Rage thread

[MayImilae]

Actually, communism was never going to be what it said it was. In traditional philosophy, there is a single form of logic. Everyone can have their own way to find the truth, but the truth is the truth so if you follow the truth you come to the same conclusions when given the same information. Karl Marx believed otherwise. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that there were two kinds of logic, bourgeoisie logic and proletariat logic. If you lived in luxury and controlled working people, you would have bourgeoisie logic, and would become selfish and evil, more or less. If you were a working man, you'd possess proletariat logic, and you'd eventually follow communism in overthrowing the bourgeoisie and then live in a society of perfection and complete selflessness.

But Karl Marx lived a life of luxury provided by a wealthy industrialist: Friedrich Engels. Engels was filthy rich, inheriting his father's cotton empire. All throughout his life, he never became a working man, he maintain the cotton empire his father built and was tremendously wealthy, and used those funds to provide Karl Marx his own estate with servants and fresh fruit and all the luxuries of the time. Basically, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the writers of the Communist Manifesto, were rich and powerful: bourgeoisie.

If Communism was a real belief system, how is that possible? How can someone with bourgeoisie logic write about the struggle of the proletariat, when the very manifesto states that bourgeoisie should be hunted down and killed because they possess selfish and corrupted ways of thinking? It isn't; Communism was never pure, and what happened to Russia is exactly what Communism was for. It is a means to obtain power.

[AnyOldName3]

Can I outsource this argument to someone who won't end up saying something inherently wrong, because I'm not much of an expert. I just don't like people bashing a belief system that, at least superficially, has some merit, especially as all the other alternatives are equally flawed. (Do I need a question mark here? I feel that I missed my opportunity, but technically I do have an unquestionmarked question here).

[Link_to_the_past]

(10-19-2013, 06:34 AM)MaJoR Wrote: Actually, communism was never going to be what it said it was. In traditional philosophy, there is a single form of logic. Everyone can have their own way to find the truth, but the truth is the truth so if you follow the truth you come to the same conclusions when given the same information. Karl Marx believed otherwise. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote that there were two kinds of logic, bourgeoisie logic and proletariat logic. If you lived in luxury and controlled working people, you would have bourgeoisie logic, and would become selfish and evil, more or less. If you were a working man, you'd possess proletariat logic, and you'd eventually follow communism in overthrowing the bourgeoisie and then live in a society of perfection and complete selflessness.

But Karl Marx lived a life of luxury provided by a wealthy industrialist: Friedrich Engels. Engels was filthy rich, inheriting his father's cotton empire. All throughout his life, he never became a working man, he maintain the cotton empire his father built and was tremendously wealthy, and used those funds to provide Karl Marx his own estate with servants and fresh fruit and all the luxuries of the time. Basically, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the writers of the Communist Manifesto, were rich and powerful: bourgeoisie.

If Communism was a real belief system, how is that possible? How can someone with bourgeoisie logic write about the struggle of the proletariat, when the very manifesto states that bourgeoisie should be hunted down and killed because they possess selfish and corrupted ways of thinking? It isn't; Communism was never pure, and what happened to Russia is exactly what Communism was for. It is a means to obtain power.

There is a big amount of hypocrisy in communism frankly as you pointed out and that is why it fails so miserably in practice. If you let people alone I think they would move closer to what capitalism is and that is why it works better. Don't get me wrong, there is hypocrisy in capitalism too, it is just lower though and therefore things turn out better. I also have a very bad example of communism in my country, (besides a civil war that they caused in the past), when the dept crisis hit the communist party here only didn't beg from people NOT to vote for them in order NOT to become the ruling party. They had a perfect chance to get power and utilize all those theories and they threw it all in the trash, becoming a laughing stock in television and getting the lowest votes they ever had in the coming elections. They actually said that with them in power things probably wouldn't be better, and perhaps be worse. And reading the things you wrote above reminded me of these events...

[NaturalViolence]

Steel01 Wrote:I'm not going to rail against anyone that doesn't agree with that and I'd ask that the same kindness be shown in return.

Keep in mind that not all christians are creationists. I don't believe I am insulting the christian religion when I explain why creationism is wrong.

Steel01 Wrote:1. Where did the universe come from? Can that be scientifically proven? Can you reproduce the advent of matter by the scientific method? I think that no matter what side you take, you still have to have a belief, a form of religion as it's been called here, in where we came from.

Are you trying to link this to evolution? Because this has nothing to do with that. Evolution is not intended to explain the origin of the universe or even the origin of life. It explains the increasing diversity of life with respect to time.

We do however have a separate theory for the origin of the universe that falls under a different field of science (cosmological physics). It is called the big bang theory and it is extremely well supported by current evidence. The most notable of which in my opinion is the background microwave radiation pattern we've observed. We've even managed to replicate the conditions of the early universe inside particle accelerators to further study this. And yes we have observed the creation of matter if you're asking about that.

Now what came before the universe is another matter entirely and if you want to fill that question with religion that's fine. We don't have any scientific theories with credible evidence that explain that so as far as I'm concerned you can believe whatever you want about that without having to deny facts or science.

Steel01 Wrote:2. I believe in micro-evolution. Well, that statement may not be quite right. There doesn't have to be trust or belief as that can be proven by scientific method. All cases mentioned above fall into this category. A virus changes to another virus, a horse and donkey bear a mule (still an equine), all within their kind. The Bible states this as well. Genesis says each reproduces after thier own kind. Noah took two of every kind into the ark and from those, all variations came. What cannot be proven is macroevolution. Can a fish become a cow? Can a bacteria become a man? Is there any proof of that?

It is impossible to have microscopic evolution without macroscopic evolution. The only difference between the two is the complexity of the organism and therefore the length of time it takes. Cells evolve. This has been irrefutably proven over and over again. And all organisms whether they be micro or macroscopic are made of cells. Both have been observed. Bacteria can become a man, just not directly. We are descendent from ancient bacteria just like every other organism on this planet. Just as modern bacteria share a common ancestor with humans modern cows and fish also share a common ancestor if you go back far enough in the fossil record. Does that answer your question?

What exactly is a "kind"? I should point out that evolution is specifically concerned with species, not breeds or races which is what I assume you mean by "kinds". We have in fact seen a fairly high number of species of fish and reptiles in particular evolve into new species after migrating to new territory. If you expect to see an organism instantly evolve into a completely different phylum or kingdom of organism in one generation that's not going to happen. Evolution doesn't work that way and in fact if that did ever happen it would offer strong evidence against evolution as we understand it.

Steel01 Wrote:I don't mean to inflame a war here. I just want people to research and think for themselves. Can everything be explained by random chance? Or does everything point to a intelligent designer? For myself, I believe all of creation points to God.

What "random chance" are you referring to? Natural selection and by extension evolution is not very random at all. Genetic mutation is the only factor of evolution I can think of that can be considered random. And whether you choose to believe in that or not it's real and is easily observed.

All of the empirical evidence gathered over the last century does not support the idea of a intelligent designer regardless of how you feel about it or whether it fits with your sense of logic. Most of what has been observed in biology would not make any sense if such a thing were true. It's why we had to create the theory in the first place. New evidence didn't fit with peoples current assumptions (intelligent design at the time) so a new theory had to be written to explain the evidence.

If you guys consider your "research" just as valid write it down and get it peer reviewed just like everything else in science has to be. Until your side does that they can't claim that their "worldview" or whatever they want to call it is just as valid as a well established scientific theory. Trying to act like both sides are just as valid without making your side go through the same battles that the other side had to go through to be accepted as truth is dishonest. It's cheating plain and simple. And that's why scientists will never respect their ideas as "research". Because they refuse to go through the same steps. The reason science is so reliable is because we put these roadblocks in place to make it extremely difficult for an idea to become accepted by the scientific community. Trying to skip over these roadblocks defeats the point entirely and makes everything you do from that point forward unreliable. And no you can't use gut feelings or faith as evidence. They are not empirical.

[Qaazavaca Qaanic]

(10-19-2013, 06:34 AM)Steel01 Wrote: Wow, interesting thread. I'd like to point a couple things out. I'll prefix this by saying I am a Christian. I'm not going to rail against anyone that doesn't agree with that and I'd ask that the same kindness be shown in return. With that, I have two questions and comments to go with them.

1. Where did the universe come from? Can that be scientifically proven? Can you reproduce the advent of matter by the scientific method? I think that no matter what side you take, you still have to have a belief, a form of religion as it's been called here, in where we came from.

2. I believe in micro-evolution. Well, that statement may not be quite right. There doesn't have to be trust or belief as that can be proven by scientific method. All cases mentioned above fall into this category. A virus changes to another virus, a horse and donkey bear a mule (still an equine), all within their kind. The Bible states this as well. Genesis says each reproduces after thier own kind. Noah took two of every kind into the ark and from those, all variations came. What cannot be proven is macroevolution. Can a fish become a cow? Can a bacteria become a man? Is there any proof of that?

I don't mean to inflame a war here. I just want people to research and think for themselves. Can everything be explained by random chance? Or does everything point to a intelligent designer? For myself, I believe all of creation points to God.

Steel01

Note: This was written before NaturalV's post was published. I suggest you read this article on the science behind evolution. I'm pretty sure that's much better than this post, but I'm not sure if creationists are willing to even think about evidence that disproves their thought.

The origin of the universe is not a religion. Right now, we have a theory (the Big Bang) that explains a lot of observations, the cosmic background radiation, and the approximate composition of the universe. Because of conflicting observations, we infer the existence of dark matter and energy holding the universe together, which holds up in simulations. So far (not that long), we have not discovered the exact composition of dark matter and energy, which does not disprove the Big Bang, it only means that we need to do more research on it. Remember, though, just because science is not perfect does not mean that all competing theories are right, especially when they are even more wrong.

We don't know exactly how the Big Bang happened, but that is no excuse to hide behind the mask of religion. It is only reason to find out, not excuse to continue believing in what is worse than any science in the past few hundred years. And what happened before the universe? It's possible some form of a god created it, though what created god? It's possible, but there's no reason to assume so.


You fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of evolution. There is nothing in evolution that says fish can turn into cows. Evolution is an ongoing process where old life randomly evolves new traits, which are either selected for or against. Evolution is not along a fixed ladder, it is not a linear process. So fish do not turn into cows, because that is not evolution.

The word "proof" is somewhat misleading. In science, there's no such thing as proof, just very very strong evidence. And the only thing that can disprove something with strong evidence is very strong evidence against it, which so far does not exist.

DNA evidence shows that closely related organisms share almost all genes, that chimps and people share almost all the DNA, but much less of those related to brains. Also, closely related life forms share mutations that other nearby branches of species don't have, and vice versa. Also, for example, related life forms share many of the same genes and mutations. <more info later>

Maybe you say that mutations are always bad. WRONG. Over millions of years, millions or billions of organisms, and thousands of mutations, there's bound to be some helpful ones. Some genes, when mutated, can cause major body shifts. (Hox?) With living organisms, we can use DNA evidence to trace differences between species and untangle the relationships between them in the past.
Even ignoring the DNA evidence (showing that God lied to us, assuming he exists), the body plan of living and fossilized life provides strong evidence that current living things resemble earlier life, except changed. We discovered dinosaurs with small feathers, discovered fossilized birds, legged "fish", yet you claim that all the evidence is fake. I would not be surprised to hear you argue that the earth is flat.

[yodenny]

its a killjoy when your winning then people surrender on league of legend

[JT!]

I don't know when this topic got into arguing against evolution, but when I'm sober tomorrow I'm gonna come back and have a really good read!

[Link_to_the_past]

I kinda hate the 4x resolution option in dolphin and don't want to see anything above that. People always like to set the highest setting they can find no matter how much useful (or better say useless) that might have been, with more than 90% of dolphin users not really needing that option imo and then they storm the forums complaining why does dolphin is so demanding in their system (things become even worse in games that need efb to Ram with high resolutions also). If there was a 10x option i bet they would put that and still wonder why their pc can't handle it.

[Garteal]

^ Agreed. The 4x internal resolution is far more than enough for the vast majority of users.

[Zee530]

Future 4K monitor users will disagree with you.