Saddam Hussein

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

So basically you are saying that people don't deserve the right to live, right? You are saying that people don't deserve to have some sort of property and they don't deserve to say what they want, right? But rather that it just happens to be that way today and you accept it? Actually, it's not a question, that is what you are saying, whether you realize it or not.

 

That's not an argument.

 

As said before, I also hold the belief that all humans have the right to live etc. But logically, there's no "right" or ultimate morals. They're useful to believe in, everyone can see that, but not everyone is able to see that they're "just" useful cultural constructs.

 

Example: This forum is a society as well. One of its useful cultural constructs is that it's immoral to spam. It's immoral to flame others. But these moral guidelines are not some higher codex or god-given "right" - eg "everyone in here has the right to not be banned". Everyone can see that. There's no magic behind it - it's all a cultural construct (net-culture) invented to make our society become a less hostile place so people can get along better. This is useful. But when looking at it logically, anyone can see that if we remove all the moderators and admins, everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted. And they'd be able to justify it easily - while it isn't nice to spam, there's nothing preventing one from doing it, and there's no "instinct" that tells us from birth that "We must not spam on forums". It's grown. We're tamed.

 

Example 2: A prison society. In tough, "hell's outpost" prisons, being a killer is considered a good, manly thing. Indeed, one cannot possibly hope to become the leader of a prison society unless you've killed several men. Rape among inmates is common and viewed as natural. Rape even takes such things as hierarchy into consideration as the one higher in that community gets the added benefit of doing the thrusting. "Soft prisoners" are there to be bullied and taken advantage of. If you get on good terms with prison guards, you can expect to be found gutted the next morning. All these morals and laws of this society are once again nothing more than cultural rules and regulations to ensure a "survival of the strongest" community, as that is indeed the prevalent moral and virtue in there.

 

Oh, and what isn't a "biological imperative"?

 

A biological imperative could be mating. Or living in societies. Humans will always tend to band together and mate.

 

Everything we do and feel and think is only electrical signals from our nerves to our brains and from our brain to our brain and from our brain to our nerves.

 

Correct.

 

If you choose to view survival as such, you are forced to view everything as such, which is fine, i guess.

 

Not the whole truth.

 

As explained before, a biological imperative among humans is the social community. Humans are not loners. But while it's instinctual to band in groups, and that laws and morals will develop in groups, what the specific morals are in such a groups is not determined by inheritance, and nor is it the same, universal morals that apply to every group. What those morals are is completely dependant on what the required traits and virtues are - in a community geared entirely towards survival against the neighboring tribe, it's a highly praised virtue to kill and rape the other tribe's population whenever the chance comes around. This is only natural, as if they didn't, they'd be pillaged in turn themselves.

 

In a society geared towards social power and upwards mobility in the community, it's acceptable to cheat, steal, kill the competitors and gather as many slaves and women as possible. Again, natural. It's the culturally defined morals that makes this happen, not some instinct they're all born with.

 

But what causes these signals, then, that trigger instinct.

 

DNA.

 

You know what DNA is? It's a simple code, based on simple elements found in nature. There's nothing magical in it.

 

You know that nothing can be done in biology or the body without some sort of stimulus, but what stimulates instinct?

 

The environment.

 

And more importantly, who/what put that stimulus or that instinct in place?

 

The environment.

 

Was it some sort of random developement that just happened to develope in every single on of the vastly different animals on earth at the same time?

 

It's not something random. Selection points are not random.

 

At the same time? Hardly. If you want to debate evolution vs creationism, I've got 3 8-paged threads waiting for you in the swamp and the forum I moderate.

 

that every animal would have the same basic instincts at the same exact time in the evolutionary process.

 

So you agree that animals do have morals and social morals similar to humans?

 

What same basic instincts are you talking about?

 

Now it's the exact same time, I see.

 

The only answer, i believe, is some higher power that i cannot rightly explain without involving my religion.

 

God is a cultural phenomenon just as morals are.

 

You can't explain God's logical existence.

 

"It's logically false to assume that whatever can't be proven wrong must be right." You can explain dragons and faeries with "God-gapping".

 

But still, there has to be something that drives instinct (that IS instinct, really), it cannot be broken down into anything purely and logically biological.

 

DNA + Environment = Morals. No magic. No God.

 

As i've already said, it is statisically impossible for that to happen in every species on the planet at the same time.

 

As proven by science, we all had a common ancestor. This explains it, and nullifies the postulated claim that "it could only have happened at the exact same time in all species at once".

 

(though if you don't believe in an evolution then I don't know what you believe in because a creation would instantly justify the higher power)

 

No it wouldn't. Heard of the Raelians?

 

the point stands that anything besides some higher, driving force exists to power instinct, and, in my opinion, good and evil as well as human rights.

 

First you prove the positive existance of God (not try to disprove the negative existance of God) - Then I'll begin to consider your statement as true.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

Let's see... C'Jais seems to believe in the "Survival of the fittest" and that it justifies whatever happens to someone... you are a darwinist, aren't you?

 

You want to debate evolution and creationism as well?

 

Actually, there's no such thing as a Darwinist, just as there's no such thing as a Newtonist or Einsteinist. Their theories have been proven as fact, and it's impossible to believe fact.

 

That the ones fittest to survive does indeed survive is fact. That natural selection occurs is fact.

 

Justify what? Y'know, I can handle people putting words in my mouth, but I can't respect someone who's shadowboxing, someone who invents the opponent's arguments, proceed to trounce them and declare himself the logical winner. That's preposterous.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by C'jais

That's not an argument.

 

Exactly, i'm just trying to get you to realize what you are saying in different words so that i can then expound upon the new words rather than your old ones.

 

As said before, I also hold the belief that all humans have the right to live etc. But logically, there's no "right" or ultimate morals. They're useful to believe in, everyone can see that, but not everyone is able to see that they're "just" useful cultural constructs.p

 

No, logically there must be some sort of higher "right" otherwise everyone would not have developed the same things. Whether you believe it's some higher code or not, you must believe that is it in everything, even if only biologically, and therefore is a "unviersal" code or genetic trait or instinct or whatever you want to call it.

 

Example: This forum is a society as well. One of its useful cultural constructs is that it's immoral to spam. It's immoral to flame others. But these moral guidelines are not some higher codex or god-given "right" - eg "everyone in here has the right to not be banned". Everyone can see that. There's no magic behind it - it's all a cultural construct (net-culture) invented to make our society become a less hostile place so people can get along better. This is useful. But when looking at it logically, anyone can see that if we remove all the moderators and admins, everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted. And they'd be able to justify it easily - while it isn't nice to spam, there's nothing preventing one from doing it, and there's no "instinct" that tells us from birth that "We must not spam on forums". It's grown. We're tamed.

 

I never said that everything we do and all our laws are part of some higher standard, in fact i've admitted that they are indeed a mere construct of your society. However, certain things, basic good and evil is not a construct. Flaming/insulting, is not one of those basic good vs. evil issues, and therefore your example really means nothing to me or this issue.

 

Example 2: A prison society. In tough, "hell's outpost" prisons, being a killer is considered a good, manly thing. Indeed, one cannot possibly hope to become the leader of a prison society unless you've killed several men. Rape among inmates is common and viewed as natural. Rape even takes such things as hierarchy into consideration as the one higher in that community gets the added benefit of doing the thrusting. "Soft prisoners" are there to be bullied and taken advantage of. If you get on good terms with prison guards, you can expect to be found gutted the next morning. All these morals and laws of this society are once again nothing more than cultural rules and regulations to ensure a "survival of the strongest" community, as that is indeed the prevalent moral and virtue in there.

 

To use your own argument, that attitude in prison is a construct of prison society, which is basically what you are saying. Just because a group has bent and twisted what is evil into what is "good" for them does not mean that good and evil don't exist, or that they ren't universal. I really don't see what exactly it is you are trying to prove with that.

 

DNA.

 

You know what DNA is? It's a simple code, based on simple elements found in nature. There's nothing magical in it.

 

Well then, what stimulates the DNA to form? What caused the genetic code to be the way it is? Why is this piece the same in every animal on earth? What matter was the DNA created from? Where was that matter created? Science makes it clear that matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it had to be made sometime, right? When?

 

So you agree that animals do have morals and social morals similar to humans?

 

No, i'm not directly talking about good and evil anymore, but rather "instinct." If i can prove to you that instinct is higher than any individual then it proves for me that good and evil can be.

 

God is a cultural phenomenon just as morals are.

 

You can't explain God's logical existence.

 

"It's logically false to assume that whatever can't be proven wrong must be right." You can explain dragons and faeries with "God-gapping".

 

Fair enough, but you can't logically prove evolution either. Law of Conservation of Matter, look it up.

 

First you prove the positive existance of God (not try to disprove the negative existance of God) - Then I'll begin to consider your statement as true.

 

I have a book. That book can be verified to be historically accurate in every single instance, such that no one could reproduce it. The book has no contradictions beyond explanation, and it has multiple prophecies, most of which have come true (the rest of which are outstanding), and all of which the prophecy can be accurately dated as prior to it coming true. Now, i doubt this convinces you, and indeed it's not what convinced me, either. I can't explain what i feel and know; it is faith that guides me, not the crude and faulty logic of the world, not that i expect you to understand or accept that.

 

Even so, what does evolution have? A book written in 1859 and a theory, much of which isn't even scientifically feasible? I gave you my proof (and i can go into furhter detail), make of it what you want, now i want your proof.

[Havoc Stryphe]

There is no evil...

 

There are no morals....

 

There is no God...

 

The law of the land prevails...

 

There is only neutrality, then?

 

There is only apathy, then?

 

There is only existence, then?

 

The beliefs of the majority are adopted as law, then?

 

If this is the case, then where do you get off on saying the war on Iraq is "wrong" of the US and/or President Bush? Wouldn't it, by your own definition, be considered "less Neutral", or "less apathetic" of the US to attack Iraq based on what we have stated are our reasons?

 

How can this military action be deemed "wrong" if wrong is based soley on the shifting beliefs of a majority of people? Maybe it is "wrong" based on what the UN or majority says at this moment, but perhaps it is time to change those beliefs. After all, if murder and rape are acceptable in prison based on "law of the land" and "majority rules" and the belief that evil and good are fundamentally non-existent and simply the creation of mankind's need for boundraies and purpose, then these "laws", "rules", and "mores" are subject to change and that change is neither for better or worse, because there is no Good or Evil.

 

How can you sit and debate something that is, in essence, only another event in the linear existence of mankind, neither "wrong" or "right", but rather simply "is". How can any debate exist within a realm of such indefinitives, and amiguities? Wouldn't a debate be simply arguing the logisitics of neutrality and apathy? If wrong and right, good and evil, are subject to majority rules, due to their non-existance, then there is nothing but existence. Something merely exists and that is all. It either "is" or "isn't".

 

By that line of thinking, a military action against Iraq by the US exists, whether right or wrong, good or bad, it does not matter, because that is simply just conditioning of the human mind and subject to change.

 

Bush exists, but it cannot be argued that he is right or wrong, good or bad.

 

Saddam exists, but cannot be evil or good.

 

Your argument exists, but cannot be deemed right or wrong, but can be deemed fundamentally flawed. Your own logic would suggest that this debate is, in and of itself, subject to the change or shift of thought in the majority.

 

So do you always stick to, for lack of a better word, the, non-existent, "moral" high ground, and personally subscribe to whatever the majority believes at that particular moment? Therefor validating your own beliefs and lending yourself to supremecy in all you say and do?

 

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect! Please redefine your logic in such a manner that would not cut your feet out from underneath your own argument. This would prove invaluable to your argument and to my own confusion.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Heavyarms

as for c'jais: We didn't shoot them over there, and use our guns as cattle prods. We told them to move, which most of them did, except for the Cherokee, in the Trail of Tears. In fact, the French and Spanish armed the Indians on the frontier. Little Big-Horn, anyone? They fought back.

 

I have access to some government transcripts from an investigation that occurred after the Sand Creek Massacre. It basically outlines attrocities that were commited by white soldiers against the plains indians. After being told to move... then told to move again... and again, the indians decided that they were tired of the white man breaking treaty.

 

One of the accounts is from an officer that describes the killing of a toddler by a soldier on horseback who shot the boy through the head as he ran away. The soldier's companion missed several attempts and the soldier showed his "expertise."

 

Another account is of a young indian girl who was hiding in the bushes while her sister was killed, her heart cut out and thrown so as to land on the ground near where she was hiding. I can only imagine the "pyschological" effect that would have on a lifetime of remembering.

 

There were many, many attrocities commited against the Native American nations, of which there were over 500 with a total population that was in the millions prior to the arrival of the white man. History taught in public schools does not go into details as the details are embarassing. Genocide is not foreign to America... our government is founded on it.

 

True, it happened long ago. I am proud of my nation in spite of how it came to be. There are many opportunities that do not exist elsewhere.

 

But I can only share this enlightenment by understanding the nature of "good and evil." There truly is no right or wrong. But there is right and wrong.

 

That last statement was intended to be confusing, but there is truth. That is because there is good and evil, but they are the same. These are concepts that only exist among men (disclaimer: I frequently use the term "man" and "men" to refer to humanity, not gender). Whether they are religious or legal in origin, good/evil or right/wrong are social constructs that man has devised in order to create order.

 

By observing multiple cultures, one will see that there are practices that are considered acceptable, but detested by one's own culture. I personally do not agree with female circumcision, but in norther Africa, it is a common practice that is accepted in society.

 

Many societies and cultures view capital punishment as evil, but in my home state of Texas, not using capital punishment is considered wrong in serious, violent crimes.

 

I'll try to not ramble much more, except to say that there is "good" and there is "evil," but only in the context of the expectations of one's own culture. Looking at other societies through the lens of ones own culture, one will see many things that are disagreeable, even evil.

 

I will now get back to the rest of the thread....

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe

There are no morals....

 

I've always held the opposite to be true.

 

The law of the land prevails...

 

No. Nor should it, if my assumptions of your definitions are right.

 

There is only neutrality, then?

 

In what sense? Good and evil? If so, then yes.

 

There is only apathy, then?

 

Why? There's no connection between a lack of good and evil, and apathy. What we think is right and wrong will lead to action. But its clearly not what is right and wrong, because that is impossible to locate.

 

There is only existence, then?

 

What else should there be?

 

The beliefs of the majority are adopted as law, then?

 

No, connection error.

 

How can this military action be deemed "wrong" if wrong is based soley on the shifting beliefs of a majority of people?

 

Everyone has morals, but I don't claim mine hold true for everyone on earth. I don't claim my morals (while mostly identical to Tie Guy's) is something universal. I will act according to them, because if I didn't, I wouldn't be human.

 

I define wrong and right by how much peace and bloodshed this war will bring in the future. I don't claim to know what'll happen, but this is merely my guess. I believe I can speak for us all when I say I want the least amount of war and terror in the future. While utopian, I believe the way for humanity to prosper is through a calm and democratic world.

 

I don't presume everyone on earth has the same set of morals as mine, but I'll still stand up for them. My point is that these cultural constructs are not "mere" at all - they're what makes us human.

 

Maybe it is "wrong" based on what the UN or majority says at this moment, but perhaps it is time to change those beliefs. After all, if murder and rape are acceptable in prison based on "law of the land" and "majority rules" and the belief that evil and good are fundamentally non-existent and simply the creation of mankind's need for boundraies and purpose, then these "laws", "rules", and "mores" are subject to change and that change is neither for better or worse, because there is no Good or Evil.

 

Yes. But humans are incapable (as far as I know) to distance themselves from this fact and will always act according to their upbringing and environment. Not through a higher imperative that is impossible to prove and verify, which makes it irrelevant in such discussions.

 

If wrong and right, good and evil, are subject to majority rules, due to their non-existance, then there is nothing but existence. Something merely exists and that is all. It either "is" or "isn't".

 

Yes. But again, if humans acted without their self, they wouldn't be human, would they? While humans are capable of grasping the pityless indifference of the universe, it's evident that they're unable to fully seperate this from their selves when acting.

 

By that line of thinking, a military action against Iraq by the US exists, whether right or wrong, good or bad, it does not matter, because that is simply just conditioning of the human mind and subject to change.

 

Bush exists, but it cannot be argued that he is right or wrong, good or bad.

 

Saddam exists, but cannot be evil or good.

 

Your argument exists, but cannot be deemed right or wrong, but can be deemed fundamentally flawed. Your own logic would suggest that this debate is, in and of itself, subject to the change or shift of thought in the majority.

 

Yes. What makes you disagree (if so)?

 

Just because this debate is meaningless when viewed from without, doesn't mean that it's meaningless to me or you. However, logic can explain human's need to invent such universal morals, but at the same time proves that it's flawed to believe in them as fact.

 

I don't think my interpretation of the ideal society is fact. It's what I'd like to see, sure, but it's impossible to determine whether its the best unless you set some criteria for this society.

 

So do you always stick to, for lack of a better word, the, non-existent, "moral" high ground, and personally subscribe to whatever the majority believes at that particular moment?

 

No. But I'm aware that my upbringing in a democratic society which holds such virtues as the human rights to high esteem has had an effect on the post I write right now.

 

Therefor validating your own beliefs and lending yourself to supremecy in all you say and do?

 

No. My beliefs are as good as the next guy's. Facts are sacred, however.

 

I happen to think that this war will lead to increased terrorism. I think USA is going to abandon Iraq after it's been liberated. I think this might, just might lead to a WW3, as USA has once again intervened in the middle east.

 

But most of all, I think the justification for going to war, while I agree with them to a degree, will lead to increased hostility between USA and the rest of the world. Animosity will perhaps tear the UN apart, and I, personally, do not want to see that.

 

I want that monster Saddam out of power as much as you do. If Iraq was an isolated incident happening in a vacuum in the global world, I'd be all for your intervention. But it's not. This war will have an effect on the way the rest of the world view USA and each other.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

No, logically there must be some sort of higher "right" otherwise everyone would not have developed the same things.

 

But as I wrote before, not everyone has developed the same things. We've all developed different morals.

 

That the morals which encourage the same behaviour exhibited by the human rights are the most prevalent ones, is only testament to the fact that they're the ones most useful to a society in our modern world.

 

Whether you believe it's some higher code or not, you must believe that is it in everything, even if only biologically, and therefore is a "unviersal" code or genetic trait or instinct or whatever you want to call it.

 

Yes, I agree that the "instinct" to create societies is universal among humans, but one cannot pinpoint how that society will end up looking, and which morals it will end up promoting.

 

Just because a group has bent and twisted what is evil into what is "good" for them does not mean that good and evil don't exist, or that they ren't universal.

 

They've twisted what you think is evil into what they think is good. Do we understand each other now?

 

I'm going to leave the evolutionary and theological arguments out of this, if it doesn't bother you. I'd love to reply to them, but I end up finding it hard to post on a thread with 7 different underlying topics. I'll encourage a moderator to split this thread in two if they're bothered by this going off the original topic.

[Artoo]

I'm still wondering C'jais, how far you'd get into your discussion about rape, with a woman who'd been raped. My bet is 30 seconds before she either had to leave or knocked you out cold.

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by C'jais

But as I wrote before, not everyone has developed the same things. We've all developed different morals.

 

Well, i'd say you are completely wrong. While you naturally do not believe all the same things as I, we both believe that murder and rape are wrong. All societies believed (and thus created laws) that murder of one's group is wrong. Sure, not all the laws and morals were the same, but the basic ones remained the same. Call it instinct, but you just admitted that instinct is universal.

 

I'm going to leave the evolutionary and theological arguments out of this, if it doesn't bother you. I'd love to reply to them, but I end up finding it hard to post on a thread with 7 different underlying topics. I'll encourage a moderator to split this thread in two if they're bothered by this going off the original topic.

 

Well, i certainly understand, but you can answer this without delving to deep. Where did this DNA come from, what created it, what created the nucleotides and caused them to be arranged in a particular order?

 

It's important because something has to be there to create all this, because it cannot scientifically happen. I'd say that entity is what gave us universal morals as well and human rights and basic instincts (not to mention everything else.)

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

All societies believed (and thus created laws) that murder of one's group is wrong.

 

That's not strictly true... depending on your point of view. In some Pakistani cultures (perhaps some Afgani as well), it is acceptable to the society to rape the daughter or sister of a male who dishonors another clan. I believe this is the Pashtoon tribe, which also supports the concept of "honor killing" as well. To the rest of the world, myself included, these two cultural norms are abborent.

 

Texas has a very structured and well used practice of using capital punishment as a means of deterring violent crimes and punishing the guilty. There are many in the world (Texas included) that consider this murder and nothing more. What makes it acceptable is that capital punishment is supported by the legal system even though it is denounced by many moral or ethical systems.

 

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Well, i certainly understand, but you can answer this without delving to deep. Where did this DNA come from, what created it, what created the nucleotides and caused them to be arranged in a particular order?

 

Billions of years of natural selection. But this will too easily go to another topic, so I'd suggest one of the links Cjais offered.

 

Originally posted by Tie Guy

I'd say that entity is what gave us universal morals as well and human rights and basic instincts (not to mention everything else.)

 

Human rights and morals vary greatly from culture to culture. Basic instincts are survival driven as they are in most other animals. Some would say that fear of the dark is a basic instinct, since man cannot see as well as predators and would benifit by not venturing into it while in the wild.

 

This thread, as I understand it, is about Saddam Hussein and whether he is immoral enough to warrant intervention from an outside entity. In order to assess that, one would have to consider whether or not he was the most immoral state leader, what standards of morality are to be used (christian, muslim, American legal, world court, et al), whether or not the means of unseating him will be immoral by said standards, if so to what degree of immorality will be tolerated to achieve the ends, and probably a host of other ethical issues.

 

The problem that is presented is that Saddam may not be the most immoral, or at least the only immoral, state leader. The leaders of several African states, N. Korea, and perhaps one or two South East Asian countries as well as a couple of former Russian satellite nations come to mind. There are also several non-governmental organizations that may fit this bill (Al Quida, et al).

 

Another problem is that the moral system used to judge Saddam appears to be the American one. I use "appears" as I believe it is more correct to say the "Bush Administration" moral system. The world opinion seems to differ and would have been demonstrated through U.N. resolution.

 

That's not to say that what Saddam has done in the past was morally correct by even a few societies of the world. Saddam's method of leadership offends the world through the means discussed many times over in this and other threads. However, by not demonstrating successfully that Saddam posed an immediate or eminent threat to other nations, the United States government gives the impression of having ulterior motives for invading a soverign nation-state.

 

The "good and evil" debate is always philosophically difficult to discuss as individual and societal belief systems always come into play. I'm not sure if Cjais would agree with me, but I would have to say that "good" and "evil" are merely based upon perspective. Morality and ethics, however, are based upon societal needs in order to maintain stability of communities, states, nations and regions. Morality and ethics manifest themselves most obviously in laws, rules and policies established by various organizations and less obviously in norms and customs of various subcultures (internet-cyberspace communities, et al).

 

It is coincidental in most cases if "good" and "evil" concur with morality and ethics established by societies. It is therefore to invade a nation based upon the notion that the leader is evil. It would be more appropriate to conquer an aggressor in the act of commiting the aggression. Evidence of past attrocities should be dealt with in the world court. Further attrocities dealt with by military intervention approved by the UN. By invading based upon the suspicion of possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, we now must invade N. Korea, Libya, Pakistan, India, Israel, S. Africa, and 10 other periphery nations that have established WMD programs. At least four of them with confirmed nuclear programs.

 

But the issue is moot. Iraq has been invaded. I hope Saddam and his leadership are quickly neutralized so my friends can return home safe.

[Breton]

Artoo: Would you please change your signature? It is not only stupid, but also very racist.

[Havoc Stryphe]

No. My beliefs are as good as the next guy's. Facts are sacred, however.

 

I happen to think that this war will lead to increased terrorism. I think USA is going to abandon Iraq after it's been liberated. I think this might, just might lead to a WW3, as USA has once again intervened in the middle east.

 

But most of all, I think the justification for going to war, while I agree with them to a degree, will lead to increased hostility between USA and the rest of the world. Animosity will perhaps tear the UN apart, and I, personally, do not want to see that.

 

I want that monster Saddam out of power as much as you do. If Iraq was an isolated incident happening in a vacuum in the global world, I'd be all for your intervention. But it's not. This war will have an effect on the way the rest of the world view USA and each other.

 

You know what the frightening aspect of what you said is?

I agree with you!

 

As a matter of fact, aside from you non-belief in a "higher Power", it would seem we share very similar lines of logic.

 

I have to admit, you response was well though out and very insightful. Again, aside from the "God" issue, you pretty much believe as I do. My post was more sarcasm than anything else, I knew you didn't think that rigidly. I was merely a ploy on my part to have you come at the argument from a different angle.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Natopo

Well, some of you people supporting Iraq got your wish. Yesterday there was an article in the newspaper about those DARN Russians sending military supplies to Iraq. Filthy, dirty, rotten Russians.

 

I'm going to use a spiler for this, as I am flaming.

 

 

YOU SON OF A BITCH! "DARN" Russians, you say? What country are u from? USA? USA ain't no saints either!

The forum rules forbid racist posts. I think you should consider yourself lucky that I'm not reporting this.

Also:

1) Post a link and prove it

2) Watch Red Heat

3) Go f*ck urself.

 

 

 

Also Artoo change ur signature it is also racist.

[Havoc Stryphe]

Originally posted by Crazy_dog no.3

I'm going to use a spiler for this, as I am flaming.

 

 

YOU SON OF A BITCH! "DARN" Russians, you say? What country are u from? USA? USA ain't no saints either!

The forum rules forbid racist posts. I think you should consider yourself lucky that I'm not reporting this.

Also:

1) Post a link and prove it

2) Watch Red Heat

3) Go f*ck urself.

 

 

 

I understand your anger, and I certainly do not condone his post, but you're better than that Crazy Dog. Don't stoop to their level. Your post was definately against the forum rules.

 

Remember, folks, two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left!

[Tie Guy]

CDog, i got the impression that his post was more sarcasm than anything else. At least, i hope he doesn't write that way when serious....

 

 

Billions of years of natural selection. But this will too easily go to another topic, so I'd suggest one of the links Cjais offered.

 

Even billions of years cannot create matter, any scientist will tell you that, all it can do is rearrange it. No, the law of conversvation of matter (or mass) states that it is impossible to create or destroy matter. When you burn an organic compund, you don't destroy anything, you just rearrange the atoms into carbon dioxide and water vapor. No, there is no scientific explanation for where matter came from, it had to be something supernatural, whatever it is. That's the point, and i was just curious to know if ya'll actually believe that it can be any other way. The concept of matter itself, points to a higher being or force or whatever you want. Its cannot be natural or biological.

[Crazy_dog no.3]

Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe

I understand your anger, and I certainly do not condone his post, but you're better than that Crazy Dog. Don't stoop to their level. Your post was definately against the forum rules.

 

Remember, folks, two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights do make a left!

 

OK, fair enough.

 

Oh and thanks for calling me Crazy Dog without no. 3 at the end. Appreciated.

[Breton]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

No, there is no scientific explanation for where matter came from, it had to be something supernatural, whatever it is.

 

A few thousands years ago, no one could explain why a rock sink when you throw it into the water, so did that mean it was something supernatural that pulled it down?

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn

A few thousands years ago, no one could explain why a rock sink when you throw it into the water, so did that mean it was something supernatural that pulled it down?

 

If you want to argue based on future knowledge then go ahead and try.

 

But you'd think that a theory claiming to be the "scientific explanation" would at least make scientific sense with the knowledge at hand.

[Artoo]

Nazi's are racist, but they're still allowed to march as long as it is peaceful. People are allowed to print they're opinion, it's called freedom of the press. This is not libel. These are not remarks that damage someone's reputation's. One is a political cartoon, one is a joke from a tv show, and one is a quote from a politician in 1992.

 

Your accusation that saying these things are racist is almost as ridiculous as me accusing you of discrimination for wanting me to remove them. But I'm not saying that you are, I'm just saying that if I did it would be on almost the same level of ridiculousness.

 

So the answer is: No.

 

You have the right to not like my sig, but you cannot make me change it. You are not the supreme deity, you are not my mother, don't tell me I have to change something just because you don't like it, cause tough beans, it's my right.

 

Course I can see where your coming from, believing in this whole oppression (i.e. dictator (i.e. Saddam)) thing does tend to keep you from remembering people have rights.

[Breton]

But you would hate it if I talked crap about Americans in my sig, wouldn't you? But I'm not that kind of person. I have not sunk to that level where I talk crap about people from a country just because the country's goverment doesn't have the same opinions as me.

 

How can you complain about Anti-Americanism when you are Anti-French yourself?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

No, the law of conversvation of matter (or mass) states that it is impossible to create or destroy matter.

 

Actually, when detonating a nuclear bomb, matter gets converted into energy (lots of it!). Energy can likewise be converted into matter (Einstein's theory).

 

In quantum physics, matter can spring into existance spontaneusly from nowhere, and disappear moments after. It was most likely such an influx of energy that triggered the big bang.

 

It seems to me you're trying to argue against a natural origin of life. Do you "believe" in evolution then? That species evolve (or adapt, if you prefer that word)?

 

Havoc: Thanks, you just made my day (:

[Artoo]

You have the right to, I wouldn't like you for it, but you have the right. I would think you to be mistaken in your views, but you have the right to do it.

 

I would like to debate with you and prove you wrong on specific points in your anti-american sig, but I wouldn't want it removed, instead I'd try to make you want it removed, for that is the art of debate.

 

How can you complain about Anti-Americanism when you are Anti-French yourself?

 

I don't complain about anti-americanism, I complain about uninformed viewpoints. If you have valid anti-american points, then I can't defend myself against them. I'm not anti-French, I don't like they're policies, and I'm expressing it through humor.

 

Also since when was France a race?

[Tie Guy]

Originally posted by C'jais

Actually, when detonating a nuclear bomb, matter gets converted into energy (lots of it!). Energy can likewise be converted into matter (Einstein's theory).

 

In quantum physics, matter can spring into existance spontaneusly from nowhere, and disappear moments after. It was most likely such an influx of energy that triggered the big bang.

 

It seems to me you're trying to argue against a natural origin of life. Do you "believe" in evolution then? That species evolve (or adapt, if you prefer that word)?

 

 

Concerning nuclear bombs and such, the energy is a by-product of breaking the bonds and releasing electrons in the atoms. The exact same number of protons and neutrons and electrons are there afterwards. Nothing is "created," but energy that had previously been absorbed to create bonds between atoms is released back into the environment, as are certain particles consisting of elctrons and neutrons and other sub-atomic particles. Again, nothing is "created," but things are released.

 

Energy cannot be converted into matter. It can be used to produce bonds between elements/atoms that make it appear like something is being created, but really it is just being formed. Matter cannot just "spring into existance spontaneously," but a collection of atoms and/or sub-atomic particles can make something entirely different spontaneously and then decompose again. Nothing is being gained or lost, just rearranged.

 

And, even if you believe nothing of what i said above, where did the energy that "created the world" come from? Surely it didn't just appear in the vacuum of space, did it? Did the nothing that was there react with the other nothing that was there to create something? I think not.

 

 

I think you should know by now that I'm a creationist. I believe in God and the Bible, but quite frankly even if i didn't the idea that something created the orignal matter and/or energy is the only one that logically makes sense. Now, i naturally stay away from saying that God had to create it because i know that is something you will never accept. Still, in a debate about a higher code, i don't need to prove that God did anything, just that someting did.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Artoo

I'm still wondering C'jais, how far you'd get into your discussion about rape, with a woman who'd been raped. My bet is 30 seconds before she either had to leave or knocked you out cold.

 

I'm not defending rape in any way.

 

I'm explaining why we're not defending it.

 

But just so you know I'm sincere in real life - No, I'd never resort to rationalization when getting rape victims to cope with their hurt. That does not work, and you can rest assured that I do not waltz around in real life, talking like this to my friends.

 

But merely knowing, in the back of my head, that there's a sensible way to explain it, helps me deal with people better. When I meet ignorants and idiotic bullies, I pity them in private.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Tie Guy

Concerning nuclear bombs and such, the energy is a by-product of breaking the bonds and releasing electrons in the atoms. The exact same number of protons and neutrons and electrons are there afterwards. Nothing is "created," but energy that had previously been absorbed to create bonds between atoms is released back into the environment, as are certain particles consisting of elctrons and neutrons and other sub-atomic particles. Again, nothing is "created," but things are released.

 

In nuclear powerplants, the uranium used does in fact have less mass after the fission process. Energy is stored in matter as per the famous equation: E=MC^2.

 

Sorry to dissappoint you, but matter can indeed be created energy and vice versa. Ask your physics teacher.

 

As for the creation of the universe out of nothing (and not requiring any god) - Here's a link.

 

 

 

Did the nothing that was there react with the other nothing that was there to create something? I think not.

 

In physics, there's no such thing as "nothing". And yes, you're right when you say that it came out of the vacuum in space.

 

 

I think you should know by now that I'm a creationist.

 

That's cool. Are you by any chance a "young-earther"? Do you believe the flood is true, that the world has only existed for 6000 years etc? Or do you take a more moderate approach - did God just spark the big bang and steered evolution to his ends?

 

What are your specifics?

 

Still, in a debate about a higher code, i don't need to prove that God did anything, just that someting did.

 

To be frank, I don't care if this "something" made the Big bang. I only care that it can be explained with pure physics alone. And I care about the indeniable data that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Oh, and evolution (:

But as before, I don't care if "something" steered and molded the first life to his needs and ends - just that it happened. I don't care about why, I care about how.

 

As for the supernatural aspect of this, I don't think any such thing as "supernatural" can exist except as a concept alone. As soon as it exists, it goes from "supernatural" to natural. We will never find God because he's always on retreat from science, which does a fine job at explaining phenomena he's previously been attributed to. God will always take care of the stuff we don't know why and how happens, but as that is being explained and revealed to be merely natural occurences, his domain over the natural shrinks by the day.

 

IMHO.