ROTS Pre-Suit Vader vs. Galen Marek

Originally posted by Jbill311
Religion is dangerous when it asks us to believe things on 'faith' rather than reason. It is dangerous when seeking answers is discouraged, and we are encouraged to remain in ignorance. It is dangerous when it forces us to have a higher allegiance than to our own well being (placing God above our own welfare). It is dangerous when rules, laws and myths more than 2000 years old are viewed as factual telling of history and as a guide for our life. It is dangerous when millions of people are willing to lay down their lives in defense of an ideal that can be warped to whatever end their leaders wish. Religion is dangerous because it prevents us from thinking for ourselves.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
the statement about "laws and myths 2000 years old" Is incorrect, in the fact that you assume that they are laws and myths. who are you to say they are not indeed factual?

calling the beliefs of people from all over the world for close to at least 6 millenia myths is very arrogant without having proof that they aren't true. If i was to say to you. Prove to me that there is no God, you couldn't do, just as i couldn't prove to you that there is. On this forum, we treat something that can't be proven either way as an unknown, not as a myth.

agreed to an extent. I can argue the existence of a creator, but I chose not to do so, mainly because this is a Star Wars Forum.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
agreed to an extent. I can argue the existence of a creator, but I chose not to do so, mainly because this is a Star Wars Forum.

i'm glad to hear that, because yes, we could both ARGUE but neither of us could PROVE. It would be a ridiculous waste of time.

Originally posted by truejedi
religion does one major thing that makes it the opposite of dangerous though. It instills morals because it forces the people who believe them to subject to a higher authority. If the be-all and end-all is what we can get for ourselves, or "our own well-being" then the entire moral compass goes out the window.
If i believed that my entire purpose in life was to promote my own well-being, and i knew how to rip off a little old lady for several hundred k dollars, what would keep me from doing that? my own conscience? hardly. There would be no reason for me not to put my own well-being ahead of the old lady and take her money. None. It would be stupid for me to pass on the opportunity. Believing that i would have to answer to a higher authority later however, would keep me from doing it, and therefore protect the lady, and in the same breath BETTER society. So it works both ways.

Why not have sex at every opportunity? it improves my own well-being. But, i could end up with aids, and therefore using welfare for medical coverage, or father more children than i'm capable of properly taking care of. This would have nothing but a harmful affect on society as well.

Reason alone can't result in a less-dangerous society, or Marxism would work every time. You idea of us promoting our own personal well-being would only result in a MORE dangerous society, not less so.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Religion did a good job at instilling morality and law. That's changing now, though. In a foreseeable (albeit distant) future, religion as we define it can be done away with, but people can still be moral and law-abiding.

do you really think so? seems like we have a lot more crime every summer in the US anyway. 1 in 10 citizens right now are incarcerated. Is that a ridiculous number or what? 1 in 10. The percentage has never been so high, and it keeps going up. (don't ask for my source, saw it in a newspaper a couple of months ago)

hmm. 50s. the nuclear family. crime at an all time low. y2k. now evolution is the prime teaching in school. everyone is brainwashed to believe that everyone else is an animal in a dog eat dog world. So, they eat dog, go to jail, and create the statistics you speak of.

Originally posted by truejedi
religion does one major thing that makes it the opposite of dangerous though. It instills morals because it forces the people who believe them to subject to a higher authority. If the be-all and end-all is what we can get for ourselves, or "our own well-being" then the entire moral compass goes out the window.
If i believed that my entire purpose in life was to promote my own well-being, and i knew how to rip off a little old lady for several hundred k dollars, what would keep me from doing that? my own conscience? hardly. There would be no reason for me not to put my own well-being ahead of the old lady and take her money. None. It would be stupid for me to pass on the opportunity. Believing that i would have to answer to a higher authority later however, would keep me from doing it, and therefore protect the lady, and in the same breath BETTER society. So it works both ways.

With all due respect, I sincerely hope that you didn't really mean everything in this paragraph. You would rip a little old lady off if you had never heard of the bible? If you had never read the bible or thought of an afterlife you honestly think that you would go around raping and murdering people? I'm sorry, but you don't sound like the sort of person with whom I would like to associate. Nothing personal, but if the only thing holding you back is an ancient book I don't want to be anywhere near you.

Originally posted by truejedi

Why not have sex at every opportunity? it improves my own well-being. But, i could end up with aids, and therefore using welfare for medical coverage, or father more children than i'm capable of properly taking care of. This would have nothing but a harmful affect on society as well.

Reason alone can't result in a less-dangerous society, or Marxism would work every time. You idea of us promoting our own personal well-being would only result in a MORE dangerous society, not less so.

I see that I was unconsciously spouting Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Lets take your points one by one though.
1. "I could have sex at every opportunity"
First off, how many opportunities do you expect? Two? Three tops? 😮 Just kidding. But seriously, if you don't practice safe sex, and sleep around indiscriminately, then you are not improving your own well being. You would be endangering yourself- taking an irrational risk with you health.
2. "Using welfare for Medial Coverage"
In the scenario I was working under, there would not be a welfare system for those that live beyond their means. No one deserves anything- so there would not be any sort of welfare state, only assistance to those who have been injured or are mentally or physically handicapped. Atlas Shrugged gives a good (admittedly strawman example) of what happens in an overbearing welfare state.
3. Fathering more children than I'm capable of [supporting]"
With no religion, there would be no irrational opposition to contraceptives, abortion, or family planning. Your choice to father more children than you can deal with would be irresponsible and would cause you great hardship, but should not be the problem of the government.
4 "promoting our own well being would result in more violence..."
Your rights do not include the ability to oppress me. If everyone works to maximize their own profit and happiness, then the net result is more happiness not less. Everyone working to the best of their ability and having no mandatory obligations is the ultimate goal of Objectivism, and is actually one of the founding principals of America. (capitalism w/o over-regulation)

Origanally posted by Lord Knightfa11
the statement about "laws and myths 2000 years old" Is incorrect, in the fact that you assume that they are laws and myths. who are you to say they are not indeed factual?

First, the majority are actually more than 2000 years old- I was rounding. The Old Testament (OT) was written long before 0 C.E.

Second, they are laws, and many are myths. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and numbers, to name a few are all lists of biblical laws. Also, the idea of the bible being a literal truth has largely been abandoned, even by the mainstream Christians. Flood Geology, especially, is patently ridiculous, as is the idea that dinosaurs lived with humans, or are hoaxes by Satan or Satanic scientists.

The fact that they are old is no guarantee of their veracity: the geocentric model was ancient when it was debunked. The story of Genesis, a flat earth, dragons, these are all things that the majority of people once believed in, which have been proven wrong. The consensus of the majority means nothing if the majority is wrong.

P.S. I don't really believe in a totally Objectivist world, I am a bleeding heart liberal. What I do believe in is the idea that everyone has an obligation to do the best they can with their intellect and abilities- life is to precious to waste. [/disclaimer of ruthlessness]

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
hmm. 50s. the nuclear family. crime at an all time low. y2k. now evolution is the prime teaching in school. everyone is brainwashed to believe that everyone else is an animal in a dog eat dog world. So, they eat dog, go to jail, and create the statistics you speak of.

Evolution is NOT a moral philosophy. It is a scientific fact regarding the tendency of successful traits to be represented to a greater extent in the gene pool of a species. To suggest that it proscribes a course of action is patently ridiculous. In fact, many people who don't deny the truth of evolution are also humanists, who help those who have a need. (Read: starving Africans)

Edit: double post FTW

Originally posted by Jbill311

With all due respect, I sincerely hope that you didn't really mean everything in this paragraph. You would rip a little old lady off if you had never heard of the bible? If you had never read the bible or thought of an afterlife you honestly think that you would go around raping and murdering people? I'm sorry, but you don't sound like the sort of person with whom I would like to associate. Nothing personal, but if the only thing holding you back is an ancient book I don't want to be anywhere near you.
[/B]

Of course not, but if its not me, SOMEONE will think that way. If this weren't true, crime simply put WOULD NOT EXIST. I think the only law i've broken is the speed limit, mebbe jaywalking, but with the speeding i was doing 110 in a 55, and thinking back on it, it was a stupid stupid stupid thing to do, and i feel bad over doing it, because if i had hit someone, i could have killed them. But there ARE those who told that all they have to worry about is their own happiness who will do everything they can to promote themselves at the expense of others. Thats indeniable. Now, if you teach these criminals from the beginning of their lives that they will suffer consequences for their actions even when they aren't caught by other humans, and they BELIEVE that, you do a lot to combat crime. you really do,

And JBill, who said ANYTHING about the Bible? what's that all about? only religion in america? i feel a little stereo-typed right now.... Who said i'm a christian? I'm arguing FOR religion. There is more than one.

2. "Using welfare for Medial Coverage"
In the scenario I was working under, there would not be a welfare system for those that live beyond their means. No one deserves anything- so there would not be any sort of welfare state, only assistance to those who have been injured or are mentally or physically handicapped.

This can only go so far. How is someone injured? if they were doing something stupid (for their own self-betterment) can they still ask society for help? Where is the motivation of society (completely focused on gaining THEIR OWN happiness, to help even the legitimate needs? Its not fair for any governing body to oppress me by taking my money (and therfore some of my self-betterment(not a word, i know) in order to help some guy who was driving drunk (because he THOUGHT (cause he was stupid, you always have to take into account that a lot of society will do STUPID things) that it would better his own life, and wrecked his car, and is now on life-support. yet, obviously the government can't just leave him lying on the road where he crashed either....

3. Fathering more children than I'm capable of [supporting]"
With no religion, there would be no irrational opposition to contraceptives, abortion, or family planning. Your choice to father more children than you can deal with would be irresponsible and would cause you great hardship, but should not be the problem of the government.

[/B]

but INVARIABLY some idiot will exist who will father 25 kids, thinking it betters his own life, and THEN what is society supposed to do? Let the kids starve? I'm just thinking the society you are describing wouldn't work because of STUPIDITY if all we did, and all we focused on was pursuing our own happiness

4 "promoting our own well being would result in more violence..."
Your rights do not include the ability to oppress me. If everyone works to maximize their own profit and happiness, then the net result is more happiness not less. Everyone working to the best of their ability and having no mandatory obligations is the ultimate goal of Objectivism, and is actually one of the founding principals of America. (capitalism w/o over-regulation)

[/B]

Originally posted by Jbill311
Evolution is NOT a moral philosophy. It is a scientific fact

thats debate-able. You gotta be careful what you claim is fact without proof.

As far as we know, evolution is true. It's a scientific theory, meaning it has a lot of evidence to put it above a hypothesis.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
As far as we know, evolution is true. It's a scientific theory, meaning it has a lot of evidence to put it above a hypothesis.

but it does fall short of scientific fact.

Originally posted by Lightsnake
As far as we know, evolution is true. It's a scientific theory, meaning it has a lot of evidence to put it above a hypothesis.

What evidence?

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
What evidence?

and holes. It also has holes that are unexplainable. Here's a question though. Let's say evolution is true, lets say its all true, right back to the big bang. My question is: where did that material come from? where did the universe come from in the first place? Non-Matter doesn't create matter, so WHY would there even be a universe here?

Originally posted by Jbill311
Evolution is NOT a moral philosophy. It is a scientific fact regarding the tendency of successful traits to be represented to a greater extent in the gene pool of a species. To suggest that it proscribes a course of action is patently ridiculous. In fact, many people who don't deny the truth of evolution are also humanists, who help those who have a need. (Read: starving Africans)

Edit: double post FTW

proof of evolution? show me a scientific webpage that has one transitional form.

You are saying that two hydrogen molecules colided (where did the hydrogen come from?) and exploded, creating a universe. (how did hydrogen turn into all those other elements?) One out of nine floating rocks made from hydrogen orbited a sun made from hydrogen (Well a few of the rocks are made from gases.). Then it rained on the rock for millions of years, and finally a cell was formed. (A cell is infinitely complex, this can't just "form" as early scientists said when they believed a cell to be a simple creature). after billions of billions of billions of years, this cell turned into birds and mammals and bacteria.

Seriously... Nothing made something which made everything?

There are also transitional forms that could have been impossible (by your survival of the fittest theory) such as the bat. "Scientists" believe that the bat evolved from a shrew. Now imagine the transitional form. Imagine a flightless rodent with superlative elongated phalanges so that his for arms were rendered completely useless? how did this rodent survive long enough to evolve into a bat?

Another thing you won't see is kind jumpers. Science has not shown a kind of animal bring forth another kind of animal. This is another lie.

Evolution is invalid, it breeds pessimistic, self centered animals who view themselves as the only cause worth living for.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
proof of evolution? show me a scientific webpage that has one transitional form.

You are saying that two hydrogen molecules colided (where did the hydrogen come from?) and exploded, creating a universe. (how did hydrogen turn into all those other elements?) One out of nine floating rocks made from hydrogen orbited a sun made from hydrogen (Well a few of the rocks are made from gases.). Then it rained on the rock for millions of years, and finally a cell was formed. (A cell is infinitely complex, this can't just "form" as early scientists said when they believed a cell to be a simple creature). after billions of billions of billions of years, this cell turned into birds and mammals and bacteria.

Seriously... Nothing made something which made everything?

There are also transitional forms that could have been impossible (by your survival of the fittest theory) such as the bat. "Scientists" believe that the bat evolved from a shrew. Now imagine the transitional form. Imagine a flightless rodent with superlative elongated phalanges so that his for arms were rendered completely useless? how did this rodent survive long enough to evolve into a bat?

Another thing you won't see is kind jumpers. Science has not shown a kind of animal bring forth another kind of animal. This is another lie.

Evolution is invalid, it breeds pessimistic, self centered animals who view themselves as the only cause worth living for.

very well put. it seems like EVERY supposed transistional form between ape and man has been proven irrelevant. Evolutionist continue to search for those supposed "missing" links. Believing as blindly, and with as much faith in the theory of evolution as any simpleton ever did in a religion.

Originally posted by truejedi
and holes. It also has holes that are unexplainable. Here's a question though. Let's say evolution is true, lets say its all true, right back to the big bang. My question is: where did that material come from? where did the universe come from in the first place? Non-Matter doesn't create matter, so WHY would there even be a universe here?

*Sigh* That's not what they're claiming to show or disprove. They mean to indicate that at some point, life forms on this

As for the transitional forms, no they haven't been disproved. Every life form is transitional as evolution continues to occur. It's just not observable in single lifetimes such as ours. Evolution is going to cover on the changes of species over time. It is not going to concern itself with the Big Bang, that's a different area of science than biology altogether. They haven't proposed a concrete hypothesis to this yet. There are still hundreds of thousands of discoveries to be made and things to explore before we can make any guess to all of this. We're just not there yet.

Scientific fact is notoriously hard to place...but when something has enough evidence as to become near to fact as possible, it becomes a theory.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
proof of evolution? show me a scientific webpage that has one transitional form.

You are saying that two hydrogen molecules colided (where did the hydrogen come from?) and exploded, creating a universe. (how did hydrogen turn into all those other elements?) One out of nine floating rocks made from hydrogen orbited a sun made from hydrogen (Well a few of the rocks are made from gases.). Then it rained on the rock for millions of years, and finally a cell was formed. (A cell is infinitely complex, this can't just "form" as early scientists said when they believed a cell to be a simple creature). after billions of billions of billions of years, this cell turned into birds and mammals and bacteria.

Seriously... Nothing made something which made everything?

There are also transitional forms that could have been impossible (by your survival of the fittest theory) such as the bat. "Scientists" believe that the bat evolved from a shrew. Now imagine the transitional form. Imagine a flightless rodent with superlative elongated phalanges so that his for arms were rendered completely useless? how did this rodent survive long enough to evolve into a bat?

Another thing you won't see is kind jumpers. Science has not shown a kind of animal bring forth another kind of animal. This is another lie.

Evolution is invalid, it breeds pessimistic, self centered animals who view themselves as the only cause worth living for.

Oh, honestly...Kent Hovind is not the end all be all. Scientists do not blindly adhere to this sort of thing, the scientific community is not some sort of roundtable democracy where they vote on what they wish to adhere to. They have compiled the evidence and researched the facts.

If evolution was found totally wanting, it'd be researched, new theories would come to light and one would supplant the other. That's how science works

Originally posted by Lightsnake
*Sigh* That's not what they're claiming to show or disprove. They mean to indicate that at some point, life forms on this

As for the transitional forms, no they haven't been disproved. Every life form is transitional as evolution continues to occur. It's just not observable in single lifetimes such as ours. Evolution is going to cover on the changes of species over time. It is not going to concern itself with the Big Bang, that's a different area of science than biology altogether. They haven't proposed a concrete hypothesis to this yet. There are still hundreds of thousands of discoveries to be made and things to explore before we can make any guess to all of this. We're just not there yet.

Scientific fact is notoriously hard to place...but when something has enough evidence as to become near to fact as possible, it becomes a theory.

i think you missed the first part of your post. Yeah, i wasn't trying to disprove evolution with my question about the origin of the universe. I was asking an unrelated question, and wondered if someone had a hypothesis.

No, the theory of transitional forms have not been disproved,(awfully hard to prove a negative) but not one actual transitional form has ever been found, observed, or otherwise recorded. That doesn't seem like an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution either.