PDA

View Full Version : The dangers of a belief in a spiritual "truth"



Pages : [1] 2 3

Rincewind
13-06-2009, 04:13 PM
There is a trial which just concluded in Wellington while I was there. Five people were convicted of manslaughter in a case where a 22-year-old woman with what was most likely an emerging mental disorder was thought to be possessed by her family. They performed a makutu curse-lifting ritual which was meant to lift the curse and in the process the woman drowned (from what I can piece together at this stage the ceremony uses immersion as a cleansing process and the unfortunate victim). Other members of the family were also thought to be possessed by demons and a 14-year-old girl suffered serious eye injuries during the ritual.

Spiny Norman
14-06-2009, 07:48 AM
Has it occurred to you to consider:
-- the dangers of false spiritual "truth"
-- the dangers of non-spiritual "truth"

How do those stack up?

Capablanca-Fan
14-06-2009, 08:41 AM
That old guy, James von Brunn, who shot up the Holocaust Memorial Museum, turns out to have been a rabid Christophobe (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pH7-gRVDvW0J:www.antichrist.net/vonbrunn.html+http://www.antichrist.net/vonbrunn.html&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) and socialist.

Rincewind
14-06-2009, 10:36 AM
Has it occurred to you to consider:
-- the dangers of false spiritual "truth"
-- the dangers of non-spiritual "truth"

How do those stack up?

Indeed. I would argue that the whole problem with spiritual "truth" is that it is entirely subjective and therefore cannot be consider truth at all as there is no objective measure of its veracity. This is the problem with so-called revelation which I hinted at in my last post in the DGE thread. One man's revelation is another man's heresy. So revelation is in my view totally on a different level to evidence based truth which can be objectively established through repeated measurement and correlation.

So the next question is can't we just let people believe in revealed "truth"? Surely they are not hurting anyone and just deluding themselves. One problem is that many of these revealed truths lead to endangering the lives of others. There are obvious cases like suicide bombers where they believe they are martyring themselves for a spiritually just cause but more subtle and no less tragic is when these people hurt their family in the false belief that they are doing what is "right".

The Wellington case just happened to be in the news at present but the case is not isolated. A few years ago there was a case of a charismatic pastor killing a woman near Auckland in an exorcism in circumstance not unlike the well-known Victorian case of Mrs Vollmer in the 90s. In both these last two cases after the subjects of the exorcisms had died, those performing the exorcism apparently thought that praying over the body would bring it back to life. So rather than even attempting resuscitation they stood by and chanted waiting for God to do his work.

To often the subjects of these exorcisms do not take part willingly and willing or otherwise they have a diminished capacity for judgment due to a mental disorder (which the faithful are diagnosing as possession by evil spirits). So those who require professional (and evidence based) medical care and denied that care by their "loved" ones and instead are illegally detained, subject to physical abuse and sometimes tragically killed.

arosar
14-06-2009, 07:42 PM
Well, if you are muslim, it looks like you get the benefit of an interest free loan!!

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25632250-5001021,00.html

Is this discriminatory against non-muslims and aheists alike?

AR

Basil
14-06-2009, 07:47 PM
Is this discriminatory against non-muslims and aheists alike?
No. Everyone will be eligible for the loans.

Spiny Norman
15-06-2009, 05:54 AM
RW, so if someone believed materialism were true and therefore life (the big picture) were therefore purposeless and meaningless (as indeed people like Dawkins et al are constantly reassuring us it is), and acted accordingly ... this would ... what? ... invalidate materialism? Or if someone misunderstood materialism and did something terrible to some other people, this would ... what? ... invalidate materialism?

I just don't see how you can run this line of argument. If people act in a flaky way then just judge them on that. If their beliefs are genuinely dangerous (just in and of themselves, not having been extrapolated in an unwarranted way), then sure, judge the beliefs. But I think you go too far in your original post.

Rincewind
15-06-2009, 10:13 AM
RS, so if someone believed materialism were true and therefore life (the big picture) were therefore purposeless and meaningless (as indeed people like Dawkins et al are constantly reassuring us it is), and acted accordingly ... this would ... what? ... invalidate materialism? Or if someone misunderstood materialism and did something terrible to some other people, this would ... what? ... invalidate materialism?

I'm not arguing that materialism is all their is. Just that evidence based decision making is grounded in something quantifiable and faith based decision making is not.


I just don't see how you can run this line of argument. If people act in a flaky way then just judge them on that. If their beliefs are genuinely dangerous (just in and of themselves, not having been extrapolated in an unwarranted way), then sure, judge the beliefs. But I think you go too far in your original post.

I think the danger is a tendency to treat faith based decisions on the same level as evidence based decisions. Lots of innocent people get hurt from people with stupid beliefs. Exorcisms are an example and particularly because the case I mentioned in post #1 was in the media but it certainly isn't isolated.

Rincewind
16-06-2009, 08:33 PM
Johanna Wilhelmina Petronella Damman (60), aka ‘healing medium' Jomanda, will be appearing in court in Amsterdam in two weeks’ time. She is accused of inflicting grievous bodily harm to and withholding the necessary medical care from comedian Sylvia Millecam, who died of breast cancer.

Read the full story here...
http://jomandawatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/jomanda-millecam-died-because-of.html

Rincewind
16-06-2009, 11:15 PM
A couple whose baby daughter died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Read the full story here...
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

Rincewind
19-06-2009, 11:57 AM
There seems to be real links between a spiritual worldview and the anti-vaccination lobby. For example the North Coast of NSW (as antichrist can probably attest) is a place when spiritual worldview is prevalent and it also has one of the lowest rates of immunisation for the state. This is not surprising as many of the "alternative" therapies which thrive there peddle "alternatives" to scientific medicine and thus scientifically proven remedies like vaccination which has the ability to rid the world of many unnecessary diseases are not being as effective because there is a segment of the population which is choosing to not vaccinate thus providing a reservoir population for these diseases to occupy and thereby reduces the effectiveness of the vaccination program as a whole.

Now the pro-disease lobby will tell you they are not anti-vaccine they are simply pro-choice. But really the efficacy of vaccination has been proven in many studies whereas many of the dangers being bandied about in the name of "informed choice" have no scientific basis. Does vaccination carry a risk, yes but it is very small almost always treatable and much less severe than the risk of contracting these diseases (which is the alternative). The highly publicised link between vaccination and autism has no basis in science desite the fact that the claim has been closely scrutinised in many independent studies.

So while the debate continues and the pro-disease continue to promulgate unscientific propaganda, children continue to die from entirely preventable diseases like whooping cough.

NSW Health confirms whooping cough death (http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/news/2009/20090310_00.html)


“Someone with whooping cough will be able to spread it to other people for up to three weeks after onset, unless they are treated with particular antibiotics. So it is important that people are treated early to stop the spread of the disease.

“Young babies under six months will not have completed their vaccinations so they remain particularly vulnerable to whooping cough and the serious complications following infection.

“The best way to protect babies is to keep them away from anyone with a cough to make sure their immunisations are up to date, and to make sure others in the household are vaccinated,” he said.

Dr McAnulty confirmed there have been 3,356 cases of whooping cough in January and February 2009 compared to 448 cases at the same time last year.

To help protect babies, NSW Health is urging all new parents, grandparents and any other adult that regularly cares for infants less than 12 months of age, to get vaccinated by their GP.

NSW Health recommends that all children be given the vaccine to protect against whooping cough – this vaccine is normally given at two months, four months and six months of age.


In America one of the more vocal opponents of immunisation is Jenny McCarthy. Former Playboy model and partner of comedian Jim Carrey. She seems to subscribe to a spiritual world view as can been seen by what she wrote here...

Insights of an Indigo Mom A Mother's Awakening (http://childrenofthenewearth.com/free.php?page=articles_free/mccarthy_jenny/article1)

Her son was immunised and later diagnosed with autism but the link between the two only exists in the minds of the true believers. Since that time she has been applying her fame to promote the pro-disease platform. The effectiveness of her campaign can be gauged here...

Jenny McCarthy Body Count (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html)

It is sad such a sight is necessary. As they say...


Is Jenny McCarthy directly responsible for every vaccine preventable illness and every vaccine preventable death listed here? No. However, as the unofficial spokesperson for the United States anti-vaccination movement she may be indirectly responsible for at least some of these illnesses and deaths and even one vaccine preventable illness or vaccine preventable death is too many.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2009, 03:16 PM
Do they stop you from vaccinating yourself and your children?
If yes, then how do they achieve so?
If no, what's your concern?

Capablanca-Fan
19-06-2009, 03:27 PM
Homeopathy and anti-vaccination are more new-agey than "religious". Some universities have been offering homeopathy degrees (http://www.dcscience.net/?p=249), while rabid atheopath Bill Maher on his HBO show in 2005 said:


"I don't believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory."

Rincewind
19-06-2009, 05:07 PM
Do they stop you from vaccinating yourself and your children?

This was covered by my previous post but vaccines is not just about personal protection it is also about population protection. When the vaccine uptake rates are low the disease in question is capable of making a comeback in epidemic proportions (the way whooping cough has here in NSW) which costs society as well as endangering the lives of infants who are not yet old enough to be immunised.

Rincewind
19-06-2009, 05:14 PM
Homeopathy and anti-vaccination are more new-agey than "religious".

True but there are links to many adherents of both to spiritualism in general, often because ironically the "alternative" treatments are seen as safer than pharmaceuticals because they involve the channeling of non-existent "energies" through crystals, plants or (in the case of homeopathy) just plain water.

This thread is meant for any dangerous belief which has a spiritual origin or is justified from a spiritual worldview, not necessarily a conventionally religious one.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-06-2009, 06:30 PM
This was covered by my previous post but vaccines is not just about personal protection it is also about population protection. When the vaccine uptake rates are low the disease in question is capable of making a comeback in epidemic proportions (the way whooping cough has here in NSW) which costs society as well as endangering the lives of infants who are not yet old enough to be immunised.

Vaccine is mostly about personal protection, at least it's very effective as a personal protection. Eradicating particular decease might be a nice bonus, but not a main priority. Personally, I don't feel I have a moral right to force someone else to vaccinate.

Rincewind
19-06-2009, 06:40 PM
Vaccine is mostly about personal protection, at least it's very effective as a personal protection. Eradicating particular decease might be a nice bonus, but not a main priority. Personally, I don't feel I have a moral right to force someone else to vaccinate.

I think you are wrong. Population protection is not just a bonus but a major benefit of a vaccine program.

Also I'm not talking about the moral right to force someone else to vaccinate it is more about people with a misguided belief in the spiritual wrongness of vaccination to promulgate misinformation about the dangers and possible side-effects which leads to lower vaccination rates and therefore more cases of disease and death as a result.

Whichever way you cut it you have people making choices on vaccination based on misinformation and a belief in a "spiritual" truth which leads directly to a higher mortality rate for society as a whole than would otherwise be the case.

Mokum
20-06-2009, 10:21 AM
Queens mom Marie Lauradin performed voodoo fire ritual that left daughter, 6, scarred
(http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/18/2009-06-18_queens_mother_marie_lauradin_charged_in_voodoo_ fire_ritual_that_leaves_6yearold_.html)

Determined to drive evil spirits out of her daughter, a Queens mom performed a bizarre voodoo fire ritual that left the 6-year-old girl scarred for life, prosecutors say.
While young Frantzcia Saintil was "engulfed in flames," Marie Lauradin let the screaming girl burn, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said Thursday.
The girl told cops "the flames crawled up her body and burned her," the criminal complaint said.
Eventually, Frantzcia's grandmother doused the flames with cold water, but the women then put the girl to bed instead of getting her help, Brown said.
Frantzcia suffered for a whole day before a relative begged them to take her to a hospital.
When doctors finally saw her, Frantzcia had second- and third-degree burns covering 25% of her body, including her face, torso and legs, court papers state.
Lauradin, a 29-year-old Haitian immigrant, was charged with assault and endangering the welfare of a child. She faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted.
"She denies these allegations," lawyer Jeff Cohen said. "This is my client's only child. My client would not hurt her."
Lauradin listened impassively as the judge ordered her held in lieu of $50,000 bail. She was also barred from having any contact with her daughter.
Frantzcia's grandmother, Sylvenie Thessier, 70, was charged with reckless endangerment and endangering the welfare of a child. She faces up to seven years in prison if convicted.
A friend nicknamed Sketch helped the women stage the Feb.4 ritual but was not named or charged with a crime.
Frantzcia was put in a medically induced coma as part of her treatment. She is now in foster care. "The child has suffered permanent scarring, both physically and emotionally," Brown said.
Lauradin, her mother and her daughter lived in the basement of a two-family home in Queens Village, where neighbors said they were not surprised.
"They weren't into conversation," neighbor Henry St. Jean said. "I used to hear them scream at [Frantzcia]. They would tell her to get on her knees for a couple of hours."
Lauradin allegedly burned her daughter while performing a ritual that Brown called "Loa." She sprayed a circle of rum on the floor around her daughter - poured some on her head - and ignited it, police said.
Confronted by cops, Lauradin claimed she was boiling rice in a pot and accidentally spilled it on the girl when she was "startled."
Lauradin also said it was her mom's idea to give Frantzcia a bath and put her to bed instead of taking her to the hospital.
She claimed she didn't even notice the girl was burned until they got to the emergency room.
Brown said they learned the truth after Frantzcia told her foster caregiver what really happened.With Brendan Brosh

Igor_Goldenberg
20-06-2009, 12:33 PM
I think you are wrong. Population protection is not just a bonus but a major benefit of a vaccine program.

Reciting the claim does not substantiate it.
Your lack of vaccination will not affect my immunity after vaccination.


Whichever way you cut it you have people making choices on vaccination based on misinformation and a belief in a "spiritual" truth which leads directly to a higher mortality rate for society as a whole than would otherwise be the case.

I believe that majority of people do not require guidance from higher authorities when making decision concerning themselves. They should also take responsibility for their decisions, not someone else.

antichrist
20-06-2009, 12:49 PM
........
I believe that majority of people do not require guidance from higher authorities when making decision concerning themselves. They should also take responsibility for their decisions, not someone else.

But Igor neither your god or mine made us perfect and responsible. My paradise is outright complete justice for a certain Middle Eastern entity - but you would not consider that a good decision nor responsible, even though I have hope for you in recognising that lower rated players subsidise champs so therefore may be delusioned returning up for tourneys.

You and myself may breath oxygen today and tomorrow we are gone - for better or worse and I will try to avoid you in the next life if that is okay.

Rincewind
20-06-2009, 12:53 PM
Reciting the claim does not substantiate it.

The benefits of population wide immunity once the percentage (less than 100%) of immunisation have been reached and well known and establish part of the modelling of disease prevention. Your ignorance of this fact is not my problem.

If you want to actually do some research on the matter you could try reading the following study from the British Medical Journal

Duration of effectiveness of pertussis vaccine: evidence from a 10 year community study (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/296/6622/612)

From the abstract...


Thus the pertussis vaccine or its schedule of use does not seem to provide sufficient herd immunity to prevent outbreaks of whooping cough. Matters might be improved if vaccination against pertussis were included in the preschool immunisation programme.

Obviously the community (or herd) immunity is an important factor in assessing the effectiveness of vaccine programs.


Your lack of vaccination will not affect my immunity after vaccination.

True but this is not about you.


I believe that majority of people do not require guidance from higher authorities when making decision concerning themselves. They should also take responsibility for their decisions, not someone else.

I disagree. People been to have available to them as many reliable facts as possible when making a decision and bogus information based in delusion and wishful thinking needs to be identified as such. Vaccines provide personal and community wide protect from very dangerous diseases and people should be encouraged to participate if it can be demonstrated that it makes sense to do so.

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2009, 03:01 PM
No one should be forced to be vaccinated; people should be allowed to make their own mistakes, and non-vaccination counts as a mistake. By the same token, we should not have to pay to bail them out of their mistakes. And private schools should not be forced to take non-vaccinated people. The problem is not with lack of vaccination, but with socialized medicine and education.

Rincewind
21-06-2009, 05:47 PM
No one should be forced to be vaccinated

No I never said they should be forced. However people should be provided with good information about the benefits and risk of immunisation and people should be taken to task when they promote unsubstantiated risks with no evidence to support them. In the vase of the vaccine/autism link it is worse than there being no evidence, the claim has been repeatedly studied and found lacking.

Part of the problem is that a spiritual worldview promotes "alternative" therapies (read wishful thinking) which like it or not is in competition with medical science and thus often demonises scientific medicine and its practitioners. Thus there is a presumption that vaccines are a bad thing.

The effect of all this is that spiritual worldviews lead to lower vaccination rates which in turn leads to outbreaks like the present whooping cough epidemic and the tragic and (in principle) avoidable death of unprotected infants.

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2009, 09:08 PM
No I never said they should be forced. However people should be provided with good information about the benefits and risk of immunisation and people should be taken to task when they promote unsubstantiated risks with no evidence to support them. In the vase of the vaccine/autism link it is worse than there being no evidence, the claim has been repeatedly studied and found lacking.
I agree. But if other people don't, then that's their problem. For our part, we encourage vaccination — see Questions and Answers on Vaccinations and the Immune System (http://creation.com/vaccines-and-genesis) and Are vaccines biblical, safe or effective? (http://creation.com/are-vaccines-biblical-safe-or-effective)


Part of the problem is that a spiritual worldview promotes "alternative" therapies (read wishful thinking) which like it or not is in competition with medical science and thus often demonises scientific medicine and its practitioners. Thus there is a presumption that vaccines are a bad thing.
Yet I demonstrated that some prominent atheopaths oppose vaccination, such as Maher. And many of my ideological opponents just love "alternative" therapies.

Rincewind
21-06-2009, 09:18 PM
Yet I demonstrated that some prominent atheopaths oppose vaccination, such as Maher.

You have a quote from a standup comedian, yes. However I don't believe Northern NSW has a low vaccine uptake rate because they are Bill Maher fans.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2009, 09:45 AM
The benefits of population wide immunity once the percentage (less than 100%) of immunisation have been reached and well known and establish part of the modelling of disease prevention.
The benefit of population wide immunity is not disputed.
However, the biggest beneficiary of that would be few unimmunised. The incremental benefit to immunised is not that great. People should worry about being immunised themselves, not whether everyone is immunised.

Anyway, Jono summarised it quite correctly in post 22.

Rincewind
22-06-2009, 10:02 AM
The benefit of population wide immunity is not disputed.

While perhaps not disputing it you certainly downplayed its importance when it is in fact a significant factor is the planning and assessing the success of vaccine programs like the pertussis vaccine program.


However, the biggest beneficiary of that would be few unimmunised. The incremental benefit to immunised is not that great. People should worry about being immunised themselves, not whether everyone is immunised.

Not everyone can be immunised and it is unrealistic to think that everyone will be immunised. What I am concerned about is the increasing number of people choosing not be immunised based on beliefs which have no evidential grounding. Furthermore I am worried about the amount of misinformation on immunisation and the risks associated with it. My position is that scientifically accurate information should be provided to everyone and the misinformation going around be challenged and exposed as the old wives tales that it is.

People should worry about disease epidemics which are brought about by a significant portion of the population are avoiding vaccines for reasons of superstition. Not so that that segment can be forced to be vaccinated. But obviously there is an education deficiency when so many people are going around with such silly ideas which has the effect of leading to unnecessarily level of disease and death in the community.


Anyway, Jono summarised it quite correctly in post 22.

I don't object to post #22 very much at all. However it does not argue against anything I have said. The thing you said and I took you to task on is that vaccine is mostly about personal protection. This is patently false and population wide immunity is a big part of the benefits of many vaccine programs like the pertussis vaccine program. If we were talking about seasonal flu vaccine I would be more inclined to agree with you.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2009, 10:49 AM
Not everyone can be immunised and it is unrealistic to think that everyone will be immunised.
Those that see it beneficial will.


What I am concerned about is the increasing number of people choosing not be immunised based on beliefs which have no evidential grounding.
Furthermore I am worried about the amount of misinformation on immunisation and the risks associated with it. My position is that scientifically accurate information should be provided to everyone and the misinformation going around be challenged and exposed as the old wives tales that it is.

People always have been and will be making foolish decisions based on whatever. In case of vaccination they are mostly harming themselves. They might slightly reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine for those that vaccinate, but I don't see it as a big issue.
When unfounded beliefs drive large government programs, they have much greater damaging effect. Strangely, those beliefs are not lambasted as much and not even scrutinised.



I don't object to post #22 very much at all. However it does not argue against anything I have said. The thing you said and I took you to task on is that vaccine is mostly about personal protection. This is patently false and population wide immunity is a big part of the benefits of many vaccine programs like the pertussis vaccine program. If we were talking about seasonal flu vaccine I would be more inclined to agree with you.

You might want to quantify your claim in case of whooping cough.
If almost nobody is immunised, what is the risk of contracting decease for vaccinated and non vaccinated?
If almost everyone is immunised, what is the risk of contracting decease for vaccinated and non vaccinated?

Ironically, seasonal flu vaccination is the case where the importance of population wide vaccination has a greater weight as the effectiveness of individual vaccination is, unfortunately, limited.

Rincewind
22-06-2009, 11:47 AM
They might slightly reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine for those that vaccinate, but I don't see it as a big issue.

Perhaps if you have had an infant less than 2 months old (and therefore unimmunised) become seriously ill or die from whooping cough you might think otherwise.


You might want to quantify your claim in case of whooping cough.
If almost nobody is immunised, what is the risk of contracting decease for vaccinated and non vaccinated?
If almost everyone is immunised, what is the risk of contracting decease for vaccinated and non vaccinated?

The result of modelling of population wide immunity is that depending on the factors of the disease in question (risk of infection, incubation and infectious period and so on) and depending on the parameters of the population (number of interactions, mobility of the population, etc) there is a proportion of the population, usually less than 100% who if that proportion of the population or more are immunised then the spread of infection is reduced to zero. This is the concept of population (or herd) immunity. So it is not a question of changing the risk of contracting the disease it is more a question of reducing the exposure (or opportunity to contracting the disease).

So to answer your questions:

If herd immunity is attained the exposure for everyone is practically zero therefore no one contracts the disease. If herd immunity is not attained then the disease remains mobile in the population and those who are susceptible (unimmunised) at at risk of contracting the disease depending of factors like the number of infectives in the population and their exposure to these infectives.

However, the issue you continue to fail to appreciate is that there is a segment of the population who cannot be immunised, most significantly infants under the age of 2 months, whose only protection from infection is herd immunity.


Ironically, seasonal flu vaccination is the case where the importance of population wide vaccination has a greater weight as the effectiveness of individual vaccination is, unfortunately, limited.

Well I could be wrong but my understanding is that the vaccine program of seasonal flu is generally aimed at those in risk groups of personal infection (high exposure) or high risk of complications if infection does occur. In such cases there is no expectation that a large enough segment of the population will immunise so that herd immunity becomes a realistic possibility.

This is in contrast to the pertussis vaccine program where every effort is made to vaccinate as much of the population as possible with routine shots throughout childhood. The NSW Dept of Health is currently also recommending booster shoot for parents and grandparents who care for young children not for reasons of personal protection but so that their immunity will reduce the risk to the infants in their care.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-06-2009, 02:20 PM
So to answer your questions:

If herd immunity is attained the exposure for everyone is practically zero therefore no one contracts the disease. If herd immunity is not attained then the disease remains mobile in the population and those who are susceptible (unimmunised) at at risk of contracting the disease depending of factors like the number of infectives in the population and their exposure to these infectives.
You don't seem to object that herd immunity mostly helps non-immunised.


However, the issue you continue to fail to appreciate is that there is a segment of the population who cannot be immunised, most significantly infants under the age of 2 months, whose only protection from infection is herd immunity.


1. Do you have any statistics on percentage of infants under the age of 2 months contracting decease?

2. Pertussis vaccine lasts for only few years. It means that adults have no immunity and can pass an infection to infants. Infants under 2 month of age do not generally contact other children, and parents have a good and easy control of that. Therefore pertussis immunisation will have zero or no effect on that group. BTW I do not remember any doctor (and we so many before and after the birth of children) recommending whooping cough immunisation to me or my wife.

Any other group that cannot be immunised and thus requires population-wide vaccination?

Rincewind
22-06-2009, 04:53 PM
You don't seem to object that herd immunity mostly helps non-immunised.

On one level yes. However since we have a lot of public money going into health care in Australia it actually benefits everyone economically.

Also the population of non-immunised does not include only those whose opt out for reasons of misinformation. As I have mentioned earlier young infants are not yet old enough to be immunised there are also some people who cannot be immunised for medical reasons.


1. Do you have any statistics on percentage of infants under the age of 2 months contracting decease?

Only what was contained in the NSW Dept of Health report. Cases (generally) this year are an order of magnitude higher than last year. One infant had died. I don't know how many of the 3,356 reported cases in January/February were infants but I suspect a reasonable percentage were.


2. Pertussis vaccine lasts for only few years. It means that adults have no immunity and can pass an infection to infants.

The effectiveness of the vaccine is not an on/off thing. The susceptibility increases with time and the current schedule of immunisation in NSW is (2, 4 and 6 months, 4 years and 15 years). Therefore young adults do have good immunisation levels, older adults may be compromised. However, the epidemics tend the spread between children and so if immunity in the population of school age children this prevent epidemic rates of infection. This is why vaccination is not generally recommended for adults except in times of epidemic (such as now in NSW).


Infants under 2 month of age do not generally contact other children, and parents have a good and easy control of that.

Maybe in your dream world but in the real world young children often have contact with older siblings and extended family members. It is also worth pointing out that the vaccine at 2 months does not provided total and lasting immunisation and booster shots are given at 4 and 6 months. Then again at 4 and 15 years.


Therefore pertussis immunisation will have zero or no effect on that group.

Wrong for the reasons I give above your argument is based on flawed assumptions.


BTW I do not remember any doctor (and we so many before and after the birth of children) recommending whooping cough immunisation to me or my wife.

Ditto here and I suspect that is because the immunisation program for pertussis has been largely successful in preventing outbreak of an epidemic. However if immunisation levels drop then the loss of herd immunity makes this no longer true.


Any other group that cannot be immunised and thus requires population-wide vaccination?

Yes. Apart from infants there is also a group who reacts badly to the vaccine who may only receive the first vaccine but none of the booster shots, and there are those who it is thought will react badly due to acute allergic medical condition who are not immunised. I not sure of the exact figures but from what I understand this number is reasonably small (<1% of the population).

Spiny Norman
23-06-2009, 05:52 AM
I wonder if any of you saw a program on ABC TV last night, about child abuse in Nigeria. It was focused on a particular region/district where a certain influential church leader, who clearly didn't read her Bible anywhere near enough (or if she did, had comprehension problems), had run off the rails and whipped up the population into a fearful state about witches and wizards. Disgusting. Kids were being abandoned by their parents, some physically attacked, some even killed. It was a mix of good ol' fashioned tribal beliefs with some Christianity thrown in for good measure. Unfortunately the latter was almost completely and utterly lost in the process and the resulting mix was very, very dangerous indeed. As the speaker in the program said quite rightly, Christians watching this program will be disgusted with how its been twisted.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-06-2009, 09:33 AM
On one level yes. However since we have a lot of public money going into health care in Australia it actually benefits everyone economically.
Well, I haven't seen anything from you showing how immunised benefit.
Economically it's a problem of socialised medicine, not vaccination.
Indeed, you have to pay for the flu vaccine, but if you are sick you get paid sick leave and bulk-billed doctor help. Does not make much sense to me.


Also the population of non-immunised does not include only those whose opt out for reasons of misinformation.
Yet it's their fault and they bear the consequences.


The effectiveness of the vaccine is not an on/off thing. The susceptibility increases with time and the current schedule of immunisation in NSW is (2, 4 and 6 months, 4 years and 15 years). Therefore young adults do have good immunisation levels, older adults may be compromised. However, the epidemics tend the spread between children and so if immunity in the population of school age children this prevent epidemic rates of infection. This is why vaccination is not generally recommended for adults except in times of epidemic (such as now in NSW).
Hello, we were talking about infants under age of 2 month. They usually don't go to school or kindergarten.



Maybe in your dream world but in the real world young children often have contact with older siblings and extended family members.
It's funny to read a lecture from university employee about real world.
Anyway, it is personal responsibility of parents to make sure that siblings are immunised. Any extended family with non-immunised children would get polite, but firm "No". At that very early age parents have total control.
Btw, breast-fed babies have a very high immunity in the first few months. And if they are bottle fed, any responsible and sensible parents would minimise babies contacts with outside world until they are 6 month old.
Did your children socialise a lot in their first two month?


Yes. Apart from infants there is also a group who reacts badly to the vaccine who may only receive the first vaccine but none of the booster shots, and there are those who it is thought will react badly due to acute allergic medical condition who are not immunised. I not sure of the exact figures but from what I understand this number is reasonably small (<1% of the population).

There are people who cannot be vaccinated, there are people who think they cannot be vaccinated, there are people who do not want to be vaccinated and say they can't and so on.

The bottom line is:
I prefer people to make a decision for themselves.
You want government to decide who should and should not be vaccinated.

Advocates of large government love inventing cases and problems that allegedly cannot be resolved by individual action and require huge government programs and intervention. Never mind that their argumentation in 99% cases is bogus and the problem (even if it exists like preventable deceases) can be resolved by each individual action.

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 09:46 AM
I wonder if any of you saw a program on ABC TV last night, about child abuse in Nigeria. It was focused on a particular region/district where a certain influential church leader, who clearly didn't read her Bible anywhere near enough (or if she did, had comprehension problems), had run off the rails and whipped up the population into a fearful state about witches and wizards. Disgusting. Kids were being abandoned by their parents, some physically attacked, some even killed. It was a mix of good ol' fashioned tribal beliefs with some Christianity thrown in for good measure. Unfortunately the latter was almost completely and utterly lost in the process and the resulting mix was very, very dangerous indeed. As the speaker in the program said quite rightly, Christians watching this program will be disgusted with how its been twisted.

No I didn't but if you know of any online coverage of the story I'd encourage you to post the links in this thread.

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 10:08 AM
Well, I haven't seen anything from you showing how immunised benefit.
Economically it's a problem of socialised medicine, not vaccination.
Indeed, you have to pay for the flu vaccine, but if you are sick you get paid sick leave and bulk-billed doctor help. Does not make much sense to me.

It's funny how you constantly ask me to justify everything I say but you spout off and when you are found to be wanting you just ignore it and carry on regardless.

Economically all of society pays for the sick leave and bulk billed doctor as well. There is no free ride.


Yet it's their fault and they bear the consequences.

Actually it is the parents decision and the victim may be their kids, it may be the neighbour's kids with a vaccine allergy. It may be the infant down the road who is not immunised for reasons of age.


Hello, we were talking about infants under age of 2 month. They usually don't go to school or kindergarten.

As I mentioned in my previous post it is not only under two months who are at risk. Booster shoots are at 2 4 and 6 months and the NSW department of health recommend booster shoots for adults caring for immunised infants under 12 months.

You may see the world as a black an white entity but it is not that case that the second you get the 2 month jab you are 100% immunue to infection.


It's funny to read a lecture from university employee about real world.

It's even funny to be the subject of an ad hominem attack from someone with a weak grasp on logic and the facts. For your future reference, I've only been a university employee for the last 2 years. Prior to that I was employed for more than 20 years in heavy industry, utilities and insurance companies.


Anyway, it is personal responsibility of parents to make sure that siblings are immunised. Any extended family with non-immunised children would get polite, but firm "No". At that very early age parents have total control.

Again you are ignoring the fact that immunisation is not an on/off thing. Three years after immunisation the immunity level starts to deteriorate. Therefore a 8 year old sibling could act as a carrier of pertussis from school to an unimmunised infant.

Wake up out of your dream world. For personal protection to be water tight we would need individuals to be vaccinated four times before starting school and then every four or five years for the rest of their life. The cost of that versus widely administered five shots total is what we are talking about.


Btw, breast-fed babies have a very high immunity in the first few months.

Reference please


And if they are bottle fed, any responsible and sensible parents would minimise babies contacts with outside world until they are 6 month old.

Perhaps they can just raise them in a bubble.


Did your children socialise a lot in their first two month?

My younger son did socialise quite a lot with his 3 year old brother who was going to day care 2 days a week at the time.


There are people who cannot be vaccinated, there are people who think they cannot be vaccinated, there are people who do not want to be vaccinated and say they can't and so on.

I was specifically taking about people with medical conditions for whom vaccination is not recommended based on professional medical advise. There is a small group of people who fall in this category. You asked the question, I was just answering it.


The bottom line is:
I prefer people to make a decision for themselves.
You want government to decide who should and should not be vaccinated.

No I don't want government to decide. Where did I ever say that?


Advocates of large government love inventing cases and problems that allegedly cannot be resolved by individual action and require huge government programs and intervention. Never mind that their argumentation in 99% cases is bogus and the problem (even if it exists like preventable deceases) can be resolved by each individual action.

Again you are ranting about a non issue as far as this thread is concerned. I'm not advocating forced immunisation and I have stated that explicitly.


No I never said they should be forced. However people should be provided with good information about the benefits and risk of immunisation and people should be taken to task when they promote unsubstantiated risks with no evidence to support them. In the vase of the vaccine/autism link it is worse than there being no evidence, the claim has been repeatedly studied and found lacking.

Please read what I have said and reply to that rather than your personal bogeyman of "large governments."

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2009, 10:22 AM
I wonder if any of you saw a program on ABC TV last night, about child abuse in Nigeria. It was focused on a particular region/district where a certain influential church leader, who clearly didn't read her Bible anywhere near enough (or if she did, had comprehension problems), had run off the rails and whipped up the population into a fearful state about witches and wizards. Disgusting. Kids were being abandoned by their parents, some physically attacked, some even killed. It was a mix of good ol' fashioned tribal beliefs with some Christianity thrown in for good measure. Unfortunately the latter was almost completely and utterly lost in the process and the resulting mix was very, very dangerous indeed. As the speaker in the program said quite rightly, Christians watching this program will be disgusted with how its been twisted.
Indeed, it must be real Christianity not syncretism. Mike Parris wrote As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God: Missionaries, not aid money, are the solution to Africa's biggest problem — the crushing passivity of the people's mindset (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece) (Times, UK, 27 Dec 2008):

...

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn't fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

...

Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I've just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

...

Igor_Goldenberg
23-06-2009, 02:37 PM
It's even funny to be the subject of an ad hominem attack from someone with a weak grasp on logic and the facts.

About weak grasp of logic let me remind you your infamous "racist interpretation of Jono's statement is racist"


Again you are ignoring the fact that immunisation is not an on/off thing. Three years after immunisation the immunity level starts to deteriorate. Therefore a 8 year old sibling could act as a carrier of pertussis from school to an unimmunised infant.

That defeats your own claim about herd immunity against pertussis


Wake up out of your dream world. For personal protection to be water tight we would need individuals to be vaccinated four times before starting school and then every four or five years for the rest of their life. The cost of that versus widely administered five shots total is what we are talking about.

You are stating again that population-wide vaccination is not possible. In this case small proportion of those that forego vaccination cannot change the balance dramatically.


Reference please
Every literature I saw in the maternity ward stressed the benefit of breast feeding, especially for the infant immunity. You can google "breastfeeding and immunisation" to find a source which you deem credible.
Try this one for starters:
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/
(I assume you are more likely to believe government source).



My younger son did socialise quite a lot with his 3 year old brother who was going to day care 2 days a week at the time.

I assume your older son was vaccinated. Did you have trouble preventing contacts with non-vaccinated?



No I don't want government to decide. Where did I ever say that?

Well, you were ranting about people avoiding vaccination and thus endangering everyone else.
I only pointed out that they mostly endanger themselves and others that do not vaccinate.



Again you are ranting about a non issue as far as this thread is concerned. I'm not advocating forced immunisation and I have stated that explicitly.

Good.

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 03:13 PM
About weak grasp of logic let me remind you your infamous "racist interpretation of Jono's statement is racist"

That was entirely logical and I stand by that. You may not agree with the argument but that is your prerogative.

Let me not remind you about your comprehension problems, for example where you suggested I correct the spelling of a word which I was using in precisely the correct way. :lol:


That defeats your own claim about herd immunity against pertussis

Not at all. As I have already stated, herd immunity is achieved when immunisation is at some level which is below 100%. The fact that immunisation levels vary for 100% does not matter provided the the combination of the disease and population characteristics, and immunisation levels is such that disease infection level is zero. What it does defeat is your position that the main benefactors of immunisation are the individuals who are immunised. That is only true while ever the immunisation remains effective which in the case of the present pertussis vaccine is years rather than decades.


You are stating again that population-wide vaccination is not possible. In this case small proportion of those that forego vaccination cannot change the balance dramatically.

I said that the number that forego for medical reasons is small and given that they are unvaccinatable does not present a barrier to achieving herd immunity. However, the number that forego vaccination for non-medical (and largely spiritual) reasons is much higher.


Every literature I saw in the maternity ward stressed the benefit of breast feeding, especially for the infant immunity. You can google "breastfeeding and immunisation" to find a source which you deem credible.
Try this one for starters:
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/
(I assume you are more likely to believe government source).

Sorry Igor your link is broken. I sure hope you don't work in IT.

Before you bother fixing it what you require is a credible reference (government or otherwise) that shows that a mother who may have had her last pertussis vaccine at the age of 15 and is now is mostly likely in her thirties and so has very little if any pertussis immunity herself somehow passes on pertussis immunity to a child through breast milk. If the page you tried to post qualifies please fix the link or else keep doing your research.


I assume your older son was vaccinated. Did you have trouble preventing contacts with non-vaccinated?

He wasn't raised in a bubble and as there were no health epidemics at the time (AFAIK) and so we weren't particularly trying to wrap him in cotton wool for the first year. If he was under 12 months now I would be more concerned given the present whooping cough epidemic. What are you trying to get at?


Well, you were ranting about people avoiding vaccination and thus endangering everyone else.
I only pointed out that they mostly endanger themselves and others that do not vaccinate.

You try to make the point a couple of times regarding forced vaccination but why is a total mystery to me.

I see the issues as education and public perception of medical science.

Igor_Goldenberg
23-06-2009, 04:28 PM
That was entirely logical and I stand by that.
Your case is much more serious then I thought. BTW, may I ask why don't you say "That is entirely logical"?



Not at all. As I have already stated, herd immunity is achieved when immunisation is at some level which is below 100%. The fact that immunisation levels vary for 100% does not matter provided the the combination of the disease and population characteristics, and immunisation levels is such that disease infection level is zero. What it does defeat is your position that the main benefactors of immunisation are the individuals who are immunised. That is only true while ever the immunisation remains effective which in the case of the present pertussis vaccine is years rather than decades.


No need to misrepresent my position.
I stated clearly that individual immunisation benefits that particular individual.
Mass immunisation only benefits those that are not immunised. I regret that you failed to understand what was expressed pretty clearly and was obvious to other readers. Speaking about lack of comprehension.


Sorry Igor your link is broken. I sure hope you don't work in IT.
Cheap shot. Anyway, if you couldn't find anything in 10c of googling, see here:
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Breastfeeding_deciding_when_to_stop
or here: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/health-promotion/nutrition/breastfeeding/key-facts.html

In case you missed it: I was talking about general immunity level, not immunity to particular illness. Plenty more references to the general benefit of breastfeeding, but I agree it may be beside the point and not apply directly to whooping cough.



He wasn't raised in a bubble and as there were no health epidemics at the time (AFAIK) and so we weren't particularly trying to wrap him in cotton wool for the first year. If he was under 12 months now I would be more concerned given the present whooping cough epidemic. What are you trying to get at?


I thought it was clear: at the very early age (under six month) responsible parents have a control who their child contact. It becomes more difficult with older age and completely unpractical when child goes to school/kindergarten/child care etc.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2009, 05:07 PM
That was entirely logical and I stand by that. You may not agree with the argument but that is your prerogative.
You definitely have a problem then.


I said that the number that forego for medical reasons is small and given that they are unvaccinatable does not present a barrier to achieving herd immunity. However, the number that forego vaccination for non-medical (and largely spiritual) reasons is much higher.
Who says? Bill Maher, who produced a crappy atheopathic crockumentary Religulous, is happy to oppose vaccination.


Sorry Igor your link is broken. I sure hope you don't work in IT.
Cheap shot.


I see the issues as education and public perception of medical science.
That's fine. Lots of anti-vaccinators don't know how vaccination works.

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 05:26 PM
Your case is much more serious then I thought. BTW, may I ask why don't you say "That is entirely logical"?

There is something in English we call "tense" which expresses the time a particular verb is applicable for. While you could say "is" as I take your point that the logic of an argument is an ongoing thing and could be expressed in the present tense. In this case, I chose the past tense because the discussion took place some time ago. As a native speaker I tend not to analyse the tense of what I write that closely. Especially when answering a deliberate attempt to obfuscate a discussion with irrelevancies.


No need to misrepresent my position.
I stated clearly that individual immunisation benefits that particular individual.
Mass immunisation only benefits those that are not immunised. I regret that you failed to understand what was expressed pretty clearly and was obvious to other readers. Speaking about lack of comprehension.

I was not misrepresenting your position but simply explaining why it is wrong. In the case of whooping cough, those who are immunised have immunity for a limited period of time. So the individual immunity gradually deteriorates and everyone falls into the unimmunised category eventually. However, if the childhood immunise program is widely taken up by a population then herd immunity will protect everyone. Meaning there is no practical difference between an adult who was immunised as a child or an adult who was not unimmunised as a child, they both would enjoy the same benefit of herd immunity.

Your "position" is true to a degree for the first few years after immunisation but not after that. As the vaccine program stands at the moment the population in that category would roughly be those between the ages of 1 to 9 and 15 to 20. Immunity would be gradually tailing off between the ages 10 to 14 and into the early twenties.


In case you missed it: I was talking about general immunity level, not immunity to particular illness. Plenty more references to the general benefit of breastfeeding, but I agree it may be beside the point and not apply directly to whooping cough.

Therefore I assume you concede that whooping cough immunity is not conferred by breastfeeding unless you can provide evidence to the contrary meaning that regardless of the feeding routine of the child, pertussis infection is an issue from birth. Until the infant booster shots have provided immunity (some time in the first 12 months).


I thought it was clear: at the very early age (under six month) responsible parents have a control who their child contact. It becomes more difficult with older age and completely unpractical when child goes to school/kindergarten/child care etc.

Parents can act responsibly or irresponsibly and various levels in between but it is impractical to completely prevent all possible interactions which may provide an infection opportunity when there disease is in epidemic proportions in the general population.

But it is much less of a risk if the population has herd immunity from easily preventable diseases like whooping cough because then epidemics simply do not occur. Which is where we began.

I take it from your posts that you are largely in favour of vaccination. If that is the case I don't think we have any real disagreement. I just think the information should be provided to people so that they can make informed decisions on whether to vaccinate their children or not. At the moment the level of misinformation and poor reputation of medical science in some circles is compromising the enterprise of vaccination to levels of herd immunity. I think we need to address the information issue, not enforce vaccination.

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2009, 05:36 PM
Approval of inter-racial breeding is predicated on idiotic Christian dogma that God's children must love their enemies (a concept JEWS totally reject); and on LIBERAL/MARXIST/JEW propaganda that all men/races are created equal. These genocidal ideologies, preached from the American pulpits, taught in American schools, legislated in the halls of Congress (confirming TALMUDIC conviction that goyim are stupid sheep), are expected to produce a single, superintelligent, beautiful, non-White "American" population. Eliminating forever racism, inequality, bigotry and war. As with ALL LIBERAL ideologies, miscegenation is totally inconsistent with Natural Law: the species are improved through in-breeding, natural selection and mutation. Only the strong survive. Cross-breeding Whites with species lower on the evolutionary scale diminishes the White gene-pool while increasing the number of physiologically, psychologically and behaviorally deprived mongrels. Throughout history improvident Whites have miscegenated. The "brotherhood" concept is not new (as LIBERALS pretend) nor are the results — which are inevitably disastrous for the White Race — evident today, for example, in the botched populations of Cuba, Mexico, Egypt, India, and the inner cities of contemporary America.

James Brunn (http://loveforlife.com.au/files/tob_shebbe_goyim_harog_first6_0.pdf), the white supremacist who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11shoot.html?_r=2&hp).

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 05:36 PM
Cheap shot.

And Igor's comment that since I work in a university I don't know about the "real world" wasn't?

In fact mine wasn't anywhere near as cheap as Igor's since his case he assumes that anyone working at a university cannot know about the real world, which is just an infantile generalisation. Whereas in the case of my retort, someone working in IT really should have better than average ability to link a URL to a post.

Anyway he opened the door both with ad hominem attacks and attacks based on the employment of the opponent so I'm hardly to blame for the degradation of the discussion on those points. I have shown, I think, remarkable restraint.

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 05:40 PM
James Brunn (http://loveforlife.com.au/files/tob_shebbe_goyim_harog_first6_0.pdf), the white supremacist who killed the guard at the Holocaust Museum (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11shoot.html?_r=2&hp).

I think this post belongs in another thread unless you can justify it as a case of "spiritual" truth causing the disaster.

Did he believe he was hearing the voice of Adolf Hitler from beyond the grave?

Capablanca-Fan
23-06-2009, 05:43 PM
I think this post belongs in another thread unless you can justify it as a case of "spiritual" truth causing the disaster.
I disagree, since it serves as a counter-example: this scumbag rejected the "spiritual" ideas that all men/races are created equal, for instance.

Rincewind
23-06-2009, 11:56 PM
I disagree, since it serves as a counter-example: this scumbag rejected the "spiritual" ideas that all men/races are created equal, for instance.

That's not a spiritual idea it is also a grounded in science. We are all equal biologically and share a common descent out of Africa 4 million odd years ago.

Still if you want to start a counter thread feel free. But I don't find one off nutjobs like Brunn really balance the scales even if his weird ideas were inspired by scientific truth rather than a pathological racist and absolutist world view. This thread is intentionally about more about the grass roots dangers as I outlined in the first post. I didn't want to list all the high profile suicide bomber, 9/11 style of dangers as that has been done to death here, in the media and elsewhere. Ditto Brunn.

Spiny Norman
24-06-2009, 05:35 AM
We are all equal biologically ...
Wow ... have you really jettisoned Darwinism then, since it claims that all are not equal biologically, as some are more fit than others ...

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 08:34 AM
Wow ... have you really jettisoned Darwinism then, since it claims that all are not equal biologically, as some are more fit than others ...

Maybe in twisted parody of Darwinism that you churchies think you know.

There are genetic dispositions for certain traits which have come prevalent in certain sections of the population due to local selection pressure. One obvious example levels of melanin in the skin. But a Darwinist ought not think that melanin level is indicative of anything more than a resistance to sun exposure.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2009, 10:02 AM
That's not a spiritual idea it is also a grounded in science.
If something is confirmed by the science it does not mean it is not a spiritual idea.
And the case mentioned it is not even "grounded in science" but "claimed, even though not proved, by many scientists".

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 10:12 AM
If something is confirmed by the science it does not mean it is not a spiritual idea.

My use of the word "also" indicates that I wasn't denying that it could be a spiritual idea, just that it is not a uniquely spiritual one. I apologise if you missed the nuance.


And the case mentioned it is not even "grounded in science" but "claimed, even though not proved, by many scientists".

Not sure what you mean by "proved"? There are several competing theories on the migration of early humans and hominids. Science "proves" very little but it does sort out the theory which best explains the available evidence.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2009, 10:22 AM
I disagree, since it serves as a counter-example: this scumbag rejected the "spiritual" ideas that all men/races are created equal, for instance.

At least in the quote you gave it is not clear to me that he is saying belief in equality is either unique to spirituality or ubiquitous within it. In that quote the nutjob just calls the belief in equality "Liberal/Marxist/Jew propaganda" and says it is "preached from the American pulpits". Dropping the antisemitic angle there would be plenty of examples of spiritualists criticising Liberal/Marxist propaganda that is preached in at least some American pulpits.


If something is confirmed by the science it does not mean it is not a spiritual idea.

But if it is neither a necessarily spiritual nor a ubiquitously spiritual idea then it makes no sense to call it a spiritual idea whether it is confirmed by science or not. It just makes it an idea that some spiritualists happen to believe in.

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2009, 10:57 AM
At least in the quote you gave it is not clear to me that he is saying belief in equality is either unique to spirituality or ubiquitous within it. In that quote the nutjob just calls the belief in equality "Liberal/Marxist/Jew propaganda" and says it is "preached from the American pulpits". Dropping the antisemitic angle there would be plenty of examples of spiritualists criticising Liberal/Marxist propaganda that is preached in at least some American pulpits.
By the same token, I've documented opposition to vaccination by fanatical atheists, showing likewise that this misguided opposition is not a "spiritual" matter.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2009, 11:19 AM
My use of the word "also" indicates that I wasn't denying that it could be a spiritual idea, just that it is not a uniquely spiritual one. I apologise if you missed the nuance.



That's not a spiritual idea it is also a grounded in science.
It is not a nuance, it is a cooked up excuse. The quote shows quite clearly a rejection of the motion that it is a spiritual idea.
With such gaps in a simple logic demonstrated again I sincerely hope you don't try to work in an area of education. :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned:

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 11:37 AM
It is not a nuance, it is a cooked up excuse. The quote shows quite clearly a rejection of the motion that it is a spiritual idea.
With such gaps in a simple logic demonstrated again I sincerely hope you don't try to work in an area of education. :owned: :owned: :owned: :owned:

I'm not sure why you continue to draw attention to your own comprehension problems. I feel embarrassed and a little bit sorry for you.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2009, 11:39 AM
By the same token, I've documented opposition to vaccination by fanatical atheists, showing likewise that this misguided opposition is not a "spiritual" matter.

Certainly not uniquely spiritual.

Actually my reasoning about necessarily or ubiquitously spiritual views in my previous post was incomplete.

There are cases where certain groups or individuals believe that because of spiritual "truth" X (typically that there is a God of a certain variety), action Y is morally obligatory. Religious groups arguing against blood transfusion is an example of this. That's a case where opposition to a practice isn't necessarily or ubiquitously spiritual but it still makes sense to talk about that person's spirituality as a source of their harmful belief.

Whether the anti-vaccination "spiritualists" Rincewind refers to in northern NSW are anti-vaccination because of their spiritual views is not at all clear to me. Those may be cases of underlying causation - eg generic "alternative-thinking" tendencies leading both to anti-medical attitudes and pro-spiritualist ones, rather than the latter causing the former.

In the case of von Brunn, it does not appear that his racism is caused by his anti-spirituality. Rather he is most likely first and foremost a racist nutjob, and as such his rejection of certain modes of spirituality is necessitated by his racism.

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2009, 11:42 AM
A couple whose baby daughter died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Read the full story here...
http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html

This is a very sad case. However no clear link between the pursuit of homeopathic remedies and spirituality is established in the article so it is unclear to me whether the problem is belief in a spiritual "truth" or just belief in pseudoscientific quackery, to which even some atheists are not immune. Is there a spiritual/religious basis for the acceptance of homeopathic drivel in India?

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 12:00 PM
This is a very sad case. However no clear link between the pursuit of homeopathic remedies and spirituality is established in the article so it is unclear to me whether the problem is belief in a spiritual "truth" or just belief in pseudoscientific quackery, to which even some atheists are not immune. Is there a spiritual/religious basis for the acceptance of homeopathic drivel in India?

It is probably not established in the article but I believe there is a link as evidenced by a number of practitioners of homeopathy also providing "services" like spiritual healing. That is not to say that homeopathy = spiritual healing but they do share a level of coherence (as the snail king would say).

Commentators also make the link both skeptical and homeopathic commentators. See for example Dr Steven Barrett's "Homeopathy: the Ultimate Fake" and Dr Paul Bahder's "Relationship of Homeopathy and Spiritual Healing." The latter (a pro-homeopathy piece) contains the following quote:


``...health in homeopathy in its highest aspect is understood as a process of opening up to the spiritual, that is supramental realm, in ever greater submission to It and toward eventual "unification with It".''

Hence I think there is sufficient evidence to link a belief in the efficacy of homeopathy as a belief in a spiritual "truth".

Capablanca-Fan
24-06-2009, 12:10 PM
Is there a spiritual/religious basis for the acceptance of homeopathic drivel in India?
It's more a case of vitalism than spirituality. Or maybe homeopaths have simply got drunk on highly potent homeopathic grog ;)

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 12:24 PM
It's more a case of vitalism than spirituality.

I think it is a combination of the two but then I would be inclined to class vitalism as a brand of spiritualism anyway.

If you look at this publication of Barrett's piece (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html) You will see in the feedback section one comment reads...


Homeopathy works and you simply are too narrow-minded to understand that this world is made up of more than the mere physical and chemical natures. You overlook the spiritual and the energetic. You are the quack. (emphasis added)

So in that person's mind at least the two are intertwined.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2009, 01:34 PM
I feel embarrassed and a little bit sorry for you.
Well, you should feel sorry and embarrassed for yourself.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2009, 01:38 PM
This is a very sad case. However no clear link between the pursuit of homeopathic remedies and spirituality is established in the article so it is unclear to me whether the problem is belief in a spiritual "truth" or just belief in pseudoscientific quackery, to which even some atheists are not immune. Is there a spiritual/religious basis for the acceptance of homeopathic drivel in India?
But lack of the link is not a reason not to use it as a beat-up against believes different from your own.

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 01:56 PM
Well, you should feel sorry and embarrassed for yourself.

Oh... ouch! Did you think up that one all by yourself? :lol:

Kevin Bonham
24-06-2009, 06:01 PM
But lack of the link is not a reason not to use it as a beat-up against believes different from your own.

It appears there is a link for some practitioners and defenders of homeopathy at least, and any belief system (spiritual or otherwise) that does promote homeopathy certainly deserves to be strongly criticised and considered complicit in deaths such as the one Rincewind mentions. Obviously many spiritual belief systems do not promote it.

Spiny Norman
24-06-2009, 06:16 PM
There are genetic dispositions for certain traits which have come prevalent in certain sections of the population due to local selection pressure. One obvious example levels of melanin in the skin. But a Darwinist ought not think that melanin level is indicative of anything more than a resistance to sun exposure.
Right. So there are differences. Which means that all are not equal biologically. Which is what Darwin said. If you want to claim equality, then it is not biological equality, but value equality despite biological differences.

If all are biologically equal as you suggested, there is no 'survival of the fittest'. :wall:

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 07:49 PM
Right. So there are differences. Which means that all are not equal biologically. Which is what Darwin said. If you want to claim equality, then it is not biological equality, but value equality despite biological differences.

If all are biologically equal as you suggested, there is no 'survival of the fittest'. :wall:

My claim is we are equal biologically is not the preposterous straw man you are trying to erect but rather that all humanity share a completely common ancestry and biology that dates back many millions of years. We also share ancestry and certain biological traits with the other life forms on our planet as well, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-06-2009, 08:34 PM
It appears there is a link for some practitioners and defenders of homeopathy at least, and any belief system (spiritual or otherwise) that does promote homeopathy certainly deserves to be strongly criticised and considered complicit in deaths such as the one Rincewind mentions. Obviously many spiritual belief systems do not promote it.
It is true that this particular denial of vaccination deserves to be strongly criticised. However, the thread was started as lambasting of the spiritual beliefs. The logic of the generalisation was very weak (which, however, does not surprise me).

Rincewind
24-06-2009, 09:44 PM
It is true that this particular denial of vaccination deserves to be strongly criticised.

What are you talking about Igor? The homeopathy case doesn't even relate to vaccinations. In that case the infant had severe eczema which the parents tried to treat with homeopathy and ignore medical advice.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2009, 01:10 AM
We can see from this thread:

Many “spiritual” belief systems neither oppose vaccination nor support homeopathy
Some fanatical atheists do oppose vaccination, and undoubtedly support homeopathy.

So this proves nothing about the dangers of spirituality per se, and everything about the irrationality of anti-vaccination and homeopathy.

Andrew Bolt wrote in 2007 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_lesson_in_silly_superstitions/):


The global warming panic, or the naked rain dance funded by VicHealth, aren’t the only signs we’re becoming steadily more irrational — and are perversely proud of it.

Victoria University is the most scandalous example, offering a Bachelor of Health Science — Naturopathy and Homeopathy last year, with courses even in “vibrational medicine” to teach “energy healing, the role of intuition, spirituality and all other areas related to the metaphysical”.

Seriously, as a chemist, I believe the tried and tested Law of Mass Action, where potency increases with concentration, rather than homeopathy that claims the opposite. So I commented:


Here’s an idea for bar owners: keep watering down the drinks :hmm: , but advertise them as homeopathic super-drinks :P

Desmond
25-06-2009, 08:59 AM
I don't really see a problem with course in Naturopathy / Homeopathy. They have their place as a compliment to normal medicine. It is when they are pitched to replace normal medicine that the problems arise.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 09:40 AM
I don't really see a problem with course in Naturopathy / Homeopathy. They have their place as a compliment to normal medicine. It is when they are pitched to replace normal medicine that the problems arise.
And taxpayer funded.

Rincewind
25-06-2009, 09:42 AM
I don't really see a problem with course in Naturopathy / Homeopathy. They have their place as a compliment to normal medicine. It is when they are pitched to replace normal medicine that the problems arise.

I think any method which makes claims to have some sort of effect, especially a healing effect, that the efficacy of the method needs to be substantiated. The dangers are if you are allowed to make totally unfounded claims about treatments then you will have people opting out of scientific treatments which are often physically taxing and make realistic claims as to the survival rate, when down the road there is a homeopath saying they can heal everything with some watered down duck livers.

Certainly before universities start cashing in on the alternative "treatment" boom they should ensure there is some scholarly merit to the course. Given that PVCs Research are encouraging interdisciplinary efforts these days, I wonder if the power that be at Victoria have got the chemists and homeopaths working on some joint research projects.

morebeer
25-06-2009, 09:56 AM
I don't really see a problem with course in Naturopathy / Homeopathy. They have their place as a compliment to normal medicine. It is when they are pitched to replace normal medicine that the problems arise.

Why not throw in phrenology, crystal healing and urine therapy for good measure.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 09:57 AM
We can see from this thread:

Many “spiritual” belief systems neither oppose vaccination nor support homeopathy
Some fanatical atheists do oppose vaccination, and undoubtedly support homeopathy.

So this proves nothing about the dangers of spirituality per se, and everything about the irrationality of anti-vaccination and homeopathy.


Lambasting spiritual beliefs is quite silly in this case.

The following argument is, in my opinion, very weak, but the link is much stronger then in the original claim of the thread:


"Atheism was a significant part of Soviet ideology, and USSR was the first country to embrace it. USSR pioneered the use of gas chamber and was the first one to use concentration camps on a wide scale. More people dies in Soviet concentration camps then anywhere else (with Nazis being second) until China embraced atheism and killed even more in its own concentration camps.
It shows the great danger of atheism."

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 09:59 AM
Why not throw in phrenology, crystal healing and urine therapy for good measure.
Would you like to extend the list?:D :D :D
BTW, many modern medical practices were ridiculed when they were first introduced.

morebeer
25-06-2009, 10:31 AM
Lambasting spiritual beliefs is quite silly in this case.

The following argument is, in my opinion, very weak, but the link is much stronger then in the original claim of the thread:

Your cause and effect relationship between atheism and appalling human behaviour may be a bit simplistic.

Conversely, it could be suggested that totalitarian political structures resemble - in part - monotheistic religious models. They share some common points: adoration of a central infallible leader or figurehead, the infallibility of a foundation text or manifesto and intollerance/hostility to people and institutions who are not members of their in-group.

Rincewind
25-06-2009, 10:33 AM
We can see from this thread:

Many “spiritual” belief systems neither oppose vaccination nor support homeopathy



That is true, there are hundreds of different spirituality "truths" all of which are "true" in the minds of their adherents. The purpose of this thread is not to produces dangers which apply to every one but simply to point out some of the less obvious dangers which do exist. The cases are particularly ironic because in most of the cases I have come posted the perpetrators most likely sincerely believed they were helping the victims. (The same is true generally with vaccinations as the unvaccinated child is often subject to a distressing illness but the infant that died recently in NSW was not the daughter of an anti-vaccinationist).




Some fanatical atheists do oppose vaccination, and undoubtedly support homeopathy.


Well you have come up with one relatively unknown weirdo who is a standup comic and hardly a voice for rationality. You have come up with no "fanatical atheist" who supports homeopathy. Perhaps there are some but I don't know of any.


So this proves nothing about the dangers of spirituality per se, and everything about the irrationality of anti-vaccination and homeopathy.

You are missing the point that there is a link between spirituality and homeopathy, as the per information I gave earlier. The link between anti-vaccination and spirituality also exists in a similar way if you look at the what anti-vaccination activist Jenny McCarthy has written. Also it is no accident that the low rates of vaccination in Northern NSW correlates with the new age, alternative and spiritual lifestyles which are more prevalent there than in many other parts of the state.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 10:56 AM
Your cause and effect relationship between atheism and appalling human behaviour may be a bit simplistic.
Of course it is, I stated it explicitly in my post.
But the cause and effect relationship between spiritual beliefs and danger to everyone else is even weaker.

Desmond
25-06-2009, 11:11 AM
I think any method which makes claims to have some sort of effect, especially a healing effect, that the efficacy of the method needs to be substantiated.Not my area, but as fair as I know they do have substantiation. I know GPs who recommend their use in concert with normal methods.

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2009, 11:18 AM
I don't really see a problem with course in Naturopathy / Homeopathy. They have their place as a compliment to normal medicine. It is when they are pitched to replace normal medicine that the problems arise.

Naturopathic treatements may in some cases actually work. Homeopathy simply does not work beyond the placebo effect. I don't object to people studying it in unis as part of the study of the history of medical error but I don't believe universities should fund training in how to (pretend to) do it.


The following argument is, in my opinion, very weak, but the link is much stronger then in the original claim of the thread:


"Atheism was a significant part of Soviet ideology, and USSR was the first country to embrace it. USSR pioneered the use of gas chamber and was the first one to use concentration camps on a wide scale. More people dies in Soviet concentration camps then anywhere else (with Nazis being second) until China embraced atheism and killed even more in its own concentration camps.
It shows the great danger of atheism."

It's not entirely clear to me what the original claim of the thread is. We really only have the title to go on.

If the claim is that belief in any spiritual "truth" is necessarily dangerous then I agree that has not been (and probably cannot be) demonstrated.

If the claim is that belief in some spiritual "truths" is dangerous then we have ample evidence that this is so; some people do practice unsafe medicine and remedies specifically because they believe these are spiritually sanctioned.

No one has demonstrated that Stalinists, Maoists etc were dangerous because of their atheism. Just it being a significant part of an ideology is not enough to ground such a claim.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 11:19 AM
Conversely, it could be suggested that totalitarian political structures resemble - in part - monotheistic religious models. They share some common points: adoration of a central infallible leader or figurehead, the infallibility of a foundation text or manifesto and intollerance/hostility to people and institutions who are not members of their in-group.
I am not sure about monotheistic, otherwise it's correct.
However, there is hardly a society not based on a religious model. When traditional religious teachings are discarded, they are always replaces by something else, be it marxism/communism, racial/aryan supremacy, different types of political correctness, bugaboo of global warming, etc.

Human nature requires a belief set. When one is misplaced, another one takes it's place. It might be more militant and less tolerant, it's advocates even deny that it's a belief set, but it's still a belief set.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 11:25 AM
It's not entirely clear to me what the original claim of the thread is. We really only have the title to go on.
You might ask the starter of the thread, even though I am not sure he understands it himself.


If the claim is that belief in any spiritual "truth" is necessarily dangerous then I agree that has not been (and probably cannot be) demonstrated.

If the claim is that belief in some spiritual "truths" is dangerous then we have ample evidence that this is so; some people do practice unsafe medicine and remedies specifically because they believe these are spiritually sanctioned.

Looks to me that by trying to demonstrate the latter the poster tried to imply the first.


No one has demonstrated that Stalinists, Maoists etc were dangerous because of their atheism. Just it being a significant part of an ideology is not enough to ground such a claim.
Did I claim it? It was just an example of a very weak logical link. However, most of RW logical deductions much weaker then even this one.

antichrist
25-06-2009, 11:28 AM
I wonder if any of you saw a program on ABC TV last night, about child abuse in Nigeria. It was focused on a particular region/district where a certain influential church leader, who clearly didn't read her Bible anywhere near enough (or if she did, had comprehension problems), had run off the rails and whipped up the population into a fearful state about witches and wizards. Disgusting. Kids were being abandoned by their parents, some physically attacked, some even killed. It was a mix of good ol' fashioned tribal beliefs with some Christianity thrown in for good measure. Unfortunately the latter was almost completely and utterly lost in the process and the resulting mix was very, very dangerous indeed. As the speaker in the program said quite rightly, Christians watching this program will be disgusted with how its been twisted.

How many times must that quote come back to haunt us: People who believe in absurdities are more prone to commit atrocities!

No matter what the absurdity.

Now drill that quote into your brain and see how many times it rings true, now in the past and in the future.

Rincewind
25-06-2009, 11:48 AM
You might ask the starter of the thread, even though I am not sure he understands it himself.

Or you could try something you haven't to date and actually and and comprehend what has been written in this thread already.

The intention of the thread was not stated in post#1 but if you look at post #4, particularly the first 2 paragraphs you will see the intention. I also remind Jono of this in post #76 (first paragraph).


Did I claim it? It was just an example of a very weak logical link. However, most of RW logical deductions much weaker then even this one.

"Deduction" by definition is absolute and and can be valid or invalid but never strong or weak. You probably mean "induction".

Kevin Bonham
25-06-2009, 11:52 AM
You might ask the starter of the thread, even though I am not sure he understands it himself.

Well he says "The purpose of this thread is not to produces dangers which apply to every one but simply to point out some of the less obvious dangers which do exist." Seems clear enough to me.


Did I claim it? It was just an example of a very weak logical link. However, most of RW logical deductions much weaker then even this one.

What I was questioning was your assertion that it, weak as it was, was a stronger link than the one you thought Rincewind was making.

There are some demonstrable cases where certain spiritual beliefs are dangerous because those beliefs directly entail and require support for pseudoscience and harmful rituals.

No-one posting on this thread has yet demonstrated any case where a belief in some form or other of atheism directly entails support for totalitarianism.

antichrist
25-06-2009, 11:59 AM
Well he says "The purpose of this thread is not to produces dangers which apply to every one but simply to point out some of the less obvious dangers which do exist." Seems clear enough to me.



What I was questioning was your assertion that it, weak as it was, was a stronger link than the one you thought Rincewind was making.

There are some demonstrable cases where certain spiritual beliefs are dangerous because those beliefs directly entail and require support for pseudoscience and harmful rituals.

No-one posting on this thread has yet demonstrated any case where a belief in some form or other of atheism directly entails support for totalitarianism.

The totalitarianism of humanity guided by humans is all we have to go by - not odd bods in the sky to blame or fall back on. Thanks for rehashing my 82 post quote

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2009, 12:48 PM
How many times must that quote come back to haunt us: People who believe in absurdities are more prone to commit atrocities!

No matter what the absurdity.
True enough: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were fanatical atheopaths.

morebeer
25-06-2009, 01:21 PM
True enough: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were fanatical atheopaths.

They were all highly developed narcissists so it does seem reasonable for them to negate any competition - real or imaginary.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-06-2009, 02:10 PM
They were all highly developed narcissists so it does seem reasonable for them to negate any competition - real or imaginary.
Competition is the key world. Monotheistic religions delegate highest authority to G-d, thus denying it to any human being. While it is very often not sufficient, it is, however, an obstacle to overcome.

Rincewind
25-06-2009, 02:42 PM
Monotheistic religions delegate highest authority to G-d

Your choice of subject and object in this sentence is telling and I would agree. It is a case of religion delegating authority to God and not God having the authority in the first place.

Capablanca-Fan
25-06-2009, 02:52 PM
Competition is the key world. Monotheistic religions delegate highest authority to G-d, thus denying it to any human being. While it is very often not sufficient, it is, however, an obstacle to overcome.
It's no accident that the Christians and deists who founded America distrusted too much power in one man or one group. Their solution was to divide power by a system of checks and balances. By contrast, the atheopaths behind the French Revolution disliked those balances because they restricted the power of the Anointed (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=484).

TheJoker
25-06-2009, 06:03 PM
Monotheistic religions delegate highest authority to G-d

However in organised religion (which most are), religious leaders assume a proxy for that power. In general the power structures are highly centralised. Rules are determined only by those who are accepted as being able to speak for God.

Like you've already mentioned society needs a set of rules to facilitate social cohesion. The only variances are how these rules are defined, be it religously, politically, scientifically or otherwise; and the power structures enacted to enforce them.

My personal opinion about many religious belief sets is they are designed primarly for the uneducated and superstitious masses of their origin period. Rather than trying to persuade the follower through reason and logic they use hocus pocus stories of eternal punishiment / reward and ostricisation of dissenters. The rules are often fixed inflexible and represent the knowledge and circumstance of the period in which they were defined. That said most of the core beliefs are still representative of the fundamentals requirements of social cohension. For me its only the periphery that has become outdated. unlike some political systems which come to power and enact rules that cannot sustain social cohesion.

Rincy I don't think its just belief in spiritual "truths" that are dangerous, but rather belief in outdated "truths" spiritual, scientific, political or otherwise.

Rincewind
25-06-2009, 06:41 PM
Rincy I don't think its just belief in spiritual "truths" that are dangerous, but rather belief in outdated "truths" spiritual, scientific, political or otherwise.

Ok well then in this thread we are talking about the spiritual ones. :)

The trouble as I understand it is that spiritual "truths" are often claimed to be eternal. Just look at Jono position regarding the original autographs of the scriptures. And thus their adherents often claim such "truths" could never be outdated.

On the other hand science is by its very nature a tentative truth and outdated "truths" are unscientific almost by definition. That doesn't mean that people necessarily stop believing they are true, but if they continue to believe something which is now scientifically untenable, it is not a scientific "truth", per se. The reason for belief is some failure in the cognition of the adherent.

TheJoker
25-06-2009, 08:58 PM
The trouble as I understand it is that spiritual "truths" are often claimed to be eternal... And thus their adherents often claim such "truths" could never be outdated.

I tend to agree with this, however I might add that belief in spiritual "truths" even ones that are outdated may be equally likley to beneficial as they are harmful. I think non-religious people often focus on the negative effects of religion and ignore the positive effects it often has on human behaviour.

Rincewind
25-06-2009, 09:04 PM
I tend to agree with this, however I might add that belief in spiritual "truths" even ones that are outdated may be equally likley to beneficial as they are harmful. I think non-religious people often focus on the negative effects of religion and ignore the positive effects it often has on human behaviour.

They are certainly not all dangerous. However I would not like to make any comment on the probability.

TheJoker
25-06-2009, 09:08 PM
On the other hand science is by its very nature a tentative truth and outdated "truths" are unscientific almost by definition.

A major problem is that scientific method is restricted in the areas where it can be practically applied.

TheJoker
25-06-2009, 09:18 PM
They are certainly not all dangerous. However I would not like to make any comment on the probability.

Well if you've got some spare time you could always investigate the matter scientifically;)

Rincewind
26-06-2009, 11:51 AM
Andrew Bolt wrote in 2007 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_lesson_in_silly_superstitions/):


The global warming panic, or the naked rain dance funded by VicHealth, aren’t the only signs we’re becoming steadily more irrational — and are perversely proud of it.

Victoria University is the most scandalous example, offering a Bachelor of Health Science — Naturopathy and Homeopathy last year, with courses even in “vibrational medicine” to teach “energy healing, the role of intuition, spirituality and all other areas related to the metaphysical”.

I note that as far as I can tell Bachelor of Health Science — Naturopathy and Homeopathy only appear in the university list of courses for 2006 and was never seen again. The course handbook continues to list Bachelor of Chinese Medicine (Acupuncture and Herbs) as a course but it has been for continuing student only for 2008 and 2009.

Given the Bachelor of Health Science — Naturopathy and Homeopathy was only offered one year and then (it seems) canned. It is likely (although not impossible) that no one actually graduated with that degree.

antichrist
12-07-2009, 11:50 AM
What about that homopathy (pathetic) couple who let their baby daughter die rather than break their religion and turn to conventional medicine. I bet they went to conventional dentists when they had a bad tooth!

Rincewind
12-07-2009, 12:02 PM
What about that homopathy (pathetic) couple who let their baby daughter die rather than break their religion and turn to conventional medicine. I bet they went to conventional dentists when they had a bad tooth!

Perhaps you are talking about the case I linked to in post #10. There has been some discussion about that. Not so much about the actions of the parents which were reckless, but whether homeopathy is classifiable as a spiritual belief. I've given references of both pro and anti homeopathy commentators who use spiritual language to describe it.

antichrist
12-07-2009, 12:06 PM
Perhaps you are talking about the case I linked to in post #10. There has been some discussion about that. Not so much about the actions of the parents which were reckless, but whether homeopathy is classifiable as a spiritual belief. I've given references of both pro and anti homeopathy commentators who use spiritual language to describe it.

They should not be allowed to have another child.

Rincewind
12-07-2009, 12:23 PM
They should not be allowed to have another child.

Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. Hopefully by the time they are released, "doctor" Thomas Sam (42) and Manju (37) are well past having another child.

antichrist
12-07-2009, 12:26 PM
when I was a teenager I thought I came from backward-thinking relos, but with the rise of born agains and new age, I came to realise that my relos were pretty sensible really and did not take their beliefs etc to any detrimental level or action.

arosar
28-09-2009, 07:08 AM
Yesterday, while sitting on the train to the city, some Christian nut disturbed everyone by singing hymns to Lord Jesus. Allelujah this, allelujah that. You see these sickos around. If you ask me, such behaviour should be banned. Anyway, that was just pissing me off.

But then I saw this piece of news (http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-bows-to-religious-right-20090926-g76u.html).

AR

antichrist
29-09-2009, 01:25 PM
Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. Hopefully by the time they are released, "doctor" Thomas Sam (42) and Manju (37) are well past having another child.

Well they have put in prison for 8 and 6 years respectively - and the psychologist noted how the husband emphasied his "spiritual maturity as a Christian" - what an oxymoron!

AR and Shirty can I borrow your term here? Total FWs, and Jono you are half way there as well.

Kaitlin
01-10-2009, 02:30 PM
Yesterday, while sitting on the train to the city, some Christian nut disturbed everyone by singing hymns to Lord Jesus. Allelujah this, allelujah that. You see these sickos around. If you ask me, such behaviour should be banned. Anyway, that was just pissing me off.

But then I saw this piece of news (http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-bows-to-religious-right-20090926-g76u.html).

AR

Prob wasnt a Christian nut, prob just a person rehearsing for a choir of hard knocks ... -> see about time 2:05 here

xP7UvjGyx3w


..dont your people watch Tv or go to the Opera :rolleyes:

Rincewind
27-10-2009, 07:57 AM
Death Valley (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/22/james-ray-sweat-lodge-death)

Two weeks ago on a retreat with new age guru James Arthur Ray, three people died in a sweat lodge. What went wrong?

antichrist
27-10-2009, 06:43 PM
Death Valley (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/22/james-ray-sweat-lodge-death)

Two weeks ago on a retreat with new age guru James Arthur Ray, three people died in a sweat lodge. What went wrong?

They should have chosen Byron Bay brand new age instead - up here Tantric Sex (shhhh) is all the throe and go and hippy love ins with funny stuff that dreams are made of.

Rincewind
17-03-2010, 10:42 PM
This is a reasonably well-known case of spiritual "truth" based child abuse. A bit old but missed earlier. From the BBC story dated 2 August 2009...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8180116.stm

A US jury has found a man guilty of killing his sick 11-year-old daughter by praying for her recovery rather than seeking medical care.

Rincewind
28-03-2010, 06:06 PM
This guy is pretty classy. It doesn't really fit exactly into this thread but it sort of does if having a pastor praying for the death of someone might encourage someone to be the architect of answering that prayer.

Anyway, just check out the clip.

JVMgfDDTQcw

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2010, 01:51 PM
Another frostbitten alarmist realises the Arctic is still cold (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_frostbitten_alarmist_cant_find_global_ warming/)

Capablanca-Fan
18-04-2010, 02:16 PM
Another frostbitten alarmist realises the Arctic is still cold (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yet_another_frostbitten_alarmist_cant_find_global_ warming/)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Desmond
23-06-2010, 08:12 PM
Boy, 5, 'slaughtered like a goat' (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/boy-5-slaughtered-like-a-goat/story-e6frfku0-1225883026987)


A FIVE-YEAR-OLD Ukrainian boy was slaughtered by an alleged religious fanatic as he played in a sandpit with his friends, it was reported.

The stranger strolled up to little Viktor Shemyakin before pointing to a tree and saying: "Look, there is a bird up there", Pravda reported today.

When the boy glanced upward the man plunged a knife into his throat, Pravda said.

The June 18 killing has threatened to ignite tension in the town of Dneprovka, in Ukraine's Crimea region, after it emerged that the 27-year-old knifeman was a suspected Muslim fanatic, the Russian online newspaper reported.

The victim's three-year-old sister Lena Shemyakina and her five-year-old friend were among a group of young children who witnessed the attack.

Viktor's mother, named only as Angelina, heard their screams and ran out of the house to find her child lying in a pool of blood.

Police arrested the prime suspect, named by Pravda as Server Ibragimov, three hours later at his parents' house, where he was reportedly hiding in the loft.

He allegedly confessed to the crime, telling police that he was ordered to kill the boy by spirits.

Desmond
20-08-2010, 08:35 AM
Dad guilty in daughter-in-freezer murder trial (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/7948057/dad-guilty-of-murdering-daughter-keeping-body-in-freezer)


A 55-year-old man in the US has been convicted of killing his daughter and stuffing her body in a freezer for two years.

Clarence Butterfield was found guilty of murder and torture by a court in Santa Ana after tying up and shooting daughter Rebekah, 21, in December 2006.

The nude and decomposing body was found wrapped in sheets of plastic inside a freezer in Butterfield's motor home after it was impounded at a tow yard in October 2008.

...

But he did admit keeping her body in a freezer because, defence lawyer Lisa Eyanson said, he loved her and couldn't bear to be apart from her.

"He told investigators that he remembered reading in the Bible that as long as you have the bones and you have faith, maybe the person could be resurrected, could come back," Eyanson reportedly said. ...

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 08:31 PM
Gunman committed to "save the Earth" took hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters. His demands could be read here (http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com/).

Discovery Channel spokesman David Leavy said the station's security teams were familiar with Lee but had not considered him a threat because his views were so outrageous. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/02/3000174.htm?section=world)

Impeccable logic, isn't it?

After four hours stand-off with the police he was killed by the sniper and hostages freed unharmed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gunman-killed-hostages-freed-in-discovery-channel-siege/story-e6frg6so-1225913131512)

Oepty
02-09-2010, 08:55 PM
Gunman committed to "save the Earth" took hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters. His demands could be read here (http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com/).

Discovery Channel spokesman David Leavy said the station's security teams were familiar with Lee but had not considered him a threat because his views were so outrageous. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/02/3000174.htm?section=world)

Impeccable logic, isn't it?

After four hours stand-off with the police he was killed by the sniper and hostages freed unharmed (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/gunman-killed-hostages-freed-in-discovery-channel-siege/story-e6frg6so-1225913131512)

Not wanting to take away from the seriousness of the situation but it strikes me as odd that it is illegal to throw money into the air. Heard it was thousands of dollars, but even so why should people not allowed to throw money in the air?
Scott

Igor_Goldenberg
02-09-2010, 09:34 PM
Not wanting to take away from the seriousness of the situation but it strikes me as odd that it is illegal to throw money into the air. Heard it was thousands of dollars, but even so why should people not allowed to throw money in the air?
Scott
Scott, how is it relevant to the story?

Oepty
02-09-2010, 09:41 PM
Scott, how is it relevant to the story?

The article you linked to said he was arrested in February 2008 for throwing money in the air outside of the Discovery offices. I had heard it in other reports into the incident, which mentioned thousands of dollars. Wondering why you would be arrested for do it.
Scott

Rincewind
02-09-2010, 11:48 PM
Scott, how is it relevant to the story?

I'm trying to work out how the story is relevant to the thread.

arosar
20-10-2010, 11:57 AM
miwSljJAzqg&

AR

antichrist
20-10-2010, 12:29 PM
when it got to the part when the lady did not that the Constitution separates between religion and state then she is a dummy not worth listening to.

Desmond
20-10-2010, 12:42 PM
Just another dumbass with a microphone.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 12:45 PM
Just another dumbass with a microphone.

The ass may be the more intelligent part of her

will delete later

Capablanca-Fan
20-10-2010, 02:12 PM
miwSljJAzqg&

AR
So what? Why vote for a Marxist like this Coons cretin who wants to grab more tax dollars? This is a distraction on the economic damage Obamov has done which Coons wants to continue. Coons is too gutless to admit his own rabid atheopathy.

O'Connell is right that Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. In the case ACLU vs Mercer County (KY, 2005) (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0477p-06.pdf), circuit judge Richard Suhrheinrich demolished this myth (with fellow circuit judge Alice Batchelder concurring), denouncing it as one of the ‘fundamental flaws’ in the ACLU case:


[T]he ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct grows tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state … our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. … (‘There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.’) After all, ‘[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.’ … Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible. [Cited court cases omitted] …

In fact, the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ is taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. And Jefferson’s meaning in context was diametrically opposed to the way the ACLU take it. That is, the Baptists of the day used a metaphor of the church as a ‘garden’, compared to the ‘wilderness’ of the outside world, with a ‘wall’ or hedge separating them. This came from Baptist Roger Williams (1603–1684), founder of Rhode Island, in a sermon called The Garden in the Wilderness (1644), where he said:


When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will e’er please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.

Here the meaning is very clear: if this protective hedge or wall were broken down, then the wilderness would encroach into the garden and destroy it. So the whole point of the wall was to prevent the government from encroaching on the church, not to expunge the church from society.

SCOTUS judge Antonin Scalia pointed out:


The Declaration of Independence mentions God's role in life. Most presidents starting with George Washington have said a short prayer when accepting the nation's highest job. Many of them have declared a national day of Thanksgiving, a day for offering thanks to God for everything we have in America. Justice Scalia also explained that Congress opens each session with a short prayer, and the Supreme Court crier begins each session by saying "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

antichrist
20-10-2010, 03:21 PM
JOno, getting down to basic provable facts - THERE IS NO GOD LEARN TO LIVE WITH IT, THE WORLD WILL NOT END TOMORROW, JESUS (IF HE EVER LIVED) HAS NOT COME BACK IN 2000 YEARS - join the environmental religion instead, we need you coz even Kb is a bit of a redneck

arosar
20-10-2010, 08:05 PM
SCOTUS judge Antonin Scalia pointed out:


The Declaration of Independence mentions God's role in life. Most presidents starting with George Washington have said a short prayer when accepting the nation's highest job. Many of them have declared a national day of Thanksgiving, a day for offering thanks to God for everything we have in America. Justice Scalia also explained that Congress opens each session with a short prayer, and the Supreme Court crier begins each session by saying "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

Jono...I'm curious: what do you say is the role of the Declaration of Independence on legal matters in American life and specifically on the concept (yes, the concept, not the phrase) of church-state separation?

And secondly, what is your personal interpretation of Matthew 22:21?

Thanks muchly.

AR

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 08:15 PM
Jono's objection seems to be around the term "separation of church and state" which may indeed have a history something like he described. Certainly the term "separation of church and state" does not occur in the single sentence which is the text of the first amendment (freedom of expression). However the first amendment makes it clear that congress should not establish a religion. And if the state did include in a science curriculum, Intelligent Design or Creationism or any other religious dogma dressed up to look like science, they would be in breach of the first amendment.

However this post does not fit with the title of the thread as the victim here seems to be O'Donnell who seems convinced that ID is theory on an equal footing with Evolution, an assumption which is just ridiculous. ID is a promoted by a small group of religiously motivated pseudo-scientists who are looking for evidence to prop up their a priori supernatural beliefs.

For example, to the absolutely bloody-minded fundamentalist who reads the good book and says well god made everything in six days and based on family trees we can say that the world must be 6,000 to 10,000 years old. End of story. Forget radiometric dating which says the world is much much older. Forget the fossil record which clearly shows a evolutionary development on the planet over millions and millions of years. Forget the night sky which shows some light arriving from stars started its journey here millions upon millions of years ago. Forget tree rings, forget dating from ice cores, forget all that hard scientifically testable and falsifiable evidence that shows that the universe has been around for more than 10,000 years (and in some cases for more than 10,000 x 10,000 years). It can't possibly be true.

In short, anything which cannot be made theologically palatable is simply ignored. No reason other than well if you read the bible "properly" it is clearly spelt out in there.

Thank god that (outside of America) religious fundamentalism to this degree is in the minority.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 08:24 PM
But America has been vigorously exporting Creationism for 50 years via overseas broadcasting stations in Asia as well as missions everywhere. It has spread to Australia esp in Christian schools financially supported by Howard, one of his biggest crimes while deny funding to public schools. Then when Rudd does the school stimulous package for public schools all the stupid Libs are against it. Thanks god for the independents this time.

There aren't that much hope.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-10-2010, 09:45 PM
The thread is "danger of belief in a spiritual truth".
What is the danger of allowing school to teach religion? Leftists are, of course, afraid of people having freedom of choice, but how is it relevant to the thread?

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 09:54 PM
The thread is "danger of belief in a spiritual truth".
What is the danger of allowing school to teach religion? Leftists are, of course, afraid of people having freedom of choice, but how is it relevant to the thread?

Believing in things for no good reason does have dangers as some of the earlier examples in this thread testifies. For example, belief in homeopathy can lead to the death of a child. Belief that mental illness is actually demonic possession has lead to deaths during so-called exorcisms.

Now allowing uncritical and un-evidenced religious dogma into school science curricula is not freedom of speech, or freedom of choice, it is a perversion of the basis of the public education system, that anyone should have access to good evidence-backed knowledge. It is also the state promotion is a specific religious dogma over many-many others and as such, in America, a breach of the first amendment.

However I agree the threads intention is over more direct links than bad education would lead to a population of people who accept religious dogma as science. However, as the thread has been pretty dormant lately I can't see this discussion getting in the way of any other one.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 09:54 PM
The thread is "danger of belief in a spiritual truth".
What is the danger of allowing school to teach religion? Leftists are, of course, afraid of people having freedom of choice, but how is it relevant to the thread?

real freedom of choice means not being brainwashed into religion whilst at school - that is no choice. The dangers of belief is that it is like a bad virus - contaminates everything

Adamski
20-10-2010, 10:16 PM
This guy is pretty classy. It doesn't really fit exactly into this thread but it sort of does if having a pastor praying for the death of someone might encourage someone to be the architect of answering that prayer.

Anyway, just check out the clip.

JVMgfDDTQcwWhy does the clip come up as punctuation marks on my screen, then when I reply to the post I see a non-URL YouTube reference? Just curious, RW. I wanted to see this one. Can you post the URL please?

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 10:21 PM
Why does the clip come up as punctuation marks on my screen, then when I reply to the post I see a non-URL YouTube reference? Just curious, RW. I wanted to see this one. Can you post the URL please?

Looks fine here. Here is the URL...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMgfDDTQcw

Adamski
20-10-2010, 10:31 PM
Looks fine here. Here is the URL...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVMgfDDTQcwTa. Ok. I certainly don't agree with praying for Obama's death - except in the sense of him dying to self and being converted to Christianity.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 10:37 PM
RW
You are lucky all those banned posters at ****** are atheists

Desmond
20-10-2010, 10:38 PM
So what? Why vote for a Marxist like this Coons cretin who wants to grab more tax dollars?Yeah this was the line of your fellow YE Christian, in-mate Dr Kent Hovind. I pay my taxes so I should get to decide what gets taught in science class. Except he didn't pay his taxes after all and is serving 10 years for the priviledge.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 10:44 PM
Ta. Ok. I certainly don't agree with praying for Obama's death - except in the sense of him dying to self and being converted to Christianity.

Are you sure you dont want him to change colour as well? Would it help?

antichrist
20-10-2010, 10:50 PM
Ta. Ok. I certainly don't agree with praying for Obama's death - except in the sense of him dying to self and being converted to Christianity.

Billy Graham was a famous Christian and also a terrible anti-Semitic, I have not heard such utterances from Obama. Yet Igor is probably against Obama as well??

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 10:53 PM
Ta. Ok. I certainly don't agree with praying for Obama's death - except in the sense of him dying to self and being converted to Christianity.

Obama's religious beliefs or lack thereof aren't really anyone's business.

The back story behind this pastor and his imprecatory prayers is that he claims* to have prayed for the death of a doctor who provided abortions (Dr George Tiller) and that prayer came true. (Dr Tiller was murdered by a anti-abortion nut-job Scott Roeder). Pastor Wiley Drake also has a radio show and so has a large number of potential nut-jobs who might tune in and get it in their head to become the avenging angel of the Lord, who certainly does move in mysterious ways.

*(AFAIK Drake's claims regarding Dr Tiller were made post hoc and I don't think there is any link between Drake and Tiller's murderer however there may be some link to a broader anti-abortion organisation which is currently under investigation by authorities)

antichrist
20-10-2010, 10:56 PM
Obama's religious beliefs or lack thereof aren't really anyone's business.

The back story behind this pastor and his imprecatory prayers is that he claims* to have prayed for the death of a doctor who provided abortions (Dr George Tiller) and that prayer came true. (Dr Tiller was murdered by a anti-abortion nut-job Scott Roeder). Pastor Wiley Drake also has a radio show and so has a large number of potential nut-jobs who might tune in and get it in their head to become the avenging angel of the Lord, who certainly does move in mysterious ways.

*(AFAIK Drake's claims regarding Dr Tiller were made post hoc and I don't think there is any link between Drake and Tiller's murderer however there may be some link to a broader anti-abortion organisation which is currently under investigation by authorities)

For all of Saddam's faults he had a certain method of dealing with such people

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 11:01 PM
For all of Saddam's faults he had a certain method of dealing with such people

I don't think you would have done all that well in Saddam's Iraq.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 11:07 PM
I don't think you would have done all that well in Saddam's Iraq.

He was a secularist who had religious fanatics jailed or even killed I think. Like lifting the Soviet Union cloak, the fanatics were then free to kill each other.

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 11:16 PM
He was a secularist who had religious fanatics jailed or even killed I think. Like lifting the Soviet Union cloak, the fanatics were then free to kill each other.

He did close down most Sharia courts but his track record on allowing freedom of expression and political affiliation were not good.

antichrist
20-10-2010, 11:21 PM
He did close down most Sharia courts but his track record on allowing freedom of expression and political affiliation were not good.

When you see what they wanted to express it is not surprising. I knew Arabs who lived there 30 years ago thereabouts and they were full of praise for him coz of socialistic tendencies - rare in the Arab world. Later refugees I met fled from him but I consider them religious fanatics who would tell me that they would have me killed with in 5 mins if I lived in Iraq. So they no better than him.

Rincewind
20-10-2010, 11:29 PM
Later refugees I met fled from him but I consider them religious fanatics who would tell me that they would have me killed with in 5 mins if I lived in Iraq. So they no better than him.

Well on one very small score, their potential treatment of you, that's true. However you might need to do a more thorough analysis before coming to the "no better or worse" conclusion.

My point is I would not laud Saddam Hussein record, particularly on freedom of speech issues. Of course, it is not much (if any) worse that the Western Church's record for most of the last millennia using torture and capital punishment for the crimes of religious unorthodoxy, but now we have moved on that is all swept under the carpet.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2010, 08:30 AM
Now allowing uncritical and un-evidenced religious dogma into school science curricula is not freedom of speech, or freedom of choice, it is a perversion of the basis of the public education system, that anyone should have access to good evidence-backed knowledge.
What is "uncritical and un-evidenced religious dogma" to one is "evidence-backed knowledge" to another, and vice-versa.

It's ironic that proponents of inorganic origin of life theory claim their belief system is evidence-based, yet afraid of introduction of the critique of that theory in the school.
AFAIK, most creationists do not object to Darwin-Dawkins theory of origin to be taught in school .


It is also the state promotion is a specific religious dogma over many-many others and as such, in America, a breach of the first amendment.
To say that first amendments ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") forbids school to teach religion is a long and winded shot.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2010, 08:32 AM
real freedom of choice means not being brainwashed into religion whilst at school - that is no choice. The dangers of belief is that it is like a bad virus - contaminates everything
It also means not being brainwashed into atheism (or many other "spiritual belief", of which the tree hugging being the most prominent lately).

BTW, congratulation on quoting a message correctly!

Rincewind
21-10-2010, 09:19 AM
What is "uncritical and un-evidenced religious dogma" to one is "evidence-backed knowledge" to another, and vice-versa.

Use a dictionary.


It's ironic that proponents of inorganic origin of life theory claim their belief system is evidence-based, yet afraid of introduction of the critique of that theory in the school.
AFAIK, most creationists do not object to Darwin-Dawkins theory of origin to be taught in school .

Who said anything about the origin of life. I was talking about the origin of species and separately, by way of example, young earth religious dogma.


To say that first amendments ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") forbids school to teach religion is a long and winded shot.

No it is direct consequence. Were state schools to teach religious dogma (particularly one very specific religious dogma over others) as science, they would be acting precisely to establish a state religion.

I don't object to religious studies even dogma taught in an opt in fashion but compulsory religious services, prayers, or religious dogma has no place in state schools. Of course I do object to the underhanded way the religious fundamentalists have tried to subvert the science curriculum with their dogma but not on first amendment grounds.

antichrist
21-10-2010, 10:52 AM
It also means not being brainwashed into atheism (or many other "spiritual belief", of which the tree hugging being the most prominent lately).

BTW, congratulation on quoting a message correctly!

I dont brainwash into atheism, but if I did and a god did come along to prove me wrong well I promise to clean up the mess.

Whereas science has come along to disprove creationism but the religionists won't clean up the mess. Even though the Vatican now accepts evolution. They have that much over the silly prodos,evangelics, born agains and Benny Hinn

Igor, I can understand and pity you when people attack your english skills, don't you think I am also very sensitive about my quoting skills.

antichrist
21-10-2010, 11:01 AM
Well on one very small score, their potential treatment of you, that's true. However you might need to do a more thorough analysis before coming to the "no better or worse" conclusion.

My point is I would not laud Saddam Hussein record, particularly on freedom of speech issues. Of course, it is not much (if any) worse that the Western Church's record for most of the last millennia using torture and capital punishment for the crimes of religious unorthodoxy, but now we have moved on that is all swept under the carpet.

Saddam used chemical weapons, from what I can gather, when the US asked the Kurds to revolt when Iran had Iraq on the ropes - it was to hold the "empire" together. And the US as well helped Saddam get up earlier on.

Whereas US used atomic weapons when not one little yellow Japanese foot was on US soil. There is a major difference so I consider the US more bastardry than Iraq. But I dont support using chemical weapons at all - but Israel has used them and got away with it. They even made cluster bombs look like children toys - yet they are backed by the US, Brits, Australia etc., tell me more. That is why I don't give a poop about anyone. (coz I am with you I hope I get umbrella protection )

Desmond
21-10-2010, 11:39 AM
It's ironic that proponents of inorganic origin of life theory claim their belief system is evidence-based, yet afraid of introduction of the critique of that theory in the school.Evolution does not propose to answer the question of the origin of life. Evolution is a theory of biology. Biology is the study of things that are alive, not things that become alive.


AFAIK, most creationists do not object to Darwin-Dawkins theory of origin to be taught in school .One would hope that they don't object to other theories like gravity either. In fact I think that one of the above dumbass's arguments is on Jono's dumber-than-the-average-creationist-argument page, i.e. the "it's a theory not a fact" line just demonstrates that the speaker doesn't appreciate what a scientific theory is.


To say that first amendments ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") forbids school to teach religion is a long and winded shot.Teach religion as religion and science as science.

antichrist
21-10-2010, 03:59 PM
Boris
One would hope that they don't object to other theories like gravity either. In fact I think that one of the above dumbass's arguments is on Jono's dumber-than-the-average-creationist-argument page, i.e. the "it's a theory not a fact" line just demonstrates that the speaker doesn't appreciate what a scientific theory is.

AC
They do appreciate very much what a scientific theory is only they don't want to let on to the uneducated masses - they are quite and deliberately deceptive - in fact insulting their supporters lack of education, i.e., their ignorance. Instead of trying to educate them.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2010, 04:01 PM
Evolution does not propose to answer the question of the origin of life. Evolution is a theory of biology. Biology is the study of things that are alive, not things that become alive.
No problem with evolution theory per ce, just the attempts to apply it to origin of life


One would hope that they don't object to other theories like gravity either.
There is much more evidence to support theory of gravity then the theory of inorganic matter evolving into organised life.


Teach religion as religion and science as science.
What about all this green indoctrination forced into schools? Is it a science or religion? Can you classify everything children taught in school as a science?

The real problem lies in the government (instead of parents and school boards) mandating what and how must be taught in school.
Debate between creationists and evolutionists would be more or less pointless if curriculum wasn't solemnly determined by education department.

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2010, 04:03 PM
BTW, congratulation on quoting a message correctly!

Guess it was premature:doh:

antichrist
21-10-2010, 04:12 PM
Guess it was premature:doh:

could you fix up my problems if you became my coach?

Ian Murray
21-10-2010, 04:48 PM
Even the pledge of allegiance in US schools causes problems (http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/2010/10/20/)

Desmond
21-10-2010, 05:16 PM
No problem with evolution theory per ce, just the attempts to apply it to origin of lifeThere is no attempt to apply it to the origin of life. Either you don't understand the throey of evolution or you are deliberately mis-representing it.


There is much more evidence to support theory of gravity then the theory of inorganic matter evolving into organised life.As above.


What about all this green indoctrination forced into schools? Is it a science or religion? Can you classify everything children taught in school as a science?I'm not saying religion should not be taught in schools; if you want to teach it in schools then teach it as religion.


The real problem lies in the government (instead of parents and school boards) mandating what and how must be taught in school.
Debate between creationists and evolutionists would be more or less pointless if curriculum wasn't solemnly determined by education department.On the face of it it seems to me fairly reasonable that the education department sets the curriculum.

Rincewind
21-10-2010, 05:52 PM
The real problem lies in the government (instead of parents and school boards) mandating what and how must be taught in school.
Debate between creationists and evolutionists would be more or less pointless if curriculum wasn't solemnly determined by education department.

Oh yeah, fix the problem by giving the decision making to the least informed group in the discussion. Do you think that will lead to a higher level of education? Really???

antichrist
21-10-2010, 06:45 PM
Oh yeah, fix the problem by giving the decision making to the least informed group in the discussion. Do you think that will lead to a higher level of education? Really???

I am a result of that - I was taught that stars were holes in the floor of Heaven - and I believed it but please don't laugh at me

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2010, 07:31 PM
Oh yeah, fix the problem by giving the decision making to the least informed group in the discussion. Do you think that will lead to a higher level of education? Really???
DO government school provide a higher level of education then independent?

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2010, 07:33 PM
There is no attempt to apply it to the origin of life. Either you don't understand the throey of evolution or you are deliberately mis-representing it.


Really? I was not aware of any major creationist group or intelligent design proponents disputing other parts of evolution theory.

morebeer
21-10-2010, 08:50 PM
Really? I was not aware of any major creationist group or intelligent design proponents disputing other parts of evolution theory.

This is gold...no pun intended.

Desmond
21-10-2010, 09:42 PM
Really? I was not aware of any major creationist group or intelligent design proponents disputing other parts of evolution theory.You weren't aware that creationists dispute that apes and humans have a common ancestor?

Rincewind
21-10-2010, 09:47 PM
DO government school provide a higher level of education then independent?

How is that relevant? Independent schools also teach education board mandated curricula.

But if by independent schools you mean ones that teach ID dogma as science then the question is certainly in the area of biology government schools would be well ahead since if any graduate from an ID teaching school would have no grounding in real biology and thus severely disadvantaged if they went into a real life science program at a university where the origin of species through evolution and natural selection is very well established by the scientific method and not local parent groups dominated by fundamentalist Christian hockey moms.

antichrist
22-10-2010, 01:58 AM
another danger is the pressure to tithe in some/many churches - some women give everything, a happened to an atheist mate of mine, his mum left everything to the nuns and was not he upset.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2010, 08:56 AM
You weren't aware that creationists dispute that apes and humans have a common ancestor?
Which is applying evolution theory to the origin of life.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2010, 08:57 AM
How is that relevant? Independent schools also teach education board mandated curricula.


That's not true, they have freedom of going outside the curriculum.

Desmond
22-10-2010, 09:06 AM
Which is applying evolution theory to the origin of life.
No. Origin of species.

Rincewind
22-10-2010, 10:57 AM
That's not true, they have freedom of going outside the curriculum.

They may provide extra curricula material but the board of education (in Australia at least) specify minimum content which should be covered.

For an example of a student who was homeschooled in a fundamentalist family environment (different but related to the topic at hand) and the troubles she had in coping with university level science. Check out

http://razingruth.blogspot.com/2010/09/education.html

Sounds like maths wasn't that bad because her mum actually was a maths teacher. But other subjects weren't nearly so good, for example...

History was very difficult for me because of the sanitized and re-written version I'd been raised on. I had to take several survey courses at an adult school/commuinity college to catch up to an acceptable EIGHTH grade level.

Science was largely ignored, except for what passed as a science education in our Wisdom Books. That meant starting from the basics when I left. I had to learn the proper scientific methodology and language.

It took me, literally, years of "adult" education to be able to apply to a university.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2010, 02:08 PM
They may provide extra curricula material but the board of education (in Australia at least) specify minimum content which should be covered.
And who was arguing against minimal content? The whole arguments started because some unhappy that creationists concepts and criticism of Darwin/Dawkins can be taught as well.




For an example of a student who was homeschooled in a fundamentalist family environment (different but related to the topic at hand) and the troubles she had in coping with university level science. Check out

http://razingruth.blogspot.com/2010/09/education.html

Sounds like maths wasn't that bad because her mum actually was a maths teacher. But other subjects weren't nearly so good, for example...

History was very difficult for me because of the sanitized and re-written version I'd been raised on. I had to take several survey courses at an adult school/commuinity college to catch up to an acceptable EIGHTH grade level.

Science was largely ignored, except for what passed as a science education in our Wisdom Books. That meant starting from the basics when I left. I had to learn the proper scientific methodology and language.

It took me, literally, years of "adult" education to be able to apply to a university.
Home-schooling is completely irrelevant to the debate. Let me note that one can easily hand-pick an example of home-schooled student who performs well above average. Both examples mean nothing.

Desmond
22-10-2010, 02:23 PM
And who was arguing against minimal content? The whole arguments started because some unhappy that creationists concepts and criticism of Darwin/Dawkins can be taught as well.Like criticisms from people who don't even know the difference between theory of evolution and abiogenesis? Children are better off without it.

Rincewind
22-10-2010, 02:30 PM
And who was arguing against minimal content? The whole arguments started because some unhappy that creationists concepts and criticism of Darwin/Dawkins can be taught as well.

Well you seem to think there is a difference. State and independent both have to teach the curricula specified by the same authority and both have the freedom to teach extra curricula material. So since you raised the point, perhaps you could explain why you think it relevant.

We need uniform minimum standards of education and hence it makes sense that people who are actually knowledgeable of the subject areas setting the minimum curricula. There are other advantages of having centralised decision making since it helps with state or nation wide assessments and university entrances and the setting of university curricula.

Extra curricula material is less of an issue but it would be advantageous to have expert input in deciding that too.

Rincewind
22-10-2010, 02:31 PM
Like criticisms from people who don't even know the difference between theory of evolution and abiogenesis? Children are better off without it.

Not to mention those who don't know the difference between dinosaurs and overweight lizards. :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2010, 03:31 PM
No. Origin of species.

Like criticisms from people who don't even know the difference between theory of evolution and abiogenesis? Children are better off without it.
And how is it relevant to the discussion?

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2010, 03:35 PM
Not to mention those who don't know the difference between dinosaurs and overweight lizards. :lol:
I think it's just your racist interpretation:lol: :lol:

Desmond
22-10-2010, 03:50 PM
And how is it relevant to the discussion?
You're right. Knowing the first thing about a theory is completely irrelevant. If I thought that young earth creationism was the worship of celestial teapots then I would be in an excellent position to determine it's placed in the curriculum. Oh wait, no I wouldn't.

Igor_Goldenberg
22-10-2010, 03:57 PM
You're right. Knowing the first thing about a theory is completely irrelevant. If I thought that young earth creationism was the worship of celestial teapots then I would be in an excellent position to determine it's placed in the curriculum. Oh wait, no I wouldn't.
You are arguing a strawman.

Desmond
22-10-2010, 04:04 PM
You are arguing a strawman.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sez the guy who's arguing that evolution doesn't sufficiantly account for the origin of life, when it make no attempt or pretense of doing so. Stick to the chess threads mate.

Rincewind
22-10-2010, 05:13 PM
I think it's just your racist interpretation:lol: :lol:

What is ironic is that waddle in waaaay over your depth on some issue and then to distract attention from the fact that you have no idea you bring up previous arguments when you also were hopelessly out of your depth.

To be honest you should take Boris's advice. But from the point of view of shits and giggles I certainly hope you don't. Buffoons of your calibre are too few and far between. :lol:

antichrist
22-10-2010, 10:18 PM
Like criticisms from people who don't even know the difference between theory of evolution and abiogenesis? Children are better off without it.

And what about those who don't know the difference between holes in the floor of heaven and stars i.e., objects in space. I was like that little boy in Bigpond commercial who said the Great Wall was made to keep out the rabbits by Emporer Nasi Goreng

antichrist
22-10-2010, 10:21 PM
To be honest you should take Boris's advice. But from the point of view of shits and giggles I certainly hope you don't. Buffoons of your calibre are too few and far between. :lol:

And Igor, they never say those things about me - would you like some help?

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2010, 10:34 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sez the guy who's arguing that evolution doesn't sufficiantly account for the origin of life, when it make no attempt or pretense of doing so. Stick to the chess threads mate.
You are misrepresenting what I wrote and, I suspect, do it deliberately.
My point was that school should be allowed to teach outside of school curriculum. Your ranting of origin of life versus origin of species is completely irrelevant to that argument.
It's telling that evolutionists are so afraid of school students being told about criticism of their beloved theory. No wonder Jono beats you and Rincy hands down when you start arguing.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2010, 10:43 AM
What is ironic is that waddle in waaaay over your depth on some issue and then to distract attention from the fact that you have no idea you bring up previous arguments when you also were hopelessly out of your depth.

To be honest you should take Boris's advice. But from the point of view of shits and giggles I certainly hope you don't. Buffoons of your calibre are too few and far between. :lol:

I was wondering how many posts Rincy would manage to stay civil. Nice effort this time (divergence to irrelevant arguments not counted, wouldn't even make one), but couldn't go beyond five, which is still better then his usual.
Keep trying, one day you might succeed.

Rincewind
24-10-2010, 12:20 PM
Keep trying, one day you might succeed.

I realised a long lone time ago you are a complete waste of time and therefore have not tried to be civil to you (at about the time you insulted me which happened first, for the record).

When you say something which is wrong I correct for the benefit of those who might be mislead by your senseless twaddle but apart from that I could care less what you think of the tone of my posts.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2010, 02:19 PM
Stick to the chess threads mate.
First try to become at least a little bit of challenge in non-chess threads.

antichrist
24-10-2010, 02:25 PM
Igor, you have not answered, your extra curriculim material would it include stars being holes in the floor of Heaven how I was taught?

Rincewind
24-10-2010, 02:29 PM
First try to become at least a little bit of challenge in non-chess threads.

Igorance is bliss.

Desmond
24-10-2010, 03:52 PM
You are misrepresenting what I wrote and, I suspect, do it deliberately.No, no I'm not. You clearly and repeatedly mistook abiogenesis for evolution. Not only that but you also seemed to think that abiogenesis was the only reason creationists dispute evolution. You are completely wrong on both counts, in fact all you have demonstrated here is that you know even less about evolution that the average creationist.


My point was that school should be allowed to teach outside of school curriculum. Your ranting of origin of life versus origin of species is completely irrelevant to that argument.What ranting? I just had to repeat myself a few times since this very basic fact about evolution didn't seem to be sinking in for you.

And your first sentence is just constructing yet another strawman. Of course there is a place for teaching religion. It's called religion class. I acknowledged this explicitly earlier in the discussion. What's objected to is teaching religion as science in science class.


It's telling that evolutionists are so afraid of school students being told about criticism of their beloved theory.Still clutching onto the "it's just a theory" card eh? Ask Jono nicely, maybe he'll tell you why not to use such poor arguments.


No wonder Jono beats you and Rincy hands down when you start arguing.

First try to become at least a little bit of challenge in non-chess threads.Perhaps you should re-read your dinosaurs are obese lizards hypothesis. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
24-10-2010, 05:24 PM
No, no I'm not. You clearly and repeatedly mistook abiogenesis for evolution.
Abiogenesis is commonly called "chemical evolution". E.g. the September 1978 issue of Scientific American was specially devoted to evolution, and one major article was ‘Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life’. This stated:


“‘J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from non-living organic matter.” [Emphasis added]

So IG has been right all along, while his atheopathic critics have been attacking him for a non-error.


Not only that but you also seemed to think that abiogenesis was the only reason creationists dispute evolution.
It is a major reason.


You are completely wrong on both counts, in fact all you have demonstrated here is that you know even less about evolution that the average creationist.
What a rant.


And your first sentence is just constructing yet another strawman. Of course there is a place for teaching religion. It's called religion class. I acknowledged this explicitly earlier in the discussion. What's objected to is teaching religion as science in science class.
Right, so stop teaching materialistic religion masquerading as science in science classes.


It's telling that evolutionists are so afraid of school students being told about criticism of their beloved theory.
Indeed; fanatical evolutionist Eugenie Scott admits:

“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.” [cited in Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford University Press, 2002.]

antichrist
24-10-2010, 07:02 PM
Creationism is no better than stars being holes in the floor of heaven, and that is what I was taught by idiot Creationists.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2010, 07:08 PM
(at about the time you insulted me which happened first, for the record)
I merely quoted your earlier posting, no intention to insult whatsoever. Didn't know you were so ashamed of it, please accept my sincere apologies.

Igor_Goldenberg
24-10-2010, 07:22 PM
No, no I'm not. You clearly and repeatedly mistook abiogenesis for evolution. Not only that but you also seemed to think that abiogenesis was the only reason creationists dispute evolution. You are completely wrong on both counts, in fact all you have demonstrated here is that you know even less about evolution that the average creationist.
You keep bringing it up, while it's completely irrelevant to the point being discussed. BTW, Jono just demonstrated you were wrong, but it's a separate topic anyway.


What ranting? I just had to repeat myself a few times since this very basic fact about evolution didn't seem to be sinking in for you.
Don't be so uptight. You know it's irrelevant for to the discussion. You also know it's a silly lie.


And your first sentence is just constructing yet another strawman. Of course there is a place for teaching religion. It's called religion class. I acknowledged this explicitly earlier in the discussion. What's objected to is teaching religion as science in science class.
You also object to criticism of theory of evolution being taught in the scientific class.


Still clutching onto the "it's just a theory" card eh? Ask Jono nicely, maybe he'll tell you why not to use such poor arguments.
I am sorry to offend your spiritual beliefs, but you want this theory to be taught like a gospel truth, not like a scientific hypothesis lacking conclusive evidences.


Perhaps you should re-read your dinosaurs are obese lizards hypothesis.
You know that I didn't advocate this hypothesis. Perhaps you don't understand what being open-minded is. It includes examining hypothesis that might look ridiculous at the first glance. Many of them turn out to be ridiculous after careful examination, some not.
At the same time you can't stand your beloved theory being critically examined.

Rincewind
24-10-2010, 08:59 PM
I merely quoted your earlier posting, no intention to insult whatsoever. Didn't know you were so ashamed of it, please accept my sincere apologies.

As usual, you have gotten the wrong end of the stick.

Rincewind
24-10-2010, 09:03 PM
Abiogenesis is commonly called "chemical evolution". E.g. the September 1978 issue of Scientific American was specially devoted to evolution, and one major article was ‘Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life’. This stated:


“‘J.B.S. Haldane, the British biochemist, seems to have been the first to appreciate that a reducing atmosphere, one with no free oxygen, was a requirement for the evolution of life from non-living organic matter.” [Emphasis added]

So IG has been right all along, while his atheopathic critics have been attacking him for a non-error.

Typical of the apologetic method. Scan the literature for the slightest scape which may support a view regardless of how outdated or minor that view and then state it as fact and declare the debate closed.

The fact is you found one article in Scientific American (a popular science magazine) from 32 years ago which used the words "evolution of life from non-living matter" and then decided that means abiogenesis is strictly a part of evolution.

Sorry Jono but this is disingenuous, even for you. Try again.

Desmond
25-10-2010, 08:21 AM
It is a major reason.i.e. Not not the only reason, nor even the major reason.

And the point is that the theory of evolution does not encompass nor rely on abiogenesis at all. Whether the first life on earth was born from chemicals, or from an invisible man in the sky, or from aliens, or from some mechanism we haven't dreamed of, is utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Desmond
25-10-2010, 08:35 AM
You keep bringing it up, while it's completely irrelevant to the point being discussed. BTW, Jono just demonstrated you were wrong, but it's a separate topic anyway.You wish.

Don't be so uptight. You know it's irrelevant for to the discussion. You also know it's a silly lie.I'm not lying, Igor. Quite uncivil of you, pal.


You also object to criticism of theory of evolution being taught in the scientific class. Of course not. Criticism is a major part of science. That's why what we know changes and grows, not staying stagnant from what we knew thousands of years ago.

Pop quiz, Igor. If creationism was science, wouldn't it just be called science?


I am sorry to offend your spiritual beliefs, but you want this theory to be taught like a gospel truth, not like a scientific hypothesis lacking conclusive evidences. There is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory; go look it up if you don't know what it is. Calling evolution a hypothesis is laughable.


You know that I didn't advocate this hypothesis. I know that you didn't find a single source that did. Until you do, I consider it yours. But if you want to unequivocally walk away from it, be my guest.

And either way it just shows that you thinking you win these discussions hands down to be pretty silly.


Perhaps you don't understand what being open-minded is. It includes examining hypothesis that might look ridiculous at the first glance. Many of them turn out to be ridiculous after careful examination, some not.
At the same time you can't stand your beloved theory being critically examined.Actually more than examining the hypothesis it is about testing it.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2010, 12:25 PM
I'm not lying, Igor. Quite uncivil of you, pal.
You are Boris, you are. You keep accusing me of not knowing the difference between origin of life and origin of species, despite knowing it's not the case.



Pop quiz, Igor. If creationism was science, wouldn't it just be called science?
You seem to be living in the world where criticising theory of evolution equates to advocacy of creationism.


There is a difference between a hypothesis and a theory; go look it up if you don't know what it is. Calling evolution a hypothesis is laughable.
When it's applies to origin of species (you seem to be hung up on this terminology, so I'll use!) it was a hypothesis hundred fifty years ago, subject to discovery of evidences, and still is.
Even the common ancestry of monkeys and humans hasn't been proven, despite seeming to be the easiest part.



And either way it just shows that you thinking you win these discussions hands down to be pretty silly.
You are misquoting me again. I am not that much interested in discussion between creation and evolution, only noted that Jono beats you and RW hands down every time.

Rincewind
25-10-2010, 12:39 PM
only noted that Jono beats you and RW hands down every time.

The other one whistles Dixie. :whistle:

Desmond
25-10-2010, 12:47 PM
You are Boris, you are. You keep accusing me of not knowing the difference between origin of life and origin of species, despite knowing it's not the case.OK you confirm that you think I am a liar. Welcome to my ignore list, pal.

Rincewind
25-10-2010, 01:40 PM
Welcome to my ignore list, pal.

Perhaps that should be called your igor list.

I would caution against against keeping Iggy so consigned for long, if only because you would miss out on gems like

"I was not aware of any major creationist group or intelligent design proponents disputing other parts of evolution theory."

In the non-chess threads Igor seems to not be able to post without saying something incredulously dim-witted. So why not get a few laughs? As long as you don't take his ham-fisted insults and disingenuous shadow-boxing too seriously.

Igor_Goldenberg
25-10-2010, 02:18 PM
OK you confirm that you think I am a liar. Welcome to my ignore list, pal.
You mean an honour list? Sure.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 08:05 AM
Perhaps that should be called your igor list.

I would caution against against keeping Iggy so consigned for long, if only because you would miss out on gems like

"I was not aware of any major creationist group or intelligent design proponents disputing other parts of evolution theory."

In the non-chess threads Igor seems to not be able to post without saying something incredulously dim-witted. So why not get a few laughs? As long as you don't take his ham-fisted insults and disingenuous shadow-boxing too seriously.
Don't get your knickers in a knot. Just add to your signature that you are severely offended by being quoted, and it won't happen again.

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 08:21 AM
Don't get your knickers in a knot. Just add to your signature that are severely offended by being quoted, and it won't happen again.

I note your English, both written and comprehension, hasn't improved.

Of course it would be too much to expect that your wit has. Resorting the the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" Very original... NOT! :lol:

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 09:16 AM
I note your English, both written and comprehension, hasn't improved.

Is it your another "racist interpretation"?

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 09:51 AM
Is it your another "racist interpretation"?

Come on, Igor! At least make some effort or this isn't even fun.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 10:18 AM
One more thing, Rincy.
Before berating people for not knowing perfectly their second language, try get a full command of your native language.
And don't forget, you "should trying using your brain" (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=278520&postcount=4506)

antichrist
26-10-2010, 10:40 AM
One more thing, Rincy.
Before berating people for not knowing perfectly their second language, try get a full command of your native language.
And don't forget, you "should trying using your brain" (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=278520&postcount=4506)


Do you meaN an Aboriginal language?

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 03:09 PM
One more thing, Rincy.
Before berating people for not knowing perfectly their second language, try get a full command of your native language.


The trouble is Igor we are trying to communicate to you in English and yet you seem singularly unable to comprehend what is being communicated. Regarding the last couple of your lame-arsed intended put-down lines, you left out key pronouns making them grammatically incorrect and in some cases quite open to interpretation. Not a good feature of a put-down line. Even the hackneyed old ones you were putting forward.

To be honest I don't have to look too far to find something in your posts which is amusing. However real gems are few and far between. I have this thread to thank for another classic, post #160 will go down in the annals. Right up there with the "dinosaurs are obese lizards" conjecture.


And don't forget, you "should trying using your brain" (http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=278520&postcount=4506)

For the record I don't think the problem that English is your second language, it is just you don't use your brain. Regretfully I see you haven't taken my advice.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 04:02 PM
The trouble is Igor we are trying to communicate to you in English and yet you seem singularly unable to comprehend what is being communicated.

Looks like you are the only one unable to communicate properly. No complaints from anyone else so far.


Regarding the last couple of your lame-arsed intended put-down lines
I didn't intend to write "put-down lines". I forgot your are offended by being quoted, though.


To be honest I don't have to look too far to find something in your posts which is amusing. However real gems are few and far between. I have this thread to thank for another classic, post #160 will go down in the annals.

Rincy, you remind me a small hairy mongrel from famous Russian fable. Keep barking, as you seem unable to argue anything of the substance and only look at small misspelling and inaccuracies that are completely irrelevant to the discussion.


Right up there with the "dinosaurs are obese lizards" conjecture.
Which is again a misquote and misrepresentation.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2010, 04:04 PM
Typical of the apologetic method. Scan the literature for the slightest scape which may support a view regardless of how outdated or minor that view and then state it as fact and declare the debate closed.

The fact is you found one article in Scientific American (a popular science magazine) from 32 years ago which used the words "evolution of life from non-living matter" and then decided that means abiogenesis is strictly a part of evolution.

Sorry Jono but this is disingenuous, even for you. Try again.
As if Rincy would know anything. This was an evolutionary journal issue devoted to evolution, and they had an article on chemical evolution.

Here's another: Pleasant, L.G. and Ponnamperuma, C., Chemical evolution and the origin of life (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m185944813n42138/), Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 10(1), 1980. Cyril Ponnamperuma's affiliation was the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution, Chemistry Department, University of Maryland.

The evolutionist Prof. Gerald Kerkut of the University of Southampton (UK) defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Evolutionist Gordy Slack says:


“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.” [What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp (http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/54759&id=54759), The Scientist, 20 June 2008]

Once more, IG and I are proven right, while Rincy and Boris lose again.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2010, 04:09 PM
Creationism is no better than stars being holes in the floor of heaven, and that is what I was taught by idiot Creationists.
Most unlikely.

Desmond
26-10-2010, 05:27 PM
As if Rincy would know anything. This was an evolutionary journal issue devoted to evolution, and they had an article on chemical evolution.

Here's another: Pleasant, L.G. and Ponnamperuma, C., Chemical evolution and the origin of life (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m185944813n42138/), Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 10(1), 1980. Cyril Ponnamperuma's affiliation was the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution, Chemistry Department, University of Maryland.

The evolutionist Prof. Gerald Kerkut of the University of Southampton (UK) defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Evolutionist Gordy Slack says:


“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.” [What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp (http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/54759&id=54759), The Scientist, 20 June 2008]Unlike Igor you don't even dispute that evolution is the origin of species do you?

Once more, IG and I are proven right, while Rincy and Boris lose again.Once more you claim victory and don't bother to acknowledge the mistakes of your cronies.

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 06:24 PM
As if Rincy would know anything. This was an evolutionary journal issue devoted to evolution, and they had an article on chemical evolution.

No it is a popular science magazine (not a journal in the scientific sense) and to have an issue specialising in evolutionary content is not to say evey sentence or every article in necessarily about evolution.


Here's another: Pleasant, L.G. and Ponnamperuma, C., Chemical evolution and the origin of life (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m185944813n42138/), Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 10(1), 1980. Cyril Ponnamperuma's affiliation was the Laboratory of Chemical Evolution, Chemistry Department, University of Maryland.

People understand chemical evolution to be something rather different from evolution. Chemical evolution is one competing hypothesis to explain abiogenesis. It is not evolution itself which is scientifically well established.


The evolutionist Prof. Gerald Kerkut of the University of Southampton (UK) defined the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

So he was defining a new term 'general theory of evolution' which is not just 'evolution' as most people use and understand the term. The distinction is important since evolution of life is scientifically well-established. Whereas where life originated from what we would classify as inorganic is much more speculative. There are several competing hypotheses and much debate.


Evolutionist Gordy Slack says:


“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.” [What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp (http://www.the-scientist.com/templates/trackable/display/news.jsp?type=news&o_url=news/display/54759&id=54759), The Scientist, 20 June 2008]

Saying that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution is not the same as saying the origin of life is beyond the scope of evolution. To extent Slack's analogy, the Big Bang theory may inform a theory of fluid mechanics however the Big Bang theory is not a part of fluid mechanics. If we knew more about abiogenesis it would probably give insights into the evolution of early life. However, that is not to say abiogenesis is evolution.


Once more, IG and I are proven right, while Rincy and Boris lose again.

Once again you pompous posturing has shown to be sorely lacking. You have not a single valid point in two posts with 4 or 5 cut and paste sessions. Perhaps you should try to come up with some real arguments rather than some snippets which sound plausible to those who want to believe but are actually all beside the point.

antichrist
26-10-2010, 06:57 PM
Most unlikely.

I certainly was, and not by johnny-come-lately creationists like yourself, but by the original Christians going back 2000 years. Don't you deny what I was taught. It was by Sister Mary Benedicta who had polio in her right leg.

So it is not completely my fault I turned out like this. I was even taught that a wafer was the body and blood of Jesus - take that - that is better trick than your silly Prodo pastors.

Adamski
26-10-2010, 07:22 PM
So it is not completely my fault I turned out like this. I was even taught that a wafer was the body and blood of Jesus - take that - that is better trick than your silly Prodo pastors.Well I guess some of the blame must fall on your mum.
I guess there are some on this board who believe in transubstantiation (what AC was taught) but I and most of the Protestants are not among them. For us the bread and the wine synbolise the body and blood of Christ, rather than actually become the body and blood.

antichrist
26-10-2010, 07:42 PM
Well I guess some of the blame must fall on your mum.
I guess there are some on this board who believe in transubstantiation (what AC was taught) but I and most of the Protestants are not among them. For us the bread and the wine synbolise the body and blood of Christ, rather than actually become the body and blood.

That is how the Catholics have it over the Prodos - can do wonders, sell indulogences, confess sins and have them cleansed, confess (to priest) on deathbed and go to heaven. I could never become a prodo cause hooked on bells and whistles of RCC, the statues in churhes, the hymns, the bronze candles and even Jesus in the Monstrance - what a winner.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 08:32 PM
Once again you pompous posturing has shown to be sorely lacking.
Pompous posturing is for RW and Boris feigning indignation at me lumping origin of life and origin of species together, while theory of evolution lacking conclusive explanation with evidences for either.

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 10:18 PM
Pompous posturing is for RW and Boris feigning indignation at me lumping origin of life and origin of species together, while theory of evolution lacking conclusive explanation with evidences for either.

As already explain in monosyllabic terms, the theory of evolution makes no claims on the origin of life from inanimate matter. Regarding the evidence for evolution it is abundant for you and Jono to read about in scientific textbooks, journals, and popular science literature.

If you want to know what the scientists say (that is the guys who have spent most of their lives studying the subject) you can look at the International Academies Panel (a global network of national science academies) which said...


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

You may not that they do not describe the appearance of life as a part of evolution but that life appears and then photosynthetic life evolved relatively soon thereafter.

If you prefer the National Science Teachers Association (of America) who have released a statement which said among other things...


There is no longer a debate among scientists about whether evolution has taken place. There is considerable debate about how evolution has taken place: What are the processes and mechanisms producing change, and what has happened specifically during the history of the universe? Scientists often disagree about their explanations. In any science, disagreements are subject to rules of evaluation. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation, and evolution, as with any aspect of theoretical science, is continually open to and subject to experimental and observational testing.

The importance of evolution is summarized as follows in the National Academy of Sciences publication Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science: “Few other ideas in science have had such a far-reaching impact on our thinking about ourselves and how we relate to the world” (p. 21).

Or you may prefer what the Botanical Society of America said which was


Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen:ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, “evolution is just a theory,” the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true.

The American Association of Physics Teachers say


Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these: Biological evolution has occurred and new species have arisen over time, life on Earth originated more than a billion years ago, and most stars are at least several billion years old. Overwhelming evidence comes from diverse sources - the structure and function of DNA, geological analysis of rocks, paleontological studies of fossils, telescopic observations of distant stars and galaxies - and no serious scientist questions these claims. We do our children a grave disservice if we remove from their education an exposure to firm scientific evidence supporting principles that significantly shape our understanding of the world in which we live.

The American Anthropological Association have perhaps the most succinct statement which I'll quote with some bolding...


Evolution is a basic component of many aspects of anthropology (including physical anthropology, archeology, cultural anthropology, and linguistics) and is a cornerstone of modern science, being central to biology, geology, and astronomy;

The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria. Evolution should be part of the pre-college curriculum; it is the best scientific explanation of human and nonhuman biology and the key to understanding the origin and development of life;

Religious views are an important part of human cultures, and deserve a place in the pre- college curriculum, provided that they are not presented dogmatically or in a proselytizing context. A comparative, anthropological study of religion would not violate the Constitutional requirement of religious neutrality in the classroom. An anthropological understanding of religion would be helpful in resolving some of the perceived conflict between creationism and evolution;

The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however;

Teachers, administrators, school board members and others involved in pre-college education are under pressure to teach creationism as science and/or eliminate or downgrade evolution, to the detriment of public scientific literacy. Many succumb to this pressure, for lack of expressed support from scientists and other community members;


These are all associations of professional scientists or teachers of science. They all say pretty much the same thing. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and creationism is religious dogma with no place in a science classroom.

Seems to me either there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists and teacher across every discipline, or else there really is something to this evolution thing. Just to be on the safe side, maybe you should do some background reading and find out about it before you make yourself a public laughing stock (again).

antichrist
26-10-2010, 10:34 PM
The Association respects the right of people to hold diverse religious beliefs, including those who reject evolution as matters of theology or faith. Such beliefs should not be presented as science, however;

AC
They recognise that some people insist on being idiots their whole life

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 10:39 PM
They recognise that some people insist on being idiots their whole life

There is still hope for you yet.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-10-2010, 10:44 PM
These are all associations of professional scientists or teachers of science. They all say pretty much the same thing. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and creationism is religious dogma with no place in a science classroom.

You proved once again that in your blinkered universe any criticism of evolution theory equates to creationism. It's quite a simple logical error, but you keep repeating it over and over again.
You also proved once again that you unable to use your own brain and have to rely on authority in telling you what to think.

Rincewind
26-10-2010, 11:09 PM
You proved once again that in your blinkered universe any criticism of evolution theory equates to creationism. It's quite a simple logical error, but you keep repeating it over and over again.

What I presented was statement that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The contrary points on creationism are interesting as it is the main religious dogma that people try to get taught as science. Now you have on occasion shown your creationist petticoats but since you prefer to keep shadow boxing on what you really believe, you may contain your answer to the evidence for evolution. In particular can you answer this...

Why are the vast majority of scientists so convinced to say things such as "the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed".


You also proved once again that you unable to use your own brain and have to rely on authority in telling you what to think.

Have you even been a passenger in an aircraft Igor? if you did so, were you showing that you are unable to use your own brain and have to rely on others to fly planes for you?

The point of the quotes was to demonstrate the uncontroversial acceptance of evolution as a well established theory of science. Now if that is not the case and evolution really is on shaky grounds, perhaps you can stop shadow boxing and explain how so; and your explanation would have to plausibly explain the apparent worldwide conspiracy of scientists and teachers of all disciplines.


Now you should remember that evolution does not include abiogenesis and so you your beef is with the origin of life from inanimate matter, then you don't mean evolution.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2010, 07:07 AM
I certainly was, and not by johnny-come-lately creationists like yourself, but by the original Christians going back 2000 years. Don't you deny what I was taught. It was by Sister Mary Benedicta who had polio in her right leg.
Most likely she was reading you a story. And if she read The Jungle Book you'll accuse the church of teaching talking animals.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2010, 07:11 AM
If you want to know what the scientists say (that is the guys who have spent most of their lives studying the subject) you can look at the International Academies Panel (a global network of national science academies) which said...

Big whoop. Science is decided by evidence, not counting heads, which mostly reached their own conclusions by counting heads.

Capablanca-Fan
27-10-2010, 07:17 AM
No it is a popular science magazine (not a journal in the scientific sense) and to have an issue specialising in evolutionary content is not to say evey sentence or every article in necessarily about evolution.
Rubbish: it was clearly understood that chemical evolution is a subset of the General Theory of Evolution.


People understand chemical evolution to be something rather different from evolution.
Chemical evolution is something different from organic evolution, and both are subsets of organic evolution.


Chemical evolution is one competing hypothesis to explain abiogenesis.
Chemical evolution is abiogenesis: the origin of life from non-living chemicals.


So he was defining a new term 'general theory of evolution' which is not just 'evolution' as most people use and understand the term.
Here is what Kerkut actually said:


There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis (p. 157).
Creationists have believed in what is now called speciation from before Darwin's time. It was Lyell who pushed "fixity of species".


Once again you pompous posturing has shown to be sorely lacking. You have not a single valid point in two posts with 4 or 5 cut and paste sessions. Perhaps you should try to come up with some real arguments rather than some snippets which sound plausible to those who want to believe but are actually all beside the point.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Coming from the one who cuts and pastes assertions from scientists' unions.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-10-2010, 08:05 AM
Have you even been a passenger in an aircraft Igor? if you did so, were you showing that you are unable to use your own brain and have to rely on others to fly planes for you?

It's telling that you resort to stupid and completely irrelevant analogies.
Flying aircraft is something we have compelling evidences and a very good record of.

Desmond
27-10-2010, 10:21 AM
Creationists have believed in what is now called speciation from before Darwin's time.
i.e. Igor was wrong to say that creationists sole beef with evolution was the origin of species. In reality they do not even dispute it, provided that the speciation does not cross the kinds barrier..

Rincewind
27-10-2010, 12:04 PM
Rubbish: it was clearly understood that chemical evolution is a subset of the General Theory of Evolution.

I suspect we are talking cross-purposes to some extent. If you mean the chemical evolution in the sense that there are compounds capable of replication and hereditary, then in that case evolution does apply. But there is also a case for call such molecules "life" and hence not inanimate matter. If you are talking about how such molecule might come to be by non evolutionary processes, then that is what I was taking 'chemical evolution' to mean as distinct from 'life evolution' and in that case that is clearly not evolution in the Darwinian sense. It is evolution in a more everyday sense and this is the source of the confusion.


Chemical evolution is something different from organic evolution, and both are subsets of organic evolution.

Now it depends what you mean by 'organic'. If you are talking about Darwinian evolution nd (as I said above) chemical capable of replication with inheritance then I would call that organic evolution. If you are talking about some other sort of process (or processes) which lead to replicating chemicals coming into being, then that is not Evolution.


Chemical evolution is abiogenesis: the origin of life from non-living chemicals.

No it isn't the distinction is as I give above. If you have chemical capable of replication and inheritance then you already have life. The theory of how such chemicals might come to be is the abiogenesis part and those are not evolutionary processes.


Here is what Kerkut actually said:


There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution" and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic (non-living) form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution" and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it anything more than a working hypothesis (p. 157).
Creationists have believed in what is now called speciation from before Darwin's time. It was Lyell who pushed "fixity of species".

I fail to see your point here. Kerkut is pushing the General Theory of Evolution to include abiogenesis. I note he is also saying the theory contains the assumption that there was a single source of life from inanimate matter. This is certainly not proven to any level of scientific certainty.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Coming from the one who cuts and pastes assertions from scientists' unions.

Well there are at least two mitigating factors.

(1) I was pasting statements from global or national organisations and not the view of cherry-picked individuals. So in doing so I was demonstrating a wide-ranging view and not the specific view of two or three individuals.

(2) I was doing so to demonstrate that the view in question (scientific standing of evolution) is a fact. And should Igor hold some perverse view that there are viable alternatives which local parent groups should prescribe to be taught in science classrooms - then his alternative hypothesis would also need to account for the apparent world-wide conspiracy of scientists and educators the overwhelming majority of whom find evolution an overarching and interrelating theory of substantial scientific merit and without any scientific competition.

I note that Igor has once again failed to address any of this.

Rincewind
27-10-2010, 12:13 PM
It's telling that you resort to stupid and completely irrelevant analogies.
Flying aircraft is something we have compelling evidences and a very good record of.

I'm not saying aircraft don't work without pilots. I'm saying I'd like to see you operate one on your own. To be a passenger is just being lazy-minded. The point is there are people who know more than us about just about every field.

Now when it comes to biology it is clear that just about everyone knows more about it than you. But lets suspend disbelief for a moment and assume you have some sort of competence in the subject. As a non specialist there is still a limit to your understanding. You aren't following the latest finding, you haven't specialised in particular types of organisms for example. But there are people who have. There are thousands of people who have spent their professional lives studying biology and the overwhelming majority know that evolution is great science.

Then we have Iggy. Some guy who says some pretty igorant statements when it comes to life sciences. He is saying, look just use you own brain and you can see that evolution is baloney.

Ok. I'm willing to listen. What do you have to say. But you will have to account for the fact that little Iggy can spot something that all the life scientists on the planet have been unable to spot for the last 150 years. Either it is not all that obvious or else there is a world-wide conspiracy of scientists and teachers.

But if you know something that the world-wide community of scientists don't, then let's have it.

Rincewind
27-10-2010, 12:22 PM
i.e. Igor was wrong to say that creationists sole beef with evolution was the origin of species. In reality they do not even dispute it, provided that the speciation does not cross the kinds barrier..

There are a number of disputes depending on the creationists you are talking about. Speciation across "kinds" is well-established. YEC also question the dating of various fossils and the related implication regarding the the coexistence of various species. Hence the comical pictures some creationists tout of humans walking with dinosaurs. Furthermore the information theory dispute regarding with information can accumulate (increase) in a species genome. This is really a variation of the entropy argument and the hole in the creationist position is not hard to spot but creationists are not known for letting the truth get in the way of a good fairytale.

Rincewind
27-10-2010, 12:23 PM
Big whoop. Science is decided by evidence, not counting heads, which mostly reached their own conclusions by counting heads.

That is true and since that is the scientific position it is indeed a big problem for you (and Igor) to address. As yet I haven't seen anything from either of you that does so.

Desmond
27-10-2010, 12:52 PM
There are a number of disputes depending on the creationists you are talking about. Speciation across "kinds" is well-established. YEC also question the dating of various fossils and the related implication regarding the the coexistence of various species. Hence the comical pictures some creationists tout of humans walking with dinosaurs. Furthermore the information theory dispute regarding with information can accumulate (increase) in a species genome. This is really a variation of the entropy argument and the hole in the creationist position is not hard to spot but creationists are not known for letting the truth get in the way of a good fairytale.Yes I think you're right, but perhaps Igor will believe it if Jono says so more explicitly.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 08:41 AM
I'm not saying aircraft don't work without pilots. I'm saying I'd like to see you operate one on your own. To be a passenger is just being lazy-minded. The point is there are people who know more than us about just about every field.
Of course there are people that know much more then us in every field (not just about every field). However, the onus is on us to decide which expert we trust more and which we trust less. With aircraft you make the final decision whether you flight or not at all. And if you flight, who do you flight with. And you still want to know how aircraft flies and whether particular carrier/manufacturer deserves your trust.

Next time try to think things through before invoking irrelevant analogy that actually weakens your position.



Now when it comes to biology it is clear that just about everyone knows more about it than you. But lets suspend disbelief for a moment and assume you have some sort of competence in the subject. As a non specialist there is still a limit to your understanding. You aren't following the latest finding, you haven't specialised in particular types of organisms for example. But there are people who have. There are thousands of people who have spent their professional lives studying biology and the overwhelming majority know that evolution is great science.

Then we have Iggy. Some guy who says some pretty igorant statements when it comes to life sciences. He is saying, look just use you own brain and you can see that evolution is baloney.
Evolution is, of course, a great science. It also explains behaviour of the species, for example why some human (like RW) display lemming mentality - it increased their chances to survive and leave offspring in the past.
There are specialist with a knowledge in the area vastly superior to your who dispute official POV.
You also making another logical mistake (no surprise) over and over again. You equate questioning part of evolution theory to outright rejection of the whole theory. It makes you feel morally superior, but others see you for what you - a pompous idiot.

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 10:04 AM
Evolution is, of course, a great science. It also explains behaviour of the species, for example why some human (like RW) display lemming mentality - it increased their chances to survive and leave offspring in the past.

What do you mean by "lemming mentality"?

BTW evolutionary psychology (which is the proper name for what you called evolution) is certainly more contentious that evolution. However applying your usual methodology of believing anything which seems to support your a priori beliefs and throwing the rest into the too hard basket, I can easily see how your small mind confused the two.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 10:32 AM
What do you mean by "lemming mentality"?
I can't believe that such intellectual giant with superior google search research skills does not know what is "lemming mentality", despite exhibiting it every day.

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2010, 10:34 AM
I can't believe that such intellectual giant with superior google search research skills does not know what is "lemming mentality", despite exhibiting it every day.

Even lemmings do not display your so-called "lemming mentality"; lemming mass suicide is an urban myth.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 10:39 AM
Even lemmings do not display your so-called "lemming mentality"
Only RW does:lol: :lol: :lol:


; lemming mass suicide is an urban myth.
Yes, I know, but the expression itself has an unambiguous meaning.

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 11:06 AM
I can't believe that such intellectual giant with superior google search research skills does not know what is "lemming mentality", despite exhibiting it every day.

No, just wanted to confirm there was some more biology you didn't know the least bit about.

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 11:09 AM
Even lemmings do not display your so-called "lemming mentality"; lemming mass suicide is an urban myth.

There is a gruesome side to the myth. It was perpetuated by a famous (at the time) documentary made by Disney which showed lemmings "jumping" off Norwegian cliffs. The truth behind this "documentary" is that the lemmings and the cliffs were both Canadian and the lemmings were pushed (or more accurately propelled by centripetal force).

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2010, 11:15 AM
Yes, one of my favourite links on the entire internet would have to be http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.asp

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 12:19 PM
As we steered towards documentaries, here the latest news relevant to the topic:

Al Gore film An Inconvenient Truth included in school curriculum (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-included-in-school-curriculum/story-e6frf7l6-1225943964775)



CLIMATE change documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' will be included in the national curriculum as part of a bid to educate students on environmental sustainability across all subjects.



Comments anyone?

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 12:23 PM
No, just wanted to confirm there was some more biology you didn't know the least bit about.
Which reiterates my prior point:
"Before berating people for not knowing perfectly their second language, try get a full command of your native language."
It is excusable for me not to know some colloquial and idiomatic expression, but I didn't expect you to be so lacking in common knowledge.

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 01:26 PM
Which reiterates my prior point:
"Before berating people for not knowing perfectly their second language, try get a full command of your native language."
It is excusable for me not to know some colloquial and idiomatic expression, but I didn't expect you to be so lacking in common knowledge.

Iggy, Iggy, Iggy. I don't see why you are getting your knickers in a twist. You used a term and knowing how little you know about the natural sciences (and the English language in general) I thought you might like to clarify your meaning. Hence I asked you


What do you mean by "lemming mentality"?

Now you will see that I was asking you what specific to your usage and not how the term is generally understood. Now you jumped to the naive conclusion that I had somehow not heard of the term. A simple application of false logic but understandable from you.

However it is now clear that I have and indeed knew a good deal more about the lack of scientific validity in its origin than you. But all this is beside the point.. You still haven't answered the question.

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 02:16 PM
Iggy, Iggy, Iggy. I don't see why you are getting your knickers in a twist. You used a term and knowing how little you know about the natural sciences (and the English language in general) I thought you might like to clarify your meaning. Hence I asked you


What do you mean by "lemming mentality"?

Now you will see that I was asking you what specific to your usage and not how the term is generally understood. Now you jumped to the naive conclusion that I had somehow not heard of the term. A simple application of false logic but understandable from you.

However it is now clear that I have and indeed knew a good deal more about the lack of scientific validity in its origin than you. But all this is beside the point.. You still haven't answered the question.

Are you saying that you heard this expression before and know the exact meaning? Then your question reveals you to be even a bigger idiot then everyone thought.

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 02:40 PM
Are you saying that you heard this expression before and know the exact meaning? Then your question reveals you to be even a bigger idiot then everyone thought.

Not so big an idiot as to assume you know anything about biology. :lol:

Now how about answering that question...

Desmond
28-10-2010, 02:45 PM
tnb_pmRDpqU

Would anyone like to answer the caller's question?

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 04:30 PM
I thought I would collect together the loose ends that Iggy has been unable to answer or those he responded to inappropriately. Perhaps repeating them will help getting him back to the debate he started...



The real problem lies in the government (instead of parents and school boards) mandating what and how must be taught in school.
Debate between creationists and evolutionists would be more or less pointless if curriculum wasn't solemnly determined by education department.

UNANSWERED QUESTION #1:
Oh yeah, fix the problem by giving the decision making to the least informed group in the discussion. Do you think that will lead to a higher level of education? Really???





Really? I was not aware of any major creationist group or intelligent design proponents disputing other parts of evolution theory.
You weren't aware that creationists dispute that apes and humans have a common ancestor
Which is applying evolution theory to the origin of life.
No it isn't Iggy. You have so completely gotten the wrong end of the stick that I believe you have have picked up another stick entirely. :lol: Now instead of resorting to the tactic of calling Boris a liar, you should appologise and thank Boris for the free education. (Assuming of course that you now DO understand the difference.)


UNANSWERED QUESTION #2:
Why are the vast majority of scientists so convinced to say things such as "the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed".


UNANSWERED QUESTION #3:
The point of the quotes was to demonstrate the uncontroversial acceptance of evolution as a well established theory of science. Now if that is not the case and evolution really is on shaky grounds, perhaps you can stop shadow boxing and explain how so; and your explanation would have to plausibly explain the apparent worldwide conspiracy of scientists and teachers of all disciplines.


UNANSWERED QUESTION #4:
What do you mean by "lemming mentality"?

Igor_Goldenberg
28-10-2010, 10:02 PM
UNANSWERED QUESTION #1:
Oh yeah, fix the problem by giving the decision making to the least informed group in the discussion. Do you think that will lead to a higher level of education? Really???
This question was already addressed. I pointed out to you that independent schools do quite well in comparison to government. Calling parents and school board "the least informed group" is arrogant and plain silly. They have vested interest in their children, unlike activist like you.


UNANSWERED QUESTION #2:
Why are the vast majority of scientists so convinced to say things such as "the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed".

That was also addressed some time ago. How many of those scientists are actually biologists? How many of those biologists actually dealing with research in the area related to discussion? How many scientists actually give a damn? So when their academy of science (i.e the administrative staff) sign the letter in unrelated area, many of them couldn't care less.


UNANSWERED QUESTION #3:
The point of the quotes was to demonstrate the uncontroversial acceptance of evolution as a well established theory of science. Now if that is not the case and evolution really is on shaky grounds, perhaps you can stop shadow boxing and explain how so; and your explanation would have to plausibly explain the apparent worldwide conspiracy of scientists and teachers of all disciplines.

You have not demonstrated "uncontroversial acceptance".
"worldwide conspiracy of scientists and teachers of all disciplines" only exists in your vivid imagination.
Personally I am not convinced that evolution theory explains Cambric explosion. It was also contingent (at least according to Darwin) on transitional fossils, which are still lacking. For me it's enough not ot rush with blind acceptance.



UNANSWERED QUESTION #4:
What do you mean by "lemming mentality"?
"Lemming mentality" means following the crowd uncritically. The expression has an unambiguous meaning, you could've find it yourself. What is the point in this question?


Now question for Rincy:
What do you think about Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" being included in school curriculum? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-included-in-school-curriculum/story-e6frf7l6-1225943964775)

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 11:04 PM
This question was already addressed. I pointed out to you that independent schools do quite well in comparison to government.

And as I already pointed out independent schools also have to teach the curricula set by the board of education. Both government and independent can teach extra curricula activity and so a comparison of the two is not particularly enlightening on front of curricular content. and would more likely measure a difference in motivation of the parents of children to push their progeny to achieve and also measure the socio-economic differences


Calling parents and school board "the least informed group" is arrogant and plain silly. They have vested interest in their children, unlike activist like you.

You obviously are confusing "informed" with "motivated". Yes the parents have a vested interest in their childrens' education however this makes them no better qualified to make curricular decisions. Educational and discipline experts still make the most informed decisions, even if they are ones that you don't find palatable.

PS While I find it cute that you consider me an activist, I have no idea why you might think that. They only activity I undertake is to kick yours and Jono's arses repeatedly but they are such low hanging fruit that it doesn't bear mentioning.


That was also addressed some time ago. How many of those scientists are actually biologists?

A fair old number of the top biologist worldwide would be represented in national academies which ratifies the IAP statement. At least hundreds, and we are not talking any old biologists. Many top notch internationally renowned biologists.

The National Sciences Teachers Association would comprise many biology teachers I would estimate hundreds at least. The National Physics Teachers Association would be most Physics teachers. The Botanical Society of America comprises plant biologists in the main and would comprise again hundreds if not thousands of professional biologists.

So is summary more than you could possibly try to water down to a minority view.


How many of those biologists actually dealing with research in the area related to discussion?

As it said in their statements


Evolution and cosmology represent two of the unifying concepts of modern science. There are few scientific theories more firmly supported by observations than these: Biological evolution has occurred and new species have arisen over time, life on Earth originated more than a billion years ago, and most stars are at least several billion years old. Overwhelming evidence comes from diverse sources - the structure and function of DNA, geological analysis of rocks, paleontological studies of fossils, telescopic observations of distant stars and galaxies - and no serious scientist questions these claims.

We are not talking about a cutesy pet theory only impacting a handful of scientists here.


How many scientists actually give a damn?

I would say generally more than 50%.


So when their academy of science (i.e the administrative staff) sign the letter in unrelated area, many of them couldn't care less.

I'm not sure if this is a language thing or you are really as clueless as you repeatedly sound but at academy of science is not populated by "administration staff". And they don't just sign any old crap because they don;t give a damn. If you really believe then you have absolutely no clue about the operation of science and academies.

This isn't going to go away Iggy. Scientists and educators worldwide agree that evolution is excellent science. So good they say it is a close to a certainty as science can provide. This is the unequivocal view the world's best scientists in very clear statements on the scientific footing of evolution.

Over to you.


You have not demonstrated "uncontroversial acceptance". "worldwide conspiracy of scientists and teachers of all disciplines" only exists in your vivid imagination.

I don't think it exists at all. But if you are right and evolution is baloney, how come so many of the world best scientists are convinced otherwise? You can't both be right. Either you are wrong, they are wrong, or one of you are deliberately lying. However that can only work for you if all the scientists are lying that requires a conspiracy.


Personally I am not convinced that evolution theory explains Cambric explosion. It was also contingent (at least according to Darwin) on transitional fossils, which are still lacking. For me it's enough not ot rush with blind acceptance.

I agree. You should definitely do some research on the matter because frankly your ignorance on biology is a little frightening. The so-called Cambrian explosion can be explained by evolution and transitional fossils are multitudinous. (For the record we have actually discovered quite a lot of new fossils in the last 150 years since Darwin's time. We also know that life on earth pre-dates the Cambrian by quite a long time. The Cambrian was around 530 mya and fossils from 1,400 mya has been discovered).


"Lemming mentality" means following the crowd uncritically. The expression has an unambiguous meaning, you could've find it yourself. What is the point in this question?

That is just herd mentality. Lemming mentality is a more extreme form when the herd mentality leads individuals to measures which are seriously damaging to the individual. Since it is based on bad science (as Kevin pointed out not even Lemmings exhibit it) I would avoid the term if I was you.


Now question for Rincy:
What do you think about Al Gore film "An Inconvenient Truth" being included in school curriculum? (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/an-inconvenient-truth-included-in-school-curriculum/story-e6frf7l6-1225943964775)

I had a quick scan the story looks like a right-wing beatup as the film is being included in an English curriculum. So from a science perspective it is an non-issue.

antichrist
28-10-2010, 11:09 PM
The danger is not recognising the psychological need for a spiritual truth and having it appropiately dealt with. The world is full of false gurus

Rincewind
28-10-2010, 11:15 PM
The danger is not recognising the psychological need for a spiritual truth and having it appropiately dealt with. The world is full of false gurus

Do you know the John Lennon quote regarding the Maharishi? After the falling out a reporter ask John, "Did you think this man’s on the level?" John replied, "I don't know what level he’s on, but we had a nice holiday in India and came back rested." :)