Thank you, I'm glad someone said it. This point about the shift in the republican party must be made. Republicans and Libertarians were much more similar in the Barry Goldwater era. Imagine having a pro-choice republican presidential nominee. Goldwater was in '64, a time when the Republican party was actually about small government. No one could possibly confuse the Republican party and administration of today, the secrecy, the wire-taps, the Iraq invasion for that matter, is counter intuitive to the conservative mindset, at least of Goldwater's time. Then something screwy happened in the late 70s and early 80s. Reagan led the republicans into their current path of "the Christian Right," pushed further by Falwell's creation of the moral majority and by the eventual presidential campaign of Pat Robertson which led to the creation of the Christian Coalition. Libertarians are the remaining visage of that Republican party of the the 60s and 70s. Our leading conservative party definitely took a turn for the worse there.
Don't get me wrong, the Libertarians are still wrong.:P I'm with you on the concept of Social Darwinism, it's idiotic. It assumes we all start on equal footing, and that our life is only determined by our own choices and merits. Easy for people like Bush or most republicans to say, born on the top of social ladder. Not hard to "pick yourself up" when you're already on the top. Clearly life is not exactly equal-opportunity. Still, at least the Libertarians are actual the conservatives they say they are, as opposed to our current republican party, which, considering their warrant-less wiretaps, secret and closed government, huge military budget, imperialism, and attempted manipulation of the justice department, more closely resemble the naz... well, Godwin has the rest of this post covered.
not to mention that, as we are all taught the bohr model of the atom before orbitals are ever discussed, school often teaches us a simple way to look at things before the more difficult concepts are introduced.
Also, even the Vatican is flexible on the subject of evolution in God's grand plan.
this is, for certain, an understatement. the director of the vatican observatory, speaking on behalf of the church's scientific understanding, makes clear the position the church takes on science, and specifically, evolution. he actually tears into a "rogue bishop" for making statements otherwise. the vatican even goes so far as to denounce ID being taught in the classroom. seems the catholic church may have done something right.
This would almost be valid criticism, except one little detail. Where did he state those as facts? Are you assuming that since he used a bulleted list that he was implying that the items were factual? Is it because he didn't offer the disclaimer that they were his opinion? I read the items as a list of opinions myself.
something like a date is inherantly fact, especially when used as an argument.
Oh, and your response came off as WAY more cocky to me.
of course it was cocky, did you think for a second that i really spoke like that? responding to his cockiness with an even more cocky criticism of his own cockiness. isn't that funny? i think it's pretty funny. or at least it was, until i had to explain it. stop ruining my fun.
Of course, the Jews have quite a bit to say about the idea of their scriptures meaningfully being anyone's "Old Testament."
since the original discussion was about the age of the bible, i was seeking only to establish that elements of the bible were older than 500 ad, and not that elements of the torah were, wrongfully or not, also placed in aforementioned bible. i make no claim as to how the jews, as an entity, feel about this, nor would i ever make so bold or so universal a claim. although, next time i talk to "the jews," i'll be sure to ask them. all of them. ever.
However, while we're noting times in the NT, the writings of Paul are probably the earliest of all, and the only documents that we are sure were, mostly, written by a particular known person.
this is true. i used the gospel as an example that most would be familiar with. it only takes one counter example to falsify a claim such as "Man wrote the bible around 500AD," which places such absolute limits and is so easily disproved. again, i was merely attemping to take the poster's legs out from under him, which was so easily done when they were already buckling under the weight of so much bullshit.
since we were on the topic of arrogance, i intended only to point out the arrogance of making "factual" claims that are erroneous, and especially the arrogance of the use of such claims in argument. whether or not the book is factual has nothing to do with the poster claiming to know something he or she does not, especially when he or she asserts the "fact" in such a fucking cocky manner.:D
actually, the basis for the old testament, hebrew scriptures and law, predates the birth of christ. the gospel of mark, considered the earliest gospel, is dated by historians between 60 and 80 ad.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you, I'm glad someone said it. This point about the shift in the republican party must be made. Republicans and Libertarians were much more similar in the Barry Goldwater era. Imagine having a pro-choice republican presidential nominee. Goldwater was in '64, a time when the Republican party was actually about small government. No one could possibly confuse the Republican party and administration of today, the secrecy, the wire-taps, the Iraq invasion for that matter, is counter intuitive to the conservative mindset, at least of Goldwater's time. Then something screwy happened in the late 70s and early 80s. Reagan led the republicans into their current path of "the Christian Right," pushed further by Falwell's creation of the moral majority and by the eventual presidential campaign of Pat Robertson which led to the creation of the Christian Coalition. Libertarians are the remaining visage of that Republican party of the the 60s and 70s. Our leading conservative party definitely took a turn for the worse there. Don't get me wrong, the Libertarians are still wrong. :P I'm with you on the concept of Social Darwinism, it's idiotic. It assumes we all start on equal footing, and that our life is only determined by our own choices and merits. Easy for people like Bush or most republicans to say, born on the top of social ladder. Not hard to "pick yourself up" when you're already on the top. Clearly life is not exactly equal-opportunity. Still, at least the Libertarians are actual the conservatives they say they are, as opposed to our current republican party, which, considering their warrant-less wiretaps, secret and closed government, huge military budget, imperialism, and attempted manipulation of the justice department, more closely resemble the naz... well, Godwin has the rest of this post covered.
not to mention that, as we are all taught the bohr model of the atom before orbitals are ever discussed, school often teaches us a simple way to look at things before the more difficult concepts are introduced.
this is, for certain, an understatement. the director of the vatican observatory, speaking on behalf of the church's scientific understanding, makes clear the position the church takes on science, and specifically, evolution. he actually tears into a "rogue bishop" for making statements otherwise. the vatican even goes so far as to denounce ID being taught in the classroom. seems the catholic church may have done something right.
:P
i ended my response with a :D good god! do emotes mean nothing anymore!?
something like a date is inherantly fact, especially when used as an argument.
Oh, and your response came off as WAY more cocky to me.
of course it was cocky, did you think for a second that i really spoke like that? responding to his cockiness with an even more cocky criticism of his own cockiness. isn't that funny? i think it's pretty funny. or at least it was, until i had to explain it. stop ruining my fun.
serioiusly, i have no idea. he's probably just a douche. :D
since the original discussion was about the age of the bible, i was seeking only to establish that elements of the bible were older than 500 ad, and not that elements of the torah were, wrongfully or not, also placed in aforementioned bible. i make no claim as to how the jews, as an entity, feel about this, nor would i ever make so bold or so universal a claim. although, next time i talk to "the jews," i'll be sure to ask them. all of them. ever.
However, while we're noting times in the NT, the writings of Paul are probably the earliest of all, and the only documents that we are sure were, mostly, written by a particular known person.
this is true. i used the gospel as an example that most would be familiar with. it only takes one counter example to falsify a claim such as "Man wrote the bible around 500AD," which places such absolute limits and is so easily disproved. again, i was merely attemping to take the poster's legs out from under him, which was so easily done when they were already buckling under the weight of so much bullshit.
since we were on the topic of arrogance, i intended only to point out the arrogance of making "factual" claims that are erroneous, and especially the arrogance of the use of such claims in argument. whether or not the book is factual has nothing to do with the poster claiming to know something he or she does not, especially when he or she asserts the "fact" in such a fucking cocky manner. :D
actually, the basis for the old testament, hebrew scriptures and law, predates the birth of christ. the gospel of mark, considered the earliest gospel, is dated by historians between 60 and 80 ad.