Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-25-2002, 07:40 PM   #41
Silver Cheetah
Fzoul Chembryl
 

Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally posted by Azred:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
Hehe. Love you, myth person!!
Really, now? You know that I am merely a fountain of "useless" information, yes? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[/QUOTE]I didn't, but I do now! [img]smile.gif[/img]
__________________
Silver Cheetah is offline  
Old 04-25-2002, 07:46 PM   #42
Silver Cheetah
Fzoul Chembryl
 

Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: Brighton, East Sussex, UK
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
Rainforest is a different matter though, it's nature is not conducive to a managed forestry approach (based on the reading I've done it appears that rain forest needs to reach a "critical density" in order to develop the multi-level ecosystem that they support. So I totally support conservation efforts that involve a "hands-off" approach. I do not believe the doom and gloom predictions of the radicals about how rainforest takes hundreds of years to recover though... abandon areas of the Amazon have reverted to rainforest quite rapidly. As long as we don't turn it all into a desert wasteland, we won't lose it.
On the reverting front - for most of the vegetation, I am sure that is the case. But if you cut down old growth trees in the rainforest, surely they ARE going to take quite some time to regenerate? I'm sure trees grow faster in the rainforest than they do in, say, the British climate, but even so, there must be limits, surely? From what you are saying I have visions of some kind of mad, miracle tree growth going on. Shurely shome mishtake?

Think I shall research this point, - interesting! Or do you know the answer already?

[ 04-25-2002, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]
__________________
Silver Cheetah is offline  
Old 04-25-2002, 09:33 PM   #43
Sir Michael
Manshoon
 

Join Date: October 2, 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Age: 57
Posts: 202
Twice, twice! I was misquoted...

Reread my last post please...I did in fact say that science and faith were not exclusive. I was rebutting Magik's comment to the contrary.

Man, this conversation has more twists and turns that a mountain pass!

Now we're on the environment again?
__________________
\"You see things; and you say \'Why?\' But I dream things that never were; and I say \'Why not?\'\"<br />-George Bernard Shaw<br /><br />\"Men take only their needs into consideration never their abilities.\"<br />-Napoleon Bonaparte
Sir Michael is offline  
Old 04-26-2002, 08:46 AM   #44
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Michael:
From Magik:

quote:
There is no "faith" in science, there are only theory, observation, and demonstrable facts/proofs.
As a scientist, I must disagree. Science has not completely or correctly explained many, many things in our world. For those things, I simply believe in the current theories based on facts (like, say, the beginning of the universe--the Big Bang or other theories. It is the best explanation we have, and it is based on experimental, scientific evidence, so until someone proves otherwise, or comes up with a theory that better fits the facts, I have faith (believe) that that is the way the Universe began.) Even with stuff we know, it is just a matter where I believe the teachings of my forefathers - I've never seen an atom, or its component protons, neutrons, and electrons...I believe that they exist, though...to not do so is to undermine the foundations of chemistry.

I would submit, though, that science is at least based on factual evidence, whereas religion cannot be so supported. Like as has been said so by others here, religion and faith are intensely individual experiences, which are different from person to person. Also, your beliefs can't be supported by any sort of experimental proofs like we use in science to validate things. I could say that I have been touched by the hand of God and that I am the new Messiah, too, although it wouldn't make it so, unless I could prove it by walking on water, or turning water to wine or somesuch (in front of people, so it can be verified).

That's not to criticize or invalidate people's personal beliefs in any way. Everyone is entitled to believe as they please - this is a free country after all. I would perhaps be more comfortable if people were not so outspoken in voicing their religious beliefs, or pushing them on others, though. Perhaps religion should be thought of as a private matter, and not spoken of in polite company, much like sex is. After all, who wants to hear about what you and your significant other do in the bedroom at night? Most people, even your friends, would get revolted at the thought. It should be that way with religion, too.
[/QUOTE]I still think "Faith" is the wrong word for what you are talking about [img]smile.gif[/img] But I did yeild you the victory in the debate with my "Touche`" Post [img]smile.gif[/img]
 
Old 04-26-2002, 08:48 AM   #45
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Goulum:
I'm also a non believer like Jonny, and I agree with him. If there is a God, what is he doin? If he is all powerful then why doesn't he try and help us mere mortals??
He gave us the gift of free will. We are his creations and his children but not his puppets. Do you control all the actions of your children?

AS for not doing anything for us....I can only speak for myself here but in my opinion, it is truely a divine miracle that I am even alive today, God saw fit to see me through life and death struggles where a couple of rather large and well armed goups of people really really wanted me dead [img]smile.gif[/img] I know I am good at what I do, but in this and in other things in my life, I can really see the divine intervention.

[ 04-26-2002, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
 
Old 04-26-2002, 08:51 AM   #46
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
quote:
Originally posted by Sigmar:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Goulum:
I'm also a non believer like Jonny, and I agree with him. If there is a God, what is he doin? If he is all powerful then why doesn't he try and help us mere mortals??
A statement I used to think about a lot. Then I realised, now I know that this might seem a bit of a lame argument but why should he? Seriously he created the universe right? This includes Earth, along comes humanity in the gene pool and we manage to acknowledge God as our creator and all-mighty father. But then what do we do, start messing the planet up, so he then sends Jesus Christ his son who sacrifies himself to show us the way on the right path in life. Christianity is created but then what do we do? Continue to wreck the Earth, and peole keep using religion to start wars and fights, WHY? What the hell is the point? "My God is truly the merciful and glorius true God" "No my Gods are the true masters of kindness and love in the universe" "Since you happen to own something that belongs to me lets have a huge fight ober our beliefs" It's not always the case but it usually is though. So why should God help us more than has so already, I think humanity should prove it's worth to God again before it recieves more help.Besides God is there in everyone of us, helping us on our way towards the right path. Let's see if we reach it before it's too late.[/QUOTE]Hmm, being as you brought it up (if inadvertently), why do Christians always refer to god as the 'father'?? I'm really not with this father, son and holy ghost thing. Where's the female principle? I've always thought that was a big problem with both Christianity and Islam, the lack of the feminine. Okay, there's Mary, but she's not divine, is she? If god created humans in 'its' image, then surely god encompasses both the male and the female, although to refer to it in terms of either does seem rather absurd. The absolute is the absolute, no? encompassing everything.... [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I have to give ya points there SC [img]smile.gif[/img] I always wondered why there was no feminine side to God as well [img]smile.gif[/img] I have had some interesting debates with a couple of Jesuit friends of my father [img]smile.gif[/img]
 
Old 04-26-2002, 08:59 AM   #47
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
[QB]As Sir Michael wrote, science is not about faith... it's about facts. In science, a concept is meaningless until it's proven, repeated, and rigorously tested by the Scientific community... until then it's hot air (and often treated as such).
QB]
I don't have any fundamental problem with science - rational thought is a great thing.... However, if science is always about facts, how come scientists around the globe disagree almost to the point of coming to blows on any number of major issues? Global warming, for instance. Science would like to be about facts, but the fact is, the world is just too fecking complex to fit into some of the models and theories we hold about it. (A lot of what people accept as objective fact is actually subjective theory which is accepted as fact because it supports the worldview of the person using the so called fact to bolster his/her argument.) Hence the large numbers of disagreements, and hence the doubts about the 'factual' nature of all scientific thought. There is also the question of who is funding scientific research, what use the information gained is going to be put to, and by who, who gains and who loses from discoveries made, and so forth. Another reason for conflict, and another reason to doubt much of what is presented in the guise of 'fact'.

(Those interested in the nature of science might like to read Thomas Kuhn, who argues that science proceeds not primarily through the patient accretion of facts, but by revolutionary interpretative shifts in which one scientific paradigm displaces another. His work raises the question of the rationality of science.)

Like I said, I'm no science debunker. Just an interested observer.
[/QUOTE]Well knowing that scientists are as political and egotistical as every other group of humans are, I think that this is more a limitation of humans than of science [img]smile.gif[/img] ....I don't know a whole lot of scientists personally but I do know a few...they in general are an oddd lot
 
Old 04-26-2002, 09:02 AM   #48
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Azred:
That is a much more complex issue. Patriarchal societies give rise to patriarchal religions; that is the simple answer.

Digging a little further...the Holy Spirit is the "feminine" aspect of the Trinity. It nurtures, guides, and comforts. This kind of Trinity is very old: Osiris the Father, Isis the Mother/Spirit, and Horus the Son is an early example.

Mary, the Holy Virgin, was originally not divine. However, as the Catholic Church spread into new areas they inevitably ran into older religions that possessed a central female divinity (the Isis Cult, ranging from Egypt through the Middle East and up into Europe; found even in Poly/Micronesian cultures). In order to gain a "foothold" with these people, Mary was "promoted" in importance--indeed, many non-Christians initially identified very closely and very quickly with Mary as a central divinity, which is why she is so widely venerated and is so "popular". It could even be stated that Mary is the linchpin that holds the Catholic theological belief structure in place; however, let those who are Catholic correct me, if they so choose. Find "Myth and Ritual in Christianity" (I forgot the author's name) for more information about this (and other topics).
Being Catholic...I didn't see anything particularly wrong or inflamatory in your post. In my readings I found that Mary did get more and more "impoprtance" and she was finally "Assumed" into heaven whole, without death, without decay.
 
Old 04-26-2002, 09:08 AM   #49
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Cheetah:
It is just your opinion that 'some scientists' are using scare tactics to convince people of this and that.
I beg to differ. I find statements such as "hundreds of acres of rainforest are being destroyed everyday!" to be highly suspect - to say the least. (that comment was made early in the original thread by Sir Michael, I believe) If that IS true, then that means that over 1000 acres are destroyed every week. That's over 52,000 acres every year...for how many years now? Just HOW big IS this rainforest? It must be immense to have not been totally consumed yet.

Of course, I'm neither a scientist nor a geography major, so I acknowledge that the statement MAY be true...it just sounds like a major exaggeration to me.

Quote:
Environmentalism is very much against the interests of many large and extremely powerful multi/transnationals. They have spent and are spending large amounts of money to put forward a viewpoint that is advantageous to their interests, namely, that we don't have major problems on the environment front, and that business as usual should be allowed to take place without hinderance.

I would agree that environmental organisations tend to present situations in the worst possible light. In this, they follow the example of the media generally. What grabs people's attention in this day and age are extreme situations, presented as such. That's what sells papers, gets people watching tv (thus consuming ads) and so forth. If environmentalists present their case in anything less than the strong terms used elsewhere, then they have absolutely no chance whatsoever of being heard. I think this says more about the nature of the society we live in than anything else, to be frank.
Environmentalist present "worst case scenarios"...not hard core facts. WHY? To create concern about their cause. In other words, they try to SCARE people into worrying about the environment. I'm not saying thier cause isn't worthy, I just said they used "scare tactics" to promote that cause. I stand by my statement.

Quote:
As with anything else, you will find environmental 'extremists'. But as you have asked for religion not to be judged on the actions of 'a few fanatics', I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to those concerned about the environment. Most of us are just ordinary people who care about the world we live in. What's so bizarre about that?
It's not bizarre at all and I never said it was. I'm afraid you pretty much missed my entire point with this paticular Post. Sir Michael was complaining about "being pressured to join this church or that" and wanted to know why Christians (or other religious flavors) "couldn't leave people alone and let them do as they please".

He also wanted to know why people would do some seemingly senseless acts "in the name of religion". I simply turned his questioning around to show that the same points could be made about ANY issue in which people beleived strongly.

If you will look at the last part of that Post again, you will see that I was NOT judging all environmentalist based on the actions of a few. I acknowledged that these actions were taken by the "lunatic fringe" - if you will. I was just pointing out that, unfortunately, religion is generally not granted the same courtesy.

Look at the Posts in the 2 threads. Most of the original Posts by non-beleivers were at least partially deragotory in their tone towards ANYONE who clung to religious beliefs (and some were just out-and-out insulting). Granted, some of the Reply's generated by those Posts were equally derisive and two wrongs DON"T make a right.

Anyway, I sincerely apologize if you took any offense at my Post....I assure it was not meant that way. It is very difficult to convey voice tone and expression through text, so the translation doesn't always come across accurately.
[/QUOTE]Great post Cerek, I so totally agree. In the USA they have been using scare tactics. It is all about getting media attention, governmental attention, donated $$$$ and Governmental grants. They can't stand on the facts so they use scare tactics to sensationalize things. It is an "Ends Justifys the Means" issue.
 
Old 04-26-2002, 09:14 AM   #50
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoran:
The rainforest is an interesting issue. My father is a semi-retired forester (works for the lumber industry as a timber purchaser/project manager). For years I've had access to a number of forest conservation mags as well as forestry industry mags. One thing I can say is that by and large the people that work in the forest industry are conservationists. The value of a stand of timber is in it's managment, not in it's exploitation (renewable vs. single use argument). Most lumber companies own vast tracts of managed forest... which effectively cuts off development in those areas (a real positive in first world countries). So, given that history I have real problems with the tree spiking radicals... much of that mania is based in ignorance in my opinion. Rainforest is a different matter though, it's nature is not conducive to a managed forestry approach (based on the reading I've done it appears that rain forest needs to reach a "critical density" in order to develop the multi-level ecosystem that they support. So I totally support conservation efforts that involve a "hands-off" approach. I do not believe the doom and gloom predictions of the radicals about how rainforest takes hundreds of years to recover though... abandon areas of the Amazon have reverted to rainforest quite rapidly. As long as we don't turn it all into a desert wasteland, we won't lose it.

All in all I applaud the environmentalist even if I feel they're a bit over the top, I believe their fervor helps to keep the exploitation in check. (my yin and yang philosophy of forest management [img]smile.gif[/img] )
From what I have been reading lately, the forest areas that have been cleared by Brazil in the 70's and 80's were found to be less than optimal for both grazing and for crops...something in the type of soil, so the acreage that has been cleared is starting to be allowed to revert and for the Rain Forest to recover the land..which apparently it does at quite a quick rate. I'll admit though that my Rainforest knowledge comes from articles in Popular Science and Scientific American...and occasionally the MIT Technology in Review magazine.
 
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Underworld: Evolution Jotin Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) 32 06-30-2006 06:54 AM
50,000 years of evolution... VulcanRider General Discussion 26 11-06-2005 09:20 AM
Evolution II Moiraine General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 87 02-28-2003 04:30 AM
Evolution Moiraine General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 156 02-25-2003 04:19 AM
Evolution Dun Exist Because... Rikard General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 65 11-04-2001 03:16 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved