Edward Wilson: Is Humanity Suicidal?

[Kekerusey]

This of course, in the scientific world is called my "theory." hypothesis.

Fixed that for you.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.
So in layman's terms, this is my "Theory" on todays modern Science.
Didn't need fixing, Thank you

Actually it did because your original statement was in a scientific context and a scientific theory is a fully fledged explanation including mechanisms and not a hunch or a "jolly good wheeze"

Keke

[Na'vin Nos'feratxu]

This of course, in the scientific world is called my "theory." hypothesis.

Fixed that for you.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.
So in layman's terms, this is my "Theory" on todays modern Science.
Didn't need fixing, Thank you

Actually it did because your original statement was in a scientific context and a scientific theory is a fully fledged explanation including mechanisms and not a hunch or a "jolly good wheeze"

Keke

Jolly good wheeze? ...Riiiight....
So your version of Theory is what? You believe that everyone elses theories are just, "jolly good wheeze?"
There are many different versions of how "Theory" is explained. I am going by the textbook version. So your accusation on the differences between theory and "Jolly good Wheeze" are strictly single minded.
A full fledged explanation and mechanisms? Forgive me for not taking the time to write my actual theory out for you. Which would surely consist of all the things you are wanting to see to justify that what I told you already is, my theory.
Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method. So what you just said was actually backwards from what you intended to say, surely.
I can do this all day, but please don't ask me to. I would be disinclined to acquiesce to your request.

Science is nothing more than a method of learning. Which is funny to me because its meaning is often fought over. And by meaning, I mean what Science implies.
A few people here seem to think science is more than just, science... It's nothing more than a table to which can be followed in order to learn about something. Nothing more.
However, like most religions, it is often argued over. So in a way, science is to some, as what religion is to others. You live by it, defend it, and have your own misconstrued version of it.
I am not arguing this, nor am I challenging it. It's a fact.  

I am simply acknowledging it, just as I do with everyone elses beliefs.
Curious... What does science truly mean to you Kekerusey? I ask because I am genuinely interested. I'm not taking shots at you, so please don't be sarcastic in your explanation (should you give me one) It would hinder my understanding if you did.

[Kekerusey]

Jolly good wheeze? ...Riiiight....

I can't really be bothered to answer so I'll just copy/paste something I wrote a few years back to deal with creationists and their stupid, "it's just a theory" crud:

There is a very big difference between the word "theory" as it is used in common everyday language and the way in which it is used in science.

A scientific theory implies little in the way of doubt or uncertainty as the word "theory" does when used in common place, every day language ... in science a "theory" is "a system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained (e.g. atomic theory or the theory of evolution); the exposition of the principles of a science etc.; a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject (e.g. probability theory or the theory of equations)." The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the vast diversity of life and how it has evolved from a single common ancestor and in fact (common use) evolution is the only explanation accepted by the entire scientific community as explaining the development of the diversity of life around us today. When creationists say things like "it's just a theory" WRT to major scientific theories they simply demonstrate themselves to be ignorant of science and all it represents!

Science is concerned with fact and most creationists or anti-evolutionists, when they use the word "FACT", confuse the scientific use of the word with its common usage (just like you are trying to with the word "theory").  A fact implies certainty in common use but in science a fact, except possibly in a mathematical sense, does not imply absolute certainty or absence of doubt ... that would be bad science. Facts are those things that science understands to be so ... in this sense it is a fact that evolution occurs i.e. evolution is defined as a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Evolution is replete with examples of new discoveries and relies heavily on methods and mechanisms from other disciplines (e.g. geology, archaeology, chemistry, physics, mathematics etc.) so much so that if you were successful in tearing evolution (& cosmology) down to the pits of your hell you no doubt believe it came from you would necessarily shatter the whole of science because every single part of science is inextricably linked with every other part.

The quote, by the way, is by Richard Dawkins and sums the "debate" up quite nicely :-)

So yeah, there is only one type of real theory (the scientific one), everything other so-called theory is little more than a guess.

Keke

[Na'vin Nos'feratxu]

Jolly good wheeze? ...Riiiight....

I can't really be bothered to answer so I'll just copy/paste something I wrote a few years back to deal with creationists and their stupid, "it's just a theory" crud:

There is a very big difference between the word "theory" as it is used in common everyday language and the way in which it is used in science.

A scientific theory implies little in the way of doubt or uncertainty as the word "theory" does when used in common place, every day language ... in science a "theory" is "a system of ideas explaining something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the particular things to be explained (e.g. atomic theory or the theory of evolution); the exposition of the principles of a science etc.; a collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject (e.g. probability theory or the theory of equations)." The Theory of Evolution is an attempt to explain the vast diversity of life and how it has evolved from a single common ancestor and in fact (common use) evolution is the only explanation accepted by the entire scientific community as explaining the development of the diversity of life around us today. When creationists say things like "it's just a theory" WRT to major scientific theories they simply demonstrate themselves to be ignorant of science and all it represents!

Science is concerned with fact and most creationists or anti-evolutionists, when they use the word "FACT", confuse the scientific use of the word with its common usage (just like you are trying to with the word "theory").  A fact implies certainty in common use but in science a fact, except possibly in a mathematical sense, does not imply absolute certainty or absence of doubt ... that would be bad science. Facts are those things that science understands to be so ... in this sense it is a fact that evolution occurs i.e. evolution is defined as a "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

Evolution is replete with examples of new discoveries and relies heavily on methods and mechanisms from other disciplines (e.g. geology, archaeology, chemistry, physics, mathematics etc.) so much so that if you were successful in tearing evolution (& cosmology) down to the pits of your hell you no doubt believe it came from you would necessarily shatter the whole of science because every single part of science is inextricably linked with every other part.

The quote, by the way, is by Richard Dawkins and sums the "debate" up quite nicely :-)

So yeah, there is only one type of real theory (the scientific one), everything other so-called theory is little more than a guess.

Keke

I fail to see how this has anything to do with others having theories. Other than you are trying to say that there are people out there who you believe to be stupid for having their own theories.
If this is just a thread that you feel you need to always be right and everyone else wrong, then I have lost all taste for discussion pertaining to an intelligible conversation we might have had.
It would have been a much better conversation if you hadn't implied or attempted sarcasm and slander.

I for one take no man seriously if he thinks everyone else is "stupid" and has nothing but "crud" to say.
It's one thing to describe your beliefs/views and understanding of something like Theory. But to say your way is the right way, is something entirely different.

Good day, cheers.
-Na'vin da

[Kekerusey]

I fail to see how this has anything to do with others having theories. Other than you are trying to say that there are people out there who you believe to be stupid for having their own theories.

The point is simple ... there is a scientific meaning for the word "theory" (something which fully explains something, confirms things we already know and predicts things we don't) and there is the common usage version of the word "theory" which equates more-or-less to a hunch or a guess. I will grant you that some people's "theories" (common usage) are worth more than others but in that case it would probably be more correct to call them "hypotheses".

It would have been a much better conversation if you hadn't implied or attempted sarcasm and slander.

I didn't slander you ... sarcastic perhaps, slanderous no.

Keke

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Regardless of the meaning of the world 'theory', the whole 'Biblical creationist theory' is rife with holes you could drive a Mack truck through. The really sad thing is that I have several friends who are creationists. It is very hard to carry on a meaningful scientific discussion with them, as they keep trying to link the discussion back to their flawed theory.

I believe God created everything, but did it through a process that looks to us like evolution. (Evolution has some serious problems as well, but nothing at all like Biblical creationism.)

[Clarke]

If science weren't merely your religion, it really wouldn't have to be defended so vigorously by you.  You have no one to convince but yourself.

Am I being vigorous? I wasn't intending to be. I've found that calm, rational and overwhelming arguments usually work better anyway.

Incidentally, I do have people to convince - it'd be rather useful if people could actually build the magi-tech we use every day, instead of merely using and consuming it. It's difficult to engineer anything if you don't understand how science works.

If you find oel ngati kameie superficial, I'm sure you would find namaste the same.  Since you are the creator of the meaning for yourself, then that is where the superficiality lies.

I hope you didn't think the insult would pass me by. Also, I find that in the overwhelming majority of cases where people bring up the idea of "all meanings are subjective!" (which is partially wrong, as all such soundbite-y arguments are.) it's not because they want to seriously discuss it, but because they want to change the subject from their own beliefs. No discussion can be productive if the participates aren't willing to expose their ideas to criticism, and without any discussion, how do you suppose we can arrive at solutions?

What's your point? A single virus derived from Variola only infected humans, which made it easier for eradication.
My point, was that there are many kinds of viral and bacterial agents that simply cannot be eradicated. Because they adapt to our vaccines, so they become stronger, which as the adverse effect we are failing to fix.

Then we should simply invent something more sophisticated than a vaccine. One cannot do that without science. (One cannot do much of anything in society-shaking terms without some form of science.)

Why would that mean that it's a bad thing you ask? Alrighty, lemme explain something to ya.
I'll use a few known countries as an example. The USA, the UK, Brazil, Germany and several more, Have many large cities filled with millions of people. Right?  With that in mind, how many of them drive a car? How many go to the grocery store? How many rent or buy an apartment or house? How many of them work jobs the revolve around todays current technology such as computers, paper work, numbers/money/stocks the list goes on... 
Alright, now for a moment, imagine all the millions of people that live in such a confined area known as todays cities.  What happens when the electricity fails, what happens when the entire techno world fails?
A storm rolls in, or an earthquake. Something that knocks out all communication and power.

In the UK? In Germany? The only vaguely disaster-ish weather the UK has is the occasional snowstorm. Power and communications remain as constant as ever, and travel only becomes slightly more difficult if one is prepared. AFAIK in places like Germany or France, you don't even have those, and the technological world has ticked around the clock for decades, if not centuries with no significant interruption.

IOW, the scenario you are imagining has never happened in most of the places you are concerned with.

Here's my point in my oh so over simplified example...  Society relies too much on todays technology. If technology fails, then in most cases no one knows how to survive.

More sophisticated technology has less chance of failure, though. No natural event short of destruction of humanity could destroy the whole Internet, for instance.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.
So in layman's terms, this is my "Theory" on todays modern Science.
Didn't need fixing, Thank you

You weren't speaking in layman's terms. You were speaking in scientific ones. It says so right there in your post. In scientific terms, a theory is a well-established generalized explanation of a given set of observations. This usually requires overwhelming observational evidence, and refinement by thousands over years.

So...Lemme get this straight.  You're worried about the appearance of the phrase "Oel ngati kameie?"
I am genuinely interested in how that phrase is considered misleading. You have my rapt attention with why you think so.

I'm not worried about its appearance; I'm worried about its meaning, even when said implicitly. See below.

However I must give you my understanding of the phrase before I learn yours...
Oel ngati kameie of course means: I see you.
We all know, thanks to it being defined in the movie, that "I see you" means that "I see into you" or rather, who you are. A phrase of recognition.
Simply by our standards as a salute. The salute (commonly used in the military) is a subtle action of "showing ones face" to someone he/she respects.
The salute simulates and is derived from in medieval times when jousting competitors met on the field. They commonly raised their helmet shrouds to expose their face.
Hence the action of Salute, which looks like you are pulling up your Helmet shroud to expose your face.

Long story short, Oel ngati kameie is relatively the same. The Na'vi also have a hand gesture to coincide with the phrase.

The way Norm explains it ("I see into you...") and how the Na'vi use the term (e.g. Neytiri complaining that we do not See) does not match up with the commonality of the gesture. That probably means that its simultaneously used as a semi-casual salute and as its literal meaning; my issue is with the latter.

The reason I don't like the phrase is because its inherently a thought-terminating cliché; worse, it's inaccurate. It makes you think you understand, (after all, you say the phrase, "knowing" its true...) even in cases where you actually don't. Because you think you understand, you stop looking. It also disguises the distinction between values and facts/data, leaving you with a belief structure you don't know is closed-minded.
Want an example? Here's a major one: the Na'vi See Eywa. We do biology. We, not them, can make biology ours to command.

It is quite likely some people are about to bring up an argument of the form, "But we shouldn't control biology because blahblahblah..." They have missed the point, in the same way the Na'vi do: understanding confers no value judgement. Just because I understand you does not mean I agree with you. In the case of "seeing" Eywa, understanding gives you a set of levers - what you achieve by pulling the levers makes no difference to how well you understand. The Na'vi pull a fairly primitive set of levers the bare minimum they need to to survive and otherwise don't touch them, whereas our set of levers is more precise and controllable, and we pull them far more often for a variety of purposes. (Unfortunately, because there's so many of us, we've wound up pulling them at cross-purposes, and like any machine, that's broken things. )

I fail to see how this has anything to do with others having theories. Other than you are trying to say that there are people out there who you believe to be stupid for having their own theories.

It has very little to do with other people having models of reality. It has to do with people trying to either claim credibility where none is due or ignore credibility where it is due purely through connotations of the word "theory." Nobody is stupid simply because they have an idea about how the world behaves. Claiming that that idea is more important than it is (e.g. by claiming it to be a "scientific theory" when it isn't) or not accepting their own ignorance (e.g. when faced with contradicting evidence) is either dishonest, stupid, or both.

If this is just a thread that you feel you need to always be right and everyone else wrong, then I have lost all taste for discussion pertaining to an intelligible conversation we might have had.

I have found the majority of intelligible discussions I have participated in have one right answer. This probably has something to do with the fact that empirical questions have a single answer.

(Of course, sometimes it turns out that the one right answer is one that nobody thought of beforehand. But realizing that is the ostensible point of discussion.)

I for one take no man seriously if he thinks everyone else is "stupid" and has nothing but "crud" to say.

Nobody is stupid, IMO, but everyone is ignorant, including me. This appears to be quite obvious - after all, no one person knows everything.

It's one thing to describe your beliefs/views and understanding of something like Theory. But to say your way is the right way, is something entirely different.

This phrasing suggests to me that you don't understand the implication of the properly applied label "theory." If I say, "the theory of gravity produces correct answers in circumstances X, Y and Z," you can, physically, disagree with me and claim the opposite. But justifying that disagreement empirically is completely impossible, because no evidence will support your claim. To disagree with a properly scientific theory is, in 99.999% of cases, equivalent to disagreeing with reality. Is it not accurate to describe results which disagree with reality as "wrong?"

Regardless of the meaning of the world 'theory', the whole 'Biblical creationist theory' is rife with holes you could drive a Mack truck through. The really sad thing is that I have several friends who are creationists. It is very hard to carry on a meaningful scientific discussion with them, as they keep trying to link the discussion back to their flawed theory.

I believe God created everything, but did it through a process that looks to us like evolution. (Evolution has some serious problems as well, but nothing at all like Biblical creationism.)

The principle of evolution (reproduction with variation) is essentially undeniable. The details are necessarily somewhat noisy, since we have access to only a small fraction of creatures who have lived. Perhaps you could PM me with the details of what you consider "serious problems?"

[Alyara Arati]

All right, I essentially have nothing to contribute to "is humanity suicidal?" because the answer is, to me, obviously yes and no.  I have every faith in humanity's inconsistency with itself.

However I feel that I want to speak to the superficiality of "oel ngati kameie" and "namasté": I See you, and I salute the Divinity within you.  This is the short form of both expressions, but it suffices.
I may not know you from Adam, but I do know that there is Divinity within you as there is in everyone, and I can honor that and wish you well as I would with any being I should meet.
That does not mean that I employ the phrase lightly or on all occasions.  My personal view of "oel ngati kameie" is very similar.  Neytiri says this with great affection and reverence to her father.
This is our first introduction to "I See you" and I think, although she uses these words less seriously to Jake and Tsu'tey, that the meaning remains fairly consistent throughout the film.
If you notice, she does not greet the two Iknimaya candidates this way.  It would be only natural if she knows them less well.  Even so, "I see into you" does not imply that I See everything about you.
Much can be conveyed by expression and tone of voice; it is my own humble opinion that "I See you" is not necessarily always equal to "I See you!"  But, I doubt that the Na'vi ever find it superficial.

Namasté,
~ Alyara

[Kekerusey]

I See you, and I salute the Divinity within you.

What does that even mean? If it means what I think it means then it is a very insulting thing to say to an atheist (which, like me, I am assuming Clarke is) ... I hope I am wrong but please can you explain?

Keke

[Alyara Arati]

I'm not sure that this thread is the place for a lengthy explanation of namasté, but I will PM you, and also Clarke if he is offended.  That was certainly not my intent, and I am sorry for any perceived insult.  I did not realize that atheists were so intolerant of other faiths.  Yes, atheism is as much a faith or belief system as any religion out there, since I don't think that anyone has ever satisfactorily proven that there is no God, Divine Energy, or whatever you choose to call that which current science cannot explain.

As for oel ngati kameie, all I meant to imply is that it seems to me to be used in similar circumstances as namasté.  Norm says that it means not just "I see you," but "I See into you," which I interpret as "I See the essence of you, your personality, your spirit, your energy, or again whatever term you prefer."  And with the <ei> it further conveys that I accept you for what you are, and moreover, I am pleased to "See" you.    Perhaps this is only tacit, but to my way of thinking that translates roughly as, "I know you, as fully as possible, and like/love you for all of your being.  With that in the forefront of my mind, I am happy to greet you."

Once more, my apologies for the off-topic nature of this post.  Maybe a better question than, "Is humanity suicidal?" would be, "Is humanity homicidal?"  In the end, we are still killing ourselves, but with a different apparent motivation.

[Kekerusey]

I did not realize that atheists were so intolerant of other faiths.

Define intolerance

Would I go around persecuting (even murdering) others because they don't believe as I do? No. Have atheists done this historically? No (and yes I am aware that many will claim that the Nazi's and the Communists were atheists ... they're wrong but that never stops them claiming such things). Would I attempt to forcibly silence those with such beliefs? No. Would I attempt to stop them spreading their message? Well, that depends on who they attempt to "teach" ... I strongly object to children being "taught" religious views as I view religions as little else than brainwashing (I could go further) because children are vulnerable, because they are born trusting and because of that they will believe what their parents & elders (who they assume know more than they do) tell them.

I'm, biased of course, biased against the vagaries and stupidities of religions; biased towards logic and reason. Am I always logical and reasoning? No, of course not but I try to be whenever I can. Am I objective ... I doubt it but again I try to be. Being educated to degree level helps as the sciences (Applied Biology in my case) help to give you critical reasoning skills.

Do I think I'm intolerant? Do I think atheists generally are intolerant? It depends on how you define intolerance. I don't think I am and, despite the fact that I can disagree with them on many other things, on the question of religions/science reason, the kind of atheists I have met on line generally tend to agree ... there are many who would think otherwise [SHRUG]. The problem with intolerance is that many tend to treat it as the same as disagreement ... it's like when someone says something you don't like, and perhaps in defence of a given argument that few others agree with ends up being called a troll ... they aren't (because true trolling is an exceptionally clever art) but others will brand them as such.

Long argument short ... no I'm not.

Keke

[Alyara Arati]

Intolerance: "lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc."  Added emphasis is entirely mine, obviously.  Furthermore, generalizing from one example was a mistake in phrasing.  I inadvertently left out the word "certain" before "atheists."

With that said, perhaps I was hasty in my choice of vocabulary.  Hostile ("unfriendly; antagonistic"), or didactic ("in the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way") may have better expressed that which I intended to convey.  Enjoy your debate with whoever might disagree with you.

I'm out before I get censured for derailing this thread.  Farewell and goodbye.

[Clarke]

All right, I essentially have nothing to contribute to "is humanity suicidal?" because the answer is, to me, obviously yes and no.  I have every faith in humanity's inconsistency with itself.

Humanity is pretty consistent; you just have to make sure you're asking the right questions, and not assuming things that aren't true. (Like people know what they want. And that what they do is consistent with what they want. )

I may not know you from Adam, but I do know that there is Divinity within you as there is in everyone, and I can honor that and wish you well as I would with any being I should meet.

(I hope you do know me from Adam, since he never existed...)
As Kekerusey mentioned, what is "Divinity"? I have a vague idea, but I'd like to see you be specific about what you mean by it. 

But, I doubt that the Na'vi ever find it superficial.

Namasté,
~ Alyara

There are no Na'vi psychologists.

What does that even mean? If it means what I think it means then it is a very insulting thing to say to an atheist (which, like me, I am assuming Clarke is) ... I hope I am wrong but please can you explain?

Keke

It's hardly insulting, IMO; it just makes whoever said it look quite irrational.

Yes, atheism is as much a faith or belief system as any religion out there, since I don't think that anyone has ever satisfactorily proven that there is no God, Divine Energy, or whatever you choose to call that which current science cannot explain.

Our current best theory of reality specifies that "the universe" is made up of 6 fields interacting with 16 particles of matter. Which of these are divine?

Although you're possibly asking for a contradiction in terms - there's nothing science cannot explain, because if there was, we'd fix science to explain it. 

[Kekerusey]

I did not realize that atheists were so intolerant of other faiths.  Yes, atheism is as much a faith or belief system as any religion out there, since I don't think that anyone has ever satisfactorily proven that there is no God, Divine Energy, or whatever you choose to call that which current science cannot explain.

OK so intolerance. Am I willing to tolerate other belief systems, yeah sure ... if they are reasonable. The problem is are the beliefs of others reasonable? IMO it is not reasonable to believe (or rather to state as some kind of truth) something without validatable evidence. Do I mind if others believe such things? Not really, up until the point they try to convince others it has value.

If that's what you would call intolerant (and I gather it is since your idea that the universe was created from love is, quite frankly, laughable) then yes, I am intolerant but in reality I recognise the simple fact that not all stated views and opinions are of equal worth, that someone claiming the universe was sneezed into existence by a mutant stargoat (be aware I chose that one rather than specifically insult whatever views others hold here but in practice I consider them all much the same) is inherently of less worth than the heavily evidence supported claim that the universe came into existence by more rational means and, even though there are many questions as yet unanswered that does not server to support the kind of daft answer religions typically come up with.

On the subject of atheism being a belief I'm afraid you're mistaken ... there are no gods, no prayers, no scriptures, no ceremonies, no holy days and (unlike every other religion that has existed, exists now or likely ever will exist) has absolutely no philosophical component whatsoever. The one and only thing atheists share is a dismissal of current claims to deity (not a belief there is no god) and I suppose it's implied that we don't believe in all the other supernatural stuff that goes with such claims.

With that said, perhaps I was hasty in my choice of vocabulary.  Hostile ("unfriendly; antagonistic"), or didactic ("in the manner of a teacher, particularly so as to treat someone in a patronizing way") may have better expressed that which I intended to convey.

I think it's clear I disagree with you but at what point was I hostile? Of course I am rejecting your interpretations of whatever it was you were saying (love, universal energy and all that stuff) but, as far as I can tell, I wasn't actually hostile and any perception that I was is entirely your own interpretation.

Keke

[Alyara Arati]

Is bringing information imparted in a personal message into a public thread respectful?  If you had not blatantly betrayed whatever small trust I mistakenly placed in your courtesy as a human being, I would not even be responding to this.  It was not my intention to start a flame war, and I will not participate in one.

ON TOPIC: who is the voice of humanity?  How do we judge trillions of individuals?  These are rhetorical questions, brought up merely because I have some consideration for the original discussion.

[Tirea Aean]

Mod note:

ENOUGH WITH THE RELIGION FLAME WAR.

I have the following also to say:

* This is a forum. A place where different people make their voices heard on established topics.
* Different people have different beliefs, opinions and thoughts.
* the above should be respected at all times.
* No one is obligated to accept or adhere to any opinion or belief posted on this forum. Neither is anyone obligated to deny or reject such beliefs or opinions.
* If you do not want your opinion or belief to be criticised, analyzed, or discussed further, do not post it. In general, everyone is free to post RELEVANT opinions and beliefs. WARNING: If you post strong opinions or beliefs on a public forum, Be prepared to have it criticised and argued by those who do not have them in common with you.
* Name calling, tones of arrogance, condescension or general rudeness by any person does not belong here in any sub forum.
* PLEASE stay on topic.
* Please have heated OFFTOPIC debates in private messages and keep them there.
* Making claims either for or against the existence or alleged behaviour of God or any other deities in the /science board will almost certainly come with the consequence as seen in thus thread. Do not argue about religious or spiritual things here unless you expect to start a flame war. It is pointless.

Let the ON topic discussion continue. Please be respectful and civil. Be kind. All to all. Or I will lock this thread.

[Kekerusey]

Is bringing information imparted in a personal message into a public thread respectful?  If you had not blatantly betrayed whatever small trust I mistakenly placed in your courtesy as a human being, I would not even be responding to this.  It was not my intention to start a flame war, and I will not participate in one.

I suppose I am used to people (creationists mainly) using personal messages as a way of pushing ideas they wouldn't do in the open and responded accordingly. However what you say is fair and I apologise.

who is the voice of humanity?  How do we judge trillions of individuals?  These are rhetorical questions, brought up merely because I have some consideration for the original discussion.

Consensus I suppose ... in a democratic environment the government of the day represents the will of the people even if we, personally, didn't vote for that specific administration.

Keke

[Prrton]

* Name calling, tones of arrogance, condescension or general rudeness by any person does not belong here...

Thank you Mr. Moderator for that specific admonition.

That is the precisely the semantic range that shall determine our fate as a species if we end up having an active hand in our own survival. Whether you are a religious person or not, those are the transgressions that always get us as a technological eusocial culture into trouble. Starts off small. Snowballs.

Thank you other debaters for the apologies and forgiveness.

Pax vobiscum, नमस्ते, よろしくお願いします & ohel ayngengati kamuye.