Republicans say goodbye to Latino vote. Makes 2016 impossible for them!

KarlRove wrote:
BOF said-

Religion, on the other hand, isn't real.  If we were to burn every bible, destroy every holy place of worship and basically strike every instance of religion having ever existed...it would never re-emerge.  Why?
------
Stalin tried that and failed. Religion got stronger and Stalin died. Religion is still here. Stalin is not and is even despised by fellow Russians. Nuf said.

Your response doesn't really have anything to do with what you're quoting.

Nothing makes sense but your warped
Reality. Maybe you and words can hang out together and hold hands while wishing all the Chrisitians could still be fed to the lions

KarlRove wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

Why should science trump religion?  How about the global warming now climate change thing? You can't even back up your lies long enough to not have to change the name of it. LOL

Whatever they call it the climate is definitely getting warmer -- the warmest in fact in decades. And the essential difference between science and religion is that science is fact and religion isn't. There isn't any part of any religion mentioning a god that can be proven, nor will there ever be. There isn't any scientific fact that hasn't been tested and proved.

There is no difference, really, between Shamanism, voodoo and any of the religions of the book. You want to believe in superstition, that's your right, only don't try and force any of your crapola on the rest of us.

Maybe I'll just give up on you, since you resolutely insist on believing bullshit. I done my best .... LOL

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of immoral brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

So what would you do?

Take all the children away from their parents so they can be indoctrinated by the state?

Isn't that sort of like embedding your own abstract concepts into the human psyche?

Is there a difference between the two if they both accomplish the same thing?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1C6kqXT9XU

The process of science is universal.  Someone scientifically studying an aspect of the universe in the US will arrive at the same results - completely independently - as someone who is studying the same aspect of the universe in Australia, or Japan, or China, or etc., or etc.  Science doesn't require indoctrination.  We could obliterate all of our scientific knowledge and technology today and - assuming humanity could survive - we would eventually regain our technology and scientific understand of the world.  Why?  Because that's real.  We learn through a process of verifying or falsifying things through scientific experimentation.  Again, no indoctrination is needed there.

So you would take away the 1st Amendment and parental rights from others all because you believe you have the morally superior position..... Refresh my memory someone... Didn't we fight a World War and Cold War because other men had such notions?

You're above statement also implies that you have no use for abstract concepts... like morals and ethics. After all that is a something you can't measure in any scientific way. You know... or maybe you don't... Things like...

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt honor thy father and mother

Thou shalt not steal

Etc...

boards of FL wrote:Religion, on the other hand, isn't real.  If we were to burn every bible, destroy every holy place of worship and basically strike every instance of religion having ever existed...it would never re-emerge.  Why?  Because it isn't real.

But then neither are abstract human values.

boards of FL wrote:No one is ever going to look through a microscope, telescope, or laboratory test and discover Jesus (or Zeus, or Thor, or etc.).  The only reason these ideas continue on is through the indoctrination of children.  Science, however, can be independently discovered or verified without any need for indoctrination.

Science can only answer certain questions about the universe...

I'm still waiting for the answer about your Big Bang creation theology and what kick started the universe.

I'm going with it was a miracle but that isn't a scientific explanation and infers there's a God.

boards of FL wrote:Disclaimer:  When I say "religion will never emerge", I'm not referring to the broad belief that their may be some higher intelligent power in the universe that could have created all that we see; rather, I'm referring to specific religions that exist today.  Christianity would not re-emerge.  Islam would not re-emerge.  Etc..

What makes you think some new religion, that has no basis with the old, would be any better. After all your godless theology killed millions last century in the names of people like Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc...

boards of FL wrote:There is no rational argument to be made in the area of honest, rational exploration of the universe versus ancient mythology.  None.

Still waiting for that kick start answer to your creation theology.



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kmq9uM4Mq0

Wordslinger wrote:

KarlRove wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

Why should science trump religion?  How about the global warming now climate change thing? You can't even back up your lies long enough to not have to change the name of it. LOL

Whatever they call it the climate is definitely getting warmer -- the warmest in fact in decades. And the essential difference between science and religion is that science is fact and religion isn't. There isn't any part of any religion mentioning a god that can be proven, nor will there ever be. There isn't any scientific fact that hasn't been tested and proved.

There is no difference, really, between Shamanism, voodoo and any of the religions of the book. You want to believe in superstition, that's your right, only don't try and force any of your crapola on the rest of us.

Maybe I'll just give up on you, since you resolutely insist on believing bullshit. I done my best .... LOL

The warming has flatlined since the late 90's... which climate model has predicted that?

KarlRove wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

Why should science trump religion?  How about the global warming now climate change thing? You can't even back up your lies long enough to not have to change the name of it. LOL

What a bonafide idiot. You can't make these people up?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

Correct and religion will be gone in the future generations eventually only to be held by a small minority of low functioning individuals. Note the inability of average functioning intelligence to discern between fact and fiction. This is how seemingly normal people can be led to slaughter.

Vikingwoman wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

Correct and religion will be gone in the future generations eventually only to be held by a small minority of low functioning individuals. Note the inability of average functioning intelligence to discern between fact and fiction. This is how seemingly normal people can be led to slaughter.

If these people are conservatives, like you said in another thread bipolar one, why would the GOP worry about losing their vote?

Vikingwoman wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:I see... So you enjoy fighting an abstract concept that deeply embedded into the human psyche. That should keep you busy until the end of time...

Religion isn't "deeply embedded into the human psyche".  More correctly stated, religion is "aggressively indoctrinated into children".

We could isolate children and have them grow up learning about the world around them through the process of science, and never at any time will any of them arrive at "Jesus" as a solution to anything.  "Jesus" only enters their psyche upon years of brainwashing.

Religion would be gone in one generation if not for the indoctrination of children who don't know any better.

Correct and religion will be gone in the future generations eventually only to be held by a small minority of low functioning individuals. Note the inability of average functioning intelligence to discern between fact and fiction. This is how seemingly normal people can be led to slaughter.

The fact of the matter is that I'm the silverback alpha male in your reality and I'm going to run off all the other males around here so I can have all the females to myself since I create my own morals and ethics at that point.

So you'd better be ready to do the deed once I get back and once I'm done my dog Rover wants some too.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ3swBEBqBc

Damaged Eagle wrote:So what would you do?

Take all the children away from their parents so they can be indoctrinated by the state?

Isn't that sort of like embedding your own abstract concepts into the human psyche?

Is there a difference between the two if they both accomplish the same thing?

From where on earth are you getting this?  If you're not going to directly respond to what I'm actually saying, why respond?  Where did I ever advocate taking children away from their parents and subjecting them to some sort of state indoctrination?

Damaged Eagle wrote:So you would take away the 1st Amendment and parental rights from others all because you believe you have the morally superior position..... Refresh my memory someone... Didn't we fight a World War and Cold War because other men had such notions?

Here again, what on earth are you talking about?  All I can suggest is that you try reading my post a few more times.  It doesn't say what you think it is saying.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:You're above statement also implies that you have no use for abstract concepts... like morals and ethics. After all that is a something you can't measure in any scientific way. You know... or maybe you don't... Things like...

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt honor thy father and mother

Thou shalt not steal

Etc...

Morals and ethics aren't necessarily abstract concepts.  In fact, morals and ethics require science.   The non-scientific mythical view of the world tells us that homosexual behavior is an immoral decision.  The scientific view of the world tells us that virtually all mammalian species exhibit homosexual behavior.  This is why religious people tend to be ignorant and on the wrong side of history in that regard.   The non-scientific view of the world used to tell us that some people were witches and needed to be stoned to death.  This was considered the morally just thing to do.  The scientific view of the world tells us that that isn't real, and that it is only religious mythical bullshit.  I could go on all day on this.

Each of your morals listed above can be viewed as objectively optimal through an understanding of evolution.  Of course it is more likely that a species will survive if it is not killing itself off (thou shalt not kill) or if it has evolved in such a way that it has strength in societal bonds (your other two morals).

The concept of "health" could be considered an abstract concept, and yet no one questions whether or not science can give us answers in the area of health care.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:Science can only answer certain questions about the universe...

I'm still waiting for the answer about your Big Bang creation theology and what kick started the universe.

I don't presume that anything "kick started" the universe.  We can only trace our universe so far back in time.  It is currently unknown what events occurred prior to that as we simply do not have any data or way of testing anything yet.

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think some new religion, that has no basis with the old, would be any better. After all your godless theology killed millions last century in the names of people like Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc...

I never said for certain that any other religion would emerge; and even if I had said that, I did say that it would necessarily be better than anything that we have today.  Here again, you simply cannot read and comprehend what it is that you're reading.

Damaged Eagle wrote:Still waiting for that kick start answer to your creation theology.

As I have already said, it is unknown.  Theories exist that attempt to explain what may have happened, but there simply isn't enough data at this point to assign a high probability to anything.  We know that the universe is expanding and we know that time moves forward.  Taking that into account, we know that - as we look back in time - the universe was smaller and smaller.  We can follow that back only so far and then our current models fail to explain what could have happened beyond a certain point.   More information is needed.

This doesn't bolster ancient mythology in any way.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So what would you do?

Take all the children away from their parents so they can be indoctrinated by the state?

Isn't that sort of like embedding your own abstract concepts into the human psyche?

Is there a difference between the two if they both accomplish the same thing?

From where on earth are you getting this?  If you're not going to directly respond to what I'm actually saying, why respond?  Where did I ever advocate taking children away from their parents and subjecting them to some sort of state indoctrination?

Damaged Eagle wrote:So you would take away the 1st Amendment and parental rights from others all because you believe you have the morally superior position..... Refresh my memory someone... Didn't we fight a World War and Cold War because other men had such notions?

Here again, what on earth are you talking about?  All I can suggest is that you try reading my post a few more times.  It doesn't say what you think it is saying.  

You're the one who said you wanted to isolate the children and teach them strictly science. If you can't follow you own thought processes or the conversation then perhaps you should seek help at a neurological center.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jethro+tull+the+whistler

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:You're above statement also implies that you have no use for abstract concepts... like morals and ethics. After all that is a something you can't measure in any scientific way. You know... or maybe you don't... Things like...

Thou shalt not kill

Thou shalt honor thy father and mother

Thou shalt not steal

Etc...

Morals and ethics aren't necessarily abstract concepts.  In fact, morals and ethics require science.   The non-scientific mythical view of the world tells us that homosexual behavior is an immoral decision.  The scientific view of the world tells us that virtually all mammalian species exhibit homosexual behavior.

Mammals exhibit a wider variety of different sexual attributes than that.

Shall we bring them all on to the table as morally correct for the human race?  

boards of FL wrote:This is why religious people tend to be ignorant and on the wrong side of history in that regard.   The non-scientific view of the world used to tell us that some people were witches and needed to be stoned to death.  This was considered the morally just thing to do.  The scientific view of the world tells us that that isn't real, and that it is only religious mythical bullshit.  I could go on all day on this.

And the scientific view of the world less than a century ago told us that the Aryan race is superior and that all other branches were inferior, is that your belief also?

boards of FL wrote:Each of your morals listed above can be viewed as objectively optimal through an understanding of evolution.  Of course it is more likely that a species will survive if it is not killing itself off (thou shalt not kill) or if it has evolved in such a way that it has strength in societal bonds (your other two morals).

The concept of "health" could be considered an abstract concept, and yet no one questions whether or not science can give us answers in the area of health care.  

They are all abstract concepts that science only attempts to define and quantify.

Just as your supposed 'moral superiority' is an abstract concept that really has no meaning when it's a matter of survival because people will do whatever it takes to survive.



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So what would you do?

Take all the children away from their parents so they can be indoctrinated by the state?

Isn't that sort of like embedding your own abstract concepts into the human psyche?

Is there a difference between the two if they both accomplish the same thing?

From where on earth are you getting this?  If you're not going to directly respond to what I'm actually saying, why respond?  Where did I ever advocate taking children away from their parents and subjecting them to some sort of state indoctrination?

Damaged Eagle wrote:So you would take away the 1st Amendment and parental rights from others all because you believe you have the morally superior position..... Refresh my memory someone... Didn't we fight a World War and Cold War because other men had such notions?

Here again, what on earth are you talking about?  All I can suggest is that you try reading my post a few more times.  It doesn't say what you think it is saying.  

You're the one who said you wanted to isolate the children and teach them strictly science. If you can't follow you own thought processes or the conversation then perhaps you should seek help at a neurological center.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jethro+tull+the+whistler

I never said I wanted to isolate children and teach them strictly science.  I used that concept as an example to illustrate the fact that religion requires the indoctrination of children for its continued existence.  Science does not.

Christians aren't christians because they - independently of everything else - just discovered jesus one day.  Those ideas had to be indoctrinated or learned somehow.  You won't find anything in the universe that will lead you to the conclusion that it was created in seven days by some sort of supernatural, mythical being.  You won't find anything in reality that will lead you to the conclusion that, at some point in the past, a supernatural being took human form and then had himself tortured and executed...so that he could forgive us...for something (it makes so much sense!!!). You won't even find anything in the universe that would point to the idea that a supernatural being exists at all.

If you want to perpetuate such a belief, you will necessarily have to do so by indoctrinating children, generation after generation.  A good way to do that is to embed a threat.  "And if you don't believe this, you will be tortured for eternity in a pit of fire by a 12 headed dragon named Quagnarx."

You don't have to do that with science, as science emerges from the reality of the universe.  Models that do not account for what we see are discounted in favor of models that do account for what we see.  

Societies segregated by geography can study science and they will independently arrive at the same results - again - because science is a process of accounting for objective reality.  Religion, on the other hand, is entirely fabricated by societies that were separated by geography.  That is why there are 1000's of religions, all of them different, and all of them equally full of shit.  Some of those had a "reformation" in an attempt to shed baggage and keep up with an evolved society guided by scientific progress and understanding of the world.  Others still have work to do in that regard.   All will ultimately fade away as they are irrelevant and not to be taken seriously anymore.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

I'm still waiting for the answer about your Big Bang creation theology and what kick started the universe.

I don't presume that anything "kick started" the universe.  We can only trace our universe so far back in time.  It is currently unknown what events occurred prior to that as we simply do not have any data or way of testing anything yet.

So it was a miracle.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:What makes you think some new religion, that has no basis with the old, would be any better. After all your godless theology killed millions last century in the names of people like Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc...

I never said for certain that any other religion would emerge; and even if I had said that, I did say that it would necessarily be better than anything that we have today.  Here again, you simply cannot read and comprehend what it is that you're reading.

You 'assume' that it would be better than anything we have today... It could be much worse.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Still waiting for that kick start answer to your creation theology.

As I have already said, it is unknown.  Theories exist that attempt to explain what may have happened, but there simply isn't enough data at this point to assign a high probability to anything.  We know that the universe is expanding and we know that time moves forward.  Taking that into account, we know that - as we look back in time - the universe was smaller and smaller.  We can follow that back only so far and then our current models fail to explain what could have happened beyond a certain point.   More information is needed.

This doesn't bolster ancient mythology in any way.

I'm going with it was a miracle.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHPZkAM4dSM

Damaged Eagle wrote:Mammals exhibit a wider variety of different sexual attributes than that.

Shall we bring them all on to the table as morally correct for the human race?  

No.  And I'm pretty sure I implied the exact opposite of what you concluded there.

Damaged Eagle wrote:And scientific view of the world less than a century ago told us that the Aryan race is superior and that all other branches were inferior, is that you belief also?

No.  And at no point in time did the scientific view of the world tell us that the Aryan race is superior.  You can point to a society that may have tried to invoke science as a way of making such a case, but that's it.

Damaged Eagle wrote:They are all abstract concepts that science only attempts to define and quantify.

Just as you supposed 'moral superiority' is an abstract concept that really has no meaning when it's a matter of survival because people will do whatever it takes to survive.

There is nothing subjective about the idea that the killing of others in a socially evolved society isn't optimal.  That is an objective fact that emerges from our ability to reason.  If some woman prefers the companionship of other women instead of men, I don't need to consult the opinion of a primitive god to inform me on that.  I don't need to invoke the morals of yahweh in order to guide me on things like "Should I go rob a bank?" or "Should I go out and randomly start razing villages?" These concepts emerge through evolution and our ability to reason.   If they didn't we wouldn't be here.

Damaged Eagle wrote:So it was a miracle.

Not a miracle. Just unknown.

Damaged Eagle wrote:You 'assume' that it would be better than anything we have today... It could be much worse.

No. I don't assume any new religions would be better or worse. The point is that they would be different. The same religions would not emerge because they only exist through indoctrination. You don't discover them independently because they aren't actually real. Someone first has to make them up, then they have to convince enough people to believe in them, then those people need to indoctrinate. That is the point. I never spoke to the idea that new religions would be better or worse than what we have today.

Damaged Eagle wrote:I'm going with it was a miracle.

Not a miracle. Just unknown. The sun rising and setting isn't a miracle. Everything that we understand today but didn't understand yesterday isn't a miracle. You are invoking a "god of the gaps" argument here. Basically, point to something that we don't fully understand yet and then hide there, proclaiming "Ah ha! That means god must have did that!". No. It doesn't.

A god used to control the weather. A god used to control the sun. A god used to control the stars, the rain, the snow, hurricanes, tornadoes, famine, disease, life, death. Today, we now recognize that all of the above are natural processes that are fully explained. No gods are involved in any of that, and none of those things are miracles.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So what would you do?

Take all the children away from their parents so they can be indoctrinated by the state?

Isn't that sort of like embedding your own abstract concepts into the human psyche?

Is there a difference between the two if they both accomplish the same thing?

From where on earth are you getting this?  If you're not going to directly respond to what I'm actually saying, why respond?  Where did I ever advocate taking children away from their parents and subjecting them to some sort of state indoctrination?

Damaged Eagle wrote:So you would take away the 1st Amendment and parental rights from others all because you believe you have the morally superior position..... Refresh my memory someone... Didn't we fight a World War and Cold War because other men had such notions?

Here again, what on earth are you talking about?  All I can suggest is that you try reading my post a few more times.  It doesn't say what you think it is saying.  

You're the one who said you wanted to isolate the children and teach them strictly science. If you can't follow you own thought processes or the conversation then perhaps you should seek help at a neurological center.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jethro+tull+the+whistler

I never said I wanted to isolate children and teach them strictly science.  I used that concept as an example to illustrate the fact that religion requires the indoctrination of children for its continued existence.  Science does not.

People are going to utilize various explanations to explain what they can't understand. Isolate them and give them no training at all and they will fill their world with explanations on how things work. Do you think they'll always be correct? I don't.

boards of FL wrote:Christians aren't christians because they - independently of everything else - just discovered jesus one day.  Those ideas had to be indoctrinated or learned somehow.  You won't find anything in the universe that will lead you to the conclusion that it was created in seven days by some sort of supernatural, mythical being.  You won't find anything in reality that will lead you to the conclusion that, at some point in the past, a supernatural being took human form and then had himself tortured and executed...so that he could forgive us...for something (it makes so much sense!!!).  You won't even find anything in the universe that would point to the idea that a supernatural being exists at all.

And yet you have your own Big Bang creation theology that you think explains everything.

boards of FL wrote:If you want to perpetuate such a belief, you will necessarily have to do so by indoctrinating children, generation after generation.  A good way to do that is to embed a threat.  "And if you don't believe this, you will be tortured for eternity in a pit of fire by a 12 headed dragon named Quagnarx."

Is that sort of like we're all going to die from 'Global Warming'?

boards of FL wrote:You don't have to do that with science, as science emerges from the reality of the universe.  Models that do not account for what we see are discounted in favor of models that do account for what we see.

Oh yeah. 'The science is set' even though the data doesn't match the predictions...

How come that model hasn't been thrown away?  

boards of FL wrote:Societies segregated by geography can study science and they will independently arrive at the same results - again - because science is a process of accounting for objective reality.  Religion, on the other hand, is entirely fabricated by societies that were separated by geography.  That is why there are 1000's of religions, all of them different, and all of them equally full of shit.  Some of those had a "reformation" in an attempt to shed baggage and keep up with an evolved society guided by scientific progress and understanding of the world.  Others still have work to do in that regard.   All will ultimately fade away as they are irrelevant and not to be taken seriously anymore.

That's like the doomsayers of global warming shouldn't be taken seriously anymore. Right?



******CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sJA_VF5c7U

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Mammals exhibit a wider variety of different sexual attributes than that.

Shall we bring them all on to the table as morally correct for the human race?  

No.  And I'm pretty sure I implied the exact opposite of what you concluded there.

Oh no. You used a mammalian sexual attribute to justify the creation of your abstract moral concept. If it can be applied to one then it applies to them all... Hhh.h..h...h....  (Hand over mouth)... You're losing your objectivity over this issue and allowing your latent closet religious beliefs to subjectively interfere with the nature of the beast.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:And scientific view of the world less than a century ago told us that the Aryan race is superior and that all other branches were inferior, is that you belief also?

No.  And at no point in time did the scientific view of the world tell us that the Aryan race is superior.  You can point to a society that may have tried to invoke science as a way of making such a case, but that's it.

Is that sort of like invoking science to prove the theory of 'global warming' even though the data is no where near the predicted values societal type of manipulation?

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:They are all abstract concepts that science only attempts to define and quantify.

Just as you supposed 'moral superiority' is an abstract concept that really has no meaning when it's a matter of survival because people will do whatever it takes to survive.

There is nothing subjective about the idea that the killing of others in a socially evolved society isn't optimal.  That is an objective fact that emerges from our ability to reason.

Tell that to the 25,000 Libyans murdered in six months by your Nobel Champion Of Peace.

boards of FL wrote:If some woman prefers the companionship of other women instead of men, I don't need to consult the opinion of a primitive god to inform me on that.

And yet it appears your science can't give you that moral justification for your abstract conceptualization either. Otherwise those other mammalian sexual attributes would be on the table also.

boards of FL wrote:I don't need to invoke the morals of yahweh in order to guide me on things like "Should I go rob a bank?" or "Should I go out and randomly start razing villages?"

No it just gives moral justification to murder 25,000 Libyans at a whim without Congressional approval.

boards of FL wrote:These concepts emerge through evolution and our ability to reason.

Are you sure?

boards of FL wrote:If they didn't we wouldn't be here.

Even after all those centuries and millennium of religion we're still here so I think you're wrong.



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoSOuYNNXjU

Damaged Eagle wrote:People are going to utilize various explanations to explain what they can't understand. Isolate them and give them no training at all and they will fill their world with explanations on how things work. Do you think they'll always be correct? I don't.

Religion emerges from assigning a blanket supernatural answer to that which you don't understand.  

Why does that big bright thing rise and set everyday?  I don't know.  It must be some supernatural thing.

Why does it get colder and then warmer sometimes?  I don't know.  It must be some supernatural thing.

Eventually we actually learn how to answer these questions.  Why do I have to repeat this to you again and again?  Of course religion's vague guesses involving the supernatural are wrong.  They were postulated by ignorant people who didn't understand what stars, planets, and solar systems are.  Of course the mythical explanations of the world are wrong.  Of course geographically isolated people will come up with varying made-up answers to explain things they don't understand, all of which are wrong.  They're made up!  By ignorant people!  Who had only a faint grasp of the natural world!

Science, on the other hand, differs in that it seeks to assign explanations that are either falsifiable ore verifiable...and then it either falsifies or verifies.  Science differs in that the same answers emerge, regardless of geographical separation. Science differs in that it deals with the "real".

Damaged Eagle wrote:And yet you have your own Big Bang creation theology that you think explains everything.

I have no "big bang creation theology".  We can observe the fact that the universe is expanding.  There is nothing faith based about that.  There is no story of creation involved in that.  And there certainly isn't any theology in that.  You either don't know what these words mean, or you do and you're just a trolling idiot.

Either way...

Damaged Eagle wrote:Is that sort of like we're all going to die from 'Global Warming'?

No.  Indoctrination is absolutely nothing like independent, geographically separated scientific organizations all studying the Earth's climate and all arriving at the same conclusions...independently.  Indoctrinating children to mythical explanations of the origins of the universe isn't even in the same universe as learning about the world, independently, through the process of science.

Damaged Eagle wrote:That's like the doomsayers of global warming shouldn't be taken seriously anymore. Right?

No.  Every scientific organization on the planet still independently and unanimously agree that climate change is occurring and that it is very likely that man-made activities are contributing to it.

Damaged Eagle wrote:Oh no. You used a mammalian sexual attribute to justify the creation of your abstract moral concept. If it can be applied to one then it applies to them all... Hhh.h..h...h....  (Hand over mouth)... You're losing your objectivity over this issue and allowing your latent closet religious beliefs to subjectively interfere with the nature of the beast.

No I didn't.  I said that religion frames homosexuality as a moral issue.  Science, on the other hand, shows us that that it is a fairly natural phenomenon that occurs across mammalian species.  

One more time, in the world of religion "One's sexuality is a moral decision that man must wrestle with!  If man opts for homosexuality, he is immoral!"...and in the world of science..."There is nothing particularly special about homosexual behavior.  In fact, it is fairly common among mammalian species."

Is a gay pig acting immorally? (The answer is no. And nether is a gay human.)

Damaged Eagle wrote:Is that sort of like invoking science to prove the theory of 'global warming' even though the data is no where near the predicted values societal type of manipulation?

No.  It isn't.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:Tell that to the 25,000 Libyans murdered in six months by your Nobel Champion Of Peace.

This comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Damaged Eagle wrote:And yet it appears your science can't give you that moral justification for your abstract conceptualization either. Otherwise those other mammalian sexual attributes would be on the table also.

That is because homosexuality isn't a moral issue.  Good god.  How many times does this need to be explained?  Religion - incorrectly - frames a natural phenomenon occurring in mammalian species as an issue that higher level, "created by supernatural gods", human beings have to address...morally.  It isn't.

Damaged Eagle wrote:No it just gives moral justification to murder 25,000 Libyans at a whim without Congressional approval.

Another comment that may as well be in another thread in response to another post.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:Even after all those centuries and millennium of religion we're still here so I think you're wrong.

Another comment that may as well be in another thread in response to another post.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:People are going to utilize various explanations to explain what they can't understand. Isolate them and give them no training at all and they will fill their world with explanations on how things work. Do you think they'll always be correct? I don't.

Religion emerges from assigning a blanket supernatural answer to that which you don't understand.  

Why does that big bright thing rise and set everyday?  I don't know.  It must be some supernatural thing.

Why does it get colder and then warmer sometimes?  I don't know.  It must be some supernatural thing.

Eventually we actually learn how to answer these questions.  Why do I have to repeat this to you again and again?  Of course religion's vague guesses involving the supernatural are wrong.  They were postulated by ignorant people who didn't understand what stars, planets, and solar systems are.  Of course the mythical explanations of the world are wrong.  Of course geographically isolated people will come up with varying made-up answers to explain things they don't understand, all of which are wrong.  They're made up!  By ignorant people!  Who had only a faint grasp of the natural world!

Got it. Everyone's ignorant except you.

boards of FL wrote:Science, on the other hand, differs in that it seeks to assign explanations that are either falsifiable ore verifiable...and then it either falsifies or verifies.  Science differs in that the same answers emerge, regardless of geographical separation. Science differs in that it deals with the "real".

Except when the expected data doesn't correlate with the predictions for 'global warming' because 'global warming' is accepted fact or as some say "the science is set'.

*****CHUCKLE*****

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:And yet you have your own Big Bang creation theology that you think explains everything.

I have no "big bang creation theology".  We can observe the fact that the universe is expanding.  There is nothing faith based about that.  There is no story of creation involved in that.  And there certainly isn't any theology in that.  You either don't know what these words mean, or you do and you're just a trolling idiot.

Either way...

But it is a creation theory none the less.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Damaged Eagle wrote:Is that sort of like we're all going to die from 'Global Warming'?

No.  Indoctrination is absolutely nothing like independent, geographically separated scientific organizations all studying the Earth's climate and all arriving at the same conclusions...independently.  Indoctrinating children to mythical explanations of the origins of the universe isn't even in the same universe as learning about the world, independently, through the process of science.[/quote]

They're all arriving at the conclusion even though the incoming data doesn't match the predictions... Wow! That's great science. I'm sure there's a lot of physicists that would agree with those methods... Not!

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:That's like the doomsayers of global warming shouldn't be taken seriously anymore. Right?

No.  Every scientific organization on the planet still independently and unanimously agree that climate change is occurring and that it is very likely that man-made activities are contributing to it.

Just because they agree doesn't mean they're right.

The data has to match the predictions otherwise the model is thrown out.

At least that's the way science works.



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fNY0JuATpQ

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Oh no. You used a mammalian sexual attribute to justify the creation of your abstract moral concept. If it can be applied to one then it applies to them all... Hhh.h..h...h....  (Hand over mouth)... You're losing your objectivity over this issue and allowing your latent closet religious beliefs to subjectively interfere with the nature of the beast.

No I didn't.  I said that religion frames homosexuality as a moral issue.  Science, on the other hand, shows us that that it is a fairly natural phenomenon that occurs across mammalian species.  

One more time, in the world of religion "One's sexuality is a moral decision that man must wrestle with!  If man opts for homosexuality, he is immoral!"...and in the world of science..."There is nothing particularly special about homosexual behavior.  In fact, it is fairly common among mammalian species."

Is a gay pig acting immorally?  (The answer is no.  And nether is a gay human.)

So that's a yes to all the other mammalian sexual attributes being put on the table.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Is that sort of like invoking science to prove the theory of 'global warming' even though the data is no where near the predicted values societal type of manipulation?

No.  It isn't.

Sounds like it to me. 

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Tell that to the 25,000 Libyans murdered in six months by your Nobel Champion Of Peace.

This comment has nothing to do with what you quoted.

You're the one who supported razing villages in Libya in the name of science not me.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:And yet it appears your science can't give you that moral justification for your abstract conceptualization either. Otherwise those other mammalian sexual attributes would be on the table also.

That is because homosexuality isn't a moral issue.  Good god.  How many times does this need to be explained?  Religion - incorrectly - frames a natural phenomenon occurring in mammalian species as an issue that higher level, "created by supernatural gods", human beings have to address...morally.  It isn't.

Until all mature willing companions don't have to live up to 'your superior morality'.

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:No it just gives moral justification to murder 25,000 Libyans at a whim without Congressional approval.

Another comment that may as well be in another thread in response to another post.

I'm sure it does belong here.  

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:Even after all those centuries and millennium of religion we're still here so I think you're wrong.

Another comment that may as well be in another thread in response to another post.

So now you're saying the human race doesn't exist?



*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZyNKrYo9I4

Damaged Eagle wrote:So that's a yes to all the other mammalian sexual attributes being put on the table.

I don't know.  I suppose you would need to be more specific about whatever it is that you're talking about.

Damaged Eagle wrote:Sounds like it to me. 

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:You're the one who supported razing villages in Libya in the name of science not me.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:Until all mature willing companions don't have to live up to 'your superior morality'.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:I'm sure it does belong here.  

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:So now you're saying the human race doesn't exist?

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

boards of FL wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:So that's a yes to all the other mammalian sexual attributes being put on the table.

I don't know.  I suppose you would need to be more specific about whatever it is that you're talking about.

Damaged Eagle wrote:Sounds like it to me. 

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:You're the one who supported razing villages in Libya in the name of science not me.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:Until all mature willing companions don't have to live up to 'your superior morality'.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:I'm sure it does belong here.  

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:So now you're saying the human race doesn't exist?

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Run Forest run.

*****ROFLMAO*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9mwELXPGbA

Damaged Eagle wrote:Got it. Everyone's ignorant except you.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:Except when the expected data doesn't correlate with the predictions for 'global warming' because 'global warming' is accepted fact or as some say "the science is set'.

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm

Damaged Eagle wrote:But it is a creation theory none the less.

No.  It isn't.  

Damaged Eagle wrote:They're all arriving at the conclusion even though the incoming data doesn't match the predictions... Wow! That's great science. I'm sure there's a lot of physicists that would agree with those methods... Not!

I have no interest in wading into the specifics of climate science with you when you can't even stay on task here in this thread.  For several posts now, you have managed to quote me and add some text, but you haven't managed to directly respond to anything I'm saying.  

I'm over here talking about science and religion.  You're avoiding that and trying to pull me into climate science, you're telling me I want to kidnap children, and you're telling me that I want to raze villages in Libya.  

I'll leave you with this, since you're obviously done with the science/religion back and forth (or, more correctly, you never started).

http://www.learningrx.com/reading-help-for-adults-faq.htm