OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Zen]

For those who don't know or don't care. Christopher Reeves is dead. I have trouble thinking of him as anything but Superman when I first hear his name, then it degenerates into the disabled shadow of a man that he turned into.

Since Stem Cell Research is a potentially hot topic, I was wondering if anyone felt one way or the other (Vehemenantly opposed or Fantatically for) about the research, the amount of publicity that it was given when Christopher Reeves was active for it and now that he's gone, a Martyr for the cause.

[Evil Dave]

I'll be happy to play "fanatically for" if nobody else will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Huzurdaddi]

Evil Dave,

I happily join you. Only the most sadistic in our socety would fight against research which gives hope to those who have so little.

[deccan]

Another "fanatically for" vote here.

[Ygorl]

I wouldn't be surprised to find a pretty high correlation between Dominions players and stem-cell research supporters... Really the only objection that anyone has, I think, is "you're killing babies to do research". Since (as Kerry stated in the Last debate) we could get a ton of useful cells from embryos that are frozen and would otherwise remain frozen until being discarded, that objection doesn't really hold water. And the consensus on this board seems to be that things that hold water are good, at least for casting quickness and breath of winter and forging the odd clam or pair of boots.
There are of course a lot of good arguments that it's possible to obtain embryonic stem cells in other ways without killing babies, but as far as I know those more contentious arguments aren't even necessary.

[Zen]

It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution. I would imagine that this genre might have a broad swath, while certainly, some aspects of this game might seem sacriligeous to most Creationists to a degree.

[deccan]

Ygorl said:
And the consensus on this board seems to be that things that hold water are good, at least for casting quickness and breath of winter and forging the odd clam or pair of boots.



LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Huzurdaddi]

re: Creationism and how many believe in Evolution

I think that you are going to find that of the demographics of the denizens of the internet skew decidedly in one direction ( ooh I feel like Don King ).

Add to this the nature of the game and the I think the results will be even more skewed.

[Evil Dave]

Ygorl said:
Really the only objection that anyone has, I think, is "you're killing babies to do research".



Well, there are more sophisticated strategies for playing that side, but that is the usual one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Evil Dave]

Zen said:
It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution.


You do like playing with fire, don't you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

deccan said:
Another "fanatically for" vote here.

Ditto. And to answer Zen's poll, vehemently anti-BS (and thus anti-Creationism).

[Zen]

I'm wearing my flame-retardart underwear so I should be good. Nothing like dropping a cigarette on your lap to make you "Be Prepared".

I'm sure since it's clear this thread is OT, and that the issue is babykill'n for their precious, juicy stemcells and whether or not you believe in a divine force mean that someone, somewhere that reads this will be offended. Though I do hope that people can keep their own personal attacks to a minimum and only debate the issue(s).

[Arryn]

Zen said:
Nothing like dropping a cigarette on your lap to make you "Be Prepared".

Further proof of just how stupid smoking is.


Zen said:
the issue is babykill'n for their precious, juicy stemcells

Wrong. It isn't a baby until after it's born. And until it has measurable brainwaves it's just a parasitic organism. (If a human is dead when its brain stops working, then a fetus isn't a live human until its brain starts working.) A bLastocyst has no more rights than the bacteria living in a person's gut, or a flatworm, or a tumor. Unless the lunatics at PETA have their way.

[Zen]

Your Anti-Tumor and Anti-Flatworm too?!

How do you live with yourself?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

Zen said:
Your Anti-Tumor and Anti-Flatworm too?!

How do you live with yourself?

Happily. By avoiding carcinogens and impure water, of course. /threads/images/Graemlins/icon24.gif /threads/images/Graemlins/Peace.gif

[Huzurdaddi]

bacteria living in a person's gut, or a flatworm, or a tumor




Why do you have such hatred in your heart for flatworms? Open your heart to the love.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

(If a human is dead when its brain stops working, then a fetus isn't a live human until its brain starts working.)


Glad to see somebody agrees with me. ISTR it's about the forth or fifth month of gestation when the fetus shows brain activity that can't be distinguished from folks what has been born.

[Zen]

Glad to see somebody agrees with me. ISTR it's about the forth or fifth month of gestation when the fetus shows brain activity that can't be distinguished from folks what has been born.



There are people who live 20-30 years that can probably say the same? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

Huzurdaddi said:
Why do you have such hatred in your heart for flatworms? Open your heart to the love.

Open yours. Be my guest. As for me, I'll pass on being (soft in the head) conservatively compassionate with regards to life-sucking parasites, be they worms or wormlike elected (or nonelected) officials. The former must all die, and the latter must all be kicked out of office for the good of the nation and the world.

[Huzurdaddi]

The former must all die, and the latter must all be kicked out of office for the good of the nation and the world.




Sadly the latter will probably not be kicked out of office due to the segment of the population that passionately requires that the former must live. Actually passionately is far too weak of a word. Fervently is a far better word.

While the side who wants to kick out the current officials think that they are passionate about the subject they simply do not understand what "passion" is ... it's ... uhm ... different. If you want what you want due to logical reasons then you simply do not have anywhere near the same level of pasion.

Not like I really understand it, I happen to like logic thank you very much. However I have observed this way of "thinking" and it is very powerful to those that practice it.

OTOH I have to believe ( eek ) that the number of people who Subscribe to logic outnumber that people that don't. And perhaps they will show up at the polls this time around. But if history is any guide they will not.

[Arryn]

Sadly, "the number of people who Subscribe to logic" is a miniscule percentage of the population of any country, especially ours. As proof I present you with "reality TV", our national debt courtesy those whom the populace in their boundless logic continue to reelect, and that same populace's belief in myth & superstition, drug use (including tobacco), drunk driving, and child/spousal abuse. (BTW, by myth and superstition I'm not referring to voodoo, astrology, numerology, John Edwards, et cetera, though they certainly are obvious examples of bunk. I'm referring to most religions such as Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)

[johan osterman]

Arryn I am not sure what you mean by Subscribe to logic. But I imagine that one would not have any great difficulty digging up any number counter examples amongst logicians or mathematicians guilty of one or more of the 'sins' you list. I think you attribute a broader normative use to logic than what is warranted. And to be blunt, I think you confuse your own attitudes with logic.

[Arryn]

Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

[Cainehill]

Zen said:
It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution. I would imagine that this genre might have a broad swath, while certainly, some aspects of this game might seem sacriligeous to most Creationists to a degree.



As a Solipsist, I believe in neither evolution nor creationism. The world is a fever dream, and when I die, it'll go away. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Cainehill]

Zen said:

Glad to see somebody agrees with me. ISTR it's about the forth or fifth month of gestation when the fetus shows brain activity that can't be distinguished from folks what has been born.



There are people who live 20-30 years that can probably say the same? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif



But we currently have proof that you don't need living brain cells or brain activity to become the president of the USA, if your family is rich and connected enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

[Arryn]

Cainehill said:
But we currently have proof that you don't need living brain cells or brain activity to become the president of the USA, if your family is rich and connected enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Actually, he does have living brain cells. Just enough so that he can half-assed parrot what his handlers (namely Dick Cheney) tell him to say.

BTW, did you see the recent remake of the Manchurian Candidate? We have the Halliburton Candidate in the oval office now. (Well, until this campaign he spent most of his time in Crawford playing on his ranch and hiding from the public, but he does, alas, hold the office.)

[Gandalf Parker]

Zen said:
It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution.



Or those who believe in both. One is cause, the other is method. They arent necessairly exclusive of each other unless you belong to certain faiths which say they are.

Interesting note: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(The answer is known. Your question answers this one)

[Arryn]

Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created, pretty much as you see it today, a bit over 6000 years ago. And thus God also created the fossil record for some unknown reason (or as someone once told me, to make scientists look foolish), and thus radiocarbon dating cannot be true (which throws most of particle physics right out the window). Creationism and Evolution *are* necessarily mutually exclusive. BTW, the principal backer of Creationism is the same Catholic church that took 500 years to acknowledge that it was wrong and Galileo and Copernicus were right. IOW, its backers have a long track record of being wrong and being too obstinate to admit it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created,


The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source. And that is also a larger group than saying christians. Its probably a good idea to not lump terms like creationists, religion, religious people, moral people, and many others I cant think of right now.. automatically into a group called christians. Its abit of a red flag for me.

In fact, in my humble opinion, jumping to christians usually gives far more points to the argument than it would otherwise have. Rather like starting a discussion against dieting by considering them all to be anorexics.

[Arryn]

Gandalf Parker said:
The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source.

I use the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online page for Creationist (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Creationist&x=11&y=1 4) . Playing semantics is a smokescreen for dodging the argument.

[Tuidjy]

I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution. While I agree with him,
I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible. The word should not be used
to mean other things, or you can't have a good argument.

And everyone knows that having good arguments is why the Powers that Be created
the universe. Or at least I believe so. And you can't argue with belief, by
definition. So the Powers that Be do not want you to Believe. So all religious
people are sacriligeous.

And that was an example of how useful logic is in this topic.

[Arryn]

Thanks, Tuidjy. Your summation, and the points you make, are excellent.

[Huzurdaddi]

Getting back to the original question about stem cells I just don't see why it is not a bigger issue in the current election.

It polls *very* well for one side. That side was going to lose 100% of the votes of people it does not poll well. It polls well with the undecided people.

One of the two sides should be bringing it up at every opportunity and then make their own opportunities to bring it up. It's a great issue.

As is breaking the relationship between an "evil tyrant" and 9/11. This connection is still belived by 50% of the population. Now it is impossible to get that number below 40% since that is bedrock base, but you could drive it down further perhaps to the low 40s. The canidate should see this as a key word. Whenever the subject is brought up he *must* break the relation. He started doing it, but still let it slide multiple times. A horrible display.

[Arryn]

Daddi, because that particular candidate (much as it pains me to say it) is incapable of remaining focused on one side of an issue (which his opponents enjoy pointing out), or in driving an issue home by repetition (a tactic, along with gross distortions of the truth, that his opponents are masters at).

Yes, the GOP is vulnerable on this issue. But in the eyes of voters, it's not even in the top 5 of important issues. And it's not as juicy for the media (that is, they can't provide "exciting" daily film clips) as are Iraq, pissed-off unemployed workers, or pissed-off people waiting in line at airports. The American public consumes whatever the media feed it. Blame the media for not keeping it in the forefront of American's ultra-short attention spans.

[Huzurdaddi]

Re: not important/media

IF we haev learnt anything from the Last 5 years it's the the media will repeat whatever is said by whomever it is watching. Hence it can be manufactured as an issue, just like so many, honestly pointless issues have before. I mean, really, abortion is a small issue compared to Iraq and tax cuts ( one will cost over 200 billion, the other 2 trillion over 10 years ... if you count the number of lives this could help/save you will see that it dwarves the smaller issue so completely it's crazy to talk about anything else ... full disclosure before I am attacked about the tax cut: I really benifit in the short run from the tax cut, but I think it is a horrible idea. ).

re: the canidate

He's horrible. It's painful. It is amazing to me that he is so bad. He did not win the 1st debate the other person simply showed his true colors. Again with the 2nd debate to a lesser degree.

Even his slick running mate, whom I liked, was *horrible* in his debate ( slate.com be damned! ). I mean did he simply not study or what? But OTOH his charm and boyish good looks saved the day and polling found that he won the debate. Facinating.

As a lay person I think that this election should be quite simple for one side to win. I mean there have been some pretty large errors made in the Last 4 years you would think that going on the attack and never letting up would really work. But for some reason they have not done this. Perhaps there is a reason this campaign was run in such an incompetent ( in my eyes ) fashion. Sadly we will probably never know. Perhaps a kiss and tell book will be written in the future.

[Arryn]

The President has spent the past year+ very effectively hammering on Kerry's record in the Senate; Kerry's taking more than one side on several issues in the past 20+ years. It's only in the Last month that Kerry woke up to the realization that he should have been hammering the President on the President's own lousy record of the past 4 years in which this President has consistently made horrible decisions on EVERY matter placed before him, lied to the public (what else is new for a President, any of them in the past 40 years?), and even reneged on most of his promises to the morons who voted for him Last time. Had 9/11 not happened, this election wouldn't even be close. Bush is riding the only pony he has, a pony any idiot could have ridden (wars are almost always good for incumbent Presidents) at least as well (it's hard to imagine anyone doing worse than Bush).

Paraphrasing a quote from Star Wars is appropriate: "Fear will keep them in line." Just remember, the Dark side of the Farce will be with us, always.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
The President has spent the past year+ very effectively hammering on Kerry's record in the Senate; Kerry's taking more than one side on several issues in the past 20+ years.


Wow Arryn, did you look at those? I thought you would have. All of the ones I checked on that Bush pointed to, dont make Bush look very good. Like Kerry voting for Iraq then against Iraq. The first one had apparently sound allegations, and promises, which made it reasonable to vote for. The second one he says he didnt vote for because those things from the first never happened. Didnt sound like a flip-flop to me.

As far as I can tell every example was like that. Things included in the bill that decided it, not the subject or title it was given. If those are examples of things that Bush would have voted a certain way just because the title said it was about something then it doesnt do much for Bush's image IMHO

I see alot of that stuff but it might be my military background in propoganda. Like "Senator Kerry said it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Now, he says it's the wrong war" as if the two are still the same thing.

[Cainehill]

Also, the dems have been making the same mistake they made in 2002, post-9/11 : thinking that they'll be construed as unpatriotic if they attack the republicans and the president. In 2002, Dems were basically forbidden to attack on any of the major grounds they could/should have; unsurprisingly, the republicans gained.

And once again, they've worried that it'll look bad to attack a "War Time President!!!" during a war (albeit the Republicans are trying to ignore that we still have several wars going on, all of which they've screwedup).

All while the media and the public ignores that the Bush Reich has been slandering and attacking genuine war heroes: McCain, Max Cleland (who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam) and, lesser war hero but at least in Vietnam and wounded there, Kerry.

Also all while they ignore that the Bushies have been screwing the current active duty military over left and right, on the large scale and the small scale. ( For instance, when Bush got his photo op by going to Iraq for Thanksgiving with the troops, a bunch of troops wound up eating cold MREs, because they were turned away from the mess facility. The only troops there when Bush was were carefully screened, hand-selected Bush fans. Or when he kept sailors away from their families an extra day, keeping the aircraft carrier paused at sea so he could get his photo op there. )

[Gandalf Parker]

Tuidjy said:
I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution.


Thats probably true, but not what I meant.

I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible.

I have to disagree with that also. Please dont paint the world as being christian/non-christian. There are many Groups, and religions, which believe that the world was created by design without being christian bible Groups. I could generate a fantasically long list but the easiest might be to say that just about every religion other than christian, jewish, and muslim would be using a source other than genesis for their basis of creation. And I guess the ancestral worships can be let off the hook. As far as I know most of the rest do have some sort of creationism belief.

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.

[Huzurdaddi]

Gandalf this is why the right is simply better at the game of politics.

To understand the Kerry's votes you have to go into the minutia of the vote which, in general, people will not do.

Further, let's be honest. Kerry voted for the authority since he was up for re-election. He was gutless. Or perhaps discretion is the better part of valor, I don't know. I hate to say it, since I want someone to beat Bush, but Kerry was gutless on this issue. No Senator should have voted for that resolution, hell I don't even know if it was constitutionally valid.

[Arryn]

Gandalf, didn't I mention that the GOP grossly distorts the truth? You've now seen it for yourself. My mentioning that the President was hammering Kerry for his supposed "flip-flops" in no way means that I agree that Kerry has actually done so, as you point out. It's obvious once you ignore the rhetoric and actually study what really happened, but the GOP doesn't want folks to think for themselves (and by extension, do their own homework). They want people to believe whatever they tell them. Which is one lie (a truth distorted is a lie) after another after another.

Few people will argue that getting rid of Hussein was a bad idea. But doing it when we did it and how we did it was the sort of mistake that historians will be discussing for decades, much as they discuss why Hitler failed to take Moscow and Stalingrad (which I cite as similar examples of gross failures in leadership from the top of a military command).

As for what I alluded to with regards to Bush lying to his own supporters, take a look a "no child left behind" (where he's *cut* funding, rather than expand it as he promised), and his imposition of tariffs on steel (quite a no-no for a person that purports to support free trade), just to name two obvious and egregious examples.

Finally, Bush & Co. have this absurd notion that they can spend whatever they want (so long as it's for the military and not for "social" programs) and that the cost (including interest) will magically take care of itself without the need for more taxes. These same hypocrites bashing Kerry for voting *against* tax increases (as unpatriotic since the money was for the military) in the next breath call Kerry a "tax and spend liberal". So far as I can see, since 1994 the GOP has controlled the Congress and the national debt has skyrocketed. Makes you wonder about the so-called "tax and spend liberals" when the conservatives spend way more than the liberals do. The GOP is the party of "smaller government", yet since they took over, we have *more* government agencies and regulations. The GOP's attacks against our Constitutional rights and freeedoms are appalling. (The only amendment they support is the 2nd. They abhor the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th, just to name a few.)

[Gandalf Parker]

Huzurdaddi said:
Further, let's be honest. Kerry voted for the authority since he was up for re-election. He was gutless. Or perhaps discretion is the better part of valor, I don't know. I hate to say it, since I want someone to beat Bush, but Kerry was gutless on this issue. No Senator should have voted for that resolution, hell I don't even know if it was constitutionally valid.



Well its all propoganda anyway. People dont realize that propoganda rarely means "lies". It means telling your Version of the truth with your choice of words. Another word for "flip flop" might be "flexible", and the other end of that scale would be "inflexible" or "pig-headed in the face of later facts". The president is at the top with supreme court, congress, senate, a ton of advisors. Having one that does what he wants and end-runs around all of those doesnt strike me as preferable.

[Zen]

My guess is Arryn is writing in Ross Perot at election time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

Wrong, Zen. Perot is a demagogue of the worst sort. Plus I don't believe in throwing away my vote.

I favored McCain in the Last election before Bush's lies buried him in the primaries. That left me with no choice but to support Gore. I supported Wesley Clarke. Kerry was 3rd or 4th down on my list of viable Democratic opponents to Bush.

[Huzurdaddi]

I supported Wesley Clarke.




I found that his positions were too complicated to connect. Dean and Edwards both had very simple, powerful, campaigns that I think would have translated well in a national forum. Further he was not really quick in the debates and I happen to like quickness ( no idea if it polls well ).



Perot is a demagogue of the worst sort.




Who cares? he probably gave two elections to Clinton! The ends justify the means!



Well its all propoganda anyway.




Well that seems a little like a cop-out. There were real concequences to that decision, expensive and deadly concequences. There has been OTOH no accountability. None, zero, zip. That's wrong, IMO.

[NTJedi]

Arryn said:

Zen said:
Nothing like dropping a cigarette on your lap to make you "Be Prepared".

Further proof of just how stupid smoking is.




<font color="purple">I agree smoking is stupid...
People start smoking because of peer pressure and/or trying to rebel which is sad... then they keep smoking because they can't break their addiction despite the obvious bad health results and expenses for keeping the habit. </font>



[/quote] ...a fetus isn't a live human until its brain starts working.

[/quote]

<font color="purple"> The real question is when does the soul arrive... yet mankind doesn't know. Destroying the temple(body/organism) for where a soul may reside is definitely wrong. </font>

[Arryn]

Hi, NT. I was starting to wonder how long you could stay away from a discussion on religion and politics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

People start smoking, and fail to stop, because they are weak-willed (as well as being stupid).

With regards to souls, and playing Devil's Advocate {nods to Murph}, it hasn't been proved that they exist. Isn't it sort of hard to demonstrate when something that may not even exist arrives? Oh, and if destroying the container for a soul is wrong, then what is your position on capital punishment? Self-defense? Or if we really want to have fun, how about the rulings of Sharia courts in Nigeria that two women are to be stoned to death for having unmarried sex? (BTW, the men these women admitted to having sex with, one of the women being *pregnant* by her companion, were acquitted due to "lack of evidence". Barbaric, simply barbaric.)

[johan osterman]

Arryn said:
Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.



First of all I am an atheist. So I feel no particular need to try so supply you with a creationist argument. The point I attempted to make was that rational and highly logical people do any of a number of the things you seemed to consider contrary to logic. Take one of your examples, spousal abuse, while morally unsound, I fail to see how it can be either logically sound or unsound, valid or invalid without a great deal of very contrived reasoning. I think you misapply the term logic, and use it in a Star Trekkish Mr Spock fashion that gives it a wider application than what is warranted.

I also notice that while you demand proofs of those that you believe holds views different than yours, you yourself offer very little to back up your assertions. This I find somewhat amusing in light of your claim that "Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them". Considering that it is a simple task to produce examples of seemingly highly logical people that have engaged in those activites you find logically unsound, it seems to me that the burden of proofs that these apparently logical people are in fact not so rests squarely on your shoulders.

I'm normally not a religous person. But if you are out there, save me superman.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.



Interesting. Just because Im wondering, are you a book-thumping fanatic for the other side? You talk about religion and beliefs and use the word "proof". Do you also use the word in quotes when you speak of the other side, or are the words technology and science as automatically comforting and unquestionable to you as their beliefs are to them?

People use to use the word "magic" to satisfactorily explain things they didnt understand but give them the peace of mind that things would continue working because others understood it. Now the word is "technology" and is used by the same level of public for the same reasons.

[Evil Dave]

Gandalf Parker said:

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.


Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

[Evil Dave]

NTJedi said:

<font color="purple"> The real question is when does the soul arrive... yet mankind doesn't know. Destroying the temple(body/organism) for where a soul may reside is definitely wrong. </font>


O great Jedi Master,

Do bugs have souls? Do rocks and trees have souls?

Beats the hell out of me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Worrying about the possibility leads only to paralysis. Like all societies, we want laws and norms. We can't wait for some future revelation. So we try to make something up and try to stick with it. In this discussion, we're (sorta) trying to decide what we wanna do and why we wanna stick with it.

[Arryn]

Johan, for someone who's otherwise fairly intelligent, I'm surprised (shocked, actually) that you cannot see for yourself why spousal abuse is an illogical (or if you prefer, irrational) behavior. Do you really need me to explain it to you?

With regards to proofs, you are doing precisely what I said that believers do: shifting the burden of proof. In this case, by attacking the attacker. You are also using circular reasoning in your attacks. Which is a logical fallacy, BTW.

You cannot use as a logical argument: "I don't have to prove what I say is true because you must prove me wrong." To use an analogy, let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not, and to demonstrate where the prosecution has made mistakes in its allegations (ie: where religion has made unverifiable claims). The defense does not need to prove anything. Proof is the burden of the side making the accusations (claims).

If I claimed to be the Messiah, it's not your job to prove me wrong. It's my responsibility to prove that I am what I claim. Religion fails such tests. It cannot prove its claims. Quite the opposite.

Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.

[Zen]

Hah, I think in your case Arryn, it is not too illogical or irrational in the case of spouse abuse. Zing!

I also think it's ever amusing that people fall on the *strawman* of labor of proof. Proof in this matter is purely opinion, hypothesis, and a foundation of faith (whatever it may be).

[Tuna]

johan osterman said:
I also notice that while you demand proofs of those that you believe holds views different than yours, you yourself offer very little to back up your assertions. This I find somewhat amusing in light of your claim that "Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them".



She doesn't have to produce any proof whatsoever, as following the scientific method, she is not making a claim. Believers make a claim: "God does exist". She doesn't have to do absolutely anything until the said believers provide her with falsifable proof. Only after that she must provide the believers with a counterproof. Same works with soul: "There is no proof whatsoever for the existence of soul, thus soul does not exist. ¤"

The age old argument "You prove that god doesn't exist!" Just doesn't work. Generally, when someone uses it on me, I use that as a sign to start ignoring the person. You provide me with falsifable proof that god does exist, and I will either falsify it or start believing that god exists.

Oh, and to clear a bit: "Falsifable", in laymans terms, doesn't mean that something is wrong, quite the contrary. It means that if it is wrong, it is capable to be proven wrong. Generally, in modern science, if something is not falsifable, it is considered to be false by default.

For example the theory "All cars are blue." can be falsified simply by observing a single non-blue car. Then again, theory "there is a god" is not falsifiable, thus is, by default, false. Only when it becomes falsifiable, by someone providing me with methods to somehow test if there is a god or not, will the theory be worth even the slightest of considerations.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.

Since science has done a passable job of explaining the universe from the Big Bang onwards, it pretty much only leaves room for God in the (as-yet) unexplained area of "what happened before the bang"? Some people prefer to see the hand of God in the setting of the physical laws of the universe, and in the "spark" of creation. Yet others can explain even that as random processes in a multiverse of infinite universes and infinite possibilities. (We exist because this universe happens to have the right random conditions for us to exist to ponder the question.)

What really scares some (many) religious believers is the possibility that some (unethical) scientist may someday (in the not-so-distant future) create a human being entirely in a lab from raw DNA, without "conception" at all. No egg. No biological parents. Instant person, just add water. (That's a joke.) If said experiment turns out a breathing, thinking human, where will that leave religion (and what many religions teach about humans)? We can already create viruses from scratch. It's only a matter of time before more complex organisms, and eventually people, can be 'manufactured'.

[Zen]

Arryn said:
Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.



I doubt you have the proof that is why it was created or have any eyewitness accounts of such reasoning during Religion's creation. However: Even with that, the common theory it was not 'created' to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand but rather a way to control the primitive people by giving them a standard of belief with which could be manipulated by the priest class for social 'improvement' and standardization of governing morals.

[Tuna]

Zen said: Proof in this matter is purely opinion, hypothesis, and a foundation of faith (whatever it may be).



Why? The scientific method works perfectly well for everyhting else on the planet. Why should the existence of soul, or god, be any more a matter of faith than the fact that earth rotates around the sun?* Why should existence of something be an opinion? If it exists, the it exists and is provable, if it doesn't exist then it just plain doesn't exist. No need for opinions or faith here.

*(Or actually, rotates around the center of gravity in the solar system which happens to be very near the center of the sun, but anyway.)

[Arryn]

Tuna said:
For example the theory "All cars are blue." can be falsified simply by observing a single non-blue car. Then again, theory "there is a god" is not falsifiable, thus is, by default, false. Only when it becomes falsifiable, by someone providing me with methods to somehow test if there is a god or not, will the theory be worth even the slightest of considerations.

Thank you. I haven't said "there is no God." I said "prove God exists". As you point out, they are not equal statements.

{This is certainly going to cause an uproar:}
There is less evidence for the existence of God than there is for UFOs. Yet, oddly enough, more people (by far) believe in God. Heck, more people believe in voodoo than in UFOs. People who believe in UFOs are called "crackpots". People who believe in God are "mainstream". We live in an irrational world indeed ...

[Zen]

Tuna said:
Why? The scientific method works perfectly well for everyhting else on the planet. Why should the existence of soul, or god, be any more a matter of faith than the fact that earth rotates around the sun?* Why should existence of something be an opinion? If it exists, the it exists and is provable, if it doesn't exist then it just plain doesn't exist. No need for opinions or faith here.

*(Or actually, rotates around the center of gravity in the solar system which happens to be very near the center of the sun, but anyway.)



Because "proof" is under the sway of "perception" and "understanding" which continually evolve. If you want to apply the "At this time, we believe:" to every fact that is presented by scientific conclusion, then it would be accurate. Science continually disproves other previsouly scientific facts, or finds and creates theories to plug the holes in otherwise grandly adopted factual systems.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn,

I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people". If you start from assumptions like "all people are sinners waiting for redemption", "women are more sinful then men", "it is men's duty to 'correct' women", then wife-beating (under certain circumstances) is logical, the same way many people would consider it logical to spank their kids if they were playing with fire.
This doesn't say that either one is "right", tho.

Religions are perfectly capable of making predictions: "All the faithful go to paradise after they die." Have you ever seen a priest burning in Hell? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
What's considered proof (at least as far as scientists worry about it) depends not only on making predictions, but making ones that can be disproven. And usually disproven in particular ways. If somebody says "I am the messiah because God came to me in a dream and said so", well, there's no way we can check that. Even if he says "As proof of my divinity, the sun will rise tomorrow", we'd say "While we can test that, it was also true that the sun rose before you became the Messiah, so what does that have to do with anything?" Now, if he says, "As proof, the sun won't rise tomorrow, because my god will cast Utterdark overnight." now that we'd be much more interested in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people".

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn,

Right. Newton's blind watchmaker isn't falsifiable. I don't believe that there is such a being, but we can't say that one exists or not. So, sensible people don't worry about it.

Viruses are *way* easier to create that actual living things. They are (to twist an analogy almost to the breaking point) just software, waiting to be acted on by living things. It may be possible to create life "from scratch". I kinda doubt it. The machinery barely works as designed -- our best guess is that about half of all conceptions spontaneously abort, generally in the first few cell divisions. I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

[Evil Dave]

Zen said:

Because "proof" is under the sway of "perception" and "understanding" which continually evolve. If you want to apply the "At this time, we believe:" to every fact that is presented by scientific conclusion, then it would be accurate. Science continually disproves other previsouly scientific facts, or finds and creates theories to plug the holes in otherwise grandly adopted factual systems.


It's hairier than that, but I don't wanna dig into Popper and Kuhn to remember how to argue the utter hairiness. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The short form goes kinda like this: some things which were previously the results of long chains of hypotheses are now considered facts. Mars isn't just a bright point in the sky that moves differently than the "fixed stars". We're positive it's a rocky world much more like the Earth than the Sun. Atoms are in the same Category, since you can (more or less) observe them directly with x-ray diffraction and electron microscopes. OTOH, the stuff that makes up atoms (or supposedly makes them up) isn't (yet) a real "fact".

Yeah, there's a lot of handwaving in that. Like I said, arguing it correctly is hard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

Evil Dave said:
I don't think Johan was saying that wife-beating was right, or logical, just that the demonstration that it's wrong or illogical depends on accepting a big set of other principles, like "human life has inherent value" and "men and women have equal worth as people".

If that's where he's coming from, it's flawed. It's not necessary to invoke morality (and thus religion or ethics) to demonstrate that such behavior is illogical. The sexes don't even have to be "equal", nor the life of a specific person have a "value", however abstract.

I'm deliberately not explaining why, in the hopes *someone* (besides myself) understands the reasoning. It's not all that hard. But it may require some out-of-the-box thinking.



Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
I'm not sure we'll be able to manage "pure" in vitro creation of life, especially since folks who want to make new living things will find it much easier to simply change existing ones. (Ie, very few people will be interested in trying to figure out how.)

Just because it seems impossible to us now doesn't make it so. 200 years ago flying was impossible. Flying faster than sound was thought impossible 60 years ago.

(Yes, I know you didn't use the word "impossible". I use it to illustrate a point.)

It is easier (by far) to modify existing DNA than create DNA from scratch. By analogy, it used to be easier to dig up diamonds than make them in a lab. That's not true anymore. I think you see where I'm going with this. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Arryn]

Evil Dave said:
Then that someone is gonna have to explain it to me too, cause that's how I understand it. I buy into an ethical system that includes a Version of the Golden Rule. So, reasoning from that, I conclude I shouldn't beat my wife cause I don't want her to beat me. If there's a shorter route to that conclusion, it's beyond me.

I hinted that reasons (note the plural) exist that are independent of ethics.

Ethical reasons such as the Golden Rule are valid. As are legal consequences such as going to jail, or social consequences such as marital breakup and the damage such behavior causes to children who witness it (directly or by seeing its effect upon their mother). But our system of laws are based on ethics, morality, and by extension, religion. However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.

[daesthai]

Arryn said:

... let's pretend that religion is the prosecution side in a court of law. It's the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The only obligation the defense has (we can call it 'science' if you wish) is to point out to the jury (aka the public) whether the prosecution has made its case or not...



So why is religion the prosecution while science is the defense (rather than the other way around)? =)

[devil's advocate mode]

I know, I know....you're about to cite this as another example of attacking the attacker, but that's really not my point here. I'm not trying to prove or justify religion. I'm just saying that in a debate between science and religion (both of which as they've been used so far in this topic are VERY generalized and amorphous), science cannot be taken for face value either. Within "science", things are constantly being updated, discovered, and changed. Theories abound and things thought to be fact are constantly overturned as more is learned.

I agree with you on one point. "Religion" cannot prove itself. I cannot argue that statement. But, as you so vehemently point that out, keep in mind that science in general has trouble proving itself, too. Especially in terms of universal origins. There are theories and conjecture, some with supporting evidence, but nothing proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Yes, religion fails the proof test. But you're seeming to infer that science would stand up better under the same litmus test. But if you step back objectively, just the same way religion is, science is defined and "proven" by itself. Scientific fact, rather than being universal truth, seems to be more of a sense of "this is what fits our knowledge at this time". Constantly changing, filled with exceptions and anomalies, is it any less of a fallacy to put all of our trust in science? So in this case, I think the attacking the attacker shoe fits on both feet. =)

[/devil's advocate mode]



~Dae

[johan osterman]

Arryn: I am not shifting the burden of proof. I am not claiming that there is a god or any other positive claim. I am however questioning your assertion that the activities you described warrants the conclusion that the persons engaged in said activities do not 'Subscribe to logic', that assertion on the other hand is a positive claim and the burden of proof comes to rest at your supremely arrogant feet, so if we are to continue this discussion I suggest you shoulder the burden and place it on your equally arrogant shoulders. And even were I to concede the point that theistic belief was irrational, I would not consider that sufficent evidence to label the theist an irrational person or a person not subcribing to logic, only ludicrous sci-fi entities go about their lives without inconsistant beliefs. As a final case in point I'd like to point out that Godel was a theist, and even tried his hand at an ontological proof of God. While this certainly in itself does not make theism rational it throws some very serious doubt on your assertion that theists does not Subscribe to logic.

Logic is a tool, it does not have normative moral implications. You can apply logic to ethical premises and arguably derive a functioning moral. But morally repugnant behaviour is not illogical, although it might be inconsistent with your other moral beliefs or premises.

Tuna: Infalsifiability does not render a theory false by default. It might be reason to consider it bad science or outside the scope of science or uninteresting but certainly not false by default. You might notice that any tautologies you produce are unfalsifiable, but they are certainly not false, if they were boys would not be boys and bachelors would not be unmarried men. I would also like for you to point out where exactly Arryn is making use of 'the scientific method'.

[johan osterman]

Arryn: I see you had some other reason to why wife beating was illogical. Don't be coy now and lest hear it.

[Gandalf Parker]

Evil Dave said:

Gandalf Parker said:

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.


Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.



For many there is the belief that the world was created or at least put in motion, to a plan. For many of those there is nothing saying that the plan couldnt be billions of years of evolution. Trying to push all creationists into the can of some 6-day timeline is going for an easy argument (and kindof christio-obnoxious which is what torqs me off)

[Ygorl]

The DNA's not the hard part, is my understanding. It's what you put it into when you're done with it. If you've got a nice little undifferentiated cell into whose nucleus you can stick your DNA, you're pretty much set. I hear the phrase "make a mouse" more than I ever thought I would. If you wanted to make the initial cell "by hand", you'd have to do all kinds of crazy manipulations (assembling the cell membrane from lipid molecules, building mitochondria, etc. etc. etc.) that aren't practical or reasonable or necessary. We already clone things. We already manipulate the DNA used to do what we want. While it would be incredibly far from trivial to make a human with at least certain desired characteristics, I think it's more an issue of being willing and fine-tuning the details of the procedure.
And, while I'm talking about things I've only a limited understanding of, the "6000 years since creation" bit is based on some dodgy translation of the Old Testament. It's possible to have a moderately strict interpretation of the Bible (as long as you pick the right one and have a little imagination) that doesn't conflict with the theory of evolution.
Logic springs from a set of axioms. If you start with a different set, you get different predictions. Those required to make claims about things like morality, religion, politics, drug use, are rather complex and opaque, to the point that even things that should be irrelevant in discussing them (such as the language you're using) make a huge difference. It's possible in somce cases, but always difficult, to say "given these assumptions, these things are good and these things are true and these things are right". That's what philosophy is about. But even the best philosophers (maybe _especially_ the best) don't claim to know what all the right assumptions are.
Finally, just because something is not falsifiable does not mean it is false. It's perfectly valid to not accept something as true that is not falsifiable (well, if there's no evidence for its being true, anyway). It does not make sense, however, to accept it as false.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:If said experiment turns out a breathing, thinking human, where will that leave religion (and what many religions teach about humans)?


Wont disturb mine. Now when you can do it without the egg or sperm as a starting point then it will get interesting. (virtual life? AI? energy-based conciousness? Commander Data? the Dr Hologram-guy?)

[Arryn]

Desthai, religion fails the "reasonable doubt" test, nevermind the "shadow of a doubt" degree of proof. I had to say that first to get it out of my system.

The fact that science tests itself, and theories change to fit observations, is a strength, not a weakness. Besides the logical fallacies of most religions, they also have the serious flaw of not adapting to new knowledge.

Time for another analogy: You and I are friends. I have no reason to lie to you, and (knowing this) you have no reason to distrust/doubt what I tell you. Over the span of many years I tell you all sorts of things about my past. You believe my stories, for you trust me (and trusting me, you never check a third party to see if what I say is true). One day, it so happens that you discover something that sheds doubt on something I've told you. You confront me. (Very brave of you to go against your long tradition of trust.) I insist that what I said is true. You show me proof that I am wrong. I do not accept your proof. You walk away thinking that either I am not mentally sound, or I'm an obstinate liar. Either way, you now question to yourself what else I might have told you that isn't true. Had I admitted to being mistaken, you *might* convince yourself that what you discovered was a unique event and that your friendship remained solid, despite whatever nagging doubt(s) you might have. Alas, you can no longer trust me, for I have deceived you and I am unwilling or incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction. I either deceive you deliberately, or I'm self-deluded and insist on sharing that delusion with you.

So it is with most religions. They have no credibility.

Do you drive a car, or fly in airplanes? If so, you are placing an enormous amount of trust (enormous as in your life) in science, as well as in the skill of other drivers and mechanics. The reason you can get away with this is because the engineering these objects are based on is backed by meticulously-tested science (unless you are one of those rare people who think cars are powered by tiny demons trapped inside the engine who drink gasoline and fart continuously).

BTW, attacking the attacker is what the weak do because they are unwilling or incapable of defending their own position. It's an attempt to throw the opponent off-balance so that you don't have to test your own defenses. You hope that you can keep your foe busy enough that he doesn't plow through the holes in your position.

[Huzurdaddi]

It is easier (by far) to modify existing DNA than create DNA from scratch. By analogy, it used to be easier to dig up diamonds than make them in a lab.




I think a more apt analogy would be that it is easier to cut and paste code from samples into a new program than to program from scratch. Or that it is easier to program using libraries than to program using only keywords.

DNA is little more than the memory system of a computer ( plus a little CPU thrown in for good luck ).

And I think we'll be engineering our own sooner rather than later if moore's law ( observation? ) continues to play out.

[Gandalf Parker]

Zen said:

Arryn said:
Finally, the more we learn about the universe we live in, the less the need for (or ability of) religion to explain that universe. Religion was invented to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand. It still serves that role today. With a few exceptions, most modern religions remain fundamentally fear-based.



I doubt you have the proof that is why it was created or have any eyewitness accounts of such reasoning during Religion's creation. However: Even with that, the common theory it was not 'created' to give comfort to primitive people who fear what they don't understand but rather a way to control the primitive people by giving them a standard of belief with which could be manipulated by the priest class for social 'improvement' and standardization of governing morals.



What interesting choices of words. Religion was "invented" or "created"? Hmmm possibly so. I think I might have said developed over time because it achieved those things rather than setup such a harsh shyster view. Im not offended mostly because I consider "religion" as quite different from "religious". The two serve very different purposes.

[Gandalf Parker]

NTJedi said:
<font color="purple"> The real question is when does the soul arrive... yet mankind doesn't know. Destroying the temple(body/organism) for where a soul may reside is definitely wrong. </font>


Which leads to the catholic banning of male masturbation? Which carried to its extreme led to monks disease?
The banning of all procedures or surgeries which might affect the birthing process at all? birth control? Vasectomy? removing even partially a womb even if it would save the life of the mother?
Also the banning of all surgeries to seperate twins? Even if done to save one?

Logical arguments are fine but if you try to say that something "crosses a line" then you need to be willing to consider where the line should be. Im not ready to say that all eggs must be fertilized and all carried to full term and all eggs must be buried properly.

[deccan]

Arryn said:
However, there are other reasons why this particular behavior is irrational. As I said, think outside the box.



Well I guess I need this explained to me too.

Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

I believe that the problem that J.O. raised and Evil Dave further explained doesn't go away with that. Basic foundational values cannot really be justified through logic (i.e. you need some basic premises to work with and to apply logic on). Logic (and science) can explain why someone might hold a particular set of values, but that isn't the same as justifying it. On the other hand, once a set of basic foundational values exists, logic can be used to work out derivative values required to uphold the basic foundational ones and so forth.

[Arryn]

Johan, if I were to call you "arrogant", as you have done to me in post #302639, especially more than once in a single post and going out of your way to be insulting and turn a discussion into a personal attack, I'm certain that Tim would ban me from the board for flaming you, and with good cause. As a moderator you can (and do) ignore the rules as you see fit. However, until such time as you learn to be civil, and behave by the rules that you expect from the rest of us, I don't feel obliged to speak to you further.

[Arryn]

deccan said:
Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

You're getting warmer. Very warm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[johan osterman]

Arryn said:
Johan, if I were to call you "arrogant", as you have done to me in post #302639, especially more than once in a single post and going out of your way to be insulting and turn a discussion into a personal attack, I'm certain that Tim would ban me from the board for flaming you, and with good cause. As a moderator you can (and do) ignore the rules as you see fit. However, until such time as you learn to be civil, and behave by the rules that you expect from the rest of us, I don't feel obliged to speak to you further.



This thin skinnedness is a bit rich coming from you. Whatever happened to 'not mincing words' and similar the phrases that you used to be so keen on.

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

deccan said:
Taking a wild stab, I'll say that you'll be trying to logically forge a link between the long-term consequences of such behavior and the principle of self-preservation.

You're getting warmer. Very warm. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Now I'm really confused. Societies that have encouraged (or at least tolerated) wife-beating have been around for a long time, and still seem to be doing pretty well compared to those that object to it. It's hard to make any argument for self-preservation from that. Nor can I see it on an individual basis, for similar reasons. If anything, the evidence is the other way: in some societies, the upper classes are the most tolerant of women, but it's often observed that those classes have the lowest birth rates. (Yes, that's correlation and not causation, but still: if I was gonna bet on who would have the most descendents, I'd bet on the poor, ignorant, illogical fool who treats his wife like dirt.)

[Truper]

Welcome to the club, Johan! Point out a few more of Arryn's foibles and inconsistencies, and you too can be invited to go "back into the woodwork you crawled out of".

It appears she doesn't understand the difference between flaming and stating an obvious truth, although it is hard to understand how this can be so, since she is obviously the very personification of logic.

[alexti]

Arryn said:
Desthai, religion fails the "reasonable doubt" test, nevermind the "shadow of a doubt" degree of proof. I had to say that first to get it out of my system.



Shall it be understood that you have a test *any* religion will fail? Or shall it be understood that you have knowledge of *all* religions and ready to present separate tests for each religion?


Arryn said:
Do you drive a car, or fly in airplanes? If so, you are placing an enormous amount of trust (enormous as in your life) in science, as well as in the skill of other drivers and mechanics. The reason you can get away with this is because the engineering these objects are based on is backed by meticulously-tested science


Probably by large, their engineering is based on practical experiments. And while you're at that, maybe you can explain the reason for lack of roll-cage in most cars? In particular, in the cars of individuals who place enormous value n their lives?

[Skolem]

Hi, I just beginn to read this post, but the topic is so near to my occupation, that I have to reply.
Arryn, are you trying to state, that "hard science (physic, chemistry and biology)" are more thrustworthy than religion, because they have hard proof of what they say?
IIRC this science are experimental, they state things, and prove them by testing them. How can you say that if something was thousand times observed it will function that way?
Actually I believe science wouldn't pass your religion test, as you believe in them having no proof for their truth, as did people believes in other religion.
Well will you say, but there is still mathematics, they don't rely on experiments, they are pure logic!
First, who say that the logical assumpitions we made are correct?
For exemple tertium non datur is highly debatable, as are other logical assumptions. And Last but not least, there is still the good, old, mighty Gödel argument, If you can prove me the consistency (that is the fact that a theory can not produce contradiction) of a theory, that can do simple arithmetic (you really dont need a lot, only something like non commutative additions of natural numbers) then I can prove you that your theory is inconsistent. What does this mean, it means that at best mathematicians can only know that they haven't any contradiction now, but they can never be sure that one can not arrive.
So you are saying you believe in something, who can prove , that it can't prove that it is correct. Well to believe in this (every mathematician does it), is for me the very same kind of faith act as to believe in a given religion, that is why so many Mathematician, and to a further extend Physician, believes in God (He has to make maths correct...!!!)
Skolem

[Cainehill]

johan osterman said:

Arryn said:
Johan, if I were to call you "arrogant", as you have done to me in post #302639, especially more than once in a single post and going out of your way to be insulting and turn a discussion into a personal attack, I'm certain that Tim would ban me from the board for flaming you, and with good cause. As a moderator you can (and do) ignore the rules as you see fit. However, until such time as you learn to be civil, and behave by the rules that you expect from the rest of us, I don't feel obliged to speak to you further.



This thin skinnedness is a bit rich coming from you. Whatever happened to 'not mincing words' and similar the phrases that you used to be so keen on.



I'm not sure she's thin skinned so much as pointing out a perceived hypocrisy, a double standard. If a notorious flamer (like Stormie or me) attacked her, she might brush it off. But it really does seem like anyone who insults someone associated with Illwinter / Shrapnel gets threatened with banning, or Banned. One of Shrapnel's people had posted a threat to that effect in the Last month. And in the Last week, Cohen was telling people again and again and again in all the MP games he was in that he'd been Banned from the forums for clashing with Zen. Of course, we all take Cohen with a grain of salt, but still.

If the powers that be want to have such a nice clean forum, they really shouldn't be throwing insults themselves. _That's_ the issue. If it's okay for a PTB to insult people, why isn't it okay for everyone else to insult people? Or for me, to insult non-people?

Or is it okay for straight forward insults to be cast about once more, in which case I don't need to be indirectly insulting to certain people anymore. Unless they're PTBs? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[johan osterman]

Shrug. Considering Arryns history of egging you on in your insults and her own history of calling her own incivility for honesty and 'not mincing words', I think Arryn should be prepared to take a few hits.

Also I haven't noticed any sharp decrease in your insults, but perhaps I just haven't been paying attention. Or perhaps you do not consider implying that boron is a moron an insult? A happenstance which resulted in a short congratulatory remark from Arryn, that paragon of consistancy.

[Arryn]

Johan, you're a first-rate hypocrite. It's okay behavior when you flame someone, and your groupies Truper and Graeme Dice chime in with their support, yet you find it objectionable when someone else does it. And the admins and Moderators of this forum are contemptible. They sit back and do nothing when one of their own flagrantly abuses the forum rules, letting you flame someone simply because you don't like them and don't agree with them, as you did in this thread. And they continue to do nothing as you go on to taunt me in further Posts to see if you can get a rise out of me. You're petty and vindictive, and the Moderators are pathetic for allowing you to get away with it. In fairness to at least two of the mods, it's probably because the senior forum admins won't let them step in and moderate in a just and balanced manner (as they used to a few months ago). The best and fairest mods are now all but impotent, and (sadly) it shows.

As for track records, shall I dig up your old Posts where you react to criticism by flaming? Your record is that of slinging the first mud. You've always given excuses that you were "justified". Quit pretending to be holier than thou. You're not only no better than Caine, myself, and others, but you're actually worse, because as a "moderator" you're supposed to set an example for behavior. The only example you set is the worst possible one. Disgusting.

[johan osterman]

I have not written in order to get a rise out of you. Though I have certainly been annoyed at you. As for the other Moderators they have to speak for themselves. I am not Zen or Gandalf. I have never used any moderator powers at all, whatever that is worth. And I do not feel I have flagrantly abused the rules. Also as far as I am concerned I have not claimed to be holier either than you or Caine. I am not even aware that I flamed anyone, although I have been snide at times, includinf towards you. However I will bow out of this now since I am getting irritated to the point were I will become abusive if I continue.

[Kristoffer O]

Arryn: I agree that my brother was more rude than was called for and I apologize for not keeping him in line http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .

However I wonder what you mean by saying that the mods and admins do nothing. Is it because you do not percieve any changes in mod activities? Discussions between mods and admin are evidently not official. Some matters take a bit of time and might not be resolved as quickly as you would prefer. I hope that you can trust us and believe that we are concerned about keeping the forum civil.

Regarding senior admins disallowing Moderators to moderate I am baffled. What do you mean? I'm not too happy about rumor mongering. If you mean Psitticine when you refer to the fairest mods I can only say that I miss him as well, both as beta tester, manual writer and as moderator, but admin policies has nothing to do with him disappearing.

Moderation should be something each and every one of us did, to ourselves and to our friends at these Boards. Instead of encouraging snide remarks we could tell our friends to refrain from them (Jesus has spoken http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif ).

[Arryn]

Kristoffer O said:
Arryn: I agree that my brother was more rude than was called for and I apologize for not keeping him in line http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif .

Thank you, Kris. BTW, are you your brother's keeper? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif


Kristoffer O said:
However I wonder what you mean by saying that the mods and admins do nothing. Is it because you do not percieve any changes in mod activities? Discussions between mods and admin are evidently not official. Some matters take a bit of time and might not be resolved as quickly as you would prefer. I hope that you can trust us and believe that we are concerned about keeping the forum civil.

Well, for example, the lack of balance in moderating has been really irksome and unfair. Someone will jump into a thread in which they haven't been participating at all just to flame me (Truper's done this in two separate threads recently) and if I respond to his attack, an admin (like Tim) will chastise *me*. That's hardly just. What am I supposed to do? Just sit back and allow anyone to insult me (or worse) and say nothing at all? If you say that I should complain in PM to a mod/admin, I've done that. As of today, I'm *still* waiting for a reply to a PM I sent Tim a week ago. Nor did my clicking on the "report this post" icons have any response. It very much seems that Shrapnel's management of this forum is anything but impartial or fair. And anyone that tries to criticise the way they manage things gets threatened. I trust and respect you, Kris. You've been fair in the past, even when you weren't particularly happy with me for that stupidly-worded poll I made. And I trust Gandalf and Zen. But none of you run this forum. You may be more important than the average person on this forum, but you don't control it. Essentially, you're a guest here, as the rest of us are. Albeit an honored guest.


Kristoffer O said:
Regarding senior admins disallowing Moderators to moderate I am baffled. What do you mean? I'm not too happy about rumor mongering. If you mean Psitticine when you refer to the fairest mods I can only say that I miss him as well, both as beta tester, manual writer and as moderator, but admin policies has nothing to do with him disappearing.

Actually, I didn't know he'd disappeared until you told me now. And I miss him too. Regardless, I wasn't referring to him. You may not have noticed (though I and others have) that Gandalf and Zen no longer try to step in to calm things down and reason with disputing folks to get them to see each other's points of view, or at least to lay off the flames. This change in behavior coincides with the forum upgrade and also suspiciously with Zen's hiatus not long ago. Neither Zen nor Gandalf have been particularly reluctant in the past to express their personal views or to step in, whenever they thought they should, and especially if they've been asked to intervene by someone in PM. Until recently. Furthermore, the forum software no longer permits Moderators to trim individual Posts that are found to be offensive. All of this smacks very much of an official policy decision on the part of Shrapnel. A policy that IMO is not conducive to a smoothly running forum. And policy issues aside, there's still the matter of balanced enforcement of etiquette. "Do as I command, nevermind my own behavior, and don't you dare criticize me" isn't the way to win hearts and minds.

Thanks again, Kris, for caring enough to ask questions, and even more so for listening.

[deccan]

Ahem, *cough*, let me duck beneath J.O. and Arryn and post in reply to this here:


Skolem said:
First, who say that the logical assumpitions we made are correct?




That's a valid line of philosophical inquiry and one could extend it in all sorts of weird directions, from Hume's skepticism of the validity of induction and the principle of causality to questions as to whether or not the axioms that comprise "classical" logic are in fact "true".

My own philosophical view dodges this problem by accepting that my personal motives / values etc. aren't in fact "logically justified", they simply "are". I wouldn't like to say that this is based on "faith". I regard them as not having a truth value at all.

From there, I can rationally proceed. How can I know that the law of induction is "true". I can't, but I can "know" that it has worked for me in the past (i.e. advanced my values / motives), and so I continue to employ it. Of course, past success does not logically guarantee future success, but what else do I have? Would it be more rational to not employ it?

How can I know that there is no "deceiving demon" constantly manipulating my sensory input and even memories "behind the scenes" of my consciousness? I cannot so far as the illusion is perfect. But if the illusion is perfect, then it is the "truth" as far as I am concerned.

The idea here is not to aim for a sort of "God's eye view" of the "truth", but for a personal, individual kind of truth. My contention is that this doesn't require the kind of "faith" that is commonly associated with religion.

As for mathematics, I think your comments are valid only if you have a view of mathematics, one not uncommon amongst mathematicians, that it has some sort of ideal existence independent of the physical universe. If you are willing to tie the existence of mathematics purely to a physical universe, then those problems ought to go away.

[Arryn]

Deccan, I just wanted to say that your grasp of philosophy is quite impressive, and your ability to express what you understand is even more so. Kudos. And after visiting your homepage just now I can see why.

Do you teach? If not, you should. I think you'd be very good at it.

[alexti]

Skolem said:
So you are saying you believe in something, who can prove , that it can't prove that it is correct. Well to believe in this (every mathematician does it), is for me the very same kind of faith act as to believe in a given religion, that is why so many Mathematician, and to a further extend Physician, believes in God (He has to make maths correct...!!!)
Skolem


That's not surprising. Most people can choose whether to believe in God or in science, considering that they have no means of validating (or even understanding either). Mathematician, physicist and other scientists often know enough of science to realize that they still need something to explain something unexplicable from the point of view of the science. Thus believe in God (often, rather abstract god, unlike ones in mainstream religions).

[Graeme Dice]

Arryn said:
Someone will jump into a thread in which they haven't been participating at all just to flame me (Truper's done this in two separate threads recently) and if I respond to his attack, an admin (like Tim) will chastise *me*.



What, you mean the "A Simple Thank You" thread where your Posts consisted of little more than a barrage of insults directed at anyone who disagreed with you? Why shouldn't you have been told off there?

[Arryn]

Graeme, to you, *anything* I say you'll construe as an "insult", since you're on record as stating that you hate my guts. You have zero credibility. You, just like Truper, only post in threads I post in so that you can flame me. You did it in that "thank you" thread, and you just did it again. I can tolerate that you don't agree with me, and that you hate me. But jumping into threads you're not otherwise participating in just to flame me without posting anything else of substance to the discussion in those threads goes well beyond the bounds of acceptable etiquette. If the Moderators were doing the job they used to do on this forum, they'd've taken action against you (and your friend Truper) by now.

At least Johan and I were having a discussion (and disagreement) before he decided to flame me. I give him that much credit. You jump into threads for no good reason at all, and contribute nothing positive. The words I could use to describe *your* behavior I won't inflict on the rest of the forum members. Use your imagination and pretend I've said whatever offends you the most. Then go back to lurking. If you have nothing useful and positive to contribute, do everyone a favor and don't post.

[Richard]

I am going to lock this down for now. It seems there is a misunderstanding of the policies of this forum, but that will be rectified. Over the weekend we will post the rules for the forum so everyone can be clear. We will also be working to nominate some new Moderators for this forum, since when you only have one active moderator anything he does as far as actions is going to seem personal and biased.

Let me be clear about one thing, public discussion about how a moderator is doing his/her job is not warranted. I will put in an official policy for how anyone can deal with what they feel is unfair attention from a Moderator/Admin. This will clear up any misunderstandings in how to escalate forum issues.

As far as Zen leaving, I won't completely speak for him, but I do know that it had to deal with being tired of being the only moderator without much backup dealing with a lot of recent issues on the board. Most of our communities are run well, with very little in the way of controversy, with the same rules we had intended to use here. The problem lies in that there is too much being asked of too few, not a real clear understanding of boundaries, and to be honest a lack of civility in the way some deal with others. I am frankly disheartened at the level of lack of respect that some show for others in their Posts. There is no problem with disagreeing, even with a moderator, but there has to be respect there in the post. Too often I see some disagreements devolving into petty arguments versus people disagreeing, but seeing that their opponent has a right to hold their opinion.

So expect some more on this, this weekend. If you have interested in being a Moderator please PM Mindi or myself, and we consider it. Please give us past experience, your opinions on how to run a forum, and other items you feel speak to your ability to affect this community in a positive manner.

If you have any questions on this please email me at richard@shrapnelgames.com.

Thanks.

P.S. Please no more name calling in this thread or others. There are multiple people guilty of that right now. Keep it to PM's or email, but keep it off of the Boards.

[Kristoffer O]

Please !