Americans are NOT stupid

[NtherBlast]

You guys have to watch this video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE

[rottentomato]

umm yea they are....and im not sure i want to know what that is

[undeadgnome]

No we're not! I'm American and I use proper grammer. There are some idiots here though.

[Skahr]

umm yea they are


Please do not "Flame" the American Country. Thanks in advance :flowers:

[rottentomato]

No we're not! I'm American and I use proper grammer. There idiots here though.

now did you mean... they're or there are

and im american as well...but i am very unimpressed with our intelligence

[Skahr]

KCMA's people are good at math, we have the rest covered. :)

[rottentomato]

KCMA's people are good at math, we have the rest covered. :)

yea...dumb, arrogant, over weight, slighted, chemically imbalanced...i think we got most of the defects down...anything i missed?

[Skahr]

American's invented the following:

"Box" Telephone
Light Bulb
Artificial Heart
Altair Computer
Sewing Machine
Peanut Butter

Not to mention we were first on the moon! ;)

we are a bunch of ignorant idiots imo.

EDIT: Also, are you trying to say that people all over the world do not have the SAME EXACT defects that you lited above? If you think not, you are the most ignorant person I have ever typed to on the internet.:ponder:

Those are all things HUMANS suffer from, not "Americans"

[rottentomato]

American's invented the following:

"Box" Telephone
Light Bulb
Artificial Heart
Altair Computer
Sewing Machine
Peanut Butter

Not to mention we were first on the moon! ;)

we are a bunch of ignorant idiots imo.

telephone...hmmm alexander grahm bell got the american patent for the phone, but antonio meucci was considered to be one of the inventors...or johann philipp reis...neither one american...


humphry davy created the first incandescent light...without that, there would be no light bulb....


computers have been around hundreds of years.... abacus...astrolabe....antikythera mechanism....first electronic computer was made by charles babbage...an englishman

sewing machine....charles weisenthal...a german man working in england...

peanut butter....that would be contributed to native mexican people...

not to knock you down a peg, but you just proved exactly what i said about americans and their arrogance...they all think they are the best at everything, the first to do anything, and the last ones to leave when everything turns bad.

i have no respect for a lot of americans, and probably never will because their ideas and beliefs conflict so much with me own


and as far as character flaws for americans go...they seem to be the ones that try and diagnose every characteristic of normal behaviour as a flaw, or as a illness when in fact most things that people in america "suffer" from are just things that they should learn how to deal with and quit medicating themselves into submission

[undeadgnome]

We have giant bombs that could blow the world up. Also we're the most powerful nation on earth.

but yea, we're stupid.

[rottentomato]

We have giant bombs that could blow the world up. Also we're the most powerful nation on earth.

but yea, we're stupid.

how do you figure we are the most powerful nation? i would love to hear that...

we think we are the worlds police yes...but could china send over the few billion people they have and demolish us with sheer numbers? yes...

do other countries have bombs that could destroy us? yes...

are we worth their time...probably not. our society will fail as most empires do...


plus our economy isnt that great...there are plenty of countries that have a dollar value MUCH higher than our own...

but yea...americans arent stupid...they are ignorant and cocky

[Skahr]

I didnt say the first electric computer, I said "Altair Computer"

did George Washington Carver not invent peanut butter? Damn my ignorant american history teachers! either way im 50/50 with you fact for fact.

If you could chose to Not live here in America, where would you like to live? And why?

[Tikki]

Not to mention we were first on the moon! ;)

QUOTE]

Debateable!! Some say the russians are really the first people on the moon...and that the americans staged their walk.


[QUOTE=undeadgnome;3984243]We have giant bombs that could blow the world up. Also we're the most powerful nation on earth.

but yea, we're stupid.


.........
a) there are a lot of places that have giant bombs. korea, china, iran, iraq...not to mention all the black market weapons.

and people would debate that america is the most powerful nation on earth....like china, or japan...I say canada is. Without us who would have maple syrup? we control the pancake market - the power is in our hands!!

[Skahr]

how do you figure we are the most powerful nation? i would love to hear that...

we think we are the worlds police yes...but could china send over the few billion people they have and demolish us with sheer numbers?

the estimated world pop is about 6billion, so no i DO NOT think that "China" could send over "Half of the world" to come bomb us. This thread is now going no where.

yes...

our society will fail as most empires do...


plus our economy isnt that great...there are plenty of countries that have a dollar value MUCH higher than our own...


what grade are you in? Are you serious about this statement? :ponder: :grin: lol!

we currently have THE HIGHEST dollar value in the world, a close second would be Canada.

[Tikki]

we currently have THE HIGHEST dollar value in the world, a close second would be Canada.

have you checked out the pound and the euro?

[rottentomato]

I didnt say the first electric computer, I said "Altair Computer"

did George Washington Carver not invent peanut butter? Damn my ignorant american history teachers! either way im 50/50 with you fact for fact.

If you could chose to Not live here in America, where would you like to live? And why?

sweden...im a socialist so it suits me perfectly....plus ski bunnies over there excite me


what is so significant about the altair?

[Tikki]

have you checked out the pound and the euro?

and as a canadian...i know our dollar is not that great. it's better than previous year, but i'm fairly certain it's not ranked one of the highest

[Tikki]

where would i live?
no offense to americans, but not there...canada, if it continues to go the way it is, not here either.

based on economy, health care and social policies I would say the Netherlands - hands down.

****
darn! sorry for the double post.

[rottentomato]

the estimated world pop is about 6billion, so no i DO NOT think that "China" could send over "Half of the world" to come bomb us. This thread is now going no where.



what grade are you in? Are you serious about this statement? :ponder: :grin: lol!

we currently have THE HIGHEST dollar value in the world, a close second would be Canada.

HAHAHAHHA

british pound and the euro are both higher than our dollar...the pound by double...but i guess we are richer than them :(


and yes i am serious about america's empire falling...it is relatively young when compared to other empires, and its already showing classic signs of declining.

china could easily send over a few billion...and when did i say there were bombing us too? out of curiosity



netherlands would be ideal...but yea...i still love sweden

[IRPander]

Well look at who all the interviewed. They look like they all came from some backwoods country cook out for Christ's sake. Either they were really, really old or they were too young to even care about it.

[Skahr]

Im going to agree to disagree with this entire thread. Nothing good is going to come out of it in the long run.

[rottentomato]

I didnt say the first electric computer, I said "Altair Computer"

did George Washington Carver not invent peanut butter? Damn my ignorant american history teachers! either way im 50/50 with you fact for fact.

If you could chose to Not live here in America, where would you like to live? And why?

and im failing to see how the ONE thing you put about the altair computer equals HALF of the things i posted that you were wrong about...

math not a strong subject?

you would have been right about 16% of the things...because you cant argue a specific designer of a specific product...you can argue who was the first to invent the PC however, and it wouldnt be the altair...that is just what kinda gave way to the modern PC....

peanut butter def not carver however...whoever taught you that is whacky...he had something like 100 or so uses for peanuts...and peanut butter was one of them...but he didnt invent something that had been around much longer than him ;)

[Aswer]

No we're not! I'm American and I use proper grammer. There are some idiots here though.

Grammar.

Sorry, I JUST HAD TO! :laugh:

[rottentomato]

Grammar.

Sorry, I JUST HAD TO! :laugh:

HAHAHAHA ok...that made my night much more enjoyable

[RTaser]

I have to say that Americans are no more or less "stupid" then anyone else in the world. Think about this for a second; assume there is a certain percentage of any countries population that is "stupid". That being true and the USA's population being alot higher then most countries mean they have more "stupid" people (but the same percentage). That begs the question the population of China is alot higher then the USA, aren't there more "stupid" people in China? I would say yes it's just that we don't see them. The media coverage in USA is alot higher, so there is more of a chances a "stupid" person will be seen. Also the Americas are less afraid to speaking their mind (I put this down to the lack of a dictatorship for some time) so the "stupid" people speak their mind more and can therefore be identified easier.

So in conclusion I would have to say America has the same % about of "stupid" people as the rest of the world it's just that they are put on TV more and stand out more then other places in the world.

But the whole idea of people being "stupid" just because they don't know a fact like what is the capital of Yemen (The answer is Y :grin:), if the issues in Yemen are not effecting them in anyway, why would they need to know this? I find that people know about the things they are interested in, like a gambler will know alot about odds and maths even if he didn't get a qualification in Maths when he was at school because he can see a reason to understand this when he is gambling, but not when he was at school.

[rottentomato]

I have to say that Americans are no more or less "stupid" then anyone else in the world. Think about this for a second; assume there is a certain percentage of any countries population that is "stupid". That being true and the USA's population being alot higher then most countries mean they have more "stupid" people (but the same percentage). That begs the question the population of China is alot higher then the USA, aren't there more "stupid" people in China? I would say yes it's just that we don't see them. The media coverage in USA is alot higher, so there is more of a chances a "stupid" person will be seen. Also the Americas are less afraid to speaking their mind (I put this down to the lack of a dictatorship for some time) so the "stupid" people speak their mind more and can therefore be identified easier.

So in conclusion I would have to say America has the same % about of "stupid" people as the rest of the world it's just that they are put on TV more and stand out more then other places in the world.

But the whole idea of people being "stupid" just because they don't know a fact like what is the capital of Yemen (The answer is Y :grin:), if the issues in Yemen are not effecting them in anyway, why would they need to know this? I find that people know about the things they are interested in, like a gambler will know alot about odds and maths even if he didn't get a qualification in Maths when he was at school because he can see a reason to understand this when he is gambling, but not when he was at school.

you know...america is the only place ive ever seen a iron that has a warning label "do not iron while clothes are on body"

or on a chainsaw "do not stop blade with body parts"

mcdonalds coffee "caution...may be hot"

stupidity is rampant in america...see other countries where they dont have warning labels....those problems usually just weed themselves out...now america the stupid people survive those incidents and dont die off to natural selection thus making a larger populace of ignorant and stupid people....


now i...i like to consider myself quite intelligent... here is my theory

a herd of buffalo is like the human brain...there are weak buffalo and weak brain cells...and strong buffalo and strong brain cells...so by process of natural selection...the weaker buffalo become prey and are usually slaughtered, thus leaving the stronger buffalo...my brain functions the same way...when i drink beer, it kills off the weaker slower brain cells by natural selection thus making me a smarter individual in return...

so lets all crack open a twelve pack and get smart drunk :)

[RTaser]

you know...america is the only place ive ever seen a iron that has a warning label "do not iron while clothes are on body"

or on a chainsaw "do not stop blade with body parts"

mcdonalds coffee "caution...may be hot"

stupidity is rampant in america...see other countries where they dont have warning labels....those problems usually just weed themselves out...now america the stupid people survive those incidents and dont die off to natural selection thus making a larger populace of ignorant and stupid people....



I think all the warning labels shows how clever some lawyers *spit* can be. Given that accidents will happen (What can go wrong will go wrong) some lawyer *spit* has taken advantage of the law to make money for himself and his client. (Given his client my have been one sandwich short of a picnic)

now i...i like to consider myself quite intelligent... here is my theory

a herd of buffalo is like the human brain...there are weak buffalo and weak brain cells...and strong buffalo and strong brain cells...so by process of natural selection...the weaker buffalo become prey and are usually slaughtered, thus leaving the stronger buffalo...my brain functions the same way...when i drink beer, it kills off the weaker slower brain cells by natural selection thus making me a smarter individual in return...

so lets all crack open a twelve pack and get smart drunk :)

I do enjoy subscribing to this theory myself :wink:

[noodlenugget]

No we're not! I'm American and I use proper grammer. There are some idiots here though.

Just another one "GRAMMAR"

[Kalos]

Just another one "GRAMMAR"
Bwhahaha! Well spotted, they would be proud: http://img115.exs.cx/img115/1141/grammar-nazi.jpg

[Shellar]

"A rhino's eyesight is poor, but given its mass and size, it's not the rhino's problem."

Same deal with Americans. As long as someone else pays for their mistakes, they can afford to make them.

[noodlenugget]

you know...america is the only place ive ever seen a iron that has a warning label "do not iron while clothes are on body"

or on a chainsaw "do not stop blade with body parts"

mcdonalds coffee "caution...may be hot"

stupidity is rampant in america...see other countries where they dont have warning labels....those problems usually just weed themselves out...now america the stupid people survive those incidents and dont die off to natural selection thus making a larger populace of ignorant and stupid people....


You know, I REALLY dont want to start a flame war here, but if it happens, it happens.

Rotten, you seem to use a lot of first-person pronouns when referring to Americans in this thread, so I am gonna go out on a limb here and assume you are American yourself.

Why do you hate yourself so much? Do you wear a lot of black clothing?

I don't know if you have actually LIVED in a country outside of America. LIVED, not VISITED... being in Germany with your dad who is in the army does not count since you don't really integrate yourself into the culture. LIVED. I mean, you got a VISA, rented an apartment, a drivers license, work permit, job, learned the local language, etc. in a foreign country. I think that if you have, then you would know that there are stupid people everywhere. EVERY culture has its share of stupid people. What you are doing by saying that all Americans are stupid is called "stereotyping". Its the same thing as seeing ONE black man getting arrested for robbing a liquor store and going around saying that ALL black people are criminals. Exactly the same.

As far as the warning labels on various items, they are there because companies need to cover their A$$. Somewhere in the history of that probuct, someone has injured theirself by using it improperly and filed an extremely stupid lawsuit and that cost the maker of said product several millions of dollars. Rather than wait for the next person to do it and have to pay out even more money, they slap a sticker on all their products for a fraction of the cost of a lawsuit. Its only there to remind the 0.000001% of the general population that are stupid enough to try iron their clothes while wearing them that the product was not designed to be used in such a fashion. Do these labels mean all Americans are stupid? Are all black people criminals?

Now onto why America IS the greatest nation in the world...

Parking lots. Ever tried parking a car just about anywhere in Europe. If you have, then your appreciation for WalMart size parking lots is through the roof.

Convenience stores. America has 24 hr. everything. Need tampons at 3 AM on a Sunday, we got you covered. Need a garden sprinkler in November in Maine at 3 AM on a Sunday, got you covered.

30 minute visit to the DMV to get your drivers license renewed? DING. I have spent HOURS at the German DMV.

I could go on, but if you ever integrate yourself into another culture, you'll see what I mean.

P.S. Your daddy doesn't hate you.

[RTaser]

"A rhino's eyesight is poor, but given its mass and size, it's not the rhino's problem."

Same deal with Americans. As long as someone else pays for their mistakes, they can afford to make them.

Very true, until there is something that counter balances Americas mass (insert joke about Americas weight) then the rest of the world is in trouble. Myself I would like to see a powerful European Super State (w/o the French), but alternatives are Russia or China taking more active rolls in world politics which is good/bad, draw your own conclusions.

[bearbehind]

Those are all things HUMANS suffer from, not "Americans"

Americans are humans too! :grin:

as for the warning labels I think that this increases a nations stupidity.

Putting up a sign saying 'don't fall off' at the top of a cliff with only save those stupid enough to fall off in the first place. Therefore more and more stupid people are living longer.

With out the signs they would mostly be like lemmings and their numbers would dwindle allowing the smarter population to breed.

Its a bit like the theory of natural selection. :smiley:

[RTaser]

Americans are humans too! :grin:

as for the warning labels I think that this increases a nations stupidity.

Putting up a sign saying 'don't fall off' at the top of a cliff with only save those stupid enough to fall off in the first place. Therefore more and more stupid people are living longer.

With out the signs they would mostly be like lemmings and their numbers would dwindle allowing the smarter population to breed.

Its a bit like the theory of natural selection. :smiley:

LOL I love this theory it makes perfect logical sense :laughing: If not moral :tongue:

[odinsnephew]

Here in the UK we have warnings on bags of peanuts & other nuts - Warning! Contains nuts.

So anybody with a nut allergy had better not buy those particular nuts then :)

As someone else said, its more about companies protecting themselves from law suits & the compensation culture we live in nowadays.

[bearbehind]

Here in the UK we have warnings on bags of peanuts & other nuts - Warning! Contains nuts.

I've got a pair of pants with that written on!

I'm still all for lining up the terminally stupid and shooting them through the head.

I think that all old people should have been drowned at birth too! :grin:

[rottentomato]

noodle...i find it completely interesting that you stereotype me based on my beliefs after my statements... who are you to judge me for who i am and what i believe?

so what if i think all black people are criminals?
maybe i think all jews are greedy and cheap as well?
who are you to decide if that is morally wrong for my to have those opinions.

to slander someone by calling them a bigot...does that not make you a hypocrite?

americans are picked on by plenty of other countries for our laziness, and for our lack of respect for other cultures. many places we go we are harassed and slandered because we are in fact americans, and well the stereotype fits. a VERY large majority of the united states fits the category of cocky, arrogant, and "stupid." people do and say dumb things, americans seem to do it more...perhaps our lack of education is to blame compared to powerhouses like japan/china/uk/canada...all of which have a much higher standard for education and well...they are more well spoken, and more polite in their manners.

very few places i have been in the US have i been welcomed with open arms.
the countries i have visited outside the US have always embraced me unless they assumed i am a "self righteous power hungry" american.

for a common point of interest in americas lack of education, take a look at SAT scores over the last 30 years... in the 1960s, the average sat score was 975...when 1990 hit, guess where it sits? 900.. a drop of 75 points in 30 years. its been a steady decline as well, not a quick jump.

we also dont punish our criminals the way we used to, thus also creating a society that thrives off violence and crime. blame the video games the parents say? blame the government i say...

1960...the violent crime rate per 100,000 was 16.1
1990 73.2

now take a look at the prison system set to punish serious offenders such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated, assault, burglary, larceny/theft and motor vehicle theft

1960...median prison sentence for those crimes listed...22.5 days...
1988...8.5 days

who is to blame for america's decline over the last 30 years? we are...politicians that are more worried about a vote in their pocket than the well being of society, money hungry conglomerates that take jobs from hard working individuals to give it to those that may not perform it to the proper expectations, factions of people that protest and blame the things that may in fact not be so bad on our children because they may think it keeps them from having a bright future, when they grew up with those things, and supposedly they would say they grew up just fine and dandy.

the problem with america is america itself. its going to consume itself, and break down itself, and eventually die from its own arrogance. if you think i am wrong, then you should make a reality check, open your myopic eyes, and see the united states for what it really is... a box of manure



also note noodle...rather than make attacks on you personally like you did, i substantiated my argument with facts...make more flame posts against me, and im sure the moderators will hear about it ;)

[noodlenugget]

americans are picked on by plenty of other countries for our laziness, and for our lack of respect for other cultures. many places we go we are harassed and slandered because we are in fact americans, and well the stereotype fits. a VERY large majority of the united states fits the category of cocky, arrogant, and "stupid." people do and say dumb things, americans seem to do it more...perhaps our lack of education is to blame compared to powerhouses like japan/china/uk/canada...all of which have a much higher standard for education and well...they are more well spoken, and more polite in their manners.

BIG DEAL, everyone hates you when you're on top. Let them pick on us. Haters are gonna be haters. If you think Americans are the only lazy ones, you are in for a disappointment. Internet and Television can make anyone lazy, regardless of their national origin. Like I said, go LIVE (not visit) in a foreign country and integate yourself, its not all roses. As far as education goes, have you ever looked at a teacher's salary? Yes? Do you want to be a teacher? Didn't think so. But lets just say you did decide to be a teacher... Would you break YOUR back trying to teach someone else's hellians? Neither would I for that kind of money. My brother-in-law is a school teacher here in Germany and he can tell you that a LOT of teachers here won't break their backs for what they are getting paid. But, pickings are slim (on both sides of the ocean) and schools have to take what they can get. I am not saying it is right, but I can understand it.

very few places i have been in the US have i been welcomed with open arms.
the countries i have visited outside the US have always embraced me unless they assumed i am a "self righteous power hungry" american

I guess you've just been to the wrong places in the US then. As for the countries you have "VISITED,"more often than not that "embrace" was loosened as soon as they actually found out you were American. They have the same view of Americans as you do and are quick to stereotype as well.

for a common point of interest in americas lack of education, take a look at SAT scores over the last 30 years... in the 1960s, the average sat score was 975...when 1990 hit, guess where it sits? 900.. a drop of 75 points in 30 years. its been a steady decline as well, not a quick jump.

we also dont punish our criminals the way we used to, thus also creating a society that thrives off violence and crime. blame the video games the parents say? blame the government i say...

1960...the violent crime rate per 100,000 was 16.1
1990 73.2

now take a look at the prison system set to punish serious offenders such as murder, rape, robbery, aggravated, assault, burglary, larceny/theft and motor vehicle theft

1960...median prison sentence for those crimes listed...22.5 days...
1988...8.5 days

who is to blame for america's decline over the last 30 years? we are...politicians that are more worried about a vote in their pocket than the well being of society, money hungry conglomerates that take jobs from hard working individuals to give it to those that may not perform it to the proper expectations, factions of people that protest and blame the things that may in fact not be so bad on our children because they may think it keeps them from having a bright future, when they grew up with those things, and supposedly they would say they grew up just fine and dandy.

the problem with america is america itself. its going to consume itself, and break down itself, and eventually die from its own arrogance. if you think i am wrong, then you should make a reality check, open your myopic eyes, and see the united states for what it really is... a box of manure

75% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

Blame the lack of parents being allowed to discipline their kids anymore. The statistics you are quoting come from an age when parents were actually allowed to spank their children and keep them in line. Can't do that anymore, can ya? NOPE. I see a pattern.

Maybe YOU should open YOUR eyes and look past the "box of manure" and realize just how good you have it and what a great country you live in.




also note noodle...rather than make attacks on you personally like you did, i substantiated my argument with facts...make more flame posts against me, and im sure the moderators will hear about it ;)

If so, so be it.

[Gorechylde]

Easy kids. No need to go gettin personal with each other. Both of you make valid points even if Rotten's argument is worded a little better. What does Myopic mean btw?

[rottentomato]

BIG DEAL, everyone hates you when you're on top. Let them pick on us. Haters are gonna be haters. If you think Americans are the only lazy ones, you are in for a disappointment. Internet and Television can make anyone lazy, regardless of their national origin. Like I said, go LIVE (not visit) in a foreign country and integate yourself, its not all roses. As far as education goes, have you ever looked at a teacher's salary? Yes? Do you want to be a teacher? Didn't think so. But lets just say you did decide to be a teacher... Would you break YOUR back trying to teach someone else's hellians? Neither would I for that kind of money. My brother-in-law is a school teacher here in Germany and he can tell you that a LOT of teachers here won't break their backs for what they are getting paid. But, pickings are slim (on both sides of the ocean) and schools have to take what they can get.



I guess you've just been to the wrong places in the US then. As for the countries you have "VISITED,"more often than not that "embrace" was loosened as soon as they actually found out you were American. They have the same view of Americans as you do and are quick to stereotype as well.



Blame the lack of parents being allowed to discipline their kids anymore. The statistics you are quoting come from an age when parents were actually allowed to spank their children and keep them in line. Can't do that anymore, can ya? NOPE. I see a pattern.

Maybe YOU should open YOUR eyes and look past the "box of manure" and realize just how good you have it and what a great country you live in.






If so, so be it.

noodle once again you stereotype me...what if i was in fact a teacher? my mother is a teacher and has been doing it almost 30 years...she also makes almost 80k a year doing what she does...hardly bad pay in my opinion. who is to blame parents for lack of discipline? i hardly see a problem in discipline in other ways besides a good honest spanking. the problem with most parents now a days is they dont reprimand their kids the way i was when i was younger. take away the cell phone they can play games on, take away the TV, take away the joys they have in their life so they have a REAL sense of boredom. there was a time before TV, and there was a time where kids actually had substance. not so much anymore, and the media is partly to blame, and parents are another part of it. America is hardly on top in almost EVERY respect to government. i dont know what planet you have been living on, but being on top isnt about showing off the things you have and covering up the things you have that are faults...being on top is hardly a sense of arrogance...it is humility that pulls through for the win. there are plenty of countries that demonstrate humility and sit in the shadows of power hungry america, but are just as successful in their endeavors. ive been to quite a few cities in the US name a major one...ive probably been to it, and a vast majority of small cities along the way. there is hardly a warm embrace in most places i have been...in europe only a few countries didnt frown on my being american only AFTER we talked about beliefs. i cant stand what america stands for, and what they are becoming, but the reason i still live here, is because i have family and friends here, and leaving them would be too major a feat for them to handle...i am sure i can manage, but my personality isnt the kind to abandon love...so i stay in the states.

Easy kids. No need to go gettin personal with each other. Both of you make valid points even if Rotten's argument is worded a little better. What does Myopic mean btw?

short sightedness or narrow minded

[noodlenugget]

Easy kids. No need to go gettin personal with each other. Both of you make valid points even if Rotten's argument is worded a little better. What does Myopic mean btw?

Damn $5.00 words.

[Gorechylde]

Damn $5.00 words.


Lol. To quote Dodgeball...White-"oh, hi Kate."...Kate-"Are you reading the dictionary?"...White-"OOPS! You caught me. Sometimes I like to give my brain a mental workout as well."

Did you know?
A lot of rappers read dictionaries.

[RTaser]

Lol. To quote Dodgeball...White-"oh, hi Kate."...Kate-"Are you reading the dictionary?"...White-"OOPS! You caught me. Sometimes I like to give my brain a mental workout as well."

Did you know?
A lot of rappers read dictionaries.

I read the dictionary once.... the zebra did it.

[Gorechylde]

What do you feel the US is starting to stand for Rotten?

[rottentomato]

Lol. To quote Dodgeball...White-"oh, hi Kate."...Kate-"Are you reading the dictionary?"...White-"OOPS! You caught me. Sometimes I like to give my brain a mental workout as well."

Did you know?
A lot of rappers read dictionaries.

so THATS where they get shizzle my nizzle off the rizzle! i always wondered! damn $10.00 words :(

[Gorechylde]

so THATS where they get shizzle my nizzle off the rizzle! i always wondered! damn $10.00 words :(

I wonder if "shizzle" really is in the dictionary? Start a big words thread. I need some education.

[rottentomato]

What do you feel the US is starting to stand for Rotten?

something i shall not mention here because this is hardly the time or the place for that

[noodlenugget]

noodle once again you stereotype me...what if i was in fact a teacher? my mother is a teacher and has been doing it almost 30 years...she also makes almost 80k a year doing what she does...hardly bad pay in my opinion. who is to blame parents for lack of discipline? i hardly see a problem in discipline in other ways besides a good honest spanking. the problem with most parents now a days is they dont reprimand their kids the way i was when i was younger. take away the cell phone they can play games on, take away the TV, take away the joys they have in their life so they have a REAL sense of boredom. there was a time before TV, and there was a time where kids actually had substance. not so much anymore, and the media is partly to blame, and parents are another part of it. America is hardly on top in almost EVERY respect to government. i dont know what planet you have been living on, but being on top isnt about showing off the things you have and covering up the things you have that are faults...being on top is hardly a sense of arrogance...it is humility that pulls through for the win. there are plenty of countries that demonstrate humility and sit in the shadows of power hungry america, but are just as successful in their endeavors. ive been to quite a few cities in the US name a major one...ive probably been to it, and a vast majority of small cities along the way. there is hardly a warm embrace in most places i have been...in europe only a few countries didnt frown on my being american only AFTER we talked about beliefs. i cant stand what america stands for, and what they are becoming, but the reason i still live here, is because i have family and friends here, and leaving them would be too major a feat for them to handle...i am sure i can manage, but my personality isnt the kind to abandon love...so i stay in the states.



short sightedness or narrow minded

How about we agree to disagree and call it a day. While you do make several valid points, a lot of which I actually aggree with, I just get the impression that you throw all Americans into one boat and label them all as stupid or arrogant or whatever and its simply not right. Now, were you to say, there are a lot of stupid people in the states, I personally would aggree. A lot of arrogant people in the states, absolutely. I personally find a lot of Germans to stink, but I wouldn't go around saying "Germans stink" cause they don't all fall into the stinky bucket.

Hopefully this clarification raised my Rottentomato rep back into neutral, if it didn't, I understand.

[Gorechylde]

How about we agree to disagree and call it a day. While you do make several valid points, a lot of which I actually aggree with, I just get the impression that you throw all Americans into one boat and label them all as stupid or arrogant or whatever and its simply not right. Now, were you to say, there are a lot of stupid people in the states, I personally would aggree. A lot of arrogant people in the states, absolutely. I personally find a lot of Germans to stink, but I wouldn't go around saying "Germans stink" cause they don't all fall into the stinky bucket.

Hopefully this clarification raised my Rottentomato rep back into neutral, if it didn't, I understand.

if not I have a good feeling he'll get over it.

[noodlenugget]

if not I have a good feeling he'll get over it.

or she.......

[rottentomato]

a he...and yes i dont hold judgement on anyone...its not for me to decide like i had previously mentioned....

just a little more on topic to finalize...this is from a political essay i read not long ago


Americans are not "stupider" than Europeans or Canadians or anyone else. Our technology proves it--even if you grant the fact that much of Americas technology now was created by non-natives, but even more so our entreprenuership, much of which is native. So why does it appear to outsiders that Americans are stupid?

First of all, though few Americans will admit it, most Americans believe what the media tells them (ie. Americans are brainwashed), and the media post-911 is not about to tell us the truth, which for now must be ferreted out over the Internet.

Second of all--and this is the case because most Americans are still educated in public schools--most Americans are either ignorant of or deliberately dumbed-down in the subjects that Americans must learn if they are to be bequeathed an empire, history and its sister, geography. This goes beyond the fact that geography bees tend to be won by homeschoolers. When less than 30% of public schooled students can't find Iraq on a map, and when so many fewer than that know that places like Iraq have never been totally conquered by imperialist powers, that can be put down to just how ignorant (not stupid) Americans are when it comes to history and geography.

[Gorechylde]

a he...and yes i dont hold judgement on anyone...its not for me to decide like i had previously mentioned....

just a little more on topic to finalize...this is from a political essay i read not long ago


Americans are not "stupider" than Europeans or Canadians or anyone else. Our technology proves it--even if you grant the fact that much of Americas technology now was created by non-natives, but even more so our entreprenuership, much of which is native. So why does it appear to outsiders that Americans are stupid?

First of all, though few Americans will admit it, most Americans believe what the media tells them (ie. Americans are brainwashed), and the media post-911 is not about to tell us the truth, which for now must be ferreted out over the Internet.

Second of all--and this is the case because most Americans are still educated in public schools--most Americans are either ignorant of or deliberately dumbed-down in the subjects that Americans must learn if they are to be bequeathed an empire, history and its sister, geography. This goes beyond the fact that geography bees tend to be won by homeschoolers. When less than 30% of public schooled students can't find Iraq on a map, and when so many fewer than that know that places like Iraq have never been totally conquered by imperialist powers, that can be put down to just how ignorant (not stupid) Americans are when it comes to history and geography.

I'll agree with that. Perhaps the original accusation against the general American should be that we are ignorant and not necessarily stupid.

[rottentomato]

I'll agree with that. Perhaps the original accusation against the general American should be that we are ignorant and not necessarily stupid.

i do believe the topic of that essay was americans are "brain washed" not stupid...and the media helps fuel this...

IE: After 9/11 they did a survey on who was to blame for the incident...you know what 70% of america put? Saddam and the terrorists in iraq....unfortunately after afghanistan, all was forgotten about osama bin laden, and the media perpetuated how evil and unforgiving saddam was....kinda interesting perspective on the situation where TV is really bad for the mind ;) especially with media influencing everything

[noodlenugget]

I'll agree with that. Perhaps the original accusation against the general American should be that we are ignorant and not necessarily stupid.

A little more user friendly. In all actuality, I think EVERYONE is ignorant. If you were to put me in front of an open skull, and tell me to remove the tumor, I couldn't. Why? I am ignorant. Right?

[noodlenugget]

i do believe the topic of that essay was americans are "brain washed" not stupid...and the media helps fuel this...

IE: After 9/11 they did a survey on who was to blame for the incident...you know what 70% of america put? Saddam and the terrorists in iraq....unfortunately after afghanistan, all was forgotten about osama bin laden, and the media perpetuated how evil and unforgiving saddam was....kinda interesting perspective on the situation where TV is really bad for the mind ;) especially with media influencing everything

Oh God, do I hate the media. And don't get me started on the administration's propaganda machine...

[rottentomato]

A little more user friendly. In all actuality, I think EVERYONE is ignorant. If you were to put me in front of an open skull, and tell me to remove the tumor, I couldn't. Why? I am ignorant. Right?

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6563/arnold7wh.jpg
ITS NOT A TOOOOMMAAAHHH!!!



but if i was placed before a open skull and asked to remove the tumor...id remove everything encased inside of said skull...simplicity is the easiest way correct?

[noodlenugget]

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6563/arnold7wh.jpg
ITS NOT A TOOOOMMAAAHHH!!!



but if i was placed before a open skull and asked to remove the tumor...id remove everything encased inside of said skull...simplicity is the easiest way correct?

Then there would be a lawsuit and we would all have to go around with warning stickers on our heads which read:

Warning: Removal of all contents of this head may cause life function of attached body to cease.

Or something along those lines...

[Gorechylde]

I thought we went into Iraq because Sadaam was harboring terrorists and had WMD's and Chemical agents.

[Kugan]

Interesting discussion. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that:
That movie was hilarious :P

And if you are American and you don’t think so, you might want to learn to laugh at yourself… or take a geography lesson :D

[rottentomato]

Interesting discussion. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that:
That movie was hilarious :P

And if you are American and you don’t think so, you might want to learn to laugh at yourself… or take a geography lesson :D

hey i can point to iraq just fine! that place where we are that we have been trying to substantiate a government based on our premise and ignoring the culture of a civilization... its right here

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~dutky/vietnam/vietnam_map.gif


oh wait...thats the OTHER country that we tried to do that in....:hide:

[noodlenugget]

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6563/arnold7wh.jpg

I present to you the governor of California...

[RTaser]

I thought we went into Iraq because Sadaam was harboring terrorists and had WMD's and Chemical agents.

Well no WMD were found and no proof of harboring terrorists has been shown, so maybe they were the reasons but nothing has happened to show they were true.

[rottentomato]

Well no WMD was found and no proof of harboring terrorists has been shown, so maybe they were the reasons but nothing has happened to show they were true.

::cough::finish daddys biddings::cough::

[Gorechylde]

Well no WMD was found and no proof of harboring terrorists has been shown, so maybe they were the reasons but nothing has happened to show they were true.


There were some accounts of large, multi-axle vehicles crossing the border into Syria I think it was on the eve of our invasion. Not sure how much water that holds. Going in to remove Sadaam was reason enough IMO. He was a monster. Everything went south when we starting trying to occupy. As far as no proof of WMD's being found well, we've found no proof of God either, but that doesn't stop 6 trillion people from worshiping. Maybe there is a hidden bunker somewhere we haven't found yet? Oh well, water under the bridge IMO. We either need to send in more troops and lock down every inch of that country or GTFO and let them kill each other. We are under-manned over there and it's getting people killed. /end thread-jack.

[Kalos]

I thought we went into Iraq because Sadaam was harboring terrorists and had WMD's and Chemical agents.
Harboring terrorists? Al Queda tried to assassinate Saddam twice, they were enemies not allies.

As for WMDs, we had less evidence of Iraq having any than we do of North Korea. Chimical agents definantly, confirmed to have killed thousands of his own people.

[xxlebox]

Americans aren't stupid? "How many sides does a triangle have?" "Eh... four?" TRI-ANGLE is that so hard? Wow.
and, "Who won the Vietnam War?" "Ehm, where we even in that?"

Ofcourse that doesn't make all Americans stupid, but the people in the interview clearly were.

[rgirty]

Just like any other country America has their share of people that aren't what we would call normal.

I applaud our attempts to look at issues physically/mentally with people and try to invent methods/medications to treat them. This is known as progress, yes some are overmedicated and abuse it however this is how progress is made.

I don't believe many, if any countries work harder or more hours than Americans.

Arrogance perceived by other countries isn't so much that. What you see on the face of an American is a stern confidence. A belief that we can accomplish and do anything we set out to do. We do believe we are great, why would you not? Every country/person should believe they are great.

I don't believe anyone comes together any better than America. Despite the divider we have in office we still come together to realize and try to remedy issues. Many people have come to the realization about Iraq and we have shown in the voting booth our displeasure and are electing new leaders. That is what is great with America. If you don't like how things are going, donate your time get people to the voting booth and a single individual can make the difference.

Yeah, we have a young culture of leet speek Ipod wearing emo kids. But each generation thought their youth were a bad example of society. Parents of children in the hippy movement of the 60's and 70's thought much the same. Have no doubt, these kids will make fine adults.

I'm proud of my country, not so much of our leader but he will be replaced soon enough. Another beautiful thing about america, no matter how bad someone leads in only a short manner of time we will have someone else.

Those of you wishing for a woman president I believe will soon see one. If she can garner 25% of the female vote she'll win in a landslide.

Americans aren't stupid, the op is correct. However there are stupid americans.

[satineeftw]

HAHAHAHHA

and yes i am serious about america's empire falling...it is relatively young when compared to other empires, and its already showing classic signs of declining.


It's odd that you would say that because I have always compared the states to Rome. We are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of arrogance the Roman's made. We are repeating history and no one wants to look up and take notice before it's too late.

[satineeftw]

a he...and yes i dont hold judgement on anyone...its not for me to decide like i had previously mentioned....

just a little more on topic to finalize...this is from a political essay i read not long ago


Americans are not "stupider" than Europeans or Canadians or anyone else. Our technology proves it--even if you grant the fact that much of Americas technology now was created by non-natives, but even more so our entreprenuership, much of which is native. So why does it appear to outsiders that Americans are stupid?

First of all, though few Americans will admit it, most Americans believe what the media tells them (ie. Americans are brainwashed), and the media post-911 is not about to tell us the truth, which for now must be ferreted out over the Internet.

Second of all--and this is the case because most Americans are still educated in public schools--most Americans are either ignorant of or deliberately dumbed-down in the subjects that Americans must learn if they are to be bequeathed an empire, history and its sister, geography. This goes beyond the fact that geography bees tend to be won by homeschoolers. When less than 30% of public schooled students can't find Iraq on a map, and when so many fewer than that know that places like Iraq have never been totally conquered by imperialist powers, that can be put down to just how ignorant (not stupid) Americans are when it comes to history and geography.



Sorry for the short reply but this is the same exact reason why I am going to be having my son go to Catholic School. I went for a good portion of my young life and when I went to High School I couldn't believe what literature the kids were reading and how low their math skills were at our ages.

[xxlebox]

And I don't think a certain person is helping with his war-waging.

http://www.hot.ee/mastap/bush_files/bush_worktodo.jpg

[Gorechylde]

Harboring terrorists? Al Queda tried to assassinate Saddam twice, they were enemies not allies.

As for WMDs, we had less evidence of Iraq having any than we do of North Korea. Chimical agents definantly, confirmed to have killed thousands of his own people.


I didn't know Al Queda and Sadaam were enemies. That's very interesting. As for WMD's in N. Korea. I'm pretty sure they have the Uranium for a Nuke. They were negotiating selling some to Iran a couple monthes back, but China put their foot down. N. Korea just doesn't have a delivery system yet. That's why they Launched the Typodong(sp) or so I've read.

[rgirty]

We aren't repeating history.

History repeats itself.

[Tikki]

And I don't think a certain person is helping with his war-waging.

http://www.hot.ee/mastap/bush_files/bush_worktodo.jpg

you've just made me very very very happy :)
:afro: :cloud9: :laughing: :heart:
i'm done with the faces now...
oh no wait...

:english:


sadly public schools are all below levels (speaking from my area). there seems to be a lack of teachers, and moreover a lack of control over students. you can't blame all the teachers because some do try, and you can't blame the students for having no interest in education because not only are they young and not thinking about their future but they're dealing with massive issues.

once again, look at the Netherlands - they're a well run nation. great health care, great economy, great education system, and great social resources. the difference between them and america is their willing to just sustain themselves - they strive for this and nothing more. where america and canada are young nations wanting to make their mark on the world. They want more than basic sustainity, they want richness, fame and control.

greed is our mistake, not stupidity.

[xxlebox]

Doesn't that have exactly the same effect rgirty?

EDIT:

once again, look at the Netherlands - they're a well run nation. great health care, great economy, great education system, and great social resources. the difference between them and america is their willing to just sustain themselves - they strive for this and nothing more. where america and canada are young nations wanting to make their mark on the world. They want more than basic sustainity, they want richness, fame and control.

I live in the Netherlands and have a pretty good school - but we do have problems at school as well. Teachers getting burnouts, and many lessons that are just gone, because of teachers being sick or whatsoever, we miss alot, and there's large classes of 35 persons per class, which makes it so that noone gets a lot of private attention to his own problems.

[Gorechylde]

And I don't think a certain person is helping with his war-waging.

http://www.hot.ee/mastap/bush_files/bush_worktodo.jpg


I thought the terrorists struck first? 9/11, embassy bombings, etc. I still feel Bush was right to go on the offensive, but he's handled everything fairly carelessly from then on.

[xxlebox]

I thought the terrorists struck first? 9/11, embassy bombings, etc. I still feel Bush was right to go on the offensive, but he's handled everything fairly carelessly from then on.

That depends on whether you believe 9/11 really was done by terrorists. It's not like I really believe the conspiracies, but you can never be sure. And still then, they way I see it, Bush used the terrorist attacks for his own good to attack Iraq and be 'famous' or whatever you'd like to call that.
But, what do I know?

[Gorechylde]

That depends on whether you believe 9/11 really was done by terrorists. It's not like I really believe the conspiracies, but you can never be sure. And still then, they way I see it, Bush used the terrorist attacks for his own good to attack Iraq and be 'famous' or whatever you'd like to call that.
But, what do I know?

I'm not accusing anyone of not knowing anything. I'm just trying to understand how each person came to the conclusion they have. I personally don't buy the conspiracy videos either, but to each their own. I rely on facts and what can be proven(Most of the time). If Bush really is using the 9/11 attacks as a stepping board for middle-eastern oil or whatever the popular theory is then he will get his in due time. All things have yet to be seen though.

[xxlebox]

I'm not accusing anyone of not knowing anything. I'm just trying to understand how each person came to the conclusion they have. I personally don't buy the conspiracy videos either, but to each their own. I rely on facts and what can be proven(Most of the time). If Bush really is using the 9/11 attacks as a stepping board for middle-eastern oil or whatever the popular theory is then he will get his in due time. All things have yet to be seen though.

You told what I was trying to tell, but my english isn't good enough for that, hehe. Totally agree with it.

[rgirty]

Instead of quoting several people i'm going to ask you folks some questions.

Traditional education teaches what? The memorization of facts and or formulas.

Why?

In english class you are taught the proper use of the english language.

Why?

The reason that scores and schools are failing is because those methods are tired and no longer hold water.

I'll give my example, 30 years ago people were educated with all sorts of formulas to do all kinds of math problems.

Today, people bring their powerful calculators that do the hard work, including complex graphs.

I submit to you this thought:

Google/wikki/Teh Intarweb = the calculator for knowledge.

Why would we try to educate people by making them memorize a vast amount of material that they will soon forget?

What we need to teach people is the ability to:

1. Find information
2. Apply it to your situation
3. Solve the current issue

Finding the information and putting it to use is much more important than trying to memorize certain facts.

I'll give you a fine example of people who are already putting this to use.

Doctors

Here is my real world example.

My wife had an allergic reaction to a medication she was given during her pregnancy.

We went to the ER.

After resolving the reaction the doctor asked what medication it was.

We told him, do you know what he did next?

He pulled out a pocket pc. He then entered the name of the medication, it instantly gave him a list of all medications within the same family. He clicked print, a printer 5 feet away printed the list of medications.

He took out his pen and wrote on the printout, "possibly allergic to this entire family of medication do not prescribe" and put that sheet in her medical file.

He then did a search for her symptoms that the medication was originally prescribed for, applied the filter that excluded all medications from the family she could be allergic to.

Once again he printed the list, prescribed the most relevant medication and off we went.

It took him 6 minutes to treat her, keep her from having the reaction again and prescribe her a new medication that worked wonderful for the issue she was having.

Should he have to know the hundreds of medicines he was dealing with, no. His power was in finding the information and using it.

When educators/the education system learns that search engines and teh intarweb are where the power is schools will change dramatically.

If you don't believe this should be the case, then do you believe we should start training people how to do find the square root again? Or force them to use pencil and paper to do long division?

Because thats what we are asking people to do when we ask them to list all the presidents, or memorize other facts.

The acquisition and application of knowledge when needed is far greater than memorization.

As far as english class goes, it will only hold on so long. The english language is being converted.

With the massive spanish speaking influence, text messaging and online slang its only a matter of time before we have to re-think the entire structure of how we communicate.

[xxlebox]

1. Find information
2. Apply it to your situation
3. Solve the current issue


1. A physics formula.
2. Apply it to your current situation (let's imagine we're building a bridge).
3. Apply the formula and with that information, build a bridge that's strong enough to hold the daily amount of traffic that passes.

This is exactly what we learn in school, I don't think anything is wrong with that, now is it? (Noone would want to drive over a bridge that isn't built right, would they?)

[Kugan]

He pulled out a pocket pc. He then entered the name of the medication, it instantly gave him a list of all medications within the same family. He clicked print, a printer 5 feet away printed the list of medications.

He took out his pen and wrote on the printout, "possibly allergic to this entire family of medication do not prescribe" and put that sheet in her medical file.


Now… imagine for one seconds that that happened in the middle of surgery….

Yes, it’s important to find information and apply it, but it’s still important to be able to memorise some information, and know the basics.

[Tikki]

with advances in techonology and especially the pharmaceutical, professionals can not be expected to know everything.

you forget that advil is not a medication name, it's a brand name for Ibuprofen, just like Motrin. since the FDA requires at least two companies to manufacture the same drug, it produces multiple brand names for the same medication. If you look at anti-depressants and other mass medication, you can see that there are tons of companies producing the same medication just under different labels. Doctors can be expected to know them all. You should take a look at the CPS. It's massive and filled with almost every medication out there.

Doctors are humans, not robots.

Education is a hard topic. I'm going to have to get back to you about that.

I still don't think Americans are stupid...i just think their representatives are.

[rgirty]

Now… imagine for one seconds that that happened in the middle of surgery….

Yes, it’s important to find information and apply it, but it’s still important to be able to memorise some information, and know the basics.

Basics yes, you must know basics.

Basics do not = education.

Surgeons are so specialized now that they know their fields in and out.

Why do you think that is?

50 years ago you had a DR. Who took care of everything.

Now you have cardiologists, radiologists, pediatricians, heck my son is going to see an allerginist this guy does nothing but treat people with allergy issues.

The education in medicine is doing exactly as I have suggested, they aren't trying to memorize and learn it all they are specializing and branching out.

They are making their focus so compartmentalized that they know the ins and outs. A cardiologist will do bypass, after bypass, after bypass after bypass. He knows what to do and what can go wrong.

An ER doctor cannot possibly memorize and medicate every symptom that walks through the door.

Back to the topic, Americans aren't stupid we are just going through a time of real change in which our education system needs a serious overhaul.

I was the worlds worst student in school, the absolute worst. I really detested the fact that most of peoples grades were based on nothing other than memorization skills but that is the truth of it.

[Kugan]

Back to the topic, Americans aren't stupid we are just going through a time of real change in which our education system needs a serious overhaul.

I still think you guys are missing the point.

The topic was not supposed to be about whether or not Americans are stupid, but about a really funny movie that someone posted (that was mentioned twice). But most of the replies in this post brings me to believe that American really are stupid… (not because the replies were stupid, just because everyone is extremely defensive)

Most of the Americans I’ve met were extremely nice, open minded, and rather smart. But then again, people who travel are generally more open minded than the rest of the population.

[Magikhat]

I dont think just Americans are stupid, I think people are just stupid in general nowadays.

[Stigg]

The acquisition and application of knowledge when needed is far greater than memorization.


Hands down the best sentence in this thread.

[kcma]

no one can beat those asian kids in memorizing :p mommy passed english classes memorizing the whole book without actually comprehending/understanding the content back in her HS days :p

[satineeftw]

want to see some horrid school systems. Go to Mexico. It's absolutely HORRIBLE. You have to shell out a TON of money to get any kind of descent education

[kcma]

want to see some horrid school systems. Go to Mexico. It's absolutely HORRIBLE. You have to shell out a TON of money to get any kind of descent education

let's not say bad things about mexico now ;) play nice baby, play nice :)

[satineeftw]

Oh Kcma, silly boy. I lived there. :D

[Tikki]

i'm not american and i posted on here. I don't think i'm defensive, just like to wag my mouth!

and if we're going to get serious about keeping a thread on track...here you go.

Wow that movie was funny. Those people were so stupid. I really like that movie. Wow...that movie was great! Keep posting movies like that.

...if this thread was only about that movie, that would be my only post on this thread. not much more you can do talking about a short clip.

[Rex Normal]

Instead of quoting several people i'm going to ask you folks some questions.

Traditional education teaches what? The memorization of facts and or formulas.

Why?

In english class you are taught the proper use of the english language.

Why?

The reason that scores and schools are failing is because those methods are tired and no longer hold water.

I'll give my example, 30 years ago people were educated with all sorts of formulas to do all kinds of math problems.

Today, people bring their powerful calculators that do the hard work, including complex graphs.

I submit to you this thought:

Google/wikki/Teh Intarweb = the calculator for knowledge.

Why would we try to educate people by making them memorize a vast amount of material that they will soon forget?

What we need to teach people is the ability to:

1. Find information
2. Apply it to your situation
3. Solve the current issue

Finding the information and putting it to use is much more important than trying to memorize certain facts.

I'll give you a fine example of people who are already putting this to use.

Doctors

Here is my real world example.

My wife had an allergic reaction to a medication she was given during her pregnancy.

We went to the ER.

After resolving the reaction the doctor asked what medication it was.

We told him, do you know what he did next?

He pulled out a pocket pc. He then entered the name of the medication, it instantly gave him a list of all medications within the same family. He clicked print, a printer 5 feet away printed the list of medications.

He took out his pen and wrote on the printout, "possibly allergic to this entire family of medication do not prescribe" and put that sheet in her medical file.

He then did a search for her symptoms that the medication was originally prescribed for, applied the filter that excluded all medications from the family she could be allergic to.

Once again he printed the list, prescribed the most relevant medication and off we went.

It took him 6 minutes to treat her, keep her from having the reaction again and prescribe her a new medication that worked wonderful for the issue she was having.

Should he have to know the hundreds of medicines he was dealing with, no. His power was in finding the information and using it.

When educators/the education system learns that search engines and teh intarweb are where the power is schools will change dramatically.

If you don't believe this should be the case, then do you believe we should start training people how to do find the square root again? Or force them to use pencil and paper to do long division?

Because thats what we are asking people to do when we ask them to list all the presidents, or memorize other facts.

The acquisition and application of knowledge when needed is far greater than memorization.

As far as english class goes, it will only hold on so long. The english language is being converted.

With the massive spanish speaking influence, text messaging and online slang its only a matter of time before we have to re-think the entire structure of how we communicate.

My first ever QFT. Good Man.

[Tikki]

after rereading, I agree...!

[Kalos]

One thing that can do nothing but good, remove the patriotism from the classroom. It may be cute and foster loyalty to the nation, but it is not educational, it's bordering on indoctrination. Making kids stand up and make an oath of alliegence is too close to what the organisations like the Hitler Youth did. Call it Godwin if you will, but the similarity is there, and I don't believe that it can honestly be called a peice of education.

Education is based upon facts and reality, not opinions and nation entities. If there's no good educational reason to be making kids do these things apart from "Patriotic duty" it shouldn't be there. Rattling off the names of states and presidents is meaningless, devoud of benifit. History is about tell the real story behind how things came together, why certain people were considered important, and why the world is the way it is. Names don't have any of that. If they spent more time teaching actual events rather than how to be parrots, perhaps things would turn around. As it is, I don't see any benifit to thier minds, or their potential skills to employers.

[Kodonn]

Instead of quoting several people i'm going to ask you folks some questions.

Traditional education teaches what? The memorization of facts and or formulas.

In english class you are taught the proper use of the english language.

Why?
................
What we need to teach people is the ability to:

1. Find information
2. Apply it to your situation
3. Solve the current issue

Finding the information and putting it to use is much more important than trying to memorize certain facts.

...............

He pulled out a pocket pc. He then entered the name of the medication, it instantly gave him a list of all medications within the same family. He clicked print, a printer 5 feet away printed the list of medications........


I do agree with you in part, but I also take exception to a few of your assertions.

For instance...in English class we are also taught proper sentence structure so that we can go on to develop better communication skills using that basic skill.

And Formulas are a technique for finding information. (step 1 in your 3 part example). If you don't teach people the basic skill for developing NEW ideas and information, they won't be able to look anything up.

I also believe that there is still some importance in teaching facts. You have to know that certain things exist before you can just "look them up". Your Dr. for example knew of the existance of those other drugs and what they did. That was how he knew to look up a quick list.

Take it a step farther...what would he have done if the battery or power on his pocket PC crapped out ?

Here's a good example of why it's still important to teach the basic skills before you allow people to rely on PCs and calculators.

Ever been half-way through checking out at a fast food restuarant or department store (i.e. your bill was $13.76, you handed the teenage clerk a $20 bill) and something went wrong with their register ? It's pretty sad when someone can't even make change without a calculator.

If all we did was rely on the tools we have at hand (i.e. computers and the internet) without learning the history and formulas that went into developing those tools, they would NEVER get any better. You would never get improvements to those tools because THAT information isn't out there to look up.

I do agree that the old style of teaching just doesn't cut it in todays world, but I don't think it should be discarded in total. I think they need to merge it with things like you suggested. You still have to teach the basics so that new ideas can develop and you have to teach at least some of the facts and figures so that their existance is known. But then go on to teach the concepts you talked about also, such as how to find the information that's out there and apply to your current situation.

[rgirty]

Who here has a generator in their home, just in case the power goes out?

Show of hands? Anyone?...... Very few? Thought so.

Basics must be taught yes, I should have included that in my explanation. Of course the Dr. knew about these but didn't have to memorize all of them.

I'm not saying ALL we should do is rely on the computers and internet but use them more fully to find the information.

20 years ago when you wanted to do research for a paper, you went down to the library.

If you wanted to know about spiders, or some other bug for a paper you didn't go out and capture one and "relearn" history about it. You simply picked up a book. What if they library is on fire? Oh Noes?

Now you use google/wikki

What i'm saying is educators don't understand that they are one and the same.

A calculator is no more than a slide rule, those formulas aren't needed any more.

You don't need to know all that information.

What you are saying is "what if the grocery store is closed and you run out of milk/bread" you will NEED to know how to get your own milk and make your own bread.

Today's society is driven around the acquiring of information because things are changing rapidly.

The facts/things they spent all those hours memorizing isn't relevant.

Yes, people should be taught to read and sentence structure i'm not saying throw out all basic knowledge.

2+2 and things of that nature should always be taught. People have trouble counting back change and they always have, they always will. Why do you think we invented the cash register in the first place?

A carpenter now uses a laser device instead of a tape measure in most instances. The laser is to the tape measure what the calculator is to the slide rule.

What google is to the library.

Don't make the carpenter/builder/student memorize all that useless crap let him/her work with the tech thats out there.

There are better ways, but instead of using those schools spend hours and hours about the accomplishments of abe lincoln, or george washington. That stuff has very little importance with today's society. put a kid in front of a wikki let him read about something that interests him, he might find a subject he's passionate about.

I usually don't get into this but i'll give you my real world education experience.

When/where I was in school we didn't have a lot of computers..any really. The WWW wasn't around. School was exceedingly boring because I have a high reading comprehension skill. I could/can read a book and nearly quote it back to you. During the first week of high school/college I would find out what teachers taught out of the book and read the entire textbook cover to cover. This worked for all but math. This created a horrible student out of me.

In my entire high school/college career I never took a single book/assignment term paper, finals study or the like home. I never needed to. I maintained a 3.0-2.75 mediocre gpa my entire educational career.

This was horrible for me. I never learned how to study, how to take notes or any of those types of studious things. I would have liked to have had some sort of informational acquisition knowledge.

[Wasabee]

How do you define the word "stupid"? (Knowing the correct sourse of action but choosing to do otherwise?)

Since I'm going there how do you define the word "American"?

We import alot of ignorant folks...and some just plain stupid. (It has nothing to do with their ability to speak english or the language barrier that may be present.)

Thanks

[rgirty]

How do you define the word "stupid"? (Knowing the correct sourse of action but choosing to do otherwise?)

Since I'm going there how do you define the word "American"?

We import alot of ignorant folks...and some just plain stupid. (It has nothing to do with their ability to speak english or the language barrier that may be present.)

Thanks

Stupid = an inability to learn or the lack of intelligence to make beneficial decisions.

May not be the formal def, but thats what I think of.

[Skahr]

Dont you think that if americans were "Stupid" as defined in this thread, This country would be a big worthless piece of land?

To say one country on earth "Is stupid" Is just plain ignorance.

[Wasabee]

Stupid = an inability to learn or the lack of intelligence to make beneficial decisions.

May not be the formal def, but thats what I think of.

Hmmm...your definition definatley could cause people with learning handicaps to be upset....ROFL.

I get the "jist" of what your saying...

[Tanitha]

When/where I was in school we didn't have a lot of computers..any really. The WWW wasn't around. School was exceedingly boring because I have a high reading comprehension skill. I could/can read a book and nearly quote it back to you. During the first week of high school/college I would find out what teachers taught out of the book and read the entire textbook cover to cover. This worked for all but math. This created a horrible student out of me.

The single most valuable thing I learned in school was by taking an optional, week long study program designed to improve your reading speed, retention and comprehension. Tripled the speed I read at, remember a lot more of it and that empowers you to find more knowledge and retain it.

But yes, in general I also feel our education system is failing us. The world over. A lot of people focus on pure book learning, but fail in the learning of real world and applicable skills. Budgeting, balancing a checkbook, boiling an egg, decent manners - the list is just about endless. And yes, a large part of that is familial responsibility but with the work centric culture we have educators are playing a larger part in the lives of children than they used to. So it's a shared responsibility, I believe.

Anyway, rambling. Generalizing and saying that an entire nation of people is stupid is just that, stupid. It's as bad as racism.

[rgirty]

Tanitha, thats interesting. The most interesting course I have ever taken was an entire semester of "the principles of listening" we learned to listen.

One of the greatest things to ever happen to me.

[rottentomato]

one thing i thought was hilarious in debate class....

you were always told to define whatever you were discussing...

well i had a debate on gun control...so i defined gun control and the ability to control the flow of a pastry gun when icing a cake....

the competition didnt have a leg to stand on after that :)

[AeroJonesy]

I think the camera makes people dumber.

And believe it or not, the first KFC was in Utah.

I also love how these types of things always try to equate geographical and political knowledge with intelligence. And yet, so many non-Americans are ignorant when it comes to knowing US geography.

[rottentomato]

I think the camera makes people dumber.

And believe it or not, the first KFC was in Utah.

I also love how these types of things always try to equate geographical and political knowledge with intelligence. And yet, so many non-Americans are ignorant when it comes to knowing US geography.


is utah near sudan? or israel?

[Kalos]

is utah near sudan? or israel?
Geographically neither but politically it and the rest of the states are so chummy with Israel it upsets the arab nations quite a bit.

To be honest, the Middle East Peace process is a completely joke. The West can't be aiding negotiations from a neutral perspective when a large majority of thier high tech weapons exports go to Israel. We're effectively propping Isreal up and trying to ensure that one outcome alone comes out of the 'negotiations' and that one side definantly does not lose out.

Nearly all of the Israeli Airforce is American made. We're practically giving them the tools to bomb the snot out of their neighbours at thier will. No wonder America is resented by the other nations in that region.

[Alakon]

America is a large country, odds are there's got to be a few stoopid people around, although it's probably true that due to the large size, nature of organisation, and education budgets, that many are ignorant.

I never equated knowledge of geography or political history to do with intelligence, merely as education, as has already been pointed out.

Yesterday I couldn't even find my way to work, because a police man diverted me one street over coming into Palmy. I had almost reached the airport before I realised I'd gone too far.
And I am not american, I'm a New Zealander! So obviously that policeman was an idiot, for diverting me, when he should have known full well that I wasn't capable of navigating my car an extra street over. Couldn't be done.

Unfortunately, ignorance or stupidity is definitely not limited to America, simply they are a prime example, as they have the greatest visibility as a nation.
Most of the time I'm considered to be pretty sharp, my teachers were so convinced of this they continued to let me progress through the NCEA levels, even as I successively failed each one. They were good sods. I owe one of them a dozen.

Many people in New Zealand, a country that enjoys not only a good average level of prosperity for the citizens, but not too shabby schools either, but kids are still churning out of the school uneducated, leaving depressed teachers in their wake.

All of a school kid's efforts are involved in a) impressing his fellow school mates b) impressing his fellow school mates with how poor he/family is, how underprivileged, uneducated, and uncaring he is and c) impressing his fellow school mates with bringing down the teachers with as much bad attitude and he can possibly muster, bullying, berating them, using the law to mercilessly back them into a corner so that they are unable to retaliate.
I am saddened to think that I had achieved all three, and thought it was cool.
Kids over here proudly brag about how they were going on the dole, and they weren't going to work when they could cleverly skim some of the cream off the government and taxpayers.

I have to wonder, could those people in the video possibly be actors of a sort? Maybe they decided it'd be a good laugh to set up a video that 'proved' how stupid americans were.
I mean, c'mon, a triangle? I failed statistics, but I can still count that high. Just... lemme... get my glove off... so I can count my toes.

There are some people who are completely intelligent, and rational people, but are just 'slow', in particular situations, such as some of these people, (if honest people) might simply have been flustered by the camera, and not thinking clearly about the question.


Personally, I love this thread and the video, I thought it was interesting to see an American criticising americans.
(By the way, if you note that I am using an s in place of a z in some places, it is taking strong will to break the habit of my american languagilated word program).



I was somewhat saddened to read earlier that some places are considered to be intolerant of americans.
Sad, because it may be true, although I've never seen an example.
And what if Americans take over the world? Americans are people, and as long as people take over the world, nothing ever changes. I don't like the attitude of 'us and them', which I believe encouraging patriotism, or loyalty to the abstract cause of your country, (curious, is that the land, or the people? Cause the people are changing all the time) will do to people. Indoctrinating I believe one of you called it. I was sort of fond of myopic as well :D.

I think that was might be stifling the apparent intelligence of certain americans, is lack of general know how, or might be common sense or something similiar. So they may be fantastic at their jobs, but utterly incapable of deciding what to do if your car starts smoking and the like.

But there are obviously very intelligent americans, average americans, not so average americans, which contribute to the great pool of america and the world. Heard a great lecture by some American dude a while ago (my mum dragged me along).
Although I'm biased in this regard as americans still resemble a lot of NZ's, I would not be quite as casual if Asians took over the world, which they may yet go judging by the population content of Auckland.

So really, down with lack of education, and fostering bad attitudes, and up with the greater whole of humanity.

[Shellar]

Regarding this 'movie', I'd say that it's as representative as a WoW PvP movie that consists entirely of crit chains and finishing blows.

[bearbehind]

Nearly all of the Israeli Airforce is American made. We're practically giving them the tools to bomb the snot out of their neighbours at thier will. No wonder America is resented by the other nations in that region.

Sounds very much like the US funding the IRA, or training Mr Bin Laden to wage a gorilla war against the russians. The best thing about all this is that the US was all very happy to support terrorism in other countries until they were the victim of it themselves.

[Kalos]

Sounds very much like the US funding the IRA, or training Mr Bin Laden to wage a gorilla war against the russians. The best thing about all this is that the US was all very happy to support terrorism in other countries until they were the victim of it themselves.
I have to say that Terrorism was one of the US's major foreign policy tools when they themselves didn't want to step in directly. Feeding someone else to do the work that is to unpleasant to do directly, almost like mercenaries. I'm not symapthising with terrorists in any way, but I can understand how many people in the Middle East hate America, and it's not out of hatred for thier better standards of living, but a legitimate problem with how they are basically funding their people's regional enemy.

It's hard to say "The Middle East are hating on us for no good reason" when you have Israel bombing its neighbours and disrespecting thier borders with the majority of thier equiptment bearing "Made in the USA". I bet if France had been giving Saddam weapons and supplies to inflict as much damage as possible on American troops there would be some some major relations problems between the USA and France, if not hostilities. I'm not saying France in any way is responsible of course, it's just a pure example of how supplying someone's enemy with better weaponry and basically aiding them in killing your guys is going to cause some major resentment of the supplier as well as the nation that actually uses it. Especially if that supplier refused to sell you the same technology.

America doesn't want an end to terrorism, just the select terrorists who decided to use the tools of the trade against them.

[Amurko]

People are stupid, not just Americans

[bearbehind]

People are stupid - Americans are really stupid. :grin:

[Tollin]

Rottentomato, what makes America great is the fact that you feel the way you do and are still accepted here. And I still willingly serve in the US Navy to defend your RIGHT to speak that way about my beloved country. And there are hundreds of thousands of service members that feel the same.

Public education is broken but there is a movement where more families are homeschooling, sending to Magnet schools, and private schools to remove their child from the public system.

Our representatives nearly all of whom grew up in the 60's, if you haven't seen it check out the History channel documentary of the young adults and teenagers in the 60's and their hippy movement. It will answer all of your questions about our 50+ year old representatives.

Manners, you mentioned Japan as one of the better more well mannered countries out there, I was stationed in Japan for 4 years, I worked hard and was nearly fluent in Japanense and still was treated like **** and spit on because I was Geijin.

To the poster who talked about taking patriotism out of the schools it was removed while I was still in school in the 1980's??

America had a self indulgent, two ocean border, foreign policy in the early 20th century and watched as Germany marched all over Europe in both WWI and WWII. There is a reason we are in everyone's business. Do I agree with how its implemented? No, but you are dealing with people and other cultures belief structers etc.. its a messy process.

America is a christian based country, Isreal is a christian based country that is why we support them.

Islam / Muslims have had throughout history a convert or die campaign, no middle ground and have done some pretty horrible things in the name of Islam to the ancient world. But then again so has christianity no one is immune or better than the other in this regard.

Here are my predictions based on what I know about history, and the current situation in America.

Within in 10 years there is going to be a revolution of sorts in our government process as more of the children born in the 70's enter government. If a Liberal president is elected in 2008, which i think will happen, the silent majority that is too busy working their asses off to support them and their families will explode into a movement of change.

The current immigration policy and with the vote coming on the bill in the sentate now, will dictate this revolution start date.

China will start to buckle under its own industrial revolution and lack of technological upgrades and invade Tiawan, which will lead to WWIII, this will happen by 2020.

That is when we will see the divide between Europe and America either repair itself or fracture completely and if it fractures if you think the economy is bad at times now just wait....

The perception of stupid american falls into line with rude frenchman, drunk russian, loud german, sassy englishman, meek nihongin etc.... they are all stereotypes that are not true for all.

But perception is reality for some people.........

[Tikki]

I agree with some of your points but question the overall contradictory attitude of the facts you present.

You mention that America is a “free speech” nation, they promote free speech, yet do no enforce it. A nation which is “free speaking” is a nation with no strict religious orientation. The fact that you admit that the US is a Christian, moreover Catholic nation, contradicts your pride in “free speech”. One of the 10 Commandments is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”, and since the US is essentially a multi-cultural (not multi-religious) country, it seems hypocritical that a Christian orientated place would allow free speech from a non-Christian faith. If that were truly so, you would promote Jewish holidays publicly, allow same-sex marriages, Muslim children would be allowed prayer time during school or to wear turbans, polygamy would be granted throughout all states, etc.

Free speech is only condoned when it benefits the larger, Christian, high affluent politicians, business men, etc. Free speech is written in American law, but is hardly accepted at a public, community, or informal level. The statement Americans are stupid does not refer to the American justice system which supports, and when evoked, enforces freedom of speech, and/or the Fifth Amendment. Americans themselves do not respect free speak, nor do they abide by the idea that everyone, every religion/faith, and gender has the right to say/feel/express their own ideas/opinions/self – that is where the case lies. Americans and those Americans who run the country may rightfully be deemed stupid for not respecting the system which they build and are said to uphold.

Above and beyond that contradiction, you mention that Rotten is still accepted although his views of America are, and I’m taking my own liberty to describe them here, slanderous, untrue, and perhaps even inappropriate. But is he still accepted? Are all Americans that don’t promote patriotism still accepted? Well what about the Dixie Chicks? I don’t think I need to explain further. I’ll even give you another example, since the latter is not only current, but slightly too flashy. What about all those solders that have signed up to protect their families but disagree with the choice to send their efforts to another country? Are they backed up when they choose to resign their position? What about all those people in the 60’s that were arrested for the anti-war protests? Why can’t someone burn the American flag?

Once again, the American law allows freedom of speech, but does not allow slander. Hypocritical? Yes. When have words physically hurt someone? Politically? Yes. Their careers? Yes. Reputation? Yes. Smoking does more damage yet is allowed. What about alcohol? Freedom of speech and freedom to act are written on paper, but breed through the people of America? No.

You don’t need to be an idiot to spot one. The American justice system is not being blasted here, it’s the people of America who believe they support good natured ideals, when they only choose to enact them when they feel it is most beneficial to their personal cause(s).


..The End.

[bearbehind]

Bloody hell, that must be the longest post Tikki has ever made! No wonder women don't fart - they don't shut up long enough to build up pressure! :laughing:

Joking aside I see the same points mentioned here to be true in England. Freedom of speech is fine providing you don't say something that will upset someone. Political correctness is destroying our own sense of values and identity. I certainly don't agree with racism, sexism, ageism or gingerism but if someone feels that strongly against something they should be allowed to speak their mind. Thus, freedom of speach.

Peaple say things that upset each other day in and day out. We ought to focus our energies on dealing with our own insecurities as opposed to ranting on about what other people think of us. Who cares what everyone else thinks? this is your life and your world. Live it the way you want. Be free.

Let the revolution begin! :rolleyes:

[Tikki]

Bloody hell, that must be the longest post Tikki has ever made! No wonder women don't fart - they don't shut up long enough to build up pressure! :laughing:

lol - too true! I may have been on a little bit of a rant there! Never intended to bully down on anyone's opinions - since I am a supporter of free speech :afro:

Joking aside I see the same points mentioned here to be true in England. Freedom of speech is fine providing you don't say something that will upset someone. Political correctness is destroying our own sense of values and identity. I certainly don't agree with racism, sexism, ageism or gingerism but if someone feels that strongly against something they should be allowed to speak their mind. Thus, freedom of speach.

Peaple say things that upset each other day in and day out. We ought to focus our energies on dealing with our own insecurities as opposed to ranting on about what other people think of us. Who cares what everyone else thinks? this is your life and your world. Live it the way you want. Be free.

Let the revolution begin! :rolleyes:

This is exactly true! people should be supporting free minds and energy. People who support freedom of speech don't need to live in a country which supports it - and just because you live in a country the promotes freedom of speech, doesn't mean every citizen of that country supports it either. One thing I do like about living in Canada is that the government, communities and television promote freedom of speech. If anyone has ever seen Canadian tv you will agree that the political parodies are great! Unfortunately, in my opinion, our new government does not respond to it as well as the previous leader. I always felt that our previous PM was fairly connected with the public (or perhaps just nicely disconnected from the US). With the new installment of Harper, our nation is becoming a poorly cloned version of the states.

I like to say - each to their own! If there's one thing we all have in common, it's an opinion. :thumbsup:

[Kodonn]

Wow Tiki...long post and lots of thought provoking material.
I spent a lot of time rethinking how I wanted to respond to it, because I believe some of it incorporates some common misconceptions, but I didn't want to have anything I say taken as a personal attack. I didn't come here to offend anyone, only to add my thoughts on the topic.

First off, I believe what Tollin was referring to when he said Rotten is still accepted here in spite of his views, should be taken more literally. I think it is more along the lines of the fact that he is still here and hasn't been taken out and shot, made to disappear in the middle of the night never to be heard from again, or run under the treads of a tank. There are some countries where that is still a distinct possibility for speaking ones mind.

I did have trouble understanding how you equate freedom of speech with "no strict religious orientation"? Yes, the same Rights that guarantee speech free of government restrictions also guarantee religious choices free of government restrictions, but I don't see wher eit would necessary negate any sort of religious orientation. What if everyone chooses to follow the same religious beliefs ?

(By the way, the US is not a Catholic nation. It may have a Christian predominance, but even that could be debated. And why would it be hypocritical to allow speech from non-Christian faiths ? That same Constitution that prevents government restrictions on speech, also prevents government restrictions on religious beliefs. It also prevents that same government from promoting any particular religious holidays over any other.)

Now, on to the "freedom of speech" that seems to be the heart of the matter. The free speech that is dictated by our Constitution speaks towards no government suppression of your freedom to express your ideas and whatnot. It DOES NOT guarantee that everyone (in society) must agree with what you say or express. It also does not mean that you can slander anyone you want with your words (because those people also have certain rights).

Every action (including speech) that a person commits will have some sort of repercussion, no matter how small, and they are ultimately responsible for that action and its outcome. And every society will have a majority of people who believe a certain way. Freedom of speech allows one to express their beliefs without government sanction, but it does not protect you from the repercussions of a society that may (in large) not agree with you. The Dixie Chicks found that out. However, you will also notice that the Dixie Chicks are still around. They didn't mysteriously disappear. They didn't turn up in some shallow grave in the desert, and they didn't get deported to some other country.

You also brought up soldiers and their choice to enlist in the military and subsequent choice to disagree with that same military. All I can say is, the military is not a democracy. No military in the history of the world was ever run by "popular vote". You sign on to do as you're told when you're told. No ifs, ands or buts. (Otherwise it would be called a mob)

As I stated above, every action has repercussions. A responsible person should always be ready to accept those repercussions, especially if they truly believe in what they are saying. The protesters of the 60s were arrested because they chose to break the law in order to get recognition for the ideals they were speaking about. They believed that what they had to say was worth the penalty they knew would follow.

As for burning the flag. hmmm..this is a tough one, because I'm not sure if they have changed any of the laws in recent years. However, at one time, burning WAS the only proper way to dispose of a flag that was no longer "servicable" (meaning it was old and torn and falling apart). You couldn't just throw it away.

But I think you are referring to the flag burnings that were done as a form of protest. Well, the flag is a symbol. (Every flag is) As such, it represents a lot more than just some colored cloth. For instance, the US flag represents the country, the Constitution that we keep referring to, all of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by that Constitution as well as all of the men and women who fought and died to create and defend that Constitution and the country, going back a little more than 200 years. Desicrating the flag is essentially saying that you don't honor any of the things it stands for.

A very basic analogy might be this. Suppose you form a club for some function. All clubs have rules, or basic concepts defining the purpose of the club. Now, you say anyone can join your club, BUT they must follow the rules. What do you do when someone says "The heck with your rules. I spit on your rules." Do you still want them in your club ? What happens on these forums when someone breaks the rules ? That is the basis of most if not all societies (no matter how big or small).

I'm sure I missed a few things, but it's already late and I want to go home and check my auctions. :thumbsup:

[MixiMan]

"The heck with your rules. I spit on your rules."

Only French people do that :rolleyes: (thought i'd lighten the mood a bit)

For the rest i have to agree with the people that pointed out that a large percentage of the world's population is just dumb ( not stupid as pointed out earlier).

If you have the mental capacity to think about something and form your on opinion, you are right in that opinion and deserve to be heard ( and disagreed/agreed with).

That helps us all to learn and understand what might be going own ( you never know exactly what's going on, that's what makes discussing so much fun)

Edit: spelling

:wave:

[Kodonn]

Only French people do that :rolleyes: (thought i'd lighten the mood a bit)


LOL....I thought they only "speet in your general direction."

I have to agree though with some of the earlier posters who said that there are stupid everywhere. Unfortunately, someone invented a device that easily detects them.....................
.........................................
..........................................
...........................................
it's called a camcorder. :laughing:


Once again, the American law allows freedom of speech, but does not allow slander. Hypocritical? Yes. When have words physically hurt someone? Politically? Yes. Their careers? Yes. Reputation? Yes.

By the way Tiki...I was thinking about this as I drove home and wanted to answer your question sincerely if you really wanted it answered (about how words can hurt).

I don't know if you get the same commercials in Canada, but every so often they have these public service statements after some movies. "If you want to learn more about...blah..blah...you should visit your public library and read more on....."
I know...kinda cheesey...but one time I actually looked up some stuff after I saw this movie about the first days of the American Revolution.

Anyway, this was something that stuck with me after I read up on the
Declaration of Independence. All of those men who signed it were committing treason (against the Crown). The penalty was death. Just by signing their name, they were signing away their life if they were ever caught. And it wasn't that hard to get caught back then if you were well known, because there really weren't too many places to go without someone taking notice.

Can you imagine...believing in something so strongly and knowing that if you write it down and put your name on it, you could be caught and killed for it....yet signing it anyway ?

And you guys think the mods on THIS forum are tough. :laugh:

[Tollin]

Ahhh Tiki you are sliding down a very slippery slope and I got to say you have fallen prey to our mass media and it's biased views.

Freedom of Speech and Freedom of religion are just that, those freedoms are still there and still strong and as Kondon pointed out for every action there is a reaction.

The core of our country has middle of the road belief system, that are Christian based, and believe in the exact opposite of some of the same things you pointed out in your post. But feel STRONGER in the ideal that you can come here and be FREE to practice your religion, homosexuality etc.. and therefore ALLOW you the freedom to do that.

What is going wrong is that too many of the fringe people who do not have the same views as the core population are trying to PUSH their belief systems onto everyone else and make up LAWS that force the rest of the country to abide by, yet the mass population do not want nor believe in, and have voted, VOTED to not allow things like same-sex marriage etc...

I am in the Military, and when you join you sign a CONTRACT and take an OATH that you will ABIDE by the ORDERS of the President, and Officers appointed over me. There is no choice in the matter. We have an all volunteer force, no draft. No one held a gun to your head and made you sign the dotted line. Therefore get your butt on the plane, ship whatever and do what you agreed upon doing. Backing out when your number is called is cowardly and illegal according to the CONTRACT you signed!

Like I said the flag burners from the 60's are now in powerful political positions and we are having a TON of problems from our government. Coincidence? I think not.

The Dixie Chicks had a hard lesson in free market economy. They are country music singers, country music fans are the most patriotic fans in the United States. They make slanderous comments about the President in another country, England. Fans boycotted them and their music. Free market economy, they are still singing and as a matter of fact won grammey's last year.

Slander happens every day in the mass media in our country. Hypocricy happens in the mass media its all there in black and white.

My country is hurting yes? But like i said before things are going to change and the change is coming.

[Tikki]

I think it is more along the lines of the fact that he is still here and hasn't been taken out and shot, made to disappear in the middle of the night never to be heard from again, or run under the treads of a tank. There are some countries where that is still a distinct possibility for speaking ones mind.

Agreed. Perhaps I was misunderstanding. My point was only that people are still reprimanded, still 'black sheeped' because of their point of views. Not just in America, but everywhere.When I hear 'freedom of speech' I imagine an idea where you are able to say anything without consequence; I don't believe that is the case in America. I think on some topics, in some places, freedom of speech is confined to certain subjects. I think Americans, like most citizens of any liberal countries, believe they have the right to say anything, but as bear mentioned about political correctness, you're just expected to not say certain things. Perhaps I made the mistake of connecting legalities and laws to everyday behaviour. If you support freedom of speech than racist, sexist and politically incorrect statements shouldn't bother you (that's like someone protesting about abortion and then getting an abortion)...I just think it's hypocritical for someone to promote 'freedom of speech' and then criticize someone about their opinion. I'm sure there are people reading that sentence and thinking I'm a hypocrite. Perhaps I am, but I just feel I'm pointing our a flaw in logic.

I did have trouble understanding how you equate freedom of speech with "no strict religious orientation"? Yes, the same Rights that guarantee speech free of government restrictions also guarantee religious choices free of government restrictions, but I don't see wher eit would necessary negate any sort of religious orientation. What if everyone chooses to follow the same religious beliefs ?

Perhaps I am incorrect, but I thought that America was influenced by the Pope's decision, and my comments were made with the understanding. if this is true, freedom of speech is a contradiction to the catholic faith. The commandment I quoted refers to the worshiping of the Almighty Christ only. My logic here, and it may be far fetched, is that worshiping a faith other than Christianity is breaking that commandment and consequences will be harsh...therefore, logically, Christianity does not promote freedom of speech. Another point about religious belief and America is gay marriage and polygamy. America holds that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman since that is what is stated in the bible. In many religions, polygamy is a sign of wealth and prestige, but to my understanding, in most of America it is illegal. Therefore, on some levels, America is a Christian country, where their citizens are refined by Christian faith and law.

every action has repercussions
To me, the idea of freedom of speech, absolves people of repercussions. I understand what you're saying, that legally, a person will not be indited because of what they've said, but yet public opinion may in turn be the one to side swipe a consequence. I guess I think America walks a fine line on the idea of 'freedom of speech'. People can be prosecuted for a crime based on the opinions they've expressed regarding the incident. "Everything you say and do can be used against you in a court of law", I understand the context of this and realistically support this, but philosophically believe that it contradicts the entire idea of freedom of speech. (perhaps this is my problem - I ate a philosophy bagel today...it tasted REALLY good though...)

Well, the flag is a symbol. (Every flag is) As such, it represents a lot more than just some colored cloth. For instance, the US flag represents the country, the Constitution that we keep referring to, all of the freedoms and rights guaranteed by that Constitution as well as all of the men and women who fought and died to create and defend that Constitution and the country, going back a little more than 200 years. Desicrating the flag is essentially saying that you don't honor any of the things it stands for.
And what's wrong with not honouring the things it stands for? Many people honour symbols that others don't...Pentagram, double helix :grin:, etc. I understand that if you don't like what the country stands for - why live there...yadda yadda...it's someone's opinion, freedom of speech, why should someone be fined for it? If an American burns an American flag why should they be reprimanded for their opinion? They're only enacting their right of freedom of speech!

A very basic analogy might be this. Suppose you form a club for some function. All clubs have rules, or basic concepts defining the purpose of the club. Now, you say anyone can join your club, BUT they must follow the rules. What do you do when someone says "The heck with your rules. I spit on your rules." Do you still want them in your club ? What happens on these forums when someone breaks the rules ? That is the basis of most if not all societies (no matter how big or small).

And what if one of those rules were to be 'You may say anything your wish, at any time, without any consequences'? I may be wrong, but if I can remember this forum states that 'freedom of speech' is kapooie, that's why they choose to ban people. America says 'hey, you're an American, you can say whatever you like and we won't do anything because this is a free country', but yet you're not able to disagree with historic legislature.

Only French people do that
They also eat frogs legs! mmmm! :)

You remember a few years back when France wouldn't invade Iraq and there was talk of banning the idea of a 'french fry'? teehehehehehehe

And you guys think the mods on THIS forum are tough.

lol too true!
I hope they read that contract before they signed! I think it's amazing when people put their life on the line for their beliefs and the freedom of people. Look at all the Americans and Canadians that put their life on the line during the underground rail road. Soilders everyday put their life on the line for what they believe in...but some could say so do terrorist!! ek! But i do find nobility and honour in American constitution. It was made out of sweat and blood...I just think some of the high potent Americans in power say they promote it, but use it to their advantage...but so does everyone from anywhere!

..this is the longest post in history...i hope I don't get banned because of the massiveness of this post....this is just such good conversation! i like that everyone's getting involved, and i hope no one is taking this personally! i'm strong minded and long winded :)
PS: no way I'm rereading this for typos! sorry!


What is going wrong is that too many of the fringe people who do not have the same views as the core population are trying to PUSH their belief systems onto everyone else and make up LAWS that force the rest of the country to abide by, yet the mass population do not want nor believe in, and have voted, VOTED to not allow things like same-sex marriage etc...

Freedom is freedom. It should no be confined to mass majority. If America was a truly free society, men could marry men, women could have multiple husbands, Muslims would be able to wear turbans where ever they wished, we would be able to walk around naked on the street. How much freedom does someone have in a 8 person 'free' colony where someone wants to dye their hair read but 6 people say no and 3 people say yes? Should they not be able to dye their hair red just because 60% of the population says no? It's not going to harm anyone...I think America is a great county which is more free than the majority of the world...I just don't think it's a 'free' as Americans believe it to be...come to Canada. You can marry your same sex by 9am and be drunk by 10am!

[Tollin]

Tikki,

You are not reading the full text of what I am saying and it's rather frusterating.

We have freedom of speech but there are reprecussions OUTSIDE of the law that folks have to deal with.

Come on let's take a walk down THeory Lane shall we?

Welcome we are now in Alabama, and this is the Mobile Southern Baptist Church of God and Jesus Christ, here is our pastor Mr. Jake T. Bishop (who is black for story sake). Now let's say you walk up to the black pastor and say "Hello N....R, nice to meet you."

What do you think is going to happen? Freedom of speech right? In your mind and arguement they should not even be offended. Right? I mean free society right?

Ok, in America the majority vote to determine the lawmakers and the types of laws we want to have in our country. Not the minority. And the majority has voted and said NO to several of the things you have suggested. I am discussing LAWS that affect EVERYONE's lives not dying your hair.

Your idea's are blissfully unrealistic, you want freedom of speech with no reprecussions, well you got the best of that in that you can not go to jail for what you say, ergo you do not lose your freedom but you can get attacked by private citizans within the laws, ergo cause you to lose your job, attack you via words themselves etc...

[Tikki]

Tollin,
I get the feeling that you're taking this personaly, and I certainly don't want you too. We're probably not going to see eye to eye, and since I think that you may not feel this is a light hearted debate anymore, perhaps we should just leave it the way it is :)

:) :) :)

mwah!

[Tikki]

Tollin,
I get the feeling that you're taking this personaly, and I certainly don't want you too. We're probably not going to see eye to eye, and since I think that you may not feel this is a light hearted debate anymore, perhaps we should just leave it the way it is :)

:) :) :)

mwah!

Sorry, couldn't edit my last post >_<

Just for my own curiousity, I looked up freedom of speech and found a really interesting webpage that is a transcript of a lecture someone gave about the history and legal issues surrounding it. Like everything in life, this of course is someone's opinion and therefore would be slanted in the light of one particular side...with that said, if you're interested in it google 'freedom of speech toconner', it should be the first one to come up....I'll post the link below but I'm not really clear on the sites rules about external links....so mods please feel free to delete it. It's an interesting read for those people who find this topic very debatable. :) :afro:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm

[irogue]

Americans are PVE ppls and they are not stupid.

[Felix Niebuhr]

To rewrite an old Roman Emperors quote: You can tell how civilized a nation is by looking at how they treat their prisoners.

[Tikki]

To rewrite an old Roman Emperors quote: You can tell how civilized a nation is by looking at how they treat their prisoners.

That's very true on many levels! :scratch:
I like that..I'm going to think about that during my lunch....

[rgirty]

To rewrite an old Roman Emperors quote: You can tell how civilized a nation is by looking at how they treat their prisoners.

Recently a man suffering from a condition that was terminal if surgery was not performed could not raise the money nor get treated without insurance.

As a last resort to save his life, he robbed a bank.

He didn't get any money nor did he try, he simply stood there with a gun in his hand (full of blanks mind you) after saying calmly to a teller "i'm robbing you".

The police arrived, arrested him and he was sentenced to prison in short order.

Upon arrival he notified them of his condition.

The law is written as such, if you are a prisoner in a federal institution and need life saving surgery you will receive the surgery.

He received the surgery, made a full recovery and worked toward his degree by studying and taking what courses were available to him while he was in prison.

He did 3 years (time off for good behavior) , and shortly after exiting the prison he started he received his degree and started his own business.

[Tikki]

Ooo...interesting...
perhaps there needs to be a seperation between native prisoners and those which are taken during war/raids/etc.

[rgirty]

There is a separation is there not?

[Tollin]

Tollin,
I get the feeling that you're taking this personaly, and I certainly don't want you too. We're probably not going to see eye to eye, and since I think that you may not feel this is a light hearted debate anymore, perhaps we should just leave it the way it is :)

:) :) :)

mwah!

I am not taking anything personal I love debate and breaking out my critical thinking skills. And do not fear when I really want to debate and talk about issues i NEVER attack or flame.

There is a seperation between prisoners of crimes and prisoners of war. We America, follow the Geneva Covention to the point where our prisoners of war in Gitmo Bay, Cuba have lawyers ensuring their rights are taken care of and not mistreated.

Compare that to how the American, British, Candian etc.. soldiers and CIVILIANS who have been kidnapped and beheaded on video's by the Muslim Freedom Fighters (terrorists).

I get the feeling that your views and opinions about my country are coming primarly from the U.S. mass media which is not fair, is not balanced and is either too far to the left or too far to the right to use solely as a basis of information.

Also, in reference to your post concerning the essay about free speech. You have to be very careful about what comes from Universities in America they have been taken over by Extremely Liberal proffessers that care more about their political views and indoctrinating the youth to their viewpoints, than teaching them to think for themselves.

You don't understand there is a movement in America right now, where more and more people are using Online universities to achieve degrees. Parents are homeschooling their children etc... To combat not only the rising cost of tuition but to combat the fact that our children are not learning but are being politicized.


And like I said nothing is personnal you are just debating with someone, Me, that wants to go into politics shortly after I retire from the US Navy to help effect change and repair the damage that has been done and give my children a better place to live and raise families of their own. So I am very much into what is going on and what needs to be done. :thumbsup:

[Kodonn]

...I just think it's hypocritical for someone to promote 'freedom of speech' and then criticize someone about their opinion. I'm sure there are people reading that sentence and thinking I'm a hypocrite. Perhaps I am, but I just feel I'm pointing our a flaw in logic.
:laugh: LOL, yep. You can say whatever you want......as long as you agree with ME. :wink:



Perhaps I am incorrect, but I thought that America was influenced by the Pope's decision, and my comments were made with the understanding. if this is true, freedom of speech is a contradiction to the catholic faith. .....

Ok, I think I see where you were coming from. As far as being influenced by the Pope, it's a bit blurred. On the one hand, the US has only ever had 1 Catholic president that I know of (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). That was JFK (John Kennedy) and he almost didn't get elected because he was Catholic. Everyone was (and to some degree still is) afraid that having a Catholic president would subject the country to being directly influenced by the Pope. Fortunately, JFK was also very popular and a war hero...which counted for a lot back in those days.

On the other hand...it's kind of hard to have a whole nation that for the most part believes it is following Christian values, to totally ignore one of the most influential religious leaders in the world. So to some extent America is influenced by the Pope but maybe just doesn't want to admit it.



To me, the idea of freedom of speech, absolves people of repercussions. I understand what you're saying, that legally, a person will not be indited because of what they've said, but yet public opinion may in turn be the one to side swipe a consequence. I guess I think America walks a fine line on the idea of 'freedom of speech'. People can be prosecuted for a crime based on the opinions they've expressed regarding the incident. "Everything you say and do can be used against you in a court of law", I understand the context of this and realistically support this, but philosophically believe that it contradicts the entire idea of freedom of speech. (perhaps this is my problem - I ate a philosophy bagel today...it tasted REALLY good though...)

Yeah it would be nice if everyone was open minded enough to let people have their say without someone else trying to influence them or shut them up all together. It doesn't work that way though. No matter where you go, you will always have certain groups (or individuals) who feel they are SO correct that no one else could possibly have anything useful to express. Like I said, the "free speech" part of our Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't offer any guarantees against your neighbors. Remember, these are ideals that were written by men over 200 years ago. They were about to commit treason against the Crown, had no idea if they would even survive the year, and were trying to formulate a document that would guide a new government that hadn't even been formed yet. A lot of what they came up with was taken from English law, but they had already been through the worst and so they editted out the things they didn't like and kept the ideas they thought were good.

Still, no one can anticipate everything. We still have a lot of problems and things have become twisted over the years as others have tried to influence how laws are written, based on their personal beliefs.

I'm still struggling with the fact that we have laws against double jeopardy (meaning you can't be tried for the same crime twice) yet we manage to get around that. You can be found not guilty in a court of law, and yet an individual (or individuals) can sue you in Civil court and you can be found guilty of the same crime (and punished, usually financially) for which you were just acquitted.


And what's wrong with not honouring the things it stands for? Many people honour symbols that others don't...Pentagram, double helix :grin:, etc. I understand that if you don't like what the country stands for - why live there...yadda yadda...it's someone's opinion, freedom of speech, why should someone be fined for it? If an American burns an American flag why should they be reprimanded for their opinion? They're only enacting their right of freedom of speech!

Oh, in my other post I was trying to explain why flag burning is illegal. (It was late and I wanted to get away from work, so I think I missed finishing a few sentences). You understand the idea of the flag being a symbol. (That goes way back into history by the way. For the most part, it was always hard to keep people motivated, especially whan they are fighting wars, so they used symbols like flags and pennants to stand for "everything good and holy that we are fighting for and believe in". Since the flag is a symbol that has so much emotion and history tied to it, it is very easy to use it as a means to incite powerful reactions in people. That's one reason that some groups used flag burning in the 60s, because they knew it would elicit a strong reaction from a government that at the time probably consisted of many war veterans who had fought under that flag. So...they made it illegal to desecrate it, in order to keep it from being used in such a manner. We also have laws against burning crosses on peoples lawns. (another very powerful symbol for inciting strong reactions)

A more modern analogy that is commonly used when discussing freedom of speech, is the "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" one. Sure you can speak your mind, but you just can't "go around saying anything" if it could lead to public harm.



And what if one of those rules were to be 'You may say anything your wish, at any time, without any consequences'?
Ahhh...that's the catch. No one ever said there wouldn't be consequences. Only, no consequences from the government...and even that has changed in recent years with the Patriot Act.


They also eat frogs legs! mmmm! :)
These are deliscious. And they DO taste like chicken. :smiley:



..this is the longest post in history...i hope I don't get banned because of the massiveness of this post....this is just such good conversation! i like that everyone's getting involved, and i hope no one is taking this personally! i'm strong minded and long winded :)
PS: no way I'm rereading this for typos! sorry!
Same here...I hope no one takes any of this personally. Just good conversation.



Freedom is freedom. It should no be confined to mass majority. If America was a truly free society, men could marry men, women could have multiple husbands, Muslims would be able to wear turbans where ever they wished, we would be able to walk around naked on the street. ...come to Canada. You can marry your same sex by 9am and be drunk by 10am!

True...but it's a double-edged sword. For instance....what if what you are "free to speak about" offends me ? Am I not also "free" to not be offended ? Earlier you brought up cigarettes. A lot of communities are now passing local laws that prohibit smoking in public. Because you may be free to smoke...but I am also free to breathe clean air and not be "poisoned" by your smoke. So...how do you guarantee all these freedoms to everyone ? You start passing more and more laws (many based on PC-ness or majority opinion) to try and limit the actions that could potentially flame up into bigger problems than intended.

It may not be fair to everyone, but at some point they have to draw a line in order to keep the peace in a society. Most of the time, that line gets drawn by the ones who are most outspoken, whether they are the majority or just the ones with the power to do so.

[Tollin]

Kodonn you rock! Thank you for explaining what we are both saying in a different and more eloqouent way!

/salute Kodonn

[rgirty]

Most of the time, that line gets drawn by the ones who are most outspoken, whether they are the majority or just the ones with the power to do so.

Stand up for yourself rings true.

[Tikki]

There is a seperation between prisoners of crimes and prisoners of war. We America, follow the Geneva Covention to the point where our prisoners of war in Gitmo Bay, Cuba have lawyers ensuring their rights are taken care of and not mistreated.

Compare that to how the American, British, Candian etc.. soldiers and CIVILIANS who have been kidnapped and beheaded on video's by the Muslim Freedom Fighters (terrorists).

I’m sure there are Muslims that would argue that the Americans in their country are terrorists. I know you are in the military and have a better understanding of what’s going on in between the echelons of ranks, so I would prefer to not really comment on this. I will say that in war, Americans are no different to their prisoners than Muslims or any other country, and what bothers me the most is I get the feeling that the public believes that they are humanitarians in the war – when this might not be true….I’m sure I’ve just put my foot in my mouth.

I get the feeling that your views and opinions about my country are coming primarly from the U.S. mass media which is not fair, is not balanced and is either too far to the left or too far to the right to use solely as a basis of information.

Actually my opinions are coming from round about sources. I very rarely watch American news or read American papers, I actually prefer BBC to get my source. And I’m bases my opinions on those I’ve heard from Americans themselves. Everyone is influenced by outside sources, that’s the fundamentals of post-positivism, but as a post-positivist, I try to do everything in my power to make my opinions of the world as objective as possible.

Also, in reference to your post concerning the essay about free speech. You have to be very careful about what comes from Universities in America they have been taken over by Extremely Liberal proffessers that care more about their political views and indoctrinating the youth to their viewpoints, than teaching them to think for themselves.

You have to be careful of all information. You need to know the source, understand the biases, and subject it to your own criticism. Perhaps you read over me stating this, or perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough that that lecture, like most things in life, is one sided. I simply thought it was interesting and thought it may be of interest to anyone who’s curious about this topic. In no way do I think all opinions should be based on this, nor should individuals take that as factual information. It, much like what’s going on here, is a lecture on opinion with certain facts and cases used to back it up. Like anything, manipulating the true can make anything seem factual. I have no doubt that someone could use the same information that person did to make a compelling argument against it.

You don't understand there is a movement in America right now, where more and more people are using Online universities to achieve degrees. Parents are homeschooling their children etc... To combat not only the rising cost of tuition but to combat the fact that our children are not learning but are being politicized.

I live in Canada darling, it’s the same up here. Politics run through and through every system we have, just like yours. But unlike America (I’m basing this opinion now on what you’ve said), it seems like Canadians are less swayed by the influence of politics. The university where I received my undergraduate degree was support by a politically strong influential family. Politics were polluting the air everyday, but it’s your own choice to allow it to sway you. If Americans are truly moving to online universities to avoid the political swaggers, then that is sad. They should be strong enough, and sure enough of their own opinions to be able to function in a world (and learn in a world), where they can critically analyze all facts and create their own opinions.


Like I said, the "free speech" part of our Constitution only protects you from the government, it doesn't offer any guarantees against your neighbors.

I do agree with this.

Since the flag is a symbol that has so much emotion and history tied to it, it is very easy to use it as a means to incite powerful reactions in people. That's one reason that some groups used flag burning in the 60s, because they knew it would elicit a strong reaction from a government that at the time probably consisted of many war veterans who had fought under that flag. So...they made it illegal to desecrate it, in order to keep it from being used in such a manner.

But why should it be illegal? Why should someone’s beliefs in a patriotic symbol hurt someone else? I understand they were making a point, I see where the symbol elicits emotion, but what I’m getting from what you’re saying is that because of this emotional reaction it should be illegal to burn it. I’m not saying this correctly….Everyone has a right to say anything. Burning is flag is an action which is expressing/saying an opinion (which is allowed under the essence of free speech). People are allowed to be offended by that. But where I see the contradiction is why should this opinion, this offensive act, have legal consequences? Why is burning another countries flag in America not illegal? Burning crosses shouldn’t be illegal – they represent hate, but it should only justify consequence if it ends up physically hurting an individual or community. Is wearing a swastika illegal? No. How is that symbol any different than the burning cross? Why is it ok for someone to desecrate and promote certain symbols and not others?

A more modern analogy that is commonly used when discussing freedom of speech, is the "Yelling fire in a crowded theater" one. Sure you can speak your mind, but you just can't "go around saying anything" if it could lead to public harm.
Yes – public harm. The act of saying it isn’t illegal, it’s the public harm that is. So why should burning an American flag be illegal if no one is harmed?

what if what you are "free to speak about" offends me ? Am I not also "free" to not be offended ? Earlier you brought up cigarettes. A lot of communities are now passing local laws that prohibit smoking in public. Because you may be free to smoke...but I am also free to breathe clean air and not be "poisoned" by your smoke. So...how do you guarantee all these freedoms to everyone ? You start passing more and more laws (many based on PC-ness or majority opinion) to try and limit the actions that could potentially flame up into bigger problems than intended.
You’re blurring the line of physical harm and emotional harm. Everyone is allowed to have their opinion and are allowed to choose what offends them. Since opinion and emotional harm are very subjective, they cannot be compared to objective/physical harms. Second hand smoke harms everyone – EVERYONE. Me saying I hate someone/thing does not physically harm anyone. (maybe myself by getting a punch in the nose). You can’t compare the harm from smoking to the harm of talking. My point was only that smoking harms everyone, yet is not illegal in most cases, but burning a flag (if no harm is done to anyone) is illegal. If it is not harmful to anyone but the individual committing the act, and given they are in the appropriate state of mind or mens rae, why should an act like burning the American flag be illegal?

[Tollin]

I’m sure there are Muslims that would argue that the Americans in their country are terrorists. I know you are in the military and have a better understanding of what’s going on in between the echelons of ranks, so I would prefer to not really comment on this. I will say that in war, Americans are no different to their prisoners than Muslims or any other country, and what bothers me the most is I get the feeling that the public believes that they are humanitarians in the war – when this might not be true….I’m sure I’ve just put my foot in my mouth.

WRONG! We do not torture our prisoners, we feed them, clothe and bathe them and yes interrogate them according to the Genva Convention. We do not behead them on live video and send it around the world via internet. I am not even going to address your opening sentence because it made no sense to me.

Actually my opinions are coming from round about sources. I very rarely watch American news or read American papers, I actually prefer BBC to get my source. And I’m bases my opinions on those I’ve heard from Americans themselves. Everyone is influenced by outside sources, that’s the fundamentals of post-positivism, but as a post-positivist, I try to do everything in my power to make my opinions of the world as objective as possible.

BBC is notably the most leftist news organization in the world. And most anti-American. Which explains why all your answers are based in liberal ideals.

You have to be careful of all information. You need to know the source, understand the biases, and subject it to your own criticism. Perhaps you read over me stating this, or perhaps I didn’t make it clear enough that that lecture, like most things in life, is one sided. I simply thought it was interesting and thought it may be of interest to anyone who’s curious about this topic. In no way do I think all opinions should be based on this, nor should individuals take that as factual information. It, much like what’s going on here, is a lecture on opinion with certain facts and cases used to back it up. Like anything, manipulating the true can make anything seem factual. I have no doubt that someone could use the same information that person did to make a compelling argument against it.

Lengthy way to say we agree on this point.


I live in Canada darling, it’s the same up here. Politics run through and through every system we have, just like yours. But unlike America (I’m basing this opinion now on what you’ve said), it seems like Canadians are less swayed by the influence of politics. The university where I received my undergraduate degree was support by a politically strong influential family. Politics were polluting the air everyday, but it’s your own choice to allow it to sway you. If Americans are truly moving to online universities to avoid the political swaggers, then that is sad. They should be strong enough, and sure enough of their own opinions to be able to function in a world (and learn in a world), where they can critically analyze all facts and create their own opinions.

Americans are using what works best here in the States and talking with their feet and dollars. We are telling the universities we will not pay for you to indoctrinate our children instead of teaching. And you have to learn how to criticaly analyze and you are suppossed to learn that at the college level.


But why should it be illegal? Why should someone’s beliefs in a patriotic symbol hurt someone else? I understand they were making a point, I see where the symbol elicits emotion, but what I’m getting from what you’re saying is that because of this emotional reaction it should be illegal to burn it. I’m not saying this correctly….Everyone has a right to say anything. Burning is flag is an action which is expressing/saying an opinion (which is allowed under the essence of free speech). People are allowed to be offended by that. But where I see the contradiction is why should this opinion, this offensive act, have legal consequences? Why is burning another countries flag in America not illegal? Burning crosses shouldn’t be illegal – they represent hate, but it should only justify consequence if it ends up physically hurting an individual or community. Is wearing a swastika illegal? No. How is that symbol any different than the burning cross? Why is it ok for someone to desecrate and promote certain symbols and not others?

It's not illegal the Supreme Court overturned that decision about 20 years ago.



I am going to end this post with this statement.

Tiki, I have a ton of respect for you and how you presented your opinion extremely well, it was nice to have a discussion with a liberal that did not attack or say that "Bush sucks!".

But our discussion is just a snipet of how far the divade has grown in America between conservatives (me and Kodnn) and liberals (you).

You presented Freedom as the way it's written and how it should be in the world.

I and Kodonn presented how it really is with the human element thrown in and emotions, ambitions etc.. that come into play and ruin everything that is ideal.

A non-political example is HOA's (Home Owner Associations) which came about to enfore neighboorhood policies that was for the betterment of everyone in the neighborhood. Then power came into play, as officers were elected and they are now a nightmare, with fines and fee's over minor discrepencies etc....

You, Tiki, can live in a place where free speech is truly free and will do fine. What about those that find EVERYTHING offensive and try to get the rest of us to change how we talk to accomodate them? (Political Correctness). Explain how that is free speech when I am told I can not say black guy I have to say African-American. How a hispanic can say "brown pride" and it's ok but if I say "white pride" it's considered hate speech? How rappers can use the "N" word over and over in their songs but if a white person uses it, it is considered hate speech?

See where I am going with this?

The way you see it is the ideal just sadly humans ruin it with their emotions.

[rgirty]

Explain how that is free speech when I am told I can not say black guy I have to say African-American. How a hispanic can say "brown pride" and it's ok but if I say "white pride" it's considered hate speech? How rappers can use the "N" word over and over in their songs but if a white person uses it, it is considered hate speech?

Thats pretty easy, it involves the history of how white people have traditionally treated those of a different skin color.

Thats why white people have lost the right to currently say "white pride" or "black guy" or use the 'N' word. Because people doing that in the past did not have such innocent intentions.

I grew up in an area that had such issues. There was not and still to do this day are not any african americans or hispanic individuals living in my small community. I am only 30 years old, but I have seen multiple people of african american ethnicity try to move into the area only to be physically abused and have crosses burned on their property.

I'm not speaking about 50 years ago. I'm speaking about what I have personally witnessed.

That is the reason for the above. By the way, I am not white, black, or hispanic. I'm the rarest of minority here in the united states. I'm a native american we represent .001 of the worlds population. I doubt many need a history lesson on how the native americans were treated so many years ago.

Is it equal the way PC works now? No... but due to the history I can see why it is the way it is.

EDIT: I forgot to add a hispanic gentleman was murdered 9 days ago less than 4 miles from my home. A shotgun blast that investigators say must have occured with the barrel of the weapon in his mouth.

Big deal? Many of you might say that, but I live in a community with a population of 900 people. Less than 1,000 people live in my city.

[gmedina]

I am going to end this post with this statement.

Tiki, I have a ton of respect for you and how you presented your opinion extremely well, it was nice to have a discussion with a liberal that did not attack or say that "Bush sucks!".

But our discussion is just a snipet of how far the divade has grown in America between conservatives (me and Kodnn) and liberals (you).

You presented Freedom as the way it's written and how it should be in the world.

I and Kodonn presented how it really is with the human element thrown in and emotions, ambitions etc.. that come into play and ruin everything that is ideal.

A non-political example is HOA's (Home Owner Associations) which came about to enfore neighboorhood policies that was for the betterment of everyone in the neighborhood. Then power came into play, as officers were elected and they are now a nightmare, with fines and fee's over minor discrepencies etc....

You, Tiki, can live in a place where free speech is truly free and will do fine. What about those that find EVERYTHING offensive and try to get the rest of us to change how we talk to accomodate them? (Political Correctness). Explain how that is free speech when I am told I can not say black guy I have to say African-American. How a hispanic can say "brown pride" and it's ok but if I say "white pride" it's considered hate speech? How rappers can use the "N" word over and over in their songs but if a white person uses it, it is considered hate speech?

See where I am going with this?

The way you see it is the ideal just sadly humans ruin it with their emotions.

While you quote Tikki as being on a slippery slope and i tend to agree you are doing the same thing. You talk about how you can't listen to the media because they are biased, can't listen to the universities because they are biased, can't listen to world events because they are biased. By this stand point the only people we can listen to is the government??? That isn't a slippery slope??? I think being in the military has sensitized you a little bit, could it be that the media isn't as biased as you think but that you don't like to hear the truth???? Could it be that the universities aren't as biased as you want them to be but instead the institution which you are currently working for is not as much of an ideal as you wanted it to be.

We are all biased to some extent by our life experiances that is the nature of being human. The thing we need to do is realize this and attempt to account for it and try to get information from as many sources as possible.

At least Tikki is attempting to get information from multiple sources, i think where she in disaggrement from others here is not related to her intelligence but more to her age(IMO). From the way i read this i get the feeling of a rather young motivated young lady that is learning her way thru life. I would even bet you money that she is under the age of 23. While i tend to disagree with some of her points of view and the way conclusions she has reached there will be others that say the same of me. I think where you are going wrong is in that you seem to think that all sources other than the ONE you want to belive are biased aganst you. This can lead to close minded conclusions which no amount of age will pull you out of.

[rottentomato]

I am not taking anything personal I love debate and breaking out my critical thinking skills. And do not fear when I really want to debate and talk about issues i NEVER attack or flame.

There is a seperation between prisoners of crimes and prisoners of war. We America, follow the Geneva Covention to the point where our prisoners of war in Gitmo Bay, Cuba have lawyers ensuring their rights are taken care of and not mistreated.

Compare that to how the American, British, Candian etc.. soldiers and CIVILIANS who have been kidnapped and beheaded on video's by the Muslim Freedom Fighters (terrorists).

I get the feeling that your views and opinions about my country are coming primarly from the U.S. mass media which is not fair, is not balanced and is either too far to the left or too far to the right to use solely as a basis of information.

Also, in reference to your post concerning the essay about free speech. You have to be very careful about what comes from Universities in America they have been taken over by Extremely Liberal proffessers that care more about their political views and indoctrinating the youth to their viewpoints, than teaching them to think for themselves.

You don't understand there is a movement in America right now, where more and more people are using Online universities to achieve degrees. Parents are homeschooling their children etc... To combat not only the rising cost of tuition but to combat the fact that our children are not learning but are being politicized.


And like I said nothing is personnal you are just debating with someone, Me, that wants to go into politics shortly after I retire from the US Navy to help effect change and repair the damage that has been done and give my children a better place to live and raise families of their own. So I am very much into what is going on and what needs to be done. :thumbsup:

since the geneva convention we havent had prisoners of war that were mistreated? are you serious? the geneva convention was in what 1863? what about all the mistreated american citizens during 1942 internment camps in california? hundreds of asian americans were chastised and mistreated during this time. or what about the hundreds of cubans that were also arrested and beaten during bay of pigs, which america claims to have no knowledge about? these are people who sought america for the freedoms we supposedly have, only to be unwelcome, harassed, beaten, neglected, and pretty much any other sort of foul action taken upon them. these people weren't exactly given egyptian cotton blankets and ribeye steaks on a daily basis. they were given piss poor food that often times had bodily fluids or other nasty concoctions in it meant to harm these people. also granted the media is extremely liberal in its viewpoints, but what say you of the american soldiers who stripped their POWs down naked and took photos of them, and tortured them in ways that a human should never have to face? "swift and just punishment" i think not. those soldiers got a dishonorable discharge, or spent some time in a military prison, where their superiors im sure didnt discipline them like a prisoner, and more like a hero. the ultimate taste america leaves in my mouth is a bitter putrid bile that i would choose to never have if it were not for family and friends here.

While you quote Tikki as being on a slippery slope and i tend to agree you are doing the same thing. You talk about how you can't listen to the media because they are biased, can't listen to the universities because they are biased, can't listen to world events because they are biased. By this stand point the only people we can listen to is the government??? That isn't a slippery slope??? I think being in the military has sensitized you a little bit, could it be that the media isn't as biased as you think but that you don't like to hear the truth???? Could it be that the universities aren't as biased as you want them to be but instead the institution which you are currently working for is not as much of an ideal as you wanted it to be.

We are all biased to some extent by our life experiances that is the nature of being human. The thing we need to do is realize this and attempt to account for it and try to get information from as many sources as possible.

At least Tikki is attempting to get information from multiple sources, i think where she in disaggrement from others here is not related to her intelligence but more to her age(IMO). From the way i read this i get the feeling of a rather young motivated young lady that is learning her way thru life. I would even bet you money that she is under the age of 23. While i tend to disagree with some of her points of view and the way conclusions she has reached there will be others that say the same of me. I think where you are going wrong is in that you seem to think that all sources other than the ONE you want to belive are biased aganst you. This can lead to close minded conclusions which no amount of age will pull you out of.


well said grity...i almost said something along those lines until i saw your post.

[gmedina]

since the geneva convention we havent had prisoners of war that were mistreated? are you serious? the geneva convention was in what 1863? what about all the mistreated american citizens during 1942 internment camps in california? hundreds of asian americans were chastised and mistreated during this time. or what about the hundreds of cubans that were also arrested and beaten during bay of pigs, which america claims to have no knowledge about? these are people who sought america for the freedoms we supposedly have, only to be unwelcome, harassed, beaten, neglected, and pretty much any other sort of foul action taken upon them. these people weren't exactly given egyptian cotton blankets and ribeye steaks on a daily basis. they were given piss poor food that often times had bodily fluids or other nasty concoctions in it meant to harm these people. also granted the media is extremely liberal in its viewpoints, but what say you of the american soldiers who stripped their POWs down naked and took photos of them, and tortured them in ways that a human should never have to face? "swift and just punishment" i think not. those soldiers got a dishonorable discharge, or spent some time in a military prison, where their superiors im sure didnt discipline them like a prisoner, and more like a hero. the ultimate taste america leaves in my mouth is a bitter putrid bile that i would choose to never have if it were not for family and friends here.




well said grity...i almost said something along those lines until i saw your post.

I think your slightly biased here. While the SOME american INDIVIDUALS have done things we shouldn't be proud of lets look at the surrounding events.

The Japanese internment camps were by no measure our prodest moment but look at what the japanese were doing to our people. Did we force the Japanese into slave labor camps to build our bombs or weapons...no!! Did we place our japanese prisoners into air bunker and burn them alive....NO!!! Did we kill our japanese prisoners in mass to create room to house more....NO!!! Yet the japanese did this to our men. Were we right in what we did...NO!! but is it understandable...YESS!!!

The incident you refered to about abu'grib(have no idea what the spelling is) again these INDIVIDUALS were in the wrong, but lets look at surrounding events. You have these individuals friends being kidnapped and beheaded on the internet. You have these individuals friends being hit by suicide bombers which are children. Where they right in what they did, no but can it be understood??? I think so.

It is very easy for you to stand back here and point a finger but maybe a little bit of education regarding the surrounding events might help you understand the context of these events a little bit better.

[Telic]

...
America is a christian based country, Isreal is a christian based country that is why we support them.
...


Mmm, I have been reading several posts from user Tollin in this thread, and the above quote really needs to be pointed out I'm afraid.
Obviously this is the internet, and more than any other medium, you can't take information at face value, but I would be seriously suspicious of ANY facts or information Tollin relies on in his arguments.

Are American's stupid ?
No - but members of their military think they support Israel because it is a Christian country !!!
I hope that discovering Judaism is the national religion of Israel doesn't prompt a change in US Foreign Policy ?
Sshhh. Nobody tell Bush ^^
(There are actually more Muslims in Israel than Christians)


I'm not sure what to say about Free Speech - don't we all support it up to a point. Society couldn't function if you could really say anything you liked.
Of course a white guy can't say the 'N' word, because no one should be allowed to incite racial hatred, and historically, that is the only reason a white guy would employ the word.

Should there be a law against American citizens burning the American flag?
I'm not American, but I would have to say no. I'm sure protesters who are burning flags are not expressing hatred of their country - they are expressing how much they hate what is happening to their country. Making it illegal is simply a form of gagging people who don't agree with you.
I don't have any problem with non-American's being deported for burning the flag - as long as they aren't redesignated PoWs and held illegally without trial for 4 years !
Even if you think Free speech should not extend that far - do you really want to give people the opportunity to make themselves 'legal martyrs' in the name of their cause ?
Of course there will come a time when people will gladly allow themselves to be imprisoned for flag burning because it will raise the profile of their issues more than the simple act of burning the flag on its own would....


I have no problem with the Armed forces themselves who deserve the support of the public - they are just following orders. But I do have a problem with the Governments that sent them to Iraq. I think the actions of the Bush administration (and Blair) are obscene. Any argument that the Iraq war is being fought on humanitarian grounds doesn't hold water - given the other atrocities being committed around the world with no military attention; And surely no one has the gall to argue in favour of the Iraq war based on 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' any more ?
Isn't one of the reasons this thread exists to question American stupidity, the horrendous record America has with its Foreign Policy. The bad alliances, the 180 degree u-turns and betrayals, the failed invasions - remind me who funded and trained Osama Bin Laden again ?
I think one definition of stupidity is to keep repeating the same mistakes without learning....
Why will most people laugh at the name of this thread - but no one will really be surprised that a defence needs to be made ?

Oh, and I'll just defend the BBC - I think some people confuse impartiality with liberalism. In the same way that I think that America has confused Democracy with Capitalism.


/leans back and laughs maniacally about all the cans of worms he has opened

:wink:

[rottentomato]

I think your slightly biased here. While the SOME american INDIVIDUALS have done things we shouldn't be proud of lets look at the surrounding events.

The Japanese internment camps were by no measure our prodest moment but look at what the japanese were doing to our people. Did we force the Japanese into slave labor camps to build our bombs or weapons...no!! Did we place our japanese prisoners into air bunker and burn them alive....NO!!! Did we kill our japanese prisoners in mass to create room to house more....NO!!! Yet the japanese did this to our men. Were we right in what we did...NO!! but is it understandable...YESS!!!

The incident you refered to about abu'grib(have no idea what the spelling is) again these INDIVIDUALS were in the wrong, but lets look at surrounding events. You have these individuals friends being kidnapped and beheaded on the internet. You have these individuals friends being hit by suicide bombers which are children. Where they right in what they did, no but can it be understood??? I think so.

It is very easy for you to stand back here and point a finger but maybe a little bit of education regarding the surrounding events might help you understand the context of these events a little bit better.


i take it you dont know when we actually began the internment camps...the internment camps began just AFTER pearl harbor when we declared war against japan. and who is to say we didnt do any of those things? neither you nor i were there, and america is very fond of coverups. i wouldnt be too surprised to hear of americans in america torturing japanese with cruel and unusual punishment methods like acid burns, torture using wool cloth and batteries or any other torture method to try and extract information.

as far as the incidents going on in iraq that we have heard about...those were only because the media perpetuated it with the evidence they have recovered. if there were no pictures of the acts being portrayed do you think you may have heard about it? no. media does a good job of showing things that make us look bad, but not as bad as the "savages" over in iraq. does it mean we dont do some of the same treatments and torture techniques? hell no. i can honestly say a battalion who is so distressed over the war in iraq and so on edge with their own lives at stake would be able to cover up the crimes they have committed as long as they covered their tracks thoroughly.

i cant give you exact examples of things i have heard or where i have heard them from to protect the innocent and guilty, but my convictions are not without reason. we are not as pure as we'd like to believe we are. the taint in americas blood is rich and intoxicating.




I have no problem with the Armed forces themselves who deserve the support of the public - they are just following orders. But I do have a problem with the Governments that sent them to Iraq. I think the actions of the Bush administration (and Blair) are obscene. Any argument that the Iraq war is being fought on humanitarian grounds doesn't hold water - given the other atrocities being committed around the world with no military attention; And surely no one has the gall to argue in favour of the Iraq war based on 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' any more ?
Isn't one of the reasons this thread exists to question American stupidity, the horrendous record America has with its Foreign Policy. The bad alliances, the 180 degree u-turns and betrayals, the failed invasions - remind me who funded and trained Osama Bin Laden again ?
I think one definition of stupidity is to keep repeating the same mistakes without learning....
Why will most people laugh at the name of this thread - but no one will really be surprised that a defence needs to be made ?

:wink:

so i would say i love this paragraph. it holds so true. what of korea and their weapons of mass destruction? we dont have to really look for them...they were test firing them for crying out loud! what actions did we take? we didnt invade korea and attempt to overthrow their government like we are in vietraq...oh did i just goof up that spelling...my bad :thumbsup:

[gmedina]

i take it you dont know when we actually began the internment camps...the internment camps began just AFTER pearl harbor when we declared war against japan. and who is to say we didnt do any of those things? neither you nor i were there, and america is very fond of coverups. i wouldnt be too surprised to hear of americans in america torturing japanese with cruel and unusual punishment methods like acid burns, torture using wool cloth and batteries or any other torture method to try and extract information.

as far as the incidents going on in iraq that we have heard about...those were only because the media perpetuated it with the evidence they have recovered. if there were no pictures of the acts being portrayed do you think you may have heard about it? no. media does a good job of showing things that make us look bad, but not as bad as the "savages" over in iraq. does it mean we dont do some of the same treatments and torture techniques? hell no. i can honestly say a battalion who is so distressed over the war in iraq and so on edge with their own lives at stake would be able to cover up the crimes they have committed as long as they covered their tracks thoroughly.

i cant give you exact examples of things i have heard or where i have heard them from to protect the innocent and guilty, but my convictions are not without reason. we are not as pure as we'd like to believe we are. the taint in americas blood is rich and intoxicating.

Well of course it was after pearl harbor that is when we went to war. Of course we can't know with out a doubt that such cover ups didn't happen but these things tend to come to light. Just like it did with the japanese, and since we have to evidence that it did happen lets not talk in conjecture as if it was fact. We do know that the Japanese DID do this, and subsequently this can help us understand the motiviations and reasons behind other choices. Does this make them right, no but at least we can better understand these choices.

Regarding these so called cover ups that haven't come up, that is what causes you to have a bad feeling about Americans?? So if i understand you right what your saying is that because the Americans may have done some horroundes act you feel this justifies your classification of them as evil(is that the right word)? You have no evidence or justification for thinking these event have occured other than the fact you feel they could have, and the is enough evidence for you to condem the population as a whole??? Yeesh i hope your never on a jury, all you will need to convict is not proof that he did it, but just proof that he COULD have!!!

[rottentomato]

Well of course it was after pearl harbor that is when we went to war. Of course we can't know with out a doubt that such cover ups didn't happen but these things tend to come to light. Just like it did with the japanese, and since we have to evidence that it did happen lets not talk in conjecture as if it was fact. We do know that the Japanese DID do this, and subsequently this can help us understand the motiviations and reasons behind other choices. Does this make them right, no but at least we can better understand these choices.

Regarding these so called cover ups that haven't come up, that is what causes you to have a bad feeling about Americans?? So if i understand you right what your saying is that because the Americans may have done some horroundes act you feel this justifies your classification of them as evil(is that the right word)? You have no evidence or justification for thinking these event have occured other than the fact you feel they could have, and the is enough evidence for you to condem the population as a whole??? Yeesh i hope your never on a jury, all you will need to convict is not proof that he did it, but just proof that he COULD have!!!


you should read the first few pages when this actually interested me before. like i said in the last post...i cant say what i have heard happening because the people i know may or may not have been involved with something that may or may not have occurred. savvy?


this thread has transcended from americans stupidity to a thread discussing the rationalizations of a war, or this "political war" we are in now. this iraq situation is in no means a war anymore than vietnam was a war. its sad to hear that term used, especially since there are no threats to other nations. its a war within a country, let them deal with it themselves in all honesty. did we not learn from vietnam? try as we might you can not change a country because you dont like their ideas.

[gmedina]

you should read the first few pages when this actually interested me before. like i said in the last post...i cant say what i have heard happening because the people i know may or may not have been involved with something that may or may not have occurred. savvy?


this thread has transcended from americans stupidity to a thread discussing the rationalizations of a war, or this "political war" we are in now. this iraq situation is in no means a war anymore than vietnam was a war. its sad to hear that term used, especially since there are no threats to other nations. its a war within a country, let them deal with it themselves in all honesty. did we not learn from vietnam? try as we might you can not change a country because you dont like their ideas.


Now that i can agree with!!!

[Tikki]

I told my bf about this topic, and he totally disagrees with me and told me I went over the edge...perhaps I did...but I happen to get very into things to the point where I pick at the very foundation of the theory/topic. I often confuse myself thinking about things as well....

I just turned 23 today....so perhaps next time I post a long winded reply to a philosophical debate I will be more grounded. I recognize I am young, I'm not american, and i have very little knowledge in 'true history'. I like to believe that everyone is good natured and all intentions are made with the idea of human betterment....

I believe that this thread sparks me so much because I feel that a good majority of the time people have the wool pulled over their eyes and they unknowingly believe in the good of things because that's easier. I think a portion of americans live in their own world, where they believe they are truly the land of the free and are actually 'liberating' countries that need to be saved.

What I want to comment on is something aside from this topic. I think it's great to actually find a place where individuals world wide with different opinions and views can respectfully discuss topics which can be heated. It's nice to see everyone respect each others opinions.

...I'll stop posting long replies....and hopefully I'll stop going through crazy mood swings where I love everyone and then suddenly hate them....right now I love you all :)

[rottentomato]

I told my bf about this topic, and he totally disagrees with me and told me I went over the edge...perhaps I did...but I happen to get very into things to the point where I pick at the very foundation of the theory/topic. I often confuse myself thinking about things as well....

I just turned 23 today....so perhaps next time I post a long winded reply to a philosophical debate I will be more grounded. I recognize I am young, I'm not american, and i have very little knowledge in 'true history'. I like to believe that everyone is good natured and all intentions are made with the idea of human betterment....

I believe that this thread sparks me so much because I feel that a good majority of the time people have the wool pulled over their eyes and they unknowingly believe in the good of things because that's easier. I think a portion of americans live in their own world, where they believe they are truly the land of the free and are actually 'liberating' countries that need to be saved.

What I want to comment on is something aside from this topic. I think it's great to actually find a place where individuals world wide with different opinions and views can respectfully discuss topics which can be heated. It's nice to see everyone respect each others opinions.

...I'll stop posting long replies....and hopefully I'll stop going through crazy mood swings where I love everyone and then suddenly hate them....right now I love you all :)


this is the best post in the thread by far. you first off are not american, so you have every right to judge us as the rest of the world does. your post also shows your maturity to handle a situation as a young adult...i must commend you for it. :wink3:

[Felix Niebuhr]

Mmm, I have been reading several posts from user Tollin in this thread, and the above quote really needs to be pointed out I'm afraid.
Obviously this is the internet, and more than any other medium, you can't take information at face value, but I would be seriously suspicious of ANY facts or information Tollin relies on in his arguments.

Are American's stupid ?
No - but members of their military think they support Israel because it is a Christian country !!!
I hope that discovering Judaism is the national religion of Israel doesn't prompt a change in US Foreign Policy ?
Sshhh. Nobody tell Bush ^^
(There are actually more Muslims in Israel than Christians)




:wink:

The American Presidents are Christian. If they have belief in The Word they are trying to keep status quo in order to avoid Armaggeddon, or Doomsday. So they support Israel to avoid Israel standing alone against the armies of the world, cause that would be real bad for the world.

[Tanitha]

Which is perhaps the biggest fault one could make as a president.

Yes, you do need to be strong and honest in your beliefs. But you also need to realize that you are given the privilege to direct one of the greatest nations on the earth, one which is composed of all it's various citizens of whichever flavors they might be. This includes Muslims, Agnostics, Buddhists and all other religions.

I don't know why America supports Israel. There are always talks of it being because of the strong lobby for Israel from Jewish people. I tend to disbelieve that, mostly because the few Americans I know on a personal level (Mostly also military / DoD and so forth types) have a strong belief in their inherent goodness and desire to do the right thing. My opinion is that it stems from that, a residual sense of compassion following the Holocaust, a tiny nation of people who were once disenfranchised. And so forth - part of the American character, so to speak.

The one image I hold of America comes from the Boxing Day Tsunami. While I'm sure there are facts out there which might cloud this viewpoint, I remember that while the world at large (New Zealand included) were busy humming and haaing over what to do and how to help, American soldiers were on the ground, getting their boots muddy and helping people rebuild.

Don't know why, but that's the most poignant association I have that formed my opinion on the how and the why. The kind of person you would want on your side when things get rough, because you know they'd be there to lend you a hand, no questions asked.

[Felix Niebuhr]

Recently a man suffering from a condition that was terminal if surgery was not performed could not raise the money nor get treated without insurance.

As a last resort to save his life, he robbed a bank.

He didn't get any money nor did he try, he simply stood there with a gun in his hand (full of blanks mind you) after saying calmly to a teller "i'm robbing you".

The police arrived, arrested him and he was sentenced to prison in short order.

Upon arrival he notified them of his condition.

The law is written as such, if you are a prisoner in a federal institution and need life saving surgery you will receive the surgery.

He received the surgery, made a full recovery and worked toward his degree by studying and taking what courses were available to him while he was in prison.

He did 3 years (time off for good behavior) , and shortly after exiting the prison he started he received his degree and started his own business.

Bet he wasn`t black ehh? Okay maybe too provocative, but the statistics of America talk from themselves, and the image you get of American prisons are horrible to a degree that the only place you would fear more getting locked up in would be in South Africa. And to the above poster, your military is the only one who can react with initial quickness. Don you think the Chinese Fleet would have rushed to the rescue. Were it not for the fact that America sure dont want no Chinese Fleet in no waters. So there were no Chinese Fleet. Way to intimidate all of the table and then turn around to raise moral rights on them. Piss on them, then tell them they stink.

[Tollin]

ahh good.. good.. I thought it was just me and Tiki here...

First, where do i get my facts? I listen and watch to ALL of the media, both left wing and right wing and those that call themselves "fair and balanced". I then form my own opinions about the subject and do more research.

Who told you Judaism is not a form of Christianity? The main difference is the Jewish faith do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, whereas christian's do. Otherwise its the same at it's core

And yes I know that they have Muslims in their country there is a reason both Christians and Muslims have spent hundreds of years of war and conflict over one city, Jerusalam (spelling?)

Free speech, my point with the fact that white's can't say this or say that was not about racisism or history it was to relay a point about just how unfree our free speech really is and yes history is history and the pendulam has swung the other way and now there is a vicious cycle of retribution onto the white's... the wheels on the bus.....

I am sorry but I gotta say this Rotten.. pull your head out of your butt and base your arguements on FACTS not theory and well "How do you know....?"

Tourtre is not allowed in the US Military and those found participating in it are tried and have been convicted, Abu Graib. Which then prompted change into allowing lawyers into the process.

If you think the BBC is impartial then I can say nothing to you to convince of you my side of the argument.

Also if you don't want to read or listen to my facts posted on this thread I challange you to prove them wrong.

And to the guy who says my time in the military has sensitized me to a certain way of thinking? Yes, it has I am very disenfranchised in my government and feel the need for a change, a BIG change. Hence, my comment that i when I am retired I am going to do something about it, currently my hands are tied.

[Kodonn]

... and the image you get of American prisons are horrible to a degree that the only place you would fear more getting locked up in would be in South Africa. And to the above poster, your military is the only one who can react with initial quickness.

hmmm...I could name a dozen or more countries where I would be deathly afraid of going to prison over an American one. But I'm not going to drag this thread any farther off track. What started as a discussion of prisoners of war a few posts back has now lead to civilian prisons (of which there is a big difference).

Instead I'm going to sit back and wait for Tanitha to comment on the "initial quickness of the New Zealand military". :shocked:



...I'll stop posting long replies....and hopefully I'll stop going through crazy mood swings where I love everyone and then suddenly hate them....right now I love you all :)

And Tiki.....swing away !!!! (but try to stay in the "love you all" frame of mind :wink:) Nothing wrong with long winded posts as long as you have good reasons for your beliefs and you put them out there without directly attacking anyone. Everyone has different opinions and personally I have enjoyed reading most of this thread because it has enlightened me somewhat on how the citizens of other countries view my own, and why they feel that way. I would much rather read a long post where the poster makes an effort to explain their feelings, than a short one where someone just makes some vague inflamatory statement to see what kind of muck they can stir up.

[rottentomato]

ahh good.. good.. I thought it was just me and Tiki here...

First, where do i get my facts? I listen and watch to ALL of the media, both left wing and right wing and those that call themselves "fair and balanced". I then form my own opinions about the subject and do more research.

Who told you Judaism is not a form of Christianity? The main difference is the Jewish faith do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, whereas christian's do. Otherwise its the same at it's core

And yes I know that they have Muslims in their country there is a reason both Christians and Muslims have spent hundreds of years of war and conflict over one city, Jerusalam (spelling?)

Free speech, my point with the fact that white's can't say this or say that was not about racisism or history it was to relay a point about just how unfree our free speech really is and yes history is history and the pendulam has swung the other way and now there is a vicious cycle of retribution onto the white's... the wheels on the bus.....

I am sorry but I gotta say this Rotten.. pull your head out of your butt and base your arguements on FACTS not theory and well "How do you know....?"

Tourtre is not allowed in the US Military and those found participating in it are tried and have been convicted, Abu Graib. Which then prompted change into allowing lawyers into the process.

If you think the BBC is impartial then I can say nothing to you to convince of you my side of the argument.

Also if you don't want to read or listen to my facts posted on this thread I challange you to prove them wrong.

And to the guy who says my time in the military has sensitized me to a certain way of thinking? Yes, it has I am very disenfranchised in my government and feel the need for a change, a BIG change. Hence, my comment that i when I am retired I am going to do something about it, currently my hands are tied.


christianity and judaism are hardly one in the same. first off the jewish religion spawned thousands of years before christianity. and modern christianity today is hardly like catholicism which spawned during the reign of christ. christians believe in hell as an eternal place for you to go if you have sinned, unlike judaism or catholicism who base "hell" on a place to go to be cleansed of your sins before you further approach heaven. christians celebrate the sabbath on sunday...jews...saturday. christians base their theistic beliefs on the trinity. jews are monotheistic. their views of human nature also vary. christians believe we are born with original sin. jews believe in equal parts good and evil in everyone "devil and angel on shoulders" jews believe you can ascend to heaven through good deeds and belief in god. christains believe you must have correct belief, faith, good deeds, sacraments to ascend. gods role in salvation for jews is divine revelation, christians predestination. hell even some jews dont believe in the afterlife...depending on where you are and what type of judaism you are looking at. jews may also look at reincarnation to be given the chance to live a more pure life as well...

In Judaism, God is seen as having a contractual relationship with the Jewish people where they must obey his holy laws in return for their status of the chosen people. God rewards or punishes Jewish people based on whether they obey or disobey his will. In parts of the Old Testament, however, God does show mercy or forgiveness, and in later interpretations God’s laws such as the Ten Commandments are followed not only out of loyalty to God but also because of their high moral character.

In Christianity, the emphasis is placed on love of God rather than on obeying his will. People must believe that God is merciful and loves them as well. As a reflection of God’s love, people must also love other people (and the whole humanity in general) and forgive their enemies.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus endorses agape, or selfless love (in contrast to eros, or possessive love), which consists of dedication to another person’s good, even at the expense of our own good and happiness. People should practice peace and nonviolence, return good for evil and love for suffering (“turn the other cheek”). This leads to a special conception of justice, called the “divine justice”, which is based on giving a person what he or she needs rather than deserves (e.g., in case of a crime, redemption rather getting even).

Even though agapeistic love is certainly a noble ideal, it is unstable equilibrium and an easy victim of the “prisoner’s dilemma,” in which the best alternative for a group of people is not the best alternative for each person in the group. In other words, strict adherence to agapeistic ideal only works if everyone follows it but fails if there are selfish people who take advantage of the selfless people. dont begin to compare them as that closely linked when there are that many differences. sure they both use some of the same text from the bible, but that my friend is where similarities change.


and like i had said prior regarding military. sure it is against the rules to torture someone....doesnt mean it doesnt happen, and what uncle sam doesnt know is going on behind closed doors doesnt hurt him.



and with that im leaving this thread alone again

[Tanitha]

Instead I'm going to sit back and wait for Tanitha to comment on the "initial quickness of the New Zealand military".

We have a military? :shocked: To be fair though, NZ's response with on-the ground personnel was 130 odd. I'm not too clued up on their timing though, I know the Beehive's official release is dated around the 18th of January.

The point I was trying to highlight though was my perceived view of Americans as hands on, fixit types. They had people on the ground and working within 48 hours at a time when the European Union was calling for a conference to discuss their disaster relief options.

[Zuline]

Nevermind, it just isnt' worth it to get into this

[Kodonn]

....unlike judaism or catholicism who base "hell" on a place to go to be cleansed of your sins before you further approach heaven.
:shocked::shocked: What ??? There's a way out ?????
That does it. I'm going back to my Catholic grade school and find each and everyone of those nuns (they live almost forever you know :wink:) and tell them they were wrong. muahahahaha


We have a military? :shocked: ....
The point I was trying to highlight though was my perceived view of Americans as hands on, fixit types. They had people on the ground and working within 48 hours at a time when the European Union was calling for a conference to discuss their disaster relief options.

That's true. We may not always have our military in the right place (according to some), but we spend a lot of money to make sure they get there darn fast.

And Yep T. I understood your point the first time :wink: I was attempting some humor.

[rottentomato]

:shocked::shocked: What ??? There's a way out ?????
That does it. I'm going back to my Catholic grade school and find each and everyone of those nuns (they live almost forever you know :wink:) and tell them they were wrong. muahahahaha

ever heard of purgatory? im sure they taught you that...or you could invest some money into indulgences and be cleansed that way ;)

[Kodonn]

ever heard of purgatory? im sure they taught you that...or you could invest some money into indulgences and be cleansed that way ;)

Yes, I've heard of purgatory. Purgatory and hell are two vastly different conceptual places.

Do some more research (ummm...more current research. You haven't been able to purchase indulgences in a long time).

[rottentomato]

Yes, I've heard of purgatory. Purgatory and hell and two vastly different concepts.

Do some more research (ummm...more current research. You haven't been able to purchase indulgences in a long time).

i wont even get into modern catholicism because its so perverted and misshapen from what it once was.

oh and catholics of old dont belive in hell

ll who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

that is the roman catholic doctrine regarding the afterlife created at the council of trent


in a more interesting topic regarding it...purgatory was referred to as cleansing flames...thus the idea of hell being a place of brimstone and fire spawned. it came from saint augustine stating that the fire is worse than anything a human has endured. hell became a place of pain and eternal torment to scare you into following the rules...purgatory was no longer scary because you can still go to heaven.


now over the years, they still had to instill fear for the catholic people...so venial sins can be cleansed where as mortal sins cannot. thus if you break the commandments you are doomed unless forgiveness is asked for...wherein god is always forgiving and you will be pardoned.

another interesting concept is that there is no hell and everyone goes to heaven regardless of the sins they have committed, because christ has died for our sins, and god is unable to see sin...yet another interesting flaw in christianity. this is why peter stands at the gates of heaven to judge those on entry. sounds kinda like phlegyas and the river styx....



the protestant reformation was what changed purgatory into soteriology.


if you want to get into theology, ill make another thread where we can feel free to discuss it. but thats a can of worms i really dont want to open

[Telic]

The American Presidents are Christian. If they have belief in The Word they are trying to keep status quo in order to avoid Armaggeddon, or Doomsday. So they support Israel to avoid Israel standing alone against the armies of the world, cause that would be real bad for the world.


I'm not sure why you replied to my post with this - I wasn't actually confused about why America supports Israel, I was just pointing out that another Forum poster had made the bold claim that Israel was a Christian country ;)



...
America is a christian based country, Isreal is a christian based country that is why we support them.
...

[Telic]

...
Who told you Judaism is not a form of Christianity? The main difference is the Jewish faith do not believe that Jesus Christ was the messiah, whereas christian's do. Otherwise its the same at it's core
...


Who told me ?
Both my Catholic parents. All my Catholic relations. All the Catholic Parish priests while I was growing up. All the Religious Education teachers at Catholic school.
I'm honestly quite shocked that anyone could think that Judaism is a form of Christianity. Or even that they are the same at their core - Wow, they are so different in so many ways.
Muslims also believe that Jesus Christ was an important prophet, but not the Son of God - does that mean that we can claim Islam is a form of Christianity?
By the way, Hitler was raised a Christian you know. If only someone could have told him that all those pesky Jews were really just Christians in disguise.



...
Free speech, my point with the fact that white's can't say this or say that was not about racisism or history it was to relay a point about just how unfree our free speech really is and yes history is history and the pendulam has swung the other way and now there is a vicious cycle of retribution onto the white's... the wheels on the bus.....
...


This statement has me confused, so I'll just restate my own position as clearly as possible.
I am for free speech but believe it has to have limits; think that there are no hard and fast rules that can be listed and adhered to, and that the boundaries of what is acceptable will always be changing.
In many countries that have free speech there are still laws against inciting violence or racism, and I would broadly agree with this approach.
(I think 'political correctness' is a petty side-issue not worth debating)



...
If you think the BBC is impartial then I can say nothing to you to convince of you my side of the argument.
...


The BBC isn't owned by any single media mogul, and does not rely on commercial revenue (i.e. no advertisements/sponsorship - I imagine it does rely on selling its news coverage as per other channels). It has reported and been critical of all political parties, and all countries.
I think media companies in general tend to attract people with views tending towards liberal, so perhaps no media organisation can be truly impartial. But I would say that the BBC is more impartial than any other news company I can think of. And certainly more impartial than ANY American news channel - ALL of which were gung-ho supporters of the Iraq war at its start.
But I'll agree the best approach is to take from as many sources as possible :)




...
Also if you don't want to read or listen to my facts posted on this thread I challange you to prove them wrong.

And to the guy who says my time in the military has sensitized me to a certain way of thinking? Yes, it has I am very disenfranchised in my government and feel the need for a change, a BIG change. Hence, my comment that i when I am retired I am going to do something about it, currently my hands are tied.

Well, I'm not going to look farther than your belief that Judaism is a form of Christianity at the moment.
I'm sorry, but if you do get in to Politics at some later date - I'm praying its not going to be connected with Foreign Policy. If President Bush went to Israel and said that he 'understood their situation as a Christian Nation surrounded by Arab Nations', then I'm sorry, but it would not do America's image any favours on the world stage.

I'm looking forward to the American elections and the first black (or perhaps first female) American President. I have the (perhaps naive) hope that at last America's relationship with the rest of the world will improve.

[Tollin]

I give up.. I relay my points of veiw and facts as clearly and factual as possible and now you are debating the fact that the Jewish faith is not a christian based faith, yet they believe in Jesus CHRIST!

Irregardless... I am done... it is apparent that you are not willing to prove me wrong via facts then there is little to nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

By the way I researched Chrisianity, Judaism and their differences BEFORE I posted what I did to ensure my facts were as correct as possible. And what I posted is what from what I read over and over and over from many differnet scources. If you were taught differently from a Catholic... oh wait.. America was started from people running form the oppression from a catholic state.. nevermind...

Liberals always feel free to attack what you have to say but yet do nothing to prove you wrong. Don't bother responding I am done with this thread.

Oh yea Rotten leave the anti america group you are with and look around you. You did not read what I had to say. If torture is found amongst our ranks we stamp it out and try those responsible.

Nothing like someone who argues with you but does not listen to what you have to say.

Good night!

[rottentomato]

I give up.. I relay my points of veiw and facts as clearly and factual as possible and now you are debating the fact that the Jewish faith is not a christian based faith, yet they believe in Jesus CHRIST!

Irregardless... I am done... it is apparent that you are not willing to prove me wrong via facts then there is little to nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

By the way I researched Chrisianity, Judaism and their differences BEFORE I posted what I did to ensure my facts were as correct as possible. And what I posted is what from what I read over and over and over from many differnet scources. If you were taught differently from a Catholic... oh wait.. America was started from people running form the oppression from a catholic state.. nevermind...

Liberals always feel free to attack what you have to say but yet do nothing to prove you wrong. Don't bother responding I am done with this thread.

Oh yea Rotten leave the anti america group you are with and look around you. You did not read what I had to say. If torture is found amongst our ranks we stamp it out and try those responsible.

Nothing like someone who argues with you but does not listen to what you have to say.

Good night!

perhaps you should listen to yourself then. christianity spawned from judaism not the other way around. judaism believes that jesus christ does exist...you cant deny someone was ever born. but he was conceived by natural birth, not a supernatural virgin birth. where are you getting your research?

if youre going to argue a point, make sure you do it correctly, because you lose a lot of credibility by misconstruing your facts.

i told you i know of things that have gone on, but because this is a public forum, i wish to not post what i know for safety sake of those i know and myself. if you didnt get that from my post, then re-read it.

i am not anti government. i just dont feel our government is handling things the way they should, and i think there are many flaws with our society in america. and to call me liberal means you havent read anything i have posted, thus proving your statement is you being kettle...welcome...and youre still black

Yours truely,
Pot (also black)

[undeadgnome]

Ok, lets say it like this: There is a group called fooog that belives in the... um.. lizard king. Well one day a magical pure gold lizard appears and half the fooog make a new religion called fooogle, now there not alike, Yes, of coarse the fooog belive the gold lizard exists because they saw him, but the fooogle belive he is the son of the lizard king when the fooog believe that he wasn't and that he only existed.

This makes perfect sense if you read closely.

you know...america is the only place ive ever seen a iron that has a warning label "do not iron while clothes are on body"

or on a chainsaw "do not stop blade with body parts"

mcdonalds coffee "caution...may be hot"

stupidity is rampant in america...see other countries where they dont have warning labels....those problems usually just weed themselves out...now america the stupid people survive those incidents and dont die off to natural selection thus making a larger populace of ignorant and stupid people....


now i...i like to consider myself quite intelligent... here is my theory

a herd of buffalo is like the human brain...there are weak buffalo and weak brain cells...and strong buffalo and strong brain cells...so by process of natural selection...the weaker buffalo become prey and are usually slaughtered, thus leaving the stronger buffalo...my brain functions the same way...when i drink beer, it kills off the weaker slower brain cells by natural selection thus making me a smarter individual in return...

so lets all crack open a twelve pack and get smart drunk :)

This is just stupid poor people who drank hot coffee and cut there arms off so they could sue for money. So they're stupid.

[Telic]

I give up.. I relay my points of veiw and facts as clearly and factual as possible and now you are debating the fact that the Jewish faith is not a christian based faith, yet they believe in Jesus CHRIST!

Irregardless... I am done... it is apparent that you are not willing to prove me wrong via facts then there is little to nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

By the way I researched Chrisianity, Judaism and their differences BEFORE I posted what I did to ensure my facts were as correct as possible. And what I posted is what from what I read over and over and over from many differnet scources. If you were taught differently from a Catholic... oh wait.. America was started from people running form the oppression from a catholic state.. nevermind...

Liberals always feel free to attack what you have to say but yet do nothing to prove you wrong. Don't bother responding I am done with this thread.

Oh yea Rotten leave the anti america group you are with and look around you. You did not read what I had to say. If torture is found amongst our ranks we stamp it out and try those responsible.

Nothing like someone who argues with you but does not listen to what you have to say.

Good night!


To be honest I tried to highlight your error about Israel in a jokey way at first, thinking you would concede the point (or just ignore it) rather than stand up for it ^^

You keep saying you are stating facts but all I hear from you is rhetoric - I gave you facts about the BBCs financing and why I believe the BBC is as impartial as any media organisation. So where are the facts supporting your counter argument?
Implying that the BBC is not impartial in a sarcastic tone is NOT a fact based argument. Your only reply was that I can't be argued with, and then to ignore the issue.

You state that Israel is a Jewish state, and that Judaism is a Christian based faith as facts based solely on the fact that Judaism acknowledges the existance of Jesus Christ - but you haven't replied to my point about Muslim's who also acknowledge Jeust Christ as an important Prophet; By your own reasoning you are stating that Islam is a Christian based faith !
You imply I have been biased by a Catholic upbringing, but Religious Education classes at school included the major religions of Judaism and Islam; And I am now a staunch atheist. I believe there was a person called Jesus Christ, purely because there can't be so much smoke without fire ;) But I'm still an atheist - are you saying that atheism is a Christian based faith ? ^^

Let me put it another way - you can't just say someone is Christian because they believe that Jesus Christ existed; You can only say they are Christian if they believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God.
Therefore Israel is NOT a Christian state, and neither are Judaism, nor Islam, nor aethiesm Christian based faiths.

Liberals attack what people say while doing nothing to prove you wrong ?
Well this is one liberal who as corrected you, and destroyed your arguments with logic, and presented the facts about the BBC and the historical facts about religions, and finally been backed up by many others who go in to even greater detail.
Your criticisms of liberals strike me as hypocritical Tollin. You have implied many things, and used sarcasm, and stated that the world is flat as a fact that can't be argued against but failed to actually respond to the points or facts that anyone else has made. This seems to me to be a 'Bush'-league level of debate - I suspect you will go far in American politics ;)

I don't believe that all American's are stupid, no more than I believe that all Muslims are extremists. But so long as America keeps voting in people like Bush who is all rhetoric and no substance, then this question won't go away any time soon :(

[Valas Azuviir]

I think that Tollin might be confusing regular Judaism (and its varying sub-branches, just like the term Christianity has several sub-branches) and Messianic Judaism/Hebrew Christianity (I'm aware that those two terms are different, but as a discussion point, it's easier to lump them together).

It also has to be pointed out that those who practise Messianic Judiasm are not considered Jews by the State of Israel with regards to their Law of Return.

In addition there also exists: Judeo-Paganists, Jewish Buddhists and there is also the Jewish Renewal movement, which also borrows heavily from Sufism, Native American Practises and Buddhism.

Regardless, there are plenty of differences between "regular" Judaism and "regular" Christianity. From dietary requirements (no pork or other unclean animals, something that Jews have in common with Muslims by the by).

To circumcision (again something that Muslimes and Jews have in common).

To when the resting day is: Jews and 7th Day Adventists: Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, rest of Christianity: Sunday. Islam: Friday (Jumu'ah), which is considered a fard salat, thus compulsary. Can't seem to get a good lock on whether or not Shia's one of the two main branches in Islam also practise this, see some stuff about them not performing these types of prayers till their last Imam returns (similar to how some Jews, the state of Israel is not truly the returned Israel, considering the latter can only be brought about by the Messiah).

There is the differing reading interpretation of the Commandment which states: Thou shalt not kill, with Jews claiming it only applies to not killing other Jews, whereas Christians view it as a more universal commandment not to kill others. Islam is also somewhat conflicted in that sense (again dependant upon interpretation and branch of discussion), with on the one hand saying that the Children of the Book (Jews and Christians) should be left alone, the punishment for Infidels, the option for Jihad (though that is a dual component subject as well, with the main Jihad being improvement of self, with regards to spiritual and moral matters in order to get closer to Allah) vs self defense and slaying others to protect yourself, family, your faith.

All I can advise is to have a chat with the local Rabbi, he better than anyone could tell you what Judaism is about, and then mainly his particular sub-branch of Judaism at that. Just as it makes little sense asking the Pope about the specifics and benefits of Protestantism or the Quaker way etc etc.

[Wodgar]

...


Thanks for even more facts Valas.


Although, I think you meant 'Quaker' rather than 'Quacker' ! ;D

[Telic]

I think that Tollin might be confusing regular Judaism (and its varying sub-branches, just like the term Christianity has several sub-branches) and Messianic Judaism/Hebrew Christianity (I'm aware that those two terms are different, but as a discussion point, it's easier to lump them together).

It also has to be pointed out that those who practise Messianic Judiasm are not considered Jews by the State of Israel with regards to their Law of Return.

In addition there also exists: Judeo-Paganists, Jewish Buddhists and there is also the Jewish Renewal movement, which also borrows heavily from Sufism, Native American Practises and Buddhism.

Regardless, there are plenty of differences between "regular" Judaism and "regular" Christianity. From dietary requirements (no pork or other unclean animals, something that Jews have in common with Muslims by the by).

To circumcision (again something that Muslimes and Jews have in common).

To when the resting day is: Jews and 7th Day Adventists: Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, rest of Christianity: Sunday. Islam: Friday (Jumu'ah), which is considered a fard salat, thus compulsary. Can't seem to get a good lock on whether or not Shia's one of the two main branches in Islam also practise this, see some stuff about them not performing these types of prayers till their last Imam returns (similar to how some Jews, the state of Israel is not truly the returned Israel, considering the latter can only be brought about by the Messiah).

There is the differing reading interpretation of the Commandment which states: Thou shalt not kill, with Jews claiming it only applies to not killing other Jews, whereas Christians view it as a more universal commandment not to kill others. Islam is also somewhat conflicted in that sense (again dependant upon interpretation and branch of discussion), with on the one hand saying that the Children of the Book (Jews and Christians) should be left alone, the punishment for Infidels, the option for Jihad (though that is a dual component subject as well, with the main Jihad being improvement of self, with regards to spiritual and moral matters in order to get closer to Allah) vs self defense and slaying others to protect yourself, family, your faith.

All I can advise is to have a chat with the local Rabbi, he better than anyone could tell you what Judaism is about, and then mainly his particular sub-branch of Judaism at that. Just as it makes little sense asking the Pope about the specifics and benefits of Protestantism or the Quacker way etc etc.


Thanks for a very informative post Valas - I will have to admit to being ignorant of the existance of Messianic Judaism, as this would not be considered an orthodox form of Judaism as practiced by the population of Israel, or by the vast majority of Jews around the world.

If this is the only form of Judaism that Tollin is aware of, then I will even go so far as to make some small apology for the harshness of my previous posts; But I think that perhaps Tollin should continue his research, as this is definitely not the 'mainstream' or orthodox Judaism that most people will be familiar with - as demonstrated by the numerous other posts that touched on this issue.

But a definite thanks to Valas for shedding light on what may have been the cause of Tollin's misunderstanding ;)

[kubrik]

Mmm, I wouldn't go so far as to apologise to Tollin on any level.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.
Even if Tollin was confused by Messianic Judaism, most Messianic Jews only believe that Jesus was a Messiah of the Davidic line - not the Son of God. Some sects of Messianic Judaism only believe in a Messianic Age of Peace, with no actual individual Messiah.

Messianic Jews make up roughly 3% of the 15 million Jews world wide - so Tollins claims are as ridiculous as someone claiming the Pope was a Quaker because Quakers were the only Christians they knew - limited knowledge is a forgivable mistake as long as they admit its a mistake and don't continue to believe their own claims when the rest of the world is correcting them.

So I don't think you were too 'harsh' with Tollin.
People need to be able to admit when they are wrong, instead of claiming they are the only person with the facts, ignoring arguments they can't think of an answer to, and then throwing their toys out of the pram and leaving when they know they have lost the argument.

[Valas Azuviir]

Although, I think you meant 'Quaker' rather than 'Quacker' ! ;D

The benefit of being a mod and always being able to edit your posts. :grin:
Fixed. Thanks, missed that typo.

[bearbehind]

In addition there also exists: Judeo-Paganists, Jewish Buddhists and there is also the Jewish Renewal movement, which also borrows heavily from Sufism, Native American Practises and Buddhism.


Peoples front of Judia? Whatever happened to them?

Hes over there...

Splitters! :grin:

Couldn't really give two hoots for religion on any level. As far as i'm conserned you believe in whatever you want to believe in and humour everyone else.

That said I do admire the sheer power of faith as a mental state. Fact is that little thing down inside you that is sacred is completely industructable.
I could show someone every scrap of evidence that indicates that there is no god, I could bribe them, intimidate them or just damn right torture them inot saying whatever the hell i wanted to say. deep down their beliefs still hold true. They may be screaming pagan slogons with their mouths but praying to whatever diety they believe in with their souls. It is that unmoveable faith that truly constitutes a belief.

Likewise many church goers do so because that is what their family / community do, but actuallity have no true faith themselves. They do it becasue that is what is done yet they do not believe that any of it is actually true. Thus I dont dwell on it to much becuase many of us live a lie.

Religion often gets a bad reputation because organised religion is often fuelled by greed. I still hold the thought that if God is powerful enough to hear you prayers then he can hear them whereever you are, and not just when you are in a church or mosque etc. I think we should all interperet our religion in our own way rather than listening to someone else tell us their opinion. If god speaks to you then let him tell you how it is.

I'm very much a 'Live life the way you wanna' guy... :azn:

[Tikki]

Peoples front of Judia? Whatever happened to them?

Hes over there...

Splitters! :grin:

Couldn't really give two hoots for religion on any level. As far as i'm conserned you believe in whatever you want to believe in and humour everyone else.

That said I do admire the sheer power of faith as a mental state. Fact is that little thing down inside you that is sacred is completely industructable.
I could show someone every scrap of evidence that indicates that there is no god, I could bribe them, intimidate them or just damn right torture them inot saying whatever the hell i wanted to say. deep down their beliefs still hold true. They may be screaming pagan slogons with their mouths but praying to whatever diety they believe in with their souls. It is that unmoveable faith that truly constitutes a belief.

Likewise many church goers do so because that is what their family / community do, but actuallity have no true faith themselves. They do it becasue that is what is done yet they do not believe that any of it is actually true. Thus I dont dwell on it to much becuase many of us live a lie.

Religion often gets a bad reputation because organised religion is often fuelled by greed. I still hold the thought that if God is powerful enough to hear you prayers then he can hear them whereever you are, and not just when you are in a church or mosque etc. I think we should all interperet our religion in our own way rather than listening to someone else tell us their opinion. If god speaks to you then let him tell you how it is.

I'm very much a 'Live life the way you wanna' guy... :azn:

Bear that is so true! In today's society we rarely remember the good people, this is especially true with religious groups. One bad seed can do harm to anything. But bear, like you said, religion and faith are two separate things. I'm not a practicing Catholic, but I have faith in God and Jesus. Since I don't practice Catholicism I still believe in other God's spawned from other religions.

I always thought that the foundation to religion was the sense of community. Beliefs (not faith) only survive through a community of people who collectively support and promote desired beliefs. My my logic holding this, I've also gotten confused between the illogical disassociation between cults and religion. Does the separation exist in the existence of the spiritual icon? That is, does religion base their belief on those who have passed on, and cults worship those living? It would be interesting to hear what you guys think. I know it's a jump from the original topic of debate, but I though it might be a breath of holy air :heart:

[Telic]

Bear that is so true! In today's society we rarely remember the good people, this is especially true with religious groups. One bad seed can do harm to anything. But bear, like you said, religion and faith are two separate things. I'm not a practicing Catholic, but I have faith in God and Jesus. Since I don't practice Catholicism I still believe in other God's spawned from other religions.

I always thought that the foundation to religion was the sense of community. Beliefs (not faith) only survive through a community of people who collectively support and promote desired beliefs. My my logic holding this, I've also gotten confused between the illogical disassociation between cults and religion. Does the separation exist in the existence of the spiritual icon? That is, does religion base their belief on those who have passed on, and cults worship those living? It would be interesting to hear what you guys think. I know it's a jump from the original topic of debate, but I though it might be a breath of holy air :heart:


To be honest I almost regret kicking off all this talk about religion - I was just trying to point out one small mistake, and then the subject got off track a bit ;)

Speaking as an atheist, I'm against all organised religion as probably the most divisive force at work in the world's societies. I wouldn't dream of imposing my view on other people, but I do think that as a species, the sooner we cast off all these superstitious shackles, the better off we'll be.
Having said that I don't think that Cults have been "illogically dissociated" from Religions. I think the meaning of the word 'cult' has changed to a have a more pejorative meaning, but I think there are some 'nasty' organisations out there that deserve a separate definition to that of mainstream Religions - you can't believe everything Wikipedia says but it does have an excellent definition of the modern meaning of the word Cult as most English speaking people would understand it :

[[
Cults are groups that often exploit members psychologically and/or financially, typically by making members comply with leadership's demands through certain types of psychological manipulation, popularly called mind control, and through the inculcation of deep-seated anxious dependency on the group and its leaders. 1

"A cult is a group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g. isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgement, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of [consequences of] leaving it, etc) designed to advance the goals of the group's leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community."
]]

I would say TV Evangelists are Cult leaders rather than true Clergy, and I certainly think it is possible to draw parallels between Religious Fanaticism and Cults - certainly in terms of unethical practices, and the use of 'mind control' and extremely aggressive proselytising.
(The Devil's Advocate in me wants to argue that potentially, mainstream organised Religions are worse than cults; They are much more subtle, and don't try split people from their families - they want to get the whole family...)

But now I'm done talking about Religion ;p
I'll just leave you with one of my favourite quotes :

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind, and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill

So please someone change the subject - because I won't change my mind ;P

[bearbehind]

I always find that religion based threads always rollercoaster out of control.

Why is that?

Truth is that all of us, every single one of us, religious or not, subconsciously use religion to justify ourselves and hold such ideals in such high regard that others who do not share our beliefs are inferior.

Like Telik, I am an athiest. As an athiest I believe that I am 'smarter' than religious people because I am not fooled by such beliefs that lay down rules that I must follow.
Likewise truly religious people believe that they are smarter than us because they 'know' that their religion is the one true way. (All religions seem to think this :undecided:)

Since disproving religion is an impossibility, there is absolutely no sure fire way of knowing who is wrong or right - if two such states can truly exist in such an arguement.

Thus the only real way of thinking ( in my mind ) is to simply accept that everyone has their own different opinions that they are entitled to and, providing they are not harming you, should be left alone - or supported - to get on with what makes them happy.

Religion is olny an issue becasue we all make it one. We all have to be right...

[rottentomato]

I always find that religion based threads always rollercoaster out of control.

Why is that?

Truth is that all of us, every single one of us, religious or not, subconsciously use religion to justify ourselves and hold such ideals in such high regard that others who do not share our beliefs are inferior.

Like Telik, I am an athiest. As an athiest I believe that I am 'smarter' than religious people because I am not fooled by such beliefs that lay down rules that I must follow.
Likewise truly religious people believe that they are smarter than us because they 'know' that their religion is the one true way. (All religions seem to think this :undecided:)

Since disproving religion is an impossibility, there is absolutely no sure fire way of knowing who is wrong or right - if two such states can truly exist in such an arguement.

Thus the only real way of thinking ( in my mind ) is to simply accept that everyone has their own different opinions that they are entitled to and, providing they are not harming you, should be left alone - or supported - to get on with what makes them happy.

Religion is olny an issue becasue we all make it one. We all have to be right...


my philisophical belief...as im not religious. can you guess which one i am and what philosophy it is?
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~st96m5n8/nellie/nassets/vinegar%20tasters.jpg

[Tikki]

my philisophical belief...as im not religious. can you guess which one i am and what philosophy it is?
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~st96m5n8/nellie/nassets/vinegar%20tasters.jpg

taoism?

i never understood why people put a label life religion on an individual's philosophy of life. When if comes down to it, I'm sure the majority of people live by the same moral, which is essentially guided by faith. The world would be a much better place if religion could be seen as something which brought people together, instead of dividing individuals who support the same fundamental ideals just through different methods.

[gmedina]

Speaking as an atheist, I'm against all organised religion as probably the most divisive force at work in the world's societies. I wouldn't dream of imposing my view on other people, but I do think that as a species, the sooner we cast off all these superstitious shackles, the better off we'll be.


Interesting point, but it has also been the most unifying force in our worlds society. Why do i say this, b/c all of our sociaties were originally founded thru religious beliefs. So with out religion we wouldn't have the society's we have now!! On the other hand with out religion we wouldn't have some of the more divisive issues we have today. Make for confusing thought huh????

[Kodonn]

...but I do think that as a species, the sooner we cast off all these superstitious shackles, the better off we'll be.


Hmmm...interesting. How would that make us better ? Are you implying that as a species we would be better off without any religions ? (Maybe that's not what you meant, and if so, then forget my next questions) If that IS what you meant, then could you elaborate on how you see that as an advantage ?

All the differences aside, isn't one of the more common underlying basic religious concepts ..."be good in this life = reward in next life" ?

I'm not saying that people wouldn't find a reason to treat others in a "nice" way without religion, but wouldn't you agree that a religious belief of some sort can account for a lot of it ? Without that, wouldn't people be a lot more egocentric ?

What would you see the world becoming without any religious influences ?

[bearbehind]

As our civilisations grow more and more technologically sufficient so too does our thirst for the next break through. Progress has stopped being a hard fought yet slow development and is now more like a runaway mine train. Break throughs are coming faster and faster and we have reached a point where technology is 'leapfrogging' over what should be the next step. These advancements make our lives easier and healthier day in and day out yet they also make us shun traditional morals for want of ever easier lives. Religion fights this lack of morality with its own sense of logic that so many of us can not or will not understand.

Religion may not be able to stop the speed of our technology train as it hurtles towards our own self destructive oblivion, but it can at least control it. Removing this control would be suicide.

That is what religion is for.

[Telic]

Interesting point, but it has also been the most unifying force in our worlds society. Why do i say this, b/c all of our sociaties were originally founded thru religious beliefs. So with out religion we wouldn't have the society's we have now!! On the other hand with out religion we wouldn't have some of the more divisive issues we have today. Make for confusing thought huh????

Even more ironically, Religion has often been a great enabler of scientific advancement. Our own Western number system has developed from numeric symbols first seen on Bhuddist inscriptions; It was the priestly and clerical classes of some ancient civilisations that developed and propogated early writing and mathematics; As recently as the 19th century, it was often Clergy that had the freedom and opportunity to advance scientific knowledge - Mendel, the father of modern genetics was a Monk, and how many Naturalists had the title Reverend ?
(Of course there are some stunning examples of how Religion has tried to suppress scientific progress also...)
And now science and religious belief are becoming more and more difficult to reconcile - you will struggle to find any Nobel prize winners who were not atheists; And I believe it is my own science based education and promotion of critical thinking that has entrenched my own atheistic views.

But all this is historic, and although interesting, I stand by the view that humanity will find much more peace and unity when they finally forget about belief in a supreme being.

@bearbehind
I'll repeat that I don't want to impose my views on other people, but I'm not sure we should just settle for a live and let live strategy. Why shouldn't we have healthy arguments as long as we are respectful of each other? Why shouldn't atheism be offered as an optional way of life in Religious education classes? Why don't atheists form political lobby groups like other Religions have?


Anyway, let me at least try to steer the thread back towards the point of America.
Religiously speaking I think its interesting that at least two people pointed out that America is a Christian nation, and that is why they support Israel, etc.
But don't we all agree that America was INTENDED to have a secular Government? Surely, its crystal clear that the founding fathers of America tried very hard to make a clear separation of Church and State.

[bearbehind]

@bearbehind
I'll repeat that I don't want to impose my views on other people, but I'm not sure we should just settle for a live and let live strategy. Why shouldn't we have healthy arguments as long as we are respectful of each other? Why shouldn't atheism be offered as an optional way of life in Religious education classes? Why don't atheists form political lobby groups like other Religions have?



Agreed, a debate to promote understanding is one thing, but all to often disagreement between beliefs leads to anger and unfortunately violence.
I just believe whatever I beleive. I know i am 'right' but i understand that everyone also thinks like this. Therefore any arguement is targetted at promoting your own faith system over another and supressing theirs. True religious belief is a touchy thing to discuss to people who have absolutely no intention of listening to your views.

[Kronaed]

I believe America has been declared fattest nation in the world. I'm 1 of many proofs here in America. I weigh 300 pounds but at least I'm 6ft 3inches to even me out a bit so I appear as if I have a beer gut.

[Kodonn]

Anyway, let me at least try to steer the thread back towards the point of America.
Religiously speaking I think its interesting that at least two people pointed out that America is a Christian nation, and that is why they support Israel, etc.
But don't we all agree that America was INTENDED to have a secular Government? Surely, its crystal clear that the founding fathers of America tried very hard to make a clear separation of Church and State.

I think the founding fathers definitely wanted to make sure their new government would not be telling them what kind of religion they needed to adhere to. (After all, that was one of their main reasons for leaving England in the first place.)

However, if you are going to form a government that is supposed to answer TO the people....and you tell those people they are free to worship God as they choose...it's very likely that you are still going to see some religious influences. After all, if I follow a certain set of beliefs, I'm naturally going to want to vote for someone who also believes as I do. If the majority of the US is of the Christian faith, then you will undoubtably see Christian beliefs (to some extent) influencing government policy.

As far as supporting Israel, I think it goes beyond whatever common religious beliefs are shared by our 2 countries. (And by that I don't mean to imply that I think Christianity and Judaism are the same. I do however think you can find some common ideals between them, as you can with many religions)

[Telic]

However, if you are going to form a government that is supposed to answer TO the people....and you tell those people they are free to worship God as they choose...it's very likely that you are still going to see some religious influences. After all, if I follow a certain set of beliefs, I'm naturally going to want to vote for someone who also believes as I do. If the majority of the US is of the Christian faith, then you will undoubtably see Christian beliefs (to some extent) influencing government policy.

As far as supporting Israel, I think it goes beyond whatever common religious beliefs are shared by our 2 countries. (And by that I don't mean to imply that I think Christianity and Judaism are the same. I do however think you can find some common ideals between them, as you can with many religions)



Actually, I feel that historically, America has been correct to offer support to Israel (regardless of America's Faith); As long as it doesn't become a blind, un-questioning support. (If it hasn't already - I believe that Israel has become less and less worthy of support in recent years)

My issue really was more with the idea of America as a Christian nation, and to what extent that influences the Government.
I can certainly understand your point about the beliefs of the people influencing the Government - it may not even be possible to have a truly secular government unless they are governing a nation of atheists.
But I'm wondering why there seems to be a burgeoning of Religiosity in America; And why Religious values have become so essential (if not mandatory) in American politicians and leaders, which seems to me to be the first step to Government losing its Secular status. I think many observers outside of the USA are concerned by the rise of the religious right in America.
For example, and returning nearer to the point of the thread, I believe there is at least one direct link between the rise of more extremist Christian groups, and the 'dumming down' of America. This link is the argument between Creationism and Darwinism. Surely America is the only country going backwards in educational terms, where so many schoolboards want to see science thrown out, and religion brought in ? And, correct me if I am wrong, but they are not saying stop teaching Science, they are saying teach Religion as Science !
I don't mind Creationism being taught in Regligious education classes - but to teach it as a science in Science classes is surely "secularigious" ;p
And why are Religious groups afraid of Darwinism unless they are in some way embarrassed by your own explanation ?

I believe that most American Christians are good, decent, reasonable people, and that it is simply a case of the more extremist religious groups shouting louder than anyone else on certain issues. Which brings me back round to a point a made in earlier posts about America confusing Democracy with Capitilism.
The power of money in American politics is a problem that should not be underestimated leading to a skewed political landscape. Campaign Financing needs urgent reform; And its the richest lobby groups that are the most powerful, often leading to minority voices being the loudest and therefore holding disproportionate power.
If I were a TV news editor (in any country, but especially America), then whenever a Politician was speaking on screen, I would want to run a ticker tape along the bottom of the screen detailing all the organisations from which that Politician has accepted funding.
Money in politics is nothing new, and America isn't unique; Britain is dealing with its own "Cash for Honours" scandal at the moment, but at least it is a scandal, as opposed to the near 'legalised bribery' that seems to be endemic in American politics.
Republicans will complain when they hear Bush being called 'stupid', and insulted; But I have to say, that he is simply not well regarded by the rest of the world, and countries will be judged to some extent by their leaders (partly by direct association, and partly for voting for them). How does America vote a guy like Bush in to office, not once, but twice, when he so regularly makes a fool of himself in speeches and press conferences, winking like a school boy when he isn't stumbling over his words, and revealing just how light-weight he really is ?
How did he get voted in ?
Money, and slick campaigning (although lets not forget nepotism).
If I were someone who had voted him in, I'd be rushing to defend my voting record by saying it was a vote for the Republican Party, not a vote for Bush.

[rgirty]

Easy answer.

Strong religion = control.

You are told how to live, and who to vote for from the pulpit.

You are told how to raise your children, and what you should read/watch on tv from the pulpit.

One of the strongest "suggestions" made within the church is the importance of raising your children in the church. That way the children grow up believing that this is normal and correct.

Might = right in this country.

The reason for the school board changes, and changes in politics and politicians needing to be religious is easy.

People in these religions vote, they are told to vote and who to vote for from the pulpit. To maintain and secure their way of life, and their beliefs they vote. I believe they have the highest voting % of any group in the country.

Thats the reason you see things the way they are.

School boards = vote appointed members.

Political offices = vote appointed people.

They vote, so they get what they want. The left (and i'm of the left) can spout and sputter and talk about the right all they want, but when it comes time to putup or shutup the left simply don't get out and vote like they need to.

The recent change in the house/senate wasn't due to the left. It was due to some people on the right finally seeing the err of their ways and changing things. Even now, it hasn't swung the other way the right is still very much in power and will remain so until people on the left get enough guts to get out and actually make a difference.

Think about it this way, in the year upcoming for an election you see tons of media coverage. In the days before elections you see tons of billboards and signs trying to influence you.

Religious people gather at least two times a week from a very young age and are taught their beliefs. The same gathering also tells you who to vote for, and what is right as well as to stand up for it.

Do you think the left can equal that message? Millions of people on the right are in church twice a week being told who to vote for, and they do so that is why they are in control.

[Eonblue]

Wow, i have to say this have been an interesting read. I have read alot on this thread (not all but, alot :P).
I think the above poster makes a good point in reference to campaign contributions. I think Jerry Falweels "Moral Majority" really shapped this country in a negative way as it created a huge, right wing consertative movement designed to influence governement, which defeats the purpose or seperation of church and state imo eventhough there will never be complete seperation as the 'forefathers' founded America on self proclaimed christian ideals....although, our 'forefathers' intentions imo should be taken with a grain of salt, i think the primary reason america was created was because of taxation without representation and it was hardly a more noble cause then a bunch of rich white slave owners not wanting to pay taxes...although i still have to assume there were good intentions when they had grand ideas on forming a new greater government.
I think America is in dire need of so many things high on that list is in fact campaign reform, but i feel the larger issue is we americans are a suffering from 'the fat, dumb, and happy' syndrome' and our government is exploiting this and exacerbating it. IMO Bush was elected for a second term by manipluating the puplic through media popaganda and scare tactics based on a war waged illegally. But really, only the american public is to blame, we are spoiled, medicated and are loosing our touch with reality as so many propserous countries have done before us.
Our imports consitantly exceed what we export which means we are contributing less to the world while we still manaage to increase the quality of living for most of americas population...or in other terms, just as individual americans are doing, the country as an entity is racking up the debt and maxing out our credit to continue to live the life of luxery...and our government wants this, keep the people happy and complacent and they can do whatever they want as they have been. scandle in govermnet is of course nothing new, but it is truly out of hand in america today and democrat or republican, i dont think it matters...its just an evil horse of a different color.
anyway, thats my rant to contribute :)

[Glurin]

can certainly understand your point about the beliefs of the people influencing the Government - it may not even be possible to have a truly secular government unless they are governing a nation of atheists.

But that wouldn't be a secular government. The State Church at that point would be atheism. Different extreme, same result.

But I'm wondering why there seems to be a burgeoning of Religiosity in America; And why Religious values have become so essential (if not mandatory) in American politicians and leaders, which seems to me to be the first step to Government losing its Secular status. I think many observers outside of the USA are concerned by the rise of the religious right in America.

"rise of the religious right" isn't really the best choice of words in describing whats happening IMO. Its not so much that they are rising up as it is opponents of the "religious right" putting more and more on the same pedestal. Basically, these days anything at all that the republicans propose is labeled as an extreme religious right measure, whether it is or not. Anyway, all I'm saying is that its not so much one group becoming more powerful as it is the current political divide becoming even wider. Although now your seeing some of the rubber band effect happening, since the dems decided to "inject" (their words) religion into their political campaign. I guess they finally realized that opposing a heavily religious government by supporting an atheist one doesn't sit well with a lot of voters.

For example, and returning nearer to the point of the thread, I believe there is at least one direct link between the rise of more extremist Christian groups, and the 'dumming down' of America. This link is the argument between Creationism and Darwinism. Surely America is the only country going backwards in educational terms, where so many schoolboards want to see science thrown out, and religion brought in ? And, correct me if I am wrong, but they are not saying stop teaching Science, they are saying teach Religion as Science !

No, thats not quite right. Its a rather complicated subject, but basically the scientific community has it dead set in their minds that science disproves religion. The problem is that it doesn't, and when a theory comes out that says it doesn't, its met with an extremely high level of hostility. Now, more specifically, the intelligent design theory (which is probably what your referring to) is science, but it is only the very beginnings of a scientific process. Its an incomplete theory, which leads people to jump to all kinds of conclusions when there are no conclusions to be made with it. If taught properly, this could be a very useful tool for teaching science, but where its so incomplete, I doubt that your average high school science teacher could do it. Not without significantly raising our standards for education anyway. Make a high school diploma mean something again.

Well, moving on, what sickens me about the whole thing is that its not kept out of the science class because its incomplete. Its kept out purely because its an idea that in some ways supports religion. Its fostering the attitude that the two are mutually exclusive, which is absolutely wrong.

Shutting out new ideas. THAT is moving backwards in an educational system.

How does America vote a guy like Bush in to office, not once, but twice, when he so regularly makes a fool of himself in speeches and press conferences, winking like a school boy when he isn't stumbling over his words, and revealing just how light-weight he really is ?
How did he get voted in ?

Because the other guys were worse choices than Bush. :wink:

Seriously, they had more charisma, but that was about it. A choice of two evils, as they say. Although, once you got past all the anti-bush propaganda that we've been getting beaten over the head with day after day since his election, Bush was actually an O.K. president for a while, IMO. Not really good, but not a bad one either. He turned into a disappointment though. Right now he sucks as a president. If he went back to the way he was in the first few years, he might have a chance at leaving the office with some dignity intact.

This coming election isn't looking any better, even with so many potential candidates.

[undeadgnome]

Ok, here we go on my point of view

My religion is christian, yay, if you don't believe in this, aww, I will not judge you, but I will mention now that religion is a great thing. Even if your with the ------- religion, yo all my brothas man! The only religion ( totally dislike is Satanic, because it's the polar negative of mine, and also atheist kinda because there's this atheist I know that try's to put curses on me 0_0.... but i'm sure your not all like that.

[Telic]

...
If you think the BBC is impartial then I can say nothing to you to convince of you my side of the argument.
...



Well to start with the BBC employs people like Andrew Neil, Jeremy Clarkson, Andrew Marr and his unstinting praise for Margeret Thatcher, etc. I can't think of many more anti-liberal view holders than Andrew Neil and Jeremy Clarkson !
(Non-British people may have to Google these names, although many Americans may recognise Jeremy Clarkson as the presenter of a motoring programme who would happily join Tim Allen in a cheer of "More Power!")

Just use the BBC's own search box at 'www.bbc.co.uk' to search for the word "Impartiality"

It shows what a hot topic impariality is within the BBC at the moment and that 2 reports have recently been published on the subject - 1 independant review on impariatlity in Business coverage, and 1 internal report on safeguarding the BBCs impariality.
There are also some video links, and the interview of the BBC's Deputy General on the Impariatlity reports is very interesting.

Yes, this information is on BBC's OWN web site, but one report was independant, and even the internal one was self-critical.
Basically, they found that the BBC was mostly living up to its own standards, but had failed to be impartial in certain individual cases. The internal review on how to remain impartial going forwards made an interesting point about impartiality not just being about presenting facts, but is also about being more inclusive when reporting the wide ranging views held by other people.

There are also interesting rebuttles from news editors answering accusations of not being impartial, and some interesting pages on impariality in Journalism itself from BBC journalists - especially about the censorship of news reports from the Middle East.

John Snow makes a very interesting point about "due impariality", and the fact that impariality does NOT mean you have to be absolutely neutral on all subjects - a concept that is easier to state than explain.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1536_impartiality/page2.shtml

Where many other news companies are in the business of "opinion", the BBC is in the business of reporting fact based news. And I challenge anyone to find another broadcaster that is so openly self critical, and so demonstrably striving for impartiality.

[Telic]

Sorry for posting back to back, but 2 different (and long) replies on 2 different issues :smiley:



But that wouldn't be a secular government. The State Church at that point would be atheism. Different extreme, same result.
...


Actually, that's a fair point.
Although I would object to the concept of it being the State Church of atheism :tongue:
Perhaps it would be more true to phrase it as :
"...it may not even be possible to have a truly secular government unless they are governing a nation of devoted, sit-on-the-fence, won't choose between any one Faith or atheism, agnostics" ? :smiley:
At least religious indecisiveness might unwittingly lead to religious neutrality :wink:






...
"rise of the religious right" isn't really the best choice of words in describing whats happening IMO. Its not so much that they are rising up as it is opponents of the "religious right" putting more and more on the same pedestal. Basically, these days anything at all that the republicans propose is labeled as an extreme religious right measure, whether it is or not. Anyway, all I'm saying is that its not so much one group becoming more powerful as it is the current political divide becoming even wider. Although now your seeing some of the rubber band effect happening, since the dems decided to "inject" (their words) religion into their political campaign. I guess they finally realized that opposing a heavily religious government by supporting an atheist one doesn't sit well with a lot of voters.
...


I have to disagree with this.
My observations about "the rise of the religious right" or Christian Fundamentalism aren't based on anything that a Democrat has said or hinted at in order to put the 'religious right on a pedastal'; Or by any liberal labelling of Republican policy. Its direct observation of the fact that powerful Christian Right groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Coalition have helped the Republican party to get where they are today. I'm certain that not all Republicans are happy with the behaviour of the Religious Right factions within their own party, but as a Party they have still been willing to get in to bed with them as they are powerful political allies; As an example of how the Christian Right is trying to be synonymous with the Republican Party, its interesting that in the last 2 elections, Christian Right groups generally mobilised voters NOT in the name of their own organisation, but in the name of the Republican Party.
I would say that it is this partnership that has pulled the Republican party to the right of the political spectrum resulting in the wider political divide you speak of. (How could it be otherwise, when Christian Right Republicans label Moderates within their own party as Liberals)
Obviously, there have always been issues such as Taxation, and the role of the Federal Government, that have separated Democrats from Republicans, but it seems fascinating to me, that in a country with a 'secular' government, it is religion and religious groups that now seem to be polarising the political parties, and I think this is a genuine threat to Democracy in America, not only because I don't think that the Christian Right speak for the majority while holding disproportionate power, but because this is going beyond 'religion influencing leaders' and is striking at the heart of what it means to have a secular government - a Theocracy is NOT a Democracy.






...
No, thats not quite right. Its a rather complicated subject, but basically the scientific community has it dead set in their minds that science disproves religion. The problem is that it doesn't, and when a theory comes out that says it doesn't, its met with an extremely high level of hostility. Now, more specifically, the intelligent design theory (which is probably what your referring to) is science, but it is only the very beginnings of a scientific process. Its an incomplete theory, which leads people to jump to all kinds of conclusions when there are no conclusions to be made with it. If taught properly, this could be a very useful tool for teaching science, but where its so incomplete, I doubt that your average high school science teacher could do it. Not without significantly raising our standards for education anyway. Make a high school diploma mean something again.

Well, moving on, what sickens me about the whole thing is that its not kept out of the science class because its incomplete. Its kept out purely because its an idea that in some ways supports religion. Its fostering the attitude that the two are mutually exclusive, which is absolutely wrong.

Shutting out new ideas. THAT is moving backwards in an educational system.
...



On these issues I strongly disagree.


1.) As a member of the scientific community I don't know of any respectable scientist who has claimed that Science has disproved the existance of God.
Specifically, the problem Science has with Religion is that it can be neither proved, nor disproved; And in the absence of any real evidence, there is no rational reason to believe in the existance of a God.
For these reasons, many if not most scientists will not believe in God, but all of them will say it is possible he exists.

You seem to have summarised the above points to mean :

"...but basically the scientific community has it dead set in their minds that science disproves religion."

This is mis-leading, and a dangerous mis-representation of what Scientists 'believe'.

It follows therefore that your implication that the scientific community would become hostile when [paraphrase]"a new theory says science hasn't disproved religion" is totally wrong - I will repeat that any self-respecting scientist will agree that science hasn't disproved religion.

I don't think the issues discussed here are as complicated as you seem to think, just that your ideas are confused - or deliberately mis-leading.

Any scientist who claims that science has disproved religion is worthy of ridicule, and I will happily join you in your criticism of that scientist - while happily not believing in God myself.


2.) On the subject of Intelligent Design, let me clarify my position. I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are essentially the same thing, and anyone should feel free to substitute the words "Intelligent Design" in to my previous posts where I have used the word "Creationism". Intelligent Design is a re-packaged version of Creationism to try and distance it slightly from its religious "origins", by using secular terms, and carefully avoiding any mention of who or what the Designer/Creator was.
Intelligent Design is NOT a science.
Scienctific theories and investigations can never, by definition of what is scientific, resort to supernatural explanations, and must meet certain criteria, the most important of which are that the theory should be testable and disprovable; Like Religion itself, Intelligent Design is not disprovable. For these reasons, among many others, Intelligent Design is not scientific.
The proponents of Intelligent Design will argue about many of these points, but even they have admitted that it is not scientific, because they have argued that the definition of science itself should be changed to allow the supernatural, in order that Intelligent Design may then be considered scientific :shocked:

An analogy of this might be if I went up to the Pope one day and said "I don't believe Jesus was the Son of God, but I believe I am Catholic, so just change the rules a bit so that now I'm included OK?"
Now I don't imagine the Pope swears much, but I think the Vatican may hear some very surprising language that day.

And why is it that so many advocates of the 'secular' Intelligent Design theory belong to Christian groups ? Could they possibly be thinking that if only they can get Intelligent Design taught as Science, then they could slowly let it "evolve" in to Creationism again...or perhaps they just want to reach the point where they can use the logic "well, Intelligent Design is accepted as science and can't be disproved, so why shouldn't we accept religion too?"
I invite any readers to Google the phrase "The Wedge Strategy" for more reading.
I would also say there is no debate in the scientific community about these issues - Darwin's theory of evolution is the accepted scientific theory, and Creationism(Intelligent Design) is not regarded as scientific at all.

In one sense I would agree with your assessment that "[Intelligent Design] could be a very useful tool for teaching science" - but only in the sense that it could be used to demonstrate why some theories are not scientific, and what criteria good science needs to meet.

Your statement about "Shutting out new ideas" implies that Intelligent Design has been treated unfairly, but I think there has been a lot of debate about it, include considered judgements in American courts of law. I would say America has succeeded in keeping bad science out of science classes, and I hope they continue to do so.

[ The use of the word supernatural above is not pejorative, but is the perfectly correct word to use - many supporters of non-scientific theories would prefer that their ideas were criticised for being "non-natural", because use of the word supernatural makes their theories sound .... well, supernatural :tongue: ]

If your argument is that Intelligent Design doesn't meet scientific criteria because it is not complete at the moment, but will meet scientific criteria when it is complete, and should therefore be treated science in between... then I don't accept this as an argument. Anyone could propose anything as scientific on this basis.

[Glurin]

1.) As a member of the scientific community I don't know of any respectable scientist who has claimed that Science has disproved the existance of God.

Watch the news, or any documentary about the subject. You'll find plenty.

2.) On the subject of Intelligent Design, let me clarify my position. I believe that Creationism and Intelligent Design are essentially the same thing, and anyone should feel free to substitute the words "Intelligent Design" in to my previous posts where I have used the word "Creationism". Intelligent Design is a re-packaged version of Creationism to try and distance it slightly from its religious "origins", by using secular terms, and carefully avoiding any mention of who or what the Designer/Creator was.
Intelligent Design is NOT a science.
Scienctific theories and investigations can never, by definition of what is scientific, resort to supernatural explanations, and must meet certain criteria, the most important of which are that the theory should be testable and disprovable; Like Religion itself, Intelligent Design is not disprovable. For these reasons, among many others, Intelligent Design is not scientific.

As I said, ID is the very beginnings of a scientific process and is therefore an incomplete theory. You can say that that disqualifies it as science, but then you have to disqualify a lot of other things as well. Theoretical Physics, for example.

By the way, supernatural explanations are just explanations that many have yet to realize are natural. I don't know why people should take offense to supernatural explanations being called supernatural. :wink:

And just so you know, I don't put too much stock in most of the proponents of ID either. They have the same bad habit of jumping to all kinds of conclusions about it as the general public.

I would also say there is no debate in the scientific community about these issues - Darwin's theory of evolution is the accepted scientific theory,

Just FYI, thats one of the sticky points in the whole issue. Darwin's Evolution Theory is the accepted theory.

In one sense I would agree with your assessment that "[Intelligent Design] could be a very useful tool for teaching science" - but only in the sense that it could be used to demonstrate why some theories are not scientific, and what criteria good science needs to meet.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "Now heres another theory, but it is not proven or tested, so what do you think the next step should be class, and how would you accomplish it?" Having the teacher say "Now this is an example of what science isn't..." would be just as if not more damaging than telling them "God did it."

In other words, use it as a tool to teach the students to think, not how to think or what to think. But again, before we can do that, we need to make some major changes to the current, steadily lowering public education standards.

If your argument is that Intelligent Design doesn't meet scientific criteria because it is not complete at the moment, but will meet scientific criteria when it is complete, and should therefore be treated science in between... then I don't accept this as an argument. Anyone could propose anything as scientific on this basis.

Eh, not quite. I can't just say "There are pink elephants in my back yard dancing the tango." and call it science just because its a new idea. I'd need at least a few things to go on first. A footprint similar to an elephant, a glimpse of a large, pink object as I walk outside, and a rose where there should be none. Something more than somebody's say so.

The thing is though, I have to continue to investigate it in order for it to qualify as science. I guess if you want to get specific it could be called "science in progress". Just stopping after I come up with the first explanation is not science. This applies to ID as well. If you continue with it, rather than just stopping at "this and that indicate a designer was possibly involved", then its science in progress. If you stop and conclude (wrongfully) "This proves a designer was possibility involved", then its not science.

Thats why I'm hesitant about including ID in a science class, or any other incomplete theory for that matter, until some other major changes are made. We need to break away from teaching kids to be parrots and start teaching them to be scientists.

[Eonblue]

Personally, I always considered the scientific method born from mans need to understand god and/or gods physical creations ID/creationsm and Dawinism to me do not have to be seperate...evolution is just what we can see of the picture at this point.
I find it scary that that there are those that say god cannot act through a logical physical process for creation (when everything else god created does) in the creation of man and assume a very literal translation of the genesis creation story.
Regardless of whether or not someone believes in the humanistic 'christian' perception of god or a more abstract concept, it seems that science and god should not be mutualy exclusive. I think to not teach ID as a possible scenario may be a mistake as well, simply because we dont actually know and any open discussion of possible theories is a good idea. I would not want to exlude anything from the discussion because really, nothing has been proven 100%...i mean there was a time that the accepted scientific 'truth' was the world was flat.

Edit: I dont know if i believe god exists or not, but i do know, that i know very little, as most ppl know very little...so i say teach everything we might know and discuss :)

[Brene]

Silly people, don't you know we were put here as rejects from another world:shocked:? It is their little experiment to see how fast we will totally anihalate ourselves :grin: or win by coming together and getting off this rock. Somewhere there is an alien reading this post and laughing wondering how this post has been allowed to go on for so long taken in so many directions away from the OP. :wave:

[jschild]

Intelligent design is not a "theory" or "hypothesis" simply because it does not even meet the most minimum standards of science. It is simply based on the fact that "x" could not have happened naturally and is untestable. That is why it is belief and not science.

[Tikki]

Darwin's, Lemirck's and Watson's theories of human evolution and behaviour surpasses all religious ideals and beliefs. It does not focus on a direct creator significant to one culture/religion. ID does. Therefore teaching ID in school is directly teaching young children the Christian beliefs of how God created earth. If ID excluded the idea of the Christian God creating man and earth and just focused on a higher being, it would be more exceptable to teach children.

[jschild]

No it would not. It cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form because "God" did it. There is no theory to test. There are no Hypothesis to test. It is not science.

[Tikki]

No it would not. It cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form because "God" did it. There is no theory to test. There are no Hypothesis to test. It is not science.

I'm not sure if this is a response to me or not.
But if it is...my point is simply that you should not teach a religious belief in the classroom that cannot span across other cultures/religions. ID is a Christian belief, where the theory of evolution does no discriminate again individual ideals or faith, it's not racist, idealist, or discriminatory. It views everyone and everything equally during the path of evolution. ID focuses on the Christian God, where other nationalities and faiths may not. ID should not be taught in the classrooms of a multicultural nation.

[jschild]

No, what you cannot do is teach Religion in a Science class. If you want to teach it in a Faith or Religion class, that is fine.

[Eonblue]

ID is not specifically a christian belief. ID is the concept that the universe and other aspects of the universe were created by some form of a god aka intelligent being. ID is used often in terms of the god of the jewish and christian bibles because i think it is a more politically correct term than god, but is not limited to the god of jesus or abraham.
I am simply saying that to educate a classroom that because natural selection occured and because it is the most accepted theory for our creation then it is not possible that something else unforeseen such as a god (used to denote any higher force..maybe mitocloriens :P, who knows) had any hand in the process is just as dangerous as saying that "god created man from dirt and made women from his rib and that is exactly how it happened and there is nothing more to say on the matter."
I support natural selection and evolution, but does it not also take a little faith in this theory as well since there are gaps ie missing links?

[jschild]

Ah, see here is the problem. With Creationism and ID (they are the same thing, the same people push them), God did it. Thats it, end of story. Yes, science has gaps in understanding, but it also has things it can test for and by FAR the most important thing. If something is discovered that disproves theories, it will be debated, examined, studied and if the old theory is wrong, it will be discarded for a theory that fits the facts. Science itself evolves and learns from its mistakes and errors. ID stops with God. Evolution is so undisputed in the scientific world, not because scientists are lazy and just accept it, but every new biological discovery supports it. Nothing has came along, since Darwin first made his thoery, that refutes or possibly disproves taht is how things change. The only arguements arise from exactly "how" they change. No scientist thinks today that darwins initial theory is how things evolve, they realized it is much more complicated and have adapted to new evidence that points more exactly. Think of it this way.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution = traveling from 2 points by a car.
What I mean is, when the question is asked, how did we get to those 2 points, his initial theory was basically we took the car. Later theories get more invovled as in, We bought gas, which the car burned for fuel, and drove to the location. We are now invovled in learning exactly how the "engine" works, something that Darwin (due to lack of technology) could never have done. The overall broad theory remains the same, what we are learning every day is the How. This does not answer the Why (which could be nature or God).

[Tikki]

On a side note, the book "Darwin's Black Box" tries to scientifically refute Darwin's theories...it's excellent....especially when read concurrently with Origin of Species

[jschild]

See, this is the problem. Scientists already know, and have left behind darwin's original theories a long time ago. The current theories of evolution have little to do with Darwin's, except in the broadest scope. That is also a good thing though because it means scientists saw errors and flaws in Darwin's theory, and have refined and improved it. If it is wrong, guess what, scientists will prove it wrong. But evolution as a whole is so supported by so many multiple branches of science (not just biology) that it, as a whole, is not threatened in any way. Guess what happened when we learned alot about DNA (which Darwin knew nothing of)? DNA studies and comparisions SUPPORTED, not disproved, that such actions were at work. Darwin's actual models might have been wrong, but the broad theory is not, and newer theories support it.

[Tikki]

jschild, I'm so confused by you. You seem to disagree with everyone, even those who are on the side of scientific logic. Darwin's theories are the foundation to science's belief in evolution. Just like the theory states, science has evolved through out the years, but the building bricks are still there because of Darwin. it's not a problem to refer to the idea of evolution and natural selection as Darwin's theories, they are just that. Their evolution because of science does not require new references, eg. we're not now going to call it Darwin's Evolution Theory 4.0 . When Darwin is used in reference to evolution, it's recognizing it's original contributor, much like how people through Freud's name around - much of his theories are the foundation to psychotherapy, but they have now been approved upon.

People will always dispute Darwin's theories - according to one of your earlier posts - science is all about peer review and the debate of theories. The essence of scientific knowledge is the fact that theories and hypothesis are continuously being debated. The book I referenced is just that. It's a biochemist debate against natural selection with facts that he provides..How that is a problem, I do not know.

[Eonblue]

ah ic.
I always thought that while there are the extreme right wing viewpoints of creationism that stated evolution and natural selection is evil because it contradicts the idea that god made man, that the idea of ID could also include an explanation to 'fill in the gaps' of modern science instead of replaces it altogether :)

[jschild]

The idea is the foundation, not the theory. A theory is a rigerous set of rules that say this is how x happen. If those rules or hypothesis change, so does the theory. So no, the modern theories of evolution are NOT Darwin's.

Also, almost all of Frued's ideas and theories have long since been discredited and those that are right, are right, but his reasons for them were wrong. If the book is only agains Darwin's theories, that is outdated and useless. If it is an assult of modern theories of evolution then that is ok, because it is relevant.

[Tikki]

ah ic.
I always thought that while there are the extreme right wing viewpoints of creationism that stated evolution and natural selection is evil because it contradicts the idea that god made man, that the idea of ID could also include an explanation to 'fill in the gaps' of modern science instead of replaces it altogether :)

I always thought that too, or more so that ID was based on Christian ideals. I'm glad someone corrected me!

As a Catholic, I like to believe that God (whom ever she is :azn: ) created the idea of evolution...I think there is a way for Creationism to incorporate the idea of evolution into it. Unfortunately, evolution can not do the same!

[jschild]

http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/coyne.html

You might want to read this, and many other critiques of that Book. Apparently, many scientists have a problem with a biochemist who has never submitted 1 technical paper for peer review (and gladly supports ID), and whose central theory IS NOT TESTABLE. If it is not testible, it is useless and therefore not science.

[jschild]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?ei=5088&en=f3357abadb9ed96e&ex=1282881600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

Here is a very good editorial about the total lack of science in "Intelligent Design". Nothing wrong with believing in God, or that he created everything. Just don't try to push it into a science classroom.

[Tikki]

Behe's theory of biochemical complexity is not scientific because it is untestable: there is no observation or experiment that could conceivably refute it.

That's a quote from that thing you posted....if I'm correct I believe this is your quote Nothing has came along, since Darwin first made his thoery, that refutes or possibly disproves taht is how things change.

So in Darwin's case, since nothing can refute that theory, people should not not believe it, but since this gentleman bases his thoery on evidence that can't be refuted (such as cold fusion and homeopathic trends), it's not science?

I never said this book was right. All I said was it's a good read. It's interesting to read how an individual from the scientific community logically explains Creationism. Science is about debates, I think he makes an interesting one. I don't believe it, but nonetheless it's interesting.


You keep saying that things that aren't testable are useless, but you don't debate the fact that evolution isn't testable, it's just all other theories protesting it were weak enough to be securely disputed.

[Eonblue]

Thats a good article, i liked the part about the eye, it reminds me of a saying that basically implies the best way to explain something so complex, in this case an eye, is to say an eye is an eye because if it were anything else, it wouldnt be an eye (hardy har har).

/agreed ID is not a science, but it is a viewpoint....
...and I still fundamentally question the notion that the only things that can be taught are those that are proven even when applied specifically to a science classroom. To discuss hypothesis is to invite application of the scientific method to prove and disprove and formulate theories, I believe there is great learning in that environment.

Edit: Wow, this really has gone far off from the OPs link. :P

[jschild]

See, this is how things are misrepresented. I said nothing has come along that disproves it, not that is not possible to disprove.

Evolution is testible, there is evidence for it and it can be proven or disproven. Stop taking arguements out of context and misreprestning them (soemthing Behe himself does).

[Valas Azuviir]

You keep saying that things that aren't testable are useless, but you don't debate the fact that evolution isn't testable, it's just all other theories protesting it were weak enough to be securely disputed.

Tikki.. Evolution is testable. Ever hear of MRSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRSA)? There's your proof.

Heck, HIV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV) is another good example. Don't take your medication properly and the damned blighter could grow resistant to them, meaning that said medication becomes completely useless for that person.

[jschild]

Thats a good article, i liked the part about the eye, it reminds me of a saying that basically implies the best way to explain something so complex, in this case an eye, is to say an eye is an eye because if it were anything else, it wouldnt be an eye (hardy har har).

/agreed ID is not a science, but it is a viewpoint....
...and I still fundamentally question the notion that the only things that can be taught are those that are proven even when applied specifically to a science classroom. To discuss hypothesis is to invite application of the scientific method to prove and disprove and formulate theories, I believe there is great learning in that environment.

Edit: Wow, this really has gone far off from the OPs link. :P

But it is not a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested. It simply says anything that can not be proven or explained (Yet) is cause God did it.

[Tikki]

I know there is evidence of evolution. Viral and bacterial mutation are just a few things. Look at the human appendix, human DNA is 99% the same as chimps...my comment was not that there is evidence - I believe and have educated myself in the facts and theories of evolution, as well as the information that tries and disprove it.

My comment was that I thought jschild (from the below quote), was basing the scientific standing of evolution on the idea that since it hasn't been disputed that it must be correct.


If something is discovered that disproves theories, it will be debated, examined, studied and if the old theory is wrong, it will be discarded for a theory that fits the facts. Science itself evolves and learns from its mistakes and errors. ID stops with God. Evolution is so undisputed in the scientific world, not because scientists are lazy and just accept it, but every new biological discovery supports it. Nothing has came along, since Darwin first made his thoery, that refutes or possibly disproves taht is how things change.


I must have misread it or misinterpreted it because I was getting the understanding that he was suggesting the since a theory can't logically be disputed that it must be correct. Which was exactly the critique to Behe's books (that his evidence can't be disputed so therefore there's a flaw in his reasoning).

My point with Behe's book was never to say it was correct, it was simply to show that you must give the same chance and respect to the opposing side. You can read all the literature and theories proving evolution but you're missing out on all the things disproving it. A well rounded opinion and debate respects and is educated on both sides. I was simply offering a piece of information which I found interesting.



Oh, if anyone is interested in the idea of eye complexity and how a high being must have created it, Wundt (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Wundt/Outlines/sec10.htm) , a famous spatial cognitive psychologist discussed it in his works. It's rather interesting to read the progression of scientific thought. How great minds incorporated religious belief into their theories. Of course it's incorrect - but still interesting.

[jschild]

No, I had simply said that there has not been anything discovered since Darwin presented the idea that has disproven it. In fact, the opposite has happened, we have only gotten more and more eveidence to support it. It may be wrong, but there is nothing that fits the puzzle of life like it right now. The worst thing anyone can assume (and many scientists have unfortunatly fallen into this trap) is to assume that something, one thought as being true, must be true. But while others have made that mistake, it has always eventually been proven untrue. More work than needed might have been required, but it was still overturned.
I disagree with giving them the same respect. Carl Sagan said it best, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. No one, even another scientist, can say evolution is false, using something totally unprovable, and that person has no training in evolutionary biology, nor has he ever written one paper for Peer review. Why should he be listened to, when his arguements cannot be proven OR disproven, and he has no proven track record. If he at least had something testable or provable (or possibly provable at some point in the future - ala Einstien) that would be perfectly fine. But we do not have to treat anyone with a crackpot theory as legitimate. If he was a serious scientist, who had truly can forward with proof that evolution is not correct he would have published a paper in a scientific journal. All scientists do this. They do not shove out a book with "facts" and not ask his work to be reviewed.

Perhaps someday, some brilliant Einstein will come forward and say, Evolution and Darwin are wrong, and here is the proof. At first, most scientists would probably say no way! Then others, trying to disprove it, will realize that he is right, and they will convert others. And it will be overturned. If it is incorrect, but they will do it with real science, that other real scientists will peer review.
Otherwise, its just hoaxes, misdirection, and flat out lies.

[Glurin]

The last few pages prove my point about it being so easy to leap to any number of conclusions about ID. The fourth post after mine said it was about the Christian god, when the theory actually omits any mention of "who". Its one of IDs strengths as well as a serious weakness. ID in its current state goes no further than say, an initial observation of a crime scene. The problem is that while you can look at a scene and say "there was a break-in here", with ID we are dealing with a case where every building has the same broken windows. There is no control group that we have access to at this time, which makes it very difficult to reach any decisive conclusions.

Think of it like a scientist looking into a petri dish. He put everything in there and for all intents and purposes created the world within the dish. Now from the outside looking in, its easy to compare and see that the scientist did in fact have a hand in its creation. But imagine what its like looking out from the petri dish. A being in the dish has nothing to compare his world to, as everything in his world was created by the scientist. That is the challenge that ID proponents face. The lack of a control group is the only thing that is really holding it back, but that in itself doesn't make it any less scientific. Simply more difficult to progress.

But it is not a hypothesis, because it cannot be tested. It simply says anything that can not be proven or explained (Yet) is cause God did it.

That is certainly another problem with ID, but not a fault of the theory itself. The argument that "God is in the gaps." is a self defeating assumption on the part of many outspoken ID advocates. If God is only in the parts of the world we do not understand, then as our understanding grows larger, God grows smaller. Now, at the root of this argument is the exact same bad assumption that many scientists make. Science and religion are mutually exclusive.

[jschild]

ID only exists because of those gaps. Each time a gap is closed, they just say, well you can't expain this! It is creationism reworked. Nothing more. It simply attacks weak spots in Evolution, which is fine in and of itself, but it has an agenda. They want to disprove evolution. Not because they think the theory is incorrect, but because they are afraid that it proves that you don't need god, which it doesn't. Science and Religion are not exclusive, but you cannot just say God did it. You have to explain HOW he did it, or made it appear that way at least. Stephen Hawking said it best: "Either there was a Big Bang, or God made the universe in such a way that it appears there was a Big Bang. There is currently no other alternative"

[Glurin]

Not entirely. You see, evolution is actually accepted as part of ID. What they are really trying to disprove is the notion that life just randomly evolved from a puddle of goo and just randomly became the diverse and extremely complex system it is today.

So really if you get right down to it, BOTH sides are being misrepresented in the general public. More importantly, they are being misrepresented in the public education system at various levels.

*edit*
Just as a little side note, what do you think of the idea of God one day poking his head through the clouds and saying "What the hell? This is supposed to be an empty ball of dirt. Who are all you people?" :grin:

[SaroDarksbane]

Just as a little side note, what do you think of the idea of God one day poking his head through the clouds and saying "What the hell? This is supposed to be an empty ball of dirt. Who are all you people?" :grin:
"Damnit, I've got to clean out my refrigerator! There's stuff growing in here!"

[Telic]

Watch the news, or any documentary about the subject. You'll find plenty. [of examples of scientists claiming that science has proved God does not exist.]
.....


Yup, I do all of these things and haven't see any yet.
I would say Science has demonstrated that the existance of God is not required in areas where Religion says it is (e.g. evolution), that there is no scientific evidence of his existance, and that it is therefore highly improbable that he exists.
I would also say that on the basis of the above, its perfectly reasonable for a scientist to enthusiastically express his firm disbelief of God based on these arguments, without being accused of saying he has scientifically proven that God doesn't exist.
Let me put it more simply : I have heard plenty of scientists say that God doesn't exist; But I can't remember ever hearing one say that science has proved it.





.....
As I said, ID is the very beginnings of a scientific process and is therefore an incomplete theory. You can say that that disqualifies it as science, but then you have to disqualify a lot of other things as well. Theoretical Physics, for example.

By the way, supernatural explanations are just explanations that many have yet to realize are natural. I don't know why people should take offense to supernatural explanations being called supernatural. :wink:
.....


I think you are being dangerously misleading here, especially when trying to legitimise ID by comparing it to "Theoretical Physics".
The vast majority of theoretical physics has a solid grounding in mathematics, leading to advancements in both physics and mathematics. It also relies heavily on logical proofs, and reference to earlier accepted theories of physics - a Theory based on the assumed truth of earlier 'validated' theories or truly experimental observations, is many orders of magnitude more scientific than the founding premise of ID. Theoretical physics theories are also subjected to peer review.
Its worth noting in terms of peer review, that in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific".
Theoretical physics is also used to make predictions which can often be tested even where the original theory can't. And even where these predictions are not directly testable by experiment or observation today, they may be in the future, and they can be used in logical arguments - for example, where two theories predict mutually exclusive consquences, then you know that at least one of them is wrong; Intersect these results with others and progress can still be made.
ID makes no predictions that can be empirically measured, or that can ever be testable, and is a scientific dead end. Having read some of ID's ideas of predictions based on observations I would hesitate to say that it makes any new scientific predictions of its own at all (disprovable or not) - and even the details of the observations made were couched in such a convoluted way that observation to prediction was often a virtual tautology (e.g. Observation of the re-use of functional structures in different organisms, lead to a Prediction of the re-use of functional structures in different organisms.)

I would also challenge your definition of supernatural - I have always been taught that scientific use of the word "supernatural" should only refer to that which is beyond the scope of what can be studied with the scientific method. e.g. claims about the existance of God, etc. A definition that I found repeated on a pro-ID web site by the way (IDEA). I certainly don't agree with your assessment that nothing can be considered supernatural, although this is consistant with your apparent desire to change the definition of science to allow ID.

Creationism believes essentially that because nature looks like it has been designed, then it must have been designed, and that designer must be God.
Intelligent Design is essentially the same belief, although it does try and specify a scientific method using Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, and Conclusions. Perhaps most strikingly, it tries to avoid the supernatural by simply not discussing who or what the Intelligent Designer was :shocked: (I would say that willful ignorance is the antithesis of science.)
As hinted at above, I don't regard the supposed scientific observations-predictions-experimental/conclusions of ID as incomplete, I regard them as pure sophistry, and it is no surprise to me that ID has never published any evidence in any peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Interestingly, ID still clings to the argument of Irreducable Complexity, where a natural structure is so complex, that it can not have occurred through any natural process. The work of William Dembski to provide a mathematical basis for determining what level of complexity signifies design has been criticised on many levels, and has been debunked thouroughly at the following site (The Summary at least is worth reading) :

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/

Again, although Dembski claims he has created useful mathematics in this process, it has not been published in any relevant journals.

Another, more accessable read, that critiques Michael Behe's and William Dembski's Irreducable Complexity is :

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

However, I think that probably the best argument against Creationism/ID is the problem of Infinite Regression - very simply put, it is the argument that if we are so complex that we need a Designer/Creator, then surely the Designer/Creator is even more complex so they in turn, must have another Designer/Creator, who must have a Designer/Creator of their own, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.




.....
Just FYI, thats one of the sticky points in the whole issue. Darwin's Evolution Theory is the accepted theory.
.....


I'm assuming the implication here is that scientists now have some kind of 'absolutist' belief in evolutionary theory from which they won't be shifted, because it is accepted theory ?
You could present all the evidence in the world to a Religious person (or seemingly to an advocate of ID), and they won't change their minds.
But scientists will change/abandon their theories - if presented with evidence.
But ID has presented no evidence.




.....
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of "Now heres another theory, but it is not proven or tested, so what do you think the next step should be class, and how would you accomplish it?" Having the teacher say "Now this is an example of what science isn't..." would be just as if not more damaging than telling them "God did it."

In other words, use it as a tool to teach the students to think, not how to think or what to think. But again, before we can do that, we need to make some major changes to the current, steadily lowering public education standards.
.....


You say "...heres another theory, but it is not proven...".
I believe this displays a lack of understanding of scientific theory on your part, as no scientific theory has ever been proven; They can only be disproven.

I believe that students are best taught how to think for themselves about science by being taught the scientific method itself, and about the criteria required for scientific theories and evidence; As well as critiqueing these guidelines and exploring the dangers of ignoring them, so that its understood why they have proved to be such useful guardians of good science.

ID has been around for nearly 20 years now, possibly much longer in the minds of some of its initial proponents, and much longer than that in the form of Creationism. Some of the major advocates of ID such as William Dembski and Michael Behe, have invested considerable time and energy in promoting ID, and in writing books and pseudoscientific papers upon it; If they haven't managed to formulate a valid scientific theorem in those 20 years, then what exactly do you expect school children to do ?
Of course a really subtle strategy for ID advocates might be to suggest using ID as a tool to teach how to develop a theorum further; This would be typical of ID advocates who want to see it get in to Science classes by any means possible.
ID is a muddled, non-scientific theory which Creationists and religions would love to see taught in any form whatsoever in a science class because it would blur the definition of science, confuse students, and make them susceptable to religious doctrine.






.....I can't just say "There are pink elephants in my back yard dancing the tango." and call it science just because its a new idea. I'd need at least a few things to go on first. A footprint similar to an elephant, a glimpse of a large, pink object as I walk outside, and a rose where there should be none. Something more than somebody's say so.

The thing is though, I have to continue to investigate it in order for it to qualify as science. I guess if you want to get specific it could be called "science in progress". Just stopping after I come up with the first explanation is not science. This applies to ID as well. If you continue with it, rather than just stopping at "this and that indicate a designer was possibly involved", then its science in progress. If you stop and conclude (wrongfully) "This proves a designer was possibility involved", then its not science.

Thats why I'm hesitant about including ID in a science class, or any other incomplete theory for that matter, until some other major changes are made. We need to break away from teaching kids to be parrots and start teaching them to be scientists.

Many, many scientific theories have become accepted to the extent that no new theories are proposed to challenge them; This does not mean that scientists would not change their minds if the theory was proved wrong, or that they would discount other proposed theories out of hand. ID has not been dismissed out of hand, but has been considered quite carefully before being rejected as unscientific, despite claims to the contrary by ID advocates that it has not been understood.
I would agree that its perfectly valid that Scientists should propose new theories, even when challenging existing theories, but it is not the job of scientists to try and re-package non-scientific theories as scientific ones.

Plenty of theories have been proposed and dismissed. Some have been abandoned, some have been demoted to conjectures, or interpretations, or pure hypothesis. The real problem with ID, and the reason it will probably be around for some time to come, is that its main proponents are Religious fanatics who won't accept 'no' for an answer, and who will continue to promote it as a scientific theory in the face of all scientific argument against it. A scientist would abandon it, or at least try to modify it, but ID will not change because its purpose is Religious and not scientific.



Bottom Line
-----------
Intelligent Design is a Trojan Horse trying to sneak in to science classes under cover of muddled thinking and misinformation about what is and is not scientific; With the ultimate aim of promoting Religion and Creationism.



Addendum

But surely, there has been enough critique of ID from the scientific side, from myself and other posts.

Perhaps you would like to tell us why you are so enamoured of ID Glurin?

Which parts do you think are correct, and which not correct?

In what sense exactly do you consider it to be "incomplete"? Most scientists would say we can't really assume any theory to be complete, as theories should be tentative, and we can never discount that we could observe new phenomena that would require changes to theory.

You suggested using it as a tool in teaching by asking students what the next step should be in order to arrive at a more "complete" theory. Well, how would you proceed to "complete" the theory?

[undeadgnome]

God exists. He could have made evolution for the animals, and ADAPTION for humans. If you have any god questions, please ask before you dismiss your believe, also scientific discoverys are really fluctuant with things such as time, evoulution, and dinosaurs.

[Glurin]

Yup, I do all of these things and haven't see any yet.

Then pay attention next time.

I think you are being dangerously misleading here, especially when trying to legitimise ID by comparing it to "Theoretical Physics".
The vast majority of theoretical physics has a solid grounding in mathematics, leading to advancements in both physics and mathematics. It also relies heavily on logical proofs, and reference to earlier accepted theories of physics - a Theory based on the assumed truth of earlier 'validated' theories or truly experimental observations,

First of all, about the base for those theories, a theory based on an assumption based on an assumption based on another theory is a pretty flimsy foundation. Also, it doesn't matter how solid the mathematics are, they are still theoretical and much of it is either untestable or "vaguely" testable at this time.

Gee, thats odd. Theoretical Physics are "untestable", so they must not be science. :wink:

Theoretical physics theories are also subjected to peer review.
Its worth noting in terms of peer review, that in September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific".
Theoretical physics is also used to make predictions which can often be tested even where the original theory can't. And even where these predictions are not directly testable by experiment or observation today, they may be in the future, and they can be used in logical arguments - for example, where two theories predict mutually exclusive consquences, then you know that at least one of them is wrong; Intersect these results with others and progress can still be made.
ID makes no predictions that can be empirically measured, or that can ever be testable, and is a scientific dead end.

Interesting. Your willing to give one theory a chance even though we can't prove it at this time, yet disregard the other as a dead end for the same reason. Why is that I wonder? Could it be that you simply don't like some of the possible implications of ID?

Also, on the peer review argument, I would submit that due to the massive misrepresentation and prejudice against ID as "Creationism in disguise", it is not really given a fair shot at making its case. Of course, Galileo had the same problem back in the day, so maybe this is simply how things are. New ideas and theories are rejected outright until the generation that was around to oppose it at the time of its creation dies out.

I would also challenge your definition of supernatural - I have always been taught that scientific use of the word "supernatural" should only refer to that which is beyond the scope of what can be studied with the scientific method. e.g. claims about the existance of God, etc. A definition that I found repeated on a pro-ID web site by the way (IDEA). I certainly don't agree with your assessment that nothing can be considered supernatural, although this is consistant with your apparent desire to change the definition of science to allow ID.

No no, you've got it all wrong here. My definition of the supernatural as it pertains to science is "that which cannot be studied with the scientific method at this time". Please don't simply assume that I blindly follow whatever the web sites say. It gets you nowhere and can be quite insulting at times. I don't want to change the definition of science to fit your version of ID. Why would I? That version is unscientific.

Creationism believes essentially that because nature looks like it has been designed, then it must have been designed, and that designer must be God.
Intelligent Design is essentially the same belief, although it does try and specify a scientific method using Observation, Hypothesis, Experiment, and Conclusions. Perhaps most strikingly, it tries to avoid the supernatural by simply not discussing who or what the Intelligent Designer was (I would say that willful ignorance is the antithesis of science.)

Which is why its incomplete. :wink:

But before they can really start asking "who" they have to get it past these hardheaded people in the scientific community that ID doesn't start with God, nor does it end with God. The existence of God is irrelevant to the theory.

Well, I guess they don't "HAVE" to get it past them as the theory will be advanced one way or another regardless of what they think. It would simply advance easier if people could stop prejudging it as a purely religious endeavor.

However, I think that probably the best argument against Creationism/ID is the problem of Infinite Regression - very simply put, it is the argument that if we are so complex that we need a Designer/Creator, then surely the Designer/Creator is even more complex so they in turn, must have another Designer/Creator, who must have a Designer/Creator of their own, and so on, and so on, ad infinitum.

Not so. This is a common argument made in the "does God exist" topics. "If God created man, then who created God?" The trouble with this is that it applies to the Big Bang as well. "If the Big Bang created the universe, then what created the Big Bang?" The answer? God. :grin:

I'm assuming the implication here is that scientists now have some kind of 'absolutist' belief in evolutionary theory from which they won't be shifted, because it is accepted theory ?
You could present all the evidence in the world to a Religious person (or seemingly to an advocate of ID), and they won't change their minds.
But scientists will change/abandon their theories - if presented with evidence.
But ID has presented no evidence.

Both untrue.

A scientist is just as thick skulled and stubborn as a religious person. Present either of them with all the evidence in the world that appears to disprove everything they believe in and they won't change their minds.

As for ID not presenting any evidence, that would mean you didn't actually read ANY of the web sites you went to to research this topic. Even the ones you posted to argue against ID. :smiley:

You say "...heres another theory, but it is not proven...".
I believe this displays a lack of understanding of scientific theory on your part, as no scientific theory has ever been proven; They can only be disproven.

O.K., now your just grasping at straws.

BTW, I simply find ID an interesting theory. What I'm delighted with is the fact that there is finally a theory out there that managed to stir up some serious controversy over the mutual exclusivity of science and religion.

You suggested using it as a tool in teaching by asking students what the next step should be in order to arrive at a more "complete" theory. Well, how would you proceed to "complete" the theory?

That would be cheating if I told you. :laugh:

[jschild]

God exists. He could have made evolution for the animals, and ADAPTION for humans. If you have any god questions, please ask before you dismiss your believe, also scientific discoverys are really fluctuant with things such as time, evoulution, and dinosaurs.

Yes, you are right. They have changed over time to support evolution more, more, and more. Every new discovery has pretty much cemented evolutions place and nothing has come along to discredit it (doesn't mean there won't be but it's not looking good.)

First of all, about the base for those theories, a theory based on an assumption based on an assumption based on another theory is a pretty flimsy foundation. Also, it doesn't matter how solid the mathematics are, they are still theoretical and much of it is either untestable or "vaguely" testable at this time.

Gee, thats odd. Theoretical Physics are "untestable", so they must not be science.

We are being seriously misleading here and I believe on purpose. There is a massive differnece between a real theory that makes predictions but we lack the technology to test them (IE, Einstein predicted the faster you went, the slower time would go. No one could prove this at the time, but the prediction was plainly testable and in the 50's, with the advent of Atomic Clocks, it was proven) and a "theory" that NEVER can be proven, regardless of technology.

Interesting. Your willing to give one theory a chance even though we can't prove it at this time, yet disregard the other as a dead end for the same reason. Why is that I wonder? Could it be that you simply don't like some of the possible implications of ID?

Also, on the peer review argument, I would submit that due to the massive misrepresentation and prejudice against ID as "Creationism in disguise", it is not really given a fair shot at making its case. Of course, Galileo had the same problem back in the day, so maybe this is simply how things are. New ideas and theories are rejected outright until the generation that was around to oppose it at the time of its creation dies out.

Again, a "theory", with no testable components, and whose only proofs are actually attacks against some of the more poorly understood portions of evolution, is not science. This is what you fail to see. There is nothing to prove with ID. Nothing. All it does is attack a real theory while suppling no proof of its own. And no peer review will deal with it, because it's most basic tenets do not even meet the most minimum requirements of science.

And as to the intelligent designer part, well, I think people have shown more than enough reasons that we are NOT intelligently designed (for instance, our eyeball parts are in backwards, very bad design decision there).

Not so. This is a common argument made in the "does God exist" topics. "If God created man, then who created God?" The trouble with this is that it applies to the Big Bang as well. "If the Big Bang created the universe, then what created the Big Bang?" The answer? God.

The single most lazy, and unprovable answer possible. God did it. Thats it, move along nothing to see here, if you can answer it (yet) God did it. Our modern physics break down (because they were formed) in the nanoseconds after the big bang. Therefore scientists are at least honest and say they CANNOT know, because we have absolutely no record previous to that to examine. That is why they do not address the question.

BTW, I simply find ID an interesting theory. What I'm delighted with is the fact that there is finally a theory out there that managed to stir up some serious controversy over the mutual exclusivity of science and religion.

Again the problem here is that it does not even meet the most minimum definition of a theory, and therefore it is not one.

That would be cheating if I told you.
Actually you would be cheating them by telling them that anything we don't know, well God did it. And everytime someone discovers a process in Evolution, all the ID and Creationists (they are the same people, study your history) will say - oh..oh..but you can't expalin this yet. It's GOD! When a "theory" provides nothing of its own, but attacks (the attacks themselves are fine, its how progress is made, learning if that weak spot is right or wrong) that are made to "prove" a theory, pretty much makes it useless.

[Herald of Doom]

God is unscientific because it is a concept based on belief.. I hate it when people mix those two up. I spent a good two weeks arguing about this on another forum where the Creationist and ID people eventually went "Yeah but we cannot fully understand God so we can't explain it properly". Lovely!

HoD

[swaldman]

Ah, the "is ID science" debate. Makes its way to every forum eventually.

I'm not going to give my views on that, since they'd only repeat what's been said. I will, however, explain why I see the whole thing as pointless.

Given the evidence that we have, there are two reasonable possibilities:

1. Evolution happened
2. God faked things to make it look as though evolution happened

Now I think we can assume that if God is going to fake something, he will do a good job of it. If he does a good job of faking it, we mortals will never be able to tell the difference.

So why worry? :grin:

[Glurin]

We are being seriously misleading here and I believe on purpose. There is a massive differnece between a real theory that makes predictions but we lack the technology to test them (IE, Einstein predicted the faster you went, the slower time would go. No one could prove this at the time, but the prediction was plainly testable and in the 50's, with the advent of Atomic Clocks, it was proven) and a "theory" that NEVER can be proven, regardless of technology.

Good thing ID can one day be proven then. :wink:

You are suffering the same problem as everyone else. You are automatically assuming ID is creationism. Makes it kind of difficult for you to objectively evaluate the theory itself, don't you think?

And as to the intelligent designer part, well, I think people have shown more than enough reasons that we are NOT intelligently designed (for instance, our eyeball parts are in backwards, very bad design decision there).

Who said its finished? :wink:

The single most lazy, and unprovable answer possible. God did it. Thats it, move along nothing to see here, if you can answer it (yet) God did it. Our modern physics break down (because they were formed) in the nanoseconds after the big bang. Therefore scientists are at least honest and say they CANNOT know, because we have absolutely no record previous to that to examine. That is why they do not address the question.

I think you missed something. Actually, come to think of it, your just assuming I'm one of those people that say "God did it" for everything unexplainable. Please refrain from doing that. Its insulting and you'll never be able to wrap your mind around new concepts that way.

Actually you would be cheating them by telling them that anything we don't know, well God did it. And everytime someone discovers a process in Evolution, all the ID and Creationists (they are the same people, study your history) will say - oh..oh..but you can't expalin this yet. It's GOD! When a "theory" provides nothing of its own, but attacks (the attacks themselves are fine, its how progress is made, learning if that weak spot is right or wrong) that are made to "prove" a theory, pretty much makes it useless.

Thats funny. I distinctly remember speaking out against telling the students "God did it." In fact, I specifically outlined some of the problems associated with the "God is in the gaps" argument.

See, this is why its so hard for ID to be taken seriously. As soon as people find out the theory states that there was some force guiding us along and designing our form and function, they automatically assume its talking about the Christian god. At that point, they may as well just put their hands over their ears and start singing "La la la la, I'm not listening! La la la!" I'm speaking in a very general sense of course.

[Telic]

Then pay attention next time.

.....


Well, I could make the same childish retort to you, but I prefer to use reason and argument.
(This is your second unreasoned reply on this issue by the way)
Its actually difficult for me to quote examples of something that I haven't seen.
Perhpaps you could cite some examples backing up your argument ? I will happily post a criticism on a forum of any scientist who says they have proved God doesn't exist :smiley:
The best I can do is perhaps, use an example scientist like Richard Dawkins who is a passionate atheist. Even he does not say that God has been disproved; But he will argue as to why God almost certainly does not exist.





......

First of all, about the base for those theories, a theory based on an assumption based on an assumption based on another theory is a pretty flimsy foundation. Also, it doesn't matter how solid the mathematics are, they are still theoretical and much of it is either untestable or "vaguely" testable at this time.

Gee, thats odd. Theoretical Physics are "untestable", so they must not be science. :wink:

.....

Interesting. Your willing to give one theory a chance even though we can't prove it at this time, yet disregard the other as a dead end for the same reason. Why is that I wonder? Could it be that you simply don't like some of the possible implications of ID?

.....


Misleading again - the assumptions that a previous theory is robust enough to support another theory is a perfectly reasonable assumption; the assumptions that experimental observations have been carried out rigorously enough to be relied upon even where they contradict common sense is also perfectly reasonable; Proceeding to develop a theory mathematically is not just reasonable, but a foundation of modern science, whether or not some of its predictions are currently untestable; And mathematics provde the means by which many theories remain disprovable.
The subjective assumption that a common sense view of the world can be relied upon, as is the case with ID, can not be compared with the classes of assumption used in theoretical physics.
The best example of the difference between these assumptions is the case of the speed of light.

Your implication that all theoritical physics are untestable is also incorrect, as many theories have been tested to a very high degree, and many more are disprovable; Theoretical physics covers a great many individual theories with varying degrees, and to treat them as one is a deliberate attempt to mislead again.

Also, being untestable is only one criteria for a scientific method. I hadn't wanted to go through them, but it seems I will have to. Theories should meet most if not all criteria to be considered scientific :

Consistent - internally and externally
Parsimonious - sparing in proposed entities or explanations
Correctable and dynamic - changes are made as new data are discovered
Progressive - achieves all that previous theories have and more
Useful - describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena
Empirically testable and disprovable (falsifiable)
Based on multiple observations
Provisional or tentative - admits that it might not be correct

Any theory that can only meet 1 or 2 criteria (or none) can not be considered scientific. Even those theories in Theoretical Physics that can not be tested at the moment meet most criteria required to be scientific - but questions can be raised about how 'accepted' they are. Theories can also be Useful in the sense that they can make predictions used in other theories that in themselves are testable. To throw out all these theories would be a ridiculous to do.

But ID does has none of the above benefits.
ID is NOT regarded as Consistent, Parsimonious, Empirically testable, Falsifiable, Correctable, Dynamic, Progressive, or Provisional.
I also wonder why people have not questioned its usefulness more; Certainly it tries to explain certain observable phenomena, but its Predictions are weak, and effectively are used to predict previously observed phenomena again.
Therefore ID is not scientific.

When considering theories of Theoretical Physics, you seem to be ascribing absolutist views to scientif theory, whereas no theory can actually be proved anyway, and theories are continously tested, and require modification - this is the natural scientific process, and if any assumption is proved wrong, then all related theories will need to be adjusted.
The central assumption ID is so vague that it can never be disproved - a claim that something is better explained one way than another, or that appearing to be designed implies design. All the evidence so far argues that these claims are wrong, and evolutionary theory is the better way to explain these things - but this evidence is ignored, or willfully misinterpreted due to a vested interest in the existance of God.

Again, you also mention the idea of a theory that "...we can't prove it at this time..."
It really can't be stressed enough that no theory can be proven, only disproven. It shows a lack of understanding in the scientific method to imply otherwise.







.....

Also, on the peer review argument, I would submit that due to the massive misrepresentation and prejudice against ID as "Creationism in disguise", it is not really given a fair shot at making its case. Of course, Galileo had the same problem back in the day, so maybe this is simply how things are. New ideas and theories are rejected outright until the generation that was around to oppose it at the time of its creation dies out.

.....


lol.
Comparing the reasoned, peer review of scientists to the un-reasoned religious views of the 16th and 17th centuries. That displays an astonishing degree of intellectual contortionism - I didn't know whether to smile or wince :wink:

That irrational religion wanted to completely irradicate a rational scientific theory can be viewed as criminal.
That rational scientists are simply stating that a non-scientific theory should not be taught as science is better characterised as self defence.

On one side we have a small number of scientists who have had no ID papers published in respected mainstream scientific journals, and claim they are misrepresented.
On the other we have some of the cleverest scientists the world has ever known, who are all intimately familiar with the scientific method. And when they unofficially carry out a peer review of ID and find it unscientific, it must be because they have just listened to the rumoured explanations of ID, instead of carrying out some investigation of their own? I would suggest that any independant commentator would side with the Nobel laureates (and the rest of the scientific community).
The response of ID is typical of the irrational response from Religions which brook no criticism - and if someone does criticise them, then it must be because that person is ignorant, or has not understood, and not because there is a fault worth of criticism.







.....

No no, you've got it all wrong here. My definition of the supernatural as it pertains to science is "that which cannot be studied with the scientific method at this time". Please don't simply assume that I blindly follow whatever the web sites say. It gets you nowhere and can be quite insulting at times. I don't want to change the definition of science to fit your version of ID. Why would I? That version is unscientific.

......


Actually, I think there is a genuine misunderstanding here on your part.
I wasn't accusing you of believing anything a web site says - I was commenting that a pro-ID web site actually defined supernatural as it pertains to science in exactly the same way as I did.
My problem with your view was perhaps a result of your attempt at clever phraseology, which reduced to a belief that nothing was supernatural.
I don't actually have a version of ID :wink:
Sorry if I have assumed that you might support most of the 'orthodox' views of ID that would require science to change to accept it - perhaps due in part to the fact that you have continuously failed to state clearly your own views on ID, other than to say it is non-specifically incomplete.
I have noticed that you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions I asked at the bottom of my last post to clarify your position - except in one case where you jokingly say that it would be cheating to reveal your views :wink:






.....

Which is why its incomplete. :wink:

But before they can really start asking "who" they have to get it past these hardheaded people in the scientific community that ID doesn't start with God, nor does it end with God. The existence of God is irrelevant to the theory.

Well, I guess they don't "HAVE" to get it past them as the theory will be advanced one way or another regardless of what they think. It would simply advance easier if people could stop prejudging it as a purely religious endeavor.

.....


Well, at least we have now been given a clue as to why exactly you think ID is incomplete - I have honestly been dying to know what you meant every time you made this claim :smiley:
You think ID is incomplete because it doesn't try to investigate/specify the nature of the Designer.

I would agree with your arguments for why the Religious proponents have tried to remove God from the equation as it were :wink:
The sinister reasons behind ID's creation are revealed in the link to the Wedge Strategy I mention later on, and to which I have referred before.

I take issue with the idea that a non-scientific theory might progress more quickly if more scientists worked on it.







.....

Not so. This is a common argument made in the "does God exist" topics. "If God created man, then who created God?" The trouble with this is that it applies to the Big Bang as well. "If the Big Bang created the universe, then what created the Big Bang?" The answer? God. :grin:

.....


As jschild has pointed out already, this is basically an Argument from Ignorance : I don't understand, therefore it must be God.
Now, this is the kind of thinking that really would stop science in its tracks.






.....

Both untrue.

A scientist is just as thick skulled and stubborn as a religious person. Present either of them with all the evidence in the world that appears to disprove everything they believe in and they won't change their minds.

As for ID not presenting any evidence, that would mean you didn't actually read ANY of the web sites you went to to research this topic. Even the ones you posted to argue against ID. :smiley:

.....


I don't accept your argument that scientists wouldn't change their mind. Of course there will be cranks, but they would be treated as such.
I would argue that the scientific process needs to be appreciated - for example if one scientist turned round and said he had disproven a theory, then other scientists won't immediately drop their ideas. They will review the science used to disprove the theory, and they will insist on making relevant experiments/observations of their own. The process might take years, but it is a normal feature of the scientific method.
Although your suppostion does seem to contain caveats like "...appears to disprove..." which questions the nature of evidence itself.

This brings me to your second point : the nature of scientific evidience.
Obviously, I should have specified "scientific evidence" in my earlier comment. Most scientists will agree that experimental observations and results must undergo peer review before they can be cited as evidence, i.e. published as a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal. There are also other criteria such as using methods that give empirical results and/or which are accepted by the scientific community at large. Based on the peer reviewed published definition alone, ID has produced no scientific evidence. However, given that other scientists have cast major doubts over Dembski's mathematical theories and use of Specified Complexity, many scientists would argue that much of the evidence is down to the subjective interpretation of the investigator, and does not qualify as scientific.

Finally, I might argue that evidence that has been falsified, is not actually evidence :wink:







.....

O.K., now your just grasping at straws.

.....


No, I'm pointing out a keystone in modern scientific method. To not understand that scientific theory can not be proven brings in to doubt all your arguments that ID can be transformed in to a scientific theory.






.....

BTW, I simply find ID an interesting theory. What I'm delighted with is the fact that there is finally a theory out there that managed to stir up some serious controversy over the mutual exclusivity of science and religion.

.....


Well, I don't think there is a scientific theory causing any controversy. And given that 99.9% of scientists much prefer evolutionary theory, is there really any controversy at all :wink:

Science and Religion are mutually exclusive to the extent that science can't be used to comment on Religion, and Religious belief can not be used within scientific theory. But science doesn't disprove religion.
I would also say that they are incompatible at the level of individual belief - religion relying on Faith without evidence, and Science relying on evidence. If someone believes in both, then I don't really care how they resolve this conflict in belief systems; As long as they continue to use scientific methodology when working, and continue to respect the peer-review process in their scientific work.

I find it interesting that you are looking for controversy where there is none; Your rhetoric is very similar to the "Teach the Controversy" campaign proposed in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy, which tries to promote the idea that scientists do not in fact support evolutionary theory, and that lots of people don't support evolution.

The wedge strategy, for those who don't know, is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the heart of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat (scientific) materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions"

I recommend that people use the following link to read just what most proponents of ID are trying to do :

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

The "Teach the Controversy" campaign in the Wedge strategy tries to promote the idea of a controversy amongst evolutionary scientists - which doesn't exist - in order to encourage people to examine ID as an alternative.

It seeks to promote ID via popular media, rather than via scientific journals, with the explicit purpose of "defeating" materialism which sees as a direct result

Wedge "activists" will make superficially reasonable claims in order to try spread misinformation, and misunderstanding to blur the edges of what is scientific and what isn't, and use the psuedo-science of people like William Dembski and Michael Behe to bamboozle people, in the hope of making ID seem like a perfectly valid scientific theory - which it is not. Why aren't they publishing in scientific journals, and why aren't they trying to promote research in Universities, rather than aiming for a popular base amongst Christians first?

The main proponents of ID know that their theory is not scientific, and that it can't be untangled from its religious roots - that's why.

Perhaps you are not an advocate of the Wedge Strategy Glurin, but if you aren't, you are something even better from their point of view - someone who is distancing themselves from the main proponents of ID, while spreading confusion, muddy thinking, and a misunderstanding of the scientific processes, while still trying to promote the idea of studying ID as a scientific theory. And your strange desire for controversy seems to me to be a newer, subtler version of the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

[jschild]

Glurin....Name one prediction of ID that is testable please, either now or at some future point.

[Glurin]

Had a nice reply all typed up, but got interrupted and it didn't get posted. Oh well, we'll just try again. :cool:

Your implication that all theoritical physics are untestable is also incorrect, as many theories have been tested to a very high degree, and many more are disprovable; Theoretical physics covers a great many individual theories with varying degrees, and to treat them as one is a deliberate attempt to mislead again.


Actually I was careful to note that not all theoretical physics are untestable, but anyway, the point is that if you disregard ID as unscientific because it is untestable, then you must apply the same standard to other fields. Anything that is theoretically possible given the mathematics, but untestable must be regarded as unscientific. That is if this is the litmus test you choose to use.

As to the criteria you put forth:
Consistent - internally and externally Mind expanding on that one a bit?

Parsimonious - sparing in proposed entities or explanations "an intelligent being either created or guided the design of life on earth" Pretty limited in its explanation, though it does leave room for one of any number of intelligent entities.

Correctable and dynamic - changes are made as new data are discovered You'll only get trouble on this from those people who really are pushing the theory for religious purposes, but otherwise I don't see any reason why it wouldn't change.

Progressive - achieves all that previous theories have and more Keep in mind that evolution is part of ID, thus much of what supports evolution also supports ID, including previous theories.

Useful - describes, explains and predicts observable phenomena Well, it certainly does describe and explain observable phenomena, but I do agree that predictions are a little on the weak side. Of course, it is kind of difficult to predict an intelligent being, especially when you can't even identify anything about who that being might be. I'm not saying this is a good excuse, just offering a reason why those predictions would be weak.

Empirically testable and disprovable (falsifiable) True enough. At best we're only capable of testing a few surface areas of the idea at this time.

Based on multiple observations ID certainly meets this criteria.

Provisional or tentative - admits that it might not be correct Just gets hidden in the sea of controversy over it. Happens to any topic that sparks a lot of heated debate.

Again, you also mention the idea of a theory that "...we can't prove it at this time..."
It really can't be stressed enough that no theory can be proven, only disproven. It shows a lack of understanding in the scientific method to imply otherwise.

O.K., I can hardly believe I actually have to do this, but at this point I need to explain this to you because you just aren't getting it.

When I and many other people say that a theory is "proven", what we are referring too is that there is far more evidence in support of said theory than there is not supporting it. For you to nitpick over whether a theory can ever actually be absolutely proven is a solid example of "grasping at straws". For your own sake, don't pursue this any further.

lol.
Comparing the reasoned, peer review of scientists to the un-reasoned religious views of the 16th and 17th centuries. That displays an astonishing degree of intellectual contortionism - I didn't know whether to smile or wince

I'm sure those religious zealots back then thought they were perfectly reasonable too. :wink:

On one side we have a small number of scientists who have had no ID papers published in respected mainstream scientific journals, and claim they are misrepresented.

Imagine Galileo trying to stand beside the priest and preach that which questioned what the church was teaching. Do you think that would have gone over well?

Its the same story over and over again. Only now the roles have been reversed:

"These patterns indicate that there was an intelligent being who...."
"Heathen! How dare you question the status quo?!" :rant:
"Um..what? All I said was that....." :shocked:
"You said God created the world! God does not exist you stupid, ignorant peasant!" :rant:
"But I didn't say anything about God. All I said was....." :undecided:
"Blasphemy! Get out of here before we have you arrested!" :rant:
"But...." :nervous:
"GO! AND DON'T COME BACK UNTIL YOU REALIZE THE TRUTH!" :rant:
:hang:

How do you expect any subject to be discussed objectively when it gets treated like that? Just look at this very thread. How many posts on the ID topic exclude any mention of God or religion in them? Not many, even though both are totally irrelevant to the ID theory.

(Yes I was having a little fun with the smilies there) :neener:

Actually, I think there is a genuine misunderstanding here on your part.
I wasn't accusing you of believing anything a web site says - I was commenting that a pro-ID web site actually defined supernatural as it pertains to science in exactly the same way as I did.

Ah, o.k. No problem. At least now you know for certain that arguing against whats on a website won't get you very far in a debate with me.

My problem with your view was perhaps a result of your attempt at clever phraseology, which reduced to a belief that nothing was supernatural.

Or that everything is supernatural. :laugh:
At any rate, the idea is that science can only explain natural phenomena, but as more phenomena are explained, some of the supernatural becomes natural. Basically whatever is inexplicable is deigned supernatural until the tools become available to explain it.

I don't actually have a version of ID

You do. "ID is Creationism in disguise."

Sorry if I have assumed that you might support most of the 'orthodox' views of ID that would require science to change to accept it - perhaps due in part to the fact that you have continuously failed to state clearly your own views on ID, other than to say it is non-specifically incomplete.
I have noticed that you haven't bothered to answer any of the questions I asked at the bottom of my last post to clarify your position - except in one case where you jokingly say that it would be cheating to reveal your views

Its not hard to guess why. When I look at ID, I put aside all the religious implications first. When you do that, you can begin to see how ID holds some water. Tentatively perhaps, but enough to say that its not just from a crackpot religious nut preaching the bible in a new way. Its something I try to do for any hot button issue. Environmental issues such as global warming, for example. Something that based on my observations, so very, very few people seem capable of doing.

As jschild has pointed out already, this is basically an Argument from Ignorance : I don't understand, therefore it must be God.
Now, this is the kind of thinking that really would stop science in its tracks.

Hmmm, you missed it too then. Oh well, let me try and explain it a little then. God is God. There are none before him. With that premise in mind, we can say that if God has a creator, then he is not God. The creator would be God. Its a basic cause and effect argument. Every effect has a cause, so what caused the effect? This absolutely applies to the Big Bang theory. "What caused the Big Bang, and what caused that?" Now you can start to get into some rather complicated subject matter about the nature of time, but for the sake of argument, I'll simply move on.

If we presume that there cannot be an infinite number of causes, then there must be an uncaused cause. A beginning to all things. We call this cause "God". Its no different from assuming matter simply always existed.

I have a few other thoughts on this argument, but for now what is above is whats mostly relevant to the topic at hand.

I don't accept your argument that scientists wouldn't change their mind. Of course there will be cranks, but they would be treated as such.
I would argue that the scientific process needs to be appreciated - for example if one scientist turned round and said he had disproven a theory, then other scientists won't immediately drop their ideas. They will review the science used to disprove the theory, and they will insist on making relevant experiments/observations of their own. The process might take years, but it is a normal feature of the scientific method.

They are still people. Their occupation does not make them immune to prejudice or stubbornness. The same standard applies across the board. Or it should anyway. Some seem to slap a "crank" label on all religious people simply because they are religious. But really percentage wise, I doubt there is much difference between the number of science "cranks" and religious "cranks".


Although your suppostion does seem to contain caveats like "...appears to disprove..." which questions the nature of evidence itself.

That it does. I mention it because I see a lot of people consistently make the same mistake. An example is evolution. I've seen plenty of atheists use evolution as proof that creation didn't happen, and plenty of Christians deny that evolution happened. But if you look at it, evolution says absolutely nothing one way or the other about creation and creationism says absolutely nothing about evolution. In fact, the only way for evolution to have any weight at all against creationism is if you use a very literal interpretation of the English translation of the bible.

Though I can understand how that mistake happens. Science is a very literal field, where everything is exact and means exactly what it says, more or less. Religion is written in the language of prophesy. Its very flowery and vague, rarely meaning exactly what it says. Its just like applying logic to a poem, or trying to make a science report into a work of art. If you don't make yourself (as in, the individual) flexible, there's no way you can successfully put the two together.

Finally, I might argue that evidence that has been falsified, is not actually evidence

Lets just be clear that this applies to evolution as well. :wink:

I say that more for the sake of other people reading this than for yours.

Science and Religion are mutually exclusive to the extent that science can't be used to comment on Religion, and Religious belief can not be used within scientific theory.

Not really. Archeology is a science, is it not? And many scientific discoveries were at least inspired by religion. But I do agree in that the best science can comment on religion right now is that something is possible or that certain things did in fact happen.

I find it interesting that you are looking for controversy where there is none;

Really? Then why are the school boards, educators, scientists, ID groups, news media, politicians, and general public still arguing about it? One would think that if everyone agreed on it, then it would be little more than a footnote in history.

Your rhetoric is very similar to the "Teach the Controversy" campaign proposed in the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy, which tries to promote the idea that scientists do not in fact support evolutionary theory, and that lots of people don't support evolution.

Yep, it sure seems that way, doesn't it? :grin:

Perhaps you are not an advocate of the Wedge Strategy Glurin, but if you aren't, you are something even better from their point of view - someone who is distancing themselves from the main proponents of ID, while spreading confusion, muddy thinking, and a misunderstanding of the scientific processes, while still trying to promote the idea of studying ID as a scientific theory. And your strange desire for controversy seems to me to be a newer, subtler version of the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

Oh hell no. I definitely wish to avoid "teaching the controversy".

Also, any confusion I spread is the confusion of learning. In other words, you can't actually learn anything without becoming confused from time to time. It just means you haven't figured that part out yet.

[jschild]

Glurin, maybe you missed my post. Name one prediction that ID makes.
One prediction that in any way is possible to verify.
And there has not been one scientist who has written a single paper, that has been sent to one proffesional scientific journal, for peer review, for ID. Only books made for general public. Why is that?

[jschild]

Also, how can you emperically prove the existance of the "designer"? Is there anything that can be done to show "proof?"

And your arguement about the eyeball is useless. It's one of those infinite arguements, that always reduce (the primary problem with ID) as you go along.

Why is our eyeballs backwards?
Becuase they are not finished being designed.

That is soemthing unprovable, and therefore not scientific. Evolution perfectly explains the design. ID (though you) says that no, its not finished being designed. Except we cannot prove or disprove that the eye is still being designed, making it useless for science.
Not testable = not a theory.

[gmedina]

Hmm so Glurin is stating that ID isn't about promoting god.

Lets see, the definition of God - the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

ID stats that some supreme being created the universe.

Hmmmmm, true they didn't say god directly but the definition of the being is the same as the definition of God.

If it smells like a duck, tastes like a duck and feels like a duck, it is probablly a duck!!!!

[jschild]

NO, NO, It says there is an intelligent "designer" who created and guided the evolution of all life in the universe. Who said anything about God?

[gmedina]

NO, NO, It says there is an intelligent "designer" who created and guided the evolution of all life in the universe. Who said anything about God?

Ahh i see, i misunderstood.

So the religous ppl belive that God created and guided the universe.

The ID propoments belive some "designer" created and guided the universe.


How stupid of me, i don't know how i could have confused the two when they are so obviously different.

[Kodonn]

If it smells like a duck, tastes like a duck and feels like a duck, it is probablly a duck!!!!

This is known as the "duck theory". (You haven't yet proven the existence of the duck, only its probability) Only after at least 2 scientists publish papers on "said" duck, and those papers get peer reviewed by yet more scientists,
could you say whether or not it is or isn't a duck. :grin:

By the way,
ducks pretty much smell like whatever they been swimming in.
taste, depends on what they been eating (wild vs. domestic duck) and how you cook em
and feel, like meat and feathers.

So,
If one of my free-range chickens falls in the pond...it could be a duck ? :shocked: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

[Stigg]

Americans are stupid.

Oh, wait. I thought I clicked on "Americans are NOT stupid" and not "God -vs- all' My fault. /backs away from thread.

[jschild]

I''m American and I am even sometimes ashamed. How can so many people believe that Saddam Hussien was behind 9/11? Pick up a book. For pete's sake people, read and think for yourselves. :)

Some days I just have to shake my head.

[gmedina]

This is known as the "duck theory". (You haven't yet proven the existence of the duck, only its probability) Only after at least 2 scientists publish papers on "said" duck, and those papers get peer reviewed by yet more scientists,
could you say whether or not it is or isn't a duck. :grin:

By the way,
ducks pretty much smell like whatever they been swimming in.
taste, depends on what they been eating (wild vs. domestic duck) and how you cook em
and feel, like meat and feathers.

So,
If one of my free-range chickens falls in the pond...it could be a duck ? :shocked: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


You are correct good sir, my explanation of the duck theory is not as proveable as the Sugar Honey Ice Tea theory(a.k.a excrement theory).

This theory states that if it smells like excrement, tastes like excrement(ouch), and smells like excrement, it must be excrement. In this scenario since there is only one type of excerement and it's existance has been proven by everyone in the world it doesn't have the glaring weakness that the duck theory is sensitive to.

[gmedina]

I''m American and I am even sometimes ashamed. How can so many people believe that Saddam Hussien was behind 9/11? Pick up a book. For pete's sake people, read and think for yourselves. :)

Some days I just have to shake my head.

WHAT!!!!!!! Sadaam Hussain isn't behind 9/11??? But..but...but the president said he was and president never lie!!!!

[lojackedmm]

Don't reply to Glurin Telic !

I don't have time to read another essay :wink:

I think the argument of Infinite Regression blows ID out of the water. Glurin wants to have his cake and eat it "if it looks designed, then it is, except if its God"
By the way, if its ok to accept the argument of infinite regression until we hit God, then Glurin MUST be deputising God in to his ID theory - therefore making it unscientific.

I would agree with many of your scientific arguments telic but think the idea of falisifiable theory needs clarification.
ALL the theoretical physics theories are actually falisifiable in that it can be clearly understood how the theory can be falsified. It doesn't matter whether we have managed to test the theory yet, as long as it is a tentative theory that doesn't claim to be absolute truth, then the fact that we know the conditions that would disprove it is a good start. Eventually we may hope to test it because we know how it can be falsified therefore it is scientific (in other words there is a difference between "not being falsifiable", and "being falsifiable, but not having been tested yet")
For ID however the central assumption upon which it is based is that "a designer better explains some things than an undirected process but we cant say anything about who the designer was". There is no way in which to prove the theory false therefore its not scientific.


Glurin had some comments about the criteria for scientific consideration making some comment about "if those are the ones you want to use"
Well those are the ones scientists use so unless you want to change science until it fits your theory then I think we'll use them :tongue:

I mention above why ID is not falsifiable (I refer you to jschild's posts also)

Its not parsimonious because it adds an intelligent designer to the equation that is not necessary to explain events when compared to evolutionary theory

Its not empirically testable in itself because it breaks the tennet of naturalism

Its not tentative, correctable, dynamic or progressive because it professes to offer an answer that does not need to be defined or explained, the intelligent agent, designer. By asserting a conclusion that cannot be accounted for scientifically, the designer, ID cannot be sustained by any further explanation, and objections raised to those who accept intelligent design make little headway. Thus ID is not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that a conclusion that need not be accounted for has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data (ie telics reference to a scientific dead-end)

ID is generally internally consistent and logical only within the framework in which it operates. Criticisms are that this framework has at its foundation an unsupported, unjustified assumption: that complexity and improbability must entail design, but the identity and characteristics of the designer are not identified or quantified, nor need they be. The framework of intelligent design, because it rests on a unquantifiable and unverifiable assertion, has no defined boundaries except that complexity and improbability require design, and the designer need not be constrained by the laws of physics

telic already argued against IDs usefulness


Glurin argues that ID should be worked on until it can be regarded as scientific theory, but it is absolutely clear from the above that ID would have to change so fundamentally to be considered scientific that it would no longer be called ID
Or as many ID proponents would prefer, science would have to change to allow ID in.

Also, I have inferred from Glurin's posts that he would make the theory more complete by invoking God as the Designer
God being a stubbornly supernatural entity, this disqualifies it as science again.


Damn now I have written an essay of my own :tongue:

[Kalos]

Infinite Regression is a bit of a daft arguement, in the end it defys its own logic. Everything has a beginning, something that riggered it, except for God. If you can accept that God is infinite and eternal, why not anything else? It doesn't come up with a cause for God, only turning to his own definition for defence. But if something without a cause can be logically excepted, then the rule that everything regresses breaks down and is fundamentally flawed.

[gmedina]

Infinite Regression is a bit of a daft arguement, in the end it defys its own logic. Everything has a beginning, something that riggered it, except for God. If you can accept that God is infinite and eternal, why not anything else? It doesn't come up with a cause for God, only turning to his own definition for defence. But if something without a cause can be logically excepted, then the rule that everything regresses breaks down and is fundamentally flawed.

How come i understand every individual word in that paragraph but still have no idea what he said??? :ponder::ponder:

[Glurin]

LOL

You see that Telic? You just can't get people to put aside their prejudice on this topic. I'm not arguing that the "designer" in ID is God, or anything like God for that matter, yet we have not one, but three people after my last post saying that I am. Thats why ID is having trouble getting anywhere.

jschild, your taking this topic way too seriously.

gmedina,

ID stats that some supreme being created the universe.

Nope. It states that some intelligent entity created or at least guided the design of life on earth. Groups like the Discovery Institute like to expand on it further to include the universe and imply God, but really the bare-bones theory doesn't (and has no reason to, at the moment) go any further than earth. The Discovery Institute and others like it are really hurting their own cause by doing that....

lojackedmm,

By the way, if its ok to accept the argument of infinite regression until we hit God, then Glurin MUST be deputising God in to his ID theory -

You just created a forum post. God created the universe, therefore God created your forum post. That is your logic here. You sure this is the argument you want to make?

Glurin had some comments about the criteria for scientific consideration making some comment about "if those are the ones you want to use"

Referring to those that use testability as their litmus test for determining if a theory is scientific or not.

Kalos,

EXACTLY! I'm glad someone here gets it! :thumbsup:

[jschild]

No Glurin, you are refusing to answer my posts. Why is that?

A Theory must make predictions and must be testable. Again. State one prediction of ID. State whether or not it is possible to determine who the designer is. State one testable (even if it is not now) facet of ID. Give me anything, someting, instead of not answering my posts. On all of those things, I can state many from evolution. I want 1 prediction. One testable facet. Just one.

[Glurin]

Would you accept it if I did? I doubt it. Your too quick to judge. You have the same attitude as the pompous church leaders of days gone by. That doesn't really motivate me to cooperate with you.

[jschild]

Yes I would believe it. You are the one who seems dead set agasint even providing one example. I didn't say 17 examples. I said 1. I want to see one single example. If you cannot provide something so simple and basic as that, well, that will speak volumes of your "science".

[gmedina]

LOL

Nope. It states that some intelligent entity created or at least guided the design of life on earth. Groups like the Discovery Institute like to expand on it further to include the universe and imply God, but really the bare-bones theory doesn't (and has no reason to, at the moment) go any further than earth. The Discovery Institute and others like it are really hurting their own cause by doing that....


Ohhh, i see, don't know how i could have consfused that with God, so it wasn't God, instead it was some other supremely intelligent being that has God like powers. Gotcha:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Wait....this being this "designer", we have no name for it(he/she), so how would we talk about it in normal conversation with other people to let them know who we are referring to. I have an idea since this "designer" created the planet and all the known universe and has "God" like powers. How about we call him.....um....um...ohh i know...God. Until of course ID can at some point uniquely identify it. Hmmmm i assume there is only one "desinger" so i suppose that God does uniquely identify him....wait now i'm confused:ponder::ponder:. We can't call him God b/c even though he is like God according to ID he actually isn't.


What was are the odds of ther being two of such beings, God and anther being the "desinger" could it be they are the same????

What is that theory that says if there are two possible solutions it is usually the simplest one that is true???

[jschild]

Good Ol' Ochams Razor (forgive the spelling)

[Telic]

lojacked has dealt with many of your arguments (and I think you have not understood the point of his argument in the quotation you refer to), so I'll just address your more agregious sins :wink:



.....
I'm sure those religious zealots back then thought they were perfectly reasonable too. :wink:

.....

Imagine Galileo trying to stand beside the priest and preach that which questioned what the church was teaching. Do you think that would have gone over well?

Its the same story over and over again. Only now the roles have been reversed:

"These patterns indicate that there was an intelligent being who...."
"Heathen! How dare you question the status quo?!" :rant:
"Um..what? All I said was that....." :shocked:
"You said God created the world! God does not exist you stupid, ignorant peasant!" :rant:
"But I didn't say anything about God. All I said was....." :undecided:
"Blasphemy! Get out of here before we have you arrested!" :rant:
"But...." :nervous:
"GO! AND DON'T COME BACK UNTIL YOU REALIZE THE TRUTH!" :rant:
:hang:

How do you expect any subject to be discussed objectively when it gets treated like that? Just look at this very thread. How many posts on the ID topic exclude any mention of God or religion in them? Not many, even though both are totally irrelevant to the ID theory.

(Yes I was having a little fun with the smilies there) :neener:
.....


Putting aside the fact that you are ignoring all the people who have proposed secular arguments against ID, its still an obscene comparison.
No one will arrest or torture you until you recant your belief in ID. Its a free country and you have a right to state your beliefs and even publish and promote them. I will re-state my main points from earlier again :

"That irrational religion wanted to completely irradicate a rational scientific theory [and stop people even thinking it] can be viewed as criminal.
That rational scientists are simply stating that a non-scientific theory should not be taught as science [in school science classes] is better characterised as self defence."





.....
You do. "ID is Creationism in disguise."
.....


Nope, I don't :wink:
I refute ID on secular arguments.
But I do believe the proponents of ID are Creationists in disguise.





[Glurin:"A scientist is just as thick skulled and stubborn as a religious person. Present either of them with all the evidence in the world that appears to disprove everything they believe in and they won't change their minds."]
[Telic:"I don't accept your argument that scientists wouldn't change their mind. Of course there will be cranks, but they would be treated as such."]
.....
They are still people. Their occupation does not make them immune to prejudice or stubbornness. The same standard applies across the board. Or it should anyway. Some seem to slap a "crank" label on all religious people simply because they are religious. But really percentage wise, I doubt there is much difference between the number of science "cranks" and religious "cranks".
.....


This misses the whole point of the argument.
The scientist who doesn't change his mind in the face of all the evidence is a crank, and will be treated as such even by fellow scientists.
The religious exponent that doesn't change his mind in the face of all the evidence is the norm. They believe what their Faith tells them to, no matter the evidence.






[Telic : "I don't think there is a scientific theory causing any controversy. And given that 99.9% of scientists much prefer evolutionary theory, is there really any controversy at all"]

.....
Really? Then why are the school boards, educators, scientists, ID groups, news media, politicians, and general public still arguing about it? One would think that if everyone agreed on it, then it would be little more than a footnote in history.
.....


Well, firstly, I specifically used the term scientific theory :wink:
Anyway, there's a difference between disagreement and controversy.
And finally, I think that ID would be a footnote if it wasn't supported by the power and wealth of the American Religious Right






.....
Also, any confusion I spread is the confusion of learning. In other words, you can't actually learn anything without becoming confused from time to time. It just means you haven't figured that part out yet.
.....


Well I have figured out that there's a difference between honest confusion derived from mistaken or incomplete understanding, and the dishonest confusion spread by advocates of ID.

[lojackedmm]

One quick point because I think there is still misunderstanding about naturalism in science
Supernatural means impervious to scientific method e.g. ID for the reasons that I highlighted in my previous post. It isn't to do with whether we have a technique yet or not, its to do with the fundamental definition of the scientific method and how it works


On the reply from Glurin :


lojackedmm,

You just created a forum post. God created the universe, therefore God created your forum post. That is your logic here. You sure this is the argument you want to make?


No, I was merely stating that if "looking designed means it was designed" holds true for all organisms that aren't God, but that God would halt Infinite Regression, then the following logic is implicit within ID :

EITHER
We were designed, our designer was designed, their designer was designed......until God designed someone and "halts" the regression.
It doesn't matter at which stage God comes in to the equation, he becomes the central part of the theory.
At that stage the supernatural is invoked with all its consequences for scientific inquiry.

OR
If you are saying ID leads to Infinite Regression, then it disproves the existance of God by your own definition

You yourself said in an earlier posts that ID was incomplete because it did not explore the nature of the Designer (and unscientific becuase it was incomplete). All I have done is discuss the nature of the designer, and the consequences of the founding principle of ID.