It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyB

Either that or they are simply derived from the same origin. According to the wiki article the oldest evidence of the word dates back to ancient babylonian stone tablets ca. 1700 BC.

---

They are from the same origin, that was my point; and for that reason, it is a proof against Islam, according to written tradition -- Islam's understanding of the word, is not in agreement, with the historical records.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyB

Many people would describe that example as you, consciously or unconsciously, making a decision to not believe it anymore instead of having been forced upon you by external forces and against your will.

---

You can, if you are of strong enough will power, refuse to accept or not accept anything. I allow facts to move me, but some do not. The power of what you will is always present, even if you do not consciously accept that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronosschoty

They are from the same origin, that was my point; and for that reason, it is a proof against Islam, according to written tradition -- Islam's understanding of the word, is not in agreement, with the historical records.

---

Whatever you are trying to proof, I don't get it. But I am not competent to further discuss the topic either so let's just leave it here. If I had to discuss it I would probably not wonder if one interpretation or the other is correct but rather why someone would want to disproof an entire religion based on their usage of the name of god. It would appear that there are much stronger arguments to make against any known religion if one was of a mind to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronosschoty

You can, if you are of strong enough will power, refuse to accept or not accept anything. I allow facts to move me, but some do not. The power of what you will is always present, even if you do not consciously accept that.

---

True.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyB

claiming [stuff] is very ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

---

Accuses people of being ignorant, cites wikipedia. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zantetsuken

Accuses people of being ignorant, cites wikipedia. Lol.

---

I call it as I see it. Do you have anything to contribute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zantetsuken

Accuses people of being ignorant, cites wikipedia. Lol.

---

Only, I looked for where it uses the word "ignorant" and found non were you linked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

The reason I don't accept it as a stance is because it's a politically correct cop out. They don't want to ruffle any feathers with their opinion, so they pretend to not have an opinion.

---

Just want to add: in this singular instance I do not mind "political correctness" as people who know 100% that god exists or does not exist are much more likely to go to war and kill each other about it than those who admit to themselves that they do not know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TommyB

I call it as I see it. Do you have anything to contribute?

---

I already gave my contribution. Internet arguments over religion are among the most futile of exercises. It's just everyone calling everyone else wrong and citing non-empirical sources as "evidence".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zantetsuken

I already gave my contribution. Internet arguments over religion are among the most futile of exercises. It's just everyone calling everyone else wrong and citing non-empirical sources as "evidence".

---

I think one can contribute more then that, but I wont fault you if you decided to think otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freemehul

You know I agree with that, but this is exactly why it sometimes doesn't strike me as mere stupidity and foolishness. Like maybe they really are nuts.

Take for instance the following:
-ID is utterly shameless. They know its wrong yet do not care that it is wrong.
-its magical thinking, in that they believe there is a higher power, namely god
-its arrogance, because they debase scientific evolution theories
-its promotion of religion due to envy over science
-they think they're entitled to be right, when in fact they're clearly not. Entitlement should come from prove and good arguments, yet they have neither to back up their case and yet despite of that lack they still think they're entitled to promote it. So much so that it must be tought in school, even when it obviously is nonsense.
-they don't put boundaries on their theory of intelligent design
-the ID'ers exploit politics to get what they want and feel like they need to be treated better than science.

Add these seven parts up and what you get is called "narcissism".

---

Add these seven parts up and you have the opinion of one person. There is an argument in philosophy of cause and effect that supports ID. It's called the First Cause Argument:

- Every effect has a cause
- This chain cannot go on infinitely, so there must have been a First Cause, or an Unmoved Mover, or Unmade Maker.
- This First Cause is itself uncaused, and set everything into motion

And before you say Big Bang, it was caused, so it cannot be the First Cause. Some light empirical reading on the subject...

http://tinyurl.com/opqj4r9

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zantetsuken

Accuses people of being ignorant, cites wikipedia. Lol.

---

What's wrong with wikipedia? It's just as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica. Is that not a reliable source of information?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

What's wrong with wikipedia? It's just as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica. Is that not a reliable source of information?

---

For the sake of Encyclopaedia Britannica, I do hope you are wrong, because, I know Wikipedia is very flawed, often times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

What's wrong with wikipedia? It's just as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica. Is that not a reliable source of information?

---

Apples and oranges. When I was in high school, I would use the library computers to edit wikipedia articles to say ridiculous things. Today, I'm a professional researcher. I would never accept a piece of academic literature into my research library that cites wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palem

What's wrong with wikipedia? It's just as reliable as Encyclopaedia Britannica. Is that not a reliable source of information?

---

Ahhhhhhh..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronosschoty

For the sake of Encyclopaedia Britannica, I do hope you are wrong, because, I know Wikipedia is very flawed, often times.

---

Nature did a study. As far as scholarly fields are concerned, Wiki is exactly as accurate as EB. Wiki only starts to take a hit on pages that people would actually get a kick out of making incorrect. Pop culture type of stuff.