Protests Continue as Pope Stops Short of Apology

[BleedForYourCause]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/protests-continue-as-pope-stop-short-of/20060915051209990007?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Why the hell should he apologize for speaking the truth?
I think its all going to come down to a "Clash of Civilizations" like Sam Huntington predicted 13 years ago:
http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

I don't see any other way.

[King of all Buffets]

they shouldnt fuck with the pope, now he's gonna have to send to Opus Dei albino monks to assasinate them.

[siobahn]

i knew there was something i wanted to start a thread about!! damn memory. thanks for the link (samuel huntington) but you gotta fix the beginning if it.

yes, i agree completely about the clash of civilizations. everything points to escalation in that direction.

these muslims just want more and more, and whenever someone disagrees it's 'racism' or 'intolerance' (the sacrilege of the 21st century). it's like if you invite someone into your house, they shit on the carpet, then demand that you clean it up. and people in the western world, specifically north america, think so little of themselves (their own culture and heritage) that they're willing to take it until it's too late. at least in europe they can say 'this is our land'; at least in england they can claim the country for the english.

i'm so fucking sick of these guys making criticisms without acknowledging their role in the problem. oh, it's so evil and offensive.. what about the issue of 'jihad' and 'holy war' in their countries? is it too much to even admit that there is a fucking problem?

[doc marten soul]

i knew there was something i wanted to start a thread about!! damn memory. thanks for the link (samuel huntington) but you gotta fix the beginning if it.

yes, i agree completely about the clash of civilizations. everything points to escalation in that direction.

these muslims just want more and more, and whenever someone disagrees it's 'racism' or 'intolerance' (the sacrilege of the 21st century). it's like if you invite someone into your house, they shit on the carpet, then demand that you clean it up. and people in the western world, specifically north america, think so little of themselves (their own culture and heritage) that they're willing to take it until it's too late. at least in europe they can say 'this is our land'; at least in england they can claim the country for the english.

i'm so fucking sick of these guys making criticisms without acknowledging their role in the problem. oh, it's so evil and offensive.. what about the issue of 'jihad' and 'holy war' in their countries? is it too much to even admit that there is a fucking problem?
Wait a second, when it comes to ponying up to the senitivies of the Muslim population, England is about the worst. Whose claiming the country for the english when St. Georges day comes around and everyone is afraid to fly George's Cross for fear of offending someone?

[london callum]

Wait a second, when it comes to ponying up to the senitivies of the Muslim population, England is about the worst. Whose claiming the country for the english when St. Georges day comes around and everyone is afraid to fly George's Cross for fear of offending someone?


To a certain extent it is true. But alot of people no longer give a shit and are becoming more patriotic. This world cup there were more St George's crosses flying than usual. There has also been alot more support to make St George's day a national holiday. However the government are a bunch of twats when it comes to muslims and also other religions. Biggest example is when a South London borough banned the words "christmas lights". They had to be called winter lights, as other religions also worship during this time.

[siobahn]

Wait a second, when it comes to ponying up to the senitivies of the Muslim population, England is about the worst. Whose claiming the country for the english when St. Georges day comes around and everyone is afraid to fly George's Cross for fear of offending someone?i wasn't saying that's what is happening, just giving an example. 'english', 'german', 'swedish' etc. is a lot more definable than 'canadian' or 'american', since people always get stuck on the multiculturalism thing.

but what i've heard is that in england it's starting to swing the other way. they used to be very hostile to immigration from eastern europe, for example, but open to arabs and africans. however the rules were changed last year, following much of the EU in attempting to halt immigration except for the immigration of skilled workers.

what i think is that all those muslims are starting to scare the fuck out of them.

[Doc]

There can never be dialogue between religions............the sooner they are all left behind the better for everyone. What more needs to be said?

[Tokyohoon]

There can never be dialogue between religions............the sooner they are all left behind the better for everyone. What more needs to be said?

I predict this will be the most sensible thing said in this thread.

[winecityskin]

There can never be dialogue between religions............the sooner they are all left behind the better for everyone. What more needs to be said?

The words of a certain german bearded dude come to mind... The people's opium:rolleyes:

[Cuchulainn]

Why is it so shocking to say that some groups of Moslems think that violence against non-Moslems is not only acceptable, it is desirable? It's a fact. The longer we try to hide our heads in the sand, the worse the problem will become.

The Moslem response to a quotation from a medieval text saying that they were violent was to burn effigies and attack churches. That's like being called violent and then responding, "I'm NOT VIOLENT, and for saying so, I will hit you in the head!"

The more I think on the subject, and the more exposure I get to Moslems through the news, the more I think that the Mid-East revels in their ignorance and barbarity. The sooner we can get out of there and let them go back to killing each other the better. They will still blame us for all their problems and try to kill us, but if we can keep them more occupied with killing each other (which is their second favorite thing to do following killing infidels), maybe they will leave us alone.

[BleedForYourCause]

There can never be dialogue between religions............the sooner they are all left behind the better for everyone. What more needs to be said?

I disagree...of course there can never be meaningful dialogue between religions, but I am a die-hard Christian, and I would fight to the death for that. Its not as easy as "Leave them all behind", becuase there are those of us who truely believe in them as the ONE truth. (pardon any mistakes...I'm a little drunk)

[Doc]

I disagree...of course there can never be meaningful dialogue between religions, but I am a die-hard Christian, and I would fight to the death for that. Its not as easy as "Leave them all behind", becuase there are those of us who truely believe in them as the ONE truth. (pardon any mistakes...I'm a little drunk)

Human history over the last few millenia has been one long series of pogroms, wars, religous persecutions, jihads and crusades. The backward mentality of this sad progression of priests, ministers, rabbis, ulamas, imams, bodhisattvas and bonzes and their brainless followers will eventually does us all in. Yes, i would leave you all behind in a heartbeat. And don't bandy the word truth around so freely, it demeans its value.

[Oz.]

Why is it so shocking to say that some groups of Moslems think that violence against non-Moslems is not only acceptable, it is desirable? It's a fact. The longer we try to hide our heads in the sand, the worse the problem will become.

The Moslem response to a quotation from a medieval text saying that they were violent was to burn effigies and attack churches. That's like being called violent and then responding, "I'm NOT VIOLENT, and for saying so, I will hit you in the head!"

The more I think on the subject, and the more exposure I get to Moslems through the news, the more I think that the Mid-East revels in their ignorance and barbarity. The sooner we can get out of there and let them go back to killing each other the better. They will still blame us for all their problems and try to kill us, but if we can keep them more occupied with killing each other (which is their second favorite thing to do following killing infidels), maybe they will leave us alone.
...and how do you think their news portrays "infidels"? It's a propaganda war that has both sides killing in the name of the same basic god-concept. There are real cultural schisms at work right now, but it's not Jesus or Allah... It's socio-political shit.

[WH Jay]

Human history over the last few millenia has been one long series of pogroms, wars, religous persecutions, jihads and crusades. The backward mentality of this sad progression of priests, ministers, rabbis, ulamas, imams, bodhisattvas and bonzes and their brainless followers will eventually does us all in. Yes, i would leave you all behind in a heartbeat. And don't bandy the word truth around so freely, it demeans its value.

Agreed. Most religions were set up as a way of explaining the unexplainable years ago....surely we have enough scientific facts available to us nowadays to explain all these mysteries. So why do we still need them...?
For continual hostility and wars it seems....

[brooklyn]

OH PLEASE....he SHOULDN'T apologise....That's fuckin' ridiculous......Do they apologize when they commit genocide against their OWN people...NO ....Do they ever apologize for anything that they say or do ...again NO....they are a bunch of stinking hypocrites

[Martina]

There can never be dialogue between religions............the sooner they are all left behind the better for everyone. What more needs to be said?

Why should I abandon my faith to build a bridge? Do you think for one second that the Muslims that we should be concerned about would abandon theirs. I think they would kill you for even saying this.

[Doc]

Why should I abandon my faith to build a bridge? Do you think for one second that the Muslims that we should be concerned about would abandon theirs. I think they would kill you for even saying this.

I made a statement about the impossibility of dialogue..........and do you know why this is true? Because anything that divides breeds inhumanity......religion breeds cruelty and intense beliefs produce intense hostility. Holy horrors. It has always been this way and that is a fact. Thats why i think we would all be better off without religion.

[Martina]

I made a statement about the impossibility of dialogue.........and do you know why this is true? Because anything that divides breeds inhumanity......religion breeds cruelty and intense beliefs produce intense hostility. It has always been this way and that is a fact.

You also said "the sooner they are left behind, the better for everyone".
I fail to see how godlessness will bring about world peace. Although religion may have brought about some wars, so has money and oil. Do you think any of that will be eliminated?

[Doc]

You also said "the sooner they are left behind, the better for everyone".
I fail to see how godlessness will bring about world peace. Although religion may have brought about some wars, so has money and oil. Do you think any of that will be eliminated?

Thats right..........we would be far better off without it. We dont need ancient texts to tell us how to be human beings....if anything these ancient texts have made us act like animals.

[Martina]

Thats right..........we would be far better off without it. We dont need ancient texts to tell us how to be human beings....if anything these ancient texts have made us act like animals.

I think that's way to simplistic. Once again, religion isn't at the root of every war. Nor do I know of any civiliztion that didn't believe in 'something'.
You see faith as a great corrupt enity when for the indivual it brings comfort and guildence.

Religion isn't the root of all evil, people are.

[Doc]

I think that's way to simplistic. Once again, religion isn't at the root of every war. Nor do I know of any civiliztion that didn't believe in 'something'.
You see faith as a great corrupt enity when for the indivual it brings comfort and guildence.

Religion isn't the root of all evil, people are.

Not every war..........just most of them. The growth of science has had a greater impact on the morality of the human race than all religions put together. Perhaps this course of rationalism and humanitarianism will continue, and religion will gradually dwindle into something far less important. There is nothing wrong with finding comfort in your faith, there is everything wrong with using your faith to hate.

[Martina]

Not every war..........just most of them. The growth of science has had a greater impact on the morality of the human race than all religions put together. Perhaps this course of rationalism and humanitarianism will continue, and religion will gradually dwindle into something far less important. There is nothing wrong with finding comfort in your faith, there is everything wrong with using your faith to hate.

And once again, a world without religions won't bring about an end to war. So what would be the purpose?
Do you think that a group of people that would start riots and call for jihad because of a cartoon would hold science above their god?

Science always changes and evolves where god is always absolute.

[Doc]

And once again, a world without religions won't bring about an end to war. So what would be the purpose?
Do you think that a group of people that would start riots and call for jihad because of a cartoon would hold science above their god?.

Im not saying that it would be utopia without religion........but if people were to think for themselves, then it would be a good step closer.

Science always changes and evolves where god is always absolute.

That is why science is the greatest and most noble of human endeavours...........and religion is the most regrettable.

[thisistheuproar]

Thats right..........we would be far better off without it. We dont need ancient texts to tell us how to be human beings....if anything these ancient texts have made us act like animals.

Yes, that is quite true, but I don't think religion is worthless. The overwhelming majority of religious people coexist rather well. It's just the extremists and apocalyptics who create all these problems, and "they" seem like more than they really are, because they get so much media coverage.

And religion just seems to fulfill the human desire for the eternal, so I don't see anything necessarily wrong with it. I also don't know that it would be possible to have an overall working morality without some sort of religious dimension to it. That's not speaking for everybody (I, for example, don't draw moral conclusions from religious premises), but it seems that the majority of people need that sort of inspiration. I understand people's animosity towards religion, but to abolish it? I don't think that's necessary... And if it was a matter of evolution, religion would have ceased to exist as we know it quite some time ago, especially with the advent of the Enlightenment, modern physics, psychology, evolutionary theory, and all that. But, instead, religious popularity comes and goes in big fluctuations, and it can't be effectively be proven or disproven.

So, curb the fanatics, but don't abolish the belief system.

[Martina]

Im not saying that it would be utopia without religion........but if people were to think for themselves, then it would be a good step closer.

I fail to see the value in that.
Why do you have the impression that those who practice a religion have no free will. Having choices but attempting to make the right ones is part of the crux of our faith.


That is why science is the greatest and most noble of human endeavours...........and religion is the most regrettable.

I don't understand how something that is inconstant has more vaule that something that is stable. Nor do I see Science as existing in a vacum without a presence of God. How would you explain "Christian Scientists'?

[Doc]

Yes, that is quite true, but I don't think religion is worthless. The overwhelming majority of religious people coexist rather well. It's just the extremists and apocalyptics who create all these problems, and "they" seem like more than they really are, because they get so much media coverage.

And religion just seems to fulfill the human desire for the eternal, so I don't see anything necessarily wrong with it. I also don't know that it would be possible to have an overall working morality without some sort of religious dimension to it. That's not speaking for everybody (I, for example, don't draw moral conclusions from religious premises), but it seems that the majority of people need that sort of inspiration. I understand people's animosity towards religion, but to abolish it? I don't think that's necessary... And if it was a matter of evolution, religion would have ceased to exist as we know it quite some time ago, especially with the advent of the Enlightenment, modern physics, psychology, evolutionary theory, and all that. But, instead, religious popularity comes and goes in big fluctuations, and it can't be effectively be proven or disproven.

So, curb the fanatics, but don't abolish the belief system.

I dont think there is a need to abolish it either.....in time it will wither and die. Besides, what does religion really have to offer the modern world in the way of morality? Look at the ten commandments for example...........half of them have nothing to do with moral behaviour. Anyway.........as i said before, there is nothing wrong with faith for comfort...........but that is not the issue at hand, is it.

[thisistheuproar]

I fail to see the value in that.
Why do you have the impression that those who practice a religion have no free will. Having choices but attempting to make the right ones is part of the crux of our faith.




I don't understand how something that is inconstant has more vaule that something that is stable. Nor do I see Science as existing in a vacum without a presence of God. How would you explain "Christian Scientists'?

Christian Science the sect of Christianity? ...or scientists who believe in Christ?

Most of the more famous early physical scientists were Christian (Newton, for example), and their inspiration to study the natural world was to uncover God's creation.

[Martina]

Christian Science the sect of Christianity? ...or scientists who believe in Christ?

Most of the more famous early physical scientists were Christian (Newton, for example), and their inspiration to study the natural world was to uncover God's creation.

Exactly, look at two of the theories on how the world was created.
"The Steady State Theory" or "The Big Bang Theory". The later is also in tune with the story of creation. Or just even evolution, God created ALL life, so to to belief that man evolved doesn't by nature suggest that man wasn't created by God.

[Doc]

I fail to see the value in that.
Why do you have the impression that those who practice a religion have no free will. Having choices but attempting to make the right ones is part of the crux of our faith.

They don't. They have a closed mind......they live their lives according to a doctrine. They are inflexible.

I don't understand how something that is inconstant has more vaule that something that is stable.

Inconstant is not the correct word.......try unbiased. Substitute biased for stable.........or inflexible.

Nor do I see Science as existing in a vacum without a presence of God. How would you explain "Christian Scientists'?

Fence-sitters

[Doc]

Exactly, look at two of the theories on how the world was created.
"The Steady State Theory" or "The Big Bang Theory". The later is also in tune with the story of creation. Or just even evolution, God created ALL life, so to to belief that man evolved doesn't by nature suggest that man wasn't created by God.

You cant just fill in the gaps and say.....'see, God did that.' The Big Bang Theory is not in tune with creationism..........it is a million miles removed. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with disproving God.

[Martina]

They don't. They have a closed mind......they live their lives according to a doctrine. They are inflexible.

How can you really believe that? I think it's your rational that is inflexible



Inconstant is not the correct word.......try unbiased. Substitute biased for stable.........or inflexible.

No, I meant insconstant.
e.g. Pluto is no longer a planet.



Fence-sitters

That word is only used by the exteme in efforts suggest weakness in those who don't agree or disagree with them 100%.

[Doc]

How can you really believe that? I think it's your rational that is inflexible.

People who live according to any doctrine, religous, political, whatever, are inflexible.........they are automatons.


No, I meant insconstant.
e.g. Pluto is no longer a planet..

Exactly. The universe no longer revolves around the earth......which is round. Where are you going with this?



That word is only used by the exteme in efforts suggest weakness in those who don't agree or disagree with them 100%.

No.....the term implies indecision or neutrality, not weakness.

[Martina]

You cant just fill in the gaps and say.....'see, God did that.' The Big Bang Theory is not in tune with creationism..........it is a million miles removed. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with disproving God.


The world was either created or always existed. Therefore, the world being created is not removed from the story of God's creation.

Correct, the theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Yet you seem to think that the existence of Science on it's own should take the place of God. How is this valid when the instrument you hold in such high esteem can't disprove God's existence.

[winecityskin]

Fence-sitters

Ahahahah:biggrin:

My personal opinion as an atheist is that everyone has the right to believe in their own religion, but they DO NOT have the right to make their religious beliefs interfere with the good of the Nation and of their fellow citizens... And this for all religions, not only the Christian, Islamic, or whatever...
If you are against abortion, fine, there are no laws in any country that oblige(sp?) you to abort, but if someone wants to abort, you do NOT have the right to stop them.
If you are against gay marriages and you are gay, then don't marry,. If you're not gay, then shut up and let it be, fifty years ago people was against interracial marriages.
If you are against Assisted Fecondation(in vitro) and you are sterile, then adopt, but you DON'T have the right to stop other people from trying it...
If you are against divorce, nobody's obliging(sp?) you to divorce, but there are couples that may want to and you DO NOT have the right to stop them...
And so on... Your religious beliefs should NOT stop other people from living their lives as they want to.

[BleedForYourCause]

That is why science is the greatest and most noble of human endeavours...........and religion is the most regrettable.

Your fallacy is that you assume that religion is a human endevor. You rule out any possibility of an absolute truth. And if this is so, how can there be any concept of morality? Morality is something which must stem from an absolute truth, or it is meaningless. Without absolute truth (God, if you will) morality is reduced to your word against mine. The Founding Fathers understood this. This is why the included in the Declaration of Independance the words "...All men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable rights..." (emphasis mine). In fact, in their minds, this fact was so obvious that it was a truth that was "Self evident". If human rights come from the government, or even from science (which is, as you admitted, constantly changing) than they can be construed to be whatever it is that any government or scientest declares them to be at any given time. And that, my friend, is a recipe for tyrany and oppression at best, genocide and holocausts at worst.

[Martina]

People who live according to any doctrine, religous, political, whatever, are inflexible.........they are automatons.

How can you possibly be qualifed to suggest that?
That's like saying anyone who doesn't break the law since it too is written is guilty of this.




Exactly. The universe no longer revolves around the earth......which is round. Where are you going with this?

That I am not going to rely the bane of my existence on a theory that may change in 10, 50 or 100 years from now. I'll stick to something I already know to be true; That God exists and he loves me.



No.....the term implies indecision or neutrality, not weakness.

And how do you come to that conclusion? Why is it impossible for Sciene and faith to co-exist?

[Doc]

The world was either created or always existed. Therefore, the world being created is not removed from the story of God's creation..

The Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain observable data. It reverse engineers the universe by following it backward through time mathematically. This is why it is very far removed from a story in an ancient book.

Correct, the theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of God.
Yet you seem to think that the existence of Science on it's own should take the place of God. How is this valid when the instrument you hold in such high esteem can't disprove God's existence.

Its purpose is not to prove/disprove the existence of God. Its purpose is to build useful framworks for explaining reality.

[beer and loathing]

That is why science is the greatest and most noble of human endeavours...........and religion is the most regrettable.

This is one of the best things I've ever read on this board.

[BleedForYourCause]

Ahahahah:biggrin:

My personal opinion as an atheist is that everyone has the right to believe in their own religion, but they DO NOT have the right to make their religious beliefs interfere with the good of the Nation and of their fellow citizens... And this for all religions, not only the Christian, Islamic, or whatever...
If you are against abortion, fine, there are no laws in any country that oblige(sp?) you to abort, but if someone wants to abort, you do NOT have the right to stop them.
If you are against gay marriages and you are gay, then don't marry,. If you're not gay, then shut up and let it be, fifty years ago people was against interracial marriages.
If you are against Assisted Fecondation(in vitro) and you are sterile, then adopt, but you DON'T have the right to stop other people from trying it...
If you are against divorce, nobody's obliging(sp?) you to divorce, but there are couples that may want to and you DO NOT have the right to stop them...
And so on... Your religious beliefs should NOT stop other people from living their lives as they want to.


And if you're against murder, fine, but you don't have right to stop anyone else from murdering. And if you're for stop signs, fine but you do not have the right to tell me I should have to obey them. And if you're against child abuse, fine, but you do not have the right to tell me I can't abuse MY child in MY house. And if you're against rape, fine, but you don't have the right to tell me I can't rape some one...right?

[Doc]

Your fallacy is that you assume that religion is a human endevor. You rule out any possibility of an absolute truth. And if this is so, how can there be any concept of morality? Morality is something which must stem from an absolute truth, or it is meaningless. Without absolute truth (God, if you will) morality is reduced to your word against mine. The Founding Fathers understood this. This is why the included in the Declaration of Independance the words "...All men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable rights..." (emphasis mine). In fact, in their minds, this fact was so obvious that it was a truth that was "Self evident". If human rights come from the government, or even from science (which is, as you admitted, constantly changing) than they can be cronstrued to be whatever it is that any government or scientest declares them to be at any given time. And that, my friend, is a recipe for tyrany and oppression at best, genocide and holocausts at worst.

You are babbling. Are you actually trying to suggest that science is a recipe for tyranny and oppression?? That is laughable........that really is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this site.......or anywhere.

[BleedForYourCause]

You are babbling. Are you actually trying to suggest that science is a recipe for tyranny and oppression?? That is laughable........that really is one of the most stupid things I have ever read on this site.......or anywhere.


No, try reading very carefully. I never even came close to suggesting that.

[Doc]

How can you possibly be qualifed to suggest that?
That's like saying anyone who doesn't break the law since it too is written is guilty of this.

A doctrine refers to a set of principles or beliefs, not law.

[And how do you come to that conclusion? Why is it impossible for Sciene and faith to co-exist?

Its not about supporting religion or destroying religion......science should simply ignore religion......science requires an open mind.

[Martina]

This is one of the best things I've ever read on this board.

It must only read well if your are a practing atheist or agnostic.

[BleedForYourCause]

Its not about supporting religion or destroying religion......science should simply ignore religion......science requires an open mind.

And what if scientific findings happen to support religious beliefs? Are you open minded enough to accept that?

[beer and loathing]

It must only read well if your are a practing atheist or agnostic.

You're very insightful and I'll leave it at that!

[Martina]

A doctrine refers to a set of principles or beliefs, not law.


Why is murder and rape illegal then? Because it goes against one of the earliest belief systems. You can't not deny that at least some of the princibles of religion don't extablish a neccessary order.


Its not about supporting religion or destroying religion......science should simply ignore religion......science requires an open mind.

Right, an open mind.
But you seem to suggest that it should take the place of God for everyone.
And what I am saying is that acknowlege one, doesn't disprove the other.

[winecityskin]

And if you're against murder, fine, but you don't have right to stop anyone else from murdering. And if you're for stop signs, fine but you do not have the right to tell me I should have to obey them. And if you're against child abuse, fine, but you do not have the right to tell me I can't abuse MY child in MY house. And if you're against rape, fine, but you don't have the right to tell me I can't rape some one...right?

That's not the same thing, and you know that...

[Doc]

No, try reading very carefully. I never even came close to suggesting that.

I know exactly what you are suggesting. Let me put it simply for you.........the history of religion is a horror story. It divides, oppresses and alienates. Science, on the other hand, has taught us that we don't really differ that much from one another, that there is no divine right of kings, there is no fundamental racial difference that should allow us to wipe out or enslave one race for the benefit of another. Science is about cooperation. Almost the complete antithesis. Much more fertile ground for a moral code.

[Martina]

I know exactly what you are suggesting. Let me put it simply for you.........the history of religion is a horror story. It divides, oppresses and alienates. Science, on the other hand, has taught us that we don't really differ that much from one another, that there is no divine right of kings and so on, there is no intrinsic racial difference that should allow us to enslave one race for the benefit of another race. Science is about cooperation. Almost the complete antithesis. Much more fertile ground for a moral code.

You can not go back and recreate the world or history. Moral code has always been connected to religious beleif systems. Nor has it been science or relgion that has caused us to enslave other races but rather human nature.

[weknowhowtolive]

It must only read well if your are a practing atheist or agnostic.There are many scientific theories that have gone on to be proven and are now considered laws. They can be proven. Can you show me a single bit of evidence to back up the fact that some dude is sitting in the sky looking down deciding what is wrong and what is right?

Every religion that i know of is against killing, yet religion has caused more war than any other thing in human history.

Religion seems very silly to me...almost archaic. Thats my opinion.

[Doc]

Why is murder and rape illegal then? Because it goes against one of the earliest belief systems. You can't not deny that at least some of the princibles of religion don't extablish a neccessary order.[quote=Martina;34835]

You cant deny the superstitious savagery pervading both history and modern times.

[quote=Martina;34835]Right, an open mind.
But you seem to suggest that it should take the place of God for everyone.
And what I am saying is that acknowlege one, doesn't disprove the other.

To each their own. I have a problem with those who swallow what people tell them without rational thought.

[weknowhowtolive]

You can not go back and recreate the world or history. Moral code has always been connected to religious beleif systems. Nor has it been science or relgion that has caused us to enslave other races but rather human nature.If religion decides what is moral, why do so many people, even religious ones, bend the rules to fit their lives? Why are there so many different codes?

[BleedForYourCause]

That's not the same thing, and you know that...

Why is it not the same?

[weknowhowtolive]

Why is murder and rape illegal then? Because it goes against one of the earliest belief systems. You can't not deny that at least some of the princibles of religion don't extablish a neccessary order.




Right, an open mind.
But you seem to suggest that it should take the place of God for everyone.
And what I am saying is that acknowlege one, doesn't disprove the other.How many millions of people in thousands of wars fought by religious peoples, have raped and murdered in the name of "god"?

[thisistheuproar]

The Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain observable data. It reverse engineers the universe by following it backward through time mathematically. This is why it is very far removed from a story in an ancient book.



Its purpose is not to prove/disprove the existence of God. Its purpose is to build useful framworks for explaining reality.

This is true. Physicists mathematically trace all the possible paths that all the particles of the universe would have taken from where they are now back to the singularity. At the singularity, and at the instant before the "Big Bang", though, all the known laws of science breakdown. Physicists have struggled with that for quite some time now. There is no good way to explain it yet. That is why some physicists (including the most famous ones, such as Hawking) have considered the possibility of God.

Claiming that religious people are automatons is ridiculous. The scope of science still does not encompass the universe (or universes) in its entirety, and the Grand Unified Theory is still way out of reach.Furthermore, for every new explanan that science discovers, it necessarily becomes an explanandum, and its explanan is yet to be discovered. Its an infinite series. You have to will to believe in science just as you do with religion, despite the fact that science is based on observable data.

That said, I have a much, much easier time believing that there is no God, than that there is a God. I wouldn't call myself an atheist, but it makes the most sense. But I still always fail to see the logical connection between the ever-so-holy progression of science and the rejection of religion. Religion isn't going to wither and die, it will always be there, and it is ultimately immune from scientific rejection because it is not observable. So it's ridiculous to belittle people for putting any sort of stock in religion. although you or I may not be able to follow how people got to their conclusions. Reject genocide, reject homophobia, xenophobia, and everything else, I agree... thank "God" science has helped us get to that point. Religion has had a rough history, but it has also promoted cooperation, understanding, non-violence, scientific endeavors, humanitarian efforts, compassion, meaningful existence, and a host of other positive things.

[Doc]

You can not go back and recreate the world or history. Moral code has always been connected to religious beleif systems. Nor has it been science or relgion that has caused us to enslave other races but rather human nature.

I disagree. Like i said before: pogroms, crusades, jihads, destruction and enslavement of 'lesser' cultures. Religion. It is still going on.

[winecityskin]

Why is murder and rape illegal then? Because it goes against one of the earliest belief systems. You can't not deny that at least some of the princibles of religion don't extablish a neccessary order.


Let's not forget that some religious laws had to do with scientific facts... Jews don't eat pork cause when their religion was "born" pigs had a number of diseases. Navajos have a strict rule against marriages between people who are related, and it is the same for many other religions, and it is a scientific fact that intermarriaging usually gives birth to children with serious "defects"(I hate to use that word, but I couldn't came up with anything better).

But now, a lot of these "laws" have no use... We can pretty much be sure that the pork you are going to eat wont give you a disease...

[SWIFTY]

How many millions of people in thousands of wars fought by religious peoples, have raped and murdered in the name of "god"?
fucking millions, religious people cause so much shit its unreal, killing in the name of there god, what the fuck no god says to kill for something thats supposed to be so good and so beautiful it fucking stinks

[thisistheuproar]

I disagree. Like i said before: pogroms, crusades, jihads, destruction and enslavement of 'lesser' cultures. Religion. It is still going on.

Plenty of atheist philosophies condone the same things... the old Soviet Union, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Nazis drew upon Nietzsche's Will to Power...

[Doc]

And what if scientific findings happen to support religious beliefs? Are you open minded enough to accept that?

I would observe the data and make a rational decision.

[weknowhowtolive]

Plenty of atheist philosophies condone the same things... the old Soviet Union, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Nazis drew upon Nietzsche's Will to Power...
Nazi's also had a very strong religious background.

[thisistheuproar]

Nazi's also had a very strong religious background.

Some of them did, your'e absolutely right. I was speaking more of just the philosophy that they drew upon, and Nietsche was most definitely an atheist.

[Martina]

How many millions of people in thousands of wars fought by religious peoples, have raped and murdered in the name of "god"?

And how many times has it happend because of money, greed or other sources of curruption?
You can not blame the beleif God for every war. When Bush says "God is on our side" do you think that GOD is the reason America invaded Iraq?
I find is discusting that God continually gets the blame for every atrocity ever committed.

[BleedForYourCause]

If religion decides what is moral, why do so many people, even religious ones, bend the rules to fit their lives? Why are there so many different codes?

Because of human nature. The laws of religion (and, by extention, morality) do not come from humans. If they had, we would have made it alot easier on ourselves, don't you think? People bend (and break) rules because that's what people do. That does not suggest that there is not an absolute moral code, but rather that people are imperfect and often fail to live up to the standard.
In truth, there are NOT many different codes. To quote Dr. Norman Geisler "What should be done is common, but how it should be done differs." (Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Dr. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, p. 53) For example, all cultures agree that greetings are good manners. Some cultures kiss, others hug, others shake hands and still others bow. What differs is not what is done, but how it is done. (Paraphrased from the book cited above)

[winecityskin]

Why is it not the same?

Cause it simply isnt the same thing... The examples you have enumbered are ethically wrong because they hurt other people, but permitting gay marriage or in vitro fecondation isnt going to hurt anyone. Abortion is a bit different, but there are many reasons why people decide to abort that one cant understand until it falls on them...

[Martina]

Nazi's also had a very strong religious background.


Hilter was an atheist and was quoted as saying "One is either a Christian or a Nazi, you can not be both".

[weknowhowtolive]

And how many times has it happend because of money, greed or other sources of curruption?
You can not blame the beleif God for every war. When Bush says "God is on our side" do you think that GOD is the reason America invaded Iraq?
I find is discusting that God continually gets the blame for every atrocity ever committed.If he created us in his image, every atrocity that is or has ever been commited must logically be a reflection of him and therefor, can be attributed to him.

[weknowhowtolive]

Hilter was an atheist and was quoted as saying "One is either a Christian or a Nazi, you can not be both".Thats why he funded some of the biggest archaelogical digs, put Goebbels in charge of it, all in search of things like the Holy Grail?

[Doc]

Claiming that religious people are automatons is ridiculous. The scope of science still does not encompass the universe (or universes) in its entirety, and the Grand Unified Theory is still way out of reach.Furthermore, for every new explanan that science discovers, it necessarily becomes an explanandum, and its explanan is yet to be discovered. Its an infinite series. You have to will to believe in science just as you do with religion, despite the fact that science is based on observable data..

Science is never regarded as certainty. As a scientist i challenge scientific theories....this work is never finished. This is a world apart from swallowing a religous doctrine and having blind faith in a 'truth.' Thats is an automaton. So, I think it is actually you who is being ridiculous.

[winecityskin]

Some of them did, your'e absolutely right. I was speaking more of just the philosophy that they drew upon, and Nietsche was most definitely an atheist.

But nazis and Nietsche have about nothing in common. It is well known that he was not an antisemite and that it was his sister that modified a number of his writings(after his death) to make them fit with nazi "ideals"...

[Martina]

There are many scientific theories that have gone on to be proven and are now considered laws. They can be proven. Can you show me a single bit of evidence to back up the fact that some dude is sitting in the sky looking down deciding what is wrong and what is right?

Every religion that i know of is against killing, yet religion has caused more war than any other thing in human history.

Religion seems very silly to me...almost archaic. Thats my opinion.

I don't need to prove to you the existence of God. It's not necessary for me that you believe. Just because something can not be seen or heard doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Turn on a microwave, there are electromagnetic waves been sent? You can't see them or feel them but you know that they are there.

[Martina]

Thats why he funded some of the biggest archaelogical digs, put Goebbels in charge of it, all in search of things like the Holy Grail?

So? Even jews acknowledge that Jesus existed. It doesn't mean they believe he was the Son of God

[weknowhowtolive]

I don't need to prove to you the existence of God. It's not necessary for me that you believe. Just because something can not be seen or heard doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Turn on a microwave, there are electromagnetic waves been sent? You can't see them or feel them but you know that they are there.But i can get a Geiger Counter and prove the levels of radiation there, vs somewhere else, thus proving they exist. You cannot do the same with god.

[weknowhowtolive]

So? Even jews acknowledge that Jesus existed. It doesn't mean they believe he was the Son of GodIf religion doesnt matter then its just another cup. Why search for the Ark of the Covenant then?

[BleedForYourCause]

I know exactly what you are suggesting. Let me put it simply for you.........the history of religion is a horror story. It divides, oppresses and alienates. Science, on the other hand, has taught us that we don't really differ that much from one another, that there is no divine right of kings, there is no fundamental racial difference that should allow us to wipe out or enslave one race for the benefit of another. Science is about cooperation. Almost the complete antithesis. Much more fertile ground for a moral code.

Again you miss the point. The point is first, where do we even get our idea of a "moral code" to start with? Certainly not from science. Science is indifferent to such things. Science simply studies the natural, tangable, physical world. It takes no position on intangiable ideas such as love, freedom, or morals. And it cannot. Enter religion. Religion (presumably from God) DOES take positions on all of the above listed intangable ideas, and not always in ways which is comfortable to human nature. In fact, many morals run contrary to human nature (for instance, the vitrue of courage tells soldiers to run into the face of death, whereas their human nature would urge them to flee). Secondly, you again start from the assumption that religion is relative, or an invention of humans. It very well may not be. You talk of being open minded and using the scientific meathod. I fail to see how starting with these assumptions coincides with either.

[SWIFTY]

And how many times has it happend because of money, greed or other sources of curruption?
You can not blame the beleif God for every war. When Bush says "God is on our side" do you think that GOD is the reason America invaded Iraq?
I find is discusting that God continually gets the blame for every atrocity ever committed.

I think that fundamentalists. twats use the name of there god and there religion to kill and maim and torture those who do not believe in there god… like the UVF there slogan was for god and Ulster, so it was ok to walk into pubs schools and that and kill them cause they where doing it for there god

[Martina]

If he created us in his image, every atrocity that is or has ever been commited must logically be a reflection of him and therefor, can be attributed to him.

Ya right, you have never hear the term 'free will'?
But I guess it's so much easier to blame God than to face the short comings of mankind.

[winecityskin]

This is probably the most interesting thread in Politics at the moment, but I gotta leave you to prepare me some tomato sauce and spaghetti... See you later:cool:

[Martina]

But i can get a Geiger Counter and prove the levels of radiation there, vs somewhere else, thus proving they exist. You cannot do the same with god.

And there's a reason that they call it FAITH.

[Doc]

I'm fucking off to the pub, but before I go......i'm gonna throw this one out there. I believe that morality is really simply altruism..........and altruism is biological. It is within us, and many other species.

[weknowhowtolive]

Ya right, you have never hear the term 'free will'?
But I guess it's so much easier to blame God than to face the short comings of mankind.Its interesting that in religion, especially christian which i would consider to be by far the loosest religion in North America, everything has at least two answers and people pick and choose them based on the question at hand. If i asked a question where "God created us in his image" would be an appropriate answer, you would use it. But if "free will" is a better answer you would use that. But then if i mention murder or abortion, free will is taken out, and yet another answer is brought into play. There are always little dances that seem to avoid the actual question at hand.

[thisistheuproar]

Science is never regarded as certainty. As a scientist i challenge scientific theories....this work is never finished. This is a world apart from swallowing a religous doctrine and having blind faith in a 'truth.' Thats is an automaton. So, I think it is actually you who is being ridiculous.

Explain to me how I'm being ridiculous, logically. I'm just arguing with you. Is it pissing you off that I'm debating you and challenging what you think? (*gasp!*) how terrible of me. I poke holes in your logic, you poke holes in mine, that's how it works. You need a fucking tissue or something?

You have no reason to talk down to me, and I haven't talked down to you, so now who's being the asshole?

[weknowhowtolive]

And there's a reason that they call it FAITH.Yet another dance. The thing you believe made you and keeps you alive cannot be proven to even exist, so you use faith. Like i said, it seems archaic.

[Martina]

Yet another dance. The thing you believe made you and keeps you alive cannot be proven to even exist, so you use faith. Like i said, it seems archaic.

Why? How can you define or mesure love. Surely people that don't beleive in God still can love.

[Doc]

Again you miss the point. The point is first, where do we even get our idea of a "moral code" to start with? Certainly not from science. Science is indifferent to such things. Science simply studies the natural, tangable, physical world. It takes no position on intangiable ideas such as love, freedom, or morals. And it cannot. Enter religion. Religion (presumably from God) DOES take positions on all of the above listed intangable ideas, and not always in ways which is comfortable to human nature. In fact, many morals run contrary to human nature (for instance, the vitrue of courage tells soldiers to run into the face of death, whereas their human nature would urge them to flee). Secondly, you again start from the assumption that religion is relative, or an invention of humans. It very well may not be. You talk of being open minded and using the scientific meathod. I fail to see how starting with these assumptions coincides with either.

I am missing no point. Your point is that religion is the source of morality and that science has nothing to offer us in terms of how to act as human beings. What fkn garbage. Do you really believe that? Without science you would be living like an ape. There would be no bible. As to your last point, about my 'assumptions'........have i ever said i don't believe in God? Did I ever say I do believe in God? Did i ever state my assumptions in terms of spirituality? Don't try to guess my mind........you won't even come close.

[BleedForYourCause]

Yet another dance. The thing you believe made you and keeps you alive cannot be proven to even exist, so you use faith. Like i said, it seems archaic.

Macroevolution cannot be proven to exist either. In fact, NOTHING can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist or be true. Things CAN be proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt. So, essentially, we take EVERYTHING on some level of faith. The difference is how much evidence there is to back up what you believe. And for God, while not proven undeniably, there is alot...beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it doesn't matter if its archaic or not...it matters if it's true.

[Doc]

Explain to me how I'm being ridiculous, logically. I'm just arguing with you. Is it pissing you off that I'm debating you and challenging what you think? (*gasp!*) how terrible of me. I poke holes in your logic, you poke holes in mine, that's how it works. You need a fucking tissue or something?

You have no reason to talk down to me, and I haven't talked down to you, so now who's being the asshole?

hahaha..........you were the one who called me ridiculous. Don't assume that you could ever poke holes in my logic, or that you have done, or that you could ever come close to pissing me off in a debate.......hahaha

[weknowhowtolive]

Macroevolution cannot be proven to exist either. In fact, NOTHING can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist or be true. Things CAN be proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt. So, essentially, we take EVERYTHING on some level of faith. The difference is how much evidence there is to back up what you believe. And for God, while not proven undeniably, there is alot...beyond a reasonable doubt.
And it doesn't matter if its archaic or not...it matters if it's true.What evidence?

[weknowhowtolive]

Why? How can you define or mesure love. Surely people that don't beleive in God still can love.Are you saying emotions are based on religion?

[BleedForYourCause]

I am missing no point. Your point is that religion is the source of morality and that science has nothing to offer us in terms of how to act as human beings. What fkn garbage. Do you really believe that? Without science you would be living like an ape. There would be no bible. As to your last point, about my 'assumptions'........have i ever said i don't believe in God? Did I ever say I do believe in God? Did i ever state my assumptions in terms of spirituality? Don't try to guess my mind........you won't even come close.

Please don't put words in my mouth either. Did I ever say science has nothing to offer? Hell no. I study science. The difference is that my conclusions point me toward God, where as yours (correct me if I'm wrong) do not. And once again, you miss the point. You fail to realize that what I am saying is that science is not absolute. It is constantly changing. Once we thought the world was flat. Now we know it is not. Our perceptions changes with new discoveries. And that it fine. What is NOT fine is balancing morals on science. It is shaky and may be overturned at any time. Religion is not. Religion is firm and absolute, as is God. Rights (and morals) based on science (or fashionable philosphies) are not inalienable. Rights (and morals) based on God (and religion) are. That is the point.

[Doc]

Macroevolution cannot be proven to exist either. .

Wrong. Fuck, creationists love this one. You are simply wrong.

[weknowhowtolive]

Wrong. Fuck, creationists love this one. You are simply wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

[thisistheuproar]

hahaha..........you were the one who called me ridiculous. Don't assume that you could ever poke holes in my logic, or that you have done, or that you could ever come close to pissing me off in a debate.......hahaha


Yes, I am intelligent enough to debate you. You are definitely not my intellectual superior, and I'm definitely not yours.

And I'm not assuming a thing. You can't possibly be that pretentious. You're a walking sack of dirt like the rest of us.

[Martina]

Its interesting that in religion, especially christian which i would consider to be by far the loosest religion in North America, everything has at least two answers and people pick and choose them based on the question at hand. If i asked a question where "God created us in his image" would be an appropriate answer, you would use it. But if "free will" is a better answer you would use that. But then if i mention murder or abortion, free will is taken out, and yet another answer is brought into play. There are always little dances that seem to avoid the actual question at hand.

What you said makes no sense, you have no true understanding of the statement 'man was created God's own image'.
It means that man was as close to God as humanly possible. Lower than angels but above all other creations.

[weknowhowtolive]

What you said makes no sense, you have no true understanding of the statement 'man was created God's own image'.
It means that man was as close to God as humanly possible. Lower than angels but above all other creations.We are either created in his image or we are not. You cannot be created as closely as allowed when the thing creating you is making the rules and then say it is an all seeing all powerful entity.

[Martina]

Are you saying emotions are based on religion?

No, I'm saying that just because you can't scientificaly prove that something exists, it doesn't mean that it's not real. e.g. Love.

[BleedForYourCause]

What evidence?

If you're really interested, read these books. Its too much to get into here (The first one is a 400 page book!)

http://www.amazon.com/Don-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_11_1/104-8614391-0405503?ie=UTF8


http://www.amazon.com/Case-Faith-Journalist-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310234697/sr=1-1/qid=1158522986/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8614391-0405503?ie=UTF8&s=books

[weknowhowtolive]

If you're really interested, read these books. Its too much to get into here (The first one is a 400 page book!)

http://www.amazon.com/Don-Have-Enough-Faith-Atheist/dp/1581345615/ref=sr_11_1/104-8614391-0405503?ie=UTF8


http://www.amazon.com/Case-Faith-Journalist-Investigates-Christianity/dp/0310234697/sr=1-1/qid=1158522986/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8614391-0405503?ie=UTF8&s=booksI will keep an eye out for them, but you just said there is no evidence for macroevolution, will you read a book that says there is?

[BleedForYourCause]

Wrong. Fuck, creationists love this one. You are simply wrong.

Show me one shread of evidence proving it. In all my studies, I have never seen ONE.

[weknowhowtolive]

No, I'm saying that just because you can't scientificaly prove that something exists, it doesn't mean that it's not real. e.g. Love.Are you sure love cannot be scientificaly proven?

[Martina]

We are either created in his image or we are not. You cannot be created as closely as allowed when the thing creating you is making the rules and then say it is an all seeing all powerful entity.

Why not.
Humans are simply the closest earthly link to God. To be exactly like God would make us GODS. It's that kind of thinking that got Lucifer kicked out of heaven.

[weknowhowtolive]

Show me one shread of evidence proving it. In all my studies, I have never seen ONE.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

[BleedForYourCause]

I will keep an eye out for them, but you just said there is no evidence for macroevolution, will you read a book that says there is?

I have. Many times. And not one is convincing. But, if you have one to recommend, shoot. I'm open minded enough to take it at face value.

[Martina]

Are you sure love cannot be scientificaly proven?

What do you mean chemical proven by endorphins? Can you prove that there is not a simular chemical reaction to prayer?

[weknowhowtolive]

Why not.
Humans are simply the closest earthly link to God. To be exactly like God would make us GODS. It's that kind of thinking that got Lucifer kicked out of heaven.I think you're missing my point. You're just continuing my point right now. I am saying that the answers given are flexible based on the situation at hand and the meaning is changed based on the situation.

[weknowhowtolive]

I have. Many times. And not one is convincing. But, if you have one to recommend, shoot. I'm open minded enough to take it at face value.Well, thats fine...ive read plenty of creationist works in school and laughed at them...so i guess we are at a standstill.

[Martina]

I think you're missing my point. You're just continuing my point right now. I am saying that the answers given are flexible based on the situation at hand and the meaning is changed based on the situation.

How so, man was created in the image of God and is not a replication of God.
Christians aren't confused by this.

[weknowhowtolive]

What do you mean chemical proven by endorphins? Can you prove that there is not a simular chemical reaction to prayer?It wasnt a loaded question, but with that answer, i would say prayer would have the same effect on the brain wether there was a god or not, as long as the person believed...or as you call it "faith." That doesnt mean the thing actually exists. Im sure when someone goes to church and confesses, they feel relief because they feel as if they are confessing their sings through a vessel of god. What if that supposed vessel is jerking off choir boys after sunday school? Are they still a vessel of god? would the same chemical and electrical results be found in the person who confessed knowing the man was a kiddy fiddler, and a person not knowing?

[Doc]

Please don't put words in my mouth either. Did I ever say science has nothing to offer? Hell no. I study science. .

errr......actually you did in your very last post. Science has nothing to offer in terms of love, freedom etc. Thats what you said. Science has taught us more about freedom than religion has. It has taught us that we are equal and that we must cooperate to overcome our difficulties. In fact, science plays a very important role in freeing us from superstition


The difference is that my conclusions point me toward God, where as yours (correct me if I'm wrong) do not. And once again, you miss the point. You fail to realize that what I am saying is that science is not absolute. It is constantly changing. Once we thought the world was flat. Now we know it is not. Our perceptions changes with new discoveries. And that it fine. What is NOT fine is balancing morals on science. It is shaky and may be overturned at any time. Religion is not. Religion is firm and absolute, as is God. Rights (and morals) based on science (or fashionable philosphies) are not inalienable. Rights (and morals) based on God (and religion) are. That is the point.

Quote me where I said that our moral code should be based on scientific findings! Quote me. What i have said all along is that science provides us with fertile ground for morality. Have you read a newspaper recently? Did you hear about that bunch of scientists that are burning churches and blowing up non-Darwinists with car bombs? Did you read about the recent spate of executions of people who don't know differential calculus? Thousands of people around the world each day have their arms chopped off for refusing to believe in the Big Bang theory. If creationists don't convert, we march the streets praising Hitler and issue death threats all round. If you refuse to wear condoms, we will cast you out.
Science is progress, religion is stasis.

[weknowhowtolive]

How so, man was created in the image of God and is not a replication of God.
Christians aren't confused by this.Go back and read what i said. I dont care if we were supposidly created in his image or not, my point was that different answers are given basedo n the situation. We were created in gods image, we have free will, but using free will can get you punished by a person who you are supposed to be reflecting.

[weknowhowtolive]

errr......actually you did in your very last post. Science has nothing to offer in terms of love, freedom etc. Thats what you said. Science has taught us more about freedom than religion has. It has taught us that we are equal and that we must cooperate to overcome our difficulties. In fact, science plays a very important role in freeing us from superstition




Quote me where I said that our moral code should be based on scientific findings! Quote me. What i have said all along is that science provides us with fertile ground for morality. Have you read a newspaper recently? Did you hear about that bunch of scientists that are burning churches and blowing up non-Darwinists with car bombs? Did you read about the recent spate of executions of people who don't know differential calculus? Thousands of people around the world each day have their arms chopped off for refusing to believe in the Big Bang theory. If creationists don't convert, we march the streets praising Hitler and issue death threats all round. If you refuse to wear condoms, we will cast you out.
Science is progress, religion is stasis.Id just like to say that, while funny, this was probably the best post ive ever seen on WSN in all my years here.

[BleedForYourCause]

Well, thats fine...ive read plenty of creationist works in school and laughed at them...so i guess we are at a standstill.


This like that you gave me offers nothing but philosophical speculation. I was looking for real, hard evidence where is has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that macroevolution occured. Got one?

[Doc]

You are definitely not my intellectual superior, and I'm definitely not yours. .

Based upon what? Lets debate the issue.......i'm gonna say that I am........prove me wrong.

And I'm not assuming a thing. You can't possibly be that pretentious. You're a walking sack of dirt like the rest of us.

OK, you're a walking sack of dirt.

[weknowhowtolive]

This like that you gave me offers nothing but philosophical speculation. I was looking for real, hard evidence where is has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that macroevolution occured. Got one?No, do you have one for religion?

[Doc]

I have. Many times. And not one is convincing. But, if you have one to recommend, shoot. I'm open minded enough to take it at face value.

Well, try reading some scientific papers. There is fossil evidence of speciation......plenty. We have also observed speciation right in front of our eyes.........in the lab.......in a petri-dish.

[Doc]

Id just like to say that, while funny, this was probably the best post ive ever seen on WSN in all my years here.

You are obviously a man of high intelligence.

[BleedForYourCause]

errr......actually you did in your very last post. Science has nothing to offer in terms of love, freedom etc. Thats what you said. Science has taught us more about freedom than religion has. It has taught us that we are equal and that we must cooperate to overcome our difficulties. In fact, science plays a very important role in freeing us from superstition




Quote me where I said that our moral code should be based on scientific findings! Quote me. What i have said all along is that science provides us with fertile ground for morality. Have you read a newspaper recently? Did you hear about that bunch of scientists that are burning churches and blowing up non-Darwinists with car bombs? Did you read about the recent spate of executions of people who don't know differential calculus? Thousands of people around the world each day have their arms chopped off for refusing to believe in the Big Bang theory. If creationists don't convert, we march the streets praising Hitler and issue death threats all round. If you refuse to wear condoms, we will cast you out.
Science is progress, religion is stasis.


Actually, I said that science has nothing to offer in terms of INTANGABLES. Not in general.

As I stated before, the Founding Fathers knew about equality long before modern science ("...All men are created equal..."). Did they contend that men are endowed by SCIENCE with certain unalienable rights? Nope. Why not? Because science is unstable. God is stable. Science is ever changing. What man (or science) gives can be easily taken away by a whim (or a new finding). What God gives, men cannot take away.

Fertile ground? So you are saying that a moral code as not yet "Grown" in the fertile ground of science?

BECAUSE religion is stasis, we have a firm foundation on which to build a moral code. Because science is ever changing (progressing, if you will) it is unstable.

[weknowhowtolive]

Actually, I said that science has nothing to offer in terms of INTANGABLES. Not in general.

As I stated before, the Founding Fathers knew about equality long before modern science ("...All men are created equal..."). Did they contend that men are endowed by SCIENCE with certain unalienable rights? Nope. Why not? Because science is unstable. God is stable. Science is ever changing. What man (or science) gives can be easily taken away by a whim (or a new finding). What God gives, men cannot take away.

Fertile ground? So you are saying that a moral code as not yet "Grown" in the fertile ground of science?

BECAUSE religion is stasis, we have a firm foundation on which to build a moral code. Because science is ever changing (progressing, if you will) it is unstable.Are these the same founding fathers that had no problem with slavery?

[Martina]

Go back and read what i said. I dont care if we were supposidly created in his image or not, my point was that different answers are given basedo n the situation. We were created in gods image, we have free will, but using free will can get you punished by a person who you are supposed to be reflecting.

Free will simply means we have choices. Even without the existence of God, there is no wrong choice that comes with out a reprisal.

[BleedForYourCause]

No, do you have one for religion?

I believe the burden of proof is on you, who is claiming that somthing never observed, happened. Religion is broad, macroevolution is narrow.

[weknowhowtolive]

Free will simply means we have choices. Even without the existence of God, there is no wrong choice that comes with out a reprisal.So someone who plays vigilante is screwed twice for trying to play god and for commiting murder?

[weknowhowtolive]

I believe the burden of proof is on you, who is claiming that somthing never observed, happened. Religion is broad, macroevolution is narrow.How are all factors in religion broad? How is saying "god created the universe" any broader than macroevolution?

[Doc]

Actually, I said that science has nothing to offer in terms of INTANGABLES. Not in general.

As I stated before, the Founding Fathers knew about equality long before modern science ("...All men are created equal..."). Did they contend that men are endowed by SCIENCE with certain unalienable rights? Nope. Why not? Because science is unstable. God is stable. Science is ever changing. What man (or science) gives can be easily taken away by a whim (or a new finding). What God gives, men cannot take away.

Fertile ground? So you are saying that a moral code as not yet "Grown" in the fertile ground of science?

BECAUSE religion is stasis, we have a firm foundation on which to build a moral code. Because science is ever changing (progressing, if you will) it is unstable.

Science is self improving...........don't you get it yet?

[Doc]

I believe the burden of proof is on you, who is claiming that somthing never observed, happened. Religion is broad, macroevolution is narrow.

You talk of macroevolution but i dont think you even know what it is. And, again, it has been observed.

[Martina]

You are obviously a man of high intelligence.

I think you're going alittle overboard on that one.:tongue:

[Doc]

I think you're going alittle overboard on that one.:tongue:

He made me feel appreciated.:tongue:

[Doc]

Goodnight all. Remember to say your bedtime prayers......or your multiplication tables

[weknowhowtolive]

Im confused...are you actually saying that microevolution is proveable whereas macro is not?

[Martina]

So someone who plays vigilante is screwed twice for trying to play god and for commiting murder?

Vigilantism is illegal. Why is that.

[weknowhowtolive]

Vigilantism is illegal. Why is that.But ive seen you support vigilante justice on this board multiple times.

[weknowhowtolive]

Im done this this for now, im going to watch football.

[BleedForYourCause]

Are these the same founding fathers that had no problem with slavery?

First of all, that is beside the point. If its true, its true, despite what they may have done.
Secondly, because they indulged in slavery does not mean they had no problem with it. Many spoke out against it, and most of those who owned slaves released them shortly following the revolution (George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil." -CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty." RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION (Ironically, the grandfather of Rober E. Lee)

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION

[weknowhowtolive]

First of all, that is beside the point. If its true, its true, despite what they may have done.
Secondly, because they indulged in slavery does not mean they had no problem with it. Many spoke out against it, and most of those who owned slaves released them shortly following the revolution (George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph, and others).

"[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil." -CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

"Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty." RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION (Ironically, the grandfather of Rober E. Lee)

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE CONSTITUTIONAnd? So saying it but not doing it is ok, because its true? Does that mean all the people who kill in the name of god even when he says not to, should be forgiven based on the fact that its true regardless?

[thisistheuproar]

Based upon what? Lets debate the issue.......i'm gonna say that I am........prove me wrong.



OK, you're a walking sack of dirt.

Just show me where I said something unintelligent or uniformed. Show me where I said something that wasn't logically sound.

I never belittled science, I never claimed any sort of religiosity and I don't have any, and I never claimed to be an expert.

If you think you have the upper hand here, then tell me something I don't know.

[BleedForYourCause]

How are all factors in religion broad? How is saying "god created the universe" any broader than macroevolution?

Are you talking about science that points to a Creator, or religion in general?

[weknowhowtolive]

Are you talking about science that points to a Creator, or religion in general?science that points to a all seeing creator and overpowers the science pointing to non creationist theories.

[BleedForYourCause]

And? So saying it but not doing it is ok, because its true? Does that mean all the people who kill in the name of god even when he says not to, should be forgiven based on the fact that its true regardless?

I never said its ok. Just that that might have been what happened in certain cases. You claimed that the Founding Fathers had "no problem" with slavery. I claim otherwise. And your point about killing in the name of God...huh?? Forgivness is a whole different ballgame.

[BleedForYourCause]

science that points to a all seeing creator and overpowers the science pointing to non creationist theories.

Like I said, there's tons...too much to get into on here. If you want to read the evidence, read the books I pointed you too. But what I'm saying is that that is a much broader topic than simply asking for one example of proven example of macroevolution.

[weknowhowtolive]

I never said its ok. Just that that might have been what happened in certain cases. You claimed that the Founding Fathers had "no problem" with slavery. I claim otherwise. And your point about killing in the name of God...huh?? Forgivness is a whole different ballgame.You were saying "shit may of happened but the message is still the same." Correct? So, if someone kills in the name of god, when that god says killing is wrong, shit may happen but the message carried by that man is still the same which is "thou shalt not kill." Correct?

That opens up a whole can of worms with some real fucked up people saying a couple one liners that make sense.

[weknowhowtolive]

Like I said, there's tons...too much to get into on here. If you want to read the evidence, read the books I pointed you too. But what I'm saying is that that is a much broader topic than simply asking for one example of proven example of macroevolution.Well, id like you to define macroevolution, becasue so far it seems like you think its much further off from microevolution that it actually is. The process for change in both are the same.

[BleedForYourCause]

You talk of macroevolution but i dont think you even know what it is. And, again, it has been observed.

I do know what it is...you take me for an uneducated cave man or some shit because I believe in God. I am the furthest thing from that. All I asked for was ONE undeniable example of macroevolution, and you balk. You just keep repeating that its real, and observed. Where? Show me.

[weknowhowtolive]

I do know what it is...you take me for an uneducated cave man or some shit because I believe in God. I am the furthest thing from that. All I asked for was ONE undeniable example of macroevolution, and you balk. You just keep repeating that its real, and observed. Where? Show me.What? I said nothing about you being uneducated, i simply think we may be speaking of something else. I sure as hell hope you're not as dumb as a caveman...because im arguing with you.

[BleedForYourCause]

Well, id like you to define macroevolution, becasue so far it seems like you think its much further off from microevolution that it actually is. The process for change in both are the same.


Well, haha according to the link you gave me, even scientests themselves have trouble defining it, or at least agreeing on a workable definition. But, if I were to define it, I would say it is speciation; in other words, the point at which one species morphs into another and can no longer breed with the origional. Right or wrong?

[Martina]

He made me feel appreciated.:tongue:

The way he's going on, it should be making you feel disired. :wink:

[BleedForYourCause]

What? I said nothing about you being uneducated, i simply think we may be speaking of something else. I sure as hell hope you're not as dumb as a caveman...because im arguing with you.

That was directed toward Doc.

[weknowhowtolive]

Well, haha according to the link you gave me, even scientests themselves have trouble defining it, or at least agreeing on a workable definition. But, if I were to define it, I would say it is speciation; in other words, the point at which one species morphs into another and can no longer breed with the origional. Right or wrong?in that case the Drosophila experimentswould prove macroevolution.

[BleedForYourCause]

You were saying "shit may of happened but the message is still the same." Correct? So, if someone kills in the name of god, when that god says killing is wrong, shit may happen but the message carried by that man is still the same which is "thou shalt not kill." Correct?


That opens up a whole can of worms with some real fucked up people saying a couple one liners that make sense.

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying, but its not really problematic if the message is absolutely true, or if it actually comes from God. If someone is real fucked up, but still speaks the truth, does it make the truth less true? I don't think so. Besides, as I demonstrated, the Founding Fathers weren't as fucked up as you claimed.

[Martina]

But ive seen you support vigilante justice on this board multiple times.


Sure, I'm fallible.

[BleedForYourCause]

in that case the Drosophila experimentswould prove macroevolution.

I'm not familiar, you're gonna have to help me out (political science major here, heh)

[weknowhowtolive]

Yeah, that's basically what I was saying, but its not really problematic if the message is absolutely true, or if it actually comes from God. If someone is real fucked up, but still speaks the truth, does it make the truth less true? I don't think so. Besides, as I demonstrated, the Founding Fathers weren't as fucked up as you claimed.I didnt say they were THAT fucked up, i simply said they didnt seem to have a problem with slavery.

This is turning into a philisophical side arguement, the whole "true or not true thing." and i think we'd probably both end up saying the same thing so we'll just leave that one as it is.

[weknowhowtolive]

I'm not familiar, you're gonna have to help me out (political science major here, heh)a woman took a species of flies or fruit flies or some little bug, all the same species, split them, fed one starch based food and one maltose based food, did that for somewhere around 10 generations i think, and in the end had two different species of flies that couldnt interbreed.

[BleedForYourCause]

I didnt say they were THAT fucked up, i simply said they didnt seem to have a problem with slavery.

This is turning into a philisophical side arguement, the whole "true or not true thing." and i think we'd probably both end up saying the same thing so we'll just leave that one as it is.


Heh, true. Now, what about the macroevolution argument?

[weknowhowtolive]

Sure, I'm fallible.And you still dont understand what i mean by dancing around the point?

[BleedForYourCause]

a woman took a species of flies or fruit flies or some little bug, all the same species, split them, fed one starch based food and one maltose based food, did that for somewhere around 10 generations i think, and in the end had two different species of flies that couldnt interbreed.

Ya got a link or somthing?

[weknowhowtolive]

Ya got a link or somthing?Im looking but i cant find the one im talking about. Here's the wikipedia and here's some google stuff...Wikipedia mentions the woman who did the study, and shows it laid out, but i cant find an actual link to her.

By the way, i wouldnt consider that to be the ONLY factor in macroevolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster
http://www.google.com/search?hs=4oi&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=Drosophila+experiment&btnG=Search

Best i can do.

[Martina]

And you still dont understand what i mean by dancing around the point?


I'm not dancing around anything.
Why do insist on beleive that anyone that claims to believe in God is also claiming to be perfect.

[weknowhowtolive]

I'm not dancing around anything.
Why do insist on beleive that anyone that claims to believe in God is also claiming to be perfect.I dont. This is how the last part of our arguement went.

Me: Free will is crap

You: People will be held accountable for their actions

Me: What about vigilantes (when i said this i was speaking to the point of some dude killing some kid or something of the kind, and someone else taking him out)

You: Vigilantism is illegal, why do you think that is?

Me: But you've backed vigilantism

You: Sure, im fallible.

Now we are back to the first thing you said which is people will be held responsible for their actions. So which is it?

[BleedForYourCause]

"Yet speciation remains an unproven theory. While the fruit fly examples are compelling evidence for speciation, it is not necessarily a dispositive demonstration of "genetic incompatibility" which separates one species from another. Rice and Salt observed that the outcome fly groups "would not" inter-breed. They did not establish that they "could not" inter-breed."

That is huge. Furthermore, is there any evidence that the fruit fly became anything but a fruit fly (albeit a slightly altered form)? It doesn't appear so. It doesn't really prove that a fruit fly could eventually mutate into, say, a house fly. Also, it should be noted that these experiments were directed and purposeful, where as natural selection, in theory, is not.

[weknowhowtolive]

"Yet speciation remains an unproven theory. While the fruit fly examples are compelling evidence for speciation, it is not necessarily a dispositive demonstration of "genetic incompatibility" which separates one species from another. Rice and Salt observed that the outcome fly groups "would not" inter-breed. They did not establish that they "could not" inter-breed."

That is huge. Furthermore, is there any evidence that the fruit fly became anything but a fruit fly (albeit a slightly altered form)? It doesn't appear so. It doesn't really prove that a fruit fly could eventually mutate into, say, a house fly. Also, it should be noted that these experiments were directed and purposeful, where as natural selection, in theory, is not.But you only asked me to prove that one species mutate into another, and that they would no longer breed...and i showed you something that showed that.

Did you read the rest of the wiki article, at the top, where it defines macroevolution as more than just that, and how macro and micro evolution follow the same mechanics to lead to change?

[weknowhowtolive]

Actually, let me ask you a side question...and i promise its not loaded.

If someone were to prove macroevolution on a large scale...ie ape to human, would this prove evolution to you, and leave god behind, would it prove evolution, but not disprove god, or, if we could then see HOW changes took place and duplicate them, would it make humans god?

[BleedForYourCause]

But you only asked me to prove that one species mutate into another, and that they would no longer breed...and i showed you something that showed that.

Did you read the rest of the wiki article, at the top, where it defines macroevolution as more than just that, and how macro and micro evolution follow the same mechanics to lead to change?


Actually, I said COULD, not would. Yeah, I read it, but I've heard it all before...I took biology in college, too haha. My point was simply that I'd like to see what happened if they left them in there for, say, 10,000 generations. I HIGHLY doubt that they would be anything but fruit flys at the end.

[weknowhowtolive]

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/speciations.html
http://northernlightsonline.blogspot.com/2006/06/example-of-speciation-cichlid.html

[weknowhowtolive]

Actually, I said COULD, not would. Yeah, I read it, but I've heard it all before...I took biology in college, too haha. My point was simply that I'd like to see what happened if they left them in there for, say, 10,000 generations. I HIGHLY doubt that they would be anything but fruit flys at the end.If they didnt, it wouldnt disprove anything. There could be many many more factors to WHY a species changes...i doubt sitting in a plastic box all day eating maltose is going to do much...but it could. I guess we would have to see.

[BleedForYourCause]

Actually, let me ask you a side question...and i promise its not loaded.

If someone were to prove macroevolution on a large scale...ie ape to human, would this prove evolution to you, and leave god behind, would it prove evolution, but not disprove god, or, if we could then see HOW changes took place and duplicate them, would it make humans god?

Well, first of all, I'm fairly confident that that's not going to happen, because I don't think it DID happen. But, if, by some chance it happened, I suppose I'd have to rethink alot of things. I don't think it would disprove God at all. Since God can't be proven unequivocally anyway, it certainly wouldn't DISPROVE His exsistance. Sure, it might shake my faith a little, or make me have to re-examine things, like I said. I am intellectually honest, and take everything at face value, as much as any human can. I believe that evidence isa jumping off point for faith, and faith that is contrary to evidence is ignorant. All the things I believe are backed by at least some level of evidence.

[BleedForYourCause]

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML


Oh, yeah. I've read Beak of the Finch already...basically its bullshit, because I have never argued that there could not be minor adaptations within a species, but at the end of the day, all of the birds remain finches. None turned into parrots or some shit.

[weknowhowtolive]

Oh, yeah. I've read Beak of the Finch already...basically its bullshit, because I have never argued that there could not be minor adaptations within a species, but at the end of the day, all of the birds remain finches. None turned into parrots or some shit.So its fair to say that you acknowledge microevolution, just not macro.

[BleedForYourCause]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html



It is noted in this article that the definition of "species" is fairly debatable, as well. Therefore, how can we say with out a doubt that speciation has occured when we're not even sure how to define "species"?

[BleedForYourCause]

So its fair to say that you acknowledge microevolution, just not macro.

Absolutely, which is what I said from the beginning.

[BleedForYourCause]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html


Not to beat a dead horse, but again, this article offers ample evidence for speciation (depending on how you define it), but none of the indicate that any of the end products were anything but what they started out as (e.g fruit flys, ect.)

[siobahn]

There can never be dialogue between religions............the sooner they are all left behind the better for everyone. show me one society in the history of the world that has benefitted from the abandonment of religion.
I believe that morality is really simply altruism..........and altruism is biological. It is within us, and many other species.sure, as a component of evolution. but humans, being so much more complex, need reasons or ways to intellectually justify our behaviour. an expectation that humans will automatically revert to this altruistic instinct ignores the (in my opinion much stronger) forces of habit and laziness. this is where religion comes in.

[weknowhowtolive]

show me one society in the history of the world that has benefitted from the abandonment of religion.
sure, as a component of evolution. but humans, being so much more complex, need reasons or ways to intellectually justify our behaviour. an expectation that humans will automatically revert to this altruistic instinct ignores the (in my opinion much stronger) forces of habit and laziness. this is where religion comes in.Are you saying that society only survives because of religion? Are there any societies that fell while holding on to religion? As far as i know, every single one of them.

[Dawgnuts]

I didn't read anythong other then the title of this thread. So if I said something somoene else did then to bad.


But fuck this shit. Why the fuck is it anyone even FARTS in the direction of arabs they go fuckin hog wild. Yet everyday they preach death to the western world. I am sick and tired of these fuckin smelly fucks. The only thing that pisses me off more is all these human rights groups backing these people up. FUCK THEM.

Why the fuck should he apologize? HE QOUTED SOMEONE.

Why the hell do people keep bowing to these worthless fucks.

[LastRites]

Are you saying that society only survives because of religion? Are there any societies that fell while holding on to religion? As far as i know, every single one of them.
Religion modern or ancient is one of the foundations for each civilization that has ever existed.

[weknowhowtolive]

Religion modern or ancient is one of the foundations for each civilization that has ever existed.And has been the downfall of quite a few.

[LastRites]

And has been the downfall of quite a few.
Only after the birth of Christianity and its introduction these civilizations/socities...however you wanna call them. Other deaths of civilizations were not because of religion/faith but rather cultural in my opinion.

[weknowhowtolive]

Only after the birth of Christianity and its introduction these civilizations/socities...however you wanna call them. Other deaths of civilizations were not because of religion/faith but rather cultural in my opinion.I wouldnt say that.

[LastRites]

I wouldnt say that.
Although faith is part of culture...can you present an example of where a civlilzation went down due to Religion itself?

[weknowhowtolive]

Although faith is part of culture...can you present an example of where a civlilzation went down due to Religion itself?As an only factor? no. As a large factor? Sure. Take a look at the Aztecs.

[LastRites]

As an only factor? no. As a large factor? Sure. Take a look at the Aztecs.
Shine some light on this example for me, would ya? What exactly happened to the Aztecs in regards to religion?

[weknowhowtolive]

Shine some light on this example for me, would ya? What exactly happened to the Aztecs in regards to religion?Near the end of Aztec civilization, the high priests were demanding more and more sacrifices because of drought, famine, disease etc. There have been huge mass graves found, many of which include children that were sacrificed. People up and left.

[weknowhowtolive]

i gotta go to bed but here

"The desire to obtain captives for human sacrifice justified expansion of the Aztec state and eventually led to the downfall of the Aztecs who made many enemies among the people they subjugated. One controversial theory also holds that the Aztecs misinterpreted the appearance of the Spaniards in mythico-religious terms, thinking they fit descriptions in mythology, and the Emperor’s belief in the appearance of a comet as a bad omen signaling the fate of the Aztec empire, also probably did not contribute to an early spirit of resistance to the conquistadors. Religion and the priestly class were thus intertwined with the political, military, and economic institutions that led to both the rise and fall of the Aztec empire."

[LastRites]

Near the end of Aztec civilization, the high priests were demanding more and more sacrifices because of drought, famine, disease etc. There have been huge mass graves found, many of which include children that were sacrificed. People up and left.
Im pretty sure