on: June 05, 2015, 10:18:57 am

My reasons for considering it immoral are that it concentrates too much power over the circumstances of the beginning of a person's life in the hands of other people, and that it's a means of assembling a person like a product rather than allowing a person to eventuate out of some sort of preexisting human relationship. I'm aware that these are unfashionable concerns to have. I don't consider it notably more immoral than other forms of gestational surrogacy. TNF would probably count this as hokey religious garbage and I won't deny that my religious convictions influence my viewpoint but I hope it escapes being considered anti-science or (inherently) right-wing.


I do wonder if you actually meant to make the comparison between cloning and ‘gestational surrogacy’ given what gestational surrogacy actually encompasses. I find it curious that a trans woman, a member of the LGBT community and a Christian (with a nod to the conception of Christ) would take issue with a woman carrying and delivering a baby for someone else. If a woman does not have a uterus, or has issues with carrying a child I really struggle to see how someone else carrying that child is ‘assembling a person like a product.’
93  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: Mormon apostle L. Tom Perry dead at 92 on: June 05, 2015, 06:00:34 am
Supposedly, back when ending the ban was discussed in 1969, one Apostle said that they should wait for a revelation from God to make sure that ending it was the right course of action. Since it wasn't unanimous, nothing was changed until 1978, when after years of frequent prayer and fasting about the issue, LDS prophet/president of the church Spencer W Kimball brought all of the apostles together in the Salt Lake Temple to ask the Lord about it again, which brought forth the revelation that the ban should be ended.

1978.

The reality is that pressure from President Carter who was ready to bring down the weight of the IRS on their 501(c) non profit status probably had more of an effect than a clique of white men praying...
94  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of the new Socialist avatars on: June 05, 2015, 05:53:28 am
It does seem odd to have it. I think it suits European posters who are socialist and support parties with a socialist tradition, but a lot of US posters are wearing it who are about as socialist as I am...
95  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re: Petition for a Socialist Avatar on: June 04, 2015, 03:30:27 am
I've been asking for Scotland avatars for ten years Sad
96  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: UK General Discussion: Cameron 2.0 on: June 03, 2015, 05:34:51 pm
I know the old ABC1C2DE system is outdated and has little relevance to today's politics, but can someone tell me what the letters corresponded to back when the system still mattered, and how those letters voted?

ABC1C2DE is to it's merit one of the best measures of 'class' so much so that the Census has adopted what was initially a simple market research technique. It stays consistent even as the structure of employment changes.

A is 'upper middle class' -  Higher managerial, administrative or professional
B is 'middle class' -          Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional
C1 is   'lower middle class' -   Supervisory or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional
C2 is   'skilled working class' - Skilled manual workers
D is 'working class' - Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers
E is 'non working' - Casual or lowest grade workers, pensioners, and others who depend on the welfare state for their income

It is not a great measure of income for example as a mechanic would be C2 yet would earn remarkably more than a civil servant, a C1.

Here are voting intention trends since 1974

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/101/How-Britain-Voted-Since-October-1974.aspx?view=wide.

It is traditionally considered that C2's determine the outcome of an election. You can see how Thatcher seized that block and Major held it, only for it to revert back to Labour en masse. Labour apparently closed that gap in 2015, so it looks like the election was 'decided' by the ABC1's. There will need to be a lot of retrospection to work out what actually happened this year.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Walker: Women mostly worry about rape pregnancies in the "initial months." on: June 03, 2015, 04:42:21 pm
We are supposed to believe there are a bunch of women who carry a baby for 20 weeks and then suddenly have the need to abort because of rape?

Have you ever counselled women? Do you understand the psychology behind women who find themselves pregnant after they have been raped and the time it takes for them to process these things? No. So shut up.
98  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Sepp Blatter resigns as FIFA President on: June 03, 2015, 03:33:35 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/32998735

Bribe details emerge from Chuck Blazer
99  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Where would 'Little England" Be? on: June 03, 2015, 01:18:40 pm
Utah,...however "L'il Wales" would be more apt.

Bach Cymru?

Cymru Fach. Though the area that saw the most Welsh emigration to America was the coalfields around Scranton.

It's a source of slight embarrassment to my husband from that area who has Welsh ancestry. It is for some reason and amongst certain families not something to be particularly proud of. I'm not exactly sure why.
100  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: UK General Election - May 7th 2015 (The Official Election Day & Results Thread) on: June 03, 2015, 01:04:48 pm
The point of no return regarding Scottish Independence has very very very probably been crossed during this election campaign. It may quite plausibly take another generation, but my money'd be on rather less than that.

Ten years probably.

The truth is that independence was closer the day after the referendum than the day before it, simply because the votes had been cast. I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply granted without a vote by the next but one government.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 830


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines