| Subject: Some things...never change |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/25/06 6:31pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Real thought" on 09/25/06 1:22pm
Here are two points:
A) I think it is pretty obvious that religions have common themes repeating among them. I think it is pretty obvious that Christianity expounded upon these basic themes. I think, in many cases, it was a cannabalization of some piece of other religious thought that seemed to explain some particular piece well.
The bottom line to me on the issue is that Christianity is not so "radically different" than many other religions, and as such, I highly doubt it was inspired by anything "radically different" than some guys who wanted to write something compelling.
>
>My personal experience leads me to distrust Wikipedia
>to some extent. I've had some problems with Wikipedia
>in getting some factual stuff corrected, because
>overzealous editors policing the article have an
>agenda for the inaccurate status quo (see
rel=nofollow target=_blank >rel=nofollow target=_blank
>href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_
>Cabal/Cases/2006-03-10_Irreducible_complexity">here
>for instance), but I suspect what they say is
>accurate here at least in the sense that most white
>supremacists call themselves Christian (see above). I
>tend to be somewhat cynical of human nature, and that
>includes those humans who call themselves Christian.
I checked out this link, and I have to say that I wouldn't accept your suggested change either based on the evidence you have provided. The main problem, I think, is that you don't have very realistic ways of assessing evidence. The situation with wikipedia is such that you haven't provided a compelling reason to include the other fellow other than you don't think the "first guy" actually came up with irreducible complexity in the form that it takes now.
The reality is that "irreducible complexity" is actually just an extension of an age-old philosophical problem that relates to understanding things by their pieces or by the "whole". I get the impression that you seem to think that the origins of something MUST be definitionally exactly the same, otherwise the two concepts are not related. This, in my opinion, is unnecessary hair splitting for some motive that I can only speculate aims at a particular end.
I do find it interesting that on the Wikidpedia, five years later, people are saying roughly the same thing about you there that many of us have said here. What explanation do you have for that?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 