Did the Flood Really Happen?

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't see that earlier, and it seems rather absurd. Particularly the claim about the trinity, which I guess skafather84 mocked with the use of another number.

iamnotaparakeet aided himself with the mention of natural revelation and historical relevation in an earlier post but he did not quote the definition, I did. And to be fair, he may disagree with the trinity thing.

Get off the f*****g homeopathy kick I have already put you straight on that several times. And yes I am a s**t load better. There is continual evidence of class struggle around the world, but as I have also stated to you on several occasions I doubt that this will lead to world socialism but I think it is our only hope. As to my knowledge of biology that is irrelevant, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that what keet and his cabal believe in is a fairy tale.

@ keet the manner of my derision may seem foolish to you, I see no point in debating seriously your arguments as they have been falsified many many times by others far more capable than myself. You are plain wrong, there is no question that what you believe in has been shown comprehensibly to have no scientific basis and to continue to believe this garbage shows and obstinacy that is breathtaking. Taking pride in your ability to insult in an ancient and laborious language is childish, bordering on pathetic.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 29 Jun 2010, 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The so called 'natural revelation' is nothing but arbitrary attribution our knowledge to the magic man. That is an insult to the untold labour of the scientists obtaining the knowledge by paying attention to reality.

I really doubt it. For one, Marxists are basically the economics equivalent to YECs. You are still going against the established consensus within the people who know a lot more about the field.

As to whether you are any better in relation to creation/evolution, you and ianap have basically the same epistemology there, so I fail to see the difference. Sure, you have arrived closer to the truth than he has, but that is largely by accident and not really due to any superiority in your truth-finding methods, so I wouldn't think your word on the subject should be taken any more seriously than his.

Well, despite what I said during the election, it isn't *quite* as bad. Economics is less solid than biology in many many ways, varieties of Marx influenced sociology can still be intellectually accepted, and so on. The issue is that I think any serious scholar cannot really be outright Marxist, but rather some variety of post-Marxist, and also work on a way to get past the LTV/already reject it. I see no way around either quality and maintaining intellectual integrity, as the LTV is stupid, and traditional Marxism relies on this and often significantly over-attributes problems to capitalism. However, to say that anyone with some respect for Marx is a YEC? A bit too far from what I see.

Matter has four states - solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. It would help if those who want to combine theology and the hard sciences would bother studying the hard sciences (and, in some cases, theology as well...).

Four states that are known, so far.

ruveyn

Yeah, I tend to disagree with the comparison of marxism (and even non-marxist socialists) with YEC, as unlike biology, that is related to Politics.

Perhaps Orwell may have been based on the idea that marxist ideas are considered unfalsifiable and YEC is unfalsifiable, but those two things are of different areas, aren't they? so I feel it may be a bit unfair to compare them IMHO.

BTW, not that it matters but Orwell already likes, uses and supports socialized software

OK, so Marxism isn't quite on the level of YECism, but of course it's from a field which is already much fuzzier to begin with, hence it is much harder to be thoroughly wrong in economics than in biology (or at least for that wrongness to be verifiable). I meant to draw the parallel that both Marxism and YECism are ideologically driven fringe movements that are not open to changing their beliefs when presented with contrary evidence, and are also considered to not really be worthy of serious consideration by experts in the respective fields.


Hardly, given that there is little to no government sponsorship of GNU/Linux. If anything I use anarchist software, perhaps anarcho-communist but certainly not socialized. And I know full well that the Free/Libre OSS model (with no marginal costs and no drain from freeloaders) could never apply to tangible items in the physical economy.

Through phases of matter? Yeah that is not so great, especially since plasma is a fourth phase of matter which occupies most of the galaxy. The trinity isn't revealed through natural revelation and cannot be, but instead would be through historical revelation. I do believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but the phases of matter analogy is weak at best and flaky at worst.

Once again you are being disingenuous in your portrayal of me, you know full well that I am at odds with some of the thinking of my more ideologically fundamental political colleagues, and I have posted enough on this site to back up this statement. I don't understand enough about economics to debate the LTV, although it would appear to have been proven far to simplistic. I don't believe I have at any stage come out in support of it.

Where I totally agree with Marx and the likes of Trotsky is that for the world to progress we need to ditch the profit system and replace it with an economic order that is based around need and reason, what form that will take I do not know but it is something that I fervently believe we must strive for. I agree with Marx that capitalism cannot be reformed, (yes I accept that living standards in some countries have been raised since his time, but that has more to do with technology and necessity to maintain the power base of the ruling elite than the benevolent nature of capitalism) and I believe that the only way for this to occur is via socialist revolution. You know all this from both discussions here on WP and via private discussion so for you to paint me as a fundamental Marxist ideologue is bordering on a lie. I suppose it would be more accurate to describe myself as a Revolutionary Socialist, but that term gets muddied with the likes of Che and Castro and other lunatic guerrillas / stalinists,

So whilst I do not agree with/have a firm belief in all that Marx wrote, I do accept his basic idea that most events in a society can be can be understood from a perspective of class antagonisms, and that the present world economic and political system is, in its fundamental characteristics, imperialist.

Back to comparing Marxist beliefs to YEC what a ridiculous claim, Marx was correct about many things not least of which being the revolutionary nature of the proletariat and the contradictions, faults and nature of capitalism. The revolutions he predicted came to pass, that they did not succeed is well documented as are the reasons for their failure, in contrast the belief that the bible is an accurate depiction of the creation of the earth has not one iota of accuracy, or credibility.



To suggest that my acceptance of a broad range of arguments for the truth that is evolution, is an accident, is infuriating. I am swayed not by ideology but by the mass of evidence supporting the theory. You seem to be suggesting that someone who has not studied evolutionary biology cannot come to a reasoned acceptance of the theory, which if so, is a complete nonsense.

Back to religion, I find it fairly astounding that people who swear by and defend to their utmost ability the scientific method can be so unscientific about god. For someone to accept god they have to be ignorant of / willfully ignore so much that we now know of the human brain and the power of suggestion. I have never met a Christian who has not claimed (when questioned) that they 'feel the presence of the lord' in one form or another, to attribute this to the presence of a supernatural being is to ignore or be ignorant of, the well known ability of the brain to hallucinate.

A fifth state exists, the Bose - Einstein condensate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80 ... condensate

The real Holy Trinity is Truth, Knowledge, and Wisdom.

Wrong! It is Larry, Moe and Curly

ruveyn

The LTV though, is a very central part of traditional Marxism. A lot of analysis does require it. This doesn't mean that one has to abandon all things, but it is found throughout Marxian work. Even further, the issue of the LTV is more philosophical/methodological than it is economics. It doesn't require much specialized knowledge to debate it either way, just a basic exposure to some standard economic methodology and the defenses of it.


And here is where you are more like a YEC. At this point, the vast super-majority of economists say that markets are to some degree necessary, and while your goal cannot be outright refuted, it does seem very questionable. I mean, the issue is that humans are by nature selfish (not saying they aren't selfless or that our selfishness is socially constructed to no degree at all) and this makes evolutionary sense, so this drive will likely never be suppressed. As such, successful systems seem to rely on a division of powers in a manner to keep them all in check, and despite its flaws, the market is a system that divides up power. This does not mean we can't add elements to create an economic order more based around need and reason, (although there can be questions on the efficacy of what we add) but it certainly does mean that having the entire system based upon need and reason will likely be difficult, simply because you have to corral up a bunch of selfish people and get them to submit to need and reason above their own personal foibles. This is to say that traditional socialism is more economically inept than the title of "Marxist", simply because of the possibility of a post-Marxist who accepts markets in certain places. (like Theodore Burczak who combined Austrian economics with Marxism to some degree, or socialist market economies)

As for revolutions? They don't tend to work. Often times, they destroy too much, and getting all of the devotion necessary to rebuild what was lost is difficult to the point where the only reasonable solution is a tyrant.


The problem then emerges with intra-class conflict as well. Traditional Marxists don't see this well, post-Marxists can be find talking about it.


This is where you start sounding like a YEC. The proletariat never start revolutions, usually it is a disgruntled middle class or people within it. This can be deliciously noted with Marx's own middle class background, as well as to a great degree the middle-class nature of a vast majority of Marxists.

Traditional Marxism is generally perceived as rather flawed and justly so by most people, and at this point, most Marxists are really post-Marxists, who take some things of value from Marx, and who abandon a LOT of it.


Well, it is hard to say. Yes, I think a person without a strong background can come to reasonably accept evolution, but it still is sort of weak.


Well, you mean to "automatically attribute this", one could conceivably know the science and still hold that their delusion is real. They just would be likely reflecting some bias or accepting some variant of epistemic solipsism.