Us humans are always thinking we are the center of the universe, even after that "fact" was proven wrong. God never said we were the only things taking up his attention. If we all wiped out as a species (assuming God really exists) he would still be around to go on doing whatever it is he/she/it does. God being God, think of the amount of space he has to work with, even if we just took into account the universe we KNOW about. Even to say our planet is like a grain of salt on earth is a drastic understatement. If you really look at us as a species, what good have any of us done? Killing our planet, killing each other, killing just about every single other species we've EVER met? Yeah some of us do good things, but as a species we've done nothing but wrong. People like to say thats because the people in power are doing the wrong thing, thats just an excuse for the little people to sit on their butts and do nothing. Heh, we've even started polluting space. Wow arn't we spreading our destruction far! Yay...

Posted By: Fizzer

killing just about every single other species we've EVER met?

I have to disagree with this statement. We've only extinguished a handful of species, and discover thousands each year. Unless you mean "kill some of each species" in which case I agree,though I suspect all aggressive species do that.

Posted By: Fizzer

Us humans are always thinking we are the center of the universe

We (people) are the center of the universe - I am, you are, and even Bubbles, as a matter of mathematical fact ...or... god is not the center of the universe.

The "center" of an object is the point at which the distance between it and all edges of the object is equal, so take your philosophical pick:

1. If you subscribe to the notion that the universe is infinite, then right here, right now, measuring from me to every edge is, hmmmm...carry the two....Infinity! That makes me the center of the universe. You try it - it's very god like.

2. If you subscribe to the notion that the universe is finite, show me the center - there has to be one and only one. If god is there, he's the center of the universe. If not, however, he is NOT the center of the universe - And if you happen to be there to see if god's there or not - YOU'RE the center of the universe.

Take your pick - it's of no concern to me :)

Posted By: Fizzer

killing just about every single other species we've EVER met

Udoboy is right on this one. The phrase "just about every single other" in this context is just a different way of saying "the majority" or "most" or in mathematical terms, "more the 50%". So, you're saying that of the <insert-researched-number-that-I'm-too-lazy-to-look-up> species we've encountered, we've destroyed more than <that-number-you-inserted /2> of them? Not hardly.

While we have killed a few species off, you can by no means call it a majority.

I know it feels good and cleansing to say emotional stuff like "We're destroying the planet!" and "Can't we all just get along" and "Hey! That's my mom you're looking at!"...ok, maybe not the last one... but emotions aside, this is the internet for christ's sake! Please make sure the the information you post is TRUE!

Stacey's mom is different. Whilst she does have it "going on" as you kids say - it feels neither good nor cleansing when Stacey says, "Hey! That's my mom you're looking at!". This is somewhat of a phenomenon, and I can only say that we are aware of the anomaly and are looking into it.

we're not killing off all the species but i believe we have killed off at least 1 creature from each specie that we have met

the one's that we have met im talking about

lol.. you know what i mean.. and i mean humans have killed 1 animal of each specie that we have met lol

what word would you have used??

Posted By: Trance

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the expression "the centre of the universe" Is just that, an expression.

And on a side note: I am Stacey's mom, and I apprechiate the compliments.

I didn't know Stacy's mom made Minority Report...

Would that mean that god's got it going on?

Posted By: Udoboy

Posted By: Fizzer

killing just about every single other species we've EVER met?

I have to disagree with this statement. We've only extinguished a handful of species, and discover thousands each year. Unless you mean "kill some of each species" in which case I agree,though I suspect all aggressive species do that.

Apologies for the sloppy sentencing. What I meant to say was "We have kill a member of every species we have ever met." Our first response is to kill a subject so we can study it. Could you imagine if an alien species came to earth, killed a bunch of people, and told us it was just so they could study us? Thats pretty much what we do whenever we encounter a new species (that is if we even notice the species before we exterminate it, which has happened many times before and actually continues today).

Posted By: Trance

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the expression "the centre of the universe" Is just that, an expression.

And on a side note: I am Stacey's mom, and I apprechiate the compliments.

It's obvious that Trance is indeed god, knew exactly what I meant :0p.

Posted By: Fizzer

Posted By: Trance

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that the expression "the centre of the universe" Is just that, an expression.

And on a side note: I am Stacey's mom, and I apprechiate the compliments.

It's obvious that Trance is indeed god, knew exactly what I meant :0p.

I'll take that as a compliment, merci.

Facts cannot always be believed, for instance, 500 years ago it was a fact the Earth was flat, and unless Christopher Columbus (?) directly conflicted the facts with his theories, we may have believed the Earth was flat for centuries more.

Don't belive the truth, because it may be a lie, unless it really is the truth, in which case believe it.

Note: that last statement was meant as a joke, please don't take it literally.

On the contrary, I am the gnome God! All hail!

Posted By: TadGhostal

Posted By: Fizzer

Our first response is to kill a subject so we can study it

Don't pigeon hole an entire species by making random blanket statements like this. I don't kill a subject so I can study it. I never have, nor has anyone I know of. So when you say "we", please mention that you're apparently talking about yourself and others, because I, for one, am not part of that "we".

Au contraire, mon ami. If there are ten people in a room, and 9 of them agree to slaughter one of each other species for study, and then one of them says "we" studied these species, one of them can't suddenly distinguish himself from the others. What diminishes one, diminishes all.

Posted By: Udoboy

Au contraire, mon ami. If there are ten people in a room, and 9 of them agree to slaughter one of each other species for study, and then one of them says "we" studied these species, one of them can't suddenly distinguish himself from the others. What diminishes one, diminishes all.

In the scenario you describe, I agree. By not voicing his objects initially, and/or by remaining part of the team after the decision was made to kill the subject, he no longer has the right to be separate from the team's decision - he has implicitly (if not explicitly) agreed to the "team decision".

A more fair (and convoluted) analogy would be a room full of 6 billion people, with various subgroups huddled together as "teams", some teams deciding to study other subjects:

Of those teams studying subjects, one might decide to kill the subject first (Team A), while another (Team B) decides not to. Telling members of Team B that they're responsible for the actions of Team A, and that they therefore are a part of Team A, is incorrect, as is the statement: The actions of Team A diminishes the actions of Team B. Unless Team A has invited input from Team B, Team B members have no right to do any more than insist that Team A not kill the subject. If they go further than that, then they're imposing their will on Team A - and at that point it becomes the old "your-right-to-swing-your-fist-stops-at-my-nose" argument.

Fizzer's statements are in the context of the above analogy. I haven't agreed to any decision by other members of my species regarding how they choose to "study" subjects, so I cannot be grouped into that particular "we". I also think that the decision of another to kill, hunt, etc. is their's and their's alone. Do I think killing a subject to study it is wrong? Yes. Do I think someone else who decides to do that is wrong? Yes. Do I think my opinion is more valid than that person's, and therefore that I have the right to insist that they adhere to my beliefs and opinions? Nope.

Does that make me responsible for that other persons actions, and therefore part of the group that performs those actions. I don't think so.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, "You don't know me!" <does that z-snap thingy in the air>

If team A's methods were to kill the subjects in order to study them, in a sense team A are already forcing their methods unto team B, as the subjects to the slaughter are all in the same room (analogisticaly), which goes against team B's will.

I agree there, Trance. Team A would indeed be forcing their will somewhat on Team B.

Of course, in my analogy I imply that I am on Team B. That being the case, you bolster my point.

Posted By: TadGhostal

Posted By: Udoboy

If we say that "people kill animals" and you are a person, then yes, you're included

Here's the flaw in that logic. Using it, we could say "people are dead". If you and I are people, then yes, we're included (i.e. dead).

To form a group defined by common attributes from two individuals does not establish that all attributes of the two individuals the common.
-------------------------------------------------
I didn't bring voting into it, because this isn't a true democracy. When have you or I had the opportunity to vote on such issues?

Using that logic, you could also say:

"people commit suicide"

That saying implies that plants and animals (except humans) cannot commit suicide (willingly), only humans do that. It does not imply all people will commit suicide.

Posted By: Udoboy

There exists at least one member of the set of all humans, H_x, such that H_xkills and eats animals.

Sure, I'll agree with that. But that's a far cry from what fizzer said, which categorically grouped me in with anyone who kills animals to study them. I've never been big on the "guilt by association" trip.

No, because there's nine major monodeistic human religions and all of them have at least one prophet, except for one which had two. But if you mean in the 'son of God' sense, then that would go against the idea that Jesus was God's only son, meaning that all races are (and, presumably, were) equal, so Christians before Darwin's time were deluded.
Interesting thought though!

TadGhostal, did you ever disect a bug or animal at school?

Also if you look at my first post on all this, you'll see I referred to "We" and "Us" as our species. Like I said before, yes some of us have done good, but as a species we've done crap. I believe the whole "they did the bad things, not me. I'm not responsible." is just a big cop-out. We're all responsible for what we let others do.

There could be lesser demi gods that rein over the other races. Would still be true that there is only one God to us.

If there's proof, you can't show faith.

I concur. The existence of God (or any omnipotent being seems highly unlikely when you just listen to the FACTS. It really does make sense, but I guess I'm just stating the obvious here.