Evolution of Mankind

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Apr 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    You make the mistake of connecting my knowledge of what I call Yah (The Tao, The Won, The Totality, The Divine Eternal Unity of All Things) with the father figure delusion that you picked up from your Christian parents, which is clearly not real and caused you to jump to the other polar side which is complete disbelief (a belief) based on nothing more than the false beliefs of Christians who raised you. You are a Christian Atheist. You were a Christian first and your Atheism is the disbelief of Christian beliefs. You do not have any knowledge and you know it.

    I don't believe in creation because I don't believe there is a beginning or end. Forms may have beginnings and ends, but forms are just one aspect of existence. There are two.

    I don't have to prove their God. I don't believe in their God.
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I have to pull you in inorder to set you straight on all the possibilities which you think are God but will actually turn out to be explained throughly through the Anthropic principle of planetary & cosmological versions. Plus, why some physicists need a darwin rise in consciousness. I'm going to break this down best I can. It will be painful for you and a waste of my time for me, but it is long over due. My ignorance drives me like all real scientists, because like them I want to know the answer. Where as you are a mystic exulted in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. In other words you are Satisfied in not understanding.

    Part one, you're a worshiper of Gaps. If science can't explain the c.omplexity of something you label it too divine for science to explain. Therefore, labeling it as God's existence. This is faulty logic, Because those Gaps shrink as sceince advances. And this God you Spiritual-Creationist invent nolonger has anything to do or no where to hide. Intelligent design does not win by defualt, it basis logic, If A fails in some particular, then B must be right. However, the argument is not applied the other way around. You force people to jump to the Defualt theory of God, without even looking to see whether it fails in the very same particular as the theory it is alleged to replace. In a comical sense, You've given yourself a get out of jail free card. And you also forget the Scientist rejoices in temporary truths. Indeed science does have a methodological need to seek out Ignorance for research. And ID's like you seek out areas of ignorance inorder to claim victory by default. it is precisely the fact that intelligent design has no evidence of it's own, but thrives like a weed in gaps left by scientific knowledge, that sits uneasily with science's need to identify and proclaim the very same gaps as a prelude to researching them.

    part two. The laws of Physics must be friendly enough to allow life to arise. As explained before, stars are a necessary prerequisite for the existence of most of the chemical elements, and without "chemistry" there could be no life. if the constants of Physics had been slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible. Rees's six numbers is the magnitude of the socalled strong force, the force that binds the components of an atomic nucleus: the nuclear force that has to be overcome when one spilts the atom. it is measured as E, the proportion of the mass of a Hydrogen nucleus that is converted to energy when hydrogen fuses to from helium. the value of this number in our universe is 0.0007, and it looks as though it had to be very close to this value inorder for any chemistry ( which is a prereuisite for life) to exist. Chemistry as we know it consists of the combination and recombination of the ninety or so naturally occurring elements of the periodic table. Hydrogen is the simplest and commonest of the elements. all the other elements in the universe are made ultimately from hydrogen by nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is a difficult process which occurs in the intensely hot conditions of the ineriors of stars (and in the Hydrogen bombs). relatively small stars, such as our sun, can only make only light elements such as helium, the second lightest in the periodic table after hydrogen. it takes larger and hotter stars to develop the high temperatures needed to forge most of the heavier elements, in a cacade of nuclear fusion processes whose details were worked out by fred hoyle. These big stars may explode as supernovas, scattering their materials, including elements of the periodic table, in dust clouds. these dust clouds eventually condense to form new stars and planets, including our own. This is why Earth is rich in elements over and above the ubiquitous hydrogen: elements without which chemistry, and life, would be impossible. If the strong force were too small, say 0.006 instead of 0.0007, the Universe would have contained nothing buy hydrogen, and no interesting chemistry could result. If it were too large, say 0.0008 all the hydrogen would have fused to make heavier elements. A chemistry without hydrogen could not generate life as we know it. For one thing, there would be no water. The Goldilocks value - 0.0007 - is just right for yielding the richness of elements that we need for an interesting and life-supporting chemistry.

    Part three. I want to explain what Theoretical physicist refer to as the
    Darwinian variant on the Multiverse theory. Which includes both serial
    and parallel elements. Daughter Universes are born of parent
    Universes, not in a fully fledged big crunch but more locally in black holes.
    It's a form of heredity being added: The Fundamental constants of a daughter universe are slightly mutated versions of the constants of its parent. Heredity is the essential igredient of Darwinian natural selection, and the rest of the theory follows naturally. Those universes that have what it takes to survive and reproduce come to predominate in the multiverse. What it takes includes lasting long enough to reproduce. Because the act of reproduction takes place in blackholes, successful universes must have what it takes to make black holes. this ability entails various other properties. For Example, the tendency for matter to condense into clouds and then stars is a prerequisite to making black holes. Stars also are the precursors to the development of interesting "chemistry", and hence life. So there has been a darwinian natural selection of unvierses in the multiverse, directly favoring the evolution of blackhole fecundity and indirectly favouring the prodcution of life. Even, Nobel prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-mann is quoted as saying: that Theoretical physicist may not be wrong. Further more, The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extavagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. The Multiverse, for all that is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be highly improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities God is suppose to explain. The Multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. but if each one of those Universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. the very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence.

    You're a demagogue, nothing more.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Some things will always be a mystery.

    That is the flaw of your approach. You believe science can and will explain everything and they can't and they won't. There will always be mysteries.
    You are under the delusion that you can understand it with your mind.
    You can't. You never will. That isn't an insult. I can't understand it with my mind either. Nobody can. Nobody ever will understand the totality with the mind.

    I've accepted this.
    You have not.

    That is the difference between you and I.
    I still seek to understand as much as I can, but I know that I will never know everything and I can never know it all. Neither can you. You, however, believe that you can and possibly will. Good luck.

    The fools who think themselves wise are a dime a dozen.
    It takes a truly wise man to realize he is a fool.
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    ^
    Yes you have accepted this because you don't know science.
    You are satisfied in not knowing.

    One day biochemist will recreate life in the chemistry Lab (infact they already are working on it.) Moreover, natural selection has made mystic words nothing but soothsaying chicanery. So continue being Satisfied in something you don't want to understand, because scientists have no fear in understaning it. However, You must also stop physically abusing minds with something you don't understand as well. Because one day biochemist with the help of chemistery will show the world how it all happend from a lab. God is surely but a sheer Hoax.

    And save the shakespearean nonsensical rethoric. Because the world is 90% Believers, And only a slight percentage are Agnostic or Atheist. You believers are indeed the foolish people who think of yourselves as wise. Though you base your wisdom on NOTHING, and are satisfied in not understanding but in skyhookery.
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny] @ your emotions coming out

    1. Biochemists cannot reproduce the Universe in a lab. Are you completely gone?
    2. How do people do remote viewing, Chief? How would you explain that one scientifically? (Don't tell me they can't, either. I know for a fact that it can be done.)

    Rhetoric
    Propaganda
    Reactionary Nazi
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny] @ Recreating the Universe in a lab

    I'm still laughing about that. Not to mention, if the Universe has limits then it belongs to something larger than itself and if that has limits then it ultimately must belong to something larger. And we're not even discussing the possibility of multi-dimensions.

    How would they possibly recreate the infinite celestial depths of space in a lab when they haven't even observed all there is to see?
    @ "They're working on it right now."
    HAHAHA

    You schmuck. Don't you realize where the word NASA comes from?
    Even your science is funded by religion. I'll give you a hint . . . It's a Hebrew word. Look it up, I know you don't know what it really means.

    :thumb:

    Science is Religion's Bitch.
    The Atheist Scientist is a desk clerk.

    What you know of as Science is just the outer shell of what is really going on. The search in space is the search for God, whether you like it or not.
    The people that are funding it and are behind it have a goal in mind.

    The conflicts on earth arise from Moloch worshipers.
    Anybody who prays to Eloah or Allah is worshiping Moloch.
    There are in fact two gods in the Bible. One is Moloch and the other is Lucifer (the bearer of light or the "morning star")

    Amaru = Shining Serpent
    Amari = Eternal
    Ka = Spirit/Soul

    Amaruca = Amaru Ka = America
    Amarica = Amari Ka = America
    "The Eternal Shining Serpent Soul"

    Everything you've learned is nonsense. Everything you base your reality on is nonsense. Jamaica = Jah-Me-Ka = Yah-Me-Kah
    YAH = YHVH, YHWH, YHYH

    You are so lost.
    It's pitiful.

    What's sad is that you don't have a clue as to how little you know.
    The world's elite are Luciferians. The conflict in the Middle East is a struggle between Ancient Egyptian Cults.

    Muslims and Jews are Moloch worshipers.
    That's why they believe in Hell and Eternal Fire Punishment, Etc.
    The Abraham story of sacrificing his son (Ishmael for Muslims and Isaac for Jews) goes back to Moloch worship. The Bible was written for a reason. It is a guide to the truth. It is a test. Those who pass it, will have a key and will be allowed to seek more. All you have to do is read Psalms to catch it.
    There is the first book (God is called LORD/YHWH) and then there is the second book where God is called Elohim. Elohim is a plurality, thus WE and US, Etc.

    [funny]

    I can't stop laughing at you. I'm not going to debate this further with you. It's like arguing with an ape. You think people actually evolved on this planet from enemas that crawled up out of the ocean? We were created.
    There is evidence for it. You just have to look in the right places.

    You think that we are the only life in this solar system also?
    Hell, there are people on this earth that aren't even human.
    What do you think the "Sons of God" were?

    haha

    Ehh

    Have fun with your science.
    test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I'll provide you with a few paintings. Now, you can view these as religious works of art that are nothing more than fictional pieces or you can view them as keys provided to those who are able to solve the riddle. That is a choice you have to make. You likely already have and you haven't even seen the paintings yet. But, this will be my last response to you on this subject. After this, you and I will never discuss religion again. We're gone as far as we will ever go:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Symbolism in one of the most popular films ever made. This film practically hands it to you:

    [​IMG]



    Some more paintings and art work:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    There is much more. If you want it, find it. It's all available to you.
    test
  8. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    what is your point with the pictures... im not sure that you have a point other than you mentioned egyptians so you included egyptian pictures... im not even sure that you have any reason for the babble above the pictures...

    and whats up with you making the claim of scientists creating a universe in the lab??? menaz never made that claim... he claimed that scienctists are currently working on recreating the earth climate that was present at the time that life showed up... he is talking about creating life and you are talking about creating the universe... seriously how do you make these leaps and not realize the babble that you are spewing forth??? you arent running away from the loony bin are you?? i think it would be interesting to actually watch you speak to someone like richard dawkins in person... im pretty sure that he would fall the ground crying because of your lack of sense...

    you are an interesting case... by the way what is your evidence for remote viewing??? because you would be a very rich man if you had said evidence of remote viewing... hell you would own the world...
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Deazy - There is a point. Pay attention. What I am pointing out is that religion is nonsense. It is all lies mixed and interwoven with truth. It is all a form of control and power. Both aspects of existence are in the Bible but you fools can't see it. It is a form of control. But so is what will replace it. Atheism and Science is just a new form of power that will replace the old form of power and it will rule for thousands of years as well. But nothing will be accomplished. People will still be born and they will still die and in between birth and death the same people (their offspring) will control it all and the rest with be servants. If you don't understand, then go about your life believing whatever delusion you wish to believe. Humans are not the ultimate species walking this earth. That was my point. Whether the trainers train the apes in religion or in science, it makes no difference. They will still be apes and the trainers will still rule the world.

    As for creating the earth's atmosphere . . . I know what Menaz was saying but Menaz thinks in boxes. He sees the world as an individual entity. But, in order to recreate the earth and it's atmosphere in a lab you have to provide it with a moon and a sun. If you do that then you have to recreate the gravitational pull that other planets create. Basically you have to recreate the Big Bang of this Universe. But in order to do that you have to know what is beyond this Universe. The Talking Apes do not know what is beyond this Universe and that is why I laughed at Menaz. They actually believe that something came from nothing. Try to manage that in a lab. Good luck.

    Fuck Dawkins. He's a talking ••••••.
    [funny]

    You and Menaz and Dawkins.
    Two talking ••••••s following another talking ••••••.

    Creation story in Genesis = Big Bang
    The sons of god being cast down because of their rebellion in a war = Those who have taught you these things

    The talking ••••••s call them Aliens because they were taught to call them aliens. Before they called them aliens they called them angels. Before they called them angels they called them gods.

    :thumb:
    test
  10. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    ok... let me make this even more clear so that you have some understanding... you have already fucked this up twice...

    scientists are looking to recreate the climate when life first appeared on the earth... what this means in simple terms is that they want to recreate the 'air'... like what elements were in the air and does this create electrical storms? does any element collect and then rain down on the earth? we arent concerned with anything as large as the big bang or even the moon... just the contents within the atmosphere... now from here you just crash some sunlight into the replica atmosphere and see what proteins are created or changed... thats all... no need to go to any extremes or outside of the atmosphere... first you take baby steps then work your way up... now you shouldnt be able to fuck this up

    now when you create such settings you don't need to create a simulated sun or moon... you arent concerned with tides... when you crash it with sunlight you can use the actual sun... isnt that fancy... no need to create a sun when it is really right there... you really are really making this far more difficult than it needs to be

    now as far as religion being bullshit i totally agree with you... there are far easier ways of putting this forward... you seem to be attempting to be so deep that people dont understand you so that you can hold that over their heads... but really all you are doing is muddying the waters to try and hold some power... which you claim to be against...

    now since a lack of belief in a deity (atheism) is a joke and religion (belief in a deity) is a joke what is your solution... if you expose a weakness you need to be able to offer a solution otherwise you simply naysaying with no purpose... but you certainly think the world of yourself and your knowledge so go ahead and prove me wrong and show me without the intentional muddying of the waters... show me clearly, because that is what teachers do... they show by making it tangeable to their students... so go ahead and do that for my sake as well as any poor soul who happens to meander past this...

    I HAVE NO PROBLEM ADMITTING THAT I AM WRONG IF YOU SHOW ME THAT I AM WRONG... BUT IF I AM CORRECT YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT SAME WILLINGNESS TO ADMIT THAT YOU ARE WRONG

    the ball is now in your court
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    As usual azues has turned a conversation into a unintelligible mess accompanied by visual aids. You can't be taught anything i'm convinced. What is this Lazyness of yours to not engage in the conversation to find out the real alternatives? Noone can understand people like you. You don't make any sense. You tried to rebuttle something that can't be rebuttled. You should told your ego and Pride to fuck off. If you're not using religion. If you're not using creationism. if you're not use intelligent design. Then you switch to utilizing beauty arguments. Which is easily rebuttled to a fallacy as I will explain...

    Azues, Don't bring up the symbolism in those paintings. That isn't proving God, that is witch hunting for masonic delusions. You're hero, Aldous Huxley, is wrong about God being in art/music/poems as well... Whenever religion is given credit for, say, the sistine chapel or Raphael's Annunciation. I ask why. Could it be every great Artist will take commissions where they are to be had. I'm not saying raphael or michelangelo weren't christians -- it was pretty much the only option of their time, but the fact is almost incidental. It's enoromous wealth had made the church the dominant patron of the arts. However, If history has worked out differently, and Michelangelo had been commissioned to paint ceiling for a gaint museum of science, mightn't he have produced something at least as inspirational as the sistine chapel? it's also a shame will never get to hear mozart's oprea the expanding universe. or more ignobly, perhaps it's a sort of jealousy of genius. How dare another human being make such beautiful music/poetry/art, when I can't? it must be God that did it. LOL! Ask yourself are not shakespeare sonnets sublime with or without God? The sonnets do not prove the existence of god, the sonnets prove the existence of shakespeare.


    The Chemist are recreating the Elements for our planet's Origin of Life, By following the Periodic table in a lab to midwife a new Origin of Life. No matter How improbable that might be to you, We no it happend once, here on earth. I don't know if You are aware of this ,Azues, but our planet is basically made up of these elements found on the periodic table. Why is it funny, when I told you PIONT BLANK chemists are already flirting with this? This you don't get, but the delusion of God you do? LOL!

    Do you know what the Goldilocks zone is? it's the habitability zone of a typical star like our Sun -- Not too Hot, Not to cold, but just right -- for planets with liquid water. A thin band of orbits lies between those that are too far from the star, where water freezes, and too close, where it boils. Moreover, A life friendly-planet orbit has to be nearly circular. A fiercely elliptical orbit, like that of the newly discovered tenth planet known as Xena. However, Xena whizzes briefly through the Goldilocks zone once every few Earth decades or centuries. Xena itself doesn't even get into the Goldilocks zone at all, even at its closest approach to the sun, which it reaches every 560 earth years. Earth's Orbit, like those of all planets, is technically an ellipse, it is closest to the sun in january and furthest away in july, but the circle is a special case of an ellipse, and earths orbit is so close to circular that it never strays out of the Goldilocks zone. Which means, Earth's situation in the solar system is propitious in other ways that singled it out for the evolution of Life. The massive gravitational vacuum cleaner of Jupiter is well placed to intercept asteroids that might otherwise threaten us with lethal collision. Earth's single relatively large moon serves to stabilize our axis of rotation, and helps to foster life in various other ways. Our sun is unusual in not being a binary, locked in mutual orbit with with a companion star. Now it is possible for a binary stars to have planets, but their orbits are likely to be too chaotically variable to encourage the evolution of life.

    You have ONLY TWO choices to pick here...

    Was it Intelligent design?

    or

    was it Anthropic principle through natural selection?

    Intellegent design: is a axiomatic which Postulates God by Default logic.

    where as...

    Anthropic principle through natural selection: To the design hypothesis is statistical. Scientists explain it by invoking the magic of large numbers.
    It's been estimated that there are between 1 billion and 30 billion planets in our galaxy, and about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Knocking a few noughts off for reason of ordinary prudence, a billion billion is conservative estimate of the number of available planets in the Universe. Now suppose the Origin of life, the spontaneous arising of something equivalent to DNA, really was quite staggeringly improbable event. Suppose it was so improbable as to occur on only one in a billion planets. Any grantgiving body would laugh at any chemist who admitted that the chance of his proposed research succeeding was only one in a hundred. But here we are talking about odds of one in a billion. And yet . . . even with such absurdly long odds, life will still have arisen on a billion planets -- of which earth, of course, is one. This conclusion is so suprising, I'll exclaim it again. If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that astonishing improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chances of finding one of those life-bearing planets reminds me of the proverbial needle in a haystack. However, Azues, we don't need to go out of our way to find a needle because (back to anthropic principle) any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search. In closing, Of all the apparent gaps in evolutionary story, the origin of life gap can seem unbridgeable to brains cailbrated to assess likihood and risk on and everyday scale: the scale on which grant-giving bodies assess reseach proposals submitted by chemists. Yet even so big a gap as this is easily filled by statistically informed science, while the very same statistical science rules out divine creator on the "Ultimate 747 grounds".



    Religion doesn't explain anything, it pacifies by default logic.
    This is about alternatives. alternatives i've explained that you don't want to understand. Religion has no place in Science. It never did.
    test
  12. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Here is your logic azues...
    If you don't understand how something works just give up and say God did it. You don't know how the nerve impluse works, GOOD! You don't understand how memories are laid down in the brain, Excellent! Is photo synthesis a bafflingly complex process? wonderful! Please don't go to wrok on the problem just give up and appeal to God. Deflaut logic, It's not scientific by any means. If we left it up to God , azues, we would know or unknown. We could ignorantly, but not scientifically. We wouldn't know how anything works or doesn't work. Stop being a God of the Gaps worshiper. When a magic trick dupes you really good and leaves you unable to think of any other way it could have been done, Do you proclaim God is involved? you're trying to jump straight to the top of mount improbable and claim victory, instead of taking the slow steady climb on the other side of mount improbable.

    You must accept Two facts, We have the Logical & Scientific alternative explained through The Anthropic Principle and Natural Selection, and that you can't even Gap scientifically or logically explain God/ID. Which means, the Probability of God existing or not existing, favors me, not you. When one person is delusional they call it a mental illness, When a group of people are delusional they call it religion. And when noone is delusion I call that a liberation from mentally ill poppycock.
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Deazy - Your question will be answered when Menaz answers my question. I've asked him that question 3x (this is the fourth time) and he continuously ignores it on purpose. Let me hold the ball for a moment and we'll pick back up when he does.

    Menaz - I have one question from you that I want answered before I even read your dribble. I didn't even read what you wrote above because I have asked you four times to answer a question and three times you have ignored it. You keep jumping to other subjects and when I reply to them, I am blamed for the subject change. So we will discuss one subject at a time.

    Here is the question: (Deazy is more than welcome to answer it also)
    "If human beings are nothing more than the human mind and some human minds are far greater than others, how can human beings be equal?"

    Until you answer that question, I will not address anything you ask me. If you or Deazy answer that question, I will respond to your response and we will find out where we end up. One of us will have to admit that we are wrong and the other is right before I will go on. I'm tired of playing conversational hop scotch with you both. The pride and arrogance must stop from all sides (including mine). We're getting nowhere.

    Answer the question, please.
    test
  14. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    human beings are not inheritly equal... some are on far better ground due to their mental capacity... on the flip side those with down syndrome are by far not equal when one looks at their mental capacity... when it comes to their physical ability there is also a defecit... do people deserve to be looked upon equally? this is a difficult question... i am willing to say that people should be looked upon equally but we must be observant that when looking for answers to a question some answers are going to be better than others due to locality, knowledge, or capacity to think... an example would be if you were looking for the best way to grow corn you would not ask someone who lives in siberia nor would you ask a person with down syndrome... you would go to a farmer who grows corn and then you would also go to a specialist in agricuture... these people are the most knowledgeable based on experience and knowledge so in a sense they are superior to most due to their knowledge and experience...

    now as i mentioned earlier physical capacity can also be an area where we can specify whether people are equal or not... this should be obvious and as such i will not go into specifics...

    your question has been answered in what i feel is a fair manner which states my beliefs and opinions and is backed up with logical examples as to why i believe these things... the ball is still in your hands and i would like a straight forward reply from you as per my earlier reply
    test
  15. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I will Define equal in this regard... I'll keep it short and sweet.


    If you're advocating that average people shouldn't vote, yet are infering that only the most intelligent people should be allowed to vote. I would inform you that you're taking away Constitutional Civil-rights.



    However... If you're advocating that an average everyday person who works for Wal-mart can't do Rocket Science... I would say it's probable the wal-mart employee could be intellectually equal to the rocket scientist, but highly unlikely. There are many varibles to explain here, such as... Poor educational system, lousy up bring, a personal choose in different educational fields, or simplely put the wal-mart worker didn't mentally evolve enough, where as the Rocket scientist had been mentally evolving for years in his studies. It can also be related to two people taking the natural selection route for their procreation inorder to insure their superior genes produce highly intelligent children.


    I won't accept dualism. That would be like saying... that movie, freaky friday, proves the spirit. I'm not going to blindly take that leap of faith which does not exist. It's superstitious bullshit along the lines of ghosts. Having said that, I might as well accept Ghost dad. lol You know, Patrick swayze almost convinced me. lol
    test
  16. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Menaz - You are dismissed from this discussion. You are totally incapable of logic and lack the necessary focus to be involved. I do not respect you in the least and our interaction is finished after this reply to you.

    The Constitution is a man made law. It is not an eternal law and it can be changed. The same way you claim people react to religious dogma, you are accusing me of reacting to your ridiculous notion of human equality based on a man made document. When that was written "All men are created equally." It was unimously decided that Black men were only 3/5 of a man and Native Americans were not included at all. Women were also left out since it was all "Men" who are created equally. I reject your Constitution and I reject you and your role in this discussion. Human beings are not equal mentally or physically. A Janitor is not equal to a Chemist. However, the Janitor provides a service to humanity and so does the Chemist. If the world was organized into One World with One System, free of Capitalism and money all together then the Chemist and the Janitor would be equal in the sense that their tasks are necessary to the world as a whole.

    However, you are for Capitalism. If you are for Capitalism and you do not believe in God then there can be nothing but chaos from you and people like you. I reject you. That is all.


    Deazy - I respect your approach and I respect your agnostic views. You and Menaz are not in the same category and that is evident by your responses. My personal stance is that there is a Divine Connection between all human beings. Can I prove this by appealing to your senses? Of course not. Can you prove me wrong? No. This is a matter of personal experience. I have experienced God and you have not experienced God. That is not an insult. It is a fact, which you, being a logical man, are certainly aware of (At least that you have not experienced God. Of course you cannot verify my experience.). People are not equal mentally and spiritually. They are not equal in that sense but they should be allowed to live. They have an equal right to life. Having an equal right to life does not mean that they should have an equal right to choice/law making. It is clear that somebody of Menaz' IQ range has no business making laws for others. However, somebody of another IQ range is more apt to such a task.

    That said, you (being an atheist) and I (being a spiritualist) can agree on how the world should be run. However, we can only do this if we analyze life logically. My views regarding the LAW of the World cannot be founded on my faith since you clearly do not share my faith with me. So we must be able to speak on a logical level. You are capable of this. Menaz is not and from this point forward (with this discussion) I'd like to exclude him. He's going to derail it and I'm interested in this subject.

    Regarding humanity. Can the world be united if the world is totally divided? This is a very significant question. If everybody is running around with different morals and different beliefs and different realities swirling around in their head then humanity will remain in chaos. This is very basic logic. If we cannot agree then we have no choice but to disagree and if we disagree then we are not united. If those who know God could accept Atheism, then they don't know God. You are not asking them to think logically. You are asking to think in the manner which you think and to see in the manner which you see. However, you fail to understand that while you do not believe in a soul, they do. You worshipping God would be nothing more than a meaningless practice (to you) but to them/and to you, it would show that you are the same. It would be for you, like dancing. If you dance . . . is there meaning behind it? If you perform a group dance, is something achieved? Unity is. Other than that? Nope. Them not worshipping God would be tramatizing. You are asking them to give up their views with everything to lose while you refuse to accept their views with nothing to lose.

    Let me ask you this, since I have answered your question (above): "What is more important to you, truth or a perfect world?"

    If you had to choose between the truth and the continuing chaos or Utopia and a lie . . . which would you choose?

    1. Atheism - Chaos
    2. Theism - Utopia

    Remember, I am not saying that this hypothetical religion exists or that its God has been taught. I am just saying that if a religion existed based on a God that could neither be proven nor disproven, through scientific means . . . would you be willing to accept it in order to unite the world and end all suffering? Yes or No?

    Science will never achieve any definitive truth. All scientists are aware of this. It is an eternal search. It is definitely a positive thing, but if it never ends and there are other dimensions (outside of our Universe) then there is no way that you can disprove God. The only way to disprove God would be to reach the end of the celestial whatever it is . . . And, if there is an edge to that unnamed super-universe (which of course there isn't) then it would ultimately be within something larger. This is a basic truth. For something to end, it must have its controller. It must be within something else. All causes have effects and all causes are the effects of another cause. This is the only truth that we can know in this life through science. Science will never prove nor disprove God. It is not possible. So would you be willing to place your faith in a possible negative (non-existence), which could turn out to be meaningless, knowing that if it is meaningless you will never actually know that it is meaningless because death is the end . . . in order to unite the world in peace during this life?

    Scientists want to study the Universe. Why? I know why . . . but I don't know why Scientists believe they want to study the Universe. What makes a Scientist seek the truth? What are they ultimately seeking? Is it actually God? That's an entirely different discussion. Because, if we are born and die and that is all there is, then what does the Universal Truths matter? Why seek them with such fervor?

    Anyway, that's the question I have for you:
    "So would you be willing to place your faith in a possible negative (non-existence), which could turn out to be meaningless, knowing that if it is meaningless you will never actually know that it is meaningless because death is the end . . . in order to unite the world in peace during this life?"
    test
  17. j deazy

    j deazy DAT_NICCA_MOOSE swallows

    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Messages:
    3,392
    damn it... i had a dope ass reply that was deleted.... it was a wonderful reply that was quite long winded... fuck... oh well eventually i will retype it somewhat faithfully... get it faithfully... damn maybe that wasnt as funny as i wished... anyways i will retype
    test
  18. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    ^ Is it just me or was my last reply erased too? WOW!

    Mod's are fascist, who don't allow freedom of speech.

    A bunch of PATHETIC WEAK-MINDED AGENT SMITHS!
    test
  19. x - calibur

    x - calibur Guest

    yea some posts disappeared because of the recent server change.. no mod intervention

    sorry, nothing i can do about it
    test
  20. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Wow, that blows.

    I seen your long reply Deazy and I replied to it with a very well written long response. I've lost two other great posts in this server shift, as well.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)