Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/17/11 06:09 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 1/14/11 04:39 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The ideas can be dangerous to other ideas in any mode of conflict i.e. stem cell research vs Christianity.

Ah, yes. Refusing to give something that doesn't work money because some people find it immoral is obviously dangerous. It'd be like if we refused to sprinkle newspaper shavings on the road to reduce slippage would be a bad idea because some cult somewhere worships newspaper clippings.

You must be confusing terms. Griffon is talking about research in stem cells as a whole, while you're assuming that what he actually means is stem cell therapy. He's talking about the entire field of study. You're talking about a slightly sensational part of that field. In other words, even if shoving unprogrammed cellies into your cortex didn't cure your Alzheimer, it's still in the interest of ourselves and science to further our understanding of why it didn't/ doesn't work - not to mention if there's any other potential use for stem cells. What if we could make cool-ass live organic Warhammer 40K figurines from that shit? There's still knowledge to be gained from stem cells in general even if stem cell therapy didn't work in any area of medicine!

Besides, what evidence do you have that stem cell therapy is ineffective to begin with? You haven't presented any studies...

*wink wink, nudge nudge*

EBSCOHost

_________________________________

On topic comment:

What haven't we covered yet? I'm curious, and we might as well try to establish what it is if it even exists so we at least get something NEW to talk about or alternatively, completely ignore should that fancy us more.

At 1/14/11 03:00 PM, The-universe wrote: ..you cannot know if 2,000-4,000 years is long enough to conduct wars.

I never said it wasn't. 2,000-4,000 years is plenty of time for a war, it just so happens that no war occured in that time period.

Why did no war occure? I don't know. Maybe it's because there weren't enough civilizations around to go to war with each other. Or maybe there was a war and there just isn't enough evidence to prove it happened. Or maybe giant robots with laser-eyes and rocket-fists stood gaurd over humanity to insure we didn't fight one-another until their energy-cells were replinished from the sunlight enough to allow them to fly back home to their robot planet where they would go on to create the allspark.

The truth is, 'maybe' doesn't count as fact... so unless you have proof of a war fought before 8,000BC, and have proof of what it was fought over, we just have to go by what we do know. After all, it's up to you to prove that it did occure... it's not up to me to prove that it didn't.

On the other hand, even if there where wars before 8,000BC I highly doubt there where enough wars to change the stats enough to matter so I'm not really sure what the issue is. The only way "more wars" is going to change the point I'm making is if those wars not only occured, but occured in the name of religion. Considering the huge diffrence between religious wars and non-religious wars it's highly unlikely that enough religious wars occured in 4,000 years to make any diffrence

if humans are prone to conflict, then the reasons for acts of war are pretty much useless to begin with. That would make the percentages useless.

The point is exactly what you said... humans are prone to conflict. Claiming that religion is the cause of this conflict is a lie. Although it does happen, it does not happen as often as people like to think that it does. In fact, it rarely happens at all.

At 1/14/11 04:23 PM, Imperator wrote: Most wars are quite short and don't necessarily involve a ton of death, but some last a very long time and cause extravagant death.

Although I understand the point you're making, it's not all that realtive to the point I'm making. A lot of people use 'war' as a reason to dislike religion. It's not uncommon to hear people blame the violence of man our our belief in a God... based on few, but popular, examples (like "The Crusades"). However, when you actually look at all the reasons man has found to kill his fellow man, you find that religion is low on the list. We're more likely to kill each other over dirt, then we are God.

At 1/14/11 04:39 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: The ideas can be dangerous to other ideas in any mode of conflict i.e. stem cell research vs Christianity.

Athiests claim that humanity would still have morals even without religion. Debates like Stem Cell research and abortion are issues of personal morals, not issues of faith.

Claiming that these morals only exist because of faith means you admit that other morals, like "not killing everybody you see" also only exists because of faith.

At 1/17/11 03:03 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I never said it wasn't. 2,000-4,000 years is plenty of time for a war, it just so happens that no war occured in that time period.

In your last reply you mentioned the time gap, which implied isn't enough to create a civilisation, mass an army, have a dispute and then play the stab game.

Why did no war occure? I don't know. Maybe it's because there weren't enough civilizations around to go to war with each other. Or maybe there was a war and there just isn't enough evidence to prove it happened. Or maybe giant robots with laser-eyes and rocket-fists stood gaurd over humanity to insure we didn't fight one-another until their energy-cells were replinished from the sunlight enough to allow them to fly back home to their robot planet where they would go on to create the allspark.

I believe it was the transformers who brought us the concept of violence. Either that or Chuck Norris.

The truth is, 'maybe' doesn't count as fact... so unless you have proof of a war fought before 8,000BC, and have proof of what it was fought over, we just have to go by what we do know. After all, it's up to you to prove that it did occure... it's not up to me to prove that it didn't.

I said 'maybe' because I never asserted it as fact, hence the reason for using 'maybe' in the first place. I didn't say there absolutely, positively, 100% was a war prior to the date in the book.

My claim was, that civilisations date back further than the book itself and (you agree with this bit) humans are prone to conflict. Ergo that means there 'could' have easily been a war conducted during the first known developments of sedentism. Since sedentism is an early development of civilisations when groups ceased from being nomadic, then they wouldn't need to be terribly large, sophistocated or have BraveHeart grade battles. Social species + sedentism + prone to conflict = Potential wars.

On the other hand, even if there where wars before 8,000BC I highly doubt there where enough wars to change the stats enough to matter so I'm not really sure what the issue is. The only way "more wars" is going to change the point I'm making is if those wars not only occured, but occured in the name of religion. Considering the huge diffrence between religious wars and non-religious wars it's highly unlikely that enough religious wars occured in 4,000 years to make any diffrence

My point wasn't to show that the 7% would change and the percentage for religious wars began to rise. my point was all of the percentages would change. If there was a war because someone stole another groups sandwich, then that would be important and it would change the statistics for everything. I don't care for the reason of an unaccounted war, so long as all wars are accounted for.

Therefore; they should have gone back further and delved more deeply (or at all if they didn't) into anthropology and archaeology.

The point is exactly what you said... humans are prone to conflict. Claiming that religion is the cause of this conflict is a lie.

Unfortunately I've never stated it was, or believed it was, or inclined it was. Otherwise the part you agree with here would have pretty much debunked the premise.

Although it does happen, it does not happen as often as people like to think that it does. In fact, it rarely happens at all.

However the wiki article you cited never gave any other statistics on any other case to illustrate how rare it is in comparison to everything else.

At 1/17/11 03:40 PM, The-universe wrote: I said 'maybe' because I never asserted it as fact, hence the reason for using 'maybe' in the first place. I didn't say there absolutely, positively, 100% was a war prior to the date in the book.

Look, I agree with your logic... there probably was war before 8,000BC. But, the sad truth is, we don't have any proof to back up those claims. All you and I have is observation and a hunch... too bad that doesn't count in the world of facts and science. Here, we need proof, and it's up to the person making the claim to prove that it happened or they have to accept the idea that it didn't. Annoying, no?

I hope the relation between this debate on the history of war, and the debate of religion, isn't lost on you. You might really believe that war is older then 8,000BC and even consider it extremly likely, but without the stone cold proof... in the words of athiests.... 'your a fucking idiot'. Sucks doesn't it?

At 1/17/11 03:03 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Claiming that these morals only exist because of faith means you admit that other morals, like "not killing everybody you see" also only exists because of faith.

The former by no means necessitates the latter. People are motivated to do identical actions (depending on how much you want to abstract the action) for varied reasons.

For instance: turning on the television. If someone turns on their television only to watch the news, does that then mean that is the only reason anyone ever turns on the television? Obviously not.

Likewise: having a moral value. If someone holds a moral value only because their faith tells them to, does that mean that is the only reason anyone ever holds moral values? No.

And... for good measure... does any of this mean that moral values against stem cell research only exist because of faith? No.

At 1/17/11 03:03 PM, CacheHelper wrote: it's not all that realtive to the point I'm making.

What might be some reasons we consider war a bad thing?

At 1/17/11 06:48 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Look, I agree with your logic... there probably was war before 8,000BC.

Then why did you claim there definitely wasn't war before 8,000 BC in your earlier post?

likely, but without the stone cold proof... in the words of athiests.... 'your a fucking idiot'. Sucks doesn't it?

That's not actually what atheists say...that's what you think they say. Here I was hoping in your time away you'd have done some more research and weren't going to come back with the same old mantras and what not.

I'm honestly started to get confused on the argument either side is making. Or what the argument has morphed into.

For one, Atheist and Theists, your putting all religious opinions into one category. You can't even do that with just Christianity. Understand that the opinions of both Catholicism and Protestantism are different.

Like with Stem Cell Research: The Catholic Church has no problems with Stem Cell research. To be honest it's revolutionary and could save millions of lives. BUT, we are at odds with where the source is. We are completely against EMBRYONIC stem cells from aborted children. Because of our obvious stance against abortion. But we are ok with it coming from Umbilical cords and from your own Bone-marrow.(Which has been studied to possibly be the most effective due to it already being a match to your DNA)

And concerning war: People have always, and un-fortunately will always, kill each other in the name of any ideal. Examples: Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
Adolf Hitler, Atheist: 10 million plus dead
Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead
Fidel Castro, Atheist: 1 million dead

These dictators killed millions of people over the past century and murdered hundreds of thousands in an effort to eradicate religion itself, because, you know, mass murder is the inevitable result when a community becomes too intolerant of outlandish dogmas and too fond of critical thinking. (lol, kidding)

But I'm sure most of you are thinking: "BUT DUDE STALIN DIDN'T KILL RELIGIOUS PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM HE KILLED THEM IN THE NAME OF COMMUNISM!!!!11", as though Communism's status as an atheistic philosophy had nothing to do with persecuting theists. Any ideal no matter how pure can be corrupted. Take the French revolution. They took the ideals of "equality" and "republic" and perverted them to the point of France being crippled in a regime of fear.

In the end though, none of these generalizations are fair. You never hear about the priests who organize charities and are an inspiration for a community. You hear about the ones who hurt children. You never hear about the nice southern family with strong values and stable family relationships. You see the ignorant hic slurring his words on live TV and "16 and pregnant". Every large organization has its corruption. It's just a fallacy of man. We need to see the whole picture and not persecute the whole for the sins of the few.

At 1/17/11 11:07 PM, TheFarseer wrote: as though Communism's status as an atheistic philosophy had nothing to do with persecuting theists.

... as though a swan's status as a bird had nothing to do with it having wings.

The relationship between say... positions on stem cell research and religion... versus the relationship between... atheism and the persecution of theists... is fundamentally different. You seem to be trying to imply the former relationship to the latter. The purpose of the swan analogy was to demonstrate how backwards your proposition is. Our attributing to the swan the classification of 'bird' follows from it having wings. The existence of its wings do not follow from our calling it a bird. Our attributing to communism the classification of 'atheistic' follows from it commonly rejecting the divine. It's rejection of the divine is not authorized nor decreed by atheism, but rather from communist political philosophy - which we describe as atheistic due to that very reason.

In short, you are conflating attribute with authority.

And what's up with calling Hitler an atheist?

At 1/18/11 12:38 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
In short, you are conflating attribute with authority.

Mind you, the same goes for people who claim that religion is the cause for major conflicts and intolerance.
All in all, there is overall no direct causality between wars and religion.

At 1/17/11 09:19 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: no means necessitates the latter.

Agreed. So the death of religion doesn't automatically mean that everybody is going to be ok with stem cell research and abortion. To claim that these fields of science are being held back only because of religion goes against everything you just said.

At 1/17/11 10:26 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Then why did you claim there definitely wasn't war before 8,000 BC in your earlier post?

Lack of proof. Remember... there is no God because nobody can prove it. So, there is no war before 8,000BC because nobody can prove it. Sure, to some it might seem a silly thought. I mean, basic observation of humanity and common hunches might imply to you that man must have fought before that date... but hey, we're in the business of facts, not in the business of hunches. No proof... no war.

At 1/18/11 01:51 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 1/17/11 09:19 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: no means necessitates the latter.

Agreed. So the death of religion doesn't automatically mean that everybody is going to be ok with stem cell research and abortion. To claim that these fields of science are being held back only because of religion goes against everything you just said.

No. Not everything. It goes against, "does any of this mean that moral values against stem cell research only exist because of faith? No." And that was an aside from the refutation of mine, which you're quoting above, to a false dilemma you proposed. It does not go against the refutation of the false dilemma. There are two issues which you're treating as one. Additionally, in order to agree with the portion you quoted, you would have to disagree with what you said just prior to it.

In one instance you claim that one condition necessitates the other. Then you agree that it does not. Which is it?

And none of the above goes against the idea that religion has played a substantial role. < that would be what my assessment looks like before you misrepresent it as an all-or-nothing presumption.

And I guess since you didn't like that question I asked before, I'll try a different one...

Would you say death and/or property damage are generally inherent threats of war (and often fulfilled)?

At 1/18/11 03:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: There are two issues which you're treating as one.

No, I'm not. People are for or against stem cell research based on their own personal morals. Some of these people pull their morals from religion, others do not. You can be religious and for stem-cell research. You can be non-religious and against stem cell research. The opinions of a controversial subject are not directly tied to religion

Therefor, religion is not to blame for the opposition to stem-cell research. If religion is to blame for stem-cell research then it's also the reason the average person doesn't murder every time they get upset. You can't pick and choose what morals do and don't come from religion just because some fit your argument of a better world without God.

If Religion halts stem cell research then it's also the reason the average person doesn't murder. Since we both know that's bullshit, then you can't blame religion for the opposition to stem-cell research. If you do, you're setting double standards and your, once again, just as guilty of all the things you hate religion over.

Would you say death and/or property damage are generally inherent threats of war (and often fulfilled)?

Yeah.. so what? Do you really want me to add up the numbers for you... because only 3 of the dealiest 10 wars in history are related to religion. And even some of those are gross numbers based on the breakdown of a nations census then it is on actually accounted for deaths. The real reason we don't compare numbers is because most wars don't have a body count... since record keeping was pretty much shit until recently. We don't know how many people died in the Crusades... so, we can only go by what we do know. You can't just 'assume' more people died in religious wars you have to prove they did... so good luck with that.

I do enjoy how unable to accept the facts you are when presented... kind of reminds me or a religious person not wanting to accept evolution. It's odd to me you don't see your own hypocracy... but hey, keep at it... you're doing a great job!

At 1/18/11 01:51 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Lack of proof.

That doesn't mean you make a positive and factual claim for the opposite. Especially if you're going to turn around and go back on it. Sure, you're source doesn't have enough proof for a war (although I think what they determine to be a "war" factors in), but that doesn't mean you conclude there was no wars. You yourself acknowledge this later.

Remember... there is no God because nobody can prove it.

No...that just means that God with a capital "G" mostprobably doesn't exist. We've been over this a thousand times and you still refuse to see how such things work.

So, there is no war before 8,000BC because nobody can prove it.

So because one source couldn't prove it now means no one can prove it? I've not read the book, how did they define the parameters of what constitutes a "war" because if they used very narrow definitions then it's entirely possible no war under their terms occured...but that's not the same as no war. Again, a point you seem to already acknowledge.

:Sure, to some it might seem a silly thought.

It is, because that's a hell of a leap based on just using one work on the subject.

I mean, basic observation of humanity and common hunches might imply to you that man must have fought before that date... but hey, we're in the business of facts, not in the business of hunches. No proof... no war.

Again, you cite one work on the subject and then say "if this one work finds no evidence...nobody has any evidence!" that's not how it works. That's a tremendous leap to make, and opens yourself up wide to being proven wrong.

But really, what this was about is how you can make a definite claim in the first post (and again here) that there is no war. But then turn around and back away from it and say there probably was. Which one is it?

At 1/18/11 03:25 PM, CacheHelper wrote: No, I'm not. People are for or against stem cell research based on their own personal morals.

The emphasis here is misleading. People are generally immensely social creatures, as well as affirmation-seeking. For these reasons, abstractly, religion is both pervasive and subsequently influential.

Some of these people pull their morals from religion, others do not. You can be religious and for stem-cell research. You can be non-religious and against stem cell research.

Yup.

The opinions of a controversial subject are not directly tied to religion

They very well can be and many religious people would hold contempt for the stance you've just taken.

Therefor, religion is not to blame for the opposition to stem-cell research.

Partly? Yes. Completely? No.

If religion is to blame for stem-cell research then it's also the reason the average person doesn't murder every time they get upset. You can't pick and choose what morals do and don't come from religion just because some fit your argument of a better world without God.

You're begging the question. Do you think the above is why I "pick and choose"?

Yeah.. so what? Do you really want me to add up the numbers for you... because only 3 of the dealiest 10 wars in history are related to religion. And even some of those are gross numbers based on the breakdown of a nations census then it is on actually accounted for deaths.

Hold on there...

We start with: you claiming that religion isn't so dangerous and corroborate it with a tally of wars.

Then: You are introduced to the concept that not all wars are equally 'dangerous.'

Then: You say that's irrelevant to your point.

Then: When pressed, you use a statistic that relies on the notion that not all wars are equally 'dangerous' to make the same point you had prior - the point which you described as being not relevant to the notion that not-all-wars-are-equally-dangerous.

The real reason we don't compare numbers is because most wars don't have a body count... since record keeping was pretty much shit until recently.

So... despite the fact that tallying wars is not representative of damage-done, it's a valid means to represent damage-done, because we can't accurately gauge the damage-done?

We don't know how many people died in the Crusades... so, we can only go by what we do know.

Except the conclusion (that religion is not dangerous) you drew from what we do know (a tallying of wars) is a non-sequitur.

You can't just 'assume' more people died in religious wars you have to prove they did... so good luck with that.

Except, if I'm to assume you do now consider the tally-of-wars alone insufficient (according to your remarks about the 3 vs 10 deadliest wars), then you would be implicitly assuming that the number of religious wars in your original tally netted a smaller amount of damage. Which you should, by your own argument, dismiss.

Though, I don't really understand why religion has to be the number one cause in order to be considered dangerous. Perhaps, since you seem to understand the positions that I, as an atheist, am suppose to have, you could explain that to me.

At 1/18/11 06:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/18/11 01:51 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Lack of proof.

That doesn't mean you make a positive and factual claim for the opposite. Especially if you're going to turn around and go back on it. Sure, you're source doesn't have enough proof for a war (although I think what they determine to be a "war" factors in), but that doesn't mean you conclude there was no wars. You yourself acknowledge this later.

If you have no actual proof, you can do two things:
1. Accept you can't know and leave the question aside unanswered. (in religion->agnostic position)
2. Pose the solution as a conjecture until proven wrong (in religion: theist or atheist). However, taking 2nd position, you can't pose your conjecture as absolute true or rather, the opposition as wrong because they have no proof. But you can hold your own even with lack of proof.

The position a person can take in this case depends on how much that person trusts his intuition.

At 1/19/11 06:59 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: 1. Accept you can't know and leave the question aside unanswered.

If you accept that you can't (classically) know... you are agnostic.

Not answering the question is implicitly atheistic.

At 1/19/11 09:45 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/19/11 06:59 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: 1. Accept you can't know and leave the question aside unanswered.

If you accept that you can't (classically) know... you are agnostic.

Not answering the question is implicitly atheistic.

Well, there is a spectrum of agnosticism, but what I mean with atheist is that you answer the question with 'no there isn't a God'. But I agree that this is not the formal meaning of atheist.

Then again, let us steer away from the formal clssification of atheism and theism.

At 1/19/11 12:24 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/19/11 09:45 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 1/19/11 06:59 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: 1. Accept you can't know and leave the question aside unanswered.

If you accept that you can't (classically) know... you are agnostic.

Not answering the question is implicitly atheistic.

Well, there is a spectrum of agnosticism, but what I mean with atheist is that you answer the question with 'no there isn't a God'. But I agree that this is not the formal meaning of atheist.

Then again, let us steer away from the formal clssification of atheism and theism.

There is no agreed-upon formal classification of atheism. Dawkins, Sagan, Russell, Camus took "atheism" to mean the positive denial of God's existence, while Flew and some people on the internet take it to mean "lack of belief in deities" I prefer the former definition. I am agnostic, but not an atheist.

Right... we can't have atheism rubbing off it's bad smell on agnosticism.

At 1/18/11 06:49 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: That doesn't mean you make a positive and factual claim for the opposite. Especially if you're going to turn around and go back on it. Sure, you're source doesn't have enough proof for a war (although I think what they determine to be a "war" factors in), but that doesn't mean you conclude there was no wars. You yourself acknowledge this later.

Oh no, we can't play this game.... you set the rules... time and time again. You have to have proof to make a claim. If we allow all things to be treated as facts based on posibilities, then anything you imigine could be a fact. After all, it's possible the easter bunny exists but he's just invisible, immortal, and complelty silent so nobody knows he's there... even though he's right behind you... right now... with a knife.

So because one source couldn't prove it now means no one can prove it?

Do you have another source? If you're so positive war was common before 8000BC then it shouldn't be difficult to prove.

Again, a point you seem to already acknowledge.

It doesn't matter what I personally acknowledge... after all, I acknowledge the possibility a creator or higher power. Just because I think something is possible doesn't mean that it actually occured. It's funny to see how quick you're able to accept my 'acknowledgement' as fact when it agrees with your personal views though.

But really, what this was about is how you can make a definite claim in the first post (and again here) that there is no war. But then turn around and back away from it and say there probably was. Which one is it?

Are we going on the rules of personal belief, or the rules of science? Personally, I believe there to be war before 8000BC... but since I lack the proof to back up said claims I have to accept the fact that there was not.

At 1/18/11 07:17 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: The emphasis here is misleading. People are generally immensely social creatures, as well as affirmation-seeking. For these reasons, abstractly, religion is both pervasive and subsequently influential.

I'll agree with this... but you can't just pick and choose the issues on which this happens. You can't say that this only happens with stem cell resarch but then turn right around and say that this doesn't happen when it comes to say... wether or not I fuck your wife tonight.

If we take what you say as fact, then yes... religion does come with the downside of giving people the reason to reject stem cell research. But it also comes with the upside of giving people a reason not to stap their friends in the face everytime they lose a game of monopoly.

Assuming someone who would stab their friends is going to stab their friends regardless of religious belief also implys that someone who is against stem cell research is going to be against stem cell research regardless of religious belief. At this point, religion is mearly there to back up their claims of why it's bad, but not souly responsible for their personal decision to disagree with it.

They very well can be and many religious people would hold contempt for the stance you've just taken.

Then murder rates would be sky high without religion... people use to stab each other all the time in egypt and rome. Then the Bible came along and man started to calm down with the whole 'murder' thing. Great... I'll take 'not getting murdred' over 'stem cell research' anyday and religion still has far more positive aspects on society then it does negative aspects. Thus making it, 'not dangerious'.

We start with: you claiming that religion isn't so dangerous and corroborate it with a tally of wars.
Then: You are introduced to the concept that not all wars are equally 'dangerous.'
Then: You say that's irrelevant to your point.

It's really not... the issue here is how often religion leads to violence and destruction. The answer is, 'not that often'. In the end, all things can lead to violence and destruction and for all the reasons man chooses to kill one another, religion is low on that list.

Then: When pressed, you use a statistic that relies on the notion that not all wars are equally 'dangerous'

They're not... but for a number of reasons. Example... nobody had a nuclear bomb in the crusades. If a war breaks out tomorrow over the TV show "The view" and a country launches six nuclear bombs and tallies a death count higher then any war ever... is "the view" more dangerious then religion? Or does it just appear more dangerious because lives where easier to take in a shorter amount of time? Clearly religion is more dangerious then the view since man has decided to kille ach other over it 122 times. Where as we only had one war over "the view"... and it's high number of deaths is contributed only to how powerful the weapons where at the time.

So damage done, not that important to the point being made. I'm not talking about how deadly our technology is when we decided to go to war, I'm talking about how often we choose to fight over specific subjects. We fight over mud more then we fight over religion.

Except, if I'm to assume you do now consider the tally-of-wars alone insufficient

No, not at all. The reason we go to war is the issue here, not how violent the war is. When brought up, we ran into the issue that we don't know how violent most of the wars man fought, have been due to poor record keeping. Even with what we could dig up, it turns out that the supposadly 10 most violent wars in history (built of speculation alone) results in only 3 of them being religious. And one of the 3 religious wars is known to have a substantually faulty death count because it's based on chinese sensus records... which where bad to begin with... and even worse after the war due to the breakdown of the people that ran it. So even giving the religious wars the benifit of the doubt, they still don't rank as the most violent... but who cares because that's not the point anyway.

Remember your stubborness on this subject the next time a religious person tries to tell you why they don't believe in evolution... right now, you're the 'creationist'. I find it all kind of funny.

Though, I don't really understand why religion has to be the number one cause in order to be considered dangerous.

All things are dangerous... even the sun. The amount of danger is a pretty important factor when trying to determin as to wether or not something is bad. After all, food is dangerous but it provides where more positive aspects then it does dangers, so therefor, it's a good thing. That's just how life works.

Religion... not that dangerous. More people die in car accidents a year then they do in suicide bombings. And more people die of heart problems then they do in car accidents. once again, religion is down there on the list of 'shit that'll get you killed'. Where global conflict is concerned, still not toping the charts of loss-of-life even with bonk figures... and we're far more likly to start a war over mud, money, or politics then we are a religious belief.

So the idea that religion is dangerous, is wrong.

At 1/17/11 06:48 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

:All you and I have is observation and a hunch... too bad that doesn't count in the world of facts and science. Here, we need proof, and it's up to the person making the claim to prove that it happened or they have to accept the idea that it didn't. Annoying, no?

You're absolutely right. However what you're talking about seems to be referring to something that has been proven to be the most likely explaination or is being researched (or both). Generally when someone has an idea or finds a phenomenon, it's basically using what we know so far. For example I claimed humans are sociable, prone to conflict and gave dates to the beginnings of civilisations. But research is going to be needed. I haven't read the book, but from the brief summaries I've read it appears the Historians looked for recorded information about the events, which is why I suggested they should have (if they didn't) delved very deelpy into anthropology and archaeology.

I hope the relation between this debate on the history of war, and the debate of religion, isn't lost on you. You might really believe that war is older then 8,000BC and even consider it extremly likely, but without the stone cold proof... in the words of athiests.... 'your a fucking idiot'. Sucks doesn't it?

I consider the idea that there could have been a war prior to 8000bc as just a possibility, just as much as I consider life on other worlds as a possibility, or Europa having liquid water under it's ice ridden surface as a possibility. It's a concept purely for debate and nothing more until something concrete is discovered. Until we crack the ice, we can only use the information we know so far or lurk into other methods.

I was never really one to use the "religions is bad cous of warz!" argument because it's like saying the Ford GT sucks because the Model T didn't have disk brakes or a CD player.

At 1/19/11 02:29 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Oh no, we can't play this game.... you set the rules... time and time again.

What game? I'm asking you how you can make a positive claim for something and then go back on it saying there's a lack of proof. How can you go from "there was no war" to "there probably were wars...we just can't prove them". One is an emphatic statament of denial, the other is allowing for the idea that even though you cannot prove the thing to have happened (war) there is still a possibility proof may yet emerge.

What is unclear or wrong in that?

You have to have proof to make a claim.

To make a claim that something did or did not happen, and claim that as absolutely factual and true, yes.

If we allow all things to be treated as facts based on posibilities, then anything you imigine could be a fact.

Uh huh, that's why I'm not doing that and it has nothing to do what I asked.

After all, it's possible the easter bunny exists but he's just invisible, immortal, and complelty silent so nobody knows he's there... even though he's right behind you... right now... with a knife.

Not really. Since we definitely know how the functions assigned to the easter bunny are carried out without an easter bunny involved. Ditto Santa Claus. This again is non-sequitor to what I asked.

Do you have another source? If you're so positive war was common before 8000BC then it shouldn't be difficult to prove.

I didn't say it was common. I asked you how you can say it DIDN'T happen then say it probably did. One is an emphatic denial, the other is saying we don't have enough evidence. It's two different things, I'm not arguing for war before then. I'm asking how you can be so sure based on only one source, and then turn around and abandon that surety in the face of questioning.

That is the sum total of what I asked, and then you decide to go off and complicate that simple question with non-sequitor.

It's funny to see how quick you're able to accept my 'acknowledgement' as fact when it agrees with your personal views though.

I don't accept your acknowledgment as fact. Please answer my simple fucking question already and stop obfuscating into your usual crap.

Are we going on the rules of personal belief, or the rules of science? Personally, I believe there to be war before 8000BC... but since I lack the proof to back up said claims I have to accept the fact that there was not.

No, you really and truly don't. You only accept the fact that there wasn't until proof emerges. Or, and this is key, you use other sources. Just because one book shows no evidence doesn't mean nobody does. You misunderstand science (again) by thinking if one scientist stands up and says something like "deer always mate in the summer, here's the proof" that no other scientist would ever try to study the opposite, or attempt to point out potential flaws in that. Science at it's core is the search for truth, it is an unending search and that is why things change.

It's not "I have the answer!! Everybody stop fucking looking!!". It's not absolutist, that's why the smart money when you can't prove something like "was there a war before 8,000 BC?" is to say "Not until we can prove there is". Then you keep looking. But in this case your reason is faulty because your saying because this one book couldn't based on what their criteria for a "war" is says there's none, doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Let's go to dictionary.com's definition for war:

War

Wow! 13 definitions! Looks to me like it would be pretty easy to have a conflict that fits at least one of those definitions before we had city states and "civilization" to me! That's why I think it's important to know what the authors were using as a definition when they talked about "war".

At 1/17/11 07:43 AM, zephiran wrote:
On topic comment:

What haven't we covered yet? I'm curious, and we might as well try to establish what it is if it even exists so we at least get something NEW to talk about or alternatively, completely ignore should that fancy us more.

My point was that direct conflict of 'absolute' moral disapproval where societies are incapable of finding a ground of tolerance (hence the contrast) can, and may necessitate violence. Fuck it even happens over music tastes in England, rave and rock and everything...

At 1/19/11 02:59 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 1/19/11 02:29 PM, CacheHelper wrote: Oh no, we can't play this game.... you set the rules... time and time again.

What game? I'm asking you how you can make a positive claim for something and then go back on it saying there's a lack of proof. How can you go from "there was no war" to "there probably were wars...we just can't prove them". One is an emphatic statament of denial, the other is allowing for the idea that even though you cannot prove the thing to have happened (war) there is still a possibility proof may yet emerge.

What @ CacheHelper.
That's like saying, the water boiled at 100 degrees C, and then boiled at 97 degrees C, but that's ok because it didn't boil in the first place anyway. You do realise that historical 'facts' are "necessary truths", even if they are limited to your perception 'making them immune to the epistemological problem', not predictive hypothesis?

At 1/17/11 06:48 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

At 1/17/11 03:40 PM, The-universe wrote:

Look, I agree with your logic... there probably was war before 8,000BC. But, the sad truth is, we don't have any proof to back up those claims. All you and I have is observation and a hunch... too bad that doesn't count in the world of facts and science. Here, we need proof, and it's up to the person making the claim to prove that it happened or they have to accept the idea that it didn't. Annoying, no?

In a world of facts and science? Do you accept everything at face value to be true, like the decay constant for radioactive isotopes?

LOL did anybody get that?

At 1/19/11 02:59 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: What game? I'm asking you how you can make a positive claim for something and then go back on it saying there's a lack of proof.

I have proof of all 1,763 wars. That's a positive, documented, verifiable claim. We know those wars occured. The oldest of those wars, 8000BC.

If you think there was war before 8000BC, it's on you to prove that it occured... it's not up to me to prove that it didn't. If you can't prove war before 8000BC, then war didn't occure before 8000BC. End of discussion. You can BELIEVE that war occured before 8000BC with all your heart and soul, but that doesn't change anything. Beliefs don't count for shit in a world full of facts. Either prove it, or shut the fuck up.

I didn't say it was common. I asked you how you can say it DIDN'T happen

It's not up to me to prove that it DIDN'T happen... it's up to you to prove that it DID. According to the facts... the oldest war is 8000BC. What I personaly believe doesn't matter. We're not in the business of beliefs, we're in the business of facts, remember?

I'm asking how you can be so sure based on only one source, and then turn around and abandon that surety in the face of questioning.

I'm not abandoning anything. I'm telling you that war didn't occure until 8000BC. You guys are the one telling me that's not true.

No, you really and truly don't. You only accept the fact that there wasn't until proof emerges.

...and this doesn't sound familure to you at all?
That's funny, because it reminds me of somebody I know... for a hint: look in a mirror.

you use other sources.

Do you have a source that can prove war before 8000BC?

if one scientist stands up and says something like "deer always mate in the summer, here's the proof" that no other scientist would ever try to study the opposite, or attempt to point out potential flaws in that.

Then it's up to that other scientist to provide proof to discredit the claim... not just stand around and go "nu-uh". So are you going to provide the proof that there was war before 8000BC or are you just going stand around going "nu-uh"?

It's not absolutist, that's why the smart money when you can't prove something like "was there a war before 8,000 BC?" is to say "Not until we can prove there is".

Great... so arguing that war didnt' occure before 8000BC is pretty moronic... after all , I don't KNOW that for sure. Running around acting like I do know this, makes me a pretty big, stubbern, asshole doesn't it? Especially when I start saying things like "anyone who believes that war occures before 8000BC deservers to be removed from the planet". Hmmm... this all seems familure somehow... so about this whole "god" thing?

Looks to me like it would be pretty easy to have a conflict that fits at least one of those definitions before we had city states and "civilization" to me!

Considering most of those definitions are bands, songs, and albums... I doubt it. But good job on trying to be a smart ass. I do enjoy how you like to derail the conversations from basic common sense to an obsered techincallity every chance you get though. If that's what makes you feel smart... Great Job!

I do a poor job at explaining to theists why they are wrong. I understand why they are wrong but often I just can't find the words to say it, which is odd because I love the English language. Fortunately these guy's cover my sentiments in the matter both satirically and philosophically.

At 1/19/11 02:29 PM, CacheHelper wrote: It doesn't matter what I personally acknowledge... after all, I acknowledge the possibility a creator or higher power. Just because I think something is possible doesn't mean that it actually occured.

Except "I believe there to be war before 8000BC" is a tad different than "I believe that there was a possibility that there was war before 8000BC."

If we take what you say as fact, then yes... religion does come with the downside of giving people the reason to reject stem cell research. But it also comes with the upside of giving people a reason not to stap their friends in the face everytime they lose a game of monopoly.

A reason or the reason. Which do you think I'm arguing?

Assuming someone who would stab their friends is going to stab their friends regardless of religious belief also implys that someone who is against stem cell research is going to be against stem cell research regardless of religious belief. At this point, religion is mearly there to back up their claims of why it's bad, but not souly responsible for their personal decision to disagree with it.

Do you think I'm claiming that religion is solely responsible for the aforementioned values?

Then murder rates would be sky high without religion... people use to stab each other all the time in egypt and rome. Then the Bible came along and man started to calm down with the whole 'murder' thing. Great... I'll take 'not getting murdred' over 'stem cell research' anyday and religion still has far more positive aspects on society then it does negative aspects. Thus making it, 'not dangerious'.

The Egyptians and Romans were atheists before the Bible?

You just, in your last response to me, told me (and are about to again) that I could not make an assumption that more people died in religious wars because the data isn't really there [ Mind you this was despite my not actually ever making such an assumption nor intending to ]. So, I take it you have reliable data corroborating that stabbings nose dived after the wide acceptance of Christianity in the aforementioned civilizations.

Not only that, but you're making a pretty big assumption that socio-economic factors aren't the major contributor to the alleged relative peace of modern day living.

I realize that the argument you've just made is a meditation on the premise that religion is not directly tied to morality. However, once again, it does not follow. Direct relation does not equate to sole relation, not on a macroscopic scale.

The notion that religion is only either benign or impotent is a notion neither of us hold, yet you seem to be arguing for it.

It's really not... the issue here is how often religion leads to violence and destruction. The answer is, 'not that often'. In the end, all things can lead to violence and destruction and for all the reasons man chooses to kill one another, religion is low on that list.

Alright. If it's not relevant, then the qualification of those 10 wars being the deadliest is superfluous and coincidental. Therefore, I should conceivably be able to select any 10 wars and end up with an equally cogent microcosm demonstrating your position. 10, better yet, 100 out of 100 wars have been religious wars.

So damage done, not that important to the point being made. I'm not talking about how deadly our technology is when we decided to go to war, I'm talking about how often we choose to fight over specific subjects.

Yes. The progressive efficiency with which we can harm one another, in conjunction with poor tabulation of ancient death tolls, throws a couple wrenches in the cogency of a damage-done analysis. But the argument from frequency is just as thin.

Bill eats several plates of pulled pork. It fills him up. The next night, Bill eats one plate of beef. It does not. Is pulled pork more filling than beef? Frequency-of-intake is one factor in determining how filling a meat product may be. The quantity in one instance of feeding would also be.

Likewise, the frequency in which religion is fought over is certainly relevant, but not the sole variable for the question of whether or not religion's danger is noteworthy. To make the claim you are making, you would either have to presume or disregard relevant information.

We fight over mud more then we fight over religion.

* mud : territory and resources. I think you could try a little harder to drop the rhetoric.

All things are dangerous... even the sun. The amount of danger is a pretty important factor when trying to determin as to wether or not something is bad. After all, food is dangerous but it provides where more positive aspects then it does dangers, so therefor, it's a good thing. That's just how life works.

So here's another layer you're wedging in to the discussion. "Is religion good or bad?" Obviously, this is not the same question as, "is religion dangerous," or "is religion fought over more or less frequently than other things."

This is going to come off as rude, but you're demonstrating a habit of making a conclusion, and then hedging that conclusion on the outcome of one factor, regardless of what other factors may be relevant.

Religion... not that dangerous. More people die in car accidents a year then they do in suicide bombings. And more people die of heart problems then they do in car accidents. once again, religion is down there on the list of 'shit that'll get you killed'.

And that is the only conceivable danger it poses? You just exploded the discussion into a generalization of 'good' and 'bad' but only wish to discuss it in terms of body count now, when you've also made the case that body count is irrelevant.

At 1/19/11 06:20 PM, CacheHelper wrote: I have proof of all 1,763 wars. That's a positive, documented, verifiable claim. We know those wars occured. The oldest of those wars, 8000BC.

Stop avoiding my question. That's not what I asked.

If you think there was war before 8000BC, it's on you to prove that it occured... it's not up to me to prove that it didn't.

If you want to claim it didn't then uh, yes, yes it is on you to prove it didn't.

If you can't prove war before 8000BC, then war didn't occure before 8000BC. End of discussion.

That's not our discussion, our discussion is YOU saying no war occured. Then saying to the-universe that it probably did. Our discussion is how YOU can try to take both positions. The rest is the typical frustrating obfuscation and non-sequitor you seem to love so well.

You can BELIEVE that war occured before 8000BC with all your heart and soul, but that doesn't change anything. Beliefs don't count for shit in a world full of facts. Either prove it, or shut the fuck up.

Either answer my actual question or shut the fuck up. I'm not interested in having the same circular meaningless discussions with your ass. Either debate me on what I asked and set the parameters for or fuck off back to your blog. I'm not going to be your soapbox (once again) for you proving how little you reading comprehend and understand about faith vs. science, fact vs. belief.

It's not up to me to prove that it DIDN'T happen... it's up to you to prove that it DID. According to the facts... the oldest war is 8000BC. What I personaly believe doesn't matter. We're not in the business of beliefs, we're in the business of facts, remember?

Again, you're obfuscating. You made an emphatic claim that it DIDN'T happen. You base this off one source. You do not know the research methods of this source. You are perfectly happy to rely on this one source and say it DIDN'T happen. This is a claim for denial, to make a claim, you must prove the claim. But this STILL obfuscates the original question, how can you hold both positions? Or did you simply do that to bait people into letting you get on your soapbox where you try to prove how much smarter then the smart people you are yet again?

I'm not abandoning anything. I'm telling you that war didn't occure until 8000BC. You guys are the one telling me that's not true.

At 1/17/11 06:48 PM, CacheHelper wrote:

Look, I agree with your logic... there probably was war before 8,000BC.

Do you deny writing that? Because that's where my confusion lies. Here, and prior to this statement you make a definite and emphatic denial...but here you admit the possibility, in fact even seem to say it's a good one. So how do you emphatically deny the thing, digging in your heels and going "nuh uh" when you clearly made a statement admitting the possibility, and further more it seems like you think it's a good possibility.

...and this doesn't sound familure to you at all?

In that it tends to be the way the world works? Yeah, very familiar in fact.

Do you have a source that can prove war before 8000BC?

I don't, but that's irrelevant to what I was asking you to speak on. How can you emphatically deny something, then turn around and admit the possibility is likely. How do you slam the door on the one hand, but then leave it open on the other? How can you hold conflicting positions?

Then it's up to that other scientist to provide proof to discredit the claim... not just stand around and go "nu-uh".

How very true.

So are you going to provide the proof that there was war before 8000BC or are you just going stand around going "nu-uh"?

I'm not going "nuh-uh" I'm not even particularly saying that there was or must have been. I'm asking YOU how you emphatically deny it, but then tell someone else not a post or two later when they question the source that it's a possibility. That is ALL I'm talking about, the rest is you begging me to get into some debate I wasn't trying to get into. Are you incapable of simple straight forward answers?

Great... so arguing that war didnt' occure before 8000BC is pretty moronic... after all , I don't KNOW that for sure. Running around acting like I do know this, makes me a pretty big, stubbern, asshole doesn't it? Especially when I start saying things like "anyone who believes that war occures before 8000BC deservers to be removed from the planet". Hmmm... this all seems familure somehow... so about this whole "god" thing?

I don't say those things. Pox says those things. Some atheists say those things. I disagree with them. We've been over that. However I entertain the possibility for a being or beings in a creative capacity, I cannot say I believe there existence to be a fact.

You need to stop trying to paint all doubters with the same brush, it's played out as fuck. It also makes you look at stubborn, stupid, and moronic as the people you're criticizing.

Considering most of those definitions are bands, songs, and albums... I doubt it.

Huh? Are you serious? Where do you see those definitions labeled as "bands, songs, and albums"? Maybe you should get this reading comprehension problem checked...

But good job on trying to be a smart ass.

While I can certainly be an ass, I was merely trying to be smart in this case. :)

I do enjoy how you like to derail the conversations from basic common sense to an obsered techincallity every chance you get though. If that's what makes you feel smart... Great Job!

I asked you a simple question, which you keep doing everything in your power not to answer...I've asked it at least 2 to 3 times with every reply and you still refuse to actually answer it. But I'm the one derailing things? Projection is an ugly thing.