Thank you for your reply.I would tend to agree with you, but the question I'm raising is: are our very choices the result of a previous cause...Kinda like chaos theory I guess... There are a finite number of variables involved in the weather, so theoretically, if you had a big enough fast enough computer that could somehow carry all values out to an infinite number of significant digits, you could know what the weather would do from now till doomsday... Such calculations are beyond our capabilities and knowledge, but that doesn't mean the weather is "destined" to follow a certain pattern from now till doomsday.So as far as our brains go, could all of the incredible (but not infinite) numbers of variables that go into producing a single choice all be affected by cause and affect in the same way so that every thought is just an eventual effect of the first cause of the universe?Maybe you understood what I was saying before, but I felt like I should restate it anyways. And so do I. This would be the spiritual realm of reality perhaps? lol

'From the mind' is certainly an answer, but sadly not a definitive enough answer to actually clear anything up. This was basically what I gave to Syamsu when he asked for an example of a choice which did not discuss cause and effect,I gave the example of myself making a decision which as far as I could tell was pretty much arbitrary. His objection to this was that all I had really done wasleave the attribution of choice to some vague and poorly described object, which is of course all we really can do because 'mind' is a vague and poorly described phenomenon.The problem is that we don't really know what our mind is or how it works. If the mind is simply brought into being because of the complexity of the human brain then the question is still whether the operation of the brain is fundamentally deterministic or indeterministic. The other alternative is as Hangdawg suggests some sort of physical/spiritual duality. It is perfectly acceptable to believe in a spiritual realm but it still doesn't actually provide an answer, does this spiritual realm itself have no fundamental laws which must be obeyed?Obviously at the moment no one knows what the real answers are to most of these questions, wild speculation from all corners should be welcomed but a close minded assumption that one already has all the answers should not, naming no names.TTFN,WK

Consciousness doesn't mean anything without choice, it is integral to the concept. Where choice comes from according to common langauge, is one big mess of identity issues. But I think the safe knowledge derived from it, is that a choice is not exactly the same as an effect of a previous cause.Well I'm disappointed you don't change sides, when the case of oppression by evolutionists is so clearly evident.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Your favourite weapon of choice, the unsupported assertion, rears its head again. And not just identity, just one big mess in general. From where was that knowledge derived? As usual the only person who sees what you present as a clear case, is you.TTFN,WK

It's not clear to you because you deliberately ignore the wider context of the creation vs evolution controversy. I'm pretty sure you have no idea of how widespread social darwinism was. According to Ute Deichmann's "Biologists under Hitler", biologists in Germany had the biggest percentage of partymembership of the Nazi party of any professional group of which it was measured. Research in the USA shows that atheists are overrepresented in the discipline of biology by more then 10 percent or something, compared to other disciplines.Regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

That's a nice attempt at misdirection and obfuscation.Actually, Hitlers own words and those of the key people in his government show thatis was not social Darwinism that drove his actions but rather Christian beliefs. In all of his genocidal behaviour, the hatred of Jews, he believed that he was doing GODs work. Even his sterilization efforts to keep unfitts from reproducing were justified in Christian, religious terms and not through social darwinism. As you can see, any reference to Natural Selection are not based on Darwin, but on the Christian GOD.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Your science of history is worthless partizan politics.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So you attack the poster? What about the quotes? Would you like more? From Mein Kampf.He said essentially the same thing in a Reichstag speech in 1938.Syamsu, I am simply reporting what Hitler said. If you wish to debate the issue, provide supporting documented speeches where Hitler says that his policies are Social Darwinism and we will consider them.This message has been edited by jar, 08-19-2004 12:01 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Eh? Have you suddenly gone back through a timewarp to a different thread. The demographics of 'Social darwinism' in Nazi Germany is totally off topic here.TTFN,WK

I'm sorry, are you denying that your opinion on it is worthless partizan politics? Is it your well thought out opinion?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Although it is off topic, I will attempt to answer your question. You asserted that what Hitler did was related to Social Darwinism. That is simply an assertion, an unsupported opinion.What I provided is not an opinion but rather evidence that the readers of this thread can use to form opinions of their own.I did not say that what Hitler and the Nazis did was based on Christian beliefs...

They Did!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I disagree, you want to limit the discussion to a narrowminded scientism. As before it's on topic by Klaus Fischer saying conceptions of the holocaust should not be predeterminate, but should allow for choice, because to conceive of the holocaust as wholy predeterminate would be to make much of the same kind of mistakes as the totalitarian early 20th century ideologies tended to make, and from which these ideologies derived their ominous character.You deny there is oppression of knowledge of creation by evolutionists, yet all the facts are in accordance with it being true, as best seen in the wider context of the creation vs evolution controversy.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Research in the USA shows that atheists are overrepresented in the discipline of biology by more then 10 percent or something, compared to other disciplines.

---

As usual, Syamsu is wrong (note it pays to read and actually find out once in a while there sy).Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyAccording to this repeat of a 1914 survey done in 1998, it is not "biology" which has a larger number of atheists and agnostics but scientists in general. A recent gallup poll also correlates agnosticism with higher education and fundamentalism with little education and lower socio economic conditions.
http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/gallup.htm?tqskip1=1So Syamsu can scream about Nazism and entrenched bias but it is clear that all Syamsu wants to advocate is his perceived benefits of lack of education or any grasp of the basic concepts of science...and he is a shining example.

Now provide some evidence on the other side.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I beg your pardon?You were the one asserting that Evolution and Social Darwinism led to the holocaust.I have never seen any indication tha the TOE leads to genocide. But I have seen evidence that Creationists love to blaim all that is bad in the world on the TOE.How sad is that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion