is there an eruption of evil in the US ?? is evil real ??

[itfitzme]

Animals, on the other hand, can be very intelligent but show no sign of spirituality or concern with ultimate issues.

Like elephants greiving the loss of a member of the herd? Or other animals whose mothers stay with a dead offspring for a time after their death?

They used to say that man was the only "maker of tools" until chimps were found to make and usetools and recently in the USA it was found that crows do the same thing. We ARE thinking animals. When we don't understand something we create mythology to explain it. We are affraid of death be cause we remember others who died and wonder if that is the end - so we have religion to make it easier to accept death but no one knows what really happens. Even though I have had a "near death experience" I can't be sure that what I experienced wasn't some kind of memory flash or accident of brain chemistry driven by the lack of oxygen.
We make things up to explain what we don't know - that is the separation of man from the rest of the animals.

(You don't have to believe everything you say)

I have no desire to convince you of anything.....if you wish to believe you are simply an "upper level" chimp, by all means believe it.....just don't try selling it to everyone else. Evolution is a "theory," and a "flawed theory" at best, and an outright lie at worst. Neither Darwin, nor the plethora of his converts who have written on the Theory have ever been able to prove beyond doubt that Evolution is "fact." It was created as a Theory, and remains a Theory......that's all.

The difference between man and animal the article was referring to is the "triune" being of man.........body, soul, spirit.........animals are not "triune" beings, nor were they created to be. The one certain "truth" of your comment is the last sentence, and I fully agree with it, especially with regards to Evolution..............

QUOTE: "We make things up to explain what we don't know - that is the separation of man from the rest of the animals."

The obvious point of the article that you completely disregarded, and no wonder why, given that all who profess Evolution as truth do the same, is to explain the inherent desire of man to "question," to "search" for the reasons of existence, to "seek" a meaning for life. It is this special God given desire that separates/elevates man above animals.

Now, feel free to disagree, for if what mows your grass is to believe you are just an animal, hey, go for it!

Prove that the hypothesis of "God"
is correct.

BTW, you should take some time to study and understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory or law. You are using the words and definitions incorrectly, applying the definition of hypothesis to the tem theory. A theory is equivalent to the word "fact". A hypothesis is an untested model. When a hypothesis has been tested and proven to be a fact, it is then a theory.

Evoluton, relativity, Newton's law of gravity, and the theory of "hittimg my thumb with a hammer" are all demonstrated as facts. They are models that collect all the observable and tested fact into a large and all encompasing super-fact.

The hypothesis of god is a failed hypothesis that has failed to be proven so many times as to have been proven as a failure.

You are welcome to attempt to prove it again, if you wish.

 

[itfitzme]

definition, please. it really does depend on what you consider to BE evil, and every argument hence hinges upon that definition.

A perfectly valid scientific method is to present examples and ask a statistically significant sample of people if each seems evil to them. With a large enough collection of sufficiently different example, we can then begin breaking them down into a collection of distinctly identifiable objects, behaviors and effects. The nice thing about this method, and it is widely use in both research and industry, is it captures both the objective and common subjective qualities without the need to necessarily dintinguish between the two.

 

[itfitzme]

If evolution were scientific fact, we should be up to our elbows in "PARTIALLY EVOLVED" creatures running around the earth..........so, again, WHERE ARE THEY?

...

...

Where are they?

We killed them all some 10,000 years ago. They we competing for resource. *We always kill any species that demonstrates significant competitive advantage. *We only tolerate species that are cooperative with us and sufficiently intelligent to be useful. Working ogs are a good example.*

 

[Barb]

definition, please. it really does depend on what you consider to BE evil, and every argument hence hinges upon that definition.

A perfectly valid scientific method is to present examples and ask a statistically significant sample of people if each seems evil to them. With a large enough collection of sufficiently different example, we can then begin breaking them down into a collection of distinctly identifiable objects, behaviors and effects. The nice thing about this method, and it is widely use in both research and industry, is it captures both the objective and common subjective qualities without the need to necessarily dintinguish between the two.

You would then have poll data and a pretty detailed study on what popular opinions of what evil "is." It will always be subjective. "Evil" is the other side of the coin from "moral." They are concepts, and interesting to study from the perspectives of anthropology, which does use the results from the studies you're suggesting, but not as an answer to the question of "is."

 

[Barb]

definition, please. it really does depend on what you consider to BE evil, and every argument hence hinges upon that definition.

My definition of evil is quite simple........

Truth = Good

Untruth or Lie = Evil

Truth, which is good is God.................

Untruth, which is evil is anything/anyone apart from God.......

Are there differing degrees of evil? Yes...........

My definition of evil is quite simple........

Fair enough. We would likely disagree on a lot, but you answered my question.

 

[itfitzme]

definition, please. it really does depend on what you consider to BE evil, and every argument hence hinges upon that definition.

A perfectly valid scientific method is to present examples and ask a statistically significant sample of people if each seems evil to them. *
...
*captures both the objective and common subjective qualities without the need to necessarily dintinguish between the two.

You would then have poll data and a pretty detailed study on what popular opinions of what evil "is." It will always be subjective. "Evil" is the other side of the coin from "moral." They are concepts, and interesting to study from the perspectives of anthropology, which does use the results from the studies you're suggesting, but not as an answer to the question of "is."

*There is presidence for this in engineering, which is applie physics. I am sure we can agree that physics is then ultimate in objective sciences.

In Europe, the way buildings are wired for electricity, lights and appliances are on the same circuit. *When an electrical appliance is operated, it causes the voltage and current in the circuit to vary rapidly. *This causes the lights to flicker. *An appliance with poor filtering causes a really bad flicker which can cause annoyance, at least, headaches, even trigger seizures in some people. *The flicker is objectively measurable in terms of frequency and intensity. *The question then is at what measued quantities do we say it is to much. *The method for determining this is to set up a standard room with a standard lamp. *People, test subjects, are then sit in the room while the lamp if flickered across a variety of frequencies and intensities. *They are then asked to report whennit bothers them. The flicker is an objective quality. *The measurements are objective. *What is "subjective", at least until we can probe peoples brains with prescision, is the point that it becomes a problem. *That isn't to say that peoples reaction isn't still a real objective thing. *People are still living object that have real physical reactions to real physical things. *It is just easier to simply ask them "Is this bad?" then to come up with some other measure. *In the end, there is a measurable quantity that has a scientifically (objective) repeatable mean and variance for a definable statistically significant sample.

The same sort of thing has been done with pain reporting in medicine. *People can be asked to rank their level of pain on a scale of one to ten. *The reporting of pain, a clearly subjective quality, can be measured objectively within the context of valid scientific methodology.

It would be like going to a society where you do not know the language except for the phrase "What is _____?" *Whenever you hear a new word, you insert it into your phrase, go around the village and say "What is ______?" *If you are so lucky that the word is a noun, everyone points atba similar object and you get it. *If it's a verb, it will take more time, a game of charades.

This is how it works. *This is how we get to a definable and measurable objective quality where the interest is in how it interacts with people. *We ask people to point to it until the common object becomes clear, seperate from any single individual. *

Then, and only then, can anything be defined that is seperate from all people. This, of course, then begs the question of if evil can be defined seperately from people, why would we care?

 

[tipofthespear]

Like elephants greiving the loss of a member of the herd? Or other animals whose mothers stay with a dead offspring for a time after their death?

They used to say that man was the only "maker of tools" until chimps were found to make and usetools and recently in the USA it was found that crows do the same thing. We ARE thinking animals. When we don't understand something we create mythology to explain it. We are affraid of death be cause we remember others who died and wonder if that is the end - so we have religion to make it easier to accept death but no one knows what really happens. Even though I have had a "near death experience" I can't be sure that what I experienced wasn't some kind of memory flash or accident of brain chemistry driven by the lack of oxygen.
We make things up to explain what we don't know - that is the separation of man from the rest of the animals.

(You don't have to believe everything you say)

I have no desire to convince you of anything.....if you wish to believe you are simply an "upper level" chimp, by all means believe it.....just don't try selling it to everyone else. Evolution is a "theory," and a "flawed theory" at best, and an outright lie at worst. Neither Darwin, nor the plethora of his converts who have written on the Theory have ever been able to prove beyond doubt that Evolution is "fact." It was created as a Theory, and remains a Theory......that's all.

The difference between man and animal the article was referring to is the "triune" being of man.........body, soul, spirit.........animals are not "triune" beings, nor were they created to be. The one certain "truth" of your comment is the last sentence, and I fully agree with it, especially with regards to Evolution..............

QUOTE: "We make things up to explain what we don't know - that is the separation of man from the rest of the animals."

The obvious point of the article that you completely disregarded, and no wonder why, given that all who profess Evolution as truth do the same, is to explain the inherent desire of man to "question," to "search" for the reasons of existence, to "seek" a meaning for life. It is this special God given desire that separates/elevates man above animals.

Now, feel free to disagree, for if what mows your grass is to believe you are just an animal, hey, go for it!

Prove that the hypothesis of "God"
is correct.

BTW, you should take some time to study and understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory or law. You are using the words and definitions incorrectly, applying the definition of hypothesis to the tem theory. A theory is equivalent to the word "fact". A hypothesis is an untested model. When a hypothesis has been tested and proven to be a fact, it is then a theory.

Evoluton, relativity, Newton's law of gravity, and the theory of "hittimg my thumb with a hammer" are all demonstrated as facts. They are models that collect all the observable and tested fact into a large and all encompasing super-fact.

The hypothesis of god is a failed hypothesis that has failed to be proven so many times as to have been proven as a failure.

You are welcome to attempt to prove it again, if you wish.

Gee, let us take some time to consider the definition of "theory..............."

theory.........the·o·ries


Definition of THEORY

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2. abstract thought : speculation


3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a) : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b) : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6 a) : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b) : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


um.....lessee........um......hmmmm..........um.............well, yeah, that's pretty much what I thought......you might want to take some time to rethink your "theory" that evolution is "law" but I do appreciate your "schooling" on the subject regardless of the quality, the intent is what counts I suppose................" Just saying.......

BTW: Show me the "scientific" evidence that "we killed them all........" with reference to the partially evolved beings that should be bountiful upon the earth were evolution a "truth/fact." Only when the science community can provide undisputable truth to the question "where are they" will "evolution" even be considered "fact/reality." The theory of Created Adaptation remains a far more logical theory than evolution ever will be.

Oh, lest I forget............You are quite welcome to prove that God does not exist......and good luck with that.

 

[editec]

Personally I think that thanks to civil rights laws, the American people are less "evil" than they once were, but our government has become more "evil" thanks to a wide variety of laws, including, as the very best example, the PATRIOT ACT.

 

[tipofthespear]

Personally I think that thanks to civil rights laws, the American people are less "evil" than they once were, but our government has become more "evil" thanks to a wide variety of laws, including, as the very best example, the PATRIOT ACT.

........less evil.........more evil........is still evil........and while I applaud the attempt to provide justice for all with the passage of "some" of the Civil Rights Laws, the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion.

 

[itfitzme]

Definition of THEORY

1. * the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another*

5. *a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>*

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Exactly. *So we agree.*

BTW: *Show me the "scientific" evidence that "we killed them all........"*

You asked why we don't find species*of lesser imtelligence. *I'm just telling you. You can go figure it out yourself if you want to. *It's what I believe, and it's supported by some evidence. *It is a reasonable hypothesis. * You can choose to beleive me or not. I think we know which way your going to go.

Oh, lest I forget............You are quite welcome to prove that God does not exist......and good luck with that.

It's already been done. *Not that it's required, logically. But that's the gist of it all, proven to a 99.999% level of confidence. *But you will have to study the entire body of scientific knowlege to get there. *I cannot do this for you. *

You might start with intro to physics, it is a three course series available at your local community college. *Follow that up with statistcs. *Then you can add social psych and intro to behavior and learning. Throw some bio and chem in there, just to round it out. If you approach it from the belief in knowledge, you will get there.

Or, you can choose to believe whatever you want. *We all have to believe in somethings. Many people go their whole life with magical thinking, rejecting knowledge. Life is, unfortunately, not a scientific experiment, though it is worth the effort to try.

I, for one, believe that truth and knowledge are good. I believe that presenting magical thinking as truth and knowledge is evil. *I believe that, whether born of ignorance or a chosen psychosis, presenting the existance of god as something other than a personal belief is, in fact, evil. *That or damned irresponsible and disrespectful of the intelligence and potential others people.

What you are missing here is that I am under no moral obligation to treat you any different than you treat others. *You present belief as knowledge with no willingness to understand the clear distinction. *I am, therefore, under no obligation to prove anything to you as you are unwilling to prove anything to anyone else. *

You prove nothing, are unwilling to prove anything, yet then expect proof when, in fact, you already have rejected any proof that might be presented. You have no real real interest in truth or knowledge, only the pretense of it in order find ways to maintain your belief.

I, on the other hand, present belief as belief, knowledge as knowledge, and point to proof of knowledge, to the best of my ability, to myself and others.*

Evil is presenting belief as facts. Evil is expecting others to treat you differently, generally better, than you are willing to treat others. *Evil is rejecting reality for the sake of maintaining a belief. *It is a form of psychosis. *

Belief = Hypothesis
Knowlege*= Facts

Belief is a statistical confidence level of <5%.*Knowledge is a statistical confidence level of >95% (more or less depending on the application).

Believing in knowlege leads to the knowledge that believing in knowledge leads to knowledge.*

Knowledge proves to a > 95% level of confidence that knowledge is fact to a >95% level of confidence and that belief is a hypothesis of <95%.

Believing in belief as knowledge requires continuously rejecting knowledge in order to maintain the belief.

Knowledge is expansive and internally consistent as it is contantly revised to encompass new knowledge.

Knowledge accepts
belief until it can be replaced with knowlege. Belief rejects knowledge in order to maintain belief.

Not knowing things is unpleasant. *Thinking we know and discovering that we were wrong and that what we had was an incorrect belief is uncomfortable. Maintaining a sense of comfort by rejecting knowledge in order to hold on to a comfortable belief is, at best, simply childish. *Facing the discomfort of new knowledge is the only rightious thing to do. *Face the pain of uncertainty. *Of you truly believe in God then you would have the faith that God is the truth that God is a belief that is to be replaced with the knowledge that God is only a belief without the necessity of rejecting the morality of treating others as you would have them treat you until it becomes necessary to treat them as they would treat others.

(If God walked up to you and screamed the truth in your ear, you wouldn't know it. *You would reject it because it isn't what you want to believe. If jesus were standing on the street corner, you would trip over him on your way to church, oblivious to having just tripped all over him. *God keeps trying to give you knowledge and you repeatedly turn a deaf ear and a blind eye, rejecting Him in order maintain your belief in what you don't know.)

 

[itfitzme]

Personally I think that thanks to civil rights laws, the American people are less "evil" than they once were, but our government has become more "evil" thanks to a wide variety of laws, including, as the very best example, the PATRIOT ACT.

........less evil.........more evil........is still evil........and while I applaud the attempt to provide justice for all with the passage of "some" of the Civil Rights Laws, the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion.

Can you give a specific example of what you mean by "the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion."?

I ask, not as a rhetorical question but because that seems reasonable as a general statement but nothing specific is coming to mind.

 

[tipofthespear]

misposted..............see above

 

[tipofthespear]

Personally I think that thanks to civil rights laws, the American people are less "evil" than they once were, but our government has become more "evil" thanks to a wide variety of laws, including, as the very best example, the PATRIOT ACT.

........less evil.........more evil........is still evil........and while I applaud the attempt to provide justice for all with the passage of "some" of the Civil Rights Laws, the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion.

Can you give a specific example of what you mean by "the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion."?

I ask, not as a rhetorical question but because that seems reasonable as a general statement but nothing specific is coming to mind.

The first is the "Quota System" put in place to try and assure that a representative number of minorities were enrolled in Universities and/or hired in certain occupations..........While these were admirable ideas, when put in practice were oft times abused and resulted in discrimination against whites.

The "centerpiece" of M.L.K.'s "I Have A Dream" speech was where he said (paraphrased) I dream of a day when my children are judged for the content of their character, and not for the color of their skin....................The Government's institution of a Quota System is in direct conflict with that centerpiece of M.L.K.'s speech.

The "intent" was admirable, the particle exercise was far less admirable in my opinion. In very many instances across the Nation, Public School Systems were "ordered" by the Government to "dummy down" their requirements for passing grades so that more minorities would qualify for University acceptance...........In my opinion, this was one of, and remains, the most blatant examples of Government racism ever pushed upon the American people...........The idea that "the only way blacks, minorities can compete with whites is if we LOWER academic requirements" is so very racist!

ANY CHILD given the same opportunity can compete with any other child......yes, some will invariably do better by degrees than others, but entire races SHOULD NOT be classified less intelligent, and in need of a "dummy down" system of Public Education.

Macnamara's(sp?) 1,000,000 program is another example of a good idea in principle going very wrong in practice..........Nutshell version is there wasn't very many black soldiers being promoted to the rank of SSG/E-6 and above, especially when compared to the number of white soldiers. Now the Army had a very specific standard for promotion based on a soldier's "enlisted efficiency report" prepared by his Commander, and the soldier's score on their MOS Proficiency Test......among a couple of other things.......Simple fact was that during the time of the Draft, the education level of white soldiers was quite higher than that of black soldiers causing the disparity in the percentile of promotions when ONLY viewed by race.

The result of this Program was that black enlisted persons were promoted ahead of whites even though their "points for promotion" were extremely lower. In fact, many of the blacks promoted to Non Commissioned Officer were barely literate. In practice, this caused quite a problem within the Platoon/Company level areas. White soldiers who had scored far higher on their Efficiency Reports and MOS Proficiency Tests were quite often forced to wait from 3 to 5 years to be promoted to the same rank.........even though they were far more qualified. I don't see how this does not qualify for "discrimination."

The "intent" may have been admirable, but the "result" was discriminatory at best, and racist at worst. Thankfully, this program expired, and while the Army surely survived, many highly qualified white soldiers left the ranks, and returned to civilian life, and that could only have lessened the quality of our enlisted personnel at the time.

I know this because I was serving in the Army during the implementation of this Program.

Those are two examples..........if you give it some thought, I'm sure you can come up with a couple of your own where the "intent" was admirable............but the "result" was far less.

 

[itfitzme]

........less evil.........more evil........is still evil........and while I applaud the attempt to provide justice for all with the passage of "some" of the Civil Rights Laws, the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion.

Can you give a specific example of what you mean by "the enforcement of some of them has left much to be desired...........and done more harm that good in my opinion."?

I ask, not as a rhetorical question but because that seems reasonable as a general statement but nothing specific is coming to mind.

The first is the "Quota System" put in place to try and assure that a representative number of minorities were enrolled in Universities and/or hired in certain occupations..........While these were admirable ideas, when put in practice were oft times abused and resulted in discrimination against whites.

The "centerpiece" of M.L.K.'s "I Have A Dream" speech was where he said (paraphrased) I dream of a day when my children are judged for the content of their character, and not for the color of their skin....................The Government's institution of a Quota System is in direct conflict with that centerpiece of M.L.K.'s speech.

The "intent" was admirable, the particle exercise was far less admirable in my opinion. In very many instances across the Nation, Public School Systems were "ordered" by the Government to "dummy down" their requirements for passing grades so that more minorities would qualify for University acceptance...........In my opinion, this was one of, and remains, the most blatant examples of Government racism ever pushed upon the American people...........The idea that "the only way blacks, minorities can compete with whites is if we LOWER academic requirements" is so very racist!

ANY CHILD given the same opportunity can compete with any other child......yes, some will invariably do better by degrees than others, but entire races SHOULD NOT be classified less intelligent, and in need of a "dummy down" system of Public Education.

Macnamara's(sp?) 1,000,000 program is another example of a good idea in principle going very wrong in practice..........Nutshell version is there wasn't very many black soldiers being promoted to the rank of SSG/E-6 and above, especially when compared to the number of white soldiers. Now the Army had a very specific standard for promotion based on a soldier's "enlisted efficiency report" prepared by his Commander, and the soldier's score on their MOS Proficiency Test......among a couple of other things.......Simple fact was that during the time of the Draft, the education level of white soldiers was quite higher than that of black soldiers causing the disparity in the percentile of promotions when ONLY viewed by race.

The result of this Program was that black enlisted persons were promoted ahead of whites even though their "points for promotion" were extremely lower. In fact, many of the blacks promoted to Non Commissioned Officer were barely literate. In practice, this caused quite a problem within the Platoon/Company level areas. White soldiers who had scored far higher on their Efficiency Reports and MOS Proficiency Tests were quite often forced to wait from 3 to 5 years to be promoted to the same rank.........even though they were far more qualified. I don't see how this does not qualify for "discrimination."

The "intent" may have been admirable, but the "result" was discriminatory at best, and racist at worst. Thankfully, this program expired, and while the Army surely survived, many highly qualified white soldiers left the ranks, and returned to civilian life, and that could only have lessened the quality of our enlisted personnel at the time.

I know this because I was serving in the Army during the implementation of this Program.

Those are two examples..........if you give it some thought, I'm sure you can come up with a couple of your own where the "intent" was admirable............but the "result" was far less.

In a similar case, a lawsuit was initiated against an airline because the minority hiring of airline pilots was far below the statistical average. *The same reasoning applied in that minorities were unable to achieve the level of standards due tonsocial fqctors outside their individual control. The court determined that, indeed, the lawsuit did fit the appropritate level of requirements, that in fact, minorities were effectively barred from hiring due to a lack of opportunity that resulted from general social structure beyond the control of the individual. Never the less, the court found in favor of the airline company because, in the specific case of airline pilots, the minimal standards for qualifications are critical to the safety of the passengers. Relaxing the standards for the sake of general social justice was determined to be secondary to the safety issue.

 

[tipofthespear]

What angers me is that "equal opportunity" IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT in my opinion, but those in Government simply fail to understand how to achieve this. In the instances I stated......WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, and what should be done now Nationwide is for the Government to go into failing Public Schools and UPGRADE the Facilities, Equipment-Teaching Tools, and the quality of the Educators.....not DUMMY DOWN....... Congress IS ALWAYS seeking the "quick fix" or the "bandaid" approach to the problems of our Nation.............and they usually fail miserably, and cost far too many Tax Dollars for unacceptable results.

Every child in America deserves the same opportunity at a quality education, but this will never being achieved by lowering standards in my opinion..........It truly is a shame that our Government has so miserably failed our citizens/children in so many ways.

 

[Barb]

Definition of THEORY

1. * the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another*

5. *a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>*

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Exactly. *So we agree.*

BTW: *Show me the "scientific" evidence that "we killed them all........"*

You asked why we don't find species*of lesser imtelligence. *I'm just telling you. You can go figure it out yourself if you want to. *It's what I believe, and it's supported by some evidence. *It is a reasonable hypothesis. * You can choose to beleive me or not. I think we know which way your going to go.

Oh, lest I forget............You are quite welcome to prove that God does not exist......and good luck with that.

It's already been done. *Not that it's required, logically. But that's the gist of it all, proven to a 99.999% level of confidence. *But you will have to study the entire body of scientific knowlege to get there. *I cannot do this for you. *

You might start with intro to physics, it is a three course series available at your local community college. *Follow that up with statistcs. *Then you can add social psych and intro to behavior and learning. Throw some bio and chem in there, just to round it out. If you approach it from the belief in knowledge, you will get there.

Or, you can choose to believe whatever you want. *We all have to believe in somethings. Many people go their whole life with magical thinking, rejecting knowledge. Life is, unfortunately, not a scientific experiment, though it is worth the effort to try.

I, for one, believe that truth and knowledge are good. I believe that presenting magical thinking as truth and knowledge is evil. *I believe that, whether born of ignorance or a chosen psychosis, presenting the existance of god as something other than a personal belief is, in fact, evil. *That or damned irresponsible and disrespectful of the intelligence and potential others people.

What you are missing here is that I am under no moral obligation to treat you any different than you treat others. *You present belief as knowledge with no willingness to understand the clear distinction. *I am, therefore, under no obligation to prove anything to you as you are unwilling to prove anything to anyone else. *

You prove nothing, are unwilling to prove anything, yet then expect proof when, in fact, you already have rejected any proof that might be presented. You have no real real interest in truth or knowledge, only the pretense of it in order find ways to maintain your belief.

I, on the other hand, present belief as belief, knowledge as knowledge, and point to proof of knowledge, to the best of my ability, to myself and others.*

Evil is presenting belief as facts. Evil is expecting others to treat you differently, generally better, than you are willing to treat others. *Evil is rejecting reality for the sake of maintaining a belief. *It is a form of psychosis. *

Belief = Hypothesis
Knowlege*= Facts

Belief is a statistical confidence level of <5%.*Knowledge is a statistical confidence level of >95% (more or less depending on the application).

Believing in knowlege leads to the knowledge that believing in knowledge leads to knowledge.*

Knowledge proves to a > 95% level of confidence that knowledge is fact to a >95% level of confidence and that belief is a hypothesis of <95%.

Believing in belief as knowledge requires continuously rejecting knowledge in order to maintain the belief.

Knowledge is expansive and internally consistent as it is contantly revised to encompass new knowledge.

Knowledge accepts
belief until it can be replaced with knowlege. Belief rejects knowledge in order to maintain belief.

Not knowing things is unpleasant. *Thinking we know and discovering that we were wrong and that what we had was an incorrect belief is uncomfortable. Maintaining a sense of comfort by rejecting knowledge in order to hold on to a comfortable belief is, at best, simply childish. *Facing the discomfort of new knowledge is the only rightious thing to do. *Face the pain of uncertainty. *Of you truly believe in God then you would have the faith that God is the truth that God is a belief that is to be replaced with the knowledge that God is only a belief without the necessity of rejecting the morality of treating others as you would have them treat you until it becomes necessary to treat them as they would treat others.

(If God walked up to you and screamed the truth in your ear, you wouldn't know it. *You would reject it because it isn't what you want to believe. If jesus were standing on the street corner, you would trip over him on your way to church, oblivious to having just tripped all over him. *God keeps trying to give you knowledge and you repeatedly turn a deaf ear and a blind eye, rejecting Him in order maintain your belief in what you don't know.)

Is there another Barb here? You quoted the wrong poster.

 

[tipofthespear]

Definition of THEORY

1. * the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another*

5. *a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>*

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Exactly. *So we agree.*



You asked why we don't find species*of lesser imtelligence. *I'm just telling you. You can go figure it out yourself if you want to. *It's what I believe, and it's supported by some evidence. *It is a reasonable hypothesis. * You can choose to beleive me or not. I think we know which way your going to go.

Oh, lest I forget............You are quite welcome to prove that God does not exist......and good luck with that.

It's already been done. *Not that it's required, logically. But that's the gist of it all, proven to a 99.999% level of confidence. *But you will have to study the entire body of scientific knowlege to get there. *I cannot do this for you. *

You might start with intro to physics, it is a three course series available at your local community college. *Follow that up with statistcs. *Then you can add social psych and intro to behavior and learning. Throw some bio and chem in there, just to round it out. If you approach it from the belief in knowledge, you will get there.

Or, you can choose to believe whatever you want. *We all have to believe in somethings. Many people go their whole life with magical thinking, rejecting knowledge. Life is, unfortunately, not a scientific experiment, though it is worth the effort to try.

I, for one, believe that truth and knowledge are good. I believe that presenting magical thinking as truth and knowledge is evil. *I believe that, whether born of ignorance or a chosen psychosis, presenting the existance of god as something other than a personal belief is, in fact, evil. *That or damned irresponsible and disrespectful of the intelligence and potential others people.

What you are missing here is that I am under no moral obligation to treat you any different than you treat others. *You present belief as knowledge with no willingness to understand the clear distinction. *I am, therefore, under no obligation to prove anything to you as you are unwilling to prove anything to anyone else. *

You prove nothing, are unwilling to prove anything, yet then expect proof when, in fact, you already have rejected any proof that might be presented. You have no real real interest in truth or knowledge, only the pretense of it in order find ways to maintain your belief.

I, on the other hand, present belief as belief, knowledge as knowledge, and point to proof of knowledge, to the best of my ability, to myself and others.*

Evil is presenting belief as facts. Evil is expecting others to treat you differently, generally better, than you are willing to treat others. *Evil is rejecting reality for the sake of maintaining a belief. *It is a form of psychosis. *

Belief = Hypothesis
Knowlege*= Facts

Belief is a statistical confidence level of <5%.*Knowledge is a statistical confidence level of >95% (more or less depending on the application).

Believing in knowlege leads to the knowledge that believing in knowledge leads to knowledge.*

Knowledge proves to a > 95% level of confidence that knowledge is fact to a >95% level of confidence and that belief is a hypothesis of <95%.

Believing in belief as knowledge requires continuously rejecting knowledge in order to maintain the belief.

Knowledge is expansive and internally consistent as it is contantly revised to encompass new knowledge.

Knowledge accepts
belief until it can be replaced with knowlege. Belief rejects knowledge in order to maintain belief.

Not knowing things is unpleasant. *Thinking we know and discovering that we were wrong and that what we had was an incorrect belief is uncomfortable. Maintaining a sense of comfort by rejecting knowledge in order to hold on to a comfortable belief is, at best, simply childish. *Facing the discomfort of new knowledge is the only rightious thing to do. *Face the pain of uncertainty. *Of you truly believe in God then you would have the faith that God is the truth that God is a belief that is to be replaced with the knowledge that God is only a belief without the necessity of rejecting the morality of treating others as you would have them treat you until it becomes necessary to treat them as they would treat others.

(If God walked up to you and screamed the truth in your ear, you wouldn't know it. *You would reject it because it isn't what you want to believe. If jesus were standing on the street corner, you would trip over him on your way to church, oblivious to having just tripped all over him. *God keeps trying to give you knowledge and you repeatedly turn a deaf ear and a blind eye, rejecting Him in order maintain your belief in what you don't know.)

Is there another Barb here? You quoted the wrong poster.

No, he/she is quoting me......referring to my comment....wow, the level of intellect it must take to achieve such a blunder........and, as usual, the comments he/she provided are just a huge pile of fooey......especially that part of science proving that God does not exist.....wishful thinking at best, complete stupidity at worst..........

And this incessant defense of evolution is a joke. Not one of the Darwinites here have given specific proof of the existence of a "partially evolved" being walking the face of the earth...........and, if Darwin's Theory were actual scientific truth, we should be up to our elbows in them........another fraud perpetuated upon humankind by the scientific antichrist crowd...........they serve their master well.......

And he/she cherry picked the definition of "theory" by not including the entire definition.........but just another deception on his/her part.

 

[tipofthespear]

theory.........the·o·ries


Definition of THEORY

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2. abstract thought : speculation


3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a) : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b) : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6 a) : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b) : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


SPECIFICALLY NOTE:

definition #2
definition #4
definition #6 a)
definition #6 b)

Odd he/she missed these isn't it?

And that thing about "you will have to prove it for yourself........" is just a huge dodge, he/she has not one shred of evidence that God does not exist, so just lay it off on someone else to prove it............problem is...........that kind of "dodge" can be reversed.....

See there is an entire universe of evidence that God truly does exist, and is the Creator of all, and I don't HAVE TO PROVE IT, let him/her discover the proof for themselves.

 

[editec]

Are we debating whether or not EVIL is a noun or a adjective here?

I think we are.

If EVIL is a noun, then it can exist without a person, place or thing associated with it.

This is nothing more than magical thinking, in my opinion.

 

[itfitzme]

theory.........the·o·ries


Definition of THEORY

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another


2. abstract thought : speculation


3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>


4 a) : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>

b) : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>


6 a) : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b) : an unproved assumption : conjecture

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


SPECIFICALLY NOTE:

definition #2
definition #4
definition #6 a)
definition #6 b)

Odd he/she missed these isn't it?

And that thing about "you will have to prove it for yourself........" is just a huge dodge, he/she has not one shred of evidence that God does not exist, so just lay it off on someone else to prove it............problem is...........that kind of "dodge" can be reversed.....

See there is an entire universe of evidence that God truly does exist, and is the Creator of all, and I don't HAVE TO PROVE IT, let him/her discover the proof for themselves.

First, you need an operational definition of how to measure what you are trying to prove. Second, there must be no other more reasonable cause
. 400 years of scientific research has demonstrate, beyond any doubt, the fundamental cause and connections between all things with the exception on dark matter and dark energy, some complex and foundational particle
physics and the like.

It is important, in fact a prerequsite, in discussing these matters to have a basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, neurobiology, and psychology.

"I don't HAVE TO PROVE IT"

Of course you do. Sure, if you want to sit in your room all by yourself, you can believe whatever you want. As soon as you decide to interact with others and make claims of the existance of things that affect decisions, you are required to have some basis for it beyond "because it feels good to me." Otherwise, you have no socially redeaming value. Anyone can go with, "because I said so", and do whatever they want, whenever they want, with no prerequsite for intelligent thought...then what do we have?

You can't prove anything.


There is no evidence of GOD and there is no basic, measurable, operational definition.