Whatever makes ´em happy…
The Existence of God
-
Well, “Good” and “Evil” is all about point of view. One side sees the other side as Evil and themselves as Good. The other side sees themselves as Good and the other as evil. Check out WWII propoganda, from both sides, and you’ll see what I mean.
-
America views Iraq as evil…
Iraq views America as evil… -
Nah, more like America views Saddam as “evil.”
-
I dont know what youve been talking about but I dont belive in god, and you should make it a poll (edit the first post)
-
Ignorance of another culture is the first step towards fear and hate is the first step towards war.
For some Americans, this is true. This is why I say America views Iraq as evil. Saddam or no Saddam won’t matter when Americans start dying in an Iraqi conflict…
-
Quote from F_alk “Ignorance of another culture is the first step towards fear and hate is the first step towards war.”
OK there Yoda
-
For some Americans, this is true. This is why I say America views Iraq as evil. Saddam or no Saddam won’t matter when Americans start dying in an Iraqi conflict…
What can I say, some people are idiots? Hopefully the President won’t spew false lies on how “Evil” the Iraqi people are. There wasn’t that much hate against Muslims after 9/11 (where I live), so I’m not sure there will be much now against Iraqis. :-?
-
i believe that there is evil in the world, and we who do not step up at some point and say “this is wrong” are as guilty as those Germans who watched and smelled and listened as Jews went to their graves.
Bombing people is evil, hurting children (and other people) is evil. I think that there are certainly places where we can get caught up in arguments about semantics and “well, where does it stop?” cyclical-type discussions, but there is a point at which people need to draw a line in the sand, and say “that’s it, you’ve gone too far - now you’re just being evil, now stop it”.
Maybe to the enlightened German’s ears this is an immature way of looking at the world, but the sidelines is no place for an honest person. -
In theory I’ll agree, however, the US Administration is very selective on which “evils” it wishes to eliminate. Obviously threats to US security come first (Iraq?!?!?). Being world policeman seems to me to mean getting all the bad guys, not just the most popular. Now I’m treading on if the US has the right to act in this manner. I’d say we’d better tread carefully…
-
Fair enough. We are both on the same page in this regards (i.e. perceived US, as well as Canadian and other western nations hypocracy). And treading lightly is an appropriate term, especially when wearing steal-toed boots in a field full of mines and babies.
-
Just wondering, but do most of you believe that truth is relative? And from what I’ve seen, are most of you evolutionists? Quite frankly, I don’t see how you can come up with enough faith to believe that conglomeration of truth and falsehood.
-
I’ll agree that propaganda fuels most of what we believe the “truth” is. In this modern day we tend to want to believe that news agencies are “neutral”. As we see in US elections, this is not entirely true. This is why most historical books are desired to be written 100 to 150 years after events so that most facts come to light so that the real truth comes to be revealed…
I’ll accept most of the evolutionary “theory”. It is clearly not exactly the “truth” as well. However here in this case, the truth is far more elusive…
-
Just wondering, but do most of you believe that truth is relative? And from what I’ve seen, are most of you evolutionists?
I think there is not much people (at least not people with some education) that will claim evolution does’nt exist at all, but some think an anthropomorphic god is needed.
Quite frankly, I don’t see how you can come up with enough faith to believe that conglomeration of truth and falsehood.
We have no ultimate truth, but some thing are so probable/impropable… And when there is no reason to believe something is true, the only thing you can do is postulate it is false.
I’ll accept most of the evolutionary “theory”. It is clearly not exactly the “truth” as well. However here in this case, the truth is far more elusive…
Sure the truth is elusive, when we introduce the 0 in math, we thought it would resolve lots of problem, it did, but now we got even more question. our current theory about evolution is not the “truth”, it’s just part of the truth.
-
@Field:
I’ll accept most of the evolutionary “theory”. It is clearly not exactly the “truth” as well. However here in this case, the truth is far more elusive…
What part of the evolutionary theory do you accept? The part where supposedly older species are found above the younger species? Or the part where a intermediate species of homo sapiens was constructed from a pig’s tooth?
-
I think there is not much people (at least not people with some education) that will claim evolution does’nt exist at all, but some think an anthropomorphic god is needed.
I have “some education.” And I will accept that micro-evolution has been proved. However, macro-evolution has way way too many holes. It goes against too many scientific laws. And I am a strict Creationist, not a theistic evolutionist. I don’t believe that God left the world to develop itself.
-
The overall evolutionary theory of slow gradual change due to environment (survival of the fittest) and gradual solar based mutations works well most of the time. However, some scientists still refuse to accept that at certain times in evolutionary history that certain groups will mutate at varied rates, appear or disappear, or radiate differently than the above. They also rule out cosmic or earthly mass disasters as “factors” to the process. Agreed that there is not sufficient information to explain this. This also does not demand a need for a “divine” explanation. Theism is outside the scope of this response for this specific question…
-
There is way too much proof to deny evolution. In fact, Evolution can be applied to almost every single situation.
Capitalism - Strict Darwanism here. The Winners make money and get bigger (Evolution) and the losers die out (Evolution).
Crime - More Darwanism here. Simple enough, the losers get caught. The Winners don’t. However, Crime Prevention is also a Darwanist process. The Winners catch criminals, the Losers do not. So, Crime Prevention is always evolving. This means that Criminals must evolve to prevent getting caught.
I’m sure I could think of more, too tired.
-
I have “some education.” And I will accept that micro-evolution has been proved. However, macro-evolution has way way too many holes.
Sure our theory about evolution is not perfect, but it’s still a very powerfull tool. The theory that species evolve and change is very hard to refute, as hard as to defend the position that the earth is flat or 6 000 years old.
The overall evolutionary theory of slow gradual change due to environment (survival of the fittest) and gradual solar based mutations works well most of the time. However, some scientists still refuse to accept that at certain times in evolutionary history that certain groups will mutate at varied rates, appear or disappear, or radiate differently than the above. They also rule out cosmic or earthly mass disasters as “factors” to the process.
As a matter of fact now we use the theory of complexity to understand evolution, and in this theory there is two type of changement (evolution); homeostatic and catastrophic. When you speak of gradual evolution, you speak of homeostatic changement. A good exemple of catastrophic changement is the vampire finch in the galapagos, he was force to eat blood on other bird because he lack food, evolutionist believe his beak will adapt very fast.
There is way too much proof to deny evolution.
Agree
Capitalism - Strict Darwanism here. The Winners make money and get bigger (Evolution) and the losers die out (Evolution).
Application of darwinism “capitalism” is called “Social Darwinism”, and it’s a little like fixism, it was used to maintain the Status quo. Also evolution is about… changing and mouvement, if we use the concept of evolution to promote inertia, there is a problem somewhere. Finally; i don’t think the strong are favored in capitalism.
-
Evolution does not have to contradict the existence of God.
-
Evolution does not have to contradict the existence of God.
No, but common sense does :)
Suggested Topics
