User talk:Filll/Archive 21

If you don't mind, I would like to ask you some philosophical questions. I just wanted to ask if you are ok with that first.---G.T.N. (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. You have a pretty sophisticated set of user and talk pages for a new user.--Filll (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to learn as quickly as possible... I can't take continuous embarassment! :) My first question is kind of a touchy one, some people get offended by it, but I'm not implying by it that you lack moral or ethical sense. Well, I'll just ask. How do you account for morality in a world that is purely physical? (If I'm wrong in thinking you believe in a purely physical world, let me know. I just read some of what you said about creationism/evolution and assummed.)

• I do believe that altruism and ethics and morality and similar human behaviors are acquired through evolution; they are what give us an advantage to survive as a species. There was a great lecture and discussion of this at Beyond Belief in 2006; you can do a google search and find the video on the internet. This is a slightly controversial area, even among the mainstream of Ethics and Sociology and Psychology however.
• When you talk about believing in the "physical world", that is a very complicated question. I am not sure I believe in only the "physical world", because our very limited senses and facilities are not able to probe very much of it. As J. B. S. Haldane said, the universe is not only stranger than we know, but stranger than we can know. I guess I do not believe in metaphysical naturalism, but I believe in methodological naturalism, at least for the time being, as I understand those terms.

Look at my worldview:

So morality is not real, it's just a byproduct of evolution, and so we are not actually required to follow it? By the way, I was just looking at UU, and found it rather vague. I understand it's about seeking truth, but it seems everyone just believes whatever until they find something better. Is that where you're at right now? ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Of course "morality" is "real", depending on what you define as "morality" and "real". It is spatially and temporally dependent however. Different cultures have different standards for what is moral and this changes over time, obviously. Slavery was once viewed as completely moral, but that is a rare position in the modern world. Obviously, the standards for morality have changed. Things in one society that are quite moral are viewed as quite immoral in another culture. How many of the 613 mitzvot are viewed as immoral now? How many were viewed as immoral at the time they were first written? What about the other 5500 religions on the earth at the moment? What about the tens of thousands (if not more) religions that ever existed, all with their own versions of morality, many of which are now extinct? And many of which disagreed with each other?

I think that if certain moral codes are useful for survival, they continue. If they are not, they do not. The capacity for morality is built in to humans by evolutionary pressures; those that did not have that capacity did not make it. You are only "required" to follow the moral code of your society if you want to avoid the consequences of not following it, and you own internal compass/conscience which has been placed in you by nature and nurture compels you to.

And UU's have their own view of the world which is above all, tolerant, which is more than I can say for many others that I have encountered. The less tolerant are on the way to their own destruction, in my estimation.

I believe that everyone is allowed to believe what they want. Those who want to impose their beliefs on others by force (like many fundamentalist Christians or Moslems, for example) are an embarassment to humanity. The United States is a great nation because it tried to get away from that sort of thinking, but for some reason it still thrives here among a certain segment of the population that have not really understood how shameful these views are. Down that path is the path to hell. They believe they are being good Muslims or good Christians, but as near as I can tell, they are the exact opposite of what their faith really aspires to. Of course, they are the ones who scream the loudest about how wonderful and religious and moral and ethical they are, while they commit the worst imaginable sins. Really pretty disgusting, frankly. --Filll (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm taking the challenge. ---G.T.N. (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok.--Filll (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While I may agree about terroristic Moslems and the really crazy Christians being an embarrassment to humanity, I'm not sure I agree about the U.S. The U.S. was headed on its way up the fastest when it was most Christian, an less of course you are referring to to Deist views of some founders, then I'll have to agree. But if it's only a cultural thing what's wrong with imposing their views on others? And what's wrong with "sins" they commit? And more importantly, what's wrong with being hypocritical? It's annoying and probably self-destructive in the end (assuming those muslims don't eliminate us and, well, survival of the fittest), but then again, so is smoking to some people, but we don't necessarily say that's evil. As for religious freedom- I definitely agree it should be important, that cuts the feet right out from under us if we are to say they shouldn't act like that. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC) 2008 (UTC)

Well I beg to differ. The US was founded on religious tolerance. It was not founded as a "Christian nation" or some other such nonsense. Look at the Treaty of Tripoli for example.

And if you want to live in a world where someone can impose their will on you by force, be my guest. But that is not the world I want to live in. And if you try to do it to me, I do not believe you will find it a very advantageous proposition. If you were brought up as a Christian, which I suspect you were, I believe it violates every tenet of Christianity as well as human decency, human rights and common sense.

If you believe that fundamentalists are fine, then you go right on believing that. I am afraid that I would respectfully disagree with you, and I believe I am joined in that sentiment by many others. But you can believe what you want. As long as you do not impose it on others or hurt others with your beliefs. And that includes hypocrisy. It is when it does not stay localized that it causes problems that need to be dealt with.

I can see this is rapidly turning into nonsensical polemics and tendentious argumentation. I believe what I believe. I was raised this way. My parents were raised this way. My grandparents were raised this way. And so on. You can believe what you want. I will not impose my beliefs on you, and you do not have the right to impose your beliefs on me. Fair enough?--Filll (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize! I didn't mean it to come out quite like that. The people I talk about philosophy with tend to get very agressive and take little offense, so I'm a bit low on ediquette. I don't at all believe someone should be able to impose their beliefs on anybody by force. I was simply wondering how, if morality is relative, we can call that wrong. The thing is I subscribe to an unchangable morality, so I can say that I am right and they are wrong. I have always wondered what a moral relativist's(if I'm using the term correctly) solution is to the problem. I meant no offence, and if I seemed to be going into one of those useless arguments, I assure you it was entirely unintentional. If you're still willing to answer, I'd like to here your explanation, and I'll watch my phrasing next time, but if your not, just let me know and I'll stop asking. ---G.T.N. (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You think that you subscribe to an unchanging morality. Well maybe. But at most, unchanging over your lifetime. Centuries ago, your forebearers had different moral standards than you do. With probably 100 percent certainty. Thousands of years ago, standards were very different than they are today. 100,000 years ago, even more different. And things will continue to change. The evidence is pretty clear.--Filll (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind me, but I would like to weigh in here. First of, "So morality is not real, it's just a byproduct of evolution" Actually, Evolutionists don't really have a concept of right and wrong, because that would iinterfere with the "survival of the fittest" view. Also, if you look at 97% of the founding fathers, they were, in fact, Theists. Also, A world where religous, political, and scientific views are forced upon citizens by a relatively small percentage of its population is rightfully called oligarchy. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, why not listen to the Beyond Belief 2006 lectures on the topic. And I also said it is not settled yet, but it is an area of active research. The nonsense about "evolutionists dont really have a concept of right and wrong because that would interfere with the 'surival of the fittest' view' is just ridiculous, and reveals massive ignorance on several fronts, not the least of which is that the term "evolutionists" is highly offensive. And from my reading, I am pretty sure that your estimate of 97% is not just a little bit wrong. I will also point out that there is a massive difference between a "theist" and a "deist". And where is someone forcing religious views on you? Anyone come to your church to scream at you? Anyone forcing your church to pay taxes ? Anyone telling you what church to go to? Anyone fining you for not going to a church? Anyone fining you for not praying daily in a certain way or reading your bible daily or going to prayer meetings? Anyone threatening you with the death penalty for your religious beliefs or for apostasy? Anyone forcing you to vote for the democratic party or the communist party or the green party at the point of a gun? Anyone requiring you to believe the earth is round or that red light refracts less than blue light? You are free to fail science class if you want right? You are free to leave high school with no diploma correct? You are free to go to a private school if you want that teaches nonstandard science even, are you not? I can go on and on and on. So give me a break. Your rights are not even close to restricted.--Filll (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I say they were? No. Also, let think about this. 53 people signed the constitution; 3 weren't Theists. I'm pretty sure that's pretty close to 97%. Also, that does not reveal ignorance on several fronts; it simply states that if man evolved from a pile of mud, and there wasn't a supreme being to show us right from wrong, then we each could decide what is right and what is wrong. Then going by that, right would be anything that would make sure we survive (ie. murder. Get rid of competition; increase your chances of survival). BTW, did you know that a vast majority of America's laws are based on the Ten Commandments? You know, those laws given to Moses by a supreme being (named God). I will also have you that I did not say we were living in an oligarchy; I said that a government wheere views are forced upon citizens is an oligarchy. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you e-mail me. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thisn a little out of hand. I'll just go ahead and stop asking.---G.T.N. (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this is my talk page, I reserve the right to respond, if that is all right with you.

Did I say they were? No. Did you strongly imply it? Yes. Do fundamentalist Christians constantly scream about it and claim it? Yes. Do fundamentalist Christians regularly throw tantrums about it? Yes. In fact, the article for the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which we encountered each other at, even has this as a theme, doesnt it? Well yes.

Also, let think about this. 53 people signed the constitution; 3 weren't Theists. I'm pretty sure that's pretty close to 97%. Well let me think about this. Look up Theism. And look up Deism. Depending on how you pick your terms, I think you will see that theism is not the same as deism, at least to many people.

Also, that does not reveal ignorance on several fronts; it simply states that if man evolved from a pile of mud, and there wasn't a supreme being to show us right from wrong, then we each could decide what is right and what is wrong. This is just a creationist and fundamentalist mantra, repeated ad infinitum with no thought involved. You heard a preacher say it from his pulpit. So you repeat it, without even understanding what you just said. Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat. It is nonsense. You are free to do so, but when you start using it as a weapon against others, then there is a problem.

Then going by that, right would be anything that would make sure we survive (ie. murder. Get rid of competition; increase your chances of survival). Well you are wrong aren't you? That is not what makes you most likely to survive. You think that you are more likely to survive if you just kill all your competition? You never heard of cooperation? Even in "godless" societies, if you decide to kill your competition, there will be consequences. Why?

BTW, did you know that a vast majority of America's laws are based on the Ten Commandments? Did you know that our legal system traces its roots back to Hammurabi, who was actually a ruler in IRAQ!! And many of the Ten Commandments are common to other faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and so on. And in fact, we misinterpret and misapply the ten commandments, or decalogue. And there is more than one version of the ten commandments and the versions disagree with each other. And there are also the 613 Mitzvot. And the 7 Noahide laws, also in the bible. And if you recall, Jesus was asked which commandment was most important, and in his answer he included the Golden rule. Interestingly, I have had about 5 arguments with Fundamentalist "Christians" (and heard a sermon or two by Fundamentalist "Christians") who claim Jesus never endorsed the Golden Rule and in fact the Golden Rule appears no place in the bible (which is wrong; it is in there a few times I believe). The reason they do not want to "love their neighbor as themselves" is that it gets in the way of hating too much, and their faith is one of loathing and violence and hatred for their fellow man and those who are differen than them. It just feels too good to hate I guess. Funny that they call themselves Christians when they do not follow even the simplest precepts of Christ's teachings, isn't it? And on and on and on...Learn a bit before you start to lecture, ok?

You know, those laws given to Moses by a supreme being (named God). Oh really?

I will also have you that I did not say we were living in an oligarchy; I said that a government wheere views are forced upon citizens is an oligarchy. I know and you know darn well what you were implying; that the terrible big ugly atheists and seculiarists and scientists are beating up on the poor defenseless weak Christian fundamentalists. Right....

If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest that you e-mail me. I suggest I answer you in the manner I see fit. Here on this talk page. Good day.--Filll (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, you want to have a philosophical discussion right here on your talk page, then I'll do it. Ready? Go.

"Did you know that our legal system traces its roots back to Hammurabi" Do you know where the Hammurabi got the laws? From the Ten Commandments. And if the Ten Commandments did not give us our laws, then why are they on the top of the supreme court building?

"Oh really?" Don't think they exist?

"I know and you know darn well what you were implying; that the terrible big ugly atheists and seculiarists and scientists are beating up on the poor defenseless weak Christian fundamentalists. Right...." No, actually I was refering to Nazism (BTW, which darwinism played a crucial part in). Also, we aren't defensless, as we have a book that is so powerful and strikes so much fear into secularists that they won't allow it into schools. Know what it's called (here it comes)? It's called (he's gonna say it) The Bible. That, my friend, is the perfect Word of God.

"And many of the Ten Commandments are common to other faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and so on." But they got theirs from ours, as we are the oldest religion in the world.

"Learn a bit before you start to lecture, ok?" Well, that was fringing on personal attack.

"You never heard of cooperation?" Let's take a well known example of cooperation: Oriental sweetlips and the blue wrasse. Now, the oriental sweetlips has teeth. Those teeth need to be cleaned. That's where the blue wrasse comes in. He swims into the sweetlip's mouth and licks his teeth! Now, you mean to tell me that they learned to do that all by themselves? That means that the Blue wrasse would have to learn to swim into the sweetlips mouth without being afraid, and the sweetlips would have to learn not to chomp down on the blue wrasse. That clearly didn't happen by chance. You watch two dogs and one bone. Think the're gonna share?

"This is just a creationist and fundamentalist mantra, repeated ad infinitum with no thought involved. You heard a preacher say it from his pulpit. So you repeat it, without even understanding what you just said. Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat. It is nonsense." Let's think about this, hmm? It's the same principle as this, "Word x means superificial. But who decided that word x means superficial? Maybe I want word x to mean the color burgundy?" or, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" Same thing, huh? Anything else? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 18:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Taking a slight liberty with the facts are we? Well here is a point by point refutation:

• "Did you know that our legal system traces its roots back to Hammurabi" Do you know where the Hammurabi got the laws? From the Ten Commandments.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Moses lived in the 13th century, BCE. Hammurabi predated Moses, living ca. 1728 – 1686 BC. So a bit hard for Hammurabi to get his laws from Moses, isnt it? Well if you have a reliable source for that, provide it. But I think you will not find one.

Even earlier codes of laws that Hammurabi's code might have drawn on include Code of Ur-Nammu and the code of Lipit-Ishtar. Both long long before Moses.

Hammurabi's code also includes Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, also known as Lex Talionis or the "Law of Retaliation", which is not part of the decalogue. So obviously although these two might have some relation to each other, they are not identical.

• And if the Ten Commandments did not give us our laws, then why are they on the top of the supreme court building?

I never claimed that the Ten Commandments are not important, or that they did not have some bearing on our legal system.

In fact, inside and outside the Supreme Court Building are statues and carvings to 18 "lawgivers" that were important throughout history including Menes (c. 3200 B.C.), Hammurabi (c. 1700s B.C.), Moses (c. 1300s B.C.), Solomon (c. 900s B.C.), Lycurgus (c. 800 B.C.), Solon (c. 638 - 558 B.C.) and Draco (c. 600s B.C.) [4]. There is even a sculpture of Mohammed holding the holy Koran in the Supreme Court Building[5] as one of the 18 law givers.

• "Oh really?" Don't think they exist?" "I know and you know darn well what you were implying; that the terrible big ugly atheists and seculiarists and scientists are beating up on the poor defenseless weak Christian fundamentalists. Right...." No, actually I was refering to Nazism (BTW, which darwinism played a crucial part in).

Interesting how all mainstream scholars seem to disagree with that piece of right wing fundamentalist propaganda.(Talkorigins Claim CA006.1: Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide, Mark Isaak, Index to Creationist Claims, Talkorigins, created 2001-4-29, modified 2005-7-1, © 2006; Creationists for Genocide, Hector Avalos, Talkreason) In fact, you will find a lot more in Mein Kampf that is similar to Martin Luther's On The Jews and Their Lies than you will with On The Origin of Species.

• Also, we aren't defensless, as we have a book that is so powerful and strikes so much fear into secularists that they won't allow it into schools. Know what it's called (here it comes)? It's called (he's gonna say it) The Bible. That, my friend, is the perfect Word of God.

I have no problem allowing the bible in schools. Neither does Richard Dawkins. If you read The God Delusion, Dawkins recommends teaching comparative religion in schools. I agree with him. However, it is the US Constitution that is stopping it. Not me.

• "And many of the Ten Commandments are common to other faiths, including Buddhism and Hinduism and Islam and so on." But they got theirs from ours, as we are the oldest religion in the world.

Well too bad most scholars would disagree with that. In particular, Hinduism appears to be far far older. And even from the bible, one can see Judaism is older. And there are many many extinct religions that are even older. Probably a lot of forms of animism are older as well. So please...

• "Learn a bit before you start to lecture, ok?" Well, that was fringing on personal attack.

Riiiight. You know that spurious accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations is actually a sanctionable offense?

• "You never heard of cooperation?" Let's take a well known example of cooperation: Oriental sweetlips and the blue wrasse. Now, the oriental sweetlips has teeth. Those teeth need to be cleaned. That's where the blue wrasse comes in. He swims into the sweetlip's mouth and licks his teeth! Now, you mean to tell me that they learned to do that all by themselves? That means that the Blue wrasse would have to learn to swim into the sweetlips mouth without being afraid, and the sweetlips would have to learn not to chomp down on the blue wrasse. That clearly didn't happen by chance.

Some massive confusion here. Evolution is not chance; it is the farthest thing from chance. Just because some preacher told you it was chance does not mean that it is chance.

Of course, evolution has a stochastic component. Just as the color of your street lamps has a stochastic component (remember quantum mechanics? Einstein did not like the random part and said "God does not play dice with the universe". However, when he tried to prove it, he proved the opposite). Just like fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Sorry; chance exists. Deal with it.

Also, symbiosis has well known explanations associated with evolution [6]. Just because a preacher told you some nonsense, does not mean it is correct. Sorry.

• "This is just a creationist and fundamentalist mantra, repeated ad infinitum with no thought involved. You heard a preacher say it from his pulpit. So you repeat it, without even understanding what you just said. Repeat repeat repeat repeat repeat. It is nonsense." Let's think about this, hmm? It's the same principle as this, "Word x means superificial. But who decided that word x means superficial? Maybe I want word x to mean the color burgundy?" or, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" Same thing, huh? Anything else?

As I said repeatedly, you are free to believe anything you want, as long as it does not hurt others, or as long as you do not force others to believe it. I believe in tolerance of everything except intolerance. And hurting others in my book is intolerant. Forcing others to adopt your beliefs is intolerant.--Filll (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

From [7]:

• I've decided to stop talking with Filll, as it is just provoking him and won't do any good. But if you feel you must, I'm not gonna let you get the worst of this debate.

It is amazing to me how being tolerant and allowing anyone else to hold to their own beliefs bothers fundamentalist Christians. What is wrong with tolerance? What is it about fundamentalists that makes them so frantic to hurt others and attack others? Frankly, in my opinion, fundamentalist Christians are about as far from the precepts of real Christianity I can imagine.

• Here's a few points: 1. Don't let him get on this whole preacher-told-you thing, I'm thinking you're not so stupid that all you know about philosophy/Christianity/creationism is what your preacher told you.

That is fine. However, it is a bit peculiar that all of these arguments being used on me are ancient well known creationist and fundamentalist preacher talking points, isn't it?

• 2. We disagree with the dating methods darwinists use in the first place, so ask him for non-c14-dating evidence (such as historical sequence-of events) if he wants to prove Hammurabi was older.

This again is just standard rot spewed by creationists and fundamentalists. There are literally hundreds of dating methods, which all agree with each other. Carbon 14 isotope dating is just one of many methods, some radioactive techniques and stratigraphic methods and so on. And guess what? Techniques involving counting dendochronology and counting rings in coral and benthic sediments and magnetic reversals layers in ice and snow and racemization methods all give the same answers as the radioactive methods.

And in addition, I doubt that we rely on any radioactive methods and in particular Carbon 14 dating alone to date the age of Hammurabi's reign which is well documented. As is Moses' life. This is done with the regular scholarly methods. It has nothing to do with "Darwinism" or carbon 14.

• 3. We don't have a problem with other similiar moralities, we see that as proof that there is one ultimate morality, something he has denied by saying that morality changes, but then he said how a lot of them are so similiar.

If you believe that morality has not changed, how do you explain the existence of slavery in the bible or the 613 Mitzvot? Please, this is just the sort of thing someone who does not know about history would claim.

• 4. We think ours is oldest (although not in its fully revealed form), so other similiar religions ultimately have the same origin.

So you claim that Christianity is older than Judaism? Well you are free to believe that if you want, but when you try to impose that belief on others, you are asking for trouble. Plus creating a certain impression of yourself.

And there are clearly many many other religions that existed long before that. But I am not trying to convince you; you can believe whatever you want.

• 5. We disagree with his evolutionist ideas on a scientific basis, so don't let him try and say "science says this" unless he gives you scientific data that can lead to no other conclusion.

If you disagree with scientific evidence and its interpretations, that is fine; you are free to do so. When the trouble emerges is when you want to force others to accept your personal beliefs.

Also, it is not persecution when others disagree with you. Sorry. It would be persecution if I required you to teach certain doctrines in your church, and did similar things to you. Your church is tax free. You are free to preach whatever you like there, even free of hate crime legislation so your preacher can incite his congregation to violence if he wants (as many fundamentalist preachers do). So do not tell me you are persecuted.

• 6. If we're all just products of evolution, how can we rely on our "rational" minds?

Of course, our rational minds make mistakes all the time. There are auditory and optical illusions where our "rational" mind and senses get fooled.

Of course we make mistakes. But the best method we have created so far for understanding the universe well enough to make verifiable predictions is science. Sorry.

• 7. How is evolution not random? There is nothing behind to order it?

You have to do a bit of reading. Remember natural selection? How is natural selection random? And random selection is just one of several mechanisms, not all of which are necessarily fully understood yet. And not all of these mechanisms are random.

• 8. The human mind is unique in the first place. A mere advanced computer doesn't really recognize or contemplate itself as separate from anything. That's a leap evolution can't explain.

Well clearly the human mind has lots in common with our animal cousins. They make tools. They have emotions. They have language. They demonstrate almost all the same behaviors are humans.

As far as we know, the only thing that has not been demonstrated yet in animals, but which humans do, is control their own evolution or the evolution of other species, consciously.

• 9. How did life start in the first place?

No one knows. And at most religions like Christianity or Hinduism or Islam or Animism give myths, or magic to tell where life comes from.

But experiments have shown that the building blocks of life, amino acids, can be created in the laboratory. So, we will have to see...

• Evolution can't account for that.

Was Darwin's book called On the Origin of Species or On the Origin of Life ?

• 10. Don't say anything like "the Bible says so," or "everyone knows that."

You can say it if you like. But it will not get you very far, given all the contradictions and allegorical accounts in the bible.

In fact, if you want to believe the bible, the bible demonstrates all the principles of evolution from observations about plants and crops and animals in the bible. See the book by Joan Roughgarden, the Stanford University biologist.

• But my best advice is to just leave him alone. None of this is really going to change his mind or make him stop.

I did not start this, did I? And I was raised to be rational and tolerant and my parents were and my grandparents were. So you want to change me from being rational and tolerant? Against the faith I was raised in, which I am perfectly happy with?

Am I trying to convert you? Proselytize? Nope. You are free to believe whatever you want. As long as it does not negatively affect others.

• In fact, it will probably just keep him like this for a much longer time. Once they get like this there's no stopping them by human means.

I could say the same thing about creationists and fundamentalists, venting hatred and trying to incite others to violence against their fellow man and woman and arguing against reason and rationality.

• Just let it die, and maybe something will happen to make him change his mind. If not, oh well.

I do not expect you to become rational and tolerant. I do want to get one point across though; you are not ... NOT ... welcome to spew hatred and intolerance and attack others and hurt others. And frankly, I think that the typical fundamentalist Christian agenda is counter to the precepts of Christianity.

The one group that Jesus spoke negatively of were the Pharisees. And to my mind, the group that is closest in behavior to that ascribed to the Pharisees in the bible are the fundamentalist Christians.

• It's out of our hands. Besides, as long as we sit and argue, editing's not getting done.

Yep.

• Well that's my long-winded advice on that. Hope everything goes well, and I'm praying for ya'll.---G.T.N. (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is fine. Just try not to attack others and violate the principles of Wikipedia. Just because you believe you are correct, does not mean you are, and does not mean that your own beliefs should be prominent or dominant in any given Wikipedia article, contrary to Wikipedia principles. Remember, Wikipedia is not about truth, but verifiability.--Filll (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For being one that stresses "tolerance", you seem to be pushing your own worldview. I just noticed this long debate here - usually something you don't see a lot on Wikipedia, and I'm not going to get in a big debate with you about it right now, because you seem pretty close-minded. I'll just pray for God to soften your hard. Cheers! - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 19:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I stress tolerance not "intolerance". And I am not pushing my worldview, just defending it and trying to dissuade others from subscribing to intolerance. And I will pray to God to soften your heart, as well as your "hard" and to be more accepting and tolerant and more of a real Christian instead.--Filll (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)]

Nothing like correcting a typo that makes one look a bit foolish: [8]--Filll (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And here is a nice response: [9] A barnstar for arguing with me!--Filll (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A "Socratic" barnstar? An Aquinian barnstar I could sort of understand -- defending the faith and all that rot. But Socratic? Not even close. Ugh. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"You know that spurious accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations is actually a sanctionable offense?" First off, I did not accuse you of attacking me. I simply meant that what you said could' be misconstrued into a personal attack.

"Some massive confusion here. Evolution is not chance; it is the farthest thing from chance. Just because some preacher told you it was chance does not mean that it is chance." If evolution is not chance, then what is it? Two things about the amino acids. 1) They were produced by scientists. Meaning they were intelligently designed. 2) Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms, the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet all lab experiments to date produce a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. Only left-handed amino acids are found in nature. Also, you seem to have some issues with preachers and appear to mark every one of my arguments with "Just because some preacher told you it was" or, "Just because a preacher told you some nonsense, does not mean it is correct." I can assure you, my arguments did not come just from preachers.

"Interesting how all mainstream scholars seem to disagree with that piece of right wing fundamentalist propaganda." It is also interesting to note that most scholars in the era of copernicus thought that the world was the center of the universe. So, as we can see, just because the mainstream scholars think something is wrong, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

"Also, symbiosis has well known explanations associated with evolution [10]." Symbiosis can't account for every variable in the theory of evolution.

Now, I will be on a week long wikibreak, as I have a project that needs some of my personal attention, and I can be reached via e-mail or my blog. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how even though it is claimed you just made all these objections up by yourself, they are carbon copies of the arguments that are in the creationist and fundamentalist playbook, preached by every snake-handling bible thumper who writhes on the floor spewing invective in a fit of glossolalia, or in a Jack Chick religious tract or on a creationist website. Interesting...

• "You know that spurious accusations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations is actually a sanctionable offense?" First off, I did not accuse you of attacking me. I simply meant that what you said could' be misconstrued into a personal attack.

Riiiight. Well you can try to wikilawyer your way out of it, but people have received administrative sanctions for less.

• "Some massive confusion here. Evolution is not chance; it is the farthest thing from chance. Just because some preacher told you it was chance does not mean that it is chance." If evolution is not chance, then what is it?

I guess you did not pay attention in school. And this sort of ignorance for someone supposedly here to write an encyclopedia is shameful. Biological evolution is two things (1) something seen in nature all the time; data, observations, results of experiments (2) the current most commonly accepted explanation for these data.

If 25% of the adults in your community have blue eyes, but 13% of the children in your community have blue eyes, that is evolution. Strictly from the definition; a change in allele distrubtion from generation to generation. That is an example of an observation of evolution.

And the current most commonly accepted explanation for this is called the "theory of evolution". The biggest two components of this theory are random mutations (sorry, there is randomness in there, but there is randomness in quantum mechanics and fluid mechanics and thermodynamics too; are they all evil theories because they include randomness?) and natural selection, which is decidedly not random. Without some nonrandom part, evolution would never work or explain anything. A nonrandom component is vital.

By the way, you are not alone in not knowing what evolution is. In multiple choice tests given to adults in surveys, way less than half of American adults can pick out the definition of evolution from a short list of 4 or 5 choices.

• Two things about the amino acids. 1) They were produced by scientists. Meaning they were intelligently designed.

Actually, they were produced in situations meant to replicate the early earth. The goal was not to make amino acids by any means possible, but to demonstrate how they could arise naturally. And they did.

But this is just a standard creationist saw, of the Dr. Dino variety. And we all know where that good moral Christian is right now.

Like Ted Haggard. Like Jerry Falwell. Like Jim Bakker. And so on.

• 2) Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms, the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found.

Actually this is wrong. Glycine for example has no handedness. And there are examples in nature of dextrorotary amino acids, such as in the proteins produced by cone snails or in the walls of bacteria.

• Yet all lab experiments to date produce a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. Only left-handed amino acids are found in nature.

Both D and L forms are found in nature. Both D and L forms are found in living creatures, although the levurotary forms predominate. This is not completely understood, and that is what is true of all science; we do not know everything. And this is where creationists come in; where there is something that science does not know, they leap up to exclaim "God did it!" This works great until we find the scientific explanation that solves that mystery. This is exactly what prominent Christians Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas warned about, when dismissing biblical literalism. If you want to hold to these sorts of claims, eventually you look stupid. That is partly why the Roman Catholic church has shunned biblical literalism as doctrinal fallacy for centuries.

I might also note that there are other mysterious asymmetries in nature, such as the seeming predominance of matter over antimatter in the universe. What is the origin of this? The reason for it? No one knows for sure.

But if you want, you can declare that there is more matter than antimatter because God said there would be more matter than antimatter. Just do not expect to be allowed to force others to believe you. And just do not use it as an excuse to spew hatred and venom at your fellow man (and woman).

• Also, you seem to have some issues with preachers and appear to mark every one of my arguments with "Just because some preacher told you it was" or, "Just because a preacher told you some nonsense, does not mean it is correct." I can assure you, my arguments did not come just from preachers.

Well maybe all the preachers and creationist websites and creationist books and religious tracts and fundamentalist sermons and so on have stolen all their arguments from you. But unless you are well over 100 years old, I hardly think this is particularly likely.

• "Interesting how all mainstream scholars seem to disagree with that piece of right wing fundamentalist propaganda." It is also interesting to note that most scholars in the era of copernicus thought that the world was the center of the universe. So, as we can see, just because the mainstream scholars think something is wrong, that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Of course. And we expect that our scientific theories to change as we get more data. This is what distinguishes it from religion, which does not change its explanations as we get more data and evidence. All they do is construct more epicycles.

• "Also, symbiosis has well known explanations associated with evolution [11]." Symbiosis can't account for every variable in the theory of evolution.

Of course not. I never said it could. And beyond that, your statement is nonsensical. Every "variable" in the theory of evolution? What the heck does that mean?

• Now, I will be on a week long wikibreak, as I have a project that needs some of my personal attention, and I can be reached via e-mail or my blog. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. Please educate yourself before trying to spread this kind of ignorance farther. At least it is not welcome on my page. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What fun! The thing that strikes me is the peculiar immorality of those who can't understand that morality has meaning regardless of whether or not it's imposed by a magic authority figure. The point was well illustrated in The Root of All Evil?#Sectarian education, where Dawkins interviews the headteacher of an Evangelical school who asserts that without a law-giver, “Why is rape wrong? Why is paedophilia wrong?” and that if people believe they can get away with committing bad deeds then they will tend to do them. Implying that the only reason these things are wrong is because an authority figure will torture you if you do them. Kind of misses the point about morality. By the way, presumably DiligentTerrier isn't meant to refer to "the yapping terriers of ignorance"... dave souza, talk 09:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I might be wrong, but I have only ever heard an argument remotely similiar to that which asked what reason there is for it to be wrong if there are no ultimate transcendental standards, if we are just mindless byproducts of evolution and morality changes anyways. If tomorrow the society decided paedophilia was right, would that make it right? according to the definition that seems to be used here, it looks like the answer is yes. However, Christians say that what is wrong is always wrong because it is in the nature of God and how he created the world, that God is the ultimate source of right, and whatever is outside him is wrong. If there is another explanation for a binding morality that goes beyond a mere "social contract," I would love to hear it. ---G.T.N. (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As I am sure you are well aware (or should be), a few centuries ago it was common for women to be married at the age of 12 or 14 or even younger. Women that were not married at the age of 16 or so were "old maids". In some parts of the world, this is still true.

Were these good upstanding bible-believing church-going Christians who married 12 and 13 year old girls doing something immoral? Were they engaging in child abuse? Well in our society they would be and by our current moral standards, they were. In their society and by their moral standards, they were not.

In the bible there is lots of mention of slavery. In our modern world and society, that is immoral. In biblical times, perfectly moral.

In the bible all kinds of heinous acts are normal and accepted as moral, like slaughtering defeated prisoners or raping them. In today's world, in our society and by our standards, they are not.

The amount of wine that is consumed in the bible would be viewed as verging on immoral behavior in today's world and by today's standards.

Polygamy was perfectly reasonable and moral in biblical times. It is not viewed that way today in most of the world. Look at the history of Mormonism to how the United States reacted to Mormons. And even recently, how they react to polygamist sects.

What about the sin of Onan? God cursed Onan for what he did. So clearly it was viewed as immoral. But by today's standards, what Onan was being encouraged to do would be viewed as immoral. If your brother dies, you are supposed to knock up his widow? Even if you are already married to someone else, or maybe not even married to his widow? Huh?

There are literally hundreds of other examples in the bible. And if you go to other cultures today, and all the societies that existed, they had different standards.

When I was growing up in Canada, the words "hell", "damn", "devil", "God", "Jesus", "tabernacle", "chalice", "Calvary", "host" (as in communion wafer) were highly frowned upon and viewed as immoral to use in most circumstances (the last 4 of course in French). I do not think that chalice or Calvary were ever regarded as curse words or categorized as "taking the Lord's name in vain" in the United States, although I could be wrong. It would certainly be rare to think so today. I have observed the use of the word "God" as in "Oh my God" become extremely casual and accepted, and it even is common on mainstream media and in day to day conversation. Even preachers and priests and other religious leaders use it in a casual way. It is no longer viewed the same way as it was just a few years ago. And the use of the word "Jesus" has also lost most of its shock value and potency as a curse word and appears far far more often in everyday speech. What happened? Well clearly, standards for what was immoral changed, and are different from place to place. I am sure you never even knew that hosti was one of the most foul curses and shameful ways to break one of the ten commandments, did you? It was and probably still is in some places, but not here in the United States. Interesting huh?

And what about using the name "Jesus" before "Jesus" had been born? Was that taking the Lord's name in vain? If this standard existed forever, but no one knew it or could be expected to know it, then it sort of does not make any sense.

Look you are free to believe that if you had not been raised in a biblical literalist tradition or whatever that you would be out raping and murdering. That does not explain the societies without the bible or where biblical literalism is frowned upon or absent that have higher moral standards than our society, even among our biblical literalist community (see the great study by Gregory Paul on this; the Western societies with a greater acceptance of evolution are more moral and suffer from fewer social ills. That is, less teenage pregnancy and abortion and suicide etc).

You can believe any nonsense you want in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. But when you start trying to force others to join you in your ignorance, then there is a problem. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How would you like it if you were forced to become Hindus or Muslims or believe in Santoria? Not much I bet. --Filll (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: editing inside someone else's post like [12] is very bad form, and disruptive and highly offensive. Here is the post:

• Actually no, only L is found in nature. The problem with the argument here is that science has not been able to prove one way or the other, as a scientific facts are defined as being, lets all use the mantra from high school; "observable, testable (testing the results), and REPEATABLE." As we cannot repeat the origin of the earth, let alone life on earth, their is no concrete way of defining whether one is true or one is false, we can only at best guess. This is really more or less an argument of faith, or a proper term would be believability, of one side over the other. Additionally, in your drive to blame all of your opponents views as merely propaganda of Christianity is a misnomer, as Jerry Falwell does not believe a Creationist view, and in fact ridicules many Creationist groups. Also, the argument here is ID, not Christian Creationism versus Evolution, and pointing all of your arguments of your opponents as such is really trying to distract from the main point of this argument, where and how did life start. Lastly, Your opponent doesn't appear to be forcing his views on you, yet you continue to accuse him of this. Curious.130.108.196.226 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you are incorrect. Both L and D are found in nature. L is found predominantly in living things on earth, but D is found as well. And I gave you two examples. Look them up.

However, I do not insist that you disabuse yourself of your ignorance. I only insist that you do not try to force it on others. Is that so hard to understand? That is, no witnessing. No teaching. No ranting and raving like a deranged lunatic. Thanks, but no thanks. Ok?

And you are trying to make ridiculous God of the Gaps arguments. Science produces temporary explanations (called theories) for observations, experimental results and other data. That is it. Is that so hard to understand?

Now if you want to take the areas where science does not yet have a good answer, and shove God in there, be my guest. That is just not science. And it should not be declared to be science. And as I said over and over, your personal beliefs should not be forced on others. Capisci?

Also your understanding of science is appalling. You leave out all the observational sciences, like seismology and astronomy and meteorology. They are sciences, whether they are "repeatable" or not. As you might surmise, science is a bit more complicated than what you learned in high school in maybe 1 or 2 years of 3 or 4 hours a week of class.

Of course not all "Christians" and others of faith believe in creationism. In fact, it is a teeny tiny minority. For starters, the official position of the Roman Catholic church is that creationism is nonsense. If you count up the total number of Christians worldwide (2.5 billion), and the number of creationists, you will see that creationists constitute a tiny minority, mainly prevalent in the US, where the most hardcore of creationists are really only maybe 10 percent of the population. Even half of all Baptists and Pentecostals renounce biblical literalism in anonymous surveys. More than 80 percent of all those claimed to be Christian in the US belong to faiths that have no problem with evolution. Take a look at the Clergy Letter Project.

It is obvious and well documented that intelligent design is just a stalking horse for Christian Creationism. Look at speeches by Phillip E. Johnson to his base. Look at the Wedge Document. Look at pronouncements by the main scientists in intelligent design movement, especially William Dembski. Even the Islamic Creationists like Harun Yahya have made statements to this effect. Even the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed promoted intelligent design as creationism. We have 10 or more peer reviewed papers that state that intelligent design is just a type of creationism; some of them even published by fellow creationists.

As for "forcing his views", let's look at the facts:

• This is my talk page.

• I did not start this.

• I did not continue this, but just answered the charges and accusations against me.

• He and his comrades have appeared here on Wikipedia articles, bent on ignoring the principles that Wikipedia operates under to push their agenda

• He uses the same arguments as extremist sects that focus on forcing others to believe as they do. Some even want to kill those who believe something else (what about the death threats against the Dover trial judge, John E. Jones III?). All by good "moral" Christian people with upstanding values... NOT.

• You and he and everyone else that wants to proclaim your narrow views are invited to not post more of this nonsense here. I gave you enough time; more than enough time. And all I saw was a blizzard of the same tired old arguments, long since refuted. And nasty venom.

You are free to believe whatever you want. Do you get that? You are free to believe it, no matter what it is. With one proviso: Do not force it on others or hurt others. Is that so hard to abide by? That is one of the foundational principles of the United States. If you disagree, you might want to study up a bit on what you missed in high school.--Filll (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)