Messages

[the american empire is crumbling, almost before it's even got started]

It strikes me as amusing that it was christianity which, even if it couldn't take all the credit, certainly played a huge part in overseeing the demise of the roman empire and now, as the american empire is crumbling, almost before it's even got started, we see the cult of jehovas bastard zombie, rearing it's retarded head again.

Nah, I think it's just that empires don't last as long as they used to, just like wars don't last as long as they used to, seeing as though it is easier to kill people and help the prols rise up.

Why exactly did Al Gore invent the internets?  Hm... he must be up to something! (I'm sorry! I just don't trust a guy with a multi-million dollar slide show!!!)

Any conclusion, seems to me (based on my current experiences), to require faith.

Evolution as a process appears to be a very useful model and we have very interesting fossils and experiments which, when stuck in this model, seem to fit. We also have some things that don't fit (like the platypus). Evolution, in the world of science, appears to be the best scientific model for describing how species change over time.

However, to say EVOLUTION IS TRUE, or Evolution IS how we got here, or Evolution IS proven, requires Faith. It requires faith that the scientists doing the work aren't confused about some fundamental issue. It requires faith that they are correctly interpreting the fossils, experiments and findings. It requires faith that a neurological system designed or evolved for survival on this particular planet, is capable of correctly connecting the dots .. or even correctly perceiving the dots to begin with. It requires FAITH to presume that our five senses are enough to figure out the cosmos.

I often find that when I talk to the people who are actually doing the field work, they have a much less sure view than the professors and students who read textbooks on the subject. In my mind, this seems to fit with the idea that the professors and students may use faith, whereas the person actually doing the work, may be less focused on faith and more focused on exploring the possibility and seeing how some found data might fit the model.

This reminds me of people like "What the bleep do we know?" or people that read RAW and come away thinking that reality doesn't exist unless you're observing it. They have faith in a model, rather than seeing the model as a model. It MAY BE that the Copenhagen interpretation has some relation to reality, but to BELIEVE that such a relation IS TRUE, seems to require faith.

Now, on the flip side, if I were gonna put faith in something, I think rocks and fossils and double-slit experiments are probably less idiotic than the modern interpretations of the ramblings of 40 some odd Jewish guys from 2000+ years ago.

I see no reason to believe either as true. Only to see them as useful or not useful. Christianity, I have not found to be very useful at all. The concept of evolution seems to be somewhat useful, depending on what you do for a living. As for the average person, neither model is of much use, since they probably don't grok either model fully and overall this leads to confusion and a smell of fried onions.

(forgive me if the mittens didn't work lol I'm still new!)

Don't bother, Vene.  They're not talking about scientists.  Or science, even.

But, I like talking about science.  It's one of the few things I know well.

Me too, but all you'll get from them are examples of monkeys trying to use science to prove their dogma.  It can get frustrating.

I was talking about people that make conclusions. Not people that say "Here's the best model I've found thusfar", but the people that say "THIS IS TRUE!!!" Some scientists may fall in that area, but as I stated this seems most common among professors, students and philosophy majors... not biologists and anthropologists.

That is, I was talking about the OP, not science in general.

Well, I hate to disappoint, but now I believe in evolution in its totality (more or less).  It's kinda hard for me to argue with a real biologist (kinda like the Karate Kid taking on Jackie Chan..), but I do want to say, I am the kind of person who (generally) accepts a new theory when it comes along IF it is "better" (more precise and useful).  Thx for all the input, guys. 

Please note that Darwin does not seek to disprove God's existence, and please note that Evolution says nothing about God.

Evolution may run counter to some creation stories, but that usually happens when science runs into religion.

The fact that some militant atheists use evolution stems from the initial attack by Dogmatic Xtians against Evolution.


So, I repeat: SCIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OR NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Ty LMNO.  You agree with the original post in its entirety (the PEOPLE who "believe" in their truth are wrong; the science/faith are ideas more than absolute reality).  Maybe I should put special punctuation in the OP so that people who do understand these things also understand I'm saying the same thing.  My bad! (but now I know.. and "knowing is half the battle."  ughhhhhh)

Listen up skippy!  And listen to me good!

You probably saw the same thing I saw driving into work today.  Yep, the gas price has inched down a nickel or so in the past few days.  It might go down a little more over the coming days and weeks, but it's sure to still be a hefty sum to fill up even your little VW Golf.

And now I'm pissed! 

"Huh?  What?  Why?"

Because I know there are some of you idiots out there who at least thought, if not voiced, the following. 

"Cool.  It's going down!  Things are going to get better."

This is exactly what THEY want you to think.  They are banking on this little scrap they are throwing to you, to put you back into the same fucking complacency that got us here in the first place.  The sad truth is that we ARE getting sodomized by the energy companies.  Big Oil laughs because they know that they ARE Big Oil.  It becomes so cliche that they become insulated from any actual action.  Because it becomes instutionalized and accepted that, "Well, that's just the way it is."  FUCK THAT NOISE!!!  YOU NEED TO GET OFF YOUR FAT ASS AND GET MAD!!!!

How can you be happy with $4.00/gal?  How can you be happy with $3.80/gal?  How can you be happy with $3.00/gal?  But it's not just the Big Oil goons.  They are just the dog-and-pony smokescreen show to keep your attention away from these fucking pinhead speculators who sit behind their computers and hedge bets on the future supplies and create scarcity that doesn't even exist yet.  I mean HOLY HELL.  How can we trust anyone who's occupation is called Speculation?  That's like trusting a surgeon who has a "Hunt and Peck" approach.  There is absolutely squat keeping these impotent pinheads in check.  And Congress, your so-called Representatives, and the President are perfectly content with this scenario.  They won't do jack shit because you sit there, idling in the 5:00 rush hour traffic jam, and you take it. 

"Gosh darn the gas prices are high." 

That gets nothing accomplished.  But it gets worse when you are pleased when it inches down as it is now. 

Now, I've got a thing or two to say to you blind-bat bastards who are mad, but wanting to make the problem even worse.  Your President has just suggested we start drilling off-shore again.  Also, your fucktard President's ultimate goal of creating an Oil Colony in Iraq has come to fruition.  BP, Shell, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron are now getting access to the Iraq Oil Fields.  You idiots talk a great game about decreasing dependency on foreign oil, so it seems your solution is to just take the foreign oil, slap an american flag on it, and voila, it isn't foreign anymore.  God Forbid we actually put some real effort into getting off this dead-end energy source that is fossil fuel and get onto the next thing.  I mean, do you get a heroin junkie off of heroin by giving him MORE HEROIN???!!!!??? 

It's time for people to grow some stones and some brains.  Perspectives are completely fucked in this country right now.  We get mad about some guy's whacky goofball pastor, but we don't bat an eye at our government bending us over and calling us Sally as it reams us in the ass while rifling through our walletts. 

"Here, take my money please!  Here, take my livelihood, please!  But please don't let the smudgy guy in." 

WISE UP IDIOTS!!!  You government is going to go along with what has been, at best, sub-par governance, or at worse, sheer indifferent regression, until YOU get mad about it.  Not upset, not mildly irritated, not concerned, but MAD, MAD, MAD!!!!  America used to be good at getting mad and telling the oppressive Government to get bent.  Well, now we've got THIS George fucking shit up, or looking the other way as others fuck it up.  It's time to tell him, and those that are tacitly or willingly going along with this oil/gasoline shell game to get bent and suck on a tailpipe. 

Otherwise, we're ALL going to be running on fumes. 

Niiiice.  I like this one a lot.  I've been saying the same thing for hours now. 
What ever happened to all those Anti-Trust Laws everyone brags about huh? HUH? *loads shotgun*

It is not objectively inferior, but it is ideologically opposed to Western culture. I happen to believe in Western Culture and would like to see it survive, not have to make ridiculous compromises on its principles to suit the whims of pockets of immigrants who find the existing culture and political systems of the West offensive to their backward religious sensibilities.

As for assimilation, I'm not saying "erase Islam," I'm saying reintroduce the progressive nature of Islam to the masses of the Islamic world -- make it shine again as a center for science and philosophy like it was prior to the Crusades. And we'd do it by ceasing our constant military and economic attempts to keep the entire demographic under the thumb of the West, and allowing a relationship of trust to be planted.

Ok.

Easier method for editorials:
"Now, take a moment to assimilate the implications here. It sounds extreme to say that Western Culture is flat-out incompatible with Middle-Eastern culture. It sounds terrible, even racist. But think about what is going on, and what the arguments are. If you say "Islamic Culture," you sound like an extremist. But how compatible, for example, is the US Constitution with Sharia Law? And it is that Sharia Law that defines millions of the people in question. It is not an incompatibility because they are inherently inferior or because they are different, but because they subscribe to a mass ideology which is itself constructed of assumptions and beliefs which directly counter the assumptions and beliefs that comprise the overall ideology of Western civilization."

"Islamic Culture" is only a racist phrase when you use it in racist ways.  2 contradictory belief systems does not imply superiority of one over the other (can you say Christianity is always better than Satanism?  Or vice versa?).

"Some sources claim that by 2050, France will be a predominantly Muslim country, and other EU nations are on the same track. And there is, as I understand it, already a history of struggle between Muslim immigrants and their adoptive countries that seems to foreshadow a situation that when that political tipping point is reached in France, France will not only be a Muslim nation but a fairly traditional Muslim country, possibly complete with Sharia Law. I know that's a "worst-case scenario," but the possibility exists -- and even calling it a worst-case is to my mind an implicit acknowledgment that France and other nations need to do something to stop it from happening."
There is a power struggle going on between 2 competing ideologies: neoconservatism and  Qutb's ideology.  How will France become Muslim, however?

"My own conjecture on the topic tells me that this line of thinking, that the West and its ideologies face a cultural impasse with the Middle East and its ideologies, should bring to our attention a few prospects.



First, the prospect of Total Cultural War. As unappetizing as this is, it's fair at this point to say that a cultural impasse, if it really exists, could lead to such a war. As high as our opinions of ourselves may be, there is a very real possibility that the rosy future painted by well-meaning Science Fiction is simply untenable and unrealistic. Human history has shown more times than anyone can count that when two peoples who cannot stand one another are forced to share resources or space, there is a war. And if it comes to that with the current situation, it will be a very big war."

What is culture war?  How is it not already happening?  Japanese video games are one example.  You can think of many others, I'm sure.

"We are not talking about an aggressive military power with specific military aims. We are not even talking about a conscious movement of people with intentional collective goals. We are talking about a cultural border that is growing and becoming more complex -- but hardly ever blurring -- at an exponential rate. If you accept that Western society is inherently and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic society, and you add to that the fact that because of natural resources and technology and international politics these people are destined to be face-to-face with each other on a regular basis, then you could come to the conclusion that something here is not going to end well.


This brings us to the next prospect we should consider -- the complete erasure of the Enlightenment. In the West, societies are defined and governed (by varying degrees) by the rule of law and liberal democracy. These are ideas for which many thousands of Westerners have fought and died for -- even if that is an overused cliche', it is still in many respects true."
Whuaaaa?  Erasure of the Enlightenment?  How? When? Who? What? Where? Why? 

"The political ramifications of the Enlightenment are felt throughout the West. But the great strides we have taken to open our societies to self-government, to welcoming immigrants, a decent respect for other people on their own merits regardless of whether or not they agree with us on everything; these are at the heart of who and what the West believes itself to be. But these are also the very things that have opened the West to the prospect of being consumed by an incompatible culture."

West will not be consumed by Muslims anytime soon.  They have no WMDs (except the ones we gave them. and except Pakistan).

"If we believe in these ideals, then we must fight to protect them. We must fight for the individual dignity and rights of every single person. We must fight to preserve our open societies and mutual respect, to prolong the rule of law, and to maintain oversight of our governments by the People. But when presented with a cultural "enemy" (note - I only use that term to define the situation, not to define Muslims in general) that can and will use the prized open self-government systems of the West to undermine the West as a whole, how does the West fight back?"

With Mickey Mouse!

"How can the West stop its own political infrastructure from allowing what it was designed in the first place to allow? How can we fight to protect our values and our way of life, without declaring them superior to something in order to exclude what some call a poisonous influence? How can we keep from devouring and discarding the rights of all people in pursuit of an enemy that uses those rights against the society that enforces them?"

The West only faces miniscule threats.  Therefore, a collapse of the "political infrastructure" (read: real infrastructure through terror attacks, I'm guessing) is virtually impossible.  The real issue is that isolated incidents (9/11 was an isolated incident.  How many successful airplane hijacks have their been compared to failed ones?)  being exploited for political/economic gain.  And that's where your threat to our infrastructure comes from.  Not terrorists or communists or even drunken perversion. 

"Finally, the prospect of Westernizing the Islamic World. This is, I think, the one glimmer of hope in this whole situation. And it is here where I can actually see the value in (some of the) policies and actions taken by the Bush White House. If we live in a world where a clash of civilizations threatens the very definition of the West, and we want to maintain that definition at all, then there is only one choice: Westernizing the Islamic world."

I'm gonna screw up this line but here goes: "Why does George Bush love Mickey Mouse?" -"3 Kings"

"To do that, you have to keep the political game in stalemate while cultural forces work to undermine and transform a culture of deep repression into one that is at the very least respectful of different points of view. The line parroted by many "Liberals" is that "American Values aren't for everyone." That is true, but neither are Islamic values. And while Islamic nations are not officially pursuing a policy of exporting and enforcing those values around the world, their influence is spreading on auto-pilot. And this influence threatens the stability of the West."

See: The similarities between Islamic Law (Qutb) and Neoconservatism (Strauss).  Good for a read or two.

"The civilized response to every confrontation is diplomacy and compromise. Between two nations, this can happen "at a governmental and political level. But between two cultures, governments are essentially powerless. The diplomacy and compromise here must take place on a purely cultural level.

I strongly disagree with the military actions taken by the President, but I can see the value in what he says the West is facing, even if he chooses to use drastically oversimplified terms and bad analogies, and follow through on what he says with badly-planned operations that result in the loss of life on a nearly astronomical scale. The mistake of the Bush White House, in my opinion, has not been its overall view of global events but a lack of depth in its understanding of those events and the conditions that motivate those events that has lead to terrible foreign and military policy.

I identify myself most often as a "liberal," one who sees and appreciates the value of Enlightenment ideals taken to logical and reasonable conclusions. But I am also convinced that the West faces a serious test of its ability to stand by those ideals in the coming decades."

You know, there is truth in everything.  But this is only Bush's truth.  Don't forget the people living there (and fighting for the US).

Still, the pace of globalization is picking up speed. People all over the world are transcending traditional geographic barriers now like never before. In many places, particularly Europe, there is simply no escaping the fact that there are other cultures in the world, and that sometimes these cultures are simply incompatible with yours.

Yes, but assimilating them is morally wrong because you assume their culture is inferior (why is it inferior?)

To be sure, many Western ideals are alien to Islamic culture. Self-government, individual sovereignty, gender equality, sexual and religious freedom, freedom of speech, human dignity, and civil liberties are at the very root of what defines many Western societies. In the USA, and probably other places, these ideals are so ingrained that people tend to assume they are universally heralded priorities for any modern human society to exist at all. The concept of a society that doesn't recognize these important rights and privileges is so alien to many Westerners that we will naturally assume any such society to be historically backward. Likewise, these things are so intolerable for traditional Islamic cultures that many Muslims bear a deep mistrust and even outright aggression toward the West -- even when they live here.

The first sentence is true "iff" (if and only if) there is no assumption that Islamic culture is static.  It was progressive when it first appeared, and its stagnation is more due to economics (and WWI) than anything else.  Muslim immigrants mistrust the US because we always fight them (here and in their homeland).  They like our values (generally).  "Islamofascists" (the word has been abused - it used to mean Qatyr's clique of Muslim Elitists and their governments) hate America because it is a moral vacuum (Qatry blamed liberalism on it; much like neoconservatives).

I don't know exactly what happened, or why, but once upon a time very recently I was absolutely convinced that life on earth was the result of extraterrestrial interference.

Maybe that was just one of my weird dreams, though.

You might still be right.  Nobody knows for sure.

Al Gore has more political than civilization saving motivations when it comes to climate change.  The league of consenting scientists are forgetting that "consensus" is a bad word for them.
They need evidence for their theories.  If another one comes along that is more useful, then they will generally adopt it.

Creationism vs. Darwinism.  They're both too into their own philosophy and fail to see that they too might be wrong.

LMNO if you read his other post Booty is obviously here to teach us the evils of science (I should probably find a way to put this nicer cause he's obviously not being a prick about it)

originally i though he actually considered what you mentioned and using the word science in irony in which case the pics work and actually has something to say about marketing and hijacking of research, and more importantly the drugging up of our society, (which I think are all legitimate) but unfortunatly now im not too sure if that was his motives

I know Booty IRL, and I think he's referring to the perversion of science by capitalism, not necessarily the ev0ls of science itself.

OK
thats what i orginally thought then I wasn't 100 percent sure, the i was less sure
then i cried

sorry to doubt you booty

i think some of the confusion may come from the title

No worries.  I do have to clarify my stance on Tom Cruise, though.  I left out some much-needed quotation marks around "likable."  So here it is in picture form (yet again):

I apologize once more for the confusion.
Netaungrot is absolutely right in his position regarding my thoughts.  I have no problems with science itself - just some of the people who use it (much like they use religion)!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
Explanation/evidence of my claim (on the missing links).
Let me clarify for a second: a lot of the components of Evolution are absolutely "true" (in a scientific sense).  We have ample evidence for them (drug resistant bacteria being one example).  However, the totality of evolution has never been demonstrated to be "true."  My guess is that it never will be - seeing as how it is (to me anyway) against common sense (species changing at constant rates despite environmental changes?), and, therefore, is less likely to be valid.

I remember hearing on BBC from some brit scientist that the cause of the ice age was a 2 degree increase in temperature... so that .6 degrees is suddenly quite a bit.

True.  The larger picture (taken from the web site) is that we are in the next cycle of warming (the previous one being in the Middle Ages).  Between those periods, there was the "little ice age."