Posts made by FinsterniS

@cystic:

@FinsterniS:

Yes but this is not always that simple… Horten is for Abortion and i am against (with some rare exeption), but Horten is conversative/capitalist and i am liberal/social-democrat…

maybe i missed this under the “abortion thread” - but would you tell me why you are against? Curiously, of course - no desire to debate (you likely know/can guess my stance).

I believe life start at the conception (or shortly after). And it is the duty of the parent to guide this life, not to end it… But my philosophy can only apply to a country with a strong governement, capable of making social program to help pregnant womans.

Yes but this is not always that simple… Horten is for Abortion and i am against (with some rare exeption), but Horten is conversative/capitalist and i am liberal/social-democrat…

Well the fact hitler was christian does not mean all christian were facist, i just answer about your hateful comment about europe…

I am sorry to break some of your dream about a clean Catholic church, but hitler WAS a Catholic. Sure some will say he was an Atheist (a very funny one), other will say he worship ancient god, backing up their thesis with some obscure conversation or comment… but the fact remain Hitler was, his hate of the jew was not purely strategical nor emotional. In “Mein Kamf” (My fight) he clearly said he was a catholic and his action as a leader can only confirm that his conviction were in some part religious.

“Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s Work.”

“Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews … The work that Christ started but could not finish, I – Adolf Hitler – will conclude.”

Sure catholic don’t want to claim hitler as follower of their faith so they prefer to blind themself with mere illusion (like they always do by my opinion). Anyway i did not want to argue with a catholic with such thing but if you are unable to see that because of your faith, then other catholic risk to make the same mistake. I know Stalin was an Atheist, i don’t want to fall into somekind of fanatism…

…And even the church itself is not clean in the second World War, some document are still inacessible for the public…

Anyway i am making some distinction you are not, a christian is someone that believe in christianism. A christian is rarely a pure incarnation of christianism so you cannot blame christianism for all the crime of the christians even if christianism is clearly in accordance with the christian’s action. I am sure the basis of Christianism would not have endorse the crusades nor hitler.

YB you are the stereotypical American… christians, conservative, you hate france without even knowing why, overtly nationalist…

I think i know what you mean, as i am a human being first, then a european and a north german (these two are equally important for me) and then after quite some time a german.

I am first an Human being
Then an European
And finally a Prussian (es ist sehr heiss hier :evil: )

I don’t think it will be worse than Vietnam and i don’t think America will loose this time, the land is not as hostile and they will send (i wish !) professional soldier.

The US is still in this inward-looking

I agree !

And BTW; we are not as strong as the USA (from an economical point of view), but the EU is still strong.

@yourbuttocks:

Yes.

Note I’m not saying America is perfect, but at least we, unlike Europe, (especially France) did not screw up Africa. the Middle East, South America, most of Asia, and if you don’t like the U.S., North America.

I suppose you’d like to be speaking Russian Falk?

Patriotism is not helping humanity… i am proud of France and Germany, but like i already said they are not better country, just a country fit for me.

but at least we, unlike Europe, (especially France) did not screw up Africa

You make me laugh YB, i am very, very happy you don’t like Europe, especially France. And I won’t start to say what i think America did wrong…

It’s Anthropocentrism. If you going to use big words like that, at least try to spell them correctly…

Well i try but even if i am getting a little better in english, i am still not very good… Also i just add a “e”, like in French…

Communists killed my great-grandparents (for owning a factory) leaving my grandfather an 11-y/o orphin. Therefore FinsterniS and F_alk (people who subscribe to communist beliefs) are guilty of the same (as per Yanny-logic).

First i often repeated in my past post it was important to make a dinstinctin between Chritians and Christianism. Some christian may have done horrible thing, Christianism is not necessarly horrible (for that anyway), same thing goes for communism.

Second i am for a strong state and redistribution of the wealth. I’m a Social Democrat. i believe maybe one day we would be able to be in a communist society; but not now. I am not a communist :)

@cystic:

you know FinsterniS, i believe that the presence of creationists is actually quite useful in regards to the persuit of better science etc. Many of them ask excellent questions, some that can’t (yet) be answered by evolutionists. In fact, i wonder that if not for creationists continually asking questions etc. if the research on evolution might not have stalled and been considered an “unproven fact” long ago.

I disagree, the thermodynamic argument is not to convince scientific but the people, and in the end it only spread confusion ! As some other “logical” argument that make my stomach hurt. There is a lot of different kind of evolutionist, they are generating enough question to keep them busy and alert. Also just try to kind an evolutionist that will do research on how thermodynamic is in conflict with his science… They have more serious complication.

Certainly many Christians are unscientific - as are many atheists.

Try to find me 10 unscientific Atheist. By unscientific i mean they caution their belief with fallacious/unscientific argumentation.

Big deal? If they were blowing up labs and archeological digs, that would be one thing, but the fact that some Christians want further proof before accepting something as fact which (to them) appears to conflict with the scriptures is something you may not need to knot your panties with.

There is a serious problem when a “science” theory is base not on evidence but on 2 000 years old text. And when their only way to prove their theory is by pointing out evolutionist difficulty (evolution is a young science, give it time…)

@Xi:

Anybody here (seen my old friend, John?) read Forbidden Archeology regarding some of the gaps and flaws in the written records? It’s a very good indictment of the current belief system and supporting cast. No Christian viewpoint for some to find fault with the results.

I read it… but it’s not convincing.

How about Scientific Creationism ? It strats with 15 chapters of science conflicting with itself.

As a matter of fact most of the “conflict” are only result of deformation or ignorance, just give me one for fun… It’s always in the same form of the Thermodynamic vs Evolutionist one, they make a deformation, then they claim there is a problem. That’s why it is dangerous.

then brings in Christianity in the last chapter as a simpler solution to the conflict(I’ll paraphrase here - e.g., 10,000 years ago, G_d made a star 10 billion light years from Earth. G_d put the light that shines from that star to the Earth in place. Big Bangers say “If God created the world 10.000 yrs. ago the light wouldn’t be there.” But that’s leaving G_d impotent, not omnipotent.) Read the book! It makes more sense than my paraphase.

Evolutionism is very complex, but it explain very well the world around us. Christian are giving a simple, easy to swallow answer, that does not explain anything. I can give you a simple scenario about earth’s creation; the finnish one with the troll dying; it is not less or more valid than any theory with a mythological being; but it explain nothing. Also to first use god in an argumentation you must show that he does exist, it is not the case… Exept if you want to prove he exist BECAUSE he the existence of a creation; so you will need to prove creationism exist, but first god that need to be prove by creationism that need to be prove by god… well, circular logic.

Then evolutionists mess up their own stories. A couple of years ago astronomers discovered some stars Multiple times older than the cosmos has been calculated as being. :oops: ,silly scientists. My favorite part is that they use half-life theory to prove the age of an item. I’ll believe that when they show me a million years of Proof by the Scientific Method…NOT THEORY!

Science is advanding, unlike Creationism, so it is clear they discover new thing and change their mind; that is science. Also the system to prove the age of an item is very precise, the Half-life system of C14 is a good one and there is several exemple where other geological/historical evidence prove how precise the C14 dating is good.

True CC, i am sure the core belief of Christianism and Islamism do not preach violence, but the Crusaders kill because of their faith, like Hitler.(even if there is some christian propaganda that tell it is false). Lots of people kill because of their faith…

Note that this does not mean god does not exist. Just that some of his fidels were barbarian.

Entropy will TEND to increase in a CLOSED sytem, the earth is NOT A CLOSED system. We have plenty of energy from the sun. Also if you look at the mathematical law of thermodynamic you will find it is VERY clear; entropy will tend to increase, but will decrease sometime. The creationist are making a very big deformation that is only getting to more confusion; they certainly do bring entropy in science :)

Also this pseudo argument is very strange, because we can have tons of exemple where entropy decrease without looking at evolution. When you are growing, when a plant is growing, when a cloud is forming, when a thunder is forming, when a snowflake is forming; we have tons of exemple where entropy decrease (i am sure CC can give you lot of biological exemple). This is only the overall entropy of a system that will increase, not everything in it ! (another deformation).

City, ask a creationist why we grow and reproduce, thing their vision of entropy and thermodynamic would not allow; they will answer you (well most of them) that there is a special “energy conversion mechanism” that allow living system to counter the effect of thermodynamic … And that is just some part of their special law to explain why their own idea of entropy does not apply to X, and Y, and also Z…

in order to save us Christians some embarrassment

A very noble objective; the Thermodynamic argument, you will admit, is using deformation of science law. This does not prove god does’nt exist but this argument is a nonsence. With all these deformation, creationist are just giving scientist and atheist/humanist like me good reason to think they are dangerous. I really wish we could live in a world were religion could be personnal, with a clear separation between Religion / Science / Politic.

@FinsterniS:

Congratulation ! You are the first i know from america who spell Nietzsche the rigth way.

AH HA!
FinsterniS IS INCORRECT.
I shall put it another way.
FinsterniS IS WRONG!

Guilty ! :)

Humanist (Atheist), Social Democrat.

Against privatisation in School and Medicare (even if i attend to a private school)

BTW; some country are working very well without lot of private school, which are in my point of view a very big injustice; rich get better education while the poor get crap…

A) I do not necessarily believe the “Young Earth Creation method” (i don’t have the wherewithal to immediately disbelieve it either) and i don’t know how many times i have said this.

I know that but i never heard of any argument for the flood other than from young earth creationist

And enough with the insults please. The use of “fanatic” “lunatic” “fool” . . . there really is no point in a reasonable discussion with you, is there?

I think there is no more point about these discussion anyway…

About the “fanatic”, “lunatic” and “fool”, only one is true; Fanatic and i really find something that your method is those of a fanatic; sorry if that is an insult and i would understand if you think the same about me. Lunatic; never said that about you and about Fool i only said it was not more reasonable than the history of the Troll…

I never indulge a discussion with a person in front of me who is nearly as insulting as you. One more, and i am finished.

It is finished, we are going in circle.

@city:

Finsternis, I’m curious.

What is your view on Entropy VS. Evolution? I find that they quite contradict each other, while only entropy is actual scientific law…

I don’t how Evolution work exactely (no one does), but it does occur and you don’t need to be an expert to know that.

About Entropy “vs” Evolution I answer that TWICE and also F_alk in “Religion?” (page 6), if you have any counter-argument, show them, but don’t repeat the same argument over and over again ad nauseam…

This reasoning (thermodynamic is in conflict with evolutionism) is one the most convincing evidence that religion can be nefast to science. Theist are again using pseudo science to spread confusion and ignorance… quite sad…

I don’t know what kind of metaphor. I said at the outset i didn’t know. God did not make me omniscient. Sure i am using the term “metaphor” but i don’t where i don’t think it likely applies. Jesus used metaphors all over the place. So did the prophets. You nicely took one aspect of a speculation in answer to a question and tried to tear that apart leaving the rest of my argument alone. Stop that.

I am just argumenting about what i think is inconsistent.

B) I believe the flood happened. People who believe in the flood have a theory about the young earth that i find interesting.
C) I never said the flood was a theory.

Again i don,t know how you can believe such thing. Young Earth Creationist method and rethoric are completely illogical. They are only trying to find thing that can caution their theory while ignoring all other thing. The ark of noah is as fool as the finnish (norse?) history about how the blood of a bleeding troll had created the earth.

now you’re just misquoting me. Stop that.

Right, i have made an error. Sorry. (but as far as i know it is the first time).

Does my lack of knowledge on the subject discredit me?

It only show you have no reason to believe animal have no souls.

wrt the two people, i don’t know if that is a metaphor for the earliest people, or if those are the only people mentioned as being created (i.e. God created others outside of Adam and Eve).

What kind of metaphor ? I mean… are’nt you using the term “metaphor” a little too much ? When i argue such concept as good & evil were stupid you answer me Christianism was made to be simple (agreed!!!), well it does not seem to be so simple if everything is a metaphor.

Flood proponants have an interesting theory, but as i’ve outlined before an intelligently guided evolution (not a young earth, but a millions years old one) seems to make the most sense out of the findings and does not conflict with the bible - at least not metaphorically.

As a matter of fact it does conflict with the bible and you are not going to say the “ark of noah” is metaphorical ? Also are you really serious when you say the flood can be consider a “Theory” ?

As for monkeys, apes, chimps, and man - i am a Christian who does not believe that the human form being crafted from a lower primate is such a problem. Our bodies are merely organic casings for the soul - subject to the constraints of this world. They are, in the end, a tomb.

You still did’nt answer me and falk about why animals does not have souls but we have ?

I agree that faith can be based without reason. But Christianity is one religion that faith can be based on evidence. I think faith is a lot easier to justify when it is based on evidence.

Only empirical/personal evidence. And these evidence can caution every religion. You cannot justify god with logic and rationality, anyway i never saw an argument for god that was not fallacious (not from my point of view; from a logical point of view, by using law of logic)

Sure. I’ll give ya that. I’m sure there are many prostitutes who feel they had no-where else to turn except to the streets. Whether they think they have no-where else to go is irrelevent. They still made the choice to sell themselves. You can’t argue this. There’s simply no arguement, because you always have a choice.

You are making big and dangerous generalization/simplification. Am i sure this is not always that simple !

@city:

Fisternis, in what way does the belief in a God stem from arrogance?

My personal view is that we reject Him in our arrogance because we don’t want to be only second best.

Ok, we will look at that;

I don’t believe in the concept of superiority, exept maybe that a “superior” species… Nothing Inferior, Nothing Superior. Even maybe some animals are superior because they are not as “deviant” in the ecosystem as we are. So in many way i think we are worse than “second best”.

A christians believe that after god, he is the best. Of all living being on earth he is the only one with a soul; in brief the only one with a purpose, the other were just created for him. Also, the living being that is the creator of the universe create him in his own image and even more; he is expressing the same kind of morality. In christianism the Human race is the center of the creation and of the universe; pure anthropocentrisme !

And you are saying that my position is arrogant ? Seriously ? The first thing you need to be an Atheist is to be humble, to understand you are not the center of the creation, you have no special place, no special purpose, you are nothing mode than a living being, equal to other living being you must respect; people do not want to accept it even if they have enough knowledge to explain the universe with only nature. Sure there is as much kind of Atheism as there is Atheist, it’s just my vision of Atheism…