# Professor examines the complex evolution of human morality

##### May 19, 2010 By Lisa Zyga, Phys.org feature

(PhysOrg.com) -- Although the question of what makes humans different from other animals doesn't have a single obvious answer, one seemingly conspicuous human trait is morality. Darwin, in his book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, singled out "the moral sense or conscience" as by far the most important difference between humans and other animals. Darwin’s argument was, of course, strongly based on the concepts of biological evolution and natural selection. Now, upon further investigating the origins of morality, Francisco Ayala, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine, has proposed a Darwin-inspired explanation of how human morality might have evolved.

Ayala defines moral or ethical behavior as “the actions of a person who takes into account in a sympathetic way the impact the actions have on others.” While philosophers and biologists have long debated whether the origins of are cultural or biological, respectively, Ayala argues that it’s actually a combination of both. He sees morality as consisting of two parts: the capacity for ethics and the specific moral codes that we follow. He proposes that, while ethical capacity is a product of biological evolution, moral codes are products of cultural evolution. This more complex theory of morality’s origins is very similar to Darwin’s perspective.

“Many biologists, including sociobiologists, argue that morality is a biologically determined trait,” Ayala told PhysOrg.com. “Most philosophers and theologians see morality as a product of cultural evolution and/or religious faith. I distinguish between the ‘capacity for ethics,’ which is biologically determined as a result of biological evolution; and the ‘moral codes’ or ethical norms, which are largely outcomes of cultural evolution, including religious beliefs.”

Ayala further explains that the capacity for moral behavior is not adaptive in itself, but it is a consequence of a higher intellectual ability that is adaptive, being directly promoted through natural selection due to its ability to improve survival rates (such as by allowing us to construct tools, develop hunting strategies, etc.). Ayala identifies three necessary conditions for moral behavior that could have evolved with intelligence: the ability to anticipate the consequences of our actions, to evaluate such consequences, and to choose accordingly how to act. While overall intellectual capacities evolved gradually, he speculates that the three necessary conditions for moral behavior only came about after crossing an evolutionary threshold, as they require abilities such as the formation of abstract concepts. And only after humans possessed all three abilities could we possess a moral capacity.

In this line of thinking, morality is not an adaptation but an exaptation, which is when a trait evolves because it served one particular function, but later comes to serve another function, which was not originally the target of natural selection. Ayala proposes that, once morality evolved as a byproduct of higher intelligence, it influenced individuals to behave in ways that increased cooperation, benefitting the social group and providing an evolutionary advantage, so that it eventually became an adaptation in and of itself.

Although a kind of , called group selection, is generally not considered an evolutionary stable strategy, Ayala points out Darwin’s argument that, unlike other animals, humans can understand the benefits of morality, cooperation, and altruistic behavior. This understanding has inspired humans to create laws that enforce the moral codes that benefit their society. The cultural evolution that drives these moral codes is, as Ayala explains, a more effective and faster form of evolution compared with biological evolution, and also explains the diversity of moral codes in different cultures.

If human morality originated both biologically and culturally, in the way that Ayala suggests, then it seems that it would be very unlikely for other animals to have evolved the same degree of morality in the same way, if at all. Because morality relies on several evolutionary prerequisites that themselves seem unique to humans, it might even be considered one of the human traits that is furthest from the other animals, in accordance with Darwin’s original suggestion. Perhaps, this distinctively human trait could even provide a solution to a distinctively human problem, as Ayala quotes the prominent psychologist Steven Pinker when he writes that “Morality is not just any old topic in psychology, but close to our connection of the meaning of life. Moral goodness is what gives each of us the sense that we are worthy human beings.”

“Morality is a unique human trait, one of the most important and most distinctive traits that characterize humanity,” Ayala said. “Obviously, it is also overwhelmingly important in determining the welfare of human societies. The distinction I use in characterizing morality (behavior versus norms) can be largely extended to other distinctive human attributes, like religion. We are concerned about the meaning and purpose of life, as a consequence of our exalted intelligence, which came about by biological evolution and allows us to anticipate the future and to know that we will die. But the diversity of religions comes about as the result of cultural -- not biological -- evolution.”

Explore further: Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion

More information: Francisco J. Ayala. “The difference of being human: Morality.” PNAS. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/9015.abstract
“What the Biological Sciences Can and Cannot Contribute to Ethics,” chap. 18, pp. 316-336, in Ayala FJ and Arp R, eds. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology (Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2010). philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00004079/

1 shares

## Related Stories

#### Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion

February 8, 2010

The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal Trends in Cognitive ...

#### Psychologists shed light on origins of morality

February 26, 2009

In everyday language, people sometimes say that immoral behaviours "leave a bad taste in your mouth". But this may be more than a metaphor according to new scientific evidence from the University of Toronto that shows a ...

#### The two worlds of kids' morals

March 2, 2009

Children's moral behavior and attitudes in the real world largely carry over to the virtual world of computers, the Internet, video games and cell phones. Interestingly, there are marked gender and race differences in the ...

#### Moral dilemma scenarios prone to biases

December 14, 2009

Picture the following hypothetical scenario: A trolley is headed toward five helpless victims. The trolley can be redirected so that only one person's life is at stake. Psychologists and philosophers have been using moral ...

#### Humans hard-wired to be generous

May 28, 2007

A study by government scientists in Washington indicates humans are hard-wired to be unselfish.

#### Statistcal Physics Offers Insight Into Moral Behavior

May 6, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- It seems a little strange for statistical physicists to consider questions of morality in behavior. However, that is is just what a study at ETH in Zurich, Switzeralnd, is doing. Led by Dirk Helbing, the ...

## Recommended for you

#### Aiming for reinvention, Apple eyes streaming, services

March 24, 2019

Apple looks to begin a fresh reinvention on Monday as it rolls out Hollywood stars for its new streaming television service, part of a broad shift of direction for the California technology giant.

#### Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

#### EPA adviser is promoting harmful ideas, scientists say

March 22, 2019

The Trump administration's reliance on industry-funded environmental specialists is again coming under fire, this time by researchers who say that Louis Anthony "Tony" Cox Jr., who leads a key Environmental Protection Agency ...

#### X-rays reveal termites' self-cooling, self-ventilating, self-draining skyscrapers

March 22, 2019

Many species of termites, whose societies are built on hierarchies of kings, queens, workers, and soldiers, live in towering nests that are ventilated by a complex system of tunnels.

#### Radioactive material detected remotely using laser-induced electron avalanche breakdown

March 22, 2019

Physicists at the University of Maryland have developed a powerful new method to detect radioactive material. By using an infrared laser beam to induce a phenomenon known as an electron avalanche breakdown near the material, ...

#### Many sharks closer to extinction than feared: Red List

March 22, 2019

Human appetites are pushing makos and other iconic sharks to the brink of extinction, scientists warned in a new assessment of the apex predator's conservation status.

#### Treasure trove of marine fossils from 'Cambrian explosion' found in China

March 22, 2019

A team of researchers from Northwest University and Guizhou University, both in China and one from the U.S., has found and partially excavated a new treasure trove of marine fossils from the "Cambrian explosion" in southern ...

##### JayK
3.9 / 5 (7) May 19, 2010
Looks like he stole all our discussions of empathy and evolution and wrote a paper with his own name on it.

Good for him, publishing is such a rush for some people.
##### Yellowdart
2.1 / 5 (8) May 19, 2010
Otto,

You sure seem to read alot into the text about Lot. I mean they lived in a cave, got him drunk at an older age, God makes no mention of blessing or forgiveness, and did you skip the part about who their children became? The Ammonites and the Moabites? They werent exactly blessed either.

I mean if you gonna diss a religion, fine, but at least be accurate.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
Where does it say "good faith"? They acted out of a thought or at least an excuse that their line wouldnt continue.

Immediate death is not always the punishment for sin. In fact its fairly rare. Also, several times God is shown bringing good out of what was meant for evil. Also, he shows grace on the wicked as an example to his people, that how much more will they be cared for.

So simply because he didnt smite them immediately does not mean they were forgiven and there is certainly no recording of having been blessed for their act. I imagine Lot would have reacted much like Noah, if he had found out.
##### Soulf2
5 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
Ayala defines moral or ethical behavior as “the actions of a person who takes into account in a sympathetic way the impact the actions have on others.” and then is quoted “Morality is a unique human trait, one of the most important and most distinctive traits that characterize humanity,”. Seriously, WTF? If you define something as human only and then say it is a distinctive trait because other animals are not human, then your statement is obvious and pointless. If you remove the qualifying word "person" from the definition, then MANY animals can be classified as moral, some even more moral than humans. How about a study that quantifies morality. Then let's measure human morality and then measure other species and see how it all adds up. I wonder how morally superior humans would feel then.
##### Soulf2
not rated yet May 19, 2010
Ayala defines moral or ethical behavior as &#65533;the actions of a person who takes into account in a sympathetic way the impact the actions have on others.&#65533; and then is quoted &#65533;Morality is a unique human trait, one of the most important and most distinctive traits that characterize humanity,&#65533;. Seriously WTF? If you define a trait as human only and then state it differentiates us from other species because they are not human, then your statement is pointless. If you remove the qualifying word &#65533;person&#65533; from the definition, then MANY species would qualify as moral, some even likely more moral than humans. Seriously, why don&#65533;t we qualitatively asses and assign morality, and then measure human morals and other species morals? I wonder how morally superior humans would feel then! At least we would have evidence one way or another. Anyone out there actually willing to measure, study, and actually compare morality of the species? (Sorry for the double post)
##### Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (12) May 19, 2010
Adam Smith also though we should regulate businessmen to such a great extent as to keep them from socializing with one another. And Kant was not a state propagandist. In fact, he was forbidden by his state from writing on religion and theology for almost half his career. And he was not particularly religious himself. He was (in)famous for escorting his department (as its head) to church services every day, as required and expected, and not himself going in but instead going home or back to his office. And you'll not find a more thorough or careful moral philosopher in the whole of western literature.
##### Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
Doesnt have to be lust as to why they did it. Thats obvioulsy not the case. Abraham made the same mistake of thinking he had to solve such a problem, rather than trusting or bothering to ask God. In both cases, their intentions may be honorable on the front end, but often what man thinks is a good idea, doesnt lead to an honorable ending. Even Adam wanted a good thing, to be like God, but he was deceived and disobeyed. Good intentions dont excuse wrongful behavior.
##### Yellowdart
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
That is why i don't subscribe to a specific religion or philosophy because they just end up in war. I'm hoping science can begin to guide humankind out of the crib.

The problen isnt philosophy or religion or science, the problem is that man will use whatever excuse for power, dominion, etc. Even science will fall prey to this as it is done by scientists who are no less biased than philosophers or religionists.
##### JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 19, 2010
Even science will fall prey to this as it is done by scientists who are no less biased than philosophers or religionists.

That's why there is the scientific process and people are held responsible through peer-review and other mechanisms. It doesn't pay (for long) to be wrong in science. Methinks you have a more specific complaint in mind, though. Please share.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
You gents ever think that perhaps Lot just offed his wife, raped his daughters, and continued onward with some sort of ridiculous story so that the next village wouldn't slaughter his kin?

That's where I'd put this myth.

For the rest of you religious nutjobs, go ahead and jsutify the story fo Job, that's always my favorite.

God decides to prove how awesome he is by ruining the life of his most devout worshipper to win a bet with the devil.

And you say you want to be saved. Job was saved, I'm sure his family appreciated it.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
Even science will fall prey to this as it is done by scientists who are no less biased than philosophers or religionists.

That's why there is the scientific process and people are held responsible through peer-review and other mechanisms. It doesn't pay (for long) to be wrong in science. Methinks you have a more specific complaint in mind, though. Please share.

Yeah its with Hollywood for making all these movies with evil scientists and collectives who abuse the power of science and technology to their own ends...

But seriously, where was Darwin's peer review? The greatest leaps in science have always come at the expense of the little man, bucking the consensus. I'm not saying peer review is bad, i'm saying its no better than a religious government. It can fall into the same problems that plague any group of men.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2010
And you say you want to be saved. Job was saved, I'm sure his family appreciated it.

Wasnt his entire family restored to him at the end? At least get the story right...
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
But seriously, where was Darwin's peer review?

It has been through 150 years of peer review, you anti-intellectual twit.
##### JCincy
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
“Morality is a unique human trait, one of the most important and most distinctive traits that characterize humanity,” Ayala said. “Obviously, it is also overwhelmingly important in determining the welfare of human societies.”

Important.

Doesn't this fly in the face of survival of the fittest? Allowing lesser humans (you make the judgment call on what it means to be a lesser human, if there is such a thing) to live dilutes the gene pool. Couldn't this impede further 'evolution'? Couldn't this result in the extinction of man?
##### JayK
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
JCincy: Man is a communal beast that doesn't survive based on the survival of the fittest individual, but upon the survival of the community or tribe. Where did you learn about evolution, your local church?

It has been surmised that the end of evolution for humans happened at the time when monogamy came into common practice, which is a result of population density. Somehow I don't think you're capable of understanding these concepts.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2010
JayK,

It would be 151. And the modern form of peer review did not come about until the mid 20th century. In fact even Einstein's "Annus Mirabilis" was not peer reviewed by anyone other than his editor in 1905.
##### JayK
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
Yellowdart: So in order to cover for your inability to understand the concepts you reverted to an argument of semantics and then did some name dropping?

The Theory of Evolution is no longer Charles Darwin's. It was immediately disseminated to hundreds of people on its completion by Darwin and has been revised, updated and corrected until it bears little actual resemblance to what Darwin did.

That you resorted to lame debate tactics in order to ignore this point is telling. You're just another revision of marjon, someone that asks leading questions and builds incredible straw men, then knocks them down with fanfare, but with little actual understanding.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) May 19, 2010
By the way, it was actually his daughters who raped him; the sodomites raped his daughter to death so that the angels would be spared who could have probably fried them all with a gesture or a phonecall.

The sodomites didnt touch his daughters, nor were they killed, nor was there any word about God approving of Lot's ethics...

And every action he deemed a sin, he also, forgave, encouraged, and demanded in his name

Such as? In every instance of sin, you see the negative consequences that unfold. I dont see how that is encouraging...
##### Yellowdart
1.8 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
"So in order to cover for your inability to understand the concepts you reverted to an argument of semantics and then did some name dropping?"

So in order to cover for your inability to understand the concepts you reverted to name calling?
##### Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
Otto,

Calvinists dont believe you can negate predestination. At least, I've never met one that did.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2010
The Theory of Evolution is no longer Charles Darwin's. It was immediately disseminated to hundreds of people on its completion by Darwin and has been revised, updated and corrected until it bears little actual resemblance to what Darwin did.

I never said that his exact theory is still modern, or that it hasnt altered. Just that he wasnt peer reviewed at the time. Your admission that it was immediately dissimnated to the masses is my point. Darwin ran counter to the majority of scientific consensus at the time.
##### JayK
1 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010
Ah, I see now. Marjon is Yellowdart, Yellowdart is Marjon, at least in my opinion. Thanks, that will save a lot of time.
##### Yellowdart
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
Ah, I see now. Marjon is Yellowdart, Yellowdart is Marjon, at least in my opinion. Thanks, that will save a lot of time.

Thats good, I'm sure you could use more time dishing out ratings to all your wonderful friends that youve met at physorg

##### Yellowdart
2 / 5 (4) May 19, 2010
The concubine was indeed savaged unto death and beyond, and afterward the Levite used her to his own advantage:

The grammar seems to indicate that the local man tossed the Levite's concubine out...the local man was a Benjaminte...

##### Yellowdart
2.3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010
Such as? In every instance of sin, you see the negative consequences that unfold. I dont see how that is encouraging...
I know... you dont think slaughtering and raping Philistines was sinful because Moses said god said it was ok.

Yellowdarts getting doubleteamed, ouch

Who said what about being acceptable? I just said a tleast get the story straight...

If a god exists, being god gives him the right to do what he will with his creation...especially if it rejects him.

Any life at all would be at his grace, whether one likes it or not.

As far as rape though, i'm not sure where your even drawing that as acceptable from.

##### Yellowdart
2 / 5 (3) May 19, 2010
He did leave a remnant, and then provided wives for them. Ch 21.

He didnt do that for Sodom/Gomorah.
##### Caliban
3 / 5 (6) May 19, 2010

If a god exists, being god gives him the right to do what he will with his creation...especially if it rejects him.

That is totally, by definition, immoral.

So you're saying that god insists that we be moral, but is not moral himself- therefore god's Operative Principle is not morality, it is COMPULSION. It is prima facie evidence that your so-called perfect, omniscient god engineered an imperfect creation, and then punishes that creation for his own shortcomings. Quite the paradox, eh?

Now go soak your head- you're obviously out of your depth, and need to do some more "thinkin'".
##### Thrasymachus
2.1 / 5 (15) May 19, 2010
What's wrong with Eugenics? It's simply an extension of breeding practices to human beings. The only part of it that's immoral would be "culling" and even that only if the culling were done by killing people or causing serious psychological damage. There's nothing inherently evil about Eugenics. Now, how Hitler tried practicing it was pretty immoral, but then, that wasn't even about breeding, but more about racism and political expediency. Oh, and since you've brought up Eugenics, Godwin's Law applies, and as such, you lose the argument, and must submit yourself for voluntary culling.
##### Caliban
1 / 5 (2) May 19, 2010
@weewilly

Did you just say something? If you did, what was it?
##### kevinf
3.5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
Wow. What a bunch of garbage and a waste of digital space. Admin should sweep some of this garbage out of here.

Now about the artical; This guy is missing "empathy" from his requirements for morality. To me, morality is nothing but empathy combined with the ability to think ahead multiple steps. Many animals can anticipate the results of their actions. My dog knows that when he barks by the door I will let him out and my cats can think a couple steps ahead of the dog which can be very entertaining. You can even tell that they do this for fun! And don't get me going about the squirrels who seem to be very gifted in the three pre-requisites given.
But humans can think ahead many more levels. We can project in our minds layer upon layer of action and reaction. In short, we can play chess. You combine that with empathy and a greater survival rate for groups and you have a clear reason for the development of a moral code.
##### arnosedgley
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2010
chimps lie. chimps have the same sense of fair play that we do. they get upset if they are treated unfairly. they do not care if it is the other fellow that is treated unfairly. we lie. we say that we care about the other fellow. in most cases we do not.
2.3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2010
By singling out compassion as the point of ethics this researcher is ignoring a lot of philosophical work that we humans have exerted. What gives this person, or anyone, the right to demand a choice between our survival and our happiness? To choose whether one lives their life, or is proud of the life one lives?

##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2010
Wasnt his entire family restored to him at the end? At least get the story right...

So if I take your entire family away from you and plague you with boils and festering wounds after destroying all your proerty and driving you to the brink of insanity, would you drop charges in court?

Hell no you wouldn't. God is not great if he'll perform malevolent acts to prove a point to the Devil.
So you're saying that god insists that we be moral, but is not moral himself- therefore god's Operative Principle is not morality, it is COMPULSION.

Bingo.
##### RETT
4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2010
It all goes wrong when it is said or implied that God did or didn't say or do any particular thing. When we start seeking the actions of a fictional being, the result can be nothing but more fiction. The stories we tell certainly do influence if not determine our actions. We have Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs that, though questionable towards the top, manages to get through a process without breathing the word or implication of "God". If we want to survive as a society, we certainly do have to have some rules, some of which are enforceable through punishment. It is better, from an expenditure of energy and resources point of view, if punishment is not required to bring about respect for the rules. That means that the rules need to make sense in that they clearly benefit all if followed reasonably. When we stray outside those bounds, we create conditions that damage the society in the short or long run.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
It was a test of faith. Job passed.
That is the entire point of the Bible, faith.

No, it was a statement of the power of "God" over the Devil's statement of divinity's limitations in the face of adversity.

If you want to twist that into a test of faith, then why would God use his most faithful as the test subject? He wouldn't. He'd use someone of questionable faith as an example of his divinity and power and instead of torturing he would reward for acts of faith and punish for lack of faith, as you preach he does.

So what's the truth, Marjon? Does God test the faith of the faithful and leave the rest of us alone, or does he use the most faithful to exemplify his power to others?

The answer given by that story is the latter. When faced with adversity (in this case, The Adversary), God commits attrocity to enforce his divinity. How lovely...
##### RETT
3.8 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
continued...

If we as a society fail in providing the needs at the base of Maslow's hierarchy, then we don't need to worry too much about people performing at higher levels. People will eventually do what they need to do to survive and to protect their families, if they are able. The purpose of societies, at base, is to ensure those base needs and as many of the upper needs as possible. It really does not matter whether any particular individual in any particular scripture of any particular religion did or did nto exist or did or did not do any particular thing. There are no miracles and no disasters except in our minds. There is only nature and nature modified by us as a part of nature. Societies allow us to smooth or average some of nature's extremes, but by no means all, as has been repeatedly shown through all of recorded and archeologically examined history. When we respond to the demands of dogma against the actual needs of the society, we create areas in which we fail.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
Job was faithful and had been rewarded for his faith. But had his faith ever been really tested? That is what Satan wanted God to test.
So your all powerful, all knowing, all seeing God felt it necesary to prove himself to the Devil? You're just digging this hole deeper on the morality front.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.8 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
Why do you care? It's all fiction to you anyway.

Because there are more people than you and I in this world. The more of them that believe in fantasy like this, the fewer will be able to advance our species, and the higher the chances that our advanced technology will fall into the hands of a bronze age mythology worshipper who will use said technology to the detriment of the species.

Secondly, anyone who believes that what happens in this life doesn't matter are intentionally preventing progress within this life.

I intend to build heaven on earth, not wait until I die to realize that it was an illusion.

It is truly sad that you don't recognize that the shortsightedness of one can be detrimental to the many. Your own fantasy book preaches that man must be rational in his spirituality and understand that times change and knowledge changes. It's too bad that you didn't get that lesson and instead had it fed to you in a twisted and vile manner through institutional lies
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 20, 2010
The reason such literature maintains through the ages is because people see truth in the story.
Or they're kept entirely ignorant so that they have nothing else to do than accept the stories given to them.

Name one literary work that describes a triumph of science and technocracy resulting in a failure of beneficial life. Name one civilization that has allowed the wisest amongst them to lead and educate.

Name one society that hasn't been undone by religion.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2010
History has shown that societies that become immoral, collapse. Greece, Rome, Great Britain, USA....
Science won't save any society that looses sight of right and wrong. Science won't stop a government from taking people's rights and their property. Science is presently helping such governments and many 'scientists' support such action.

And now we know your true calling. Your antiscientific religous tripe is only appearing here because you deny the society around you.

Thank you for proving my point by merely existing.

This is why people like you are wholly frightening and this is why those societies fell:
http://www.youtub..._2j5nXuc
##### Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) May 20, 2010

I spect that the "Test" aspect in the good book is just another instance of the use of compulsion- better keep looking over your shoulder, because you never know when the almighty is going to select you for QA testing.

As far as the god/devil duality- satan is, of course, The Other- a reflection of our worst Selves, embodying all the fear, anxiety, hostility, and profound evil which we are capable of. God, of course, is our benevolent, just, compassionate and supremely good Selves. The graybeards took extrapolated this knowledge into a system of control.

As I've pointed out before, the entire construct can be tipped into the garbage can, in favor of simple adherence to the Golden Rule. Only problem with that is, a lot of people lose the power they are used to wielding, and many more others suddenly are no longer able to justify their bullshit.

Morality/Ethics and a deity are not mutually dependent upon eachother for existence. Nor are they the two sides of the same coin.
##### arnosedgley
1 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
the theistic/materialistic argument is one. these are not separate arguments. each is crafted to coexist with the other. they exist in symbiosis. if one wins it destroys itself as well as the other. this is why the argument can never be won from within. it can only be won from without.

there is a clearing in the wood.
1.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
Atlas Shrugged > The Bible.

Throw away that ratty old thumping device and learn something of value about human morality from an author willing not just to admit they are human, but to proclaim it boldly and loudly and with pride.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010

'Science' is really a religion for you. What irrationality!

Sorry, not dogmatic. If I'm wrong I can change my mind without fear of going to some fantasy penalty box.
What will stop a scientist from creating an infection to kill people he doesn't like?

Morality, it's not just for Christians anymore. Besides, if we can make it, we can cure it. Besides, last I checked the only viruses that was killing people enmasse were the ones that the Christian church is helping to spread in Sub-Saharan Africa from their stances on contraception.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
So all Catholics are virgins for life? Must be an amazing conversion rate otherwise they'd die out pretty quickly.

Grow up, people will have sex. People with no life expectancy will have sex more often. Subsistence farmers need children to help feed the village. So encouraging abstinence is akin to starving them to death. Couple this with the fact that without medical testing, which is hard to come by in sub-saharan africa, you can't tell if your wife has AIDS or not. So if you're not speaking to total life abstinence you're incorrect and lying.

Bearing false witness, that's a sin, heathen.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
Catholics support sex between people who are married to each other.
What nation in Africa is under the laws of the Holy Roman Empire?

Yes but catholics do not support condom use between married people. What prevents a married carrier of the AIDS virus from passing it around to their husband and children, children who will eventually marry and continue spreading the virus?

You're commiting genocide with an uninformed ad hominem attack on reproductive and medical science.
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
marjon just exemplifies the problems with tying religion to morals, a repetitious parrot that lacks anything resembling common sense and knowledge of human nature. Religion seems to be the only method by which people are actually happy in their ignorance and are encouraged to stay that way.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010

Must be a 'liberal'. I am now 'hateful' for being honest about STDs.
Condoms are 100% effective, yes or no?
If both husband and wife abstaining from sex until marriage how will they contract a STD?

Rape, drug use, congenital transfer (being born with it), etc.

Like I said, condoms are a necessity, and they are a proven method of slowing the spread of STDs. They work far better than prayer or abstinence.

Also your abstinence statement would serve to kill these people as well, no children means no work force, and no future generations because the hunters and gatherers needed to shore up the poor agriculture won't be born. Like I said above, you're committing genocide through indoctrination.

Maybe that's your aim after all. Only a racist would deny a useful medical tool from an entire group of people due to prejudice.
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
If both husband and wife abstaining from sex until marriage how will they contract a STD?

Yes! Show that ignorance, marjon! Wallow in it, bathe in it, display it for all to see and then call the other person a "liberal" when they disagree with you. Does that tactic work for you?

Rape, blood transfusions, dirty needle, accidental bodily fluid exchanges, etc etc etc.

But I don't have to explain any of that to someone that thinks that anyone infected with HIV should be in a concentration camp:
http://www.physor...812.html

Again I say: marjon, you disgust me.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
Wow JayK, perhaps we are the same person. After all, we did post the same thing simultaneously. Maybe Alizee was right, then again, definitely not.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
Only a racist would deny a useful medical tool from an entire group of people due to prejudice.

Let's trot out all the 'liberal' attack words, 'hate', 'racist'....

Rape, blood transfusions, dirty needle, accidental bodily fluid exchanges, etc etc etc.

Certainly rape and blood transfusion are out of people's control.
Again, do condoms provide 100% protection?

Does prayer provide any protection? How much protection from bodily fluid exchange, ie: being spat upon, does abstinence provide? If you're going to mock one of the few things one can do to protect themself, why don't you go full bore and look at the whole picture.

Your argument is composed of ignorant dogma and rhetoric.
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
The government agrees with me:

No they don't. Why don't you stop ignoring how wrong you were and just apologize for your incredible mistake? No one has claimed that condoms are 100%, you built up that straw man and now you're gleefully stomping on it while it burns.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
The government agrees with me:
"Consistent and correct use of male latex condoms can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of STD transmission. To achieve the maximum protective effect, condoms must be used both consistently and correctly. Inconsistent use can lead to STD acquisition because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse with an infected partner. Similarly, if condoms are not used correctly, the protective effect may be diminished even when they are used consistently. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner."
http://www.cdc.go...atex.htm

No one is questioning the validity of abstinence. The entire continent of Africa is not going to stop having sex because you said so. Again, genocide and false witness.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
It is the atheists who are dying by having few or no children and only living selfishly for themselves.
I take the time to sit here and educate you, don't I? It's not my fault if you're too dumb to recognize merit in the exchange of ideas.

And I have twins on the way. Us Atheists sure do enjoy procreation. As a matter of fact, we enjoy it so much that we don't wait until marriage to engage in it.

You're an offensive, inflammatory NIMBYist.
1 / 5 (1) May 21, 2010
She was an evangelical atheist like many here.

Yeah, but unlike most evangelical atheists Ayn Rand was actually right.

Also, it's hardly 'evangelical' to reject the existence of God. More like scientific. Tell me, how can a conscious entity create existence, when consciousness depends on existence for every aspect of its identity?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 21, 2010
Compare your procreation with Mormons, Muslims and good Catholics. I think they are winning. (Such emotion!)

So winning means having the most children?

I always thought the goal of progeny was to leave them better off than you were.
SH was blaming the Catholic Church's stand on condoms for spreading AIDS in Africa.

SH seems to think so.

Again, you're a liar. At no point in time did I say Condoms were 100% effective. Nothing manufactured is 100%. I do know that condoms are far more effective than prayer, and said so above. If you continue down this path of slander you're going to be in for a world of problems.
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2010
You heard marjoke, might makes right and condoms are useless. We all know that marjoke is always right about such things, because he has links and out-of-context quotes that will kinda agree with him.
4.5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2010
It is evangelical when she condemns others for their faith and promotes atheism.
Faith is belief without proof. People have faith in God without scientific proof. It is a waste of time for anyone to use science to disprove the existence of God.
The only honest conclusion the process of science can take regarding God is agnostic. Rand was not very scientific.

Faith and reason are opposites. Something that must be believed on faith to be true is absolutely false, since our personal choice of belief systems has no bearing on what is actually true. Something that cannot be proved or disproved is arbitrary and isn't worth thinking about much less discussed.

If you think Ayn Rand was evangelical, then the same would apply to anyone who ever made a discovery and wished to share it with the rest of the world.

Really, the important thing isn't that she spread the word but that what she says makes sense.

##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
It is evangelical when she condemns others for their faith and promotes atheism.
Faith is belief without proof. People have faith in God without scientific proof. It is a waste of time for anyone to use science to disprove the existence of God.
The only honest conclusion the process of science can take regarding God is agnostic. Rand was not very scientific.

The Christian God as you have lain him out, and as he is stated in the Bible, is self-contradictory, and therefore can be disproved via science.

A general "God" that hasn't been greatly anthropomorphosized cannot be disproven. Problem for you, marjon, you picked a disprovable god.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
The Christian God as you have lain him out, and as he is stated in the Bible, is self-contradictory, and therefore can be disproved via science.
So you assert.

As soon as you stated he grants free will he becomes self contradictory. That means non-existence through logical disconnect. He cannot exist as you describe him.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
He is God. He can exist any way He chooses.
First, you're claiming knowledge you cannot possibly have. That is bearing false witness.

Second, you cannot violate logic, even God cannot violate logic regardless of his power. He can certainly do illogical things and alter the rules but there are some statements that cannot co-exist.

If god knows all
Sees all
Created all
is irrespective of time
grants his creations free will
then he cannot exist
You cannot have free will, for god knows everything that you have done, everything you are doing, everything you will do, before you do it.

That is predestination.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
If the Torah knew of quantum mechanics it wouldn't have taken 6000 years to tease that information from the text. Next you'll tell me that Muslims posited the Big Bang and when the "Christian" God said "Let there Be light" he was referring to the resultant atomic order that created the CMB. And you'll be wrong on both counts.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
It is interesting how 'science' is confirming documents written centuries ago.

Just like Nostradamus is interesting until you realize that you could take vaguery and apply it to just about anything after some minor mental gymnastics.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 22, 2010
You see Marjon and Alizee, to me, accuracy matters. So does accountability. If I make a mistake I'll admit it and correct it, but that's not your way. I can follow the evidence where it leads but you have a doctrinal obligation to defend your baseless assumptions of your intial conclusion with no evidetiary support whatsoever. No matter how obvious, you're not allowed to conceed any error ever, even if you know you're wrong, and that's what makes your statements so disingenuous. Consequently we have very different styles. If you ask me a direct question, I will answer it. If you make a point I will address it and correct or conceed it appropriately. I won't ignore it or obfuscate it by changing the subject. I have better credibility than that.

Now if you want to try to call what you believe to be fact and continue down this path of quote mining and miscellaneous non-relevant questioning, I will use my ability and superior knowledge of reality to show that you're full of shit.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
The evolution of morality is self evident. What is the first thing you do when you find out you're going to be in your first fight....

Look for help. As individuals even the best of us aren't worth much in the wild. We truly shine in groups. Groups require organization whether that's tribal leadership based on phenotype, caste systems based on division of labor, socialist oligarcy where the few powerful create a baseline equality through shared hardship, or a republic where the people are represented individually or by census. In order for these structures to function one must be able to use their inherent empathy to recognize one another in ways that would be seen as necessary to survival. This is the basis of our morals. If we go around killing and raping each other, and bringing about such great distrust as you see in some other orders of animals, we'd never group up, and as such we would have perished entirely. Morality existed before we did, and you can see it in other animals.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
You agree with the morals but now how they are presented?
Correct.
You're confusing morality and ethical principles, which makes you unqualified for this discussion. You don't recognize things, which every philosopher recognizes. It's a part of basic education.
So wolf packs have ethics? A murder of crows has ethics? Ethics are codified morality. Ethics are an evolution of morals. From those ethics we derive laws. From those laws we add structure to society. This is evolution.

In that cannibal society it is ethical to eat another to gain their power. Morals are flexible based on environment. When competing for sparse resources, all animals reduce their morality through cannibalism. ie: the Donner Party, and the story behind the movie Alive. These morals and ethics can diverge even across populations through mechanisms like governance and it's precursor, religion.
##### JayK
2 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
Fuzzy Santorum Aether Foam choked my cat in its sleep, then it ate all of my cheezy poofs. And I have just as much proof of that as anything Alizee/seneca/broglia/ZeroX/Zephyr/etc/etc has claimed.

Morals based on making people feel guilty and hide their problems isn't based on logic, it is based on a false deity and a judgement that never happens. It is basing decisions on a lie, so yes, the presentation is wrong and it leads to poor decisions.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
So do you now see Marjon? There is evolution in human society now. We've created a greater Us by becomming global and free thinking. The natural evolution of the order of human kind will be in response to our environment. Now that free thinking individuals can spread evidence and new discovery far and wide, old proto-governances, like religion and slavery, caste systems and restrictive tribal banding, will all cease to be. The future will sort them out as the human environment gains greater and greater access to information, but only if it's accurate.

That's why whenever you start spreading presupposition and hypothetical nonsense I'll be right there to counter your statements of ignorance.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
You didn't invented these concepts, so you cannot change their definition.

Ethics is defined as "moral philosophy" by many in the field. Ethics is further classified as "the codified morals of a society" within the majority of dictionaries world wide.
Learn about subject first, after then speculate about it. Without it you cannot achieve consensus in any community.
Feel free to join the community any time.

The formally thinking people have often quite subtle awareness of exact meaning of well established terms in philosophy (and vice-versa, philosophers are often quite fuzzy regarding the usage of specialized terms in physics).

So what frame of reference do you think you're speaking in?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
You should realize, both physics, both philosophy developed hundreds of years, they're using well developed terms & cathegories - so you cannot expect, you will impress people, when you'll start to extrapolate you ideas about string of string theory from scratch. These strings aren't jumping slinky spirals and ethics is not a morality.

Utterly brilliant. You've joined yourself with Marjon in classification. He is a new Earth creationist, and you are a newtonian creationist. It's perfect in it's simplicity.

I've discovered the Theory of Everytrolling. Good thing I caught your comment before you deleted it. It's like I've discovered the Higgs of the Internet.

All troll commentary comes from a particular subset of members within human society. If we regress to their protoforms we get the common ancestor of evangelical Christians and Dense Aether Hypothesists.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
So I'm trying to formulate common ideas for both physicists, both philosophers. I'm trying to explain philosophical concepts by physical ones and vice-versa in an attempt to find a common platform for both of them.
So evolution isn't good enough? Again, you're a creationist.
They would fight for their vision of reality more, then the philosophers, who tend to generalization of human knowledge naturally (compare the definition of phillosophy).
Philosophy is protoscience. It was the greatest philosophers who came up with the first true science by examining the world around them for truth. The Greeks and much of the western world hailed Thales of Miletus as the first philosopher and as the first true scientist. Many great discoveries in math and natural sciences are attributed to him.

"Most of the first philosophers thought that material principles alone were principles of all things from which, being preserved itself, the other things come into being." - Aristotle
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
It is not surprising that science has become our calling as a species. It is the next step in our societal evolution. What will come next cannot be said, but now we're witnessing a great divergence in human society. Progressivism and Retrogressivism. Some aspects of society are pushing to move forward, try new things, increase society, unfortunately Americans have their titles mixed up and are confusing progressivism for entitlement based regressivism. Conversely the current TEA partiers, from who I formally have divorced myself, believe in representative regressivism.

I thought Alan Grayson was a weirdo and a loon when I first heard what he was saying. Now I've renewed my interest in his opinions after hearing of the "War is making Americans Poor" Act (HR.5353). Again, Accuracy is important, and the majority of society has lost touch with that. We need to restore accuracy in our content so we can increase the evolution of our society. Freedom of information and science are our now
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
There is too many particles to consider by formal math.
Wrong. Very wrong in fact. There have been several formal models for particle quantity and content, which we are testing with colliders like the LHC, another object you're afraid of.
Who is talking about evolution here? Try to learn a bit about "Ignoratio elenchi" in association fallacy.

Again, formally thinking people are using such way of argumentation not only because they're often short of arguments, but because they don't recognize semantic subtleties of logics well ("what cannot be written down in exact formal language, it simply doesn't exist").

Well this is why you're a creationist. Aside from the fact you point me to a definition of an argumentitive fallacy, then proceed to engage in said fallacy, unless it fits your preconcieved notion, which can't be written down in formal language, it can't be an accurate statement about reality.

You are close minded. Just like a new earth creationist.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
Now you're comming around, but only because you're being general. You're not stating a specific as you were before. Similar to how a cornered New Earth Creationist will say, "Well, we cannot disprove the existence of a being like God" and they're right. Just as you're correct above, they're correct because they know there is no way to disprove the metaphysical.
I'm not so sure. IMO it's fully fledged science of generalization based on fuzzy logics.

Philosophy is the beginning of science. Science starts with a question, jsut as philosophy does. A common trait. Then philosophy attempts to answer that question with logic, reason, and observation. Another trait the two share. Then philosophy will eventually reach a limit where observation, reason, and logic just aren't enough to get to the self-evident truth. So here's where science has an edge. Science utilizes technology to see more, and gain better understanding. This is evolution, and it is self evident, logical, and reasoned
##### JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
I'm not so sure. IMO it's fully fledged science of generalization based on fuzzy logics.

Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Fuzzy logic is an actual branch of science that is based on closed form mathematics, not some philosophic soft-science with no actual solution. Just another example of your Google degree, you find some terms, latch onto them and then attempt to use them in a more educated crowd, and you just look the fool. Go comment on your own blog and leave this one alone.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
Yep - it seems, association fallacy isn't good enough for you anymore - so you added an ad hominem fallacy.

I've proven that you use creationist style debate tactics to defend your points. Association has been proved. Now the ad hominem I didn't engage in lightly. You've shown that despite several posts of evidence you refuse to conceed or acknowledge when you are wrong. This is being close minded.
It's quite transparent way of discussion, don't you think? I can find a whole lexicon entry for every "argument" of yours.

That'd probably be because I'm not the only one who understands this. Typically if something is repeatable, that is enough evidence for those in science. A repeatable experiment with a consistent outcome shows correct process and reveals truth. I've done this here, in talking with you.

You've validated both of my statements, and as such there is no ad hominem.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
I tend to remain unbiased in this description.

But you cannot be unbiased if you operate on a presupposition of Philosophy being a result of science. If your statement of fractals, a statement of convergence theory from within science, is generally explained by your philosophical model but specifically explained within science, then it can be formally written down, and exists as a component of base science. It is an answered question. Posed by your philosophy, which is limited, and answered by its progeny, science, through the analysis of emergence by technology, the child of science, which is the child of philosophy, and is another example of evolution. This is the evolution of society, over several generations, influenced by changes in the environment (of that society), through the advent of free speech and proper observation, logic, and reason becomming the standard due to better and better free communication and debate brought on by technology. Accuracy matters.
##### JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
Physicists are using boolean logics in their extrapolations, whereas philosophers are using fuzzy logics - I can see nothing problematic on such view.

Wrong. Physicists use fuzzy logic as well. It is a defined branch of applicable and academic theory. You have no clue what you're talking about. More evidence that you're nothing but a fraud using Google to appear educated and get some attention.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
I didn't said, philosophy is a result of science. IMO it's a branch of science, based on information spreading in transverse waves
No, that would be network theory, another component of modern science.
Both approaches are completely symmetric in my opinion. Do you see some intrinsic asymmetry here? Show us!
Look above. Again you're employing creationism here as I've given you three sound examples above and you're completely ignoring them. Closed-minded Newtonian Creationism.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010
Do you see?
Do YOU see? "Today," (implying passage of time since inception) "logic is both a brach of mathematics," (created through the advent of logic, a precursor to science, which is employed heavily by science which also relies on mathematics), "and a branch of philosophy."(the precursor to them all).

You have an evolutionary tree right in front of you. From philsophy comes logic, where from comes mathematics, the logical measurement and organization of observations of reality, which leads to science.

Ta Daaa, Evolution.
This is the thing, which should be learned at schools. Not the boiling point of water and the exact datum of the Independence day.

Then it appears I was well schooled as I received both logic and information on which to use that logic.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
Nice example - with the only one problem: all stages presented are the product, i.e. creation of humans in the role of Gods driving the whole evolution.
Right, you want more transitional species. Unfortunately religion, the proto-governance I mentioned above, did a great job of killing it's competitors in the wild of human society. The Great Library burnt by Christianity, the Pilfering of the Egyptian Temples by the Muslims, The Jewish moratorium on controversial archaeology, etc, etc, etc. The fossil record of human knowledge is very often wiped clean by catastrophy, like the European dark ages, where the majority of people forgot the world was round, and humans were made of cells, and everything was made of atoms, while space was far away and empty.

You're trying to do it again, and I won't let you.
Therefore the evolutionary character of formal sciences still doesn't exclude the existence of some hidden intelligence behind it.

Not hidden, human.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
Well, this is the approach, which the proponents of mainstream science are applying toward new ideas today. Every negative voting in this forum demonstrates it.
No, deleting your comments would serve that purpose. consider ratings to be the environment. More suitable commentary is ranked higher than less suitable commentary.
What is unphysical on the idea, vacuum is dense particle gas?
Yes, a vacuum is the absense of everything. As we now know, there's no such thing on the quantum level. It is not aether, it is quantum flux.
In analogy, the proponents of most fundamental formal approach to physics, i.e. string theorists are most pronounced oponents of Aether model, not these classical ones.

So you're saying that the string theorists(ST) of today came from the classical theorists(CT) of yesterday. Yes, I agree. The ST are the evolutionary result of CT based upon the changing environment of physics, and just like religion, you as a CT are attempting to burn STs.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
"Cassiodorus, monasteries replaced the old private publishers all over western Europe. Monks continued to copy books through the darkest times of the Dark Ages and into the High Middle Ages, right up past the invention of the printing press. " "During this time it was the priests and the monks that saved from the ruins of the Roman Empire the treasures of classical literature"

Then why oh why did they ban the printing press and call its use an excommunicable sin? Because the free men and women operating presses saw the church didn't protect the knowledge of old... they stole the knowledge of old and prevented the people from hearing it.

Now in your amnesia, you listen to the church and herald the patting of its own back for saving the knowledge.... the printing press was invented in China before the dark ages and was available to europe before the Gutenberg model.

##### JayK
2.6 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
When you're confronted with the facts, Alizee, why do you change the topic? You do it all the time, are you even aware?

Go back to commenting on your own blog posts. It won't give you the satisfaction of having attention, but you won't appear to be so incapable of being rational.

And stop with the conspiracy theories, they are just confirmation for everyone that you're a crackpot.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
"Atheists claim that the laws exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. "
From Paul Davies.
I consider Paul Davies to be reasonless and absurd. He's also not a scientist of any type. Obfuscate much?
Suitable for who? For prevailing, but evolutionary less perspective community - or for the perspective, but young and tiny community, which still waits for its spreading?

Ah but you don't understand. A new theory arises through mutation in an existing theory and it is either more suitable(relevant and self evident) or less suitable. The environment picks out that suitability based on the citerion of proved and repeatable knowledge and experimentation. Lower ranks fail the mark, higher ranks succeed and azre built upon.

Now you've skewed the results, as you've self affirmed you run multiple accounts. So the ranking environment is irrelevant as any one could cheat the system as you have.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
As a side, China had been printing long before Gutenberg. Why didn't they spread their technology and innovation around the world? Is it a coincidence that it was the West that did so?
The ongoing war with Islam and Judiasm prevented viable trade routes to and from. It was considered an excommunicable sin to use ANY eastern goods at one point in time as the only way to receive them was in barter with the enemy or looting the holy land. Christianity didn't spread the printing press. Rebellion against theocratic rule did.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
marjon is correct, he is considered an "academic", but he's also got a pretty high crackpot score. He's also a Templeton jackass, which means he can't be taken seriously in any venue.
##### JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
My objection still persist: such public ranking model biases less perspective community on behalf of this more perspective, but less widespread one. The democracy and system based on public voting simply doesn't work at the moment of new perspective ideas formation.

Shorter Alizee: They are conspiring against dense aether Santorum theory, waaaaaaa.

Or maybe, just maybe, dense foamy santorum doesn't stand up to scientific review, even just on its surface, and so it is rightly tossed aside as the trash that it is, leaving only the crackpots to sit in a circle jerk and complain about how their treated.
##### JayK
3 / 5 (4) May 22, 2010
In J's eye, if they don't agree with him, such independent thinkers are 'crack-pots'. What tolerance!

"All of those infected with HIV should be in concentration camps" http://www.physor...812.html

What tolerance!

Now stop being a sanctimonious prick or go away.
##### Alizee
May 22, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
I'm still waiting to be refuted by either of you.
##### pupsik
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
What about Zionist morality? Someone very smart, with a soul, says: "The first monotheist was the prophet Zoroaster who espoused that the world is one continual battle between Truth and Lies in the war between Good and Evil. Someday humanity may yet overcome world judaism thru mass conversion to Zoroastrianism which would spawn widespread devotion to the truth. The bogus WW2 holocaust narrative clearly demonstrates how the jews sustain their Luciferian rule thru the continual application of lies that are designed to subjugate the truth." I wholeheartedly agree.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet May 22, 2010
Go kill yourself.

I concur.

Freedom of speech protects us from people like you because you say stupid things, we point and laugh.
##### Caliban
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
Or, someday people might suddenly awaken from the nightmare of compulsion/lie based religious belief, in other words ALL God(s)-based religions, and get hip to the notion that religion is just that- compulsion, based upon lies, for the purpose of control. It is in no way necessary, and frequently prevents acting in a moral and ethical fashion. I GOLDEN RULE YOU- marjon, pupsik, et al skeezer-godders!
##### Caliban
1 / 5 (1) May 22, 2010

People are free to choose to believe or not. No one is forced into a faith in God.

##### Caliban
3 / 5 (2) May 22, 2010
Continued from above quote

Mangy- that is a perfect example of the deliberate, lying, hypocrisy that you continually spew in the name of your "moral" religionistic proclivities. You are obviously some type of sociopath, impervious to either shame or the truth- even when they are both slapping you, HARD- in the face.

You know full well that that statement is not only a knowing distortion of the truth, but a deliberate and outright Lie, as well. Throughout recorded history, Religion(including, especially Xianity/Judaism, and also Islam) have compelled people to convert, or to be put to the sword/tortured/drowned/burned, or simply forced out. The Spanish Inquisistion, the suppression of the Cathats, the Gnostics, the Essenes, and the subjugation of the peoples of the New World are outstanding examples of the very thing.
##### Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
Contd

It is just this long history of abuse(among many other egregious misuses)which begat the principle of the Separation of Church and State, so important to the framers of the Constitution of this Nation, and additionally the principle of Freedom of Religion. The pair of principles exist to preclude the IMPOSITION or COMPULSION of religious practice by either church or State,and also guarantee freedom FROM religion. They also prohibit the arrogation of state power to serve the interest of religions, beyond insuring their freedom to exist( so long as they do not threaten life, limb, or engage in illegal practice). And that forms the basis of the laws that you find so onerous, and decry above, which, again, you know full well. This is not the curtailment of your rights by Atheists- it is the Law Of The Land, and it serves you in just the same way as it serves everyone else, so shut up with your lying, hypocritical, double-standard doublespeak.
##### DocWhiz
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2010
Ayala defines moral or ethical behavior as the actions of a person who takes into account in a sympathetic way the impact the actions have on others.

Morality doesn't exist. Everything we do has a motive, and that motive is personal. It's about ourselves in one form or another.

If human beings were moral there would be no murder, no stealing, and no poverty. No child would die for lack of food or health care.

If humans were moral we wouldn't trash the planet or borrow billions to bail out rich bankers; billions that will be paid back by forcing our kids and grandkids into a much-reduced quality of life. Is spending our kids' future earnings moral?

Humans are not moral. Any semblance of morality is a cleverly disquised tactic to get something out of others or to influence how others view us. We care how others view us not because of them, but to maintain our own exalted view of ourselves.
##### Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) May 22, 2010
Mangy, so now you add "Lying by Appropriation" to your long list of sins? You lift the gist of my posts and repost them yourself, sans attribution, and assume the mantle of righteous indignation and moral outrage, insinuating that other visitors to this forum are ignorant of the basic precepts of our Constitution. You use theft to set up your Straw Man?

Pathetic. At the same time, Diagnostic. Only serves to illustrate my point that you are entirely without scruple, moral development, or ethical behavior. Ironic that you should even comment in this thread, given, QED, that the concept of morality/ethics is plainly beyond your comprehension.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) May 23, 2010
Until individuals can be satisfied with controlling themselves and not others, the battle for liberty continues.
Perhaps you should take your own lessons to heart and stop trying to push new earth creationism in a science forum.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 23, 2010
They could not force anyone to have faith in God.
Atheists are compelling people of faith to silence.

Showing evidence and teaching people what the truth is are not akin to silencing creationist talking points.

Truth is you can not see a place anywhere in society where creationism has been censored outside of the educational system. We've also censored all other religous creation stories because they're all factually incorrect and depend on magic. Are you suggesting we turn public school into Hogwarts and begin teaching levitation and foodless sustinence?

Of course not, you would only be happy if we taught YOUR world view, (which unsurprisingly also holds levitation and foodles sustinence as factual "miracles") but your world view is wrong, and as such teaching it would be child abuse.
##### Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 23, 2010
Frankly, I don't see a huge difference in logical fallacy between creation of Universe by God and it's formation by huge explosion from nothing.
And neither does anyone else. This is why you are unqualified to comment here. The Big Bang doesn't insist that the Universe arose from nothing. That is worse than a lay interpretation and is something you would think only if you were wholly ignorant of the BBT.

##### Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) May 23, 2010
Gee, it called debate, asking questions. How is asking questions controlling other people? You don't support the freedom to ask questions?

Funny, when I answer the questions you say I'm silencing your viewpoint. When you ask them and I call you a fool you say I'm avoiding debate.

I'd say you don't know what any of the above terms or questions actually mean.

No, Science is the methodical examination and classification of observational fact.
Davies pointed out that what was BEFORE the big bang makes no sense as time started at the big bang.
Only according to Davies. Most physicists say "I don't know what time is."
Time did not exist until the big bang. It is like what is -1K temperature?
What the hell are you talking about -1K temperature? Again, your stating knowledge that you do not have. We do not know when time began, what time is, or whether time is exclusive to our Universe.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
Truth is the science establishment censors others all the time for asking radical questions and proposing radical ideas.
Yes, most people don't listen to shaggy street preachers either. Having the loudest voice doesn't win the argument in science. The most factual and logically evident arises without contradiction due to evidence.
Flieschmann and Pons
No notes, couldn't repeat their results
anyone who doesn't support AGW
Name a contradicting theory and I'll unseat it.
and as Ben Stein pointed out in his movie, biologists who want to explore creationism.
No one is stopping them, and like a bad contractor, no one is paying them either.
To paraphrase Shakespeare, atheists protest too much, methinks.
The whole point of tenure was too allow scientists to explore radical and unpopular ideas without fear. What does science fear about creationism if they know it is false?
Science doesn't fear creationism, look at the ateist videos on youtube, flagged by theists.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
Theoretical physicists who propose a radical theory not based upon any observations are not scientists?
Understanding the definition of a phrase is helpful in debating with said phrase.
Theoretical Physics - Mathematical explanations for the natural world.
So someone in that field, like Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Charles Darwin would all be considered theoretical physicists. So far they've given rise to everything we have for tools and technology as well as understanding. Their theories enable us to have this conversation. Not so wacky, are they?
And those who design an experiment to prove the theory are not scientists as no one has ever observed such facts before?
This phrase doesn't make sense. Scientists don't prove anything. They validate observations.
Who will try to answer those questions? According to you, it cannot be scientists.

I didn't say that. I said, "we don't know." Not, "we'll never know."
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
" At an MIT lecture hall on Saturday, a convocation of 50 researchers and investors gathered to discuss a phenomenon that allegedly does not exist.

Despite a backdrop of meager funding and career-killing derision from mainstream scientists and engineers, cold fusion is anything but a dead field of research.

"
What did you say about Flieshmann and Pons?

"Several leading researchers around the United States, however, failed to replicate the results and soon pronounced cold fusion debunked, kicking the entire field to the sidelines of mainstream research

I suggest you do read more.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
Christians and Islam were duking it out, the Jews were already under seige from Christians. The rest of your commentary requires no comment, it's just that ignorant.

Second Post:
If all scientists followed your heuristic of science no one would have continued to conduct research. Therefore, your science heuristic is incomplete.

If all scientists followed my heuristic there would be no change, because we already do!. If we followed your heuristic we'd never get anything done because people would be out there trying to prove the Earth was flat and a great flood wiped away all the animals and that the world was created in 6 days by use of magic and incantations.

I don't want the government to be funding alchemy, astrology, mayan 2012 prophesies, or aether wave theory, and neither should you.
3rd
What if the problem is not natural? Why limit the possibility that the Earth was seeded by another intelligence millions of years ago, for example?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
Let's talk about panspermia for a minute, because this is where the atheist creationists go. Being an atheist they typically have a better grasp of the science, and as such can put up better objections, however they still provide no testable evidence or experiment.

Panspermia is interesting because it posits a few conditionals that are unanswered. "When does it become life and when is it just the seeding of molecules?" Well we have an answer for that. It's life when it begins to self sustain and exhibit disparate replication. Not everyone agrees to this definition but so far that's what we have. This include viruses, which are a gray area, and proto-prokaryote lipid-protein symbiotic replication.

Now did aliens do it? Maybe, but until we find our kind of life is widespread not just in our solar system but in other solar systems, there is absolutely zero evidence for panspermia.
So you were wrong. What else are you wrong about?

No, you said Jews, I said Xtians.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
So you were wrong. What else are you wrong about?
Only government can fund science?
The recent artificial life was privately funded. Why should science depend upon government control?
Try to keep it to one post at a time unless over the character limit. You're playing the goalpost game again.

Science doesn't depend on government control, education does. We've seen what allowing the public school system to be funded by special interests has done, check the mirror.
In your science world, no one would be allowed to ask the question, therefore no evidence can be possible until aliens land say 'hi cuz'
.
You just asked the question, and funny enough, you answered it the exact same way I did, because that's the truth, and that's what science operates on.

This is why creationism shouldn't be allowed in schools, and this is why it isn't science. It's not true. Now get back on topic.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
I'd like to introduce you to another theory of reality, marjon. This one is called justnowism. Everything you see, hear, feel, know, remember, was all created 26 seconds ago, when I thought it up. "Not so fast" you say, "I remember growing up and my first kiss, and driving for the first time at night". All me. I created those memories and put them there. I made this world to just LOOK older than it is. All those pictures of you and your family, photoshop. I'm the master of all and you must believe me fully otherwise I'm going to stomp on your nuts forever. Here, have my book. I've written about 60 and they're all the same. If you don't believe in the right one of those you're going to get stomped too. Lots of people don't like my books, I made them that way. Yeah, they're getting stomped too...

Pretty ridiculous isn't it?

Then why the hell do you believe it.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
This is what really needs to change.
You are not very skeptical or heretical regarding government and science are you?

Please don't presume to be knowledgeable of government. There are only 4 forms of government, which rightly can't be called forms but are more akin to stages.

Tyranny, or the rulership of one doesn't exist. Monarchy can't be enforced by one man, he needs an army, or some form of group to sustain his power, same with Generals, Emperors, Communists, Socialists, Crooked Republican or Democrat members, none of them can rule alone. So that is Oligarcy, and that is the Right side of the political spectrum. On the left, we logically have to have the opposite of total rule and that would be no rule or Anarchy. Anarchy never remains the norm because power abhors a vaccuum, so eventually you find either Democracy, which is rule by the people, or a Republic, which is rule by law.

We are not a democracy. You opinion, doesn't matter. The laws and facts do. Get them.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
The best place to make all the laws and facts known to all of the people is through the school system. A science based educational system teaches knowledge and critical thinking, as both are pre-requisites for science. Something that our current educational system doesn't teach. Instead they teach "ignoring reality" and memorizing propaganda from Christian zealots on the Texas Board of Education. People who want to kick Jefferson out and bring in John Calvin as a great American Enlightenment figure.

John f-ing Calvin was an Englishman, and by no meaning or measure, enlightened.
This is what really needs to change.

You are what really needs to change.
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) May 23, 2010
Our government funded, union controlled K-12 education is failing to achieve world class standards which is why many in New England scrimp and save to send their children to private Catholic schools.
A decentralized school system, locally controlled would end any of the TX influence you are worried about.
My kids went to a charter JR high. The teacher could find no worthwhile history texts published after 1970 so she created her own curriculum. That is what good teachers do.

And that very condition of our educationa system will remain unchanged, until local school boards are not composed of, or primarily influenced by, people like you. When fundamentalist, evangelical, creationists decide the curriculum, then science-based education gets kicked out the door, and is quickly followed up with claims by corporate interests that they can "fix" the system through privatization, which furthers the agenda of remaking public education -a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
A decentralized school system, locally controlled would end any of the TX influence you are worried about.
No, it would create more people like you, who think they're correct. Then creationism will be believed by 4 out of 6 people..... shit, already happened didn't it?

My kids went to a charter JR high. The teacher could find no worthwhile history texts published after 1970 so she created her own curriculum. That is what good teachers do.
Depends on what the ciriculum entails. How long had this person been teaching and what color were her eyes?

So you never answered, are you an adherant of justnowism or do you want your balls stomped?
##### Caliban
3 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
contd

for every American- into a system that produces people that are educated on a "need to know" basis, for the purpose of making them good, god-fearing, gun-totin', pro-lifin', CONSUMERS, instead of the critically thinking, independent, tolerant, competitively advantaged CITIZENS that are necessary to keep this nation moving forward culturally, socially, politically, scientifically, and economically.
##### Alizee
May 23, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 23, 2010
Lessons from Martin Gardner on Recognizing Pseudoscientists:
Let's see what he has to say.

(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:

(1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads....(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work

Well then, very telling when we look at your commentary.
(1) "First and most important of these traits is that cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues." Cranks typically do not understand how the scientific process operates
That's solved
##### DLKeur
1 / 5 (1) May 23, 2010
Um, I'm new here, and I looked forward to reading some intelligent discourse on these articles, but everytime I start to read the comments, I find that everything seems to get reduced to godism versus agodism. It would be really nice for the godists to put away the Bronze Age clubs and focus on the science; it would likewise be cool if the agodists just ignored the wielders of the Bronze Age clubs.
##### magpies
1 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
What would happen if scientists spent a week at bible camp and the creationists spent a week in a lab?
##### kevinrtrs
1.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
To the evolutionists enjoying their current moral lives:

If there's no God, where exactly does LIFE come from? The question IS loaded, since we know that moore and more biologists/bio-chemists recognize that LIFE could not have arisen from purely physical means. The SCIENCE dictates against it.

So, again, where does LIFE come from?

##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
atheism is a religion as well, something they vehemently deny,
No it isn't. There are no religous aspects to atheism.
If they were honest, they would be agnostic, but their agenda will not allow it.
No, agnosticism means "I don't know if the Abrahamic god exists". Atheism means "I know the abrahamic god doesn't exist" and from your own conflicting texts one can logically deduce that the abrahamic god does not exist.
If there's no God, where exactly does LIFE come from? The question IS loaded, since we know that moore and more biologists/bio-chemists recognize that LIFE could not have arisen from purely physical means. The SCIENCE dictates against it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. More and more biologists are saying life did arise through purely physical means. Biologists don't believe in magic. If life didn't arise through purely physical means that would require non-physical means, ie: magic. So go ahead and prove that magic exists.
##### DLKeur
2.8 / 5 (5) May 24, 2010
How about: Make no decision; let each to his/her own way. The old maxim of minding self and maintaining a mute mouth on subjects of belief really does pay. Wouldn't it be better to engender friendship and engage in productive discourse--sharing ideas--rather than smacking each other about over unprovable posits?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
How about: Make no decision; let each to his/her own way. The old maxim of minding self and maintaining a mute mouth on subjects of belief really does pay.

Yes it does, then again, I'm not the one claiming knowledge that I don't have. I can demonstrate everything that I KNOW. I have no belief in God, nor do I know anything about God/Gods. You may have belief, but as soon as you say you KNOW something, you must be able to demonstrate it.

If you cannot demonstrate your knowledge of God, then you don't know anything about God.

That is the gauntlet I've lain down. If you say you believe, I don't care. Once you cross over and say you KNOW, that's when I'm going to unload on you. The reason why I engage in these debates isn't for myself, it's for anyone else who's going to read this going forward. If people are running around claiming they KNOW something about God or creation, then I'm going to expose their knowledge as a lie. Bearing false witness violates intellect.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
And bearing false witness is dangerous to everyone. This is probably why the Christians thought it was so important to make it a damnable sin to bear false witness. When you say you know something, but can't demonstrate it, you are lying. Not only are you lying, but you're lying for someone else's benefit. That is corruption, and that is how the "Word of God" is used most often today.

Maybe you think it's intolerant, but if anything, I'm defending their faith by making them stick to it.
##### DLKeur
3.7 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
Well, on topic (a opposed to on a godist/agodist tangent), I think this quote: “Morality is a unique human trait, one of the most important and most distinctive traits that characterize humanity,” is treading into unsubstantiated supposition. Therefore I think the erstwhile professor overstepped.

And, since the pulpit pounding continues ceaselessly, I'm going to log out and go back to reading and discussing the articles here amongst less divisive and derisive minds, thank you.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
Of course their is. You believe God does not exist. You have no evidence.

I have all the evidence I need within the Bible.

The Bible states that God is perfect. The definition of perfection is "free from error".
The Bible states that it is the perfect word of god. The Bible states that God created EVERYTHING.
Knows Everything, sees everything, is irrespective of time and "pre-dated" time (as silly as that is to type).

So lets look at his actions. He made Cain and Abel, then Cain killed Abel. God asked Cain "Where is your brother?" An all powerful, omnipresent being who sees all regardless of time already knew where his brother was, so the question was either in error, or God didn't know as his follow up question was "What have you done?"

So that is self contradictory enough to prove that the God of the Abrahamic faiths is not who he is according to the books. ie: Doesn't exist as described. That is valid logic and shows your error.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
How do you prove you love anyone? You can demonstrate acts which may appear to suggest you love, but you cannot prove your belief that you love.

First, define love in a quantitative manner.
Then I may be able to prove it within those guidelines depending on what they are.

If you define love as a biological reaction to the infromation stimuli you receive from the outside world, it can be proved by registering the presence of certain chemicals within certain neural pathways.

##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 24, 2010
This must be really frustrating for you marjon.

This is why you need to self educate more. These conversations will feel better for you and you'll get that subtle feeling of harmony when you can identify why things happen and feel that extacy of knowledge when you recognize a greater understanding of the world around you.

And yes, some of it will conflict with your beliefs about God, but that doesn't mean you can't believe. It means you can't believe in untrue things any longer.
##### JCincy
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
"Name one society that hasn't been undone by religion." - Skeptic Heretic

I guess you missed the history lessons on the Middle Ages.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
"Name one society that hasn't been undone by religion." - Skeptic Heretic

I guess you missed the history lessons on the Middle Ages.

Ok, name one from the Middle ages that wasn't undone by religion. This should be excellently hilarious seeing as we engage in the knight's code today... wait, no we don't.
Well we engage in serfdom... no, wait, we don't.
What about feudalism on the whole? Nope, not in the least.

So name one, be specific. And since you claimed superior knowledge, make sure it's a middle age society that survives intact today.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
If you tell anyone you love them, you must be lying as you have no idea what it is.

I don't see your definition here.
They all were improved by religion
How?
primarily Protestant, as the concept of individual rights began to spread.
These two statements are not related in the least.

Protestants were hunting, yes I said HUNTING, Mormons in the streets and it was legal on the books to hunt down and kill a Mormon in most colonies and states up until about 1900. The last of such laws were removed from the Missouri law books in 1979. Yeah, again, 1979.
http://en.wikiped...on_order
Protestantism did not bring freedom, it brought a different flavor of bigotry.

##### JCincy
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
Skeptic Heretic,

Christians in the Middle Ages kept the study of literature, science, medicine, math, the arts, etc... alive in Europe.

Religious people and those who claim to be religious are not perfect. Many abhorrent acts have been committed in the name of religion. However to ignore the contributions religious people have made to civilization demonstrates a bigotry that distorts reasoning.

A small example... most hospitals in the United States were built and funded initially by religious groups.
##### CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
It would be nice if atheists understood that faith is belief without proof. But atheism is a religion as well, something they vehemently deny, of course. If they were honest, they would be agnostic, but their agenda will not allow it.

First, atheism is absolutely not a religion, by any conventional or official definition. Religion has to do with beliefs, not lack of beliefs. A lack of pudding is not pudding, buddy, or I would weigh 600 pounds.

Second, you don't know what the words atheist or agnostic mean. You are using these terms incorrectly if you think that they are mutually exclusive or that one is somehow a substitute for the other.

Theism has to do with belief, gnosticism has to do with knowledge. Knowledge and belief are two completely different things. An atheist does not BELIEVE in god, an agnostic claims that they have no KNOWLEDGE of god. Most atheists are also agnostics, but the point is all 4 combinations of these qualifiers are possible.
##### CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
cont'd.

You might ask how one could be a gnostic atheist. Well gnostic means that you have knowledge of god, atheist means you do not believe in god, so that would make a gnostic atheist someone who claims to KNOW that there is no god, and therefore does not believe in god.

MOST atheists are not gnostic atheists, most are agnostic atheists, who claim no knowledge concerning god, only a disbelief in god, typically citing a lack of credible evidence or reason for such a belief as well as the existence of evidence to the contrary.

Please try to educate yourself so that you are not disruptive to such productive conversations and so that others are not burdened with the task.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
SH: Atheists murdered millions in the 20th century.
Christians murdered millions as well. Want to keep a scoreboard? I'm certainly sure you'll lose if we do.
Christians in the Middle Ages kept the study of literature, science, medicine, math, the arts, etc... alive in Europe.
We've been over this, I'm not going to repeat myself so see above.

@Hollman,

Thank you for being entirely accurate.
##### Caliban
3 / 5 (4) May 24, 2010
SH: Atheists murdered millions in the 20th century.

Keep it FACTUAL: GOVERNMENTS ordered the killings of millions during the last century.
Just because they didn't-for the most part- happen to be theocracies, doesn't make them atheists.
Strictly speaking, the term doesn't even apply.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) May 24, 2010
Atheists, please practice the accuracy you demand of others.
How hard did you laugh when you wrote this? You can tell us honestly.

It is not the Christ's philosophy the incites the violence you condemn, it is weak humans who seek power for themselves.

Same can be said of atheists. Difference is, Atheists aren't born into a large group of like minded individuals like say, Christians are. We don't immediately have an angry mob watching our back and fighting for us because God said so.
##### kevinrtrs
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2010
Atheists aren't born into a large group of like minded individuals like say, Christians are

To be sure, everyone is born agnostic-atheists because they don't know God exists and they also do not profess to believe in God.
We don't immediately have an angry mob watching our back and fighting for us because God said so.

You are definitely assuming things here. Do you really have proof of angry mobs [of Christians] watching people's backs and fighting because God said so? I think not.

By the way - I challenged you some time back -
Where does the life you enjoy come from?

The more scientists dig, the more complex and marvelous life is revealed to be. And the more impossible it becomes to have spontaneously arisen from purely material / physical processes.

Just to mention some of the basic obstacles that currently exist: Photosynthesis - basically relies on high temperature entanglement of photons. This is totally unheard of in current scientific progress.
##### kevinrtrs
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2010
@Skeptic: Continued....more basic obstacles for purely physical processed life:
1. Chyrality - not going away anytime soon.
2. Activation energy required to form bonds in the formation of proteins - requiring enzymes whose own existence is described in the DNA they're translating into proteins...not going away anytime soon.
3. The information content of the cell[s] themselves - codes and the required de-coders - it is simply impossible for physical [material] processes to create that kind of information. Not going away anytime soon.
4. Simultaneous exitence requirement of all cell ingredients to sustain even the simplest cell [irreduceable complexity if you like].
5. Even if you have all the ingredients - you still need to kick start life. or else it's all DEAD!

So just where DOES life come from?

##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
You are definitely assuming things here. Do you really have proof of angry mobs [of Christians] watching people's backs and fighting because God said so? I think not.
The Inquisition, The Crusades, WW2, The Salem Witch Trials, etc, etc, etc. Willful ignorance IS youor strong suit.

Photosynthesis - basically relies on high temperature entanglement of photons. This is totally unheard of in current scientific progress.
No it isn't and no it's not. Funniest part is this answers one of your next questions.
2. Activation energy required to form bonds in the formation of proteins -
Tadaa, external energy sources. In the case of plants photosynthesis, in the case of herbivores, plants, in the case of carnivores, meat. Why else would you eat if not for fuel?
Chirality
Serine explains the chirality of life rather well. TBC.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) May 25, 2010
Cont: Serine prevents bonding within the body, but, it only prevents molecules that it can interface with. Serine physically cannot interact with left handed amino acids. Presence of serine in experimentation is but one potential explanation for chirality. Currently the leading hypothesis.
The information content of the cell[s] themselves - codes and the required de-coders - it is simply impossible for physical [material] processes to create that kind of information. Not going away anytime soon.
Impossible because you say so or do you have any sort of evidence to support that stance?
4. Simultaneous exitence requirement of all cell ingredients to sustain even the simplest cell [irreduceable complexity if you like].
Name one specific aspect of chemical life that is irreducably complex. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is incorrect.
5. Even if you have all the ingredients - you still need to kick start life. or else it's all DEAD!
Elaborate.
##### CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Hitler was not an athiest which you know you ignorant liar.

There are conflicting reports and sources, but the real point is it doesn't matter.

If anyone thinks they are making any kind of a point as to the veracity of any school of thought by bringing up the religious affiliation of any historical figure they are sorely mistaken.

I thought this was a group of learned individuals, it is disheartening to see such nonsense.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Willful ignorance

Don't forget death by state:
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
http://www.hawaii...OTE1.HTM

If you're trying to say government is evil, you're wrong. If you're saying government has the ability to become evil, you are correct.

If this isn't supposed to be anything other than a baseless decree against atheism, which is mere disbelief in a god/gods, then you're WAY off the mark. Especially seeing as more than half of those tradegies had a religious cause.
##### FredJose
1 / 5 (3) May 25, 2010
Like Mr Skeptic said in his/her previous posts: S/he's just here to warn others not to fall under the spell of Christians trying to talk sense into the world.

Her/He's answers are just a lot of negatives to whatever is said - just so in the hope that other atheists reading these comments will remain atheists - at all costs, even the truth.

Do enjoy yourself Mr Skeptic - one day you'll have to answer for your discipleship.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Like Mr Skeptic said in his/her previous posts: S/he's just here to warn others not to fall under the spell of Christians trying to talk sense into the world.
No, that's not true in the least. I'm here to warn others to not believe silly bullshit without following the source. A lesson that is lost on you.
No religion will put me in jail for not donating. Governments will.

Today, yes, you're correct. How about 600 years ago?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Malachi 3 8-13 was often used as grounds for excommunication and torture resulting in death.

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Jesus was executed by the Jewish state, 2000 YEARS ago because he threatened their power.
Only a government can forcibley take my property.
No, only someone with more power than you can take your property. Since the rule of law, habeus corpus, and multiple other legal and modern reforms, the Christian church has lost power. Funny how when they had power they were really really unchristian like. Same with Islam. When they were the less powerful culture they were rather nice to most people, except christians and jews, countertheism always incites violence.

So what's the moral to this story? If you want an organization, religous or not, to remain kind and benevolent, you have to prevent them from having any power whatsoever. Recognition of this is important, Marjon. Power must sit within the law and only the law. The law must remain unambiguous and socially neutral. All abuses of power come from subduction of law.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
And jsut as many Atheists were involved in the final termination of slavery. Just stick to facts and find another topic.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) May 25, 2010
Marjon, I think you have me painted wrong. For example. I admire the Pennsylvania-Dutch. They maintain their religion, but upon becomming a teenager, every parent is required to give their child money to survive and turning them into the new world.

If the kids come back, they're welcome into the society, at any time. If they don't, they have the choice to remain in whatever culture they wish.

I admire that act. They actively encourage their impressionable children to experience different lifestyles and make the choice for themselves. The penalties for leaving are harsh, but at least they get to live the life and make the choice.
##### Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) May 25, 2010
Auto: The Bible is fiction and has no reality to you. Why do you bother to quote from it? One would think an atheist/scientist would only quote from sources he deems factual.

Enough with the idiotic, reflexive questions, Mangy.

And, from now on- try to respond to the questions posed to you, and in the order in which they are received, instead of piecemeal and spread over a number of posts, as you do so often, with the obvious intent of appearing to have established some sort of authority in these proceedings.

Your intellectual(and most likely, personal) dishonesty is execrable, and does no credit to you OR the faith you PROFESS.

##### CHollman82
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2010
How do you prove you love anyone? You can demonstrate acts which may appear to suggest you love, but you cannot prove your belief that you love.

You're correct, you cannot prove that you love anyone, love is a subjective experience, one that is yours and yours alone.

Perhaps given future technology that allows a more direct connection to another persons brain you could prove your love for someone, but not today.

You can however present evidence for your love, such as the measured physiologic changes that occur due to certain sensory stimulation from that person.

But most christians that I have had the pleasure of meeting wholly reject scientific evidence in favor of their deep-seeded dogma and ancient fairy tales, so I don't assume that would do much for you.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2010
There were Indians, Chinese, Persians, Africans and many others who were not Christian 'back then'. 'Most' people 'back then' were NOT Christian.
Most people right now aren't Christian, "back then" the far larger majority was Christian, different sects, but all for the Lord..
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2010
Marjon, current population of the world is approaching 7 billion people. In the 1500's the estimated world population (because we have no way of really knowing) was approximately 400 or 500 million.

So seeing as both of your data sets are devoid of any and all information that would be used to correlate religion to populace, just wtf are you comparing?

##### CHollman82
5 / 5 (2) May 26, 2010
"Top 10 Cities of the Year 1800

Name Population
1 Beijing, China 1,100,000
2 London, United Kingdom 861,000
3 Guangzhou, China 800,000
4 Edo (Tokyo), Japan 685,000
5 Constantinople (Istanbul), Turkey 570,000
6 Paris, France 547,000
7 Naples, Italy 430,000
8 Hangzhou, China 387,000
9 Osaka, Japan 383,000
10 Kyoto, Japan 377,000"
http://www.vaughn...owth.htm
This source shows most people were not in Europe from 1650-1800.

You either have no point or you are making it so poorly no one can figure it out. I cannot correlate the list of city populations that you have posted with anything being discussed here.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2010
This source shows most people were not in Europe from 1650-1800.
The majority of the population has never been in Europe, Marjon. This still has nothing to do with anything above. What are you trying to prove with this data?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 26, 2010
"Mustve felt guilty for condoning and encouraging and participating in it for centuries. MOST people were Xian back then and were chastised and vilified if they were not."
He is the one who made the claim.

Ok, but that has nothing to do with Europe. Aside from the fact his context is clearly global when looking at his statement and the fact that Christianity had adherants from Southern Africa up to Northern Russia, all of which were outside of Europe, the question still stands. What claim are you trying to make, and what specific data do you have to back it up?
2 / 5 (2) May 27, 2010
Evolution is a big act of nature.but it is only absorbed in one
aspect ,namely survival aspect of species.

Morality on the other hand is concerned with well-being aspect of
species.The behavioural qualities that promote well-being are
identified by reason of intellect,based on experience.Individual ego
(a product of associated nature) nurtures and internalises some of
the moral qualities.Thus moral sense takes a form.

Moral sense is a slow development.It is based on reason in its origins,
though it appears to be instinctive or intuitive within the individual.

Moral sense balances ego and non-ego at a level comfortable to him.

Morality is a moral code developed from moral sense of individuals.
It aims the well-being of the species.

##### CHollman82
4 / 5 (2) May 27, 2010

I'm going to have to disagree with almost all of that.

For one thing you seem to be trying to separate morality from evolution when they are inseparably linked. Morality is derived from empathy, empathy was selected for through increased survival rates of altruistic individuals once animals started forming more complex societal bonds, which started with higher order brain function.

Morality is not concerned with the well being of the species, it is not concerned with anything. It is nothing but the manifestation through actions of an individuals ability to empathize with another. It has nothing to do with reason or intellect, though it does require higher order thought, in the form of the recognition of cause-effect relationships.

The last two sentences you wrote are nonsensical and I don't even know how to respond to them. However, I think you may be confusing morality with ethics...

You may want to research non-kin altruism in vampire bats...
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2010
@CH: Your comments map well into the economics discussed by Adam Smith. When individuals act in their self interest it will benefit all. It does require a level of long term thought to understand how giving up a bit of pleasure or not stealing from your neighbor will provide more substantial benefits and opportunities for the individual in the future.

Again- Mangy ignoring the Obvious:
Until the pursuit of self-interest causes collapse of the system which it parasitises. Last I checked, those people who acted out of self interest, cost nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer dollars to bail out, not to mention all the people whose livelihood was lost, many of whom can never hope to regain employment of a similar or improved compensation level.

Your selective understanding of, and misrepresentation here, of Adam Smith's thought exposes you for the greedy dolt that you are.

##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) May 27, 2010
And meanwhile, the hapless freemarketeers tinker about while tens of millions, or, more likely hundreds of millions of crude oil have been spewed into the Gulf of Mexico- to point out only the most recent example of the insanity to which you subscribe.
Who's to blame, Mangy- God, or the Market? Oh- I forgot- it's the Atheistic Socialists.
None so blind...
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
@ CHollman 82
--------------

Your argument is not convincing to me.I think morality is concerned
more with wellbeing than with survival.I also think that survival
of species is better in societies where there is an optimum mix of
ego and non-ego.

Morality is based on reason and wellbeing
improves longevity of individual.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
I think morality is concerned
more with wellbeing than with survival.

The education system is horribly broken wherever you were raised.
Many atheists love socialism, a planed, top down economy control by the 'elite'.

Let's look at the ignorance of this comment in today's breakdown.

"Many Atheists love socialism" - no evidence
"socialism, a planed, top down economy control by the 'elite'" - Completely incorrect. Socialism is not economic control. It is not top down. It has little to do with elitism.

Socialism - Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources.

So, since that is the definition of socialism as agreed on by the world at large let's see what else would be considered socialism.

Democracy would be socialism, as government by the people at large is "collective decision making". You advocate socialism Marjon. Go read
##### JCincy
4 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
It was flawed government policies which caused the failure...
Agreed.
The Community Reinvestment Act and it's revisions coerced mortgage lenders to lower lending standards to make sub-prime loans or face litigation & heavy penalties.
The Feds used Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac to remove much of the risk for making these bad loans. When the corruption & insolvency Fannie and Freddie began to surface in 2005, Barney Frank led the charge to stop all oversight. "These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
Finally the Fed Reserve policy of historically low interest rates fueled the housing run up to new highs.
Then energy prices spiked, the economy stalled, and the financial house of cards built on sand collapsed.

This was not a function of the free market gone awry, but of inept government intervention in the marketplace.
##### JCincy
5 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
Socialism - Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources... Democracy would be socialism, as government by the people at large is "collective decision making".

The U.S. Constitution constructs a limited federal government with clearly defined boundaries for its role. It establishes a representative republic, not a democracy. Most of the capital and the resources belonged to the people, not the central govt.

Furthermore, there was to be a check and balance not only between the three branches of the federal government, but also between the federal government, the states, and the people. These restrictions on the federal government began to dissolve in the mid 1800s and have become almost non-existent with the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments and the creation of non-elected ruling bodies, such as the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the FCC, etc...
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
The U.S. Constitution constructs a limited federal government with clearly defined boundaries for its role. It establishes a representative republic, not a democracy. Most of the capital and the resources belonged to the people, not the central govt.
Completely correct.

The issue here is Marjon is a big Democracy proponent, even though he doesn't know what it is.

Marjon,

If you had any form of base education in the things you prosetylize about, perhaps you wouldn't be self contradicting in just about every statement you pass that isn't completely off topic.
##### JCincy
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
Democracy would be socialism, as government by the people at large is "collective decision making".

is not accurate.

##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
Care to back that up JC? At least I provided a congruent definition from a standardized source.
"Hayek argues that exceptionally intelligent people who favor the market tend to find opportunities for professional and financial success outside the Academy"

Marjon, free market and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Only those who are unable to see things in shades of grey, like yourself, equate the two.

If you'd like a prime example, pre-unification Hong Kong was a free market socialized society, and they were one of the strongest economies as well as being the society seen as having the greatest individual liberty in the world.

Again, actually learning some of what you're talking about would assist you greatly in being able to interpret those quotes properly.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
And that contradicts my statement how? Socialism doesn't subjugate private property. You don't even know the difference between communism and socialism do you?
##### JCincy
1 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
Care to back that up JC?

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Democracy: form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections.

Socialism: System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.

You can have democracy where the people maintain individual control of the capital, private property and resources of the country.

Socialism can exist where the majority of people have no say in the ownership or distribution of private property, capital, and resources.

Democracy would be socialism, as government by the people at large is "collective decision making".

is not accurate.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010

Democracy would be socialism, as government by the people at large is "collective decision making".

is not accurate

Do you remember doing Venn Diagrams when you were younger? Are you insisting there is no overlap between the two?

Democracy and socialism have huge overlaps as socialism isn't a government, it's an economic principle. You cannot have socialistic capitalism because the two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can have socialistic democarcy and you can have capitalist oligarcy.

You're simply familiar with Oligarcial socialism and Democratic capitalism, and completely ignorant of all the corresponding definitions.

Oligarcial Socialist Examples: China, The Former USSR
Democratic Socialist Examples: UK, Germany, The Current USSR
##### JCincy
1 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
You can have socialistic democarcy...

Agreed. But that was not your statement.

You stated:
Democracy would be socialism, as government by the people at large is "collective decision making

So are you changing your statement now?
##### CHollman82
not rated yet May 28, 2010
@ CHollman 82
--------------

Your argument is not convincing to me.I think morality is concerned
more with wellbeing than with survival.I also think that survival
of species is better in societies where there is an optimum mix of
ego and non-ego.

Morality is based on reason and wellbeing
improves longevity of individual.

Morality only exists because of your ability to empathize with others. It is nothing but the expression of empathy in an individuals thoughts and physical actions.

Morality is not concerned with anything, for it is not anything that can be concerned.

Morality is not based on reason, ethics are based on reason, I suspect you are still confusing the two. It is also not based on well being, unless you consider your ability to empathize with others a determining factor in whether or not you are "well"... which I can see making an argument for.

As far as ego and non-ego I have no idea what you are talking about.
##### JCincy
1 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
Skeptic Heretic on Socialism...
Socialism doesn't subjugate private property.

Socialism - Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources. (quoted from another source)

Socialism is not economic control. It is not top down. It has little to do with elitism.

Oligarcial Socialist Examples: China, The Former USSR
Democratic Socialist Examples: UK, Germany, The Current USSR

You cannot have socialistic capitalism because the two ideas are mutually exclusive.

Marjon, free market and socialism are not mutually exclusive. Only those who are unable to see things in shades of grey, like yourself, equate the two.

That's an exceptional list of running contradictions, Mr. Heretic. Congratulations.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 28, 2010
JC, congrats at not being able to pass Civics 101. Feel free to tune in to Fox news or the Rachael Maddow show. Either will suit your ignorant viewpoint.

Yes, they are. It is not a free market when the state controls the market.
Your private property and rights aren't on the market are they? Go read one of the books you quote mine from, perhaps you'll learn something.

You two are getting rather tiring since you can't seem to form a cogent argument at any point in time. If I wanted to watch Fox or EWTN I'd turn them on rather than listening to your ignorant ramblings from a pulpit of failure. The fact that simplistic terms escape the reason of both of you is utterly inexcuseable. You should be suing whoever taught you as you were both taken advantage of when it comes to education.

##### JCincy
1 / 5 (2) May 28, 2010
Your private property and rights aren't on the market are they?

And the hole gets deeper.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikiped...e_market

"The theory holds that within the ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers."

You two are getting rather tiring since you can't seem to form a cogent argument at any point in time.

LOL! I simply pulled together your quotes that presented your contradictory posts. I imagine arguing with yourself might be rather taxing.
not rated yet May 29, 2010
@ CHollman 82
---------------

Let me clarify my position here.

We have communities or societies having their own ethics,for
bettering own wellbeing.But we talk of morality in case of human
species.

Morality is a set of principles,by which we judge human behaviour
as good or right.These principles are not our genetic dispositions;
but based on reason (may be built on some empirical cues) in a
developed intellect.They are not natural to us;we have to make an
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
Socialists like SH and atheist capitalists like Rand both agree that state coercion is required to organize society. Are they projecting?
Not a socialist, try again dipshit.
Why can't they comprehend that people will voluntarily associate, trade, etc as it suits their self interest just as all other things in nature do?

Marjon, you've made incorrect connections out of personal bias. You think that all atheists like and agree with Oligarcial Socialism, like China has and Russia had. You're completely incorrect. The US is about 22% atheist/agnostic, people who claim no religion and no belief in a personal god. You're also insinuating that the majority of atheists are liberals or progressives, which is also quite incorrect.

Just because you see everything thing as 1 of two sides doesn't mean everyone will fit in that nice little box. The majority of US socialists are Christians. Wrap your head around that.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
@JC

No, you've pulled together all of my comments and quote mined Wikipedia to form some sort of ridiculous argument that you think is self contradictory.

My definitions as above are such.

Free Market - An economic model with no regulatory guidelines.
Capitalism - An economic model where productive capacity and primary motivators are distributed based on wealth of the purchaser
Socialism - An economic model where productive capacity and primary motivators are distributed by society at the behest of the people
Democracy - Rule By the people
Oligarcy - Rule by a group
Republic - Rule by law

So where have I been contradictory? Go ahead, show me a statement that contradicts those definitions. Socialism and Capitalism are BOTH controlled by the state. The only delineating statement would be "Free Market" which is anarchy. Free market capitalism doesn't exist. No rules=no economy.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
This statement is flawed. Free markets have rules defined by its participants.
No they don't. Free markets have rules created by those who own the products that are in demand. Simply look at Standard Oil or Ma Bell for reference to that effect and what the danger is of free markets when a product is necessary to society.
Your definitions are faulty. That is why you are wrong.
A free market is regulated by its participants as all trades are voluntary.
"All liberal and socialist theories based on a strict logical connection of ideas have constructed their systems with due regard to coercion, "

Free markets exist and meet peoples needs in Cuba, until the government imposes its rule.
So you're saying there are free markets in socialist countries like your example, Cuba, above.....

Who's definitions are wrong?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
The government can't coerce you to do anything Marjon, we've made that very clear in the past. You can move out of the country, get religious exemption, do just about whatever you want.

Show me one thing that YOU are forced to buy.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
I don't see anything you have to buy in that list. Answer the question, and stop obfuscating.

As an individual, what do you have to buy.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
Government offers only one choice, do what we say or we will punish you.

So since you're so down on government, why are you such a fan of religion?
Religion offers only one choice, do what we say God said to do or he will punish you FOREVER.

Answer the question. What is the government forcing YOU to buy? And don't worry, I know you're not from Massachusetts, if you were you would know that you can get exempted about 50 different ways from both paying for schools or buying health insurance. Secondly, YOU CAN MOVE OUT, like I did.

So what are you being forced to buy that you have no choice in the matter Marjon. Name one item that the government forces you to buy.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 29, 2010
In a free market, the choices are not 'take it or leave'.

Actually yes they are. In an unregulated free market a single entity can corner a resource, fix a price and it becomes "take it or leave" that is the danger of the free market.

Why are you a fan of coercion?

Why are you?
I told you. And I am leaving MA.
I hope you're not going North, if you are I'd kindly ask you stay out of my city.
##### CHollman82
4 / 5 (2) May 29, 2010
@ CHollman 82
---------------

Let me clarify my position here.

We have communities or societies having their own ethics,for
bettering own wellbeing.But we talk of morality in case of human
species.

Morality is a set of principles,by which we judge human behaviour
as good or right.These principles are not our genetic dispositions;
but based on reason (may be built on some empirical cues) in a
developed intellect.They are not natural to us;we have to make an

Humans are not the only animals that act according to their own sense of morality as derived from empathy.

Ethics are determined by rational thought and intellect, morality is derived from empathy, not conscious thought.

If you have to think about acting morally the act was not driven by morality, morality is not something that needs to be thought about or determined, it is a subconscious instinct, not unlike fear.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2010
Impossible unless the single entity has the best price and service. Otherwise competitors are free to offer a better deal.
Is that how Nortel defeated Verizon.....

##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) May 30, 2010
Your ignorance is astounding. I'm done debating with you as you have no knowledge or scope of what your suggestions entail.
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) May 31, 2010
Yes, Mangy-

And many interesting articles appear here on Physorg, which in turn stimulate comments from readers- which are frequently thought-provoking, interesting reading, in and of themselves.

For Mangy, this state of affairs is anathema, and therefore it must hijack the thread, and bespatter everyone's comments with the murky maundering which passes for "thought" or "debate" in the feeble mind of Mangy.

Any rational debate is reduced to a churn of trollish effluvium after the prolonged spewing of the "Fountain of Ignorance" -a.k.a. Mangy.

##### Caliban
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2010
Since you apparently know all, mangy, perhaps you could explain it to yourself.
##### Caliban
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2010
And you claim that quotes you mine from pop politics, novels, and magazine/blogs are "support"- much less substantiation for your noise?

I agree with the second sentence, though- you are, indeed a liar(and hypocrit), and the application of the least bit of scientific method here on this website has most certainly found you out as such.
##### Caliban
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2010
Mangy/margin
Why does it pretend to have knowledge of anything, when obviously it does not?

Mangy! -mangy must answer how Nortel defeated Verizon- since mangy must know!

Mangy is too imperceptive to distinguish between emotion and simple mangy-fatigue. And once again proves that mangy considers no other's right is equal to mangy's preeminent and inherent right.

Mangy! Turn up the noise!
##### Caliban
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2010
Mangy methodology:

1.: assert
2.: reaffirm assertion

Mangy! You are redundant- you repeat yourself.
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) May 31, 2010

Mangy attempts to use another tool.

Resulting -Naturally- in an incorrect conclusion.

I agree with mangy- why does it bother?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
Caliban/SH: ( If you are one and the same, why hide?)
Check your conspiracy theory at the door. We are quite seperate individuals.
Why do you refuse to explain this:

"Is that how Nortel defeated Verizon....." ?

You waste time, get all emotional and call me names. Why not explain the statement?

Fairly sure the fact that you can't get a Nortel line delivered to your house any longer explains "survival of the fittest" in the business world well enough to you. That's the funniest part. You deny evolution, but want an economic system that depends on it.
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 01, 2010
I have a 'choice' between Comcast and Verizon for hardwired regular telephone service to my door.
Comcast is VoIP and as such is not secured to the extend that the DoD and DoJ require. So no, you don't have a choice. Government contractors are coerced into using Verizon only. Aren't you against coersion?

My statement was a joke, using irony as Nortel cannot beat Verizon in a free market. Those who know the Verizon ordeal understand why the free market doesn't work with communications. No one has legal authorty over telephone poles except Verizon, did you know that? Probably not. No one can have a line put up, shared, engaged, powered or terminated without Verizon doing the work, did you know that? Probably not. Did you know that all switching offices are owned by Verizon? Probably not.

Do you know how Verizon got so much power and play on the communications network of the country? That's right, lack of regulations.Verizon owns the communication network, thanks free market
##### Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2010
The Free market is what put the lines up and legally made them the sovreign domain of the owner. The agency didn't exist when the lines were put up genius.
##### Missing_Aspect
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2010
The material Mode as of Capitalism is pushed by multinational corporations in the name of science but serving a function to centralized resources and wealth in the hands of a few elites. But the consequences in poverty, famine, economic depression, epidemics, environmental disasters, conflicts, wars, attacking innocent citizens and so on appeal to that portion of the brain which makes sense of feelings, senses, and experience.

The intellectual, or epistemological, thoughts also evolve biologically. I have stated a few years ago that thoughts and principle ideas stimulate chemicals in the brain in the creation of cells which are passed down the generation. This is illustrated by family traits, personality, and characters along with your genetic inheritance. The biology and the abstract are inseparable in function for human being, and this is made possible by the objective.
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2010
The hypocrisy of mangy is boundless.
Here we see yet another example: it is good, free-market capitalism when it produces the effects mangy so admires- nay, worships- but rampant socialist big government is to blame when the negative end products of freemarketeering become evident.
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2010
You mean the deregulated, non centrally controlled US economy that recently toppled as a result of unfettered risk-taking and bonus hounding?

Do you understand the concept of cognitive dissonance?

Freemarket economy, aided and abetted by corrupt quasi-governmental institutions and lawmakers is directly responsible for the negative end products we are now suffering from, not some fantastical socialist government.

More examples still of mangy, hypocritical demagoguery in service of your true god, Mammon.
##### Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2010

The US economy is strictly controlled by the Federal Reserve and Congress.[/]

The Federal Reserve is privately owned, and sets policy by its own lights.

"First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans." "CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977." "The$384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and have an implied "AAA" rating."

You need to understand the basic operational mandates of Fannie, Freddie, Sallie. They are "regulated" by the gov, but are free-market(for profit) entities.

Freemarket originated and then sold USDtrillions of bad securities. Lots of profits. Followed by collapse. How many trillions did mangy make?
##### Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2010
The problem can't be fixed if the cause is ignored.
Then why do you continuously ignore the causes of our fiscal problems? Free market speculation got us here.
##### Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2010

What free market? How is a government controlled market FREE?

Mangy. In your own words- not a spew of mined quotes- define exactly what constitutes this "FREE" market whose virtues you are always so anxious to extol as the solution to all of our problems.

I, for one, would very much like to know what this animal looks like.