Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

Ozymandias wrote:Having to repeat it means that you don't understand Polonius' point. You were wrong when you first mentioned it and you're wrong now.

Greebynog wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

generalgrog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Polonius wrote: To compare that process to the process of faith, a whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all, really misses the point on both things.

By the way Polonius, I disagree with the notion that faith has to be a "whole hearted belief in something for which there is no evidence at all". What you described is what I would call "blind faith". Christianity is not "Blind Faith".


GG

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

When did I say that I have seen God? So you believe that you have to literally "see" God to have evidence that He exists?

GG

Ozymandias wrote:It's not a case of an 'opinion', you said that scientists have the same blind faith in the Big Bang that you have in the Bible and that's demonstrably false. If something can be tested and redefined, it ain't faith.

And I'm not upset. I'm frustrated in the fact that you just don't seem to get it. I have the same frustration after arguing with brick walls (I don't recommend it).

Greebynog wrote:

So you've literally seen God? What's he like? I bet he has lovely hair.

Christianity is the very definition of blind faith. Read what Polonius wrote. Really read it.

generalgrog wrote:

Ozy, please go back and point out from any any of my posts where I said "that scientists have the same blind faith in the Big Bang that you have in the Bible "

Maybe your so zealous in your belief that your willing to put words into my mouth? :-)


GG

generalgrog wrote:
Here is the problem with what you just said Uri. You are critisizing/ridiculing a person because they don't believe in the big bang theory as put out by the general scientific community. Yet you seem perfectly willing to accept the scientific explanation, as DOGMA. Why is it so hard for you to realize that you may be the one that is acting off of the conditioning and DOGMA of modern academia, and maybe you are the one acting off of a rejection principle?

This is pecisely what I have been getting at, if you look at the previous posts and other threads on this issue.(we covered it a few times allready)

The bottom line is that science doesn't really know, and cannot adequatley explain how the universe started, so they use assumptions(there is that word again) and guesses to create a theory.

GG

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"
GG

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"
GG

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

generalgrog wrote:With respect, the reason why I keep having to repeat it, is that new people keep popping into the thread without reading the last 30 pages.

I don't know.... maybe it's time to close the thread since the same topics keep coming up?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote: At least not from a strictly informational perspective, as an allegory it works well in concert with scientific knowledge.

You left out the phrase > "In my opinion"
GG

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

Polonius wrote:
So, my questions to you are:
1) why do you think both systems have the same levels and incidences of faith

Polonius wrote:
2) What is wrong with accepting science's best guess in matters of theological doubt, but not in any other area?

Polonius wrote:
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?

Polonius wrote:
4) Do you think that the scientific community is being sinister in foisting theories such as macro evolution and the big bang on humanity, or do you find the actual scientific process to be deeply flawed either in theory or in practice. If neither, why do you choose to hold science as being so unreliable?

generalgrog wrote:So this has turned into a Pile on Grog thread.

First of all I never approached this as a contest. I don't feel a need to "win" this. The only thing I have done, and I believe that I have been pretty consistent with, is to give my viewpoint. This is an open forum afterall. If you think I don't realize that my viewpoints are not controversial in a place where people play Science fiction fantasy games, you would be mistaken. I used to be much like you Polonius and ozy, in that I believed in evolution at one point. It was my conversion experiance where I came into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, that caused me to question many things I had been taught from a secular world view. There hasn't been any obliteration as you put it, I think I have presented my view point very well, and I don't care if you don't agree with me. But I have tried to not disrespect you as you have started to do to me, with the last few posts.

These last few posts of yours shows me that you take this stuff way to personally. The only reason I suggested shutting the thread was because you seem to be getting offended by me repeatedly presenting my view point when I see new people enter the thread that haven't read stuff we already discussed and they make statements which I feel need to be responded too.

Polonius wrote:
So, my questions to you are:
1) why do you think both systems have the same levels and incidences of faith

I never said they had the same levels. I'm not sure that you can even define the levels per se. All I ever said was that you need faith (whatever level that is)to believe in Macro evolution. You or anyone else in this thread has done nothing to disprove that.

From dictionary.com
Faith
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. (Emphasis mine because Macro evolution is an idea)
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4.often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5.The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6.A set of principles or beliefs. .

Polonius wrote:
2) What is wrong with accepting science's best guess in matters of theological doubt, but not in any other area?

Nothing is wrong, but I believe that the Bible is the final arbitrator.

Polonius wrote:
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?

I have never said that you couldn't be a Christian and believe in science(specifically Macro evolution). I did however state that I believed that you would be in error.

Polonius wrote:
4) Do you think that the scientific community is being sinister in foisting theories such as macro evolution and the big bang on humanity, or do you find the actual scientific process to be deeply flawed either in theory or in practice. If neither, why do you choose to hold science as being so unreliable?

I believe that scientist are human and can make errors, which assumptions can lead to errors. I personally believe that uniformitariansm is an error, because it assumes that nature has always been the same and has never changed. I do get tired of turning on the science channell and watching some of these shows where the scientists come on and talk about evolution in this almost reverential way, calling it the "miracle" of evolution such and so forth.

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

dogma wrote:

That isn't evidence of anything other than the role socialization has on belief structures.

Again yet another opinion presented as though it were fact.

GG

No, that is fact. Stating that the Bible has been held in high regard for 1700 years indicates, at the minimum, that socialization affects what people believe. Whether there is a God at work is an addendum to the mere fact, not a necessary component of the process. Honestly, I can't even think of a single respected theologian who would disagree with such a point. Matters of spirituality and religion are tangential to science. They do not supplant it any more than science supplants them.

Its like writing a review of a movie. You may love the movie, it might touch a special chord in your heart. However, it could still be a bad movie by the standards that movies are judged. As movie critic it is your responsibility to reconcile your emotional connection to the movie with its poor technical execution.

The Biblical creation story clearly resonates with you, but the fact that it is a poor causal explanation of observed, natural phenomenon remains. Its your responsibility as a believer to reconcile the Bible with the observed world, not simply discount observation because it disagrees with your chosen holy book.

dogma wrote:

The Biblical creation story clearly resonates with you, but the fact that it is a poor causal explanation of observed, natural phenomenon remains. Its your responsibility as a believer to reconcile the Bible with the observed world, not simply discount observation because it disagrees with your chosen holy book.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Meh. Religion as a moral guideline isn't a bad concept. But, as a way to live your life and explain existence? Not for me ta.

I just feel Christian and Judaic faiths have too many cop outs when asked certain questions. Best example?

Why? Why did God create stuff? Their answer would typically be along the lines of 'God's mind is not for us to know'

Thats not an answer. Thats a cop out. I'd have a lot more respect for the person if they just admitted they don't know, rather than try and mystify their answer.

And another example. A Priest and his entire Parish are squished when the Church randomly caves in. When asked why did God allow this to happen, the answer would typically be along the lines of 'God works in mysterious ways' when what they really want to say 'I haven't a clue, and can't find a reason in the Bible'

This prevents me taking it seriously. You may well feel differently of course!

Polonius wrote:
It has not. It has turned into a thread in which you are arguing against multiple people, alternating between claiming it's just your opinion and then presenting arguments on it's behalf. You have repeatedly ignored counter-arguments and continue to make claims that have been repeatedly shot down (see below). Not all defenses of the faith are noble acts. Sometimes you really are wrong.

Polonius wrote: I think there comes a point where ignoring what a person says while still trying to maintain a dialogue is at least partially disrespectful. I point it out because you don't actually respond to my arguments, you tend to dance around them.

Polonius wrote: Again, "you take this stuff too personally" is a tactic used to minimize a person points and positions. Much like your repeated use of "it's just opinion," it's a way of lowering stakes. It's a rhetorical trick. And I'm sorry, i consider the search for truth and the nature of god to be pretty important, so it's something I do take personally.

Polonius wrote:
Well, no, but we have explained multiple times the different kinds of faith, and how they're not all the same thing, and that faith in god is different from faith in a friend or faith in gravity.

Polonius wrote:
Do you think that the Bible says macro evolution and big bang cosmology are wrong? How do you respond to the idea that the story of creation simply left out the mechanics of creation (like the big bang and speciation) or that god left those things there simply to hide his fingerprints? The problem is that you seem to be challenging the science head on, rather than simply ignoring it. There was a mechanism for the creation of energy and matter, and there is a system behind all of taxonomy. I guess I just don't see how even a literal reading of the bible invalidates anything in science as science. It's one thing to say "macro-evolution might explain how species will continue to evolve, but since all species were creating 6500 years ago, it really doesn't matter" and be at least logically consistent. One thing a literal reading of the bible allows, don't forget, is a certain flexiblity with time. God is above and beyond time, and so can do a lot more in a day than mortals think.

Polonius wrote:
3) Do you genuinely think it's impossible to have faith in god and fully support scientific inquiry that doesn't discuss the divine?

generalgrog wrote:
I have never said that you couldn't be a Christian and believe in science(specifically Macro evolution). I did however state that I believed that you would be in error.

Polonius wrote:
Why? And what does that error mean for me? Is it sinful? Just a mistake? I'm genuinely curious.

Polonius wrote:

First off, do you believe in young earth creationism? If so, what does it matter what aspects of nature can change over millions of years if there never has been millions of year?

Life is the single most interesting thing on this planet. The creation of self replicating DNA that can change and adapt is quite simply miraculous. It's either the single most astounding thing to ever develop in a godless universe, or it's a beautifully elegant design by the creator. Why wouldn't reverence be paid? We're reverent about the Grand Canyon and the depths of space, why not life itself?

But to get back to my question, which you sort of answered, you simply think that all of science is simply wrong with regards to evolution and big bang cosmology. That they've all made mistakes, covered them up, and nobody has really blown the whistle on it?

Or do you simply think that they believe this stuff in good faith but that there were enough mistakes to get the wrong result. If the former, I think it's a tough row to hoe as there are lots of scientists trying to earn their bones, and somebody would blow the whistle. If the latter, than where is the better theory? Macro evolution has been a dominant theory in science for ~130 years, and it's only gotten tighter and better supported. I hesitate to use this term, but to think that there "could be" a massive system of errors behind it is really a jump of blind faith. Of course there could be mistakes, but what are they? Where are they most likely to exist? What is the replacement theory? As I've stated multiple times, scientific theories work on a "King of the hill" model: one only gets down when another pushes it down. You could invalidate 99% of the evidence and work towards macro evolution, and it will remain the dominant theory until something replaces it.

I guess I just don't understand. The Bible allows for mechanisms to god's works. He didn't just magic up water, he used storms to flood the earth. He didn't materialize Adam, he formed him from clay. The Bible simply says what happened, it doesn't include everything.

generalgrog wrote:
I don't believe I have made any "claims" that have been "shot down" as you put it. Also I am trying to very hard to keep this from becoming an argument. :-)

We are dealing with the internet here, as I explained to you before I'm not entirely comfortable discussing highly complex issues like we have been attempting, and am not always able to break it down into small handy little snippets. So sometimes I choose to just not reply.

Polonius wrote: Again, "you take this stuff too personally" is a tactic used to minimize a person points and positions. Much like your repeated use of "it's just opinion," it's a way of lowering stakes. It's a rhetorical trick. And I'm sorry, i consider the search for truth and the nature of god to be pretty important, so it's something I do take personally.

I'm not using tactics. I'm just talking.

Polonius wrote:
Well, no, but we have explained multiple times the different kinds of faith, and how they're not all the same thing, and that faith in god is different from faith in a friend or faith in gravity.

I think you have misunderstood where I am coming from. And that is my fault. (again explaining things on the internet isn't my forte.) What I have been trying to point out is that Science for many people appears to have taken the place of Theistic faith with a sort of psuedo faith. They (a generalisation I know) believe in what they have been told and taught, and could be afraid to question the status quo in fear of losing their jobs, being ridiculed, etc. They accept uniformitariansm on faith, because there is nothing that they can obviously see to counter it, or maybe they are so zealous in their belief that they don't even want to take the time to pursue new ideas that could counter there preconceived notions.

The Bible doesn't say anything about macro evolution or big bang cosmology, as te Bible was written thousands of years before these ideas were presented. I am fully aware of the "old earth" creationsists view point that the genesis creation account is to be taken as poetry/myth and that they believe God used that format to convey truth. I however believe in a young earth. Your point about God being above time, is a very good one and is a very important in this discussion of young earth vs old earth. If God is real and All powerfull then of course He could create the universe/world/life in literally 6 days, or even 1 second for that matter.

Why?
First Off I believe the Bible and the literal 6 day creation.

And what does that error mean for me?
Well only you can answer that.

Is it sinful?
I really don't know. If you were truly ignorant, than possibly not. But let me qualify that with saying that I believe it is dangerous for me to suggest to someone else something is sinful, that is not obviously mentioned as being sinfull. James 4:17 says Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Do you think it would be a good idea to start another thread about creationism vs evolutionism. This way we can spend time just on that subject, instead of usurping the religion thread? There was allready a thread locked about the issue.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Why? Why did God create stuff? Their answer would typically be along the lines of 'God's mind is not for us to know'

Thats not an answer. Thats a cop out. I'd have a lot more respect for the person if they just admitted they don't know, rather than try and mystify their answer.

generalgrog wrote:I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

generalgrog wrote:
What I have been trying to point out is that Science for many people appears to have taken the place of Theistic faith with a sort of psuedo faith.

generalgrog wrote:I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

generalgrog wrote:I'll just point out that the moment that I proposed a new thread to specifically discuss evolution vs creation, the main evolution proponents bow out. :-)


GG

halonachos wrote: The big bang theory is dandy, but science teaches that matter cannot be created/destroyed, it can only be converted.

halonachos wrote: If apes had the same amount time to evolve as humans, then why don't apes have the same capabilities as we do? .

halonachos wrote:Well, the big bang theory is similar to saying that something came from nothing or that something exploded to create other things.

generalgrog wrote:I was actually wanting to discuss some of the science or lack there of. But oh well.
GG

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I was actually wanting to discuss some of the science or lack there of. But oh well.
GG

If you think the science behind evolution is lacking you seriously need to redress your understanding of science. That said, I would be interested to hear exactly what makes you doubt the theory. Aside from your faith, of course.

reds8n wrote:

halonachos wrote: If apes had the same amount time to evolve as humans, then why don't apes have the same capabilities as we do? .

Apes and humans are both descended from the same root species, and one of those- us-- has become dominant.

Evolution isn't about some steady march towards being able to talk and manufacture chewing gum and plastic baneblades. Part of the whole point of the process is that certain creatures will effectively run into evolutionary dead ends and not progress any further.

halonachos wrote:
So are you saying that evolution causes creatures to evolve until evolution stops? Evolution is caused by the success of mutations or lack of success of said mutations. Mutations occur randomly and cause the creature to either thrive or die, so it is possible for chimps to have a mutation that makes them look, walk, and talk like humans. If this trait is positive, then the mutant chimp will mate and create more chimps in that image. It hasn't happened yet, so there must be something stopping the evolution from occuring.

halonachos wrote:
This something is what I call god. I believe that god set up paths in which creatures would evolve and once man reached a certain point, he let go of the bike nd let us go on our own. Look at the differences between people; tribal people in america, africa, australia, etc never really developed firearms of their own.

halonachos wrote:
This would've helped hunting but they didn't, there are resources around the tribes that they didn't tap into like the european/asian people did. So why was there a difference between the peoples of the 15th and 16th centuries in terms of breakthroughs and scientific advancement?

halonachos wrote:

If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

halonachos wrote:Actually, I will agree with you about aliens. I think they exist, but god made them too.

halonachos wrote:Maybe your source is just your representation of god from simple to humans to other simple humans. Perhaps your idea of the source is the same as my idea of god. Its just that god has somewhat of an image while you don't want an image so just have a concept of what god is like.

halonachos wrote:Good, like the romans thought that there were multiple gods that had power over different things. My god is an amalgamation of all of the roman gods. My god has all of the powers the roman gods. Whos correct, I don't know. So all religions could be worshipping the same person/persons/concepts but calling them different names.

halonachos wrote:Oh yes, differences in geological conditions. Every country has something that can be used as explosives.

halonachos wrote:
America had a lot of forests around that time, but natives on the coasts never thought to make large sailing ships? They never thought about sailing the sea to see what they could see see see?

halonachos wrote:
If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

halonachos wrote:If you say that, then why didn't the african tribes make sailing vessels? They had contact with alien cultures and even had the large supplies of wood that america had. African tribes were also the first to settle down.

halonachos wrote:Yes, but look at southern africa, north africa certainly had sailing vessels.

halonachos wrote:
Last time I checked, people in europe also had short life spans.

Uri Lee wrote:Since this thread is now discussing anthropolog, i was wondering (especial as someone here appears to have swallowed an encyclopedia)How did the supposed generic ancestors from africa, get to new zealandand and other pacific islands, did prehistoric man have boats or was that part of the super-continent at the timeof migration? Were they evovled homosapiens at the time of migration?

dogma wrote:
The specifics of how man got to Australia vary based upon what you accept as the date of first arrival: anywhere from 40-120,000 years ago. However, the general method stays relatively constant. During the indicated time period the sea level was much lower; meaning that most of South-East Asia was integrated into a single landmass known as Sunda. The theory is that the ancestors of the modern Aborigines walked out to the Wallace Line and made the 90km crossing to Australia by boat.

Here is a map of Sunda. The white areas were above water during the time of human migration.

Uri Lee wrote:

what about the polynesian islands? They seem a long way from anywhere? How evolved were homosapiens at this time? could they really have built decent seafaring boats? Or could life have evolved there indepandantly? (i'm only asking as I haven't a clue myself)

EDIT: actualy, forget it, I'll look on wikepedia myself. I thought this thread was about religion?!?!

halonachos wrote:Oh yes, differences in geological conditions. Every country has something that can be used as explosives. America had a lot of forests around that time, but natives on the coasts never thought to make large sailing ships? They never thought about sailing the sea to see what they could see see see?

If humans were sufficient for our ecological niche when we were neanderthals, then why did we evolve further? We had predators and prey and a nice niche, but we evolved anyways.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis.

With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did.

Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals.

Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

So my question is HOW evolution has helped us strictly from a scientific basis. If evolution and science are the only answers, then we should technically still be evolving. We should also be a bunch of diseased and fetid people with the amount of negative genetic traits in the 1,000,000+.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis. With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did. Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals. Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

So my question is HOW evolution has helped us strictly from a scientific basis. If evolution and science are the only answers, then we should technically still be evolving. We should also be a bunch of diseased and fetid people with the amount of negative genetic traits in the 1,000,000+.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

If evolution is as random as it is supposed to be, then how is it possible for most human bodies to carry out the amount of complex operations it does on a daily basis. With meiosis, mitosis, and other cell processes it is hard for me to see that it could of been the result of random mutation. If a single gene in ones DNA is messed up or misses a step in a replication process, you can have a multitude of random mutations that aren't at all beneficial and some that are beneficial. Now think of how many replications have taken place over thousands of centuries. Chances are that there should have been a lot more malignant mutations than benign ones and that most of humanity should not have flourished like it did. Seeing as though we are all related by some extremely ancient relative, the rate of mutaions should have increased. Much like pure breed animals. Now, I am not saying that the Adam/Eve thing is the basis for this, but the simple fact that the amount of humans went from 0 to 100 and then out of that 100 they multiplied. Even so, this is a bottleneck population and genetic mutations should've been rampant like hemophilia in the royal families. Which brings to question genetic disorders. The only way to get a genetic disorder is to have it at least in the recessive genes of a person. Chances are that each one of our ancestors had some sort of nasty little surprise encoded in their DNA, and if this is true the original humans had genetic diseases also hiding in their DNA. If there were a limited amount of humans present, then mating choice was limited, if each individual had a recessive mutation then there was at least a 25% chance that the offspring would have this recessive trait full blown, and a 50% chance that they would at least carry the recessive trait. However, you could say that humans had no genetic mutations present at all, in this case I ask where the mutations then came from.

halonachos wrote:Yes, I know what natural selection. What I am wondering is why then haven't apes or other animals developed language? They have series of grunting already (much like neanderthals), but have no language resembling the ones used by early man or by current humans. I think it would be more beneficial if an ape evolved to make higher level tools such as axes or shovels instead of using sticks to look for bugs.

halonachos wrote:Well even darwin said that humans did not evolve from apes.

So, are you saying that evolution follows only certain paths? That these paths depend on the species of animal?

halonachos wrote:Well even darwin said that humans did not evolve from apes.

So, are you saying that evolution follows only certain paths? That these paths depend on the species of animal?

halonachos wrote:Well, if the evoultion relies on a path, then who or what sets the path. Sure there are environmental conditions, but wouldn't humans then deveope the ability to breath highly polluted air in some cities?

I mean if you look at it, in smog rich cities there should be humans who have adapted to the smog and would have difficulty breathing in pure air. The bodies would slowly adapt to a lower level of oxygen and if they should go into an area that has fresher air then their bodies should have difficulties with the surplus of oxygen. Now, we have had factories pumping out fumes for over 200 years now and coal for a bit longer. I know that evolution takes time, but one would think that some signs may have appeared in that time.

I believe that god has made set evolutionary paths. He knows what the world would be like and gave animals certain traits that they could evolve with. God has placed the traits in the animals and when the traits become necessary then they begin to show. Kind of like a swiss army knife, the traits represent the tools and when the time comes for a certain tool, it's there and ready.

Natural selection can be random as well. How many conditions of the past are still the same today as they were back then? Look at the famous pepper moth example. Two types of moths existed, the plain white ones were camoflauged and the peppered ones were dotted and easy to see. All of a sudden, humans make factories and pollute the trees, making the peppered moth all of a sudden more viable. If conditions are ever-changing, then what determines a successful species is also ever-changing. This is because the universe as a whole is random.

halonachos wrote:Yes, god set paths for evolution. However he also made the universe random so that the evolutionary traits would come into play at some time in the span of history. The smog breathing humans is for the comparison of how animals adapt to their environment.

The universe is random though and god made it that way. If nothing was random, then life may come to an end as we know it.

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:According to your logic, vegetarianism has killed lots of people as well; after all, most political ideologies don't involve the eating of meat. It would be different if you defined vegetarianism as "abstaining from eating meat", and atheism as "consciously choosing to follow no gods".

That definition of Atheism doesn't make sense. In order to abstain from following a god you would have to admit that such a god existed; making the choice to abstain from worship seem foolish if said god is an omnipotent one. A better definition would be 'the belief in the lack of God or god/s'. However, such a definition is inconsistent with the fact that the word Atheism is the literal negation of the word Theism; making it inappropriate to consider it as a positive belief.

Vegetarianism isn't the negation of anything, so your point is moot.

You're using one definition of the word to try and prove something about a different definition of the word.

No, I'm not. I'm using the minimal definition of Atheism to make a comment about the ridiculousness of attributing massive amounts of human suffering to a broad category of human behavior.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I only used "abstain" to refer to vegetarianism, actually. I'll admit that was a rather poor analogy, though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
However, atheism has a definition in the modern context that is not it's linguistically literal meaning:

a⋅the⋅ism  /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1580–90; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ism

Orkeosaurus wrote:
As far as I know, atheism has always been that active doctrine, not a passive trait present in anything that doesn't explictly involve religion; still, if atheism being a passive trait is a valid definition it's nonetheless clear that Gwar!'s definition of it was in the active sense and thus not inapproriate in the slightest.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I still don't see where you're going with this; you're using a definition of a word that isn't commonly used to refute a statement made with the more commonly used definition of the word. Correct?

dogma wrote:Yeah, 1 references what most philosophers call strong atheism, while 2 references what would be called weak atheism. 2 is the minimal definition of the word (disbelief is the same as a lack of belief) because in order to believe that there is no God you must first lack a belief in God, while you do not need to believe that God does not exist in order to lack a belief in him/it.

Atheism, in the modern sense, is always a passive doctrine. Even strong Atheism only makes sense in situations which feature God as a counterpoint. Otherwise you're simply saying 'this thing which I have conceived of called God does not exist'. Which is fine, but its also a metaphysical belief. One featured in several religions. So if your intent in describing yourself as an Atheist is to avoid religion, the use of the positive definition doesn't make sense.

Still, you're right that Atheism isn't present in everything which is not explicitly related to God.

The point I was trying to make was that there are many forces which have compelled people to mass violence, and to implicate religion as the primary one is wholly arbitrary. Kind of like saying the lack of an explicit connection to God is what made Fascism so horrible. Basically I set up the punch line without ever explaining the 'joke'. I should have been more clear.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Disbelief usually has a different context than simply lacking in belief; very few people would say that a rock has a disbelief in God, even though they're incapable of believing in anything.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I get the distinction between weak and strong atheism, but I don't see the relevance of "weak atheism" in regards to an ideology; an ideology that makes no mention of religious concepts is not one that doesn't believe in the existence of God, it's one that makes no mention of the existence of God. To say that it's atheistic is still an unfounded assumption, in that case.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by passive; when I used it meant to say that atheism (or strong atheism, at least) was not something that is present by default. It requires a choice to be made regarding the existence of God, in the same way that religion does.

However, it seems to me like you're saying it's a passive doctrine because it's nonsensical outside of a context in which there is belief in God; religion being active, atheism being passive. Am I on the right track here?

(I guess you could say that atheism is "reactive" instead, in that context.)

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Ah. I do think there's more than enough evidence for religion not having been the cause of most of humanity's murders.

I still think religion has more capacity to drive people to do good or evil than atheism does, though.

rubiksnoob wrote:I'm atheist and here's what I believe: nothing.

IMO, there are no supernatural, all powerful, divine beings/being.

humans are just a coincidence, one that is common across the galaxy, universe, multiverse.

Nothing exists after death. One simply ceases to exist.

would that fall under strong atheism or weak atheism?

dogma wrote:Very few people would say that a rock lacks a belief in God. They would simply say, as you did, that a rock is incapable of belief. In a human context, which is the only context we can speak of when considering belief, disbelief and a lack of belief are equivalent.

It isn't unfounded, simply irrelevant, and a natural consequence of the fact that weak atheism is the default position on the metaphysical question.

Keep in mind atheism doesn't preclude devotion to a religion. As I said earlier, there are several atheistic faiths.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm guessing you define religion differently from the way I do.

Hordini wrote:Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity an atheistic faith in general, or are there just some sects of it that are?

Kilkrazy wrote:Being an atheist does not preclude one from ethical thinking.

youngblood wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Being an atheist does not preclude one from ethical thinking.

YES YES YES it does! ;D j/k

Religion sucks. Here's why: whether you agree with the underlying beliefs, all religion (as a goal) pushes people toward a better version of oneself. But ideology kinda ruins the whole better version thing for a lot of people. In my personal experience, I went to a church where they weren't into drinking. That's fine. I was underage, so it was a non-issue for me (although I disagreed with their reasoning for it). After I moved, I went to another church that didn't care whether you drank or not. I turn 21 and bam, I love beer. Now, there are members of my first church who won't spend much time with me because I drink. The original thought was to take alcohol out of the equation (limiting the chance for alcoholism, which many of the members had dealt with), but in doing so it demonized something that was fine to begin with and then even association with the demonized subject was wrong. So ideology can ruin great intentions. Beware ideologies.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, if you do get drunk you can always try and pass it off as the Pentecost.

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

... ... ...

.

Kilkrazy wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

... ... ...

.

The Japanese can. Surveys of religious membership in Japan regularly find that about 75% of the people are Shinto, and about 67% are Buddhist. There are also some Taoists, a fair number of Christians and a few Jews.

halonachos wrote:If you want to see a fight over whose imaginary friend was cooler that caused thousands of people to die, look up crusades in the dictionary.

halonachos wrote:Hey guys, it was a freakin joke. It doesn't need to be correct, it just needs to grasp at the top of the matter, not dig into the meat of it.

halonachos wrote:Oh wah, stop being elitist sebster.

halonachos wrote:Nope, just saying to stop thinking too much about a joke and go to the basics. Humor doesn't always have to be all hoity-toity, it can be crude and grasp basic concepts to be funny.

Again, don't read too much into it.

sebster wrote:It's about as funny as saying WWII was just another war about oil. It isn't funny because it isn't true.

halonachos wrote:Oh wah, stop being elitist sebster.

Orkeosaurus wrote:It's partially true.

Our oil embargo was one of the biggest reasons Japan attacked the US.

rubiksnoob wrote:The Crusades were started by a few individuals that were in power at the time, but were embraced by the masses under the guise of religion.

dogma wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:The Crusades were started by a few individuals that were in power at the time, but were embraced by the masses under the guise of religion.

It wasn't all religion. Everyone, even the peasants, who went on campaign had the opportunity to enhance their wealth/status. Just like the modern military, everyone had a different reason for participating.

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

Relapse wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

I've been taught that God is a loving father that will not cast his children off if they didn't have a chance to learn about him or just because they belong to another religion. He doesn't have us to play shell games over religion with a burning eternal Hell the punishment for a wrong guess.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Relapse wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

I've been taught that God is a loving father that will not cast his children off if they didn't have a chance to learn about him or just because they belong to another religion. He doesn't have us to play shell games over religion with a burning eternal Hell the punishment for a wrong guess.

Christianity is generally not inclusive, along with Islam and Judaism. Seems you're different, and I'm glad to hear it.

Cheese Elemental wrote:I'd just like to point out that of all the explanations for the creation of the universe I've heard, the theory of a big explosion out of nowhere is the most ridiculous.

Frazzled wrote:That and the muslims closed off travel to the Holy land, and Europe was still under the threat of jihad. Indeed that threat didn't disappear for centuries.

A desert stretches out before me: namely, the reflective experience of alienation and so also the word “alienation” itself. (It is no longer possible to think that an experience can exist in reflection divorced from the word both which defines it and by which it is defined.) At the heart of every way in which this word can be used is the idea of separation. In the most unambiguous example, “alienation” can signify the act of transferring some property from one party to another. This is to say that the object in question is “alienated” insomuch as it is separated from the original condition of ownership and ceases to be “alienated,” at least as far as the second party is concerned, when it is unified in the new condition of ownership. From this, it becomes clear that to talk about “alienation,” and thus separation, implies talking about unification (or reunification) as well. So here is the most basic measurement defining the experience in reflection, the very length and breadth of the desert itself—and perhaps also the means by which I can survive it.

And now to pause at length to study upon the reflective experience of desert and in so doing also upon the word “desert.” What sort of experience is this place and word? What has it to do with the word-experience “alienation”? Again, it is best to start least ambiguously. The trait that all places called deserts share is that they receive less than ten inches of precipitation annually. Like “alienation” with regard to separation and unification, “desert” is defined by a negative quality (aridity) that highlights the importance of a positive quality (humidity implying fertility). It therefore seems that rain primarily, and the lack of rain incidentally, is the conceptual key that will unlock the word-experience “desert.” The lack of fertility, being a lack of (pro)creativity, is definitive of the desert. This seems to make further sense in terms of “desert” pronounced differently and used as a verb. To desert means to abandon, implying another absence of some positive condition, like remaining or preserving—or perhaps saving. Given all of this, is not the desert static? Is the experience of desert not stark, absolute aloneness?

One question at a time; I must have patience: The desert is not static either as an ecosystem or as a metaphor for experience. Ecosystems aside, the prime examples (for my purposes) of experiential fertility (=dynamism) are found in the Scriptures. After being baptized in the Jordan by John, the Savior “was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.” That is Mathew, but Mark and Luke say much the same. Several points merit special attention here: To begin with, Jesus goes into the desert after being ritually cleansed—that is, transformed—through baptism with water. Next, He does not walk into the desert arbitrarily, but is led there (driven there, according to Mark) by a manifestation of the Divine, the Spirit. Finally, He is led there for the particular purpose of being tempted, one might say assaulted, by the enemy. Given the example of Our Lord, then, I can expect this much upon entering into the desert: I have arrived here at the edge of the desert because I have already been in some way transformed, I walk into it of my own free will but at the behest of a more profound call, and taken together these things indicate my readiness for a dangerous confrontation.

So much, then, for a static desert—it is instead the epitome of dynamism.

All of this can be found long before the Nazarene walked to the banks of the Jordan. The Israelites wandered on Sinai for the forty years evoked by Jesus’ forty days just as Jesus Himself is the evocation of Israel triumphant at last. The Israelites left Egypt of their own free will, yes, but they were led by Moses the Prophet—and this occurred (and only could occur) after they were transformed by Moses the Liberator from slaves to free people, separated from the unclean by the lamb’s blood on their doors as Jesus was by the baptism of John. And yet they could not fully be a people until they achieved their homeland, not a home in the sense that they were returning to it but in the sense that it had been promised them of God and that the hope of its fulfillment was what kept them, more or less, a people through all hardships. Even after overcoming their slavery in Egypt, the Israelites wandered forty years not yet a people so much as a pre-people. Homeless in the desert, their home lay in the future and so in Moses and the Law. The path that stretched out before the Israelites, and before Him generations upon generations later, was the desert. It is true that each of them went alone, Jesus as one man (and One God) into the wilderness and Israel—though numbering six hundred thousand—as one pre-people, one premature super-individual. Yet it is also true that both received supplication from the Father.

. . . good then, let me put away the Scriptures for now. They are so heavy all of the sudden and I must not admit to exhaustion until I have gotten to the bottom of this lesson and taught it to myself thoroughly . . .

I cannot therefore understand my loneliness in the desert as a separation from God (nor less God abandoning me, which is totally absurd) and so it cannot be stark and absolute. But it is stark and absolute insomuch as it is a separateness from others who are like me (because I will be unlike them) and, most especially, from myself (who I will be no longer and, somehow, already have ceased to be). The desert is thus an exile, freely accepted in the way that one freely accepts growing taller and eventually gray-haired. Yet exile is properly associated with the loss of home, but here it has no such connotation unless I have made a serious mistake—a mistake most serious and yet too obvious to evade my current preoccupations.

No, I am not speaking of exile from home because there is presently no such thing as home. I know it, I knew it before I could tolerate it; “we have here no lasting city.” (Ah, those Sacred Words again—but it is hard to put away the very breath in my lungs!) This is an exile from the self as it was formerly content to exist, if indeed “exist” is not too much of a compliment: an individual consciousness peering fretfully into a tarnished mirror, directing it now at Nature and now again at the nature that supposedly transcended Nature—disgusting lie, you are filth in my mouth! I spit you out, I vomit you up, you will die in the desert, you awful wretch! Get behind me! I tell you, this is an exile of no return, and a death, a death so that I may truly live. Such are my fearful ravings . . . At the edge of the desert I lift the spotty, foully deceptive mirror high above my head to dash it upon my own brow, like Moses hurling the tablets of the Law into the disgusting mob of idolaters, only to find my arms flailing uselessly. There is not now nor was there ever anything in my hands. The desert, the desert, the desert . . . my mind—no, not my mind, but I myself as a potentially total being, look to the desert. But where is the desert in a land of rain?

God is great. The whole world is a desert that He graces with rain in accord with His promise that we meek creatures shall inherit the whole of creation. We have but to mourn, which we can hardly avoid, and He will comfort us. We have but to hunger and thirst, to do only what we cannot help but do, and He will fill us. We have but to be righteous, and we will see His face. Where is the desert at whose edge I stand? Am I ready to stride into the wastes? Will I starve amid fasting and will the wild beasts come to tear me limb from limb? In other words, am I even ready to see the desert? Yes? Yes. Here, then, stretching out not before me but all around me for thousands upon thousands of miles . . . already in it, already dizzy from thirst and dazzled by the sun, already disposed and very nearly willing to collapse into the dust. For there is only dust thinly covering pale, cracked earth.

Gwar! wrote:

My View on Christianity, and religion as a whole.

dogma wrote:I also find it amusing that you would besmirch a large group of people for believing in God while simultaneously spending a great deal of your time debating the rules of a childish pastime on the internet. So much so that you feel the need to display your e-peen in your sig.

Gwar! wrote:Of course, you can think whatever you want to think, just as I can think whatever I want to think.

rubiksnoob wrote:how long has this thread been going?

reds8n wrote:Rough straw poll : who here is baptised/christened/etc then ?

Gwar! wrote:Of course, you can think whatever you want to think, just as I can think whatever I want to think.

sebster wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Of course, you can think whatever you want to think, just as I can think whatever I want to think.

That is true. It can't be anything but because no-one can ever stop you thinking what you want to think. But that doesn't mean all thoughts are equally valid.

Now, anyone can have any personal belief about God, and I don't see any merit in criticising that belief. If someone says they personally believe Jesus was the son of God, or that Mohamed was the final and greatest prophet, or that there is no God that's all equally cool, all interesting and all part of life's rich pageant. But that isn't what you're saying, because your opinion isn't just about your own belief, it's about the legitimacy of other people's. And once you make that leap to criticising other's, damn straight they can and should start on yours.

sebster wrote: But that isn't what you're saying, because your opinion isn't just about your own belief, it's about the legitimacy of other people's. Much as a Christian is free to believe until he says 'I have the only truth and the rest of you are going to hell', an atheist is free to believe without attracting criticism until he says 'and you're all foolish for believing in God'.

Gwar! wrote:They can criticise my Logical, rational observations all they want. Just as I can Criticize their belief in a Cosmic Jewish Zombie, Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever it is they believe.

Why should they be able to go around preaching that I'm going to "hell" if I don't accept said Cosmic Jewish zombie as my Master, but I can't retort by saying it is a load of crap?

And as a very Friend of mine once said: "When was the last time you saw an Atheist fly a Plane into a Building in the name of Richard Dawkins?"

Manchu wrote:Actually, all categorical belief statements are a simultaneous affirmation and negation. When Gwar! says something like "God does not exist," he is saying not only that God does not exist but also that the belief that God does exist is false. Similarly, when I say "God does exist" I am also saying that the belief that God does not exist is false. Both positions carry an inherent criticism of the opposing viewpoint. If holding either position is itself legitimate then it follows that criticizing its opposite must also be legitimate.

sebster wrote:When was the last time you saw an atheist soup kitchen?

sebster wrote:I get what you're saying but context and delivery matters. There is a massive difference between 'I don't believe in God' and 'I don't believe in God, you're silly for believing in God and here's a picture that makes fun of your belief'.

Gwar! wrote:All views are equal, insofar as they may both be stated. Doesn't mean I can't say yours is a Bunch of crap.

sebster wrote:

halonachos wrote:Hey guys, it was a freakin joke. It doesn't need to be correct, it just needs to grasp at the top of the matter, not dig into the meat of it.

It's about as funny as saying WWII was just another war about oil. It isn't funny because it isn't true.

Relapse wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Relapse wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you look at it this way, most religions believe that if you don't believe in that same religion you are going to hell. Seeing as though no one can be more than 1 religion at a time, everyone is going to hell.

I've been taught that God is a loving father that will not cast his children off if they didn't have a chance to learn about him or just because they belong to another religion. He doesn't have us to play shell games over religion with a burning eternal Hell the punishment for a wrong guess.

Christianity is generally not inclusive, along with Islam and Judaism. Seems you're different, and I'm glad to hear it.

Thank you, it's pretty much what everyone in my religion is taught and believes.

reds8n wrote:

Rough straw poll : who here is baptised/christened/etc then ?

Gwar! wrote:

sebster wrote:When was the last time you saw an atheist soup kitchen?

So feeding a few Crack Addicts 2¢ Soup makes up for Years of Scientific, Social and Moral Repression?

All views are equal, insofar as they may both be stated. Doesn't mean I can't say yours is a Bunch of crap.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

sebster wrote:When was the last time you saw an atheist soup kitchen?

So feeding a few Crack Addicts 2¢ Soup makes up for Years of Scientific, Social and Moral Repression?

All views are equal, insofar as they may both be stated. Doesn't mean I can't say yours is a Bunch of crap.

I think that this thread has the potential to be really good discussion on religion and peoples' personal philosophies. Let's not tank this thread by making comments like this.

rubiksnoob wrote:No, actually I am atheist as well but I am not telling people that their beliefs are a load of crap. Instead you could ask them why they believe what they believe, debate in a civil manner, presenting your argument and allowing them to present theirs.

Gwar! wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:No, actually I am atheist as well but I am not telling people that their beliefs are a load of crap. Instead you could ask them why they believe what they believe, debate in a civil manner, presenting your argument and allowing them to present theirs.

That generally works until they lambaste me about burning in hell if I don't believe, at which point it is no holds bared.

rubiksnoob wrote:Please quote whoever in this thread told you that you would burn in hell if you didn't believe. From what I've seen all you did was throw out a picture that called their messiah a cosmic jewish zombie.

generalgrog wrote:I.E. your an internet tough guy. I don't believe you would say the kind of things in person that you do on these forums. And if you actually did then you are a fanatical athiest who is no better than the people you rail against.

Gwar! wrote:So feeding a few Crack Addicts 2¢ Soup makes up for Years of Scientific, Social and Moral Repression?

All views are equal, insofar as they may both be stated. Doesn't mean I can't say yours is a Bunch of crap.

Manchu wrote:You're right, going out of one's way to offend people isn't helpful for any purpose. But why not give Gwar! the benefit of the doubt. This is the internet, after all. You can't be but so offended.

sebster wrote:A view which is more informed and more considered is more important that a poorly informed one.

sebster wrote:He came into a perfectly sedate thread with an image that made Christianity out to be as ridiculous as possible. I'm happy to give him the benefit of any doubt, but I can't see any doubt about his intention.

rubiksnoob wrote:Alright now that it seems that we have avoided a flame war the thread can get back on track.

halonachos wrote:APRIL 1941

North Africa - Germans entered Benghazi on the 4th and by mid-month had surrounded Tobruk and reached the Egyptian border. Attacks on the British and Australian troops defending Tobruk were unsuccessful, and an eight-month siege began. This took place as the Germans invaded Yugoslavia and Greece, and a pro-German coup in Iraq threatened Allied oil supplies.

Again Oil and Iraq.