Conservapedia.com :Puke:
- Thread starter Uladyne
- Start date
Trevoire520
Member
I'd recommend watching the "Inside natures giants" series. Particularly the whale and giraffe ones, these explain how evolution works by examining the anatomy of animals, the evidence is incredibly compelling in my opinion. You can find it all on youtube.
Really though I don't see whats so hard to believe, lets use a giraffe as an example.
Say there's a bunch of horses running around africa (I know giraffe's probably aren't descended from horses but I'm just using it as an example ok!?) and a horse is born with a neck that's a bit longer than the neck of a normal horse. This horse can reach food that others can't (let's say it has access to 20% more food than the shorter necked horses) and will therefore have a greater chance of survival than other horses, resulting in it having more opportunities to breed, spreading it's gene pool further (assuming that this long neck does not come with any significant disadvantages)
So say most of the baby horses also have long necks from it's mother/father with the long neck, again they have more chance for survival than short necked horses, and spread the long necked gene further still.
Then a horse with a really really long neck is born from these longer necked horses. Again it has more access to food (lets say 50% more than the shorties) greater chance of survival, more chance to breed and spreads its gene pool further, as do it's offspring.
Now say there's a famine, as the longer necked horses have greater access to food they have a great chance of surviving, potentially wiping out the shorter necked horses. This happens a few times over a few million years and the long necked horses have undergone a few other changes (each giving it a new advantage over the others of it's species and a greater chance of survival and spreading it's gene's) and look pretty different to their predecessors, the end result is a giraffe (though there is never really an end as evolution is happening all the time)
As I said, I don't see what's so difficult to believe, compare a skeleton of a stone age man to that of modern man and there are differences.
Of course, I suppose it is easier to just respond to every argument with "magic man did it"
The real issue though, is why are we not getting all the smart, beautiful chicks with big tits and ass into forced breeding programs to improve the quality of women for future generations?
El_Gato
I love this gain
conservapedia ?¿ pfffhahahhahah what a pathetic example of sicktard parody of themselves, that's not serious. why not create a orangepedia just for people who like orange colour?
Trevoire520
Member
I had originally wrote a great big rant about a few things, but decided against posting it as I don't want to turn this into a religion thread, and don't want to offend anyone.
The general gist of it was "I just read some stuff on that website and I've never seen such ignorant twaddle in all my life"
The general gist of it was "I just read some stuff on that website and I've never seen such ignorant twaddle in all my life"
colynomial
Member
EDIT: Initially, I retracted this post in an attempt to reduced pollution on the board but since it's been quoted I'm reposting it for context. I also want to make it explicitly clear that I'm not suggesting atheists cannot be "moral" but rather, that in terms of a strict atheistic worldview, it's not necessary to be "moral" since morality is a relativistic concept. Of course many, if not most, atheists ARE moral so I apologize if my post seems to indicate otherwise. Hopefully my second post on the following page will address this issue in more adequately. </END EDIT>
To me, the most ironic part about the whole atheist/theist, liberal/conservative debate is the fact that many atheists tend to be rather liberal in their thinking. If you don't believe in some kind of higher moral authority by which to judge right and wrong, good and evil, then I'm not sure of what relevance human rights or equal opportunity or universal health care have. The animal world is cruel and ruthless, the strong survive and the weak die and as an atheist you really shouldn't complain about it.
That said, as a conservative theist, one might believe that if a man does not work, then he should not eat. However, as an empathetic, moral creature that ascribes to some transcendent ethical code higher than animal law, you choose willingly to help those who can't help themselves. Indeed, many of the social welfare establishments in the western world are a product of the Christian church. Certainly the Church has been responsible for a lot of awful stuff (primarily prior to the Reformation) as well, but generally speaking, if it weren't for people who believed in some kind of eternal benefit to being "good" the world would be a much darker place. (EDIT: Again, this is not to suggest that non-Christians are not, or cannot, be "good" but rather, that beyond animal instinct and self preservation we have no bases as human beings to uphold "goodness" as being virtuous. It is just an arbitrary product of our time and place in history that we, for example, believe killing another human being without provocation is deemed morally wrong- it is either personal preference or simply a relativistic cultural phenomenon which may or may not be true 10, 100, 1000 years from now. </END EDIT>)
Of course there a lot of other issues surrounding the debate but I don't think it's fair to suggest that something like “young earth creationism” and intelligent design are one in the same. You can certainly believe that there is a causal agent behind our universe while still believing in evolution and it wouldn't be so taboo if we're for the liberal intelligentsia that dominates the education system, media and virtually every other opinion forming institution in the western world telling us otherwise. This debate has been going on for centuries and it's not going to end anytime soon, but at both ends of the spectrum you have individuals and organizations polarizing the issues who are often motivated by a preconceived religious world view. And yes, I believe some ardent atheists are just as religious as fundamental Christians in the sense that they adhere to strict belief system that shapes the way in which they live their lives. A theist might feel compelled to go to church on a Sunday, and an atheist might feel compelled to stay as far away from church as possible on a Sunday- neither position is predicated on science. Either both are religion or both are science. Science proves evolution is real, what science doesn't prove is that evolution somehow absolves human beings from having to consider the philosophical question of causality. It may very well be the case that there is no cause behind our universe, but I would argue that very few atheists actually live their lives as if that were true. To be a truly consistent atheist you absolutely cannot make the case for against, right or wrong, and yet you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist that would not be upset if you were to steal from him.
There's obviously a lot more that could be said, but I'm sure no one wants to read an essay by some nobody on an internet forum. Personally I think the theist worldview, supplemented by a conservative, republican (both in the truest, idealized, non-partisan sense) system of values allows for the greatest freedoms, liberties and subsequent progress than any other form of governance. After all, how else do you explain the history of the Judeo-Christian western world? Either both America and her allies are among the most ruthless, vile, exploitive cultures to ever have existed throughout human history, or there is something objectively superior about our culture. It's completely politically incorrect to say something like that, but it is either one or the other- it cannot be both or neither. Whether or not we are headed for complete civilization collapse as result of complacency, entitlement and the decadence it leads to is another question entirely, but certainly every nation that has been touched by that grey, dingy, isle in the middle of North Sea called Great Britain within the past two centuries has benefited more than even their closest neighbours. Compare India with Pakistan, South Africa with the rest of the African continent, Australia and of course, North America with South East Asia or South America. Naturally there are exceptions and certainly the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant track record is not without blemish, but somehow or another, western culture is responsible for most of the technological and societal advancement of the 20th century. Trains, planes, medicine, etc- if these are objectively good things then there must something exceptional about the culture that was almost single handedly responsible for developing them. When a tsunami hits Indonesia, the very fact that we know about it and are able to send foreign aid is a product of capitalism and the incredible progress, prosperity and subsequent generousity it has produced. (EDIT: I intentionally used the word "culture" and not "people" when referring to the objective differences between the Western world and elsewhere. White people are not better, more capable or more deserving of the prosperity we have inherited than any other group of people. There is however, something different about the cultural atmosphere exclusive to the West that promotes such a great degree of freedom and prosperity. Either this prosperity has been gained through some extraordinary stroke of luck or it is the product of generation upon generation of a culture established upon self sacrifice in the name of hope for the future. There is nothing particularly special about the people themselves or what they look like, and indeed the cultural fabric of North America reflects this. You need only to look as far as our universities to see that the vast majority of kids entering medicine, engineering, and other professional degree programs are not white- but they certainly ARE American (or Canadian). An ethnically Indian family, is more likely to excel as citizens of the American republic than as members of the Caste system in India and, as is so often the case, the children of immigrant families are more driven, motivated and successful than their eithnically Western European counterparts. Meanwhile, it's the WASPy white children who are content to spend 4 years binge drinking and then graduate with a degree in "International Studies" or some other meaningless credential. </END EDIT>)
I know I will likely take some heat for this post but I hope it doesn't turn into an unnecessary screaming match- I know discussing these issues can stir up a lot of passion so let’s try to keep it civil.
To me, the most ironic part about the whole atheist/theist, liberal/conservative debate is the fact that many atheists tend to be rather liberal in their thinking. If you don't believe in some kind of higher moral authority by which to judge right and wrong, good and evil, then I'm not sure of what relevance human rights or equal opportunity or universal health care have. The animal world is cruel and ruthless, the strong survive and the weak die and as an atheist you really shouldn't complain about it.
That said, as a conservative theist, one might believe that if a man does not work, then he should not eat. However, as an empathetic, moral creature that ascribes to some transcendent ethical code higher than animal law, you choose willingly to help those who can't help themselves. Indeed, many of the social welfare establishments in the western world are a product of the Christian church. Certainly the Church has been responsible for a lot of awful stuff (primarily prior to the Reformation) as well, but generally speaking, if it weren't for people who believed in some kind of eternal benefit to being "good" the world would be a much darker place. (EDIT: Again, this is not to suggest that non-Christians are not, or cannot, be "good" but rather, that beyond animal instinct and self preservation we have no bases as human beings to uphold "goodness" as being virtuous. It is just an arbitrary product of our time and place in history that we, for example, believe killing another human being without provocation is deemed morally wrong- it is either personal preference or simply a relativistic cultural phenomenon which may or may not be true 10, 100, 1000 years from now. </END EDIT>)
Of course there a lot of other issues surrounding the debate but I don't think it's fair to suggest that something like “young earth creationism” and intelligent design are one in the same. You can certainly believe that there is a causal agent behind our universe while still believing in evolution and it wouldn't be so taboo if we're for the liberal intelligentsia that dominates the education system, media and virtually every other opinion forming institution in the western world telling us otherwise. This debate has been going on for centuries and it's not going to end anytime soon, but at both ends of the spectrum you have individuals and organizations polarizing the issues who are often motivated by a preconceived religious world view. And yes, I believe some ardent atheists are just as religious as fundamental Christians in the sense that they adhere to strict belief system that shapes the way in which they live their lives. A theist might feel compelled to go to church on a Sunday, and an atheist might feel compelled to stay as far away from church as possible on a Sunday- neither position is predicated on science. Either both are religion or both are science. Science proves evolution is real, what science doesn't prove is that evolution somehow absolves human beings from having to consider the philosophical question of causality. It may very well be the case that there is no cause behind our universe, but I would argue that very few atheists actually live their lives as if that were true. To be a truly consistent atheist you absolutely cannot make the case for against, right or wrong, and yet you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist that would not be upset if you were to steal from him.
There's obviously a lot more that could be said, but I'm sure no one wants to read an essay by some nobody on an internet forum.
Personally I think the theist worldview, supplemented by a conservative, republican (both in the truest, idealized, non-partisan sense) system of values allows for the greatest freedoms, liberties and subsequent progress than any other form of governance. After all, how else do you explain the history of the Judeo-Christian western world? Either both America and her allies are among the most ruthless, vile, exploitive cultures to ever have existed throughout human history, or there is something objectively superior about our culture. It's completely politically incorrect to say something like that, but it is either one or the other- it cannot be both or neither. Whether or not we are headed for complete civilization collapse as result of complacency, entitlement and the decadence it leads to is another question entirely, but certainly every nation that has been touched by that grey, dingy, isle in the middle of North Sea called Great Britain within the past two centuries has benefited more than even their closest neighbours. Compare India with Pakistan, South Africa with the rest of the African continent, Australia and of course, North America with South East Asia or South America. Naturally there are exceptions and certainly the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant track record is not without blemish, but somehow or another, western culture is responsible for most of the technological and societal advancement of the 20th century. Trains, planes, medicine, etc- if these are objectively good things then there must something exceptional about the culture that was almost single handedly responsible for developing them. When a tsunami hits Indonesia, the very fact that we know about it and are able to send foreign aid is a product of capitalism and the incredible progress, prosperity and subsequent generousity it has produced. (EDIT: I intentionally used the word "culture" and not "people" when referring to the objective differences between the Western world and elsewhere. White people are not better, more capable or more deserving of the prosperity we have inherited than any other group of people. There is however, something different about the cultural atmosphere exclusive to the West that promotes such a great degree of freedom and prosperity. Either this prosperity has been gained through some extraordinary stroke of luck or it is the product of generation upon generation of a culture established upon self sacrifice in the name of hope for the future. There is nothing particularly special about the people themselves or what they look like, and indeed the cultural fabric of North America reflects this. You need only to look as far as our universities to see that the vast majority of kids entering medicine, engineering, and other professional degree programs are not white- but they certainly ARE American (or Canadian). An ethnically Indian family, is more likely to excel as citizens of the American republic than as members of the Caste system in India and, as is so often the case, the children of immigrant families are more driven, motivated and successful than their eithnically Western European counterparts. Meanwhile, it's the WASPy white children who are content to spend 4 years binge drinking and then graduate with a degree in "International Studies" or some other meaningless credential. </END EDIT>)I know I will likely take some heat for this post but I hope it doesn't turn into an unnecessary screaming match- I know discussing these issues can stir up a lot of passion so let’s try to keep it civil.
raybrochill
Member
colynomial
Member
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
To me, the most ironic part about the whole atheist/theist, liberal/conservative debate is the fact that many atheists tend to be rather liberal in their thinking. If you don't believe in some kind of higher moral authority by which to judge right and wrong, good and evil, then I'm not sure of what relevance human rights or equal opportunity or universal health care have. The animal world is cruel and ruthless, the strong survive and the weak die and as an atheist you really shouldn't complain about it.
That said, as a conservative theist, one might believe that if a man does not work, then he should not eat however. However, as an empathetic, moral creature that ascribes to some transcendent ethical code thats higher than animal law, you choose willingly to help those who can't help themselves. Indeed, many of the social establishments in the western world are a product of the Christian church. Certainly the Church has been responsible for a lot of awful stuff (primary prior to the Reformation) as well, but generally speaking, if it weren't for people who believed in some kind of eternal benefit to being "good" the world would be a much darker place.
Of course there a lot of other issues surrounding the debate but I don't think it's fair to suggest that something like young earth creationism and intelligent design are one in the same. You can certainly believe that there is a causal agent behind our universe while still believing in evolution and it wouldn't be so taboo if weren't for the liberal intelligentsia that dominates the education system, media and virtually every other opinion forming institution in the western world telling us otherwise. This debate has been going on for centuries and it's not going to end anytime soon, but at both ends of the spectrum you have individuals and organizations polarizing the issues who are often motivated by a preconceived religious world view. And yes, I believe some ardent atheists are just as religious as fundamental Christians in the sense that they adhere to strict belief system that shapes the way in which they live their lives. A theist might feel compelled to go to church on a Sunday, and an atheist might feel compelled to stay as far away from church as possible on a Sunday- neither position is predicated on science. Either both are religion or both are science. Science proves evolution is real, what science doesn't prove is that evolution somehow absolves human beings from having to consider the philosophical question of causality. It may very well be the case that there is no cause behind our universe, but I would argue that very few atheists actually live their lives as if that were true. To be a truly consistent atheist you absolutely cannot make the case for against, right or wrong, and yet you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist that would not be upset if you were to steal from him.
There's obviously a lot more that could be said, but I'm sure no one wants to read an essay by some nobody on an internet forum.
I know I will likely take some heat for this post but I hope it doesn't turn into an unnecessary screaming match- I know discussing these issues can stir up a lot of passion so lets try to keep it civil.
This reminds me of a little bone that I have been needing to pick with creationists. What I am really sick of is how creationists have to force their idea that theists have absolutely moral code because they don't answer to any form of higher power. Any creationist who truly believe that is quite smug. Just because we don't believe in "Sky Wizard" doesn't mean we have absolutely no clue between wrong and right, and that we are inferior to theists because of it and as a result treated like some rebellious teenager abomination.
And what really irritates me is that simply because we don't share your "superior" moral code that we have no desire to live life. Newsflash, any person that does not believe that their is an afterlife is going to live their life with more enjoyment than someone who spends their whole time praying to god in hopes that they will reach heaven when they die. Theists act like atheists (and Agnostics) have no heart, no soul, pure ruthless, vile imperialistic arrogant people and I have to tell you that is far from the truth. An Atheist is going to go to homeless shelters to help out simply because it makes them feel good about making other people's lives better or giving some extra change (or even a cigarette in my case) to a homeless person who asks, or does what ever they can to see a child's face glow with happiness anything to enrich another person's life and why? Not because they believe "God" will reward them, but because most likely they have been through hard times and had someone help them and it makes them feel good to know that they made someone's day
Truth be told secular views are the height of scientific discoveries (including electricity) and the dismemberment of political/religious slave machines used for a propaganda of higher blood line power. Our technology would not be where it is at today without atheist views. Agnostics are responsible for the discoveries as to how exactly we came about this Earth and even though we still don't know, we are closer to knowing than we ever were. Had everybody on this planet believe in a god one way or another, we would not have even had a desire to discover anything about the universe simply because, well we blindly believed the bible, of course there would have been groups who wanted to discover the universe, however the idea of believing that we are the only ones in the universe (the center of the universe) the world is flat and that stars were fro light during the night would have never been questioned had agnostics wanted to question any bible and discover our true creator if there is one.
And you forget, the whole foreign affairs are the US governments doing, not the people's, Imperialist America is not a representation of the people, and with all the crimes our officials are so guilty of including the denial of people's right, what are their religious views again, sure as hell not Atheist. But you claim a theist republican platform will result in more "people's rights"?
I am an agnostic,I am extremely logical and analytical, I have a moral compass and I value my life based on how much true meaning it contains. I fear death because I truly believe it is the end and there for I have a very short time to be the best person I can be. That's more than I can say for the thiests (including my own family) that I have known.
Now that I got the rant out, the anger wasn't pointed to you in any way, it just this mindset that any non religious person be it Atheist or Agnostic has no moral value, completely void of positive human interaction and has no sense of life meaning including the distinction of good and evil. That's like saying that murderess and robbers are Atheist because no higher moral person would do such a thing. We are treated like scum because we see something wrong with the logic behind all religions and want to use our technology to discover the real answer to our existence and life.
The extent to which the word 'conservative' has lost any association with any remotely intelligent idea is simply appalling - the fact that creationism is labeled as 'conservative' and not 'downfuckingright idiotic nonsense that has no place in anything pretending to value reason and science at all' is itself more than enough to kill any hope that political discussion in the States can possibly mean anything at all. The scarcity of reasonable discussion is not a consequence of the domination of the 'liberal intelligentsia' in the education system so much as the prominence of total asshats who have gotten away with pretending to speak on behalf of their half of the nation.
It is troubling to see a very limited understanding of history like Colynomial's put forth so frequently (hint: before you pat WASPiness on the back for doing so many good things for the world, spend just a moment looking at how frequently everything you probably value in modern society was fought viciously by the churches and religions you seem to place in high esteem, and that our advancements have their true roots not in religion but in the type of mindset that has been responsible for the decrease in religious thinking that has put modern society so far ahead of the society of the Dark Ages in terms of scientific advancement... look at just how easily those behind these advancements are able to throw away anything resembling religion or spirituality) but it is even more troubling that such posts are themselves lightyears ahead of statements made by just about any popular 'conservative' talking head.
It is distressing that 'intelligent design' in *any* common form at all is viewed as an answer and not a sidestep, and that the non-YEC proponents of such ideas are somehow afforded higher esteem than the likes of young-earth creationists despite being of the same mindset with relatively minor changes to relatively irrelevant details.
Although Colynomial seems to have retracted his post, the fact remains that he was able to produce, and make visible, a sentence along the lines of 'if you don't believe in a higher power, I don't see how you get morality', and this is as strong a condemnation of modern educational systems as one can find without prolonged exposure to professional academia and modern science.
We are well past the point where the modern abuse of the term 'conservative' can be excused. Both sides of the talking-head continuum are full of irredeemable fuckheads, but the left has the advantage of seeming like they care about people and not pocketbooks - if anyone, conservative or liberal, expects to see our political climates change, people like those behind Conservapedia, the modern GOP, the 'Moral Majority', and the like need to be crucified for their crimes against good ideas. If you would call yourself a conservative, a libertarian, a Republican, or anything of the sort, it's time to start kicking these theocrats out of their stolen thrones and make political terms mean something again.
Jeff
It is troubling to see a very limited understanding of history like Colynomial's put forth so frequently (hint: before you pat WASPiness on the back for doing so many good things for the world, spend just a moment looking at how frequently everything you probably value in modern society was fought viciously by the churches and religions you seem to place in high esteem, and that our advancements have their true roots not in religion but in the type of mindset that has been responsible for the decrease in religious thinking that has put modern society so far ahead of the society of the Dark Ages in terms of scientific advancement... look at just how easily those behind these advancements are able to throw away anything resembling religion or spirituality) but it is even more troubling that such posts are themselves lightyears ahead of statements made by just about any popular 'conservative' talking head.
It is distressing that 'intelligent design' in *any* common form at all is viewed as an answer and not a sidestep, and that the non-YEC proponents of such ideas are somehow afforded higher esteem than the likes of young-earth creationists despite being of the same mindset with relatively minor changes to relatively irrelevant details.
Although Colynomial seems to have retracted his post, the fact remains that he was able to produce, and make visible, a sentence along the lines of 'if you don't believe in a higher power, I don't see how you get morality', and this is as strong a condemnation of modern educational systems as one can find without prolonged exposure to professional academia and modern science.
We are well past the point where the modern abuse of the term 'conservative' can be excused. Both sides of the talking-head continuum are full of irredeemable fuckheads, but the left has the advantage of seeming like they care about people and not pocketbooks - if anyone, conservative or liberal, expects to see our political climates change, people like those behind Conservapedia, the modern GOP, the 'Moral Majority', and the like need to be crucified for their crimes against good ideas. If you would call yourself a conservative, a libertarian, a Republican, or anything of the sort, it's time to start kicking these theocrats out of their stolen thrones and make political terms mean something again.
Jeff
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
^ that is a fantastic block of text.
I found this on a google search.
Why? and if the prison population is mostly made up of christians then why do they rape each other?:zombie: I know they are in there for a reason but this still gets to me.
Humans suck . . .
I found this on a google search.
Why? and if the prison population is mostly made up of christians then why do they rape each other?:zombie: I know they are in there for a reason but this still gets to me.
Humans suck . . .
Line666
Fendurr
- Sep 2, 2006
- 3,342
- 1
- 36
^ that is a fantastic block of text.
I found this on a google search.
Why? and if the prison population is mostly made up of christians then why do they rape each other?:zombie: I know they are in there for a reason but this still gets to me.
Humans suck . . .
Doesnt that statistic just suggest that at least 7.8% are all going to Jesus in some vain attempt to get out early, whilst the other 0.2% are the only honest fucks in the place.
We could understand if some smaller portion of the atheist population tried the jesus thing, but... 97.5%? That's a little bit hard to believe.
Jeff
Jeff
colynomial
Member
Thanks for keeping it civil guys- I appologize if there was a tone of condescention in my original post but I assure you it was not intentional. Sorry for the enormous body of text but I'm going to try to be a thorough as possible when responding.
Let me just say this. I in no way intend to suggest that atheists are necessarily amoral. What I'm getting at is that I think some of the most ardent, God-hating atheists, who tend to be way out at the left end of the political spectrum (certainly there are a lot of fundamentalists way out at the far right), are often among the most morally indignant when it comes to social justice, etc. I find this ironic because whether or not there is some Sky Wizard from whom we get our perception of right and wrong, I think you would have to admit that unless there is some objective standard by which judge right and wrong, these values could not possibly be static or absolute. If we as a culture have adopted one set of values with respect to morality, they are simply a product of our place in history and have no less validity than those of Nazi Germany. I'm not suggesting you have to believe in the personal "God" of the Bible in order to understand moral law, I'm just saying I believe it's hard to make the case against some kind of transcendent rationalism if all we know is the empirical physical world. This would separate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom in a fundamental way that is not explicable through simply evolutionary arguments. There appears to be no particular reason why we humans should have developed consciousness simply out of naturalistic evolutionary necessity- it in no way benefits us to know that we are here. Obviously, I have a Platonist bias but so does Roger Penrose, and a lot of other non-Christian prominent scientists past and present. I am theist, but I’m not a YEC and I do believe in evolution as a mechanism by which diversity in the animal kingdom is realized. Most Christians would say that they themselves are “created by God” and yet they most definitely came from their mother’s womb by way of naturalistic processes- God did not spontaneously create them, and yet, they still believe they are His creations. You may think that it’s stupid to believe that in the first place, but from a Christian perspective I don’t see what the big deal with evolution is- in a strictly scientific sense, it doesn’t write God out of the picture; as I said before I believe that is a religious conviction.
I would argue, with respect to my flawed historical understanding based upon my WASPiness, the following two things. First of all, it has nothing to with a particular person’s race or ethnicity- it has everything to do with culture. If the Saudi Arabian people existed within a culture which, I believe, promoted more individual liberty and freedom then they may have very well done a better job at distributing it to the rest of the world (or maybe not distributing it depending on your personal convictions about cultural imperialism), than western Christians. The fact of the matter is that, you can only be a multiculturalist within the context of a WASPy, Western nation because, as much as we tout America as an imperialist, racist theocracy, I don’t believe there has been any nation, much less dominant world-hyper-power, that has been less imperialist, racist and theocratic. Was not the former Soviet Union more of a theocracy in terms of freedom of thought and speech even though the official state policy on religion was one of atheism? In the west, and particularly America, the very fact we have the ability to have this debate is pretty remarkable given the supposed thug fundamentalists who hold public office. Where else on the planet, besides maybe Canada (haha) do people coexist with such diverse backgrounds? As has been pointed out, not every good thing in the west has come from white Christians, but it’s the fact that white Christians are so willing to tolerate the rest of the world that produces the climate in which any person, of any faith and any background is free to pursue their own destiny in life. This would never be the case in a true theocratic dictatorship like the former Soviet Union or most of the Middle Eastern Muslim states. So the fact that there are atheists, and Christians and Jews and indeed even Muslims who can live, to some degree, in relative harmony with one another is a testament to the fact that the governmental law upon which most of the modern Western world was established, especially in America, allows for it.
I think it would also be difficult to make the case that we in the West are not past the apex of our power. We are all the benefactors of an incredible cultural inheritance and yet, we all exhibit a greater sense of entitlement than even our grandparent’s generation. This should not be so. What I’m getting as it the fact that, if my Conservative, theistic position seems condescending, I believe it’s worth mentioning that I think we live in a culture that can no longer claim any kind of objective, cultural superiority. We expect to live in a world without sacrifice, without hard work and without competition and then we wonder why all our jobs get outsourced to China. In that respect, conservatism in the West has in many ways become nothing more than puffing up of oneself over an inheritance which we are now squandering. Unless we’re willing to worker harder for less and stop expecting that every individual deserves an Xbox, HDTV, BMW and yes, even state-of-the-art health care just because someone else has it, then in 20 years we might be having this same conversation about how the Chinese have the more objectively superior culture. Conservatives and liberals alike are guilty of this but arguably, conservatives SHOULD have a more grounded understanding of the difference between true freedom and state sponsored welfarism masquerading as a concern for the underprivileged- even if those “underprivileged” are predominantly white, unionized labourers in the American Deep South. I believe everyone should have access to health care too, but at what cost? In Canada, we give half of every pay cheque to the government to make that happen and it STILL doesn’t cover the all costs- not to mention all the best doctors Canadian doctors end up just going to the US. A trillion dollar bailout might mean that we can preserve the status quo for now, but what good is it if it drives our civilization into the ground 50 years down the road? It’s great to help people, but it should always stem from the generosity of individuals, not from some bloated, confiscatory bureaucracy that often sees itself more like a guild of celebrities than a body of civil servants.
To summarize, I just want to say I have a great deal of respect for atheists- much more than I do for liberals (although many I know are well intentioned). I don’t see much problem with believing whatever you want about the origin of life provided it doesn’t impact the freedom and liberty of others. More and more however, you find that it is the Left who want to silence free speech, create a culture of entitled victims and set up unsustainable social programs that absolve free born citizens of the responsibility of making up their own minds about the adult decisions of life. So to return to the OP’s issue with Conservapeida, it’s obviously a partisan attempt to provide Conservatives with a skewed representation of the facts that support the positions they already hold. However, the mainstream media and public education system do this for the Left every day. Neither is correct but the Left always seems so much more incensed when the tables are turned. Consider Fox News, which exists in a sea of other left-leaning major news networks. It’s projected as a fascist propaganda network that spews hatred about anyone and everyone who is not a fundamentalist Christian. If you’ve ever watched Fox News, you know this isn’t the case, however, even if it were, it would be one channel among an uncountable number of others that almost indefinitely promote a liberal agenda. Naturally, being Canadian I have nothing in particular to gain from promoting American, republican (not “R”epublican) ideology, but rather I see the distinction between the declining freedom and prosperity of Western Europe and indeed, even Canada, compared with that of American freedom and prosperity. The perception is the America just needs to be more like the EU-topia and the world will be a better place, but that attitude presupposes that America plays no role in sustaining our cushy lives here in Canada or Europe. If it weren’t for the for the private pharmaceudical companies in the US that are able to do their research as a result of charging Americans an arm and a leg for prescription drugs, we wouldn’t be able to knock them off for half the price in Canada. If it weren’t for American consumerism, Europe would never experience the incredible economic growth it does when the markets are up yet when, we take a financial hit, we are quick to point the finger at American capitalism. If it weren’t for American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism that is promoted through the “American Dream” many of the conveniences of life now readily available all over the globe may very well have never been developed. So creationism and atheism aside, if we want our way of life to continue in the West I think we need to start moving towards the traditional values of self reliance and individual liberty regardless of what one believes about the origin of life. We need to drop the attitude of entitled inheritors who expect to live without sacrifice. We need to start rewarding people in our countries for producing things, not litigating or lobbying governments or taking money from those who do produce. And we absolutely need to stop being so self deprecating. Rather than asking ourselves, as Sean Penn did at last year’s Oscars, what our children will think of our decisions, we might do better to ask what our grandparents would think if they knew that, after fighting two World Wars, living through the Great Depression and overcoming REAL adversity in the form of discrimination and bigotry we have squandered their inheritance and turned into a culture of spoiled brats on the brink of civilizational collapse.
Sorry for the rant- I’m happy to delete it if it’s seen as polluting.
Let me just say this. I in no way intend to suggest that atheists are necessarily amoral. What I'm getting at is that I think some of the most ardent, God-hating atheists, who tend to be way out at the left end of the political spectrum (certainly there are a lot of fundamentalists way out at the far right), are often among the most morally indignant when it comes to social justice, etc. I find this ironic because whether or not there is some Sky Wizard from whom we get our perception of right and wrong, I think you would have to admit that unless there is some objective standard by which judge right and wrong, these values could not possibly be static or absolute. If we as a culture have adopted one set of values with respect to morality, they are simply a product of our place in history and have no less validity than those of Nazi Germany. I'm not suggesting you have to believe in the personal "God" of the Bible in order to understand moral law, I'm just saying I believe it's hard to make the case against some kind of transcendent rationalism if all we know is the empirical physical world. This would separate human beings from the rest of the animal kingdom in a fundamental way that is not explicable through simply evolutionary arguments. There appears to be no particular reason why we humans should have developed consciousness simply out of naturalistic evolutionary necessity- it in no way benefits us to know that we are here. Obviously, I have a Platonist bias but so does Roger Penrose, and a lot of other non-Christian prominent scientists past and present. I am theist, but I’m not a YEC and I do believe in evolution as a mechanism by which diversity in the animal kingdom is realized. Most Christians would say that they themselves are “created by God” and yet they most definitely came from their mother’s womb by way of naturalistic processes- God did not spontaneously create them, and yet, they still believe they are His creations. You may think that it’s stupid to believe that in the first place, but from a Christian perspective I don’t see what the big deal with evolution is- in a strictly scientific sense, it doesn’t write God out of the picture; as I said before I believe that is a religious conviction.
I would argue, with respect to my flawed historical understanding based upon my WASPiness, the following two things. First of all, it has nothing to with a particular person’s race or ethnicity- it has everything to do with culture. If the Saudi Arabian people existed within a culture which, I believe, promoted more individual liberty and freedom then they may have very well done a better job at distributing it to the rest of the world (or maybe not distributing it depending on your personal convictions about cultural imperialism), than western Christians. The fact of the matter is that, you can only be a multiculturalist within the context of a WASPy, Western nation because, as much as we tout America as an imperialist, racist theocracy, I don’t believe there has been any nation, much less dominant world-hyper-power, that has been less imperialist, racist and theocratic. Was not the former Soviet Union more of a theocracy in terms of freedom of thought and speech even though the official state policy on religion was one of atheism? In the west, and particularly America, the very fact we have the ability to have this debate is pretty remarkable given the supposed thug fundamentalists who hold public office. Where else on the planet, besides maybe Canada (haha) do people coexist with such diverse backgrounds? As has been pointed out, not every good thing in the west has come from white Christians, but it’s the fact that white Christians are so willing to tolerate the rest of the world that produces the climate in which any person, of any faith and any background is free to pursue their own destiny in life. This would never be the case in a true theocratic dictatorship like the former Soviet Union or most of the Middle Eastern Muslim states. So the fact that there are atheists, and Christians and Jews and indeed even Muslims who can live, to some degree, in relative harmony with one another is a testament to the fact that the governmental law upon which most of the modern Western world was established, especially in America, allows for it.
I think it would also be difficult to make the case that we in the West are not past the apex of our power. We are all the benefactors of an incredible cultural inheritance and yet, we all exhibit a greater sense of entitlement than even our grandparent’s generation. This should not be so. What I’m getting as it the fact that, if my Conservative, theistic position seems condescending, I believe it’s worth mentioning that I think we live in a culture that can no longer claim any kind of objective, cultural superiority. We expect to live in a world without sacrifice, without hard work and without competition and then we wonder why all our jobs get outsourced to China. In that respect, conservatism in the West has in many ways become nothing more than puffing up of oneself over an inheritance which we are now squandering. Unless we’re willing to worker harder for less and stop expecting that every individual deserves an Xbox, HDTV, BMW and yes, even state-of-the-art health care just because someone else has it, then in 20 years we might be having this same conversation about how the Chinese have the more objectively superior culture. Conservatives and liberals alike are guilty of this but arguably, conservatives SHOULD have a more grounded understanding of the difference between true freedom and state sponsored welfarism masquerading as a concern for the underprivileged- even if those “underprivileged” are predominantly white, unionized labourers in the American Deep South. I believe everyone should have access to health care too, but at what cost? In Canada, we give half of every pay cheque to the government to make that happen and it STILL doesn’t cover the all costs- not to mention all the best doctors Canadian doctors end up just going to the US. A trillion dollar bailout might mean that we can preserve the status quo for now, but what good is it if it drives our civilization into the ground 50 years down the road? It’s great to help people, but it should always stem from the generosity of individuals, not from some bloated, confiscatory bureaucracy that often sees itself more like a guild of celebrities than a body of civil servants.
To summarize, I just want to say I have a great deal of respect for atheists- much more than I do for liberals (although many I know are well intentioned). I don’t see much problem with believing whatever you want about the origin of life provided it doesn’t impact the freedom and liberty of others. More and more however, you find that it is the Left who want to silence free speech, create a culture of entitled victims and set up unsustainable social programs that absolve free born citizens of the responsibility of making up their own minds about the adult decisions of life. So to return to the OP’s issue with Conservapeida, it’s obviously a partisan attempt to provide Conservatives with a skewed representation of the facts that support the positions they already hold. However, the mainstream media and public education system do this for the Left every day. Neither is correct but the Left always seems so much more incensed when the tables are turned. Consider Fox News, which exists in a sea of other left-leaning major news networks. It’s projected as a fascist propaganda network that spews hatred about anyone and everyone who is not a fundamentalist Christian. If you’ve ever watched Fox News, you know this isn’t the case, however, even if it were, it would be one channel among an uncountable number of others that almost indefinitely promote a liberal agenda. Naturally, being Canadian I have nothing in particular to gain from promoting American, republican (not “R”epublican) ideology, but rather I see the distinction between the declining freedom and prosperity of Western Europe and indeed, even Canada, compared with that of American freedom and prosperity. The perception is the America just needs to be more like the EU-topia and the world will be a better place, but that attitude presupposes that America plays no role in sustaining our cushy lives here in Canada or Europe. If it weren’t for the for the private pharmaceudical companies in the US that are able to do their research as a result of charging Americans an arm and a leg for prescription drugs, we wouldn’t be able to knock them off for half the price in Canada. If it weren’t for American consumerism, Europe would never experience the incredible economic growth it does when the markets are up yet when, we take a financial hit, we are quick to point the finger at American capitalism. If it weren’t for American ingenuity and entrepreneurialism that is promoted through the “American Dream” many of the conveniences of life now readily available all over the globe may very well have never been developed. So creationism and atheism aside, if we want our way of life to continue in the West I think we need to start moving towards the traditional values of self reliance and individual liberty regardless of what one believes about the origin of life. We need to drop the attitude of entitled inheritors who expect to live without sacrifice. We need to start rewarding people in our countries for producing things, not litigating or lobbying governments or taking money from those who do produce. And we absolutely need to stop being so self deprecating. Rather than asking ourselves, as Sean Penn did at last year’s Oscars, what our children will think of our decisions, we might do better to ask what our grandparents would think if they knew that, after fighting two World Wars, living through the Great Depression and overcoming REAL adversity in the form of discrimination and bigotry we have squandered their inheritance and turned into a culture of spoiled brats on the brink of civilizational collapse.
Sorry for the rant- I’m happy to delete it if it’s seen as polluting.
Joematthews
Member
- Dec 15, 2007
- 1,547
- 0
- 36
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
@ jeff and colynomial:
Jeff, you mentioned about throwing away spirituality. It just reminded me, which I have wanted to share with the forum, but you probably know about. Russian Scientists discovered the code (or syntax) for DNA as well as a way to reprogram DNA without splicing it. Not only did they find that the DNA syntax is the same as the human language and that is where the human language syntax came from (as in the bible it explains that the idea of language came from god setting those rules). But even further with that they discovered that DNA inside a vacuum can produce wormholes including that which would cause astral projection. They mentioned that DNA in itself is also a part of a living entity, with hat in mind DNA can explain auras caught in photographs when a person is meditating or even bright colorful (or just white) clouds in a silhouette of a human can be caught near the body of a recently diseased, hell they can also be found when a person is having an out of body experience. This explains that our DNA and our brains together make up our "soul" but as I have said explains that auras and spirituality can be proven as a scientific fact. And still looking at that, if our auras can manifest themselves outside our body with no energy, there might be an afterlife, and only in time may science tell.
Colynomial, with what I just mentioned to jeff, moral is more a code impeded into us, our DNA because the most common moral judgment is empathy and since that is an embedded emotion that can effect the way we interact with people it can determine our morals and what we believe to be right from wrong. Other Morals that do not fall under that category can come from other emotions and from our upbringing. This can include religion to some degree but regarding the fact that most morals in the bible are empathetic (including the 10 commandments) I think that most of the morals we have today are just so simple stupid because they are a logical reaction to emotions that we feel. And emotions are our way of interacting with the world including our fight or flight response (for fighting or fleeing enemies), love (for mating), empathy (for working as a harmonious team) they ensure our survival.
On a side note, I have been wanting to read the Old Testament, Started yesterday, got about halfway through Genesis. No what I can't seem to wrap my head around is how any person with no mental illness can actually believe any of that stuff actually happened. I mean Gen 2:7, god created us from dirt by snorting us up his nose? Science I think has proven a long time ago that we are not made out of dirt. Leviticus 18 explains that you can't see anyone naked however in eden it was ok, all the sudden because of this so called curse of our "father" we go to hell now? How is it that god walked in human form for Adam and Eve and their children but during the time of Moses, anyone who looked directly at him would die. How about after the flood god said that he would never seek to bring judgement day on mankind or any living creature on earth though so many churches today claim Deuteronomy 7:9-10, that god will smite down all who deny him? But it really goes one and on, the earth flooded 15 cubits higher than Mt Everest? Don't have enough ice on the planet to do that. Eden was in the location that is practically Baghdad today, however was a tropical paradise? Now we know from fossils that humans came from Africa and moved over towards the middle east, however at the same time a group traveled over to the Americas around 50,000 BC. Other than the fact of having the intellectual caliber writing of a 2nd grader there is something about the entire bible that screams fiction. Great stories, have good moral but any fully functional brain can read that and say, "oh good story, but thats totally fictional" Not to turn this into bible studies but I think anyone who truly believes everything the bible says really isn't in the best judgement to be running any governmental office. I firmly believe that any libertarian, scientist and anyone who wants to discover life are the canidates for giving liberty and justice for all who wish to uphold a true republic nation(s).
Jeff, you mentioned about throwing away spirituality. It just reminded me, which I have wanted to share with the forum, but you probably know about. Russian Scientists discovered the code (or syntax) for DNA as well as a way to reprogram DNA without splicing it. Not only did they find that the DNA syntax is the same as the human language and that is where the human language syntax came from (as in the bible it explains that the idea of language came from god setting those rules). But even further with that they discovered that DNA inside a vacuum can produce wormholes including that which would cause astral projection. They mentioned that DNA in itself is also a part of a living entity, with hat in mind DNA can explain auras caught in photographs when a person is meditating or even bright colorful (or just white) clouds in a silhouette of a human can be caught near the body of a recently diseased, hell they can also be found when a person is having an out of body experience. This explains that our DNA and our brains together make up our "soul" but as I have said explains that auras and spirituality can be proven as a scientific fact. And still looking at that, if our auras can manifest themselves outside our body with no energy, there might be an afterlife, and only in time may science tell.
Colynomial, with what I just mentioned to jeff, moral is more a code impeded into us, our DNA because the most common moral judgment is empathy and since that is an embedded emotion that can effect the way we interact with people it can determine our morals and what we believe to be right from wrong. Other Morals that do not fall under that category can come from other emotions and from our upbringing. This can include religion to some degree but regarding the fact that most morals in the bible are empathetic (including the 10 commandments) I think that most of the morals we have today are just so simple stupid because they are a logical reaction to emotions that we feel. And emotions are our way of interacting with the world including our fight or flight response (for fighting or fleeing enemies), love (for mating), empathy (for working as a harmonious team) they ensure our survival.
On a side note, I have been wanting to read the Old Testament, Started yesterday, got about halfway through Genesis. No what I can't seem to wrap my head around is how any person with no mental illness can actually believe any of that stuff actually happened. I mean Gen 2:7, god created us from dirt by snorting us up his nose? Science I think has proven a long time ago that we are not made out of dirt. Leviticus 18 explains that you can't see anyone naked however in eden it was ok, all the sudden because of this so called curse of our "father" we go to hell now? How is it that god walked in human form for Adam and Eve and their children but during the time of Moses, anyone who looked directly at him would die. How about after the flood god said that he would never seek to bring judgement day on mankind or any living creature on earth though so many churches today claim Deuteronomy 7:9-10, that god will smite down all who deny him? But it really goes one and on, the earth flooded 15 cubits higher than Mt Everest? Don't have enough ice on the planet to do that. Eden was in the location that is practically Baghdad today, however was a tropical paradise? Now we know from fossils that humans came from Africa and moved over towards the middle east, however at the same time a group traveled over to the Americas around 50,000 BC. Other than the fact of having the intellectual caliber writing of a 2nd grader there is something about the entire bible that screams fiction. Great stories, have good moral but any fully functional brain can read that and say, "oh good story, but thats totally fictional" Not to turn this into bible studies but I think anyone who truly believes everything the bible says really isn't in the best judgement to be running any governmental office. I firmly believe that any libertarian, scientist and anyone who wants to discover life are the canidates for giving liberty and justice for all who wish to uphold a true republic nation(s).
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
colynomial, i've read this whole thread, and rather than picking apart your posts point by point, i'll just say the following. i don't think many here disagree with the "personal responsibility" tenets you are espousing, nor likely with the "spoiled, entitled brats" admonishment you've made regarding the current state of the american-born populace... but, in my estimation, you are sorely mistaken regarding the origin of morality, and to what compels humans to it.
first of all, anyone who feels that they are compelled to moral behavior by either fear of punishment for falling short, or hope of reward for "performing well", can make ZERO claim to true, altruistic, morality. i posit that truly moral behavior can only be exhibited by minds that have no fear of eternal punishment, no hope of eternal reward. they do it for the instant gratification of doing the right thing... and there are plenty of gauges by which the atheistic person can measure what is "right", without the need to bone-up on bronze age, middle-eastern mythology.
no, high moral standards can and do exist within a purely secular world-view, and can be quantified via a cross-sectioning of philosophy and Darwinistic natural selection. A combination of the Aristotelean concept of Human Flourishing, Consequentialism, and Universalism (similar to Confucianism), and clear indications in nature that there are benefits to altruistic behavior on a an individual basis, that transcend to the societal level, that make the case for secular morality. The latter phenomenon is laid out beautifully in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion".
I also think that any serious person, intent on coming to a better understanding of morality, cannot afford to ignore Immanuel Kant's writings on the subject, wherein he posits that it is the nature of moral rules that they take the form of categorical imperatives, meaning that we do not need to have any "goal" in mind in order to follow them (as opposed to hypothetical imperatives, which always have a specific goal in mind). thus,whenever we make a moral judgement, i.e. when we decide we should do one thing, and not another, and that this should be a repeatable standard given similar circumstances, we are adhering to the principle that our choice is not relative to the particular interests, desires, objectives, or goals of specific individuals, but rather that it is universal and thus applicable to all. dictates from "on high" are not necessary or even desirable for such a principle to be true. it's merely self-evident. this maxim soundly refutes your claim that atheists are hypocritical somehow to express any concern or care for being stolen from. no, to recognize that one should not be stolen from is to recognize that no one should be stolen from... however to not wish to be stolen from, but yet have no concern about stealing from others is hypocrisy, the arbitrary changing of the rules to suite one's own purposes.
does that last bit sound like organized religion to anyone else? how about what happened to Galileo Galilei? the church stole years of his productive life and stifled his genius for the remainder (though many of his latter writings survived by being smuggled out of Italy by supporters). i guess an apology hundreds of years after his life was ruined was the moral thing to do, eh? No, organized religion always has made the rules for itself, despite it's claim to the moral high ground, and always will as long as we all tolerate it.
i also take issue with your characterization of atheists as being similarly fundamental to creationists... this is just dead wrong thinking that has already been soundly refuted by far greater minds than you or I. no, atheists simply refuse to believe that for which there is no reasonable, scientific evidence. this is not a "belief system"; there is no dogma, no ritual, no condemnation of others for the simple reason that they do not think/eat/have sex/recreate/etc. in exactly the same way, no hierarchy, and no centralization or standardization. it is nothing more than making the statement, "i'll believe it if you can prove it, until then i'm going to live my life without your book, thank you". hardly a "fundamentalist" charter.
to close i'll borrow a favorite gem used often by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins: every single person on this thread is an atheist, with regard to Zeus, or Apollo, or Poseidon, or Wotan, etc.... all you need to do Colymonial, is go one god further... and then perhaps you will discover what true morality actually is; morality that is not compelled by fear of reprisal or hope of reward. the only kind of pure, altruistic, morality that exists.
Sources & Suggested Reading: Richard Dawkins - "The God Delusion", Christopher Hitches - "God Is Not Great", Julian Baggini - "Atheism (A Brief Insight)", Sam Harris - "The End Of Faith", David Mills - "Atheist Universe", Bart D. Ehrman - "Jesus, Interrupted", and Richard Dawkins - "The Greatest Show On Earth", plus the philosophical writings of Aristotle & Kant
ps. i'm not actually an atheist... i'm agnostic, but find atheist writings the most reasonable to my mind, and anyway there's no serious agnostic writing that i'm aware of.
first of all, anyone who feels that they are compelled to moral behavior by either fear of punishment for falling short, or hope of reward for "performing well", can make ZERO claim to true, altruistic, morality. i posit that truly moral behavior can only be exhibited by minds that have no fear of eternal punishment, no hope of eternal reward. they do it for the instant gratification of doing the right thing... and there are plenty of gauges by which the atheistic person can measure what is "right", without the need to bone-up on bronze age, middle-eastern mythology.
no, high moral standards can and do exist within a purely secular world-view, and can be quantified via a cross-sectioning of philosophy and Darwinistic natural selection. A combination of the Aristotelean concept of Human Flourishing, Consequentialism, and Universalism (similar to Confucianism), and clear indications in nature that there are benefits to altruistic behavior on a an individual basis, that transcend to the societal level, that make the case for secular morality. The latter phenomenon is laid out beautifully in Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion".
I also think that any serious person, intent on coming to a better understanding of morality, cannot afford to ignore Immanuel Kant's writings on the subject, wherein he posits that it is the nature of moral rules that they take the form of categorical imperatives, meaning that we do not need to have any "goal" in mind in order to follow them (as opposed to hypothetical imperatives, which always have a specific goal in mind). thus,whenever we make a moral judgement, i.e. when we decide we should do one thing, and not another, and that this should be a repeatable standard given similar circumstances, we are adhering to the principle that our choice is not relative to the particular interests, desires, objectives, or goals of specific individuals, but rather that it is universal and thus applicable to all. dictates from "on high" are not necessary or even desirable for such a principle to be true. it's merely self-evident. this maxim soundly refutes your claim that atheists are hypocritical somehow to express any concern or care for being stolen from. no, to recognize that one should not be stolen from is to recognize that no one should be stolen from... however to not wish to be stolen from, but yet have no concern about stealing from others is hypocrisy, the arbitrary changing of the rules to suite one's own purposes.
does that last bit sound like organized religion to anyone else? how about what happened to Galileo Galilei? the church stole years of his productive life and stifled his genius for the remainder (though many of his latter writings survived by being smuggled out of Italy by supporters). i guess an apology hundreds of years after his life was ruined was the moral thing to do, eh? No, organized religion always has made the rules for itself, despite it's claim to the moral high ground, and always will as long as we all tolerate it.
i also take issue with your characterization of atheists as being similarly fundamental to creationists... this is just dead wrong thinking that has already been soundly refuted by far greater minds than you or I. no, atheists simply refuse to believe that for which there is no reasonable, scientific evidence. this is not a "belief system"; there is no dogma, no ritual, no condemnation of others for the simple reason that they do not think/eat/have sex/recreate/etc. in exactly the same way, no hierarchy, and no centralization or standardization. it is nothing more than making the statement, "i'll believe it if you can prove it, until then i'm going to live my life without your book, thank you". hardly a "fundamentalist" charter.
to close i'll borrow a favorite gem used often by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins: every single person on this thread is an atheist, with regard to Zeus, or Apollo, or Poseidon, or Wotan, etc.... all you need to do Colymonial, is go one god further... and then perhaps you will discover what true morality actually is; morality that is not compelled by fear of reprisal or hope of reward. the only kind of pure, altruistic, morality that exists.
Sources & Suggested Reading: Richard Dawkins - "The God Delusion", Christopher Hitches - "God Is Not Great", Julian Baggini - "Atheism (A Brief Insight)", Sam Harris - "The End Of Faith", David Mills - "Atheist Universe", Bart D. Ehrman - "Jesus, Interrupted", and Richard Dawkins - "The Greatest Show On Earth", plus the philosophical writings of Aristotle & Kant
ps. i'm not actually an atheist... i'm agnostic, but find atheist writings the most reasonable to my mind, and anyway there's no serious agnostic writing that i'm aware of.
TheWinterSnow... how is it that you can so consistently seem reasonable and then turn around to seriously talk about so much New Age bullshit without a single citation or hesitation? First we were designed to smoke pot, now our DNA is astral projecting to Nebulon 666...
Colynomial, you're still missing a good chunk of the point. I'll try to go over the post with a fine-toothed comb later, but there are a few things that tend to be misleading... first, the USSR was atheistic in the sense that the state religion was the state, not in the sense that the state was without religion. The problem is not the number of gods (I worship myself, as I find it endlessly entertaining) but the mentality behind so many religions and political movements - in your case, evolution doesn't *need* to write any gods out of the picture - they were never present in the first place! No deity has ever been a good enough answer - they're mystical-sounding ways of avoiding questions, nothing more. Second, you keep blathering about fundamentalist atheists or some such nonsense, and I have no idea how you're pulling this off with a straight face - it is strict insistence on proof and evidence, not retaliating against opposing views simply because they're opposing. Third, while I agree with you on personal liberties and all that sort of thing, get your facts a little straighter - mega-heirs/heiresses haven't been doing too well and their numbers seem to be declining rapidly. Finally, you love to polarize between the 'Left' and the 'Right'... and it doesn't work- first, the differences are in the hats on politicians' heads and not the ideas inside them; second, both sides have tried to stifle everything from free speech to the support of all other parties.
Jeff
Colynomial, you're still missing a good chunk of the point. I'll try to go over the post with a fine-toothed comb later, but there are a few things that tend to be misleading... first, the USSR was atheistic in the sense that the state religion was the state, not in the sense that the state was without religion. The problem is not the number of gods (I worship myself, as I find it endlessly entertaining) but the mentality behind so many religions and political movements - in your case, evolution doesn't *need* to write any gods out of the picture - they were never present in the first place! No deity has ever been a good enough answer - they're mystical-sounding ways of avoiding questions, nothing more. Second, you keep blathering about fundamentalist atheists or some such nonsense, and I have no idea how you're pulling this off with a straight face - it is strict insistence on proof and evidence, not retaliating against opposing views simply because they're opposing. Third, while I agree with you on personal liberties and all that sort of thing, get your facts a little straighter - mega-heirs/heiresses haven't been doing too well and their numbers seem to be declining rapidly. Finally, you love to polarize between the 'Left' and the 'Right'... and it doesn't work- first, the differences are in the hats on politicians' heads and not the ideas inside them; second, both sides have tried to stifle everything from free speech to the support of all other parties.
Jeff
^ and Hitler was Catholic, and often referred to God and Jesus in his speeches. it could be reasonably argued that the only god he truly worshipped was power, but his career and his public life were couched in Catholicism.
TheWinterSnow
Den Mørke Natt
I should have posted the main article that I read because I somehow knew that you were going to ask for credentials, but my bad.
http://www.aeonia.com/russian-dna-discoveries-mind-blowing
In that article it also hints towards the idea that feeling the miracles of god or seeing Jesus and other hallucinations are the result of our own influence of reality created by our ability to project frequencies beyond out physical bodies.
I can also argue that most (if not all) the wars of mankind where the result of religious differences (including that which leads to racism in Hitler's and other organizations like the KKK). I would like someone to mention some type of war that was caused by any atheist group, becuase as of now, I am not to sure that has ever happened.
Similar threads
