Dave
Junior Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Dave on May 27, 2007 15:16:17 GMT -8
The Bible is written by man, and I do not believe for one second that some of the stuff in there was added by men wishing to advance their own agenda. Thus, by picking and choosing, we may be selecting the right ones, and ignoring the ones added for selfish reasons.
Your hero is Cato? Bravo, James. Cato was a student of stoicism. For those who don't know, stoicism teaches that fortitude, self control and detaching yourself from from emotions allow us to think clearly, and be level-headed and neutral. If I could restrain myself more, I think I'd be alot different.
Cato was a good man among many corrupt ones. He shouldn't have ended his life the way he did. I respect him, even if he was a pagan.
Take care.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 27, 2007 18:11:56 GMT -8
But how do you know what to pick and choose? If morality truly came from religion, you would have no way of knowing what religious morals to follow and what ones to reject. The truth is that morality doesn't come from religion - it changes based on the general trends of society.
The reason why I like him so much is because he lived in an age of corruption, scandal, dishonesty, etc. yet never succumbed to it himself. When given the governorship of one of the Eastern provinces, a Roman would typically collect bribes to add to his personal wealth. A governorship was one of the easiest ways for Romans to mass large amounts of money. Cato, however, never took a single bribe and instead made sure that his books were always balanced.
His committment to the Republic is also why I love him. He was the only true Republican - even Cicero made deals with Caesar and sold out SPQR. Cato was the only one to remain true to the ideas of the Republic and refused to sacrifice a single inch to Caesar. I'm glad to see that he took his own life rather than be captured by a tyrant. His dedication to honesty and the Republic has been the biggest influence on my life and how I live it.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 27, 2007 18:18:43 GMT -8
I'm not even a scientist but I wouldn't make ignorant comments like the universe was either designed or formed "by chance". It wasn't a comment. It was a question. "Was this all 'chance' or was it 'design'?" So which is it? Design? Chance? Perhaps a combination of the two? Not many options, are there? Allow me to submit a third option - a process of natural selection that has taken place over billions of years. Animals (including humans) have not always existed in their current form. If that were true, the entire theory of evolution would be destroyed. Scientists know this and so there are many theists out there who are desperate to find an example of irreducible complexity. If someone were to find an example of irreducible complexity, evolution as a theory would be finished. To this day no one has found an example and no one probably will. The evidence for natural selection is overwhelming and it appears as though every single living organism has gone through the process and continues to do so today. Why do humans of today have physical characteristics that are radically different from our cave man forebears? Millions of years from now, assuming humans are still around, they will look nothing like us either. No evolutionary scientist has ever argued that life as we know it today has been the norm for all of existance. The very idea is ridiculous. Rather, evolution is the extremely long process of natural selection that began with simple organisms that became the life that we know today. Life, however, is not static - like I already said, we ourselves are in a process of natural selection. Our own bodies are proof of it, which is why the current human form has organs that are no longer used. They probably had a function millions of years ago but not anymore. I am really not concerned one bit if this upsets your religious beliefs. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the only people actually willing to argue against it are religious fanatics. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 27, 2007 18:32:46 GMT -8
"I am really not concerned one bit if this upsets your religious beliefs. "
Of course not. It's all about you after all.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and the only people actually willing to argue against it are religious fanatics.
Whether or not this is true, you haven't answered the question.
"Was this all 'chance' or was it 'design'?"
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 27, 2007 18:40:36 GMT -8
Of course not. It's all about you after all.
No - it's all about the truth. That's all I'm concerned with.
"Was this all 'chance' or was it 'design'?"
Did you just completely ignore what I wrote about natural selection? It was neither chance nor design.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 27, 2007 19:51:00 GMT -8
"Did you just completely ignore what I wrote about natural selection? It was neither chance nor design. "
Would you care to consider the absurdity of your statement?
You are ignoring the bigger question.
You haven't defined how "natural selection" explains the origin of life itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on May 27, 2007 20:35:30 GMT -8
Mario - one day you'll learn that you need to use your own arguments.
Where do your arguments come from? Ayn Rand? Dawkins?
I posted a simple quote from Thomas Jefferson. If you choose to reject it, fine. I think it's an interesting quote. Consider it.
Later.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 28, 2007 12:21:37 GMT -8
"Did you just completely ignore what I wrote about natural selection? It was neither chance nor design. " Would you care to consider the absurdity of your statement? You are ignoring the bigger question. You haven't defined how "natural selection" explains the origin of life itself. I don't need to - that's what books and professional scientists are for. I will not sit here and explain evolution to someone who has clearly rejected it without even considering it. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 28, 2007 12:25:12 GMT -8
"I don't need to - that's what books and professional scientists are for. I will not sit here and explain evolution to someone who has clearly rejected it without even considering it. "
Nice dodge.
Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you have to get huffy.
Why do you assume
a. I've clearly rejected evolution?
b. I've never considered evolution?
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 28, 2007 12:37:42 GMT -8
"I don't need to - that's what books and professional scientists are for. I will not sit here and explain evolution to someone who has clearly rejected it without even considering it. " Nice dodge. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean you have to get huffy. Why do you assume a. I've clearly rejected evolution? b. I've never considered evolution? Because I took 15 minutes explaining natural selection and you went right back to using the two options of "chance" and "design". Anyone who frames the evolutionary debate in terms of life forming ONLY by chance or design clearly has never picked up a book about evolutionary theory. No offense. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 28, 2007 13:12:15 GMT -8
Because I took 15 minutes explaining natural selection and you went right back to using the two options of "chance" and "design".
Your explanation is lacking. I pointed out what was missing.
Anyone who frames the evolutionary debate in terms of life forming ONLY by chance or design clearly has never picked up a book about evolutionary theory. No offense.
A stupid assumption on your part.
Again, don't get pissed off because you don't have the answer.
No offense.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 28, 2007 17:31:52 GMT -8
The lack of evidence for my argument does not mean that yours is automatically correct.
No, scientists have not been able (yet) to explain what exactly caused the Big Bang or for life to take place on Earth. Theories have been put forward but none have been accepted by the community as a whole as Darwin's theory of natural selection has.
The fact that scientists cannot yet explain what caused the Big Bang does not prove your god. It simply means that we can't explain it yet. Just as Zeus was used to explain lightning before we knew what it was, now god is used to explain things that we do not yet understand.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 28, 2007 18:19:18 GMT -8
"The lack of evidence for my argument does not mean that yours is automatically correct."
Priceless!
What does it say about yours?
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on May 28, 2007 19:26:38 GMT -8
"The lack of evidence for my argument does not mean that yours is automatically correct." Priceless! What does it say about yours? It says that there isn't enough evidence yet to make an objective conclusion about anything. 600 years ago, there wasn't enough evidence to make the statement that the Earth was round. Does that mean it's not true? |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on May 28, 2007 19:41:51 GMT -8
"It says that there isn't enough evidence yet to make an objective conclusion about anything."
Nice weaseling!
It also says you have no more proof than the Book of Genesis has.
That's all I have to say.
|
|
