Off topic board

Moderators: leeos
Number of threads: 560
Number of posts: 3925

This Forum Only
Post New Thread
Single Post View       Linear View       Threaded View      f

Report
First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 7:58 AM
The first thing you have to realize when you are talking to a religious person is that they have a built-in persecution complex. They, through years of indoctrination and what I consider effectively brainwashing, have generally come to believe that not only is the rest of the world "unsaved", but that the rest of the world is against them for being a bearer of the "one true faith". The only way to communicate with them on a level resembling true discourse is to remain calm and not become agitated at all. To get angry with them in any way just validates in their mind that they are right and your anger or discomfort or emotion is a test of their faith by Satan. It also tends to push them into "prayer mode" by which I mean the state of mind where they actively try to shut you out completely by reciting prayers or scripture by memory. This is a conditioned reflex that cults/religions instill in the sheep to keep them from thinking for themselves.

I've spent years talking, debating, and arguing with religious people, especially Christians. And Mormons are even worse. Their mythology is like Christian mythology on an Acid trip. Seriously whacked. The Mormon church is even better at brainwashing (IMO) than most other churches, so to argue with a typical Mormon is to waste your time and energy.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by DarQ on 6 Nov 2002 at 8:12 AM
Agree again. But still, i'd LOVE to kick some xtreme mormon like ass so hard. I have had many discussion as well but my opinion is that it is simply NOT possible to debate with some xtreme religious shitbag that insists that people like you and me are satan worshippers and end up like rotting corpses burning in hell. I AM NOT! I am a normal human with TRUE common sense and i love everything around me. I would not hurt innocent people at all, even not them. I am not bad but dont try to convince those of me being a good person.

: The first thing you have to realize when you are talking to a religious person is that they have a built-in persecution complex. They, through years of indoctrination and what I consider effectively brainwashing, have generally come to believe that not only is the rest of the world "unsaved", but that the rest of the world is against them for being a bearer of the "one true faith". The only way to communicate with them on a level resembling true discourse is to remain calm and not become agitated at all. To get angry with them in any way just validates in their mind that they are right and your anger or discomfort or emotion is a test of their faith by Satan. It also tends to push them into "prayer mode" by which I mean the state of mind where they actively try to shut you out completely by reciting prayers or scripture by memory. This is a conditioned reflex that cults/religions instill in the sheep to keep them from thinking for themselves.
:
: I've spent years talking, debating, and arguing with religious people, especially Christians. And Mormons are even worse. Their mythology is like Christian mythology on an Acid trip. Seriously whacked. The Mormon church is even better at brainwashing (IMO) than most other churches, so to argue with a typical Mormon is to waste your time and energy.
:

DarQ

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 8:36 AM
This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 8:40:40

: Agree again. But still, i'd LOVE to kick some xtreme mormon like ass so hard. I have had many discussion as well but my opinion is that it is simply NOT possible to debate with some xtreme religious shitbag that insists that people like you and me are satan worshippers and end up like rotting corpses burning in hell. I AM NOT! I am a normal human with TRUE common sense and i love everything around me. I would not hurt innocent people at all, even not them. I am not bad but dont try to convince those of me being a good person.
:
I am not religious at all. I can even say that I am Infidel (sorry infidel) and I do understand your reaction. But your reaction is good reason for them to open discussion. That's what they are looking for. So if you will ignore them, they will shut up. Very simple.


Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by DarQ on 6 Nov 2002 at 8:47 AM

: I am not religious at all. I can even say that I am Infidel (sorry infidel) and I do understand your reaction. But your reaction is good reason for them to open discussion. That's what they are looking for. So if you will ignore them, they will shut up. Very simple.

HEheh, ignoring is not my nature..

BTW: So there are already 3 infidels around here. Is leeos infidel as well?


DarQ

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by leeos on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:16 AM
: BTW: So there are already 3 infidels around here. Is leeos infidel as well?


I follow some of the rules of taoism. But thats just day to day life stuff in general.

On the Mormon thing. F**ck em tell them to shut up and f**ck off. let me tell you this. Earlier this year I was walking to work with my MacDo breakfast. 2 Candian Mormons on some missions stopped me in the Street and tried to convert me. When I said I was not interested they gave me a card with a phone number on. They asked me to call the number and ask for a video.. they asked me to promise to do it.

I hated every second of that experience. It was like Infidel said "a waste of time and energy)

Report
Mormons in particular are especially odd Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:23 AM
: On the Mormon thing. F**ck em tell them to shut up and f**ck off. let me tell you this. Earlier this year I was walking to work with my MacDo breakfast. 2 Candian Mormons on some missions stopped me in the Street and tried to convert me. When I said I was not interested they gave me a card with a phone number on. They asked me to call the number and ask for a video.. they asked me to promise to do it.

They seem to be so desperate to earn enough points in this life to make it into the special levels of heaven that they do such bizarre things.
Report
Re: Mormons in particular are especially odd Posted by dodge on 6 Nov 2002 at 4:20 PM
yeah mormons are weird ones. They are trained from a young age to justify everything that they believe in and everything that they do, so that it doesn't matter what arguments you put to them, they always have the "right" answer. I know quite a lot about the religion coz my best friend from school is one and all her church friends tried to convert me :)



: : On the Mormon thing. F**ck em tell them to shut up and f**ck off. let me tell you this. Earlier this year I was walking to work with my MacDo breakfast. 2 Candian Mormons on some missions stopped me in the Street and tried to convert me. When I said I was not interested they gave me a card with a phone number on. They asked me to call the number and ask for a video.. they asked me to promise to do it.
:
: They seem to be so desperate to earn enough points in this life to make it into the special levels of heaven that they do such bizarre things.
:

Report
Re: Mormons in particular are especially odd Posted by GameTroy on 5 Dec 2002 at 6:13 PM
ya about that whole mormon thing. i had a friend who was mormon and one day she asked me if i would come to church with her, well having only herd bad things about mormons i decided i would give them a chance. i sat through their serveses and stuff listening to what they had to say and all that stuff and i asked them about why they have multiple mariges and they said that their church did away with that stuff a long time ago and that their church doesn't support that practice any more. now that was one of the bad things i heard about the church and found out it was a lie. but i had more questions i wanted answers to, to see what they would tell me. one major thing i herd was that the book of mormon was written by a guy in usa and that it was a guy on his death bed writeing it for his entertainment and that it none of it never realy happend. well i wanted to find out what they thought and they told me to pray and ask God if it was true. well i was a seventh day adventist and i (to be honest) was kind of in to the bible and stuff and i thought that if the book of mormon didn't contradict the bible that i would beleive it. well a while before that i (now this is kind of personal) had repented for breaking one of the ten commandments and that was 'do not commit adultry'(note: the book of matthew says that if you look at a woman to lust for her then you commit adultry; well that is the same as masterbateing and so i decided to stop masterbateing and it took awile but i finaly did) well after a while i hadn't read anything in the book of mormon that i thought contradicted the bible so i finaly decided to take up what the mormons said about praying to find out if the book of mormon is true or if it is a fake. well i went in my room and by myself i stood by my bed with the book of mormon laying beside me on the bed and i asked God if the book of mormon had truth in it. and lo and behold i felt a feeling you would not believe unless you felt it yourself. seriously, i felt an overwhelming feeling of peace and comfort that i hadn't felt before and then after that i asumed that was God's way of saying yes to my question. so after that i decided to believe that the book of mormon has truth in it and i wanted to learn all the stuff from the book of mormon. well i am sertain that that book isn't a fake because of my expeirience that i had and i will always remember it. well now because of that experience i took all the 'missionary discusions' and finished them up and decided to join their church and i am now a member and i have had felt that feeling of peace and comfort (like before) many times since then.




Moses 1:39 - "For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."


-Troy



Report
Re: Mormons in particular are especially odd Posted by dodge on 5 Dec 2002 at 6:45 PM
Hey GameTroy
I'm a christian and at my church we believe that to truly know that you are being spoken to by the Lord you must be 1. touched by the Lord (just as you say you were) AND 2. find what it is He is saying in the bible.
I understand where you are coming from and you may be different to all the mormons I have met, but of all the ones I have met their arguments are simply that, arguments. I can tell by the way that they answer my questions that they have been trained to answer them that way and they are merely spitting out what they have learnt. I'm not saying you are like this, you may be different but I have met many a mormon and to me they do not exuberate the life of God. But this is my opinion. :)



: ya about that whole mormon thing. i had a friend who was mormon and one day she asked me if i would come to church with her, well having only herd bad things about mormons i decided i would give them a chance. i sat through their serveses and stuff listening to what they had to say and all that stuff and i asked them about why they have multiple mariges and they said that their church did away with that stuff a long time ago and that their church doesn't support that practice any more. now that was one of the bad things i heard about the church and found out it was a lie. but i had more questions i wanted answers to, to see what they would tell me. one major thing i herd was that the book of mormon was written by a guy in usa and that it was a guy on his death bed writeing it for his entertainment and that it none of it never realy happend. well i wanted to find out what they thought and they told me to pray and ask God if it was true. well i was a seventh day adventist and i (to be honest) was kind of in to the bible and stuff and i thought that if the book of mormon didn't contradict the bible that i would beleive it. well a while before that i (now this is kind of personal) had repented for breaking one of the ten commandments and that was 'do not commit adultry'(note: the book of matthew says that if you look at a woman to lust for her then you commit adultry; well that is the same as masterbateing and so i decided to stop masterbateing and it took awile but i finaly did) well after a while i hadn't read anything in the book of mormon that i thought contradicted the bible so i finaly decided to take up what the mormons said about praying to find out if the book of mormon is true or if it is a fake. well i went in my room and by myself i stood by my bed with the book of mormon laying beside me on the bed and i asked God if the book of mormon had truth in it. and lo and behold i felt a feeling you would not believe unless you felt it yourself. seriously, i felt an overwhelming feeling of peace and comfort that i hadn't felt before and then after that i asumed that was God's way of saying yes to my question. so after that i decided to believe that the book of mormon has truth in it and i wanted to learn all the stuff from the book of mormon. well i am sertain that that book isn't a fake because of my expeirience that i had and i will always remember it. well now because of that experience i took all the 'missionary discusions' and finished them up and decided to join their church and i am now a member and i have had felt that feeling of peace and comfort (like before) many times since then.
:
:
:
:
: Moses 1:39 - "For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
:
:
: -Troy
:
:
:
:

Report
This discussion makes me SICK!! Posted by DarQ on 6 Dec 2002 at 12:39 AM







: Hey GameTroy
: I'm a christian and at my church we believe that to truly know that you are being spoken to by the Lord you must be 1. touched by the Lord (just as you say you were) AND 2. find what it is He is saying in the bible.
: I understand where you are coming from and you may be different to all the mormons I have met, but of all the ones I have met their arguments are simply that, arguments. I can tell by the way that they answer my questions that they have been trained to answer them that way and they are merely spitting out what they have learnt. I'm not saying you are like this, you may be different but I have met many a mormon and to me they do not exuberate the life of God. But this is my opinion. :)
:
:
:
: : ya about that whole mormon thing. i had a friend who was mormon and one day she asked me if i would come to church with her, well having only herd bad things about mormons i decided i would give them a chance. i sat through their serveses and stuff listening to what they had to say and all that stuff and i asked them about why they have multiple mariges and they said that their church did away with that stuff a long time ago and that their church doesn't support that practice any more. now that was one of the bad things i heard about the church and found out it was a lie. but i had more questions i wanted answers to, to see what they would tell me. one major thing i herd was that the book of mormon was written by a guy in usa and that it was a guy on his death bed writeing it for his entertainment and that it none of it never realy happend. well i wanted to find out what they thought and they told me to pray and ask God if it was true. well i was a seventh day adventist and i (to be honest) was kind of in to the bible and stuff and i thought that if the book of mormon didn't contradict the bible that i would beleive it. well a while before that i (now this is kind of personal) had repented for breaking one of the ten commandments and that was 'do not commit adultry'(note: the book of matthew says that if you look at a woman to lust for her then you commit adultry; well that is the same as masterbateing and so i decided to stop masterbateing and it took awile but i finaly did) well after a while i hadn't read anything in the book of mormon that i thought contradicted the bible so i finaly decided to take up what the mormons said about praying to find out if the book of mormon is true or if it is a fake. well i went in my room and by myself i stood by my bed with the book of mormon laying beside me on the bed and i asked God if the book of mormon had truth in it. and lo and behold i felt a feeling you would not believe unless you felt it yourself. seriously, i felt an overwhelming feeling of peace and comfort that i hadn't felt before and then after that i asumed that was God's way of saying yes to my question. so after that i decided to believe that the book of mormon has truth in it and i wanted to learn all the stuff from the book of mormon. well i am sertain that that book isn't a fake because of my expeirience that i had and i will always remember it. well now because of that experience i took all the 'missionary discusions' and finished them up and decided to join their church and i am now a member and i have had felt that feeling of peace and comfort (like before) many times since then.
: :
: :
: :
: :
: : Moses 1:39 - "For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
: :
: :
: : -Troy
: :
: :
: :
: :
:
:

DarQ

Report
take two aspirin and call me in the morning Posted by infidel on 6 Dec 2002 at 8:20 AM
Dude, why do you react so violently to this?
Report
Re: Mormons in particular are especially odd Posted by infidel on 6 Dec 2002 at 8:32 AM
: now that was one of the bad things i heard about the church and found out it was a lie.

It isn't a lie that they were polygamists. One of the reasons the church dropped the practice was so that Utah could become a state. There are still a number of communities that still practice it, however they are not recognized by the "official" church.

: one major thing i herd was that the book of mormon was written by a guy in usa

Yes, Joseph Smith.

: and that it was a guy on his death bed

Who told you that? I've never heard that.

: writeing it for his entertainment

I've never heard this either. If I had to guess I would say he wrote it either because he was genuinely insane, or because he wanted to start his own cult/church/group. I'm fairly certain it's the latter.

:and that it none of it never realy happend.

Well none of it ever really happened. The stories are all made up. There is not one single shred of archaeological evidence to support any of it. It's all a bunch of crap.

: well i wanted to find out what they thought and they told me to pray and ask God if it was true.

Typical. Standard religious M.O.

: well i was a seventh day adventist and i (to be honest) was kind of in to the bible and stuff and i thought that if the book of mormon didn't contradict the bible that i would beleive it.

Why on earth would you believe something just because it doesn't contradict the Bible? As I've never read the Book of Mormon I can't comment on Biblical contradictions, but on the other hand, I can say that it doesn't follow logically to believe X because you believe Y and X doesn't contradict Y.

: well after a while i hadn't read anything in the book of mormon that i thought contradicted the bible so i finaly decided to take up what the mormons said about praying to find out if the book of mormon is true or if it is a fake. well i went in my room and by myself i stood by my bed with the book of mormon laying beside me on the bed and i asked God if the book of mormon had truth in it. and lo and behold i felt a feeling you would not believe unless you felt it yourself.

This is interesting. You've just admitted that you hadn't read the entire book of Mormon before you decided that it was the truth.

: seriously, i felt an overwhelming feeling of peace and comfort that i hadn't felt before and then after that i asumed that was God's way of saying yes to my question. so after that i decided to believe that the book of mormon has truth in it and i wanted to learn all the stuff from the book of mormon. well i am sertain that that book isn't a fake because of my expeirience that i had and i will always remember it. well now because of that experience i took all the 'missionary discusions' and finished them up and decided to join their church and i am now a member and i have had felt that feeling of peace and comfort (like before) many times since then.

Well I guess that's all that matters. If it makes you happy and you're not infringing anyone else's rights then more power to ya.

: Moses 1:39 - "For behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

"Ritual is the death of true spirituality." - Lao Tzu.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 8:50 AM
: Agree again. But still, i'd LOVE to kick some xtreme mormon like ass so hard.

: i love everything around me. I would not hurt innocent people at all, even not them.

LOL, you seem conflicted.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by DarQ on 6 Nov 2002 at 8:51 AM
well yeah, dealing with shit like that is not that easy...


: : Agree again. But still, i'd LOVE to kick some xtreme mormon like ass so hard.
:
: : i love everything around me. I would not hurt innocent people at all, even not them.
:
: LOL, you seem conflicted.
:

DarQ

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 8:57 AM
: well yeah, dealing with shit like that is not that easy...

Shit like what? The guy just had a quote in his signature. You need a little perspective, man, it's not like he was burning us at the stake for being heretics.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:15 AM
And Mormons are even worse. Their mythology is like Christian mythology on an Acid trip. Seriously whacked. The Mormon church is even better at brainwashing (IMO) than most other churche
:
Actually, I never coud undersatnd how people like religous fanatics become to be doctors, scientists, programmers. Just do not get.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by leeos on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:19 AM
: And Mormons are even worse. Their mythology is like Christian mythology on an Acid trip. Seriously whacked. The Mormon church is even better at brainwashing (IMO) than most other churche
: :
: Actually, I never coud undersatnd how people like religous fanatics become to be doctors, scientists, programmers. Just do not get.
:
have you ever seen that book called " the win32 api bible"?

maybe that was written by a mormon coder?
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:25 AM
: And Mormons are even worse. Their mythology is like Christian mythology on an Acid trip. Seriously whacked. The Mormon church is even better at brainwashing (IMO) than most other churche
: :
: Actually, I never coud undersatnd how people like religous fanatics become to be doctors, scientists, programmers. Just do not get.

I once chatted online with a Christian who was a Chemist. She told me that she prayed before every experiment that God would help her get the right results. I was floored. Not only is that just stupid, but it's totally against the very ideas that Science are founded on. You don't do experiments to get the "right" answers, you do experiments to get data. If the data is "wrong" then either you did something wrong, or your hypothesis needs to be revised.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:39 AM
:
Not only is that just stupid, but it's totally against the very ideas that Science are founded on. You don't do experiments to get the "right" answers, you do experiments to get data. If the data is "wrong" then either you did something wrong, or your hypothesis needs to be revised.
:
I tottaly agreed. I used to be scientiest in my "prevouos life" in the USSR. There is no way (actualy there is way - fake it) to get "right" answer. You can try to predict answer building some theoretical or math model but not get it. But let me tell one short story. There was famous Russian scientist Pavlov who described the brain reflexes. He got Nobiel prize for his work. This guy was extremly smart and, you can't believe it, religious. He went to the Church every Sunday. Do you have expanation? I do not.

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by leeos on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:50 AM
There was famous Russian scientist Pavlov who described the brain reflexes.

Was this the guy that did the 'Pavalovs dog' experiiment.. ringing the bell and the dog would salivate?

Very interesting. We have people here that stop working and rush outside when the sandwhich van sounds its horn. I call it Pavalovs Van.


Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 10:37 AM
: There was famous Russian scientist Pavlov who described the brain reflexes.
:
: Was this the guy that did the 'Pavalovs dog' experiiment.. ringing the bell and the dog would salivate?
:
:
That's him.
:
: Very interesting. We have people here that stop working and rush outside when the sandwhich van sounds its horn. I call it Pavalovs Van.
:
You are right
:
:

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 10:08 AM
This message was edited by infidel at 2002-11-6 10:9:9

: There was famous Russian scientist Pavlov who described the brain reflexes. He got Nobiel prize for his work. This guy was extremly smart and, you can't believe it, religious. He went to the Church every Sunday. Do you have expanation? I do not.

I don't know about him specifically, but many famous scientists have been deeply religious. It varies from person to person. Not all religions conflict with Science, and not all areas of Science will conflict with religion, even very strict ones. If I recall, Pavlov did work in Psychology, which probably never really caused any conflict with religious beliefs. Galileo believed that if there was a conflict between Church doctrine and Science, it was because humans misunderstood what the Bible was actually saying. There are many other scientists that have "religious beliefs", but that does not mean they are fundamentalist Baptists or anything. Even Einstein believed in "God", though it was certainly not the same idea of God that most people hold.

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 10:57 AM
This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 11:1:10

: Not all religions conflict with Science, and not all areas of Science will conflict with religion, even very strict ones. :
:
There should be conflict. Let me explain my point. The whole idea about God that people believes in something none material extremely powerful. How scientist could believe in none material? As a former scientist I used to believe in something what exists. I need to have evidence. I simply can't believe in something, if I do not have evidence. It doesn't matter is it physical or logical (math) evidence. I know my English is not that good but I hope you understand my point

PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 11:35 AM
: PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain

I don't know what his "official" occupation was, but conditioning dogs to salivate when a bell rings is psychology. Unless you are a neurosurgeon or something like that, you do not actually "work with" a brain. You interact with the owner of the brain and try to infer things from the interaction. And while a brain is certainly a material thing, a "mind" is not. At least not in the same sense.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 11:53 AM
: : PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain
:
: I don't know what his "official" occupation was, but conditioning dogs to salivate when a bell rings is psychology.
:
Actually it's Physiology of Behaovioral
:
Unless you are a neurosurgeon or something like that, you do not actually "work with" a brain.
:
Not exactly correct. I was Neroscientists so I know a litle bit about that subject
:
You interact with the owner of the brain and try to infer things from the interaction. And while a brain is certainly a material thing, a "mind" is not. At least not in the same sense.
:
Yes and no. No because non material thing "mind" produced by very material thing brain. No brain, no minds.
:

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:25 PM
: : : PS. Pavlov was not Psychologist. He worked with very material substance - brain
: :
: : I don't know what his "official" occupation was, but conditioning dogs to salivate when a bell rings is psychology.
: :
: Actually it's Physiology of Behaovioral

How is it physiology? Behaviorism yes, but I still say it's psychology. Unless he was opening up the dog brains to see what physical responses (electrical impulses, chemical changes, etc) were caused by a bell ringing, I don't see how this is physiology.

: Not exactly correct. I was Neroscientists so I know a litle bit about that subject

Then I must defer to you.

: Yes and no. No because non material thing "mind" produced by very material thing brain. No brain, no minds.

Of course. No brain, no mind. I agree completely.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:44 PM
: How is it physiology? Behaviorism yes, but I still say it's psychology. Unless he was opening up the dog brains to see what physical responses (electrical impulses, chemical changes, etc) were caused by a bell ringing, I don't see how this is physiology.
:
Because he opened the stomach and placed there special devices to collect and measure amount of saliva. Pavlov and Sheridan where first who showed that stomach job are controlled by the brain. :

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 2:04 PM
: : How is it physiology? Behaviorism yes, but I still say it's psychology. Unless he was opening up the dog brains to see what physical responses (electrical impulses, chemical changes, etc) were caused by a bell ringing, I don't see how this is physiology.
: :
: Because he opened the stomach and placed there special devices to collect and measure amount of saliva. Pavlov and Sheridan where first who showed that stomach job are controlled by the brain. :

Ah, interesting. The conditioning part is still psychology, though, no matter how they measured it.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 2:13 PM
This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 14:14:33

:
Because he opened the stomach and placed there special devices to collect and measure amount of saliva. Pavlov and Sheridan where first who showed that stomach job are controlled by the brain. :
:
Ah, interesting. The conditioning part is still psychology, though, no matter how they measured it.
:
Actually, it's very difficult to find correct name for that kind of experiment/science. In some contries they call it Neuropsychology!!!
In my experiments I was investigated relationships between visual perceptions and eye movements. No psychology at all? Right? No. Because I used some technic that Psycologysts use too. So ... I think it does not mutter how we call the Science itself. More inportant that Psychology is not possible wuthout brain. Both scientist's and animal's/individual's.


Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 3:20 PM
: Actually, it's very difficult to find correct name for that kind of experiment/science. In some contries they call it Neuropsychology!!!
: In my experiments I was investigated relationships between visual perceptions and eye movements. No psychology at all? Right? No. Because I used some technic that Psycologysts use too. So ... I think it does not mutter how we call the Science itself. More inportant that Psychology is not possible wuthout brain. Both scientist's and animal's/individual's.

I can agree with this. I have to wonder, though, how you ended up a programmer when you could be doing interesting stuff like this!
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by KayDee on 6 Nov 2002 at 9:37 AM
: Actually, I never coud undersatnd how people like religous fanatics become to be doctors, scientists, programmers. Just do not get.
:

Hmm, I think they become doctors/scientists//whatever because they feel the urge to prove their own theories. Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.

Anyway, if ppl are happy with being religious and walking around in a daze of happiness just because they confide in some kind of higher powers then let them do so. We can't save them all (or something like that)...me I believe in common sense and trusting ones instincts.

Gotta go for now, but an interesting subject indeed.




Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 10:10 AM
: Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.

THOSE are the people that drive ME insane. Ignorant fools.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by DarQ on 6 Nov 2002 at 10:20 AM
interesting to read this stuff. but wont join anymore..

: : Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.
:
: THOSE are the people that drive ME insane. Ignorant fools.
:

DarQ

Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 11:20 AM
: : Like the whole deal about the evolution, the hardcore xian scientists usually work towards finding the total opposite answers of what other scientists have found, just to prove their theories about their gods are right.
:
: THOSE are the people that drive ME insane. Ignorant fools.
:
Actually, there is a big open question inside of theory of evolution. Let's take a look at some example. Apes, pithecanthropus and human being. According to evolution theory the better organized, smarter creature has to stay a live fighting with environmental obstacles. In other word apes (chimps, gorilla orangutan) had to disappear from Earth and pithecanthropus (who lived in the same area Africa) had to stay a live because those creature was much smarter than apes. Never happen. Apes (relatively lower primate) and human being (highest primate) are OK and pithecanthropus gone. I asked that question to several scientists who studied the evolution theory and never got clear answer. Again, I am materialist.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 11:45 AM
This message was edited by infidel at 2002-11-6 11:45:57

: Actually, there is a big open question inside of theory of evolution.

as with any science

: Let's take a look at some example. Apes, pithecanthropus and human being. According to evolution theory the better organized, smarter creature has to stay a live fighting with environmental obstacles.

"has to" is a bit strong, "tends to" would be more accurate I think.

: In other word apes (chimps, gorilla orangutan) had to disappear from Earth

Wrong. This is one of the primary misconceptions of creationists. Evolution does not state anywhere that ancestor species *must* die out. It just says that they aren't as well equipped to survive. But that's incomplete. Survive [i]where[/i]? If we use your logic, then there should be no fishes in the oceans because the reptiles that they evolved into should've replaced them. That is simply absurd. Humans and apes occupy different niches in the ecosystem, so there is no direct conflict. Not biologically at least. Human greed and stupidity has nearly driven the great apes to extinction, but that is a different topic, though somewhat related.

: and pithecanthropus (who lived in the same area Africa) had to stay a live because those creature was much smarter than apes. Never happen. Apes (relatively lower primate) and human being (highest primate) are OK and pithecanthropus gone. I asked that question to several scientists who studied the evolution theory and never got clear answer.

It's not that hard to think of an explanation. The pithecanthropus probably died out because they couldn't compete as well with more human-like ancestors who they were in direct competition with. Apes lived differently and apart from the humanoids, so evolved on a separate track.

: Again, I am materialist.

I am too, more or less.


Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:08 PM
This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 12:19:30

This message was edited by lionb at 2002-11-6 12:12:24

First of all I am not creationists or evolutionists. I am materialists and used to believe in evidences. There is no good strong evidence neither for Creation nor Evolution theories. At least for me.

If we use your logic, then there should be no fishes in the oceans because the reptiles that they evolved into should've replaced them.
:
Thats exactly right except one think. This is not my logic. This is evolution theory logic because according to this theory just stronger creature can survive.




Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:21 PM
: Thats exactly right except one think. This is not my logic. This is evolution theory logic because according to this theory just stronger creature can survive.

Evolutionary theory does not state that only the stronger creature can survive. It doesn't say that anywhere. All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:35 PM
All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
:
Right again!!! But gradualy this " better suited" creatures and its offsprings will take all best spots in this particular environment/area. There simply won't be room for creatures what won't "TEND to survive". So finaly the last ones will disapear.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:43 PM
: All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
: :
: Right again!!! But gradualy this " better suited" creatures and its offsprings will take all best spots in this particular environment/area. There simply won't be room for creatures what won't "TEND to survive". So finaly the last ones will disapear.

Only if they occupy the same niche.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 12:48 PM
:
: Only if they occupy the same niche.
:
That's exactly right! The apes and pithecanthropus occupied the same niche. Pithecanthropus was much stronger than apes but he disappeared and apes did not! Why?
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by infidel on 6 Nov 2002 at 2:07 PM
: That's exactly right! The apes and pithecanthropus occupied the same niche. Pithecanthropus was much stronger than apes but he disappeared and apes did not! Why?

Could be any number of reasons. The dinosaurs were about as big and strong as land animals have ever been, yet they died out and the tiny little mammals survived and flourished. We'd have to look at the environment and conditions of each species individually.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by lionb on 6 Nov 2002 at 2:28 PM

Could be any number of reasons. The dinosaurs were about as big and strong as land animals have ever been, yet they died out and the tiny little mammals survived and flourished. We'd have to look at the environment and conditions of each species individually.

You are right again, as always. But ironically the big size of dinosaurs was probably their weakest point at the moment. It's possible that they died out just because they could not find enough food. Actually, as I know, there is no clear explanation why they disappeared. Let me made conclusion. I am not against Evolution theory and of course I am not creationist. I am just trying to say that theory of Evolution does not have enough strong scientific evidences. That's why it's still theory not axiom.
Report
Re: First rule of debate with religious people - for DarQ Posted by DarQ on 6 Nov 2002 at 3:21 PM
Global intelligence surpasses physical strength. PERIOD

: : All it says is that an individual that is better suited to its environment will TEND to survive longer and produce more offspring.
: : :
: : Right again!!! But gradualy this " better suited" creatures and its offsprings will take all best spots in this particular environment/area. There simply won't be room for creatures what won't "TEND to survive". So finaly the last ones will disapear.
:
: Only if they occupy the same niche.
:

DarQ

1 2 3  Next



 

Recent Jobs

Official Programmer's Heaven Blogs
Web Hosting | Browser and Social Games | Gadgets

Popular resources on Programmersheaven.com
Assembly | Basic | C | C# | C++ | Delphi | Flash | Java | JavaScript | Pascal | Perl | PHP | Python | Ruby | Visual Basic
© Copyright 2011 Programmersheaven.com - All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part, in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
Violators of this policy may be subject to legal action. Please read our Terms Of Use and Privacy Statement for more information.
Operated by CommunityHeaven, a BootstrapLabs company.