View Full Version : Is the human race completely insane?
Looking at the past as I sat having a solitary Hogmany, it seems to me that the human slide into destructive decadence has accelerated beyond belief. This observation draws me to the conclusion that the whole human race could be sectioned as being completely insane. We destroy the future as we bicker and argue over our beliefs and we fight to ensure that we continue to live the life of Riley at the expense of our children and our grandchildren. Can we learn from the past or do we ignore the demands of the future so that we can support a present of hedonistic plenty?.
Ill second that.........yep humanity is off its head, weve lost the plot!
sassylass
02-Jan-06, 19:28
It seems to me that The Powers That Be are the ones who have lost the plot. The Little Person who tries to recycle, or economize, or have good morals does not make a dent against the big guys. It's disheartening but all we can do is continue to resist their influence.
i agree that as a whole we are nutters *G* but we do have idealist values but seem to have a problem living up to them!
Chobbersjnr
02-Jan-06, 20:19
I was at the hogmanay street party &...............................
there was a lot of people approx. 2500ish gathered in Thurso town square & ....................SURPRISINGLY.................. .......there was no obvious insanity:confused: .............although it would seem that the human race is dissappearing up it's own a bit much for it's own good, going round & round in circles
Tony Blair 2 Bush...............how do you know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction???
landmarker
02-Jan-06, 21:24
I agree with sassylass. Almost all of our ills can be laid at the doors of our so called leaders. What an example they set. They have also fiddled while the UK burns, in terms of general drunken lawlessness in big cities and towns come the weekend. Binge drinking has been encouraged . Respect for others, and their property has been allowed to slide down the scale of essential personal qualities. The youth - and younger - have been sexualised by a greedy and manipulative mass media and fashion industry. They have spawned a celebrity obsessed culture where reality televison sinks to ever deeper
depths of inanity.
The future of the planet seems only a minor concern in the face of short termism and political expediency.
A government gets us into a needless , illegal war, then gets itself re-elected handsomely, probably because it has helped keep interest rates low. This is about as bad as it gets.
Beam me up Scottie
We continually complain about the stupidity and duplicity of our leaders and other people in power. We, human beings, elect other human beings into power and then blame them for all our ills. What a cowardly cop-out!! They are as lost and confused as the rest of us. We must all shoulder the blame for all that is wrong with our reality and strive to maintain our individual efforts to reverse the slide into chaos and anarchy.
The youth of today are brought up in a world that is designed to drive any sentient being crazy. They have been brought up in a disposable karaoke reality designed by the money men of the popular media. We are reaping the crop from the seeds of those of us who were big movers in the sixties and seventies and these young people cannot be blamed for the mess that we allowed to be created.
When we...
train soldiers to kill but we ban them from training hazardously
Celebrate because we live in a democracy but only the minority vote
bring our kids up in a hygienic environment but know that germ exposure is essential for their immune system
speak out about the Environment but never walk anywhere
invade other countries that have never threatened us
buy oil from those that sponsor terrorism
slow down for a school crossing but overtake the school bus at terrible speeds
claim to be not racist but say ' I am not being racist but...'
do our shopping at the supermarket but claim to support local jobs
claim to love animals but eat their flesh
speak out about drug abuse but turn a blind eye to alcoholism
applaud the bomb droppers but condemn the bomb planters
then yes, I agree we are going insane
Humans need guidance. We are ill-equipped to guide our own steps. History has proved it time and time again.
Its encouraging to see the replies to this thread. Elsewhere it seems the apathy is growing.
Rheghead you could add to your list of diagnostic signs of mass insanity from here until the Tories come back to power and you still wouldn't exhaust the store. We are not going insane, we are insane.
Savey, there is no-one to guide us. We are on our own. I hope this statement doesn't rile the religious as that is one subject that is not worth the wasted words.
By the way Chobbersjnr. What reply did Bush give Blair?
Chobbersjnr
02-Jan-06, 22:50
"well Tony, we kept the receipts"
<snip>
Savey, there is no-one to guide us. We are on our own. <snip>
If we are truly are on our own then we still need to set standards/laws/guidelines for dealing with the issues that have been mentioned. Thus guidance for us and future generations. We need standards, morals, clear boundarys. Or else we have anarchy.
However I don't believe we are on our own. (This is starting to sound like a scene from "Signs") But like you say, not worth wasting time debating that subject.
Do you feel the Tories will be a better option than Labour at the next election?
If we are truly are on our own then we still need to set standards/laws/guidelines for dealing with the issues that have been mentioned. Thus guidance for us and future generations. We need standards, morals, clear boundarys. Or else we have anarchy.
However I don't believe we are on our own. (This is starting to sound like a scene from "Signs") But like you say, not worth wasting time debating that subject.
Do you feel the Tories will be a better option than Labour at the next election?
We are close to worldwide anarchy right now and we only elect those who agree with us so who is going to set the needed standards etc? If we are not on our own then there must be other insane powers about who do not know any better than the rest of us if our present chaos is anything to go by.
Labour, Tories, sheep, dogs~what difference will it make?
weeboyagee
02-Jan-06, 23:46
OK you guys, nothing like a heavyweight topic to kick off 2006, eh? So far I see all the symptoms of the sickness of the human race and the ensuing insanity. What's the answer(s)? Such a huge open question that started off the forum. Where are the answers to the resolve and the mending of the human race and the sicknesses listed?
Is progression (the start of each of your sentences) actually regression (the kick at the end of each of the sentences) Rheghead? Gleber2, before I even got to your second post on this I thought "hmmm, the religious will offer up God as the answer", and you wouldn't be surprised if they did.
It will easily be said that the human race and it's products for the non-religious minded will be it's own destruction or it's own deliverance unless according to the religious minded there is a divine answer. Democracies vote in leaders to take charge of them and love the party razzmatazz of doing so, the masses promote then the masses vote, are the masses therefore victims of their own actions?
No matter where the policies of countries lie in the scope of the ever expanding political spectrum the human race will be governed by those who are in rule. However, the world seems to be increasingly resolving (in an increasingly sickening way) to capitalism. It has it's benefits but as Rhgegers has already said, it has it's hypocricies.
Any way you look at the human race and it's gearing it all comes back to "choice" (or the lack thereof) available to the individual human being.
Who has the correct ideal that should be followed? There are so many promoting what they think is the answer, there are so many dictating what they will have as an answer, there are so many who would have but cannot determine the asnwer. This is a philosophical minefield. The opening post will encourage a lot of contributions with variations on a similar theme "the human race has gone or is going insane" - but it will be a heck of a lot harder to determine what will be it's saving grace if there is one. The first thing that will have to be understood is what is the ultimate understanding of "insanity" when applied to this thread???
Now,.....all pile in with your answers......
WBG :cool:
Steely Eyed Tortoise
03-Jan-06, 00:17
I Have also thought Insanity to Mean ..
"Repeating the same Action but expecting a different result"
OK you guys, nothing like a heavyweight topic to kick off 2006, eh? So far I see all the symptoms of the sickness of the human race and the ensuing insanity. What's the answer(s)? Such a huge open question that started off the forum. Where are the answers to the resolve and the mending of the human race and the sicknesses listed?
Is progression (the start of each of your sentences) actually regression (the kick at the end of each of the sentences) Rheghead? Gleber2, before I even got to your second post on this I thought "hmmm, the religious will offer up God as the answer", and you wouldn't be surprised if they did.
It will easily be said that the human race and it's products for the non-religious minded will be it's own destruction or it's own deliverance unless according to the religious minded there is a divine answer. Democracies vote in leaders to take charge of them and love the party razzmatazz of doing so, the masses promote then the masses vote, are the masses therefore victims of their own actions?
No matter where the policies of countries lie in the scope of the ever expanding political spectrum the human race will be governed by those who are in rule. However, the world seems to be increasingly resolving (in an increasingly sickening way) to capitalism. It has it's benefits but as Rhgegers has already said, it has it's hypocricies.
Any way you look at the human race and it's gearing it all comes back to "choice" (or the lack thereof) available to the individual human being.
Who has the correct ideal that should be followed? There are so many promoting what they think is the answer, there are so many dictating what they will have as an answer, there are so many who would have but cannot determine the asnwer. This is a philosophical minefield. The opening post will encourage a lot of contributions with variations on a similar theme "the human race has gone or is going insane" - but it will be a heck of a lot harder to determine what will be it's saving grace if there is one. The first thing that will have to be understood is what is the ultimate understanding of "insanity" when applied to this thread???
Now,.....all pile in with your answers......
WBG :cool:
Well WBG, the first step in curing any problem is firstly to admit that it exists.
Any creature that randomly destoys its home with no consideration for the future could be considered crazy if not insane. Whatever words are used to tell the tale, the meaning remains manifestly obvious. If God is being offered as an answer then I would have to ask him what the heck is he up to?
To find the relevant answers we, as a race, will have to set aside our differences and realise that we are all individually responsible for our own kharma and we must set ourselves on a road that will lead to a change in our fundamental attitudes to virtually everything. We are the problem but can we become the solution? I'm afraid that all the philosophies in the world,past and present,are not going to mean much to the starving child in Niger!!:confused: I am certainly not offering any universal panacea to cure our ills. And yes,WBG,we always get what we deserve.
Well to lighten things I think I must be going insane as I was intending moving from Invergordon to Caithness but judging from the battering(written) and inquisition I have got tonight for airing an opinion I may have to rethink!!lol
Hows it going Gleber2? Welcome to caithness.org.
As you may imagine I have a different take on the prospects of the human race. Sure, we are a crazy bunch on the surface but my hope lies with whats below the surface.
I agree with you when you say we are all responsible for the world we live in, but, and its a big but, not everybody knows that like you know it.
We are an ever evolving species and evolutionary differences are not easy to spot in the course of our lives mainly because of the subtle processes and the time involved from one evolutionary event to the next. But evolving we are. Its no longer compulsory to tip wur hats to the toffs. Women can open their own doors and most importantly, no one can hurt me without my permission.
Insanity is only a small part of the human picture. What about love and compassion or creativity and invention. everything we are is needed for us to be what we are.
You see insanity and anarchy, I see insanity and hope.
Well what can I say, this posting has been the most interesting in 2006 keep up the good work.
a few points I picked up were:-
Sassylass:- was being sizest going on about the "Little People"
Rheghead:- his diagnosis was blunt and to the point as always
Gleber2:- sees Insanity and Anarchy....hmmm when did you last use your power to vote and try to make a difference?
WBG:- is as always thought provoking...... keep up the good work
Gleeber:- sees Insanity and Hope....... Well even though I feel that this is a rose tinted view
Im with you Gleeber....without hope where would we be????
without hope where would we????
Cheepers, I hope ma owld mate hesna keeled over in mid-sentance!
Cheepers, I hope ma owld mate hesna keeled over in mid-sentance!
LOL Gleeber
I hate to introduce a note of optimism into all this doom and gloom but, as another "recycled teenager" I think we’re probably more sane now than at any other time. Life may not be perfect but it’s a lot better than anything that went before and at least we are prepared to talk about what’s bad and want to change it. Take a look back over your collective shoulders and tell me you would like to live in even fairly recent times when
shell-shocked soldiers were shot for desertion,
women were property,
cruelty - to people and animals - was an accepted part of life,
unmarried mothers were forced to give up their babies,
poverty even in this country was at a level we would not tolerate now,
orphanages, workhouses and lunatic asylums were places of nightmare
slavery was acceptable
and, and, and ……. Go back further and it gets worse. Life for many (most?) was literally nasty, brutish and short. Decadence, drunkenness, sexual allsorts – try ancient Rome (or even ancient Britain) – we are mere children in comparison. We don’t hang, draw and quarter criminals or burn people at the stake.
At least now we know where we would like to be, even if we don’t get there. And we care – about the planet, people, animals - that must mean something. Onwards and upwards. :)
Well what can I say, this posting has been the most interesting in 2006 keep up the good work.
a few points I picked up were:-
Sassylass:- was being sizest going on about the "Little People"
Rheghead:- his diagnosis was blunt and to the point as always
Gleber2:- sees Insanity and Anarchy....hmmm when did you last use your power to vote and try to make a difference?
WBG:- is as always thought provoking...... keep up the good work
Gleeber:- sees Insanity and Hope....... Well even though I feel that this is a rose tinted view
Im with you Gleeber....without hope where would we be????
My vote would be as pointless as anyone elses when we only have a choice between different humans in the same parties. The onlything more futile than life on earth is worrying about the futility!! Hope is not needed when one lives one day at time. The anarchy I see is not a matter of opinion. It is here and now and our politicians seem to exacerbate every problem.
Badger, everything you say is true if one applies your truths to our particular western "civilisation"(How do you explain happy slapping and young binge drinkers). Don't be so insular. Everything you say we no longer do is still going on in the larger part of our poor benighted planet.Decadence,drunkenness and sexual allsorts?? Never,in our long history, has so much alcohol been consumed by so many and ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan if we treat people better these days. Never in the good old days did we have the power to destroy the planet with atom bombs.
I don’t think I was being particularly insular as I do believe most of the developed world has progressed and at least is aware, or is made aware, of how things could be even if they don’t achieve it. What I was trying to say is that in the past cruelty, poverty etc. were generally accepted as facts of life and not even seen as wrong. Terrible things still happen everywhere but more people question them and they are harder to justify, maybe because with modern communications we are more aware. For instance, China is having to be more careful how it behaves with its people because they can see how the rest of the world is via the internet and travel, and the world can report what happens there. Even a few years ago they would probably have got away with poisoning their rivers and people because no-one would have known about it. Now it is international front page news and they had to act immediately.
As to the solution, as I said on another thread recently (and it doesn’t need any religious connection) "Love your neighbour" would solve everything instantly. Wouldn’t that be good?
landmarker
03-Jan-06, 17:16
......"Love your neighbour" would solve everything instantly. Wouldn’t that be good?
Indeed it would, especially if he was a quarter of a mile away. That's about the right distance in my book.
RandomHero
03-Jan-06, 18:23
I still have faith in humanity. Even in tough times we can unite, for example, December 1914. We can't keep blaming leaders, that is the wrong attitude to have. It's not easy being Tony Blair or George Bush, people only believe what the papers and news tell them to believe. If you think you can run the country better, then do something about it. It's all about the individual, stop blaming others. Almost every time I post on a topic I get shot down and called a number of things, such as a Nazi or racist. Say what you will but I am an individual with my own beliefs and opinions just as you are and I am proud that I live in a country where that is allowed.
“You cannot make a revolution with silk gloves.”
As to the solution, as I said on another thread recently (and it doesn’t need any religious connection) "Love your neighbour" would solve everything instantly. Wouldn’t that be good?
Without any religious connection - If people lived by the ten commandments - just think of it - no killing, no stealing, no adultery, everyone loves his brother and even his enemy - need I go on? In an ideal world.......
It would be an answer, although many will disagree.
The good old days weren't so good in many ways, but have we really changed all that much? Every perversion still goes on, often in a different guise. What does that say about mankind?
Three billion Christians all puting into practice the tenets of their faith would certainly help matters but how many do?
Random hero,we united half the world in 1914 to fight the other half. This,would you not think,illustrates the original statement. The human race is certifiable.
Badger, forget China, we still poison our people and our rivers and contaminate the entire country with radiation!!
RandomHero
03-Jan-06, 19:14
Gleber 2, in December 1914 the fighting was stopped between the germans and british actually. everyone knows the story, you have interpreted my statement wrong.
As for the 10 commandments and putting them into power - thats a very idealist thing to say. I myself am an idealist.
Mr.Hero, I did not misunderstand your point. A temporary truce for a shared religious belief is hardly proof that we are insane or not. A world war lasting 4 years is a different matter. Remove the religious content from the teachings of Christ and you have a perfect recipe for a peaceful and more sane existance. I am realistic enough to know that these principles are unobtainable in the face of our ego driven insanity.
RandomHero
03-Jan-06, 19:52
December 1914 was a shimmer of hope. Proof that in those times, people overcame war. Be it for only a day or two, it was still there. You can't deny that. Who can we turn to if people like you and others on this board, even more around the world, are turning their backs on humanity.
"The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of flowing passion, but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others." - A.H
The human race can be saved by those who have hope and understanding. We're not so far past it that we can't be saved.
People like me, Mr Hero. You are jumping to personal and wrong conclusions. I have been sticking my neck out for more years than you have been alive(I think). There is a limit to the self healing qualities of Earth Mother and I believe we are passed the point of no return where no puny, well-meaning people armed with hope and understanding can make a whit of difference.Even totally insane people in institutions can have flashes of rationality but they don't get out, do they?
RandomHero
03-Jan-06, 20:51
then why do you bother with anything in life? what's the point if we are insane? i will not tuck tail and run, give in to the selfish and greedy. life is an amazing gift but it's only the beginning. how will you survive the middle if you can't withstand the start?
Your posts are now more than verging on the petty and ridiculous.I've had the beginning, the middle and a good bit of the end and I'm still in the middle of it. You cannot judge anyone on the information contained in these threads and to do so indicates a certain immaturity. Life is an amazing gift but we cannot enjoy the iceskates if some-one destroys the rink. I enjoy life to the full in my own way . What will you do when the greedy and selfish destroy the planet you live on?? Mankind has had about four to five million years so far and therefore well beyond the beginning and nearer the end:mad: People with terminal illnesses still enjoy the time they have left, why shouldn't I??
We are close to worldwide anarchy right now What? I agree that things aren’t perfect, but ‘worldwide anarchy’? I don’t know if that’s wishful thinking on your part or if you are simply seeing a tadpole and reporting a dragon, but I see no evidence of ‘worldwide anarchy’.
Insanity is only a small part of the human picture. What about love and compassion or creativity and invention. everything we are is needed for us to be what we are.
You see insanity and anarchy, I see insanity and hope.
Indeed. Glass half-full/Glass half-empty, eh?
JJC, I,ve watched many tadpoles and seen them slowly turn to frogs. Take the present political situation in Israel,Palestine,Iraq,Iran,Afghanistan,Africa,Paki stan,India,Taiwan and China,Korea North and South,Russia and Former USSR,a number of South American countries,Nepal,Indonesia,Phillipines and many other places and extrapolate the near future from the information of our global now. The emmerging picture is a bit more than tadpole-like.
Without any religious connection - If people lived by the ten commandments - just think of it - no killing, no stealing, no adultery, everyone loves his brother and even his enemy - need I go on? In an ideal world....... If we disregard the religious connection there are really only seven commandments. I think, for the sake of this topic, we can also ignore the first of the remaining commandments (after all, is there really anything wrong with sculptures?), so we’re left with six.
1 – Honour thy father and mother
2 – Thou shalt not kill
3 – Thou shalt not commit adultery
4 – Thou shalt not steal
5 – Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
6 – Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour’s
Looking at those six, I’d be inclined to agree with you – if we all lived by them then sure, we’d have a better world. But I wouldn’t class them as ‘the six commandments’; they are simply principles which we must live by if we are to have anything close to a civilised society. No killing, no stealing, no adultery, only wanting that which we need and no lying about others. Fantastic, I’m in.
You might notice that I’ve only mentioned five – that’s because I have small question-marks hanging over the sixth.
Sure, we should honour our parents, but there are certainly some parents in this world who don’t deserve to be honoured so perhaps that one shouldn’t be enforced (besides, how do you check whether somebody is really honouring another person?).
So without religious connection I’d say that these five (and a half) principles are worth absorbing as a part of our moral code. There is a need for other principles (for example, none of the commandments prohibit beating children, but I think we’d all agree that it is an essential principle in society), but these are at least somewhere to start.
Take the present political situation in […] The emmerging picture is a bit more than tadpole-like. Oh, it’s far from ideal… but you said we are close to ‘worldwide anarchy’ and that simply is not the case. To continue the tadpole/dragon analogy – you have looked in your garden pond and have seen that the tadpoles have grown legs. Rather than wonder if they might turn into frogs you have run into the village screaming of monsters. Relax – they are only frogs.
Chobbersjnr
03-Jan-06, 22:45
Oh, it’s far from ideal… but you said we are close to ‘worldwide anarchy’ and that simply is not the case. To continue the tadpole/dragon analogy – you have looked in your garden pond and have seen that the tadpoles have grown legs. Rather than wonder if they might turn into frogs you have run into the village screaming of monsters. Relax – they are only frogs.
Didna hev many gerdeen ponds in e' Glebe an e' monsters were e' chiels we lived beside. I sincerely hope you are right and I wrong but I lost the optimism years ago,decided that I was not really a pessimist either and became a realist. I have been following the political patterns of the planet for an awful long time and the signs are there for all to see who have eyes unclouded by opinion and belief. The precedents of history indicate the path of the future.
connieb19
03-Jan-06, 22:49
Didna hev many gerdeen ponds in e' Glebe an e' monsters were e' chiels we lived beside. I sincerely hope you are right and I wrong but I lost the optimism years ago,decided that I was not really a pessimist either and became a realist. I have been following the political patterns of the planet for an awful long time and the signs are there for all to see who have eyes unclouded by opinion and belief. The precedents of history indicate the path of the future.I am now really confused here..Are you answering on behalf of Gleeber2 or what?
Chobbersjnr uses the same computer as I and I did nor realise that he was still logged on. Apologies!!!
the signs are there for all to see who have eyes unclouded by opinion and belief. The precedents of history indicate the path of the future.
Well, if you think that my eyes are clouded, open them for me. If the political patterns are such that they indicate an imminent collapse into global anarchy then clearly I need to have them pointed out to me. Which historic precedents are obvious in which of today’s governments and how will they escalate into global anarchy? Indeed, when was the last time that we had global anarchy? :confused:
Never have so many countries been on the verge of civil war, never has the religious divide been so broad,never has there been so many terrorists,never have we come so close to Jehad and never have we faced the threat of atomic war with so many countries having or developing the nuclear bomb.
Don't you think that the wars of the last century brought the world into anarchy? The murder of the Archduke Ferdinand was the catilist that led the first world war as was the invasion of Poland the stated reason for the second world war. Since then we have been hovering on the verge of the third world war which will be atomic and could result in the destruction of all social order. I have no real interest in taking the clouds out of your eyes JJC. My original statement was 'Is the human race insane'. Have we not strayed from the point a little? I am sure we will find another excuse for going into a state of world war again. We are crazy enough!!!!
Never have so many countries been on the verge of civil war Never? Out of interest, how many countries are on the verge of civil war?
never has the religious divide been so broad I think that anybody familiar with the Crusades would differ with you there…
never has there been so many terrorists Stuff and nonsense cooked up by the ruling elite to keep you down. I thought you accused me of having my vision clouded. There have always been terrorists and there always will be. Somebody somewhere will always be willing to kill for what they believe in.
never have we come so close to Jehad Jihad simply means “holy struggle” and Mujahids (those engaged in Jihads) across the world are taking part in them. Even memorising the Qur’an is considered to be a Jihad.
Now, if you meant the rather limited translation of “holy war” then as somebody who recognises the importance of history (you did say that the precedents of history indicate the path of the future) you must surely recognise that there have been a great many wars fought through the ages in the name of one God or another.
never have we faced the threat of atomic war with so many countries having or developing the nuclear bomb.Who is threatening atomic war?
Back in the ‘60s the world watched the USA and Soviet Union square off. Those two superpowers had the means to destroy humanity. That there are more nations with the bomb now is undeniable, but can those nations destroy humanity more than once between them?
Surely the more important concern is the willingness of those with the technology to actually push the button and use it?
I saw an interview with, I think, an ex Chief of Staff who said that during his time in the White House they were on the brink of launching on three separate occasions.
Has the country (or countries) which you say is threatening atomic war actually started the countdown? If not then we have most certainly come closer to atomic annihilation.
Don't you think that the wars of the last century brought the world into anarchy? No, I absolutely do not. They brought a large portion of the world into war, but even at the darkest moments the countries involved had their political and legal structures. War is not anarchy; it is war.
My original statement was 'Is the human race insane'. Have we not strayed from the point a little? Yes we have… and it happened thus:
As part of your ‘evidence’ that the human race is insane you said that we are close to worldwide anarchy. I challenged that notion and asked you to justify it. You failed to do so.
If you want to end the discussion there then that is fine, but please don’t hide behind the daft concept that threads shouldn’t evolve as conversations do.
Jjc I just wrote a long reply to your last post but for some reason I was not allowed to post it. Too tired but not retired. We will meet again tomorrow.:D
Come on JJC, you are just being a little pedantic.
Gleber2 may have exaggerated a little but there is no reason to go to the other extreme.
I suspect that you know full well that when certain people with rather extreme ideas declare "Jihad" that they are not suggesting that the Faithful engage in a little religious study.
As far as your comments on Atomic War I seem to remember a minor panic not too many years ago when India and Pakistan were having a little game of one up-man ship rattling rockets at one another. I also seem to recall that there was a bit of a panic because nobody could be certain if either of them had developed nuclear warheads and neither of them would confirm or deny the fact. (Quite understandable under the circumstances)
Fortunately they both seemed to have decided that the possibility of MAD was not worth testing.
And whilst on that subject, whilst it was termed a "border dispute" it doesn't take an expert in international affairs to realise that their "Border Disputes" are caused not by political consideration but by religious differences.
I can't quite remember who's side either of them were on during the Crusades but it was such a huge event that they must have been involved in them somewhere.
The only time that the US and the USSR came anywhere near being close to throwing Nukes at one another was in 1962. As a result they decided to install the Hot Line between the two to prevent the same thing happening again.
Had a Russian messenger been stuck a little longer in a lift we might not have been here to discuss any of this.
As to the original question, no the Human Race is not insane it is just rushing lemming-like to it's own extinction.
But never mind, contrary to common belief, the world will not even notice that we are gone, nature will just carry on as if we had never existed.
I suppose, if we are lucky, some intelligent life form in a few million years time will exhibit our fossils in some sort of Museum for others to puzzle over. :eek:
Thanks for your support Jaws. You have replied for me and I am grateful. However, I believe that the race's headlong rush to the cliff in the light of our present knowledge is a sure sign that we,as a race, are nuts.We will collect the kharma that we,as a race, have earned.
Jjc,even I, as a newcomer to the forum,am aware that the threads should develop like conversations. However,too many of these conversations end up in diatribe and acrimony and, were they taking place in the flesh,would reult in violence.LOL I believe that thread replies would be more positive if they were not brought to the petty,personal level that controversial subjects are frequently reduced to. I have never suggested that you,personally, are suffering from clouded vision and have no real desire to convince you of anything. However, anyone who cannot see that we are on a slide to destruction in the face of the human race's present desires and drives must be a little bit ostrich-like and criminally optimistic.
How many countries are on the verge of civil war? Quite a few it would appear, if you consider Iraq,Afghanistan,Indonesia,a large part of Africa,Indonesia,the Phillipines and India/Pakistan. These are only a few of the trouble spots where the situation is being exacerbated by religion and politics. The fuse is lit, the explosion inevitable!!!
The Crusades? Catholics invading another country and killing Jews and Muslims. Nothing changes except the numbers and the weapons. Of course,in their ignorance, the Christian invaders killed more Christians than non-believers. Oil is the motivating force these days instead of religion.
The religious divide is greater than it was in the 11thcentury due to the fact that every religion has split into opposing factions and,instead of three or four major players,we now have dozens. We now have Catholics against Protestants,Sunni against Shi ite, modern Jews against Orthodox Jews and even the Hari Krishna movement split down the middle. Religion.per se, is not divided, it is splintered.
Jihad is holy war in the broadest sense and if the Ayatollahs call for holy war they will get it. The Moors and the Turks almost got their revenge for the Crusades when they almost conquered Europe. Only by luck did we avoid Muslim control of the West. The Majahdeen are waiting for the appearance of the Mhadi and if he comes we have had it. Our effete fighting men sue the government if they get hurt whereas the Arab fighter is inspired by visions of paradise and is prepared to die in the killing of infidels. I am not saying that all muslims are fired by righteous indignation at the way the West has treated them and their oil, but more and more are. The greater part of all the wars of the last 1000years have been fought over religion. This in itself, in my book, is enough to judge the Human Race insane.
So the terrorist threat has been cooked up by the elitist rulers has it? Tell that to those killed by 9/11,the Bali bombs, the London bombs, the Madrid bombs and all the other bombs too numerous to mention. We have more suicide bombers than we have had since WW2 and the Jap pilots and never has the terrorist been so well armed and supplied with technology bought and payed for by the enormous turnover from the drug trade.Your vision is not clouded, you appear to be blind!!!We have over six billion people on this planet. The number of them prepared to kill and die is greater by a large factor than it has ever been in our entire history.
Who would declare their intentions by threatening atomic war? The race might be crazy but no-one is crazy enough to allow another mad power(USA perhaps) to pre-empt their strike. Jaws has answered your point on this subject so I will say no more.
War is politically sanctioned anarchy is it not. As for today,the steets of our towns and cities are close to anarchy every weekend when the clubs and pubs empty.
Gleber2 may have exaggerated a little but there is no reason to go to the other extreme. What other extreme? Gleber2 said that the world is close to global anarchy and I disagreed – but I certainly haven’t said that everything is rosy and bright.
I suspect that you know full well that when certain people with rather extreme ideas declare "Jihad" that they are not suggesting that the Faithful engage in a little religious study. Never the less, that is what the word means.
There has been talk in this thread of a religious divide. Surely the best way to close that divide is to recognise that extremists – whatever their religion – are just that: extremists? Rather than push out moderate Muslims by adopting the every-day language of their religion as some kind of fanatical mantra, would it not be better to reject the extremists by not allowing them to distort the meaning of their religion to suit their goals?
I have never suggested that you,personally, are suffering from clouded vision Of course you did. You said, “…the signs are there for all to see who have eyes unclouded…” I cannot see the signs so my eyes must be clouded. I don’t take offence at you having said it, I’d just like you to point out the signs that I’m so obviously missing…
How many countries are on the verge of civil war? Quite a few it would appear, if you consider Iraq,Afghanistan,Indonesia,a large part of Africa,Indonesia,the Phillipines and India/Pakistan. Whether Iraq is on the brink of civil war or not really seems to depend on who you listen to. I have no wish to excuse either Bush or Blair for the criminality, but I’m not sure that it is accurate to say that the only thing preventing civil war is the presence of our troops either. Neither India nor Pakistan are, to my knowledge, anything like close to civil war. You name two others and, if I may say so, somewhat dismissively waved your hand towards ‘large parts of Africa’ as though individual countries on that continent are barely worthy of individual mention.
I am afraid that it still seems highly unlikely that there are more countries on the brink of civil war than ever before… perhaps the truth is more that instant, global media means we just get to hear about them more often.
The greater part of all the wars of the last 1000years have been fought over religion. This in itself, in my book, is enough to judge the Human Race insane. As an atheist, this, at least, we can agree on. However, recognising the ever growing percentage of people who share my lack of faith, I’m happy to say that I don’t believe it is a lasting insanity.
So the terrorist threat has been cooked up by the elitist rulers has it? Tell that to those killed by 9/11,the Bali bombs, the London bombs, the Madrid bombs and all the other bombs too numerous to mention. Oh, there’s a threat – just as there has been a threat of terrorism on mainland Britain since before I was born. It isn’t the threat that has been cooked up, it is the extent of that threat and the extent of the measures required to combat it.
We have more suicide bombers than we have had since WW2 and the Jap pilots That’s hardly surprising since the modern understanding of ‘suicide bombers’ has only been with us since the early 1980s. Of course, if you’re going to broaden the definition to include anybody who purposefully kills themselves in order to kill the enemy then it’s been going on all through history.
never has the terrorist been so well armed Is that because terrorism is on the increase, or because the weapons are becoming ‘better’?
Your vision is not clouded, you appear to be blind!!! Well, you’re going to just have to forgive me for not running screaming for the hills just yet.
We have over six billion people on this planet. The number of them prepared to kill and die is greater by a large factor than it has ever been in our entire history. Numbers. If this is more than the ramblings of a paranoid pessimist, give me numbers. You state that the number of people prepared to kill and die is greater by a large factor than ever before – How many are prepared to kill and die? By what factor is that greater than ever before?
Come on, you are judging the entire human race to be insanely rushing toward its destruction – surely you have more to base that judgement on than speculation and gut feeling?
War is politically sanctioned anarchy is it not. Hands up everybody who can define an oxymoron.
How can anarchy, the lack of political authority, ever be politically sanctioned?
As for today,the steets of our towns and cities are close to anarchy every weekend when the clubs and pubs empty. Why? Because the Tories say so when berating Labour’s record in office? Because the columnists of the Daily Mail say so when trying to sell you a paper? Because Street Crime UK 4 says so?
Numbers? Who can quote numbers for unknown quantities?
The pedant plays with words and refuses to see the forest because he is scrutinising the insects under the bark of the nearest tree.There are none so blind as those who refuse to see!!
Africa is a very large continent with a lot of individual countries. Can we agree on at least that?It would appear from what we learn from the global media that more than one or two are in the grip of extreme civil unrest or famine which might or might not lead to civil war.I dismiss nothing. Petty nit picking is unproductive I have always believed.You blame media for untruthful reporting and then tell me that we only hear about global catastrophies because the world media tells us about it. Make up your mind.
Have you been in many major cities and on the streets at chuck out time? I have, many times over the last twenty years and I don't need dishonest reporting to give me a false picture. I have watched the deterioration for myself.
Terrorism is on the increase and the weapons have improved beyond recognition.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An agnostic is someone who will believe if given proof. What does the atheist do when presented with proof?
I feel that further communication with yourself will achieve nothing . Let us agree to disagree as nothing you have said so far has even dented my beliefs. I hope that you are right and there is hope. If I am right then it is highly unlikely that I or you will be arround to argue pointlessly with anyone.Only time will tell!
Your last statement was unworthy of you.
A pananoid pessimist I may be but my gut feeling has been created by 50 years of observing the human condition here and over a fair part of the world.To say thet I am paranoid does not remove the possibility that I have something to be paranoic about.
If a large percentage of the human race sees life as you seem to then there is little hope and your rose tinted spectacles will be melting on your face as our reality crumbles.
Numbers? Who can quote numbers for unknown quantities? My point exactly; you are condemning humanity based on nothing more substantial than gut feeling and over-hyped media coverage. You talk of increases in this, a rise in that and a jump in the numbers of the other, yet you have nothing to substantiate these claims.
It would appear from what we learn from the global media that more than one or two are in the grip of extreme civil unrest or famine which might or might not lead to civil war. As they have been for decades. Recognising that sad fact lends no support to your claim that the numbers of countries in such a position is on the increase.
Actually, it might interest you to know that whilst it would be impossible to quantify the number of people willing to kill and die for their cause, the number of civil wars is documented in the Human Security Report 2005. The report shows a marked decline in the number of civil wars over the last decade.
You blame media for untruthful reporting and then tell me that we only hear about global catastrophies because the world media tells us about it. Make up your mind. I did not say that the media is untruthful, but I do believe that media professionals are aware of the competitiveness of their market and that hype is inevitable when so many are competing. With that in mind, there is no contradiction in what I have said. It is entirely possible for a wide network of reporters with the ability to broadcast live from anywhere on the planet to give us as-it-happens accounts of breaking news from across the globe whilst still managing to ensure that every report they file is written to catch your attention and keep you watching.
Have you been in many major cities and on the streets at chuck out time? Yes, and I have seen more people calmly make their way home than get into fights or get arrested. I have certainly never seen law and order abandoned entirely.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An agnostic is someone who will believe if given proof. What does the atheist do when presented with proof? Well I believe that there is sufficient evidence to be reasonably certain that there is no God so I guess you’d have to classify me as a Weak-Gnostic Atheist. But even though I don’t believe in God, if he popped down off his cloud and appeared before me I, like all but the most hard-line atheists, would give him a fair hearing.
Your last statement was unworthy of you. My last statement was a question and I stand by the sentiment in which it was asked.
I'm sorry but I simply refuse to believe that the world is a worse place than ever before. Go back into any period in history and you will find wars, tyrants, cruelty, destruction etc., etc. Yes there are more people now than ever, but that's because scientists have enabled those who live in the developed world to live longer and some people at least are trying to help those who don't. At no time in history have so many people been involved in trying to improve life for those who are deprived. We have the ability to kill more people at one time but I'm not sure that the proportion of the population who die violently is any greater. Every time someone says "I don't know what the world is coming to" you can guarantee someone was saying the same thing 100 years ago and 100 years before that ad infinitum. In fact I expect stone age man said it to his woman in his cave when his neighbour made the first fire. And no, I don't believe the human race is completely insane. Some are - at least to the extent that we can't begin to understand what goes on in their heads - but there are just as many who spend their time trying to improve things and the rest of us somewhere in between just muddling along.
I started this thread asking if the human race is insane. Not if part of it is sane or part of it crazy. If you were to subject the entire race to the same tests that are applied to an individual you would lock it up!!Polish up your blinkers, you optimists, you will need them.
I started this thread asking if the human race is insane. Not if part of it is sane or part of it crazy.
But if it is an all or nothing answer then it is going to have to be 'no'. You cannot judge all by the actions of the few.
2 things have struck me about this thread. The first was jjcs avatar, its clever! The second is the certainty of Glebers perception of the human race. He makes a good case and although I could nitpick a few things myself the picture he paints is recognisable. Thats what worries me lol
connieb19
04-Jan-06, 22:39
2 things have struck me about this thread. The first was jjcs avatar, its clever! The second is the certainty of Glebers perception of the human race. He makes a good case and although I could nitpick a few things myself the picture he paints is recognisable. Thats what worries me lolI hope you don't mind me asking Gleeber. Why arn't you a trusted member? I thought I read somewhere earlier that after 100 posts and 6 months you became a trusted member.:confused:
I hope you don't mind me asking Gleeber. Why arn't you a trusted member? I thought I read somewhere earlier that after 100 posts and 6 months you became a trusted member.:confused:
I am a trusted member I just never got round to activating it.
What other extreme? Gleber2 said that the world is close to global anarchy and I disagreed – but I certainly haven’t said that everything is rosy and bright.
Never the less, that is what the word means.
There has been talk in this thread of a religious divide. Surely the best way to close that divide is to recognise that extremists – whatever their religion – are just that: extremists? Rather than push out moderate Muslims by adopting the every-day language of their religion as some kind of fanatical mantra, would it not be better to reject the extremists by not allowing them to distort the meaning of their religion to suit their goals?
That is exactly my point jjc, fanatics and extremists have always twisted Beliefs of all kinds, Religious, Political, Sectatian etc., to suit their own needs.
It is the duty of the sane and sensible Leaders of those Beliefs, of whatever kind, to correct the image the that the Lunatic Fringe presents to the World.
The fault lies with those Leaders who remain silent whilst their Beliefs are distorted out of all proportion.
I am well aware that Jihad has many meanings far removed from slaughtering people of other Beliefs but whilst it's use as such is allowed to remain unchallenged then when people come to understand that as it's only meaning then there can be no complaint from people who know better.
They are condemned by their very silence.
I have no comment on Anarchy. That is another word mis-used by many who allegedly support it and also by those who mis-understand it's meaning and therefore set themselves totally against it.
Sorry jjc, I didn't answer the point about "other extreme".
I simply meant that attacking a sweeping statement by examining every single word in it for it's precise definition is just as extreme.
If somebody says they don't like the view then pointing out the individual beauty of each petal on every flower doesn't do anything to change their mind about the view.
(Poor analogy but it will have to suffice)
…whilst it's use as such is allowed to remain unchallenged then when people come to understand that as it's only meaning then there can be no complaint from people who know better.
They are condemned by their very silence. Now you are contradicting yourself. When Gleber2 used Jihad to mean only “Holy War” and I corrected him you accused me of being pedantic. Now you say that those who don’t challenge such use of the word will be ‘condemned by their very silence’. Which is it to be? :confused:
Merci Jaws. In the light of the microscopic slaughter I have suffered in the replies of Jjc I bow to your wisdom and can't help but agree.
There you go again jjc, you have examined every petal on every flower and ignored my version of the view.
If you read the whole post instead of dissecting every phrase then you would know that I was pointing out that it is the Leaders of various Ideologies who are condemned by their silence.
Jjc,I was watching BBC2 24 and it seems that the Iranian President has once more threatened to destroy Israel. It also appears that he is expecting the Muslim Messiah,the Mahdi, to come and lead the faithful and save them from the infidel within the next two years. It may be a ploy of the Bush administration to justify future actions, but it is also believed that Iran is bent on developing nuclear bombs. Iran,Israel,USAand allies at each others throats. This is indeed a situation to gratify any nhilistic(spel)pessimist as you seem to consider me. If this spark evolves into flame then pity help the world and us as the fan will be scattering piles of excretia.
The word Darwin inside what is surprisingly like the early Christian fish. No fan of Darwinism myself but your avatar really backs up the mental picture I have built of you.
No fan of Darwinism myself
Just to clarify the esscence of your thread and to shed more light on your original question,and also to satisfy my own insanity, does your belief extend in any way to an acceptence of natural selection (Darwinism) as the driving force behind the insanity you see in the human race?
There you go again jjc, you have examined every petal on every flower and ignored my version of the view.
No, I got it… I just wanted to see you say it again so that we could be absolutely crystal clear: only the leaders of a faith may defend said faith and if they do not do so every time a person misrepresents it then they (and their faith) should be condemned.
It’s long seemed strange to me that we, as a nation, seem to expect Muslim leaders to trot out before the waiting press to make a full rebuttal each and every time that a fanatic abuses their religion in order to excuse their hatred. It seems strange because we seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between mainstream Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity without the need for church leaders to jump up and cry foul every time an abortion clinic is bombed or a gay man murdered in the name of God. Why the difference?
I was watching BBC2 24 and it seems that the Iranian President has once more threatened to destroy Israel. Well crikey, I guess that’s proof that the entire Human Race is insane. No, wait; it really isn’t.
It also appears that he is expecting the Muslim Messiah,the Mahdi, to come and lead the faithful and save them from the infidel within the next two years. So he put a time scale on his faith. How does that make his belief any different from the belief of Christians that their Messiah will return and save them?
The word Darwin inside what is surprisingly like the early Christian fish […] your avatar really backs up the mental picture I have built of you. Oh good, you understood the irony then. Please though, do expand; what mental picture do you have of me?
<snip>Please though, do expand; what mental picture do you have of me?
Sitting in front of a nice open fire, just throw another Bible on there to keep away the chill.
Laptop on your..emm...lap....."The Origin of Species" at your right hand.
I stags head hangs over the fireplace, the eye sockets are empty (not sure about this detail.)
An upside-down cross about your neck....rings on your fingers and bells on your toes.....er.....sorry I've lost the plot for the moment....
;)
Jjc, I posted my last message only to point out to you that there are world leaders, possibly with atomic weaponry, who are making warlike statements against another nuclear power which is itself warlike. This is by no means an addition to the arguement about the sanity of our species.(Although it could be!)
The expected Muslim Messiah is cosidered to be a liberator and war leader(I believe) whereas the Christian Messiah is expeacted to be a Prince of Peace. The Jewish Messiah has yet to make his first appearance and I don't know much about him:confused: . The Christian Messiah is expected to save the race and the world. The Muslim Mahdi is expected to lead the Faithful to victory. Quite a difference!!
If you wish to "examine the petals of every flower" perhaps we should begin by taking each word in turn and agree on a definition. I posted the last message purely as information and you steam into the attack as if I had personally attacked you. I did not say that I believed what the BBC said. you should not shoot the messenger. It does,however,illustrate that there are others out there in positions of great power who are bent on destruction and actually believe they are in the right and are prepared to die,and to order others to die, for their beliefs.
Are you capable of puting your personal philosophies in cohesive form or are you only interested in sarcastically puting down the minutae that you don't agree with while quoting chapter and verse. Smell the flower and see the forest and then get a feel for the whole landscape (Cheers Jaws )
If I were to tell you my vision of your overly pedantic and sarcasticaly caustic self I would get banned for six months which might not be such a bad thing as you seem to be more interested in point scoring than honest open debate.The fish,old Christian sign or not, containing Darwin, seems to have legs. Does this mean thet you are a closet Christian emmerging from the slime?
Just to clarify the esscence of your thread and to shed more light on your original question,and also to satisfy my own insanity, does your belief extend in any way to an acceptence of natural selection (Darwinism) as the driving force behind the insanity you see in the human race?
Well, fellow survivor of the Gaza, I have never been fully convinced by Darwinism any more than I am prepared to be convinced by the stories of the Bible. I must point out,however, that I am not categorically denying either of them. It is better,I feel, to keep an entirely open mind about everything for which there is no absolute proof,such as the possible insanity of the human race. Physically we seem to be evolving but mentally, it seems that we could be devolving.
If you look at the first message I posted in this thread you will notice that at no point did I say that the race was insane. I stated that it could be considered insane and asked for opinions. From my own observations over many years I tend to think that we are totally crazy but what would be the point of arguing about something that cannot be proved one way or the other. It is all a matter of opinion and in intellectual debate opinions are worthless. Opinions are not worth arguing about--one should listen and speak but not argue.
I have never been fully convinced by Darwinism .
I assume you mean the modern Theory of Evolution? Which bits aren't you convinced by? 'Darwinism' is a fairly tacky name used by Creationists because Darwin's theories are proved to be flawed but they did serve the purpose of developing the Theory of Evolution.
The modern theory of evolution is just that.....a theory.
It requires as much, if not more faith to believe in it, than to believe in Intelligent Design.
How do they now explain the fine tuning of the universe.....multiple universes!
I sent an email to a scientist a few years ago, asking about multiple universes at the quantum level etc. he replied saying I was straying into science fiction.
Hmmm
Now its the established theory for all scientist who say (and I quote) "We do not require a Creator in the scenario we have developed..."
Another quote, "We don't want to have to consider the possibility of a First Cause."
These are University Professors, the best education that man can give.
Insane? I'd say so.
I have no real feelings on the subject of evolution apart from the fact that we,as a race seem to be devolving. Although,in the past,I have read much and thought hard about speculative history, I find myself more interested in speculating about the future. An equally pointless,but very entertaining past-time. One thing I will say is that I have no intention of embarking on a discussion about Darwin
Savey,Yesterday's absolutes are tomorrows denials at the cutting edge edge of science. It does not matter where we've been,
it's where we are going that's important and anyway we're all doomed.LOL
The modern theory of evolution is just that.....a theory.
It requires as much, if not more faith to believe in it, than to believe in Intelligent Design.
How do they now explain the fine tuning of the universe.....multiple universes!
I sent an email to a scientist a few years ago, asking about multiple universes at the quantum level etc. he replied saying I was straying into science fiction.
Hmmm
Now its the established theory for all scientist who say (and I quote) "We do not require a Creator in the scenario we have developed..."
Another quote, "We don't want to have to consider the possibility of a First Cause."
These are University Professors, the best education that man can give.
Insane? I'd say so.
You disqualified the Modern Theory of Evolution by saying it is a theory, you went on by saying that modern theories of the origin of the universe were also a theory and you rejected that based on the multiple universe theory.
Here is the logic
A is a C
B is a C
B is wrong
therefore A is wrong
Not very logical is it?
I reiterate
Which part of the Modern Theory of Evolution is not convincing?:rolleyes:
I have no real feelings on the subject of evolution apart from the fact that we,as a race seem to be devolving. Although,in the past,I have read much and thought hard about speculative history, I find myself more interested in speculating about the future. An equally pointless,but very entertaining past-time. One thing I will say is that I have no intention of embarking on a discussion about Darwin
Savey,Yesterday's absolutes are tomorrows denials at the cutting edge edge of science. It does not matter where we've been,
it's where we are going that's important and anyway we're all doomed.LOL
I strayed a bit from topic there...sorry bout that. Yes the human race is insane. The glass is not even half empty. We're relatively problem free in Caithness compared to higher populated areas south and they are relatively problem free compared to the trouble areas in the world.
The fact is that innocent people die every day. Familys are torn apart by war, greed, poverty the list goes on. Just because we only hear about it more than we used too doesn't mean "actually the world is doing ok if I don't listen."
The world isn't doing ok. Pollution is causing serious problems that will only increase. The list of infections and potentially fatal diseases is increasing, not decreasing. Malnutrition is on the increase. There is a global water crisis. Violent crime is on the increase. A world fuel crisis is widely predicted. Another unprecedented hurricane season is predicted for this year.
Its only a matter of time before things like these come and knock on our front door. Will we then recognise the world as on a downward slope or will we think, "No things are ok in rural America.....I'm just a statistic."?
Time to wake up and smell the napalm.
You disqualified the Modern Theory of Evolution by saying it is a theory, you went on by saying that modern theories of the origin of the universe were also a theory and you rejected that based on the multiple universe theory.
Here is the logic
A is a C
B is a C
B is wrong
therefore A is wrong
Not very logical is it?
<snip>
No its not. :(
Perhaps I'd be better saying: The part where one species changes gradually into another species is the main part of the modern evolution theory that isn't convincing.
The modern theory of the origin of the universe is....creative at best.
No pun intended. ;)
The part where one species changes gradually into another species is the main part of the modern evolution theory that isn't convincing.
Why do you think that is unconvincing?
Why do you think that is unconvincing?
Because there is no evidence to support it. The fossil evidence certainly doesn't and its never been observed.
Also the bit about proteins joining together in chains to make amino acids which form the building blocks of life.
Its never been observed or replicated. It has been likened to a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter and paper. What are the chances that they'll type out the complete works of Shakespeare?
Because there is no evidence to support it. The fossil evidence certainly doesn't and its never been observed.
Are you quite sure? The fossil record certainly shows gradual changes from simple organisms culminating into us. There have been examples of it being observed over the small timescale of modern scientific thinking.
Also the bit about proteins joining together in chains to make amino acids which form the building blocks of life.
Well that demonstrates your limited knowledge on this subject
Its never been observed or replicated.
And it is hardly likely to be, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
It has been likened to a group of monkeys in a room with a typewriter and paper. What are the chances that they'll type out the complete works of Shakespeare?
A very crude analogy, but conceivably they could providing that they have enough time and they have a survival advantage by doing so based on their environment.
In a way you have proved that Evolution has taken place.
Are you quite sure? The fossil record certainly shows gradual changes from simple organisms culminating into us. There have been examples of it being observed over the small timescale of modern scientific thinking.
Yes I'm very sure.
The New Evolutionary Timetable p 95 says this: "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
I could quote more if you like.
Well that demonstrates your limited knowledge on this subject
I have got limited knowledge of this subject. Thats true. I should've said the way amino acids join together in chains to make proteins. Thanks for pulling me up on that one.
And it is hardly likely to be, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Any event that has one chance in 10 to the power of 50 of happening is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
The chances of a simple protein forming at random in some sort of organic soup is......one in 10 to the power of 113.
Thats larger than the estimated total number of atoms in the universe.
What are the chances of getting the 2000 proteins needed for a cell?
One chance in 10 to the power of 40000.
Source: Evolution from Space p 24
A very crude analogy, but conceivably they could providing that they have enough time and they have a survival advantage by doing so based on their environment.
In a way you have proved that Evolution has taken place.
Why is it a crude analogy?
The chances of a simple protein forming at random in some sort of organic soup is......one in 10 to the power of 113.
LOL! I would love to know how you arrive at that! Simply quoting it doesn't mean that it is so.
It has been proved that amino acids can form together in vitro under the conditions of the early Earth, these amino acids have been seen to form longer chained molecules albeit not proteins. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. The timescale for proteins and DNA to form is in the order of 2000 million years, laboratory budget constraints would hamper any experiment taking that long! :D
But that is not one species changing into another, that is chemistry.
The New Evolutionary Timetable p 95 says this: "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Of course it can't, no scientist expects it to. But how do the new species that are preserved in the fossil record appear in life? You have to either have to say they appear out of thin air or they are given birth to by a different species. Which is it?
This has been an interesting thread. I just hooked up and read all the way through each posting to the end. I had an opinion after reading through the first post. As an octagenarian in my 80's I thought about my return from WWII in the Pacific after fighting the Japanese Empire. I always believed it was necessary to drop the two atom bombs (the first one did not fully get their attention but the second A-bomb did and the Emperor of Japan decided to call it quits. I believed my life was saved due to President Truman's decision to drop the only two bombs we had left at that time. The landing on the Japanese mainlands would have been a disaster as was discovered by our troops who saw the fortifications that were to be manned by old men, women, children or whom ever would be able to position them selves there.
I always felt my generation spoiled the next generation (that would include my children) when I heard my fellow troops say "I am going to make certain that my children don't have to suffer what I suffered (the great depression and the great world war). I am going to give them everything that I did not have. I believe that was a mistake. The next generation was spoiled rotten. I saw that during the 60's. I like to think the next generation got better by being more responsible. That would include my grandchildren.
Yes, a lot of mistakes have been made along the way. I look back and wonder how things could have been done differently. After the fact, it appears that Vietnam was a mistake.
As for the war with Iraq, I remember when the Dictator of Iraq refused to allow inspectors to view certain places. I suspected that he had something to hide by not allowing the inspectors into those places. I believe our leaders thought the same thing when they went after the Dictator and his Iraqui army. No weapons of mass destruction were found, but I have always wondered what could have happened to them if there were some of those weapons in existance. I think of Syria and of Iran who still defy us and appear to be getting ready for a fight. I remember the finding of the empty buried containers that could have contained WMD.
I currently see problems in the USA with the destruction of the twin towers, in Britain with the bombing in the subway system and the busses, in Spain with the problems they have had, and currently in France with their problems.
Yes, it appears that the world is going mad. I remember in history when the Muslims nearly conquered the entire world but were stopped by Queen Isabella, King Ferdinand, the King of Sweden and other countries. I question, are we to have a repeat of all of that history? I don't have the answers and I probably won't be around to see what's ahead, but you younger people will have to make some serious decisions. Good luck to you for whatever you will have to do.
LOL! I would love to know how you arrive at that! Simply quoting it doesn't mean that it is so.
Source is "Evolution from Space"
Amazon is you're best bet for getting that one.
It has been proved that amino acids can form together in vitro under the conditions of the early Earth, these amino acids have been seen to form longer chained molecules albeit not proteins. But that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. The timescale for proteins and DNA to form is in the order of 2000 million years, laboratory budget constraints would hamper any experiment taking that long! :D
But that is not one species changing into another, that is chemistry.
Yes its all but impossible chemistry. There is a lot more chance that it didn't happen at all. It would take some faith to truly believe that it did.
Of course it can't, no scientist expects it to. But how do the new species that are preserved in the fossil record appear in life? You have to either have to say they appear out of thin air or they are given birth to by a different species. Which is it?
There is one other option of how they appeared. Of how complex proteins came together to form cells, of how complex cells divided to become complex creatures. They were created by an intelligent designer. Thats why on fossil records they often just appear, as if out of thin air.
You can't get something from nothing.
And we've got a whole lot of something.
No, I got it… I just wanted to see you say it again so that we could be absolutely crystal clear: only the leaders of a faith may defend said faith and if they do not do so every time a person misrepresents it then they (and their faith) should be condemned.
It’s long seemed strange to me that we, as a nation, seem to expect Muslim leaders to trot out before the waiting press to make a full rebuttal each and every time that a fanatic abuses their religion in order to excuse their hatred. It seems strange because we seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between mainstream Christianity and fundamentalist Christianity without the need for church leaders to jump up and cry foul every time an abortion clinic is bombed or a gay man murdered in the name of God. Why the difference?
jjc, yet another petal plucked from the view! Please read the rest of my post which for your convenience I will repeat here.
"There you go again jjc, you have examined every petal on every flower and ignored my version of the view.
If you read the whole post instead of dissecting every phrase then you would know that I was pointing out that it is the Leaders of various Ideologies who are condemned by their silence."
I use the term "various" instead of "all" to prevent the picking out of any particular Ideology as being specifically different, there are always the odd exceptions.
I use the term "Ideology" rather than Religion because I include both Religious and Political beliefs.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke (1729-1797).
If there is a general misconception in the way most people see an Ideology then it is up to the Leaders of that Ideology to make sure that the misconception is refuted.
I might know full well that there is a misconception but that will not stop a majority of people believing it, not will it stop Extremists from utilizing the misconception for their own ends.
A single individual may correct the views of a handful of people, but the only people who can correct the beliefs of the people in general are the Leaders who, by their very position, have the ability to do so.
(Disclaimer:- In writing I have not checked each and every word for it's correct dictionary meaning, nor have I consulted the Leaders or Holy Books of the various Ideologies throughout the World. The statement by Burke is only attributed to him by Scholars and I have not conducted my own study)
<snip>
(Disclaimer:- In writing I have not checked each and every word for it's correct dictionary meaning, nor have I consulted the Leaders or Holy Books of the various Ideologies throughout the World. The statement by Burke is only attributed to him by Scholars and I have not conducted my own study)
Shame on you for posting a reply! ;)
There is one other option of how they appeared. Of how complex proteins came together to form cells, of how complex cells divided to become complex creatures. They were created by an intelligent designer. Thats why on fossil records they often just appear, as if out of thin air.
You can't get something from nothing.
And we've got a whole lot of something.
I don't understand your post. You have not accepted the Modern Theory of Evolution yet you are hinting that evolution has taken place?:confused:
The fossil record can only provide 'snapshots' of time, the difference between seeing a few stills and the Full Monty.
But you still have failed to explain how we can have, say, no humans one day and have a human race the next. What is the nature of that process?
I don't understand your post. You have not accepted the Modern Theory of Evolution yet you are hinting that evolution has taken place?:confused:
The fossil record can only provide 'snapshots' of time, the difference between seeing a few stills and the Full Monty.
But you still have failed to explain how we can have, say, no humans one day and have a human race the next. What is the nature of that process?
I don't believe evolution has taken place.
If it had then the fossil record would show a gradual change from one species to another. It doesn't show that. It shows a sudden, instantaneous explosion of life.
I'm not sure anyone could fully explain the nature of the creation process except the Creator.
One day he made man.
I think I feel an "agree to disagree" coming on. :)
Maybe we should just shorten it to "ATD" when threads reach that critical moment when everyone goes, "Ohhhh, whats the point?" :D
I don't believe evolution has taken place.
If it had then the fossil record would show a gradual change from one species to another. It doesn't show that. It shows a sudden, instantaneous explosion of life.
The Modern Theory of Evolution recognizes that any advantageous structure in anatomy will result in an explosion in terms of evolution. This can be expained in the crude analogy of 'a one eyed man in a blind man's world will be King'
I am still waiting...
Theres no modern theory of evolution. Its still Darwins (and a guy called Albert Wallace) from the mid 19th century. Its just been proved right over and over again. genetic information has just reinforced Darwins original theory.
You canna consider whether the human race is insane or not without looking at what the human race really is and evolution through natural selection is a fundamental part of the equation. Its a physical energy buzzing through wur genes. It canna be ignored. Evolution is not a scientific theory its a scientific fact, no matter how much savey denies it or Glebers not interested in it.
Mind you I know how fragile such a statement of belief is when used by Christians so I throw myself at your mercies but surely the work carried out by dedicated scientists, all of it recorded and open to the closest scrutinies, must at least allow you guys to consider that there is something solid in science. Something that can be measured over and over again. Always coming up trumps and if it doesnt it doesnt count, but its never discarded until the fat lady sings. Thats science and it canna be ignored.
Science would probably say that yes we are a pretty insane race. But it will also say we are getting smarter. Political correctness has been in the news recently but it has its good points. Its necessary and every age has its political correctness. Its evolution. We used to be animals for goodness sake. Weve come a long way lol
Were evolving at a faster rate nowadays. It used to take 100 million years for the smallest change to occur in our genetic makeup but mowadays with modern communications inteligence is being assimilated at a startling rate.
If we can get over the atomic bomb thing, and i agree with Gleber that its a very dangerous scenario, then I reckon the human race could well evolve into the Gods theyve been creating in their owm images since we first crawled out of a pool 3 billion years ago.
What an insane thought.
Ah Gleeber what a good post. Where there was supposition there became knowledge and that is the way of things in the land of science.
Throughout history, Faith has given way to science. I have yet to see one instance where science has given way to Faith.
I think what is meant by "Modern Evolution" as opposed to "Darwinian Evolution" is the discussion taking place concerning the detail of how Evolution actually takes place.
If I am correct (and I may not be) Darwin suggested that Evolution took place over a longish period of time as creatures slowly adapted. Those who adapted survived whereas those who didn't adapt eventually died out.
Now there is a suggestion that every so often there is a large jump in evolution suddenly creating a creature better able to survive and those left behind die out.
This theory is also put forward as a reason why it is difficult to find fossils etc. which are in the in between stage.
Of course, if there were no evolution, we would all be descended from Adam and Eve in which case there would be no racism in the World.
Without humans evolving we would all have the same general appearance.
There is still the possibility that I could be summoned by the Inquisition to explain my heresy of believing that the Earth goes round the Sun and that the stars are really Suns and have their own planets.
But we have evolved since that was first suggested.
People are no longer burned at the stake for such outragious beliefs. (I hope)
The Modern Theory of Evolution recognizes that any advantageous structure in anatomy will result in an explosion in terms of evolution. This can be expained in the crude analogy of 'a one eyed man in a blind man's world will be King'
I am still waiting...
"Order : In Life" by Evolutionist Edmund Samuels p120:
"The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explaination for the presence of the diverse forms of life.....No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution."
Insects, vertebrates, fish, amphibians, mammals, apes.......all have no fossil record as to where they suddenly sprung from.
I can provide quotes from scientific publications for each of these.
Theres no modern theory of evolution. Its still Darwins (and a guy called Albert Wallace) from the mid 19th century. Its just been proved right over and over again. genetic information has just reinforced Darwins original theory.
You canna consider whether the human race is insane or not without looking at what the human race really is and evolution through natural selection is a fundamental part of the equation. Its a physical energy buzzing through wur genes. It canna be ignored. Evolution is not a scientific theory its a scientific fact, no matter how much savey denies it or Glebers not interested in it.
Mind you I know how fragile such a statement of belief is when used by Christians so I throw myself at your mercies but surely the work carried out by dedicated scientists, all of it recorded and open to the closest scrutinies, must at least allow you guys to consider that there is something solid in science. Something that can be measured over and over again. Always coming up trumps and if it doesnt it doesnt count, but its never discarded until the fat lady sings. Thats science and it canna be ignored.
Science would probably say that yes we are a pretty insane race. But it will also say we are getting smarter. Political correctness has been in the news recently but it has its good points. Its necessary and every age has its political correctness. Its evolution. We used to be animals for goodness sake. Weve come a long way lol
Were evolving at a faster rate nowadays. It used to take 100 million years for the smallest change to occur in our genetic makeup but mowadays with modern communications inteligence is being assimilated at a startling rate.
If we can get over the atomic bomb thing, and i agree with Gleber that its a very dangerous scenario, then I reckon the human race could well evolve into the Gods theyve been creating in their owm images since we first crawled out of a pool 3 billion years ago.
What an insane thought.
Well we could debate this forever. One thing is for sure however, evolution is not science fact and thats a fact! :)
Well we could debate this forever. One thing is for sure however, evolution is not science fact and thats a fact! :)
Jaws, evolution takes place by natural selection. Evolution and natural selection are 2 different theories. It was natural selection that sealed Darwins place in history. Rhegheads analogy about the man with one eye in a world of blind people being king explains it pretty accurately and shows the simplicity behind all truths..
Science does not say theres no God. Only scientists say that. Alternatively, if a scientist believes in God his observations about the evidence that a God is not needed to create the universe, is hugely infected.
No amount of scientific evidence will satisfy anyone who starts out on their investigations with the idea that there must be an intelligent designer. Thats a virus and is probably responsible for the insanity Gleber2 paints in his picture of the human race.
Savey's right about debating evolution forever. I know someone who believes in demons and angels and spirits of all types, good and evil. No amount of reason would sway this otherwise intelligent person that their view of the universe is purely subjective and very warped.
For that reason, debating with evolution deniers is as futile as debating with holocaust deniers or 5 year old kids about Santas existence.
Jaws, evolution takes place by natural selection. Evolution and natural selection are 2 different theories. It was natural selection that sealed Darwins place in history. Rhegheads analogy about the man with one eye in a world of blind people being king explains it pretty accurately and shows the simplicity behind all truths..
Science does not say theres no God. Only scientists say that. Alternatively, if a scientist believes in God his observations about the evidence that a God is not needed to create the universe, is hugely infected.
No amount of scientific evidence will satisfy anyone who starts out on their investigations with the idea that there must be an intelligent designer. Thats a virus and is probably responsible for the insanity Gleber2 paints in his picture of the human race.
Savey's right about debating evolution forever. I know someone who believes in demons and angels and spirits of all types, good and evil. No amount of reason would sway this otherwise intelligent person that their view of the universe is purely subjective and very warped.
For that reason, debating with evolution deniers is as futile as debating with holocaust deniers or 5 year old kids about Santas existence.
Gleeber, it is hard for me to say this but I am in full agreement with you and your statement above!!!!
I have NOT turned over a new leaf, or made any New Year Resolutions, I must be getting owlder and more mellow LOL
Gleeber, it is hard for me to say this but I am in full agreement with you and your statement above!!!!
I have NOT turned over a new leaf, or made any New Year Resolutions, I must be getting owlder and more mellow LOL
...and evolving.
Boozeburglar
06-Jan-06, 12:17
Creation versus Evolution is a false opposition.
I've been out of action for a day and I was therefore lucky to miss the last 24 hours.However there are a few points.
Marion, I bow to your age and experience. I was being born when the Bomb was invented and although 62 is a fair age, I lack the experience of the previous 20 years before I graced the Glebe with my infant self. The escalation of the world's problems over the last 50 years is almost hard to believe. I wonder how much of the total resources of Planet Earth was used up before 1950 and how much we have used since. Anyone who, in the face of the facts of our present global situation, can say that everything is allright or will come allright in the future, may not be insane but are certainly blind,perhaps by choice.In a world where science has proved some things beyond arguement,there are still some people who believe that the world is flat and is the center of the Universe. WEEL weel, id taks allsorts.Would you not,Marion,say that the continued development of nuclear power and bombs after the effect on Japan was seen is,in its self, a fair indication of the mental health of the human race?
The true tale of our being is quite easy to define. A long time in the past people from planet Earth migrated into space,colonising many many planets and systems. Many years later,maybe millions, some of these colonists came back and found the human race had evolved into apes. With advanced science their scientists took the DNA from the apes and made new human beings ie us. This proves of course that we are not evolved beings but devolved beings. The gorillas do not destroy their home, are vegetarians and only attack in defence. This statement will be ridiculed by a lot of people including me but it is as believable as the Creation myth and the ramblings of Darwin. What do you mean,Gleeber when you say that we used to be animals. Evidence would suggest that at least some of us still are.
Evolution is a movement towards a higher level is it not?(I'm sure that our resident sages will jump on me if I'm wrong). If that statement is true,the my philosophies would dictate that we are not evolving, only changing.
Trawling through this,my first thread, I find that my opinions on the original statement have not been changed and I stand by my original contention that,as a race,we could well be certified.
Gleeber, Golach, I refuse to stand corrected! (I'm feeling like that tonight):p
However, I am willing to accept your redirection. You are, of course, both right. (Ouch, that hurt)
The "one eyed man" is a good analogy.
I think the discussion in scientific circles currently is about the method by which he appears.
If, in that tribe of men, blindness is an inherited trait did the one-eyed man appear as a result of one, sudden and huge leap or did he appear as a result of many small improvements in sight over a period of many generations.
The end product is still the same, the one-eyed man still ends up as king but the way he arrives at that position is slightly different.
Darwin, of course, thought that it was by small steps which leaves detractors with the opening of "Where's the Missing Link?"
If, however, there is a sudden change which gives a huge advantage then there will be no "Missing Link" because there are no intermediate steps to find.
On the other hand, to be fair to the Creationists, Genesis did get the order of things right, even if the seven day time scale is hopelessly incorrect.
However, I have heard a suggestion recently by a person who suggests that he has found the location of a site which fits the Biblical description of the Garden of Eden and which also fits in with the suggested age of it being created in 4004 B.C.
His explanation is that it is in the right position and fits in with the description. Not only that, but the timing was about the time that the change from the Hunter-Gatherers to settled Farming in that area.
The Adam and Eve story could just have been about very prominent people from which a tribe descended much as the Clans were started in this Country.
Whether we arrived here today with or without the assistance of God is not for me to say, but of one thing I am certain, by whatever method, here we are and here we be!
I seem to remember that the Garden of Eden was supposed to be between the Tigris and the Euphrates(spelling?)ie Iraq. Difficult to dig there these days ,I would have imagined.LOL
God or not, good people will still do good things, and evil people will still do evil things. It could be said, religion is what makes good people evil.
God or not, good people will still do good things, and evil people will still do evil things. It could be said, religion is what makes good people evil.I heard on the radio the other day about a programme coming on tv soon called religion is the root of all evil.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
Fed-ex,well spotted. The sentence I added to this page, is lifted directly from the program you heard about on the radio. The show is hosted by Richard Dawkins, the worlds leading anti-creationist, and blames god and religion for all evil. I admire him and believe he will help us all to see through the Dogma.
Any entity that requires to be worshipped is not worth worshipping.Religion is the mind killer and a sane race in a sane reality would realise this.We supposedly can do what we want as long as we confess our sins(To a priest who only has authority from other humans,not God.).Repentence will earn absolution we are told. Stuff and nonsense. The fact that there are 3+ billion people who believe the Christian fairy tale is a fair indication of the state of human sanity. To abrogate responsibility for our own actions and rely on a saviour for whom there is no historical evidence is a good indication of the mental health of our race.
Gleeber2 Ssaid: Any entity that requires to be worshipped is not worth worshipping.
I concurr, all religion, worship and praying is boll*x. Complex religions were created by successive priesthoods as a way to validate their hocus pokus supernatural claims. The best way to profit from people is to strike fear in their hearts, God, Allah and Yahwey, who we are taught to fear, became immense money spinners, and power retainers.
Anyone in 2006 AD, who still believes in the existance of anyone of these 6000 year old, social levers (gods), is 'Insane'. The human race cannot be called insane because it cannot be judges as a single being, but every believer in invisible forces and gods, is. To believe in God is to accept that pixies, fairies and elfs might also exist.
All religions and gods aside, weather, has always been the greatest influence on the fate of man. Through time, those people with the ability to read natural occurrences, to predict changing weather patterns, impending storms and cold fronts, claimed their knowledge came from 'the other side'.
Michael Foot, is closer to God than any church leader!
Gleeber2 Ssaid: Any entity that requires to be worshipped is not worth worshipping.
To believe in God is to accept that pixies, fairies and elfs might also exist.
!
You mean you think they don't? Next you'll be saying pink elephants don't exist.....
Pink Elephants dont exist either.
I seem to remember that the Garden of Eden was supposed to be between the Tigris and the Euphrates(spelling?)ie Iraq. Difficult to dig there these days ,I would have imagined.LOL
Worse than that, it was on the Iraq-Turkey Border if I remember correctly.
Seems the Bible is correct when it says Man will never return to the Garden, somebody built a huge City right on top of it!
It was a programme on a Sky Documentary Channel. It wasn't a Religious type programme, it just looked at the description given in Genesis and then tracked down places fitting that description.
It was much the same technique as that used to locate Troy by following Homer's Story.
God or not, good people will still do good things, and evil people will still do evil things. It could be said, religion is what makes good people evil.
It's more likely that people make good Religion evil. Blaming Religion for causing evil is like blaming bullets for creating Wars.
Pink Elephants dont exist either.
Yes they do, I've seen them!
Towards the end of a good party somebody passed me a a drink and there were these two little pink elephants in the bottom of it.
I started to get worried because after a couple of fill-ups they were still there.
Eventually the horrible truth dawned on me, they were little plastic ones that you use insted of ice.
I'm just glad nobody removed them before I found out! :o
I was pointing out that it is the Leaders of various Ideologies who are condemned by their silence.
If there is a general misconception in the way most people see an Ideology then it is up to the Leaders of that Ideology to make sure that the misconception is refuted. You see, I kind of understood that point too… but it just makes no sense to me. Not the point in and of itself, but the fact that you would require leaders of an ideology to correct misconceptions, yet when I tried to correct a misconception earlier you called me ‘pedantic’.
Are you really saying that only the leaders of an ideology should correct misconceptions and that the rest of us should sit quietly by and say nothing? Surely that is how extremists are able to misuse religions and political ideals for their own ends?
'Come on lets twist again like we did last Thursday.'
'Come on lets twist again like we did last Thursday.'
No twisting at all. I genuinely would like to understand just who Jaws feels is allowed to correct your flawed understanding of Islam and who isn't.
You see, I kind of understood that point too… but it just makes no sense to me. Not the point in and of itself, but the fact that you would require leaders of an ideology to correct misconceptions, yet when I tried to correct a misconception earlier you called me ‘pedantic’.
Are you really saying that only the leaders of an ideology should correct misconceptions and that the rest of us should sit quietly by and say nothing? Surely that is how extremists are able to misuse religions and political ideals for their own ends?
Words change in their meaning with usage and quite often come to mean something completely different to that which was originally intended.
For long enough the usage of the word "Jihad" has come to be used by both Believers and Non-Believers to describe violence against Non-Believers as a part of Islam.
The fact that Jihad has a much wider meaning, in it’s original form, matters not if it is not being used in that context.
If I tell somebody that they are a plank they are quite likely to believe I am insulting their intelligence.
Somebody telling them that a plank is simply a useful piece of wood and they wrong to be insulted by the word is treating them with some degree of contempt. I know exactly what I mean and they also know exactly what I mean and for somebody to pretent that they somehow are to ignorant to understand what "plank" means in that context is just to add to the insult.
When the leaders of any Ideology remain silent when it’s meaning is being misused means that they are happy to accept that interpretation and for people to believe it as a truth.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the Extremists, when they use the word "Jihad", are really telling the suicide bombers to partake in some kind of mental struggle and that the bombers are somehow misunderstanding what they are meant to do?
Logic instead of bombast and ego driven cetainty. Her here here!
My flawed vision?
No, your flawed understanding.
No, your flawed understanding.
In my mind there is no difference,my vision is my understanding. I was going to edit that post but I thought that even you would see that it was a mistake. Ah, wrong again.It is certainly not you who will educate me with your out of touch with the reality dogma.once more , GOODBYE.
For long enough the usage of the word "Jihad" has come to be used by both Believers and Non-Believers to describe violence against Non-Believers as a part of Islam. The fact that Jihad has a much wider meaning, in it’s original form, matters not if it is not being used in that context. Well the Muslims I’ve talked to about this don’t believe that Jihad means violence against non-believers and they don’t see the wider definition of the word as no longer being used. To them Jihad still means a holy struggle.
Look, we could go back and forth on this forever and we'd both still be right. Jihad [I]is used to denote a holy war but it still means a holy struggle. In either case, the original disagreement with Gleber2 remains - humanity has certainly been closer to - indeed we have had - a holy war and Muslims undertake holy struggles every day. So to say that we have never been closer to Jihad was simply wrong.
May I ask if you have ever lived in a Muslim country such as Iran or Iraq and lived with Muslim people in their own country of origin? I used the word Jihad in its modern usage and I stand by my original contention. The president of Iran has made his beliefs clear,there are many Imans actively encouraging violence and the Ayahtollas are not preaching peace in Orthodox Muslim countries. How long can the Arab Muslim countries put up with our criminal occupation of Iraq,our interference in Afghanistan,our bullying of Syria,our threats to Iran ,our lack of success in doing something about the appalling situation in Palestine and our continued support of Israel. Coming to a boil I believe. Pray to any deity that will listen to us that I am wrong. I am more concerned about the future my children and grandchildren will have to live in than I am in the minutae of what is closer to truth and correct definition.Those with a grudge in the Muslim world will be pulled together by the strength of their beliefs in a way that will never happen in the West.
jjc, twice in two posts, I really am worried, we agree again, at least I think we do.
Jihad means far more than, "Let's slaughter the Infidel!" and most Muslims know that full well. I'm sure that the ones you know, just as the ones I know are far too level headed to believe anything even close to that.
Of course it is everybodies duty to correct such misconceptions to some degree but iit will only be widely corrected when those who have the "authority" of their position and access to a wide audience that the misconception will become generally accepted.
In saying that, I would include the Religious and Political Leaders of all involved, both on the handing out and the recieving end.
It happened to some degree after the bombings in London and fortunately there seems to have been a general acceptance that the bombers in no way represented the majority of Muslims in Britain.
For once, all the Leaders spoke with one thing in mind and that was to stop the situation getting completely out of control.
If only they would do that more often then.............
I remember when in the lower grades of Elementary school being taught 'EVOLUTION." We were shown a series of pictures starting with an ape and progressing to a human. That was the only proof shown to us for evolution. I always had a problem with that and could never accept it for truth. I believed it was just a theory that originated with Darwin and I have to accept it to this day as only a theory.
When Intelligent Design came on the scene, that became more acceptible to me because I believe humans were designed as separate entities by God just as animals were designed by God. I certainly believe that the ape is an animal and that humans were created different from the ape. I will submit to those who want to accept both as theory. And I believe that both should be taught in the schools as theory. That one theory should be taught as the only acceptable theory, I disagree with that concept. I would accept the teaching in school that both are theory. Either theory requires faith to believe it is true.
I must admit that I wonder about these judges who rule that only Darwin's theory of evolution may be taught in the schools. I guess they do believe they are descendants of the ape: however, I don't have to agree with them.
I'm not absolutely certain and don't intend to read through "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" to be certain but I don't think that Darwin said that man was descended from apes when it was published.
I seem to recall that it was the Bishop of Oxford who sarcastically asked one of Darwin's supporters if it was on his grandmother's or his grandfather's side of his family that he was descended from an ape.
I can only assume that the good Bishop found the link between man and ape so likely that the only way he could hope to refute it was by resorting to ridicule.
Of course, the good Bishop knew full well that the Earth was created at 9am on Sunday 23 October in 4004 BC and that by the following Saturday all was finished and Man and Woman were resident in the Garden of Eden.
I'm still puzzled just how it was that their son Cain managed to wander off and find himself a wife. I can find no mention of where she was created.
I do hope somebody can enlighten me and put my mind at rest.
jjc, twice in two posts, I really am worried, we agree again, at least I think we do.
I kinda do too.......I find that really REALLY worrying.....
Repentence will earn absolution we are told. Stuff and nonsense. The fact that there are 3+ billion people who believe the Christian fairy tale is a fair indication of the state of human sanity.
What about your own religious beliefs? Is not Kharma a religious notion aimed at the same repentance and absolution? As an evidence based brickie I see no difference between the delusions of Christian cultural dogma and Eastern cultural Dogma. Both are viruses of the mind and both are delusions, unless of course you believe them. I will accept that.
The show is hosted by Richard Dawkins, the worlds leading anti-creationist, and blames god and religion for all evil.
Dawkins is a leading evidence based scientist. He is also a Darwinist. To call him an anti-creationist gives authority to the creation myth. There is absolutely no proof for a creation other than mans own ability to fantasize and delude himself and others. Mind you,like the rest of us Professor Dawkins probably has his own unconscious agendas. He puts forward a good argument for the cultural virus idea of all religions though and is well worth a watch.
Michael Foot, is closer to God than any church leader!
Most religious leaders I have met or watched on television have been honourable and genuine men. Who could deny the compassion of the present Archbishop of Canterbury? Believing and living in God is as genuine a human activity as evolution through natural selection is a genuine scientific fact. However there is no evidence for a God or re-incarnation or pixies or pink elephants existing anywhere but in the heads of the deluded, but evolution happened and is still happening. The evidence is sound and not open to discussion. Sure there are debates within that area of science but the fact is thats how we came to be what we are and until people accept that fact insanity will rule not only on Caithness.org but amongst the rest of the human race.
When Intelligent Design came on the scene, that became more acceptible to me because I believe humans were designed as separate entities by God just as animals were designed by God. I certainly believe that the ape is an animal and that humans were created different from the ape.
May your God bless you Marion but if you already believed God created man no amount of scientifically based evidence is likely to change that.
Maybe Im niave but I believe ultimately in the goodness of man (and weemin) if he can shake his delusions down the drain. Have faith in your doubts folks.
And I believe that both should be taught in the schools as theory. That one theory should be taught as the only acceptable theory, I disagree with that concept. I would accept the teaching in school that both are theory.
A recent decision has made that unconstitutional in the US. So I guess if you believe that ID should be taught in the US you are acting unconstitutionally?
JJC, like you, I don't believe in creator gods and the like, but in the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, we are both believers in millions of years of tiny accidents, hence the details we find in nature.
Modern humans have chemical, atomic and neutron weapons and tools, letting us grossly change the evolving 'pattern of accidents' on this planet. In the past whole civilisations were lost to disease and famine, but now, the potential for worldwide accidents, has never been higher, for example, World War II and Chernoble, the effects of which we are only beginning to see.
I can see where Gleeber2 is comming from, it does appear we have gone insane, no matter how much you skip around the circumference of his words.
I just had a walk round the riverside. The sky was blue - not a cloud in sight. The river was full and the water clear (I guess the weed doesn't grow this time of year) and the surface was dotted with ducks and gulls. Lots of smaller birds, I think they were sandpipers, were feeding along the edges and the air was full of birdsong. The daffodils are pushing up from the earth and people are out walking dogs and babies. The air is still, no wind, and It's so warm I wish I had not put on a woollen jumper.
The sun was shining to the south, the moon, faint but there, was shining to the north east. Two opposites, but both sending us their light. funnily enough I thought of this board and all the different opinions. whether you can describe them as 'light' or not, we are provided with them, and that's what keeps us coming back for more.
(Make the most of this post, cause it's highly unlikely I'm going to wax so lyrical again!)
Steely Eyed Tortoise
08-Jan-06, 14:41
May I ask if you have ever lived in a Muslim country such as Iran or Iraq and lived with Muslim people in their own country of origin? I used the word Jihad in its modern usage and I stand by my original contention. The president of Iran has made his beliefs clear,there are many Imans actively encouraging violence and the Ayahtollas are not preaching peace in Orthodox Muslim countries. How long can the Arab Muslim countries put up with our criminal occupation of Iraq,our interference in Afghanistan,our bullying of Syria,our threats to Iran ,our lack of success in doing something about the appalling situation in Palestine and our continued support of Israel. Coming to a boil I believe. Pray to any deity that will listen to us that I am wrong. I am more concerned about the future my children and grandchildren will have to live in than I am in the minutae of what is closer to truth and correct definition.Those with a grudge in the Muslim world will be pulled together by the strength of their beliefs in a way that will never happen in the West.
I found your post quite thought provoking .. I have been in a Muslim country and seen how they view westerners, in my opinion as lower than low. Muslim countries have no religious tolerance for any other religions, there you dont have the religious freedoms that muslims in the west have. While I agree with your opinions about Iraq and Afghanistan etc lets not forget that these Arab countries have been aggressors in the past themselves. I too have kids and wouldnt wish for them to do the things I had to and see the things I have during my uniformed service but I firmly believe that religion does more harm than good. Religion is responsible for almost all of the Wars and conflicts in the world today and in keeping with the topic, I firmly believe that if we all saw ourselves as just people and not followers of one religion or another we would all get on better.
This might change the subject matter a bit, but does anyone agree with me that the demise of Ariel sharon is a good thing for the middle east?
<snip> Believing and living in God is as genuine a human activity as evolution through natural selection is a genuine scientific fact. However there is no evidence for a God or re-incarnation or pixies or pink elephants existing anywhere but in the heads of the deluded, but evolution happened and is still happening. The evidence is sound and not open to discussion. <snip>
Why is it not open to discussion? I think its very open for discussion.
Why are we visiting this board if not to discuss...stuff?
How would you feel if I said "The evidence for a Creator is overwhelming, any other explainations are only for the mislead and deluded. NO COME BACKS!"?
[quote=gleeber]What about your own religious beliefs? Is not Kharma a religious notion aimed at the same repentance and absolution? As an evidence based brickie I see no difference between the delusions of Christian cultural dogma and Eastern cultural Dogma. Both are viruses of the mind and both are delusions, unless of course you believe them. I will accept that
Gleeber,if believing that we reap what we sow is a religious belief then, good grief, I must be religious. Once more the words are proving to be more important than the content. I talk about repentance too,another word which has meaning outside the religious context.Does this mean that I have to be a closet Christian?However,if I had to choose a religion I would probably be a Buhddist because their dogma does not ask me to worship anything and Ahimsa(sp) is a philosophy of nonviolence.
Mr Tortoise,in the past when Arab countries have been the aggressors,appart from the Jews, I cannot remember them attacking the West since the moors and the Turks in the Middle ages. We did arm Iraq and put Saddam in power to curb the Irani threat and look where that has led. Now,it is quite possible that The Muslims of a very belligerant Iran have atomic weapons and the Jews most certainly have.If an army of fanatics invaded Texas,do you not think that the USA would put aside their regional differences and do their best to chase them out at all costs? The Palestinian nation has been treated worse than any race since the Roman created Diaspora of the Jews in the first century and the religious bonds that unite the Orthodox Muslims would indicate that eventually they will say enough is enough and retaliate. Who could blame them?In all of my posts in this thread I have been trying to indicate that I am trying to extrapolate a potential future from the past and the present and in consequence,some of my points are difficult to prove. What has been done in the past is of obviously of consequence but our reality is now in the 21st century and both sides of the conflict are armed with a greater ability of destruction than ever before and the religious aspect of global dispute has never been so obvious. Fortunately the split between Sunni and Shi ite has prevented a complete get together of the warrior Muslims but there is always the possibility that events will lead to a healing of this pointless rift in the world's second most common religion and a leader(the expected Mhadi) could well turn up and do just that. Pity help us if he does.
weeboyagee
08-Jan-06, 17:44
Religion is responsible for almost all of the Wars and conflicts in the world today .....
Disagree. Man is responsible for ALL of the wars and conflicts in the world today - we have the choice, War or Peace. To war in the name of or decreed by our religion is a poor excuse for not taking the ultimate responsibility on our own shoulders.
JJC, like you, I don't believe in creator gods and the like, but in the Theory of Evolution. Therefore, we are both believers in millions of years of tiny accidents, hence the details we find in nature.
Evolution began where? The Universe and all therein "always was" and "always will be"? What is it's size? Is it finite or infinite? The only logical answer to either of these questions is that the Universe is eternal and infinite, no? How come we can't accept that a supreme being created all that is? We, as human beings, are finite - we have a physical beginning and a physical end - how can we logically comprehend anything beyond that? We can't therefore we won't? God doesn't exist because He can't exist? Are we therefore a unique concept (Earth, it's inhabitants, it's whole existence)? JJC - I find your posts fascinating but would love to know what your answers would be to some of the questions that I have asked my friend.
(in answer to Gleber2) Is not Kharma a religious notion aimed at the same repentance and absolution?
Is not the notion of anything like this non-physical and therefore impossible of comprehension by the physical mind? To believe in anything beyond the physical takes us into the dimension of the supernatural where God and gods are believed in. If you ask me the greater majority of humanity believe in the supernatural.
However there is no evidence for a God.........but evolution happened and is still happening. The evidence is sound and not open to discussion
The religious minded will tell you that we are the evidence and everything around us. Those who can only accept the physical will not accept that. Evolution happened and is still happening, absolutely,....but who said that this cannot be part of a predetermined plan of a supernatural God? Why can't it be? What's so impossible about it?
Is humanity completely insane? No, I don't think it is, it has the ability even yet to determine a better future for itself. Everyone who has the ability to make a difference could and should, but unfortunately the putting into practice the diversity of all the solutions lands up with the mess that we have today - and as Gleeber rightly says - it is STILL evolving! God, (and yes, all those religious sects will argue that He exists in a different form according to their belief) could and would be a logical answer if the physical mind were open to it Gleeber, no?
Been away for a few days, so apologies for jumping in and throwing the usual spanner in Gleeber!........:)
The supernatural is just nature that has yet to be understood by our limited intellects. The peasant of a few hundred years ago would probably consider most of our techno advances as demonic and supernatural.If we are indeed evolving then this understanding may well come about.If,however,we are so certain of our own beliefs as my fellow Gleeber seems to be what is the point in discussing anything.Do not confuse us with facts,we have already made up our minds. Only the open minded can evolve on a mental level.
Disagree. Man is responsible for ALL of the wars and conflicts in the world today - we have the choice, War or Peace. To war in the name of or decreed by our religion is a poor excuse for not taking the ultimate responsibility on our own shoulders.
)
Absolutely. If there was no religion there would be some other excuse. Colour, football, orientation, or simply the quest for power.....
And does that not make us different from the animals? Animals are driven by instinct - what is it that drives mankind?
If we are really animals with a superior brain, would we not be content with our creature comforts?
Seems to me there is a driving force within us that cannot be explained away by science.
Evolution began where?
Probably as an acid upon a comet, but there are billions of possibilities, none of which have any place for a creator.
The Universe and all therein "always was" and "always will be"?
It cannot be both.
What is it's size?
We have not measured beyond the bang yet, but we are on its doorstep, looking for the key.
Is it finite or infinite?
Even when we measure it, the answer to this question depends if it is multi dimentional or not.
The only logical answer to either of these questions is that the Universe is eternal and infinite, no?
That is not the only logical answer.
How come we can't accept that a supreme being created all that is?
Because in the millions of organisms and natural sciences we have measured to sub atomic levels, not one single process in nature requires, or shows traces of a supreme being.
We, as human beings, are finite - we have a physical beginning and a physical end - how can we logically comprehend anything beyond that?
You might not be able to 'logically comprehend' where your particles were pre-womb, but deciding the exact location you chose to be buried will help you 'logically comprehend' what will happen to you after death.
We can't therefore we won't? God doesn't exist because He can't exist? Are we therefore a unique concept (Earth, it's inhabitants, it's whole existence)?
Even if other life exists in space, the chances of it evolving the same as us, is to small to calculate using our number systems.
melted_wellie
08-Jan-06, 20:48
........................
connieb19
08-Jan-06, 20:52
........................Aw I liked that answer..even though you were in the wrong thread, it made it all the funnier!! You shoul'd have left it on!! LOL:D
The Clyde tunnel,like the human race,will someday cease to exist. All arguements end.
The Clyde tunnel,like the human race,will someday cease to exist. All arguements end.
With such a well reasoned argument how could they possibly continue?
;)
What worries me is who struck the match that started the Big Bang? Whoever it was, they must be hiding somewhere.
Probably Darwin or Gleeber.
This thread has migrated through religion,evolution,humour,anger,English lessons and Uncle Tom Cobley's Horsie but it has not yet given me any reason to change my mind about the mental state of the human race. How sad. I really wanted some food for hope.
connieb19
09-Jan-06, 00:13
If anyones interested the programme I mentioned earlier "Religion Is The Root Of All Evil" is on Channel Four at 8 o'clock on Monday night!!
Gleber2, I hope you have a lot of patience because I suspect you will have a very long wait.
Would I be correct in thinking that you agree with my original contention that we appear,as a race, to be insane?
"Appear", Gleber2? Has there ever ben any doubt?
Any species which can knowingly take itself to within a few hours of total extinction has to have severe mental problems.
Any species, especially one which is supposedly intelligent, which continues to increase it's numbers, knowing full well it is outstripping it's food supply has to be completely out of it's mind.
When I was at school the World Population was about 4 billions, now it's well on it's way to being 8 billions and at the current rate will double every 40 years.
By the time pre-schoolage children today are into their old age that population looks like having reached over 30 billion.
And that is assuming we do not make further huge strides in Medical Science.
If you really want something to depress you check the following web sites
http://www.worldometers.info/
http://www.geographyhigh.connectfree.co.uk/s2populationgeoghighmenu.html
As far as I know they are factual and not "politically" motivated.
The cold voice of reason!Your numbers are even greater than I feared. Where can we go from here if the number of ostrichs are not decreased.The problem is obvious and the cure will never be found if it depends on some exterior power to help us.Any salvation can only come from within and a universal raising of conciousness is highly unlikely.Perhaps the deities that be have given us aids and bird flue to cull the race.Poetic justice in the light of our collective histories.We always seem to end up getting what we deserve and we do not get treated better by fate if we do not take steps to reduce the kharmic load we carry on an individual and a racial level.There are people on this world who think that the cow is sacred because the cow carries man's kharma for him. What if they are right and the rest of us wrong?It would explain a lot of whats happening globally. Just in case, I have been a vegan for 25 years.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.