Someone make a thread. Clearly there's interest.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Look, I might not be a biologist (why I generally don't participate in evolution debates much), but I've researched this topic plenty, and you just don't have a leg to stand on.Don't you dare make me go back to whupping your *** on that field of debate as well.
So, congratulations on once again ignoring a key characteristic: The disciples were testifying that they saw indisputable miracles. Healing the blind, lame, sick, raising the dead, walking on water... Sure, the Islam suicide bombers believe in Muhammed's miracles, I have no doubt, but how many of them actually claim to have seen them? This is the sticking point in your analogy, and as far as I'm aware Christianity is unparalleled in having numerous people who claimed to have personally seen miracles, and died to defend said claims.Yes, and meanwhile, Islam is equally accurate because people were willing to put their lives on the line for it in its early year, and even today. Or any other massive cult suicide. Newsflash: people fall for dumb cults and kill themselves because they were convinced by some ridiculous swindler (in this case: Jesus). Congratulations in putting your religion on the same level as Heaven's Gate. But hey, this is off topic, and that's why I'm shoving it to the front of my post. ^_^
Look, I might not be a biologist (why I generally don't participate in evolution debates much), but I've researched this topic plenty, and you just don't have a leg to stand on.
I'm talking about the first-generation jihadists. Like, the people who lived in Mohammed's time. Even if we don't dispute the historicity of various parts of your assertion (the claims of the disciples, the existence of Jesus, etc.), it still does not put Christianity on a higher footing than any other random cult whose members have deluded themselves.So, congratulations on once again ignoring a key characteristic: The disciples were testifying that they saw indisputable miracles. Healing the blind, lame, sick, raising the dead, walking on water... Sure, the Islam suicide bombers believe in Muhammed's miracles, I have no doubt, but how many of them actually claim to have seen them? This is the sticking point in your analogy, and as far as I'm aware Christianity is unparalleled in having numerous people who claimed to have personally seen miracles, and died to defend said claims.
Fair enough, I suppose.Please BPC, do a little research. You know how Islam gained a lot of its early converts? By the sword, it was convert or die. I have no doubt a lot of them died for the cause, but it wasn't exactly a certain death, and they had a definite earthly motive for acting that way.
Uh... Waco? I chose my words carefully. I mean, maybe they weren't tortured, but here's the thing: they killed themselves. They were so convinced of their religion that they committed mass suicide. I think that that's barely below persecution and murder on the scale of religious devotion, if at all.As for your hypothetical random cult example, again you've managed to ignore the factor of actually sticking to said beliefs under torture + death. If you want to continue maintaining this stance, give a concrete example where nearly ALL the supposed eyewitnesses braved that kind of persecution, and there were at least a handful of them (to eliminate the "crazy guy jumps of a bridge" scenario).
Source? Because by your wording I thought you were referring to just some random violent cult followers like you might see in a video game.Uh... Waco? I chose my words carefully. I mean, maybe they weren't tortured, but here's the thing: they killed themselves. They were so convinced of their religion that they committed mass suicide. I think that that's barely below persecution and murder on the scale of religious devotion, if at all.
Wikipedia is your friend. The Waco Massacre is one of the largest mass suicides in history; over 900 people died either as a direct or indirect results.Source? Because by your wording I thought you were referring to just some random violent cult followers like you might see in a video game.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally conflating two different events but the Jonestown mass suicide is the one that had over 900+ deaths, due to cyanide poisoning (though ironically the leader did not ingest the deadly cocktail but instead died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.)Wikipedia is your friend. The Waco Massacre is one of the largest mass suicides in history; over 900 people died either as a direct or indirect results.
I almost fell off my chair. Someone give this man an internet!Heavens gate is an awesome punch line.
I understand that the golden age of Islam was pretty influential in philosophy and science.Interesting thing about the muslims back then they loved knowledge and saved a lot of greek writings, where other conqueror's of the time just sacked the places and burned everything.
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the crusades didn't happen where islam would be today.I understand that the golden age of Islam was pretty influential in philosophy and science.
Other interesting facts are that Christians were the first to declare Holy Wars, back in the Crusades, and that terroism began with the west.
K I'm done.
Depends on who you ask. Technically the First Crusade (c. 1095) was a call to arms by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I to repel invading Seljuk Turks wishing to expand their empire. It should have ended there... but unfortunately it would turn into an excuse to wage a "blessed" war against all Turks due to the command from Pope Urban II to reclaim all of the Levent (which is basically the same area that today is in upheaval.) This of course took place very shortly after the Great Schism, so it's no surprise that the Church and States being in a state of confusion would fall prey to the unifying effects of Holy War.Sometimes I wonder what would happen if the crusades didn't happen where islam would be today.
Dre, I still suggest going for the degree. Having some experience and doing a degree late in life can actually look better to a possible employer since it was a mature choice you made later in life as opposed to just going to school like everyone does following high school.Blazed and Ciaza- Postgrad study is a completely different story. That's building upon a previous degree. Considering that most people who do PHDs are much older, doing post grad study even in my thirties doesn't bother me. It's specifically doing another undergrad degree.
I'm looking at doing a bachelor of science majoring in marine biology. It's not really a question of whether I'd enjoy it or not, seeing as I've always wanted to do that or entomology but I didn't have the marks to do it fresh out of high school.
The problems are that if I do it part time it'll take me somewhere between 4-6 years (depending on how many philosophy units I get credited, I can get a maximum of 8 credited, which takes off a third of the degree). The other issue is that I don't know how I'll handle the science. First year I'd have to maths at a higher level than I did in high school (although my cousin is doing a maths degree so he can help me) and I may have to do chemistry, which I didn't do in high school, although it sounds fun.
A lesser problem is that I feel like I wouldn't stand out as a MB, I wouldn't contribute anything special, unless somehow my philosophy degree comes into play, such as it makes me superior in the academic facet, or I become a philosopher of biology.
The only saving grace I can think of is that although I'll finish late, at least I would have been employed, which is good to have on the resume. Completing a degree at 28 with no proper employment would be a red light for me.
Thanks for the advice guys. As you can tell it's bothering me enough that I posted it here asking for advice, which I normally don't like to do.
The west and Islam traded with each other prior the crusades, there was a health exchange between the two. After the crusades Islam banned that and isolated themselves, that's what I mean. Had that exchange continued I don't think Islam would be the same.Depends on who you ask. Technically the First Crusade (c. 1095) was a call to arms by the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I to repel invading Seljuk Turks wishing to expand their empire. It should have ended there... but unfortunately it would turn into an excuse to wage a "blessed" war against all Turks due to the command from Pope Urban II to reclaim all of the Levent (which is basically the same area that today is in upheaval.) This of course took place very shortly after the Great Schism, so it's no surprise that the Church and States being in a state of confusion would fall prey to the unifying effects of Holy War.
It's interesting but Jews and Muslims alike fought side by side to protect Jerusalem, though in vain. When the Frank army sacked the city, they annihilated all the inhabitants. The 2nd-9th Crusades that followed were literally a back and forth unresolved "taking of the hill" not unlike what the US faced in Vietnam.
So in short, Islam itself may not be any different today if the Pope hadn't started **** way back when (he had no real claim to the area, it'd been in Muslim/Jewish control for almost half a century prior to the First Crusade) but the sentiment between the two religions may indeed be completely different, and we may not have so many fundies on both sides fighting an ages old battle that should have never started to begin with.
Here's a fascinating article about this very subject, actually.The west and Islam traded with each other prior the crusades, there was a health exchange between the two. After the crusades Islam banned that and isolated themselves, that's what I mean. Had that exchange continued I don't think Islam would be the same.
The American Journal of Botany is a good example of a periodical that is not meant for casual reading, but as a "heads up" to the botanical society's constituents for what's hot and what's not in research and discovery. Is it educational? Very... but also kind of useless unless you're into that kind of thing. There's a lot of big words and technical terms throughout (because they are in fact real research papers for experiments actually happening, and funded a lot of times by governments.) This would be an example of a periodical whose focus targets a specific group of academics and scholars and scientists - hence "society." It is not catered toward the casual reader, who is just looking for something to skim, what I'm assuming you're referring to as "populist."How educational do you guys think think science/wildlife docs and populist books are? They're certainly entertaining, but I'm curious as to how big the gap is in educational value of populist and academic material of the same field.
And do you any of you guys know of any publicly accessible science journals/academic outlets? Basically anything with contemporary science that is academic instead of populist.
Thanks in advance.
I hate this attitude. I'm sorry, but here's the thing: which presidential candidate likely to run in '12 wouldn't have signed this bill? And don't you dare bring up a third party.If Obama signs the NDAA into law (and it looks like he will) then I won't vote for him again. No matter what else. This bill is ridiculous. If you thought the PATRIOT act was bad... oh man. My only hope is that the supreme court will strike it down. But I'm not holding my breath.
The NDAA allows the government to indefinitely arrest anyone without charge or trial. They can just lock you up for no reason at all, and never let you out.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Not to mention SOPA, too! Which goes to the House floor tomorrow. Which would set up a Great Firewall of America, a national list of banned websites. Ridiculous. Vote 3rd party.
While I agree with you, it's that same mentality that allows this to happen. Democrats know the left won't betray them, so the democrats can keep betreying the left. Why? Where are they gonna go? Seriously if you're a moderate your concerns have more weight than a Liberal.I hate this attitude. I'm sorry, but here's the thing: which presidential candidate likely to run in '12 wouldn't have signed this bill? And don't you dare bring up a third party.
The problem is that doesn't work, you just have to look at the bush years to see that doesn't work.I don't even think this is good politics. He's turning away his base. I don't know if you follow TYT, but Cenk expressed this sentiment the other day. If Obama is going to enact policies like this, then what's the point in voting for him? You can always say that he is the lesser of two evils, but this is beyond the pale. Might as well have a Republican President so the Democrats put up a little more resistance. Anyone have any recommendations for third party candidates?
You can sue the government for enacting something unconstitutional, which is likely what they would do though. Also a bit of optimism the supreme court struck down parts of the a law that would allow for "Advanced interrogation techniques." basically the supreme court struck down that torture was unconstitutional. However no one really pushed the issue after that.I'm not sure how wise it is to posture about these issues. For one, Republicans haven't reciprocated when Obama concedes issues to them, so he will likely get nothing in return. Also, for issues like these, it will be hard to challenge it in the courts. For one, a lawyer can't challenge a law without a client and when you can "disappear" someone, how do you find them or even know they're there? Second, this is something that can easily be brushed under the rug in the name of "national security"; the justification that never seems to need justification. It's not like the policies under Bush have been challenged. As far as I know, the Patriot Act hasn't been challenged and no one has been prosecuted for torture. If we haven't defended the 8th amendment, what makes you think we will defend the 4th and 5th?