| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/05/2012 05:48:22 PM · #626 |
According to Dave Ross on CBS, women legislators have begun to take a whole new look at this "personhood" issue, realizing that if, as designated in some newly introduced state legislation, the right to life of ALL specimens of microscopic incipient human life were recognized, there could be some interesting consequences ... I suppose that would make wet dreams involuntary manslaughter, if not a crime against humanity.
Other legislation would require a psychological evaluation prior to prescribing ED drugs to make sure that the impotence is of a truly medical and not merely psychological condition. A bill to require a prostate exam and cardiac stress test ("Ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex") failed by one vote ....
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 17:50:40.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2012 06:40:05 PM · #627 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't think the good doc said Forbes was *qualified* to appoint atheistic grand-poohbahs, LOL. It was just an example of prior usage to establish that he (the good doc) had not originated the phrase, nor claimed that he had :-) |
It was Jason's way of doubling down on the idiotic notion of atheism-as-religion right after pretending to let it go. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 08:07:50 PM · #628 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today?
|
You are assuming everyone believes mankind has been around for 10000+ years. |
Audible sigh. Yes, and I also assume people believe in dinosaurs, that the Earth is round and rotates around the Sun, that the Holocaust DID happen, etc. I start at these very basic assumptions because they are the truth. I can't take into account everyone else's whacky beliefs or I'd be sitting around all day debating spaghetti monsters. |
Ill take into account your lack of age when considering your condescending tone, just because I believe in creation does not mean I don't believe in dino's etc.
I realize when you're under 30 that everyone over 30 is hoplessly outdated and undereducated. However, you have alot to learn about a civil give and take, I don't believe I demonstrated any lack of respect to you. I was simply pointing out that you need to establish a common ground before you can hope to convince someone of your argument. |
It's not age I assure you. The common ground is already established. As I said already, it's not my job to give and take when the other people involved go on beliefs that are simply not true. There are plenty of people that believe in creation who also believe the scientific timeline, it's not all or nothing. Your assumption that I was insulting your belief of creation is your own. I said nothing of God and creation.
I will never convince you of anything if all the scientists can't so I would ride someone like you off as a lost cause. You said little else (nothing else?) in the debate and chose THAT moment to pipe in and say hey, maybe some of us don't believe humans were around that long, I'm not going to coddle your beliefs just because you believe them. Simply put, they are wrong.
If I believe something that was flat out, scientifically wrong, I'd expect some harsh tones from anyone in an honest debate. That's how it goes. I'm actually getting more blunt and honest as I get older because I'm starting to realize it doesn't help to go tippy-toeing around.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 20:09:21. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 08:16:49 PM · #629 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
According to Dave Ross on CBS... |
Oh Paul, how could you miss the Dave Ross clip discussing religious freedom and birth control?! |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 08:28:39 PM · #630 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I'm not going to coddle your beliefs just because you believe them. Simply put, they are wrong.
If I believe something that was flat out, scientifically wrong, I'd expect some harsh tones from anyone in an honest debate. That's how it goes. I'm actually getting more blunt and honest as I get older because I'm starting to realize it doesn't help to go tippy-toeing around. |
What a refreshing young lady you are. And what an intelligent argument; "you are wrong"
 |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 08:58:23 PM · #631 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
I'm not going to coddle your beliefs just because you believe them. Simply put, they are wrong.
If I believe something that was flat out, scientifically wrong, I'd expect some harsh tones from anyone in an honest debate. That's how it goes. I'm actually getting more blunt and honest as I get older because I'm starting to realize it doesn't help to go tippy-toeing around. |
What a refreshing young lady you are. And what an intelligent argument; "you are wrong"
|
I could spend all day showing you proof that we've been around longer than 10,000 year's and you'd "ignore" it anyway. Why waste my time? I'm sure you use that button a lot in life.
You wanna talk about condescending, any time I say something people don't want to believe with any tone other than deferential respect, it's because I'm a "young lady". Doesn't matter that I have the whole of the scientific community on my side. What excuse do you have for men of your same age that think the same as me?
I believe also that I said "they are wrong" meaning those beliefs. Not you. But you wish to continue insulting yourself personally with words that you think are mine, go right ahead. The beliefs are wrong no matter who believes them.
For the record, I have read books decrying and supposedly "disproving" evolution on the basis of "science" and found they were little more than religious cores under a flimsy pseudo-scientific shell.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 21:12:54. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 09:14:24 PM · #632 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
According to Dave Ross on CBS... |
Oh Paul, how could you miss the Dave Ross clip discussing religious freedom and birth control?! |
I think I did hear it -- I catch his brief bits on CBS Radio almost every day. I find he manages to get to the core of many issues, much like an audio editorial cartoonist.
If you want some real hilarity, go find the musical MP3s on his own website -- he's not quite a Tom Lehrer, but getting darn close ...
|
|
|
|
03/05/2012 09:24:48 PM · #633 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
According to Dave Ross on CBS... |
Oh Paul, how could you miss the Dave Ross clip discussing religious freedom and birth control?! |
This man makes sense. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 09:32:50 PM · #634 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
According to Dave Ross on CBS... |
Oh Paul, how could you miss the Dave Ross clip discussing religious freedom and birth control?! |
This man makes sense. |
And I believe he's a self-professed Christian himself ... almost destroys your faith in the natural order of things ... ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/05/2012 09:37:18 PM · #635 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today? |
The evidence suggests that the "religious urge" has always been with us, yes. "As we know it today"? Of course not. The manifestation of the religious urge has obviously changed as mankind itself has evolved socially.
R. |
I wouldn't really call it a religious urge. It was more like a "What the heck was that? And how do I explain it?" urge. If man didn't know where big boom in sky come from, God is an easy answer. (Look at me, talking like Grog, LOL). |
Right. I think there is some level of mysticism but the term "religious" comes with more baggage today than perhaps mystic, supernatural, shamanistic or other such descriptions of tribal beliefs.
I think religion comes with a sort of top down control, pleasing the God(s) to get after-life rewards. Mystic beliefs seem to be more bottom up. You respect the Earth for it's own virtues or for current-life rewards.
Improper or insufficient definitions of words have caused a lot of error in sociological study. For example we think many more cultures have "marriage" than actually do with our definition of the word, because researchers lacked an applicable word to describe the circumstance of the particular partnership style of the culture.
Bear, that's more what I mean when I said religion "as we know it today". I wasn't meaning to imply you thought things were always exactly the same.
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 21:41:57. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 09:48:50 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
you have alot to learn about a civil give and take, I don't believe I demonstrated any lack of respect to you. |
Originally posted by smardaz:
What a refreshing young lady you are. And what an intelligent argument; "you are wrong"
|
I like a little starch with my irony for that professional, fresh-pressed look. It makes me appear more intelligent when I tell a flat-earth believer that he is wrong. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 10:02:17 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by smardaz:
you have alot to learn about a civil give and take, I don't believe I demonstrated any lack of respect to you. |
Originally posted by smardaz:
What a refreshing young lady you are. And what an intelligent argument; "you are wrong"
|
I like a little starch with my irony for that professional, fresh-pressed look. It makes me appear more intelligent when I tell a flat-earth believer that he is wrong. |
What a shocker, a lurker in the birth control debate that comes in to tell me how to be a lady.
Meanwhile Scalvert and the Doc poke at each other back and forth all day long and they're being real "grown up" men aye? :P
Jeez oh man. My want of Buddhist compassion for all withers and dies in the face of such asinine arguments. I just enjoy my snarky remarks too much to ever get to enlightenment. Ah well. Maybe I'll reach Nirvana in the next life. ;)
Message edited by author 2012-03-05 23:08:54. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 10:50:27 PM · #638 |
| Hey, who are you calling grown up? |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:13:01 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Hey, who are you calling grown up? |
No one. I don't believe it ever occurs. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:41:16 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Right. I think there is some level of mysticism but the term "religious" comes with more baggage today than perhaps mystic, supernatural, shamanistic or other such descriptions of tribal beliefs.
I think religion comes with a sort of top down control, pleasing the God(s) to get after-life rewards. Mystic beliefs seem to be more bottom up. You respect the Earth for it's own virtues or for current-life rewards.
Improper or insufficient definitions of words have caused a lot of error in sociological study. For example we think many more cultures have "marriage" than actually do with our definition of the word, because researchers lacked an applicable word to describe the circumstance of the particular partnership style of the culture.
Bear, that's more what I mean when I said religion "as we know it today". I wasn't meaning to imply you thought things were always exactly the same. |
I'm not sure where you get that from. Certainly, MODERN mystics may fit that mold, but it's a far stretch to apply our modern concept of mysticism to prehistoric cultures. Sorta like your point regarding misappropriation of the term "marriage", actually.
Anyway, that aside, we have strong evidence of ritualistic, religious behavior going back at least 100,000 years, possibly 300,000 years.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2012 11:53:36 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
As long as there has been mankind or as long as there has been agricultural mankind?
10,000 years+ ago pre-writing, pre-ownership, pre-govt. you think there was religion? At least religion as we know it today?
|
You are assuming everyone believes mankind has been around for 10000+ years. |
Can we keep it to the established known facts. You can start your thread with creation vs evolution debate. There's enough here already with birth control.
Infact, there might be one already. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 12:01:50 AM · #642 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Can we keep it to the established known facts. |
Whose? |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 12:06:34 AM · #643 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Right. I think there is some level of mysticism but the term "religious" comes with more baggage today than perhaps mystic, supernatural, shamanistic or other such descriptions of tribal beliefs.
I think religion comes with a sort of top down control, pleasing the God(s) to get after-life rewards. Mystic beliefs seem to be more bottom up. You respect the Earth for it's own virtues or for current-life rewards.
Improper or insufficient definitions of words have caused a lot of error in sociological study. For example we think many more cultures have "marriage" than actually do with our definition of the word, because researchers lacked an applicable word to describe the circumstance of the particular partnership style of the culture.
Bear, that's more what I mean when I said religion "as we know it today". I wasn't meaning to imply you thought things were always exactly the same. |
I'm not sure where you get that from. Certainly, MODERN mystics may fit that mold, but it's a far stretch to apply our modern concept of mysticism to prehistoric cultures. Sorta like your point regarding misappropriation of the term "marriage", actually.
Anyway, that aside, we have strong evidence of ritualistic, religious behavior going back at least 100,000 years, possibly 300,000 years.
R. |
That's what I mean I guess. I chose mystic for lack of a better term, but that's not a good term either. We still have not defined "religious behavior" here...
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 00:07:45. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 12:30:53 AM · #644 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we have strong evidence of ritualistic, religious behavior going back at least 100,000 years, possibly 300,000 years. |
That would be very interesting considering the earliest known examples of our species appeared about 35,000 years ago. There is evidence that some Neanderthals buried their dead, however elephants and chimpanzees are known to do that, too. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 12:44:55 AM · #645 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we have strong evidence of ritualistic, religious behavior going back at least 100,000 years, possibly 300,000 years. |
That would be very interesting considering the earliest known examples of our species appeared about 35,000 years ago. There is evidence that some Neanderthals buried their dead, however elephants and chimpanzees are known to do that, too. |
And painted them with ochre, and buried them with objects. But yes, this is Neanderthal we're talking about. It's all speculation, of course, we can't possibly know exactly what was going through the minds of these distant relations of ours, so very long ago. But still, it's intriguing to speculate upon, and it IS apparently ritualistic behavior. Surely you're not disputing that? I acknowledge that "ritualistic" doesn't mean "religious", but it's in these behaviors that some academics think we've found the earliest examples of religious, or proto-religious behavior.
R.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2012 12:59:14 AM · #646 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You wanna talk about condescending, any time I say something people don't want to believe with any tone other than deferential respect, it's because I'm a "young lady". |
No kidding. What a cheap cop-out. I can't believe anyone would have the courage to be so insulting. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 01:05:48 AM · #647 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
You wanna talk about condescending, any time I say something people don't want to believe with any tone other than deferential respect, it's because I'm a "young lady". |
No kidding. What a cheap cop-out. I can't believe anyone would have the courage to be so insulting. |
Sarcasm? Whatever I said was directed at a belief that our species is less than 10,000 years old. I didn't make personal insults. I made no mention of age and gender, nor even creationism. Smardaz brought in all those factors. If one wants to be offended personally because they tie themselves to beliefs I think are asinine, that's really not my problem.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 01:08:56. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 01:08:13 AM · #648 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we have strong evidence of ritualistic, religious behavior going back at least 100,000 years, possibly 300,000 years. |
That would be very interesting considering the earliest known examples of our species appeared about 35,000 years ago. There is evidence that some Neanderthals buried their dead, however elephants and chimpanzees are known to do that, too. |
And painted them with ochre, and buried them with objects. But yes, this is Neanderthal we're talking about. It's all speculation, of course, we can't possibly know exactly what was going through the minds of these distant relations of ours, so very long ago. But still, it's intriguing to speculate upon, and it IS apparently ritualistic behavior. Surely you're not disputing that? I acknowledge that "ritualistic" doesn't mean "religious", but it's in these behaviors that some academics think we've found the earliest examples of religious, or proto-religious behavior.
R. |
I only know the term from CS Lewis, but he is not the originator. The numinous. It's been with us from the beginning.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 01:08:51. |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 01:14:16 AM · #649 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
we have strong evidence of ritualistic, religious behavior going back at least 100,000 years, possibly 300,000 years. |
That would be very interesting considering the earliest known examples of our species appeared about 35,000 years ago. There is evidence that some Neanderthals buried their dead, however elephants and chimpanzees are known to do that, too. |
And painted them with ochre, and buried them with objects. But yes, this is Neanderthal we're talking about. It's all speculation, of course, we can't possibly know exactly what was going through the minds of these distant relations of ours, so very long ago. But still, it's intriguing to speculate upon, and it IS apparently ritualistic behavior. Surely you're not disputing that? I acknowledge that "ritualistic" doesn't mean "religious", but it's in these behaviors that some academics think we've found the earliest examples of religious, or proto-religious behavior.
R. |
Mmm but we aren't descendants of the Neanderthals (though I have heard some recent re-speculation on that point).
I like the "newer" theories that we came from polyamorous, egalitarian societies closer in behavior to Bonobos than Chimps (Sex at Dawn). Also read some good stuff about speculations that our ancestors were runners, that would literally run in packs and tire an animal to death (Born to Run). Want to read more up on those 2 theories but I have such varied interests I'm always on different reading tangents. :) |
|
|
|
03/06/2012 10:35:22 AM · #650 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sarcasm? |
No.
I'm on your side, Young Lady.
Message edited by author 2012-03-06 10:37:43. |
|
