tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post1767147998036996026..comments2024-03-08T07:31:03.679-08:00Comments on Templestream: More Evidence That False Philosophies Lead To Sick SocietiesRick Wardenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-31558181754314272302012-04-17T18:13:11.091-07:002012-04-17T18:13:11.091-07:00No surprise really - Rick is taking his own belief...No surprise really - Rick is taking his own beliefs and anecdotal observations above far more objective evidence.<br />Rick simply <i>knows</i> that he is correct, therefore the objective evidence is mistaken, while the beliefs and observations Rick has which agree with his unjustified conclusion are obviously correct.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-41589836109801915282012-04-17T04:56:52.372-07:002012-04-17T04:56:52.372-07:00R:So... please explain what "statistics"...R:So... please explain what "statistics" you and Pinker are supposedly referring to.<br /><br />Watch the video once again. Pinker explains clearly where he gets his numbers. <br /><br />1. Yes, ancient war records are not perfect, the count of casualties was not done very carefully in the old times. Hpowever, the wars were much more bloody back then. A city wich resisted would usually be completely destroyed in biblical times. Read some ancient history about how things wre done back then. You do the math... One conquered city = one population killed and enslaved. <br /><br />Nowadays, we do not fight to the death. Furthermore, the more or less adequate war records (starting from the 19th century) do show a decrease in casualties.<br /><br />2. The homicidal rate has dropped dramatically. And here we have exact numbers since municipal records even in the middle ages were done very thoroughly. Besides, the customs and laws of the time were much more violent in the past. And we know that people did follow these laws and customs.<br /><br />3. Your source for statistics is incredibly faulty and clearly biased. It makes some rubbish statements like prayers in school were banned or that the literacy rate in the USA has dropped. That is not the case. Hence, your source is either incompetent or lying. Provide something more substantial. <br /><br />4. Besides, you cannot single out one country, you need show statistics for the whole world. If violence has increased in Afghanistan, this does not mean that violence has increased in the whole world. <br /><br />R:I am being hypocritical, as Havok claims. I pointed out some statistics, though my point does not rely on them. Simply watching movies from the 1950's - 1960#s are sufficient, as I mentioned.<br /><br />News flash! No study has been able to prove a direct link between violence on TV and in real life. The point still stands, violence has decreased per capita.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-41321307646823376572012-04-16T20:57:13.581-07:002012-04-16T20:57:13.581-07:00Anonymous,
>Havok already addressed the point....Anonymous,<br /><br />>Havok already addressed the point. I see no need to repeat the argunments<br /><br />Anonymous, you wrote, <br /><br />"Pinker does show it using statistics. Are numbers good enough as an argument for you?" <br /><br />And I pointed out Pinker's claim that violence has decreased since biblical times. <br /><br />So... please explain what "statistics" you and Pinker are supposedly referring to.<br /><br />I am being hypocritical, as Havok claims. I pointed out some statistics, though my point does not rely on them. Simply watching movies from the 1950's - 1960#s are sufficient, as I mentioned.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-53458209653311421432012-04-16T05:40:37.691-07:002012-04-16T05:40:37.691-07:00Havok already addressed the point. I see no need t...Havok already addressed the point. I see no need to repeat the argunmentsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-18674091624567554032012-04-15T22:27:40.409-07:002012-04-15T22:27:40.409-07:00This is a Hayok Spam Reply,
For the reasons state...This is a Hayok Spam Reply,<br /><br />For the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Hovok.<br /><br />Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html?showComment=1323355318051#c1860720556545525580" rel="nofollow">unsubstantiated slander against me.</a> He claimed, for example, I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of article, How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence. But Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example. <br /><br />Instead of apologizing, <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html?showComment=1334289472537#c1916952190635969567" rel="nofollow">he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.</a> <br /><br />Havok also continues to insist I am lying about Richard Dawkins by pointing out the simple implications of grammar, as noted in an article: <br /><br />"Firstly, consider Dawkins use of the word "though" as opposed to "but" leading off the parenthetical phrase. It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."<br /><br />In addition, Havok stands by his ridiculous claim that <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html?showComment=1334287804742#c3204474084846296324" rel="nofollow">the laws of physics are not a part of the physical environment, but are merely human explanatory tools and that's it.</a> <br /><br />Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, he demonstrates the frustration atheists often feel when they have a lack of answers. Second, Havok demonstrates that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will deny that it exists.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-16350103984257397322012-04-15T22:24:26.484-07:002012-04-15T22:24:26.484-07:00Hahaha. Rick you are just too precious!
Instead o...Hahaha. Rick you are just too precious!<br /><br />Instead of justifying your own claims, and answering critiques against your position, your going to put your head in the sand and ignore it?<br /><br />Fantastic stuff! :-PHavokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-90337744675330043112012-04-15T22:18:36.475-07:002012-04-15T22:18:36.475-07:00This is a Hayok Spam Reply,
For the reasons state...This is a Hayok Spam Reply,<br /><br />For the reasons stated below, I've found it most unprofitable to attempt to engage in civilized discourse with the commentator named Hovok.<br /><br />Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html?showComment=1323355318051#c1860720556545525580" rel="nofollow">unsubstantiated slander against me.</a> He claimed, for example, I ignored or did not adequately address critiques of article, How Identity, Logic and Physics prove God's Existence. But Havok has yet to provide one such referenced example. <br /><br />Instead of apologizing, <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html?showComment=1334289472537#c1916952190635969567" rel="nofollow">he continues to post more unsubstantiated lies and slander.</a> <br /><br />Havok also continues to insist I am lying about Richard Dawkins by pointing out the simple implications of grammar, as noted in an article: <br /><br />"Firstly, consider Dawkins use of the word "though" as opposed to "but" leading off the parenthetical phrase. It is understood that the word "though" implies a challenge to overcome while the word "but" implies an obstacle. If Dawkins had wanted to contrast the positive results of scientific eugenics with a negative view of it's moral implications, then he would have used the word "but" at the beginning of the parenthetical phrase, but he did not."<br /><br />In addition, Havok stands by his ridiculous claim that <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html?showComment=1334287804742#c3204474084846296324" rel="nofollow">the laws of physics are not a part of the physical environment, but are merely human explanatory tools and that's it.</a> <br /><br />Havok is a good object lesson for 2 reasons. First, he demonstrates the frustration atheists often feel when they have a lack of answers. Second, Havok demonstrates that the sin nature is alive and well, though atheists such as Havok will deny that it exists.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-80862429730746234642012-04-15T21:45:13.708-07:002012-04-15T21:45:13.708-07:00Rick: I personally believe societies are more cycl...<b>Rick: I personally believe societies are more cyclical than Pinker believes. </b><br />It seems rather hypocritical of you to require Pinker to provide evidence and arguments for his claims (which I believe he does actually provide in the book), and yet you are happy to simply assert things.<br /><br /><b>Rick: If you research US history, you will see that society was fairly violent and decadent in the mid 1700s just prior to the First Great Awakening. This spiritual awakening occurred just prior to the American Revolution. After the revolution, The US had become a model of democracy, civility and prosperity.</b><br />Correlation does not equal causation Rick.<br />You seem to be implying that the "First Great Awakening" was somehow responsible for the civility you claim held after the revolutionary war. Yet since the FGA didn't prevent the war, wouldn't it make far more sense to think that it was the war which was responsible for the subsequent civility?<br /><br /><b>Rick: As far as I have read, violence has steadily risen in the US since the 1960s</b><br />Then you've been reading biased statistics and/or rubbish.<br />The stats which I believe Pinker cites indicate that violence has gone up in absolute terms, but it has not nearly kept pace with population growth, and violence relative to the number of people has been fairly steadily declining.<br /><br /><b>Rick: when prayer and other such mentions of Christianity were forbidden.</b><br />Oh, I see you live in a fantasy land, where ceasing state sanctioned religious observance, as the US constitution requires, equates to forbidding individual prayer and belief.<br />This one admission says so very much about your state of knowledge Rick.<br /><br /><b>Rick: Some claim that the Vietnam War indirectly helped boost violent attitudes in the US, but no one seems to deny that violence began increasing in society at that time.</b><br />The statistics indicate that violence has not been increasing, which seems to be a rather objective indication that your claim is false.<br /><br /><b>Rick: These cases struck down the practice of prayer and Bible reading in public schools. </b><br />No they did not. They stopped state sanction and enforced prayer and bible reading. Students are free to say prayers and read their bibles, which is completely in accordance with the US constitution.<br /><br /><b>Rick: statistics show the following...</b><br />Repeat after me Rick - <i>"Correlation does not equal causation"</i><br /><br /><b>Rick: These statistics don't have to be analyzed in a library - just look at any movies from the 1950s to the 1960s and it's not very difficult to tell that violence and dysfunction in society have dramatically increased since then.</b><br />And yet the statistics actually show nothing of the sort. Per capita, violence is down. No amount of special pleading will change that Rick. No amount of asserting that following the constitution, and ceasing state sponsored prayer in public schools will change that.<br /><br />I see a problem here Rick - movies <i>ARE NOT</i> real, and to rely upon them as indicators of the state of a society, while completely ignoring the actual statistics of violent crime, says volumes about you.Havokhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05770427187548083625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-16108562321415426232012-04-15T21:32:33.440-07:002012-04-15T21:32:33.440-07:00Pinker has violence statistics dating back to bibl...Pinker has violence statistics dating back to biblical times? He has implied violence has been decreasing since then.<br /><br />I personally believe societies are more cyclical than Pinker believes. If you research US history, you will see that society was fairly violent and decadent in the mid 1700s just prior to the First Great Awakening. This spiritual awakening occurred just prior to the American Revolution. After the revolution, The US had become a model of democracy, civility and prosperity.<br /><br />As far as I have read, violence has steadily risen in the US since the 1960s when prayer and other such mentions of Christianity were forbidden. Some claim that the Vietnam War indirectly helped boost violent attitudes in the US, but no one seems to deny that violence began increasing in society at that time.<br /><br />In 1962 when the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Engel v. Vitale, and in 1963 with the Murray v. Curlett case and Abington v. Schempp. These cases struck down the practice of prayer and Bible reading in public schools. <br /><br />statistics show the following...<br /><br /> *SAT scores declined sharply<br /> *American students often place last in international scholastic competitions<br /> * When attention focused on teachers to find the reasons for students' failure, many teachers failed certification tests.<br /> *Dramatic increase in school violence<br /> *Student suicides up 253%<br /> *Students lack basic information - poor skills - bad for the business community<br /> *Military forced to provide remedial education for recruits<br /><br />http://www.squidoo.com/banning-prayer-public-school-decline-morality-america<br /><br />These statistics don't have to be analyzed in a library - just look at any movies from the 1950s to the 1960s and it's not very difficult to tell that violence and dysfunction in society have dramatically increased since then.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-23978902737570972552012-04-15T16:36:56.688-07:002012-04-15T16:36:56.688-07:00You seem to imply that violence has been rising in...You seem to imply that violence has been rising in human society, which is false according to the information we have. Pinker does show it using statistics. Are numbers good enough as an argument for you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-56042343071079008822012-04-14T21:26:44.178-07:002012-04-14T21:26:44.178-07:00I'm not sure what the connection is between yo...I'm not sure what the connection is between your statement and the linked video. It seems to be a non sequitur. <br /><br />Pinker's thesis is that violence is historically decreasing. He states that genocides such as Stalin#s are insignificant. But I did not see an actual logical argument presented to back up his opinion. He simply made an assertion.<br /><br />If he did present a logical argument as to why genocides such as Stalins are insignificant, can you summarize the main points of his argument?<br /><br />Thank you in advance.Rick Wardenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09689451026838986088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1645439856635422478.post-56249596861999494252012-04-13T05:36:11.739-07:002012-04-13T05:36:11.739-07:00http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth...http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html<br /><br />Your assertion that science will never have all the answers needs to be backed up<br /><br />Rus AnonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com