Ambivalence
Veteran
Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,613
Location: Peterlee (for Industry)
08 Jun 2010, 6:30 pm
coldblooded wrote:
Yeah. But most people won't go as far as use the word "ape" to describe humans. It's always "humans and apes"... why not just "apes."
I've always been proud to consider myself an ape.
It's a strange thing, the way we look at other animals. We allow ourselves to be impressed by the sight of lions and tigers and bears, as if we didn't spend our whole existence surrounded by creatures far nastier and more dangerous than anything in the wild.
Imagine a shopping mall filled with lions. Incongruity aside, wouldn't that be a scary sight? But people... jc6chan wrote:
Now, lets just ASSUME that you believe in God and that He is the Creator of the universe. Wouldn't you want to thank God for all the things that are provided to you and worship Him because he is the ultimate source of everything?
That depends on what His excuse is for the unholy mess He's made, and how He plans to fix it.
various wrote:
evolutionist
There's no such thing. The word evolutionist is used by Creationists to convince themselves that the people opposing them are "subscribers to a rival belief, a belief like their own" instead of something they will not allow themselves to understand, that an evolutionary model is the current best fit to reality we can manage; not an unsubstantiated belief, but the evidence of our ("God-given") senses and the exercise of our ("God-given") minds.
The wording of the poll is an illustration...
08 Jun 2010, 6:44 pm
08 Jun 2010, 6:55 pm
08 Jun 2010, 7:16 pm
08 Jun 2010, 9:52 pm
Angnix wrote:
Yeah, I haven't read this thread, but accept is probably a better term than believe I guess.
Anyway, I didn't accept evolution in the past because of religion, but I did go to college to get a zoology degree because I loved animals and then I saw all the evidence and I finally accepted it. I eventually dumped religion too.
Anyway, I didn't accept evolution in the past because of religion, but I did go to college to get a zoology degree because I loved animals and then I saw all the evidence and I finally accepted it. I eventually dumped religion too.
Thank you for sharing Angnix and you triggered this snip from TGD.
p284-285 - From The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Quote:
As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it
actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to
change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are
available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. The
saddest example I know is that of the American geologist Kurt
Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research at Bryan
College, Dayton, Tennessee.
It is no accident that Bryan College is
named after William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor of the science
teacher John Scopes in the Dayton 'Monkey Trial' of 1925. Wise
could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of
geology at a real university, a university whose motto might have
been 'Think critically' rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on
the Bryan website: 'Think critically and biblically'. Indeed, he
obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago,
followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at
Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no
less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young
scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science
and doing research at a proper university.
Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within
his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist
religious upbringing that required him to believe that the
Earth - the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education
- was less than ten thousand years old.
He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science,
and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day,
he could bear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with
a pair of scissors.
He took a bible and went right through it, literally
cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific
world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest and
labour-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that,
try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins
throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to
pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to
make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either
the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or
evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible . . . It was
there that night that I accepted the Word of God and
rejected all that would ever counter it, including
evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire
all my dreams and hopes in science.
I find that terribly sad; but whereas the Golgi Apparatus story
moved me to tears of admiration and exultation, the Kurt Wise
story is just plain pathetic - pathetic and contemptible. The wound,
to his career and his life's happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary,
so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible.
Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do.
Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out science,
evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
Perhaps uniquely among fundamentalists, Kurt Wise is honest -
devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest. Give him the Templeton
Prize; he might be the first really sincere recipient. Wise brings to
the surface what is secretly going on underneath, in the minds of
fundamentalists generally, when they encounter scientific evidence
that contradicts their beliefs.
actively debauches the scientific enterprise. It teaches us not to
change our minds, and not to want to know exciting things that are
available to be known. It subverts science and saps the intellect. The
saddest example I know is that of the American geologist Kurt
Wise, who now directs the Center for Origins Research at Bryan
College, Dayton, Tennessee.
It is no accident that Bryan College is
named after William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor of the science
teacher John Scopes in the Dayton 'Monkey Trial' of 1925. Wise
could have fulfilled his boyhood ambition to become a professor of
geology at a real university, a university whose motto might have
been 'Think critically' rather than the oxymoronic one displayed on
the Bryan website: 'Think critically and biblically'. Indeed, he
obtained a real degree in geology at the University of Chicago,
followed by two higher degrees in geology and paleontology at
Harvard (no less) where he studied under Stephen Jay Gould (no
less). He was a highly qualified and genuinely promising young
scientist, well on his way to achieving his dream of teaching science
and doing research at a proper university.
Then tragedy struck. It came, not from outside but from within
his own mind, a mind fatally subverted and weakened by a fundamentalist
religious upbringing that required him to believe that the
Earth - the subject of his Chicago and Harvard geological education
- was less than ten thousand years old.
He was too intelligent not to recognize the head-on collision between his religion and his science,
and the conflict in his mind made him increasingly uneasy. One day,
he could bear the strain no more, and he clinched the matter with
a pair of scissors.
He took a bible and went right through it, literally
cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific
world-view were true. At the end of this ruthlessly honest and
labour-intensive exercise, there was so little left of his bible that,
try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins
throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to
pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to
make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either
the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or
evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible . . . It was
there that night that I accepted the Word of God and
rejected all that would ever counter it, including
evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire
all my dreams and hopes in science.
I find that terribly sad; but whereas the Golgi Apparatus story
moved me to tears of admiration and exultation, the Kurt Wise
story is just plain pathetic - pathetic and contemptible. The wound,
to his career and his life's happiness, was self-inflicted, so unnecessary,
so easy to escape. All he had to do was toss out the bible.
Or interpret it symbolically, or allegorically, as the theologians do.
Instead, he did the fundamentalist thing and tossed out science,
evidence and reason, along with all his dreams and hopes.
Perhaps uniquely among fundamentalists, Kurt Wise is honest -
devastatingly, painfully, shockingly honest. Give him the Templeton
Prize; he might be the first really sincere recipient. Wise brings to
the surface what is secretly going on underneath, in the minds of
fundamentalists generally, when they encounter scientific evidence
that contradicts their beliefs.
Francis wrote:
psychointegrator wrote:
Francis wrote:
I voted of course I believe in evolution. I am a christian. I don't see them as contradictory.
Read your bible.
Noah's Ark should be enough in itself to elucidate it's contradictory.
Noahs ark isn't part of the creation story. People already existed during the ark narration, therefore, it's irrelevant to the evolution question.
The story of Noah's Ark and its constituents make specific claims about reality. If those claims were verified to be true, not oddly enough I could see people praising science as have proven the claims in the bible. Heck, overall I would have no choice if it was demonstrability proven there was some god thing (which at the core has nothing to do with evolution) and acknowledgment of authority to the rulebook that god provided, in the sense that it came from the end plug to infinite regress. Keep in mind, that authority still means nothing much and would be read through and considered no more relevant than the works of a fellow intelligent being.
Some godthing using a book with the story of Jephtha is an evil creator and they are either no better when it comes to ethics and morality or worse, as they are keenly aware of how much suffering there is and will be as a result of their programming this universe into existence and endorsing it even.
A world/universe with Peter Singer as "god," would be a nearly incomprehensibly that of care and concern with the praise and guidance for compassion and critical thinking.
A world/universe with the god of the bible would be just as the bible reads. Torture, rape, males treating females like lessors, females doing naughty things too just not reaching the god-like maximum that males do so easily, ethnic cleansing, murder (if god says it's ok to kill, it's not murder BTW), etc.
Peter Singer is a product of evolution, whom thinks of terms helping others, compassion, decreasing suffering in this world and so on.
Religion/Christianity is a byproduct of evolution. While all byproducts are not necessarily harmful, this one is a world destroyer.
The Christian religion makes some claims which science refutes by hypothesis, theory and facts. The claims which are not susceptible to the scientific method/falsifiable can be reasoned away with thought and understanding of the human psyche and the origins of our brain/species.
Additionally, evolution is not merely about humans. Remove all humanoids from Earth and it's still in the process of the remaining organisms. Life could exist prior to evolution, though it is through evolution that something like DNA could be utilized without a driving intelligence force. Evolution is a set of processes that take hold and drive the selfish gene to do all sorts of zany things.
What begins the first spark of life is not evolution and they still don't know for certain what initiated life or what the life actually was, even having some questioning what is life actually.
Abiogenesis in other words is what I refer to.
It would be quite amusing if the crystal theory is the spark of life so to speak... all of this from crystal replication, chance and other other known and unknown factors.
It appears all are yet to be using a unified understanding for the theory of evolution. I have selected a common resource to assist.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=41
Under Evolution101:
Quote:
The definition Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
Quote:
The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
Problems with a Global Flood
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Here are but a sliver of that only make sense with the theory of evolution. The story of Noah's Ark does not align at all.
Quote:
How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution? Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:
* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
* the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
* the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
* why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
* why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
* why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
* how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
* why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
* why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
* why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
* why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
* why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?
Quote:
How can a literal interpretation be consistent with reality? How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind [Gen. 7:15-16] when some species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females, and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites? And what about social animals like ants and termites which need the whole nest to survive?
Bdelloid rotifer is a wonderful example of asexual reproduction (females only), which is alone enough to refute the Islam religion as a whole due to the claim the Quran is inerrant (thus refuting one Surrah is enough to refute the entire religion).
Quote:
How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc.
Quote:
How did diseases survive? Many diseases can't survive in hosts other than humans. Many others can only survive in humans and in short-lived arthropod vectors. The list includes typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, gonorrhea, syphilis. For these diseases to have survived the Flood, they must all have infected one or more of the eight people aboard the Ark.
Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.
Host-specific diseases which don't kill their host generally can't survive long, since the host's immune system eliminates them. (This doesn't apply to diseases such as HIV and malaria which can hide from the immune system.) For example, measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 [Keeling & Grenfell, 1997] because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood.
Some diseases that can affect a wide range of species would have found conditions on the Ark ideal for a plague. Avian viruses, for example, would have spread through the many birds on the ark. Other plagues would have affected the mammals and reptiles. Even these plague pathogens, though, would have died out after all their prospective hosts were either dead or resistant.
Other animals aboard the ark must have suffered from multiple diseases, too, since there are other diseases specific to other animals, and the nonspecific diseases must have been somewhere.
Host-specific diseases which don't kill their host generally can't survive long, since the host's immune system eliminates them. (This doesn't apply to diseases such as HIV and malaria which can hide from the immune system.) For example, measles can't last for more than a few weeks in a community of less than 250,000 [Keeling & Grenfell, 1997] because it needs nonresistant hosts to infect. Since the human population aboard the ark was somewhat less than 250,000, measles and many other infectious diseases would have gone extinct during the Flood.
Some diseases that can affect a wide range of species would have found conditions on the Ark ideal for a plague. Avian viruses, for example, would have spread through the many birds on the ark. Other plagues would have affected the mammals and reptiles. Even these plague pathogens, though, would have died out after all their prospective hosts were either dead or resistant.
jc6chan wrote:
psychointegrator wrote:
What exactly has god provided?
Sickle Cell Anemia and Cluster headaches (suicide headaches)? Kittens? Puppies? Brains capable of enjoying the suffering of other living things?
Sickle Cell Anemia and Cluster headaches (suicide headaches)? Kittens? Puppies? Brains capable of enjoying the suffering of other living things?
There are always good things that come out of bad things. Like perhaps a person does not appreciate their health and when one part of their body has something wrong, they appreciate the health they have left and other aspects of life too. Even people who never become a Christian say that they have "grown stronger" in times of suffering.
http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/h ... /stats.htm
Quote:
-Every year 15 million children die of hunger
-Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger
-In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"
-Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger
-In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"
I did not verify those stats, although I don't have a reason to think they would be making the numbers up.
What good is coming from that?
There are far worse things I could have cited, as I am aware of what they do in places such as the Congo. Not that the USA itself isn't guilty of torture and destruction of lives of its own citizens.
This isn't about having a point of reference to experience appreciation or comprehension to what not being happy feels like or to what suffering is out there compared to your own. I am quite aware that if you feel utter torment, NOT feeling it, is pleasure in itself. One can derive pleasure not from pleasurable things, but from not suffering. One can also be completely ignorant towards how much pain and suffering is going on unless they experience it themselves. They need a point of reference to have possible sympathy/empathy.
The reasons for these things are all explained/understood with the application of evolution, not the bible. The bible and many religions (nearly if not all) all exploit/make use of the misfires byproducts and basically the psychological core needs that a human tends to experience and emphatically seek/need.
The bible doesn't explain why we can be so horribly tortured by having thumbscrews used, being burnt alive, teeth being pulled out and so on. The level of pain that we can experience doesn't make sense without a godthing being very very evil or perhaps ignorant. Again, evolution explains where Christianity only makes use of and in many cases uses it to inflict hell on others.
jc6chan wrote:
Even people who never become a Christian say that they have "grown stronger" in times of suffering.
Which brings out the questions:
Why does suffering have people report to have grown stronger?
How does suffering have people report to have grown stronger?
What about those who do not feel they have grown stronger?
What are the differences between Christian and non, who have grown stronger?
If suffering is so vital, then should people be made to suffer lest not have full access to the level of appreciation that others experience?
What disorders are common from those who have felt they grew stronger, if any?
Can this suffering be replicated without the actual suffering?
Why does suffering show so up so much in Christianity?
If you were "god," would you be okay with this suffering if it entailed children being slowly burned alive as a result?
Why are there irreligious countries such as the ones in Europe which yield little to no suffering, yet they score highest on all levels of happiness, wellbeing, education, etc.?
....the list could go on and on
jc6chan wrote:
psychointegrator wrote:
Christian's worship because they have no choice, on the requirement to reach heaven.
If you are not a Christian please do not try to make stereotypes of Christians. Many Christians worship God for the things that He has provided (both physical and spiritual) and "good works" such as worshipping God is not what dodges the eternal flames.
Would a "Christian" be allowed to try and make stereotypes?
We would need to know what is meant by Christian of course.
One must be a Christian to read and understand the book(s)? There are Christian's who never fully or in some cases never read the book, yet they are "Christian." It is clear to me that just by simply reading a book and specifically if it's the instruction booklet for a belief system, that one can read it and not get it fully. That, however, is only true some of the times.
My stereotyping is based on a vast number of discussions and readings. Sadly not enough in person as a whole (people can become very scary with this topic, especially Muslims and Christians - I am not leaving out that others, atheists, etc can't be just as enraged and screaming just to note, just less enough that it's clear who's got the problem).
I have analyzed enough "atheists," to see faults that are disturbing overall. The one quick and short example has been tested several times. The atheist will use perfect and average to above levels of critical thinking in the arguments and discussion... What did I discover?
Toss in a cited ready debate about the Drug War and/or cannabis legalization for adults and they REFUSE to change their stance of being against it ALL.
This has occurred enough that it isn't bad chance of test subjects. I carefully explained the reality, history, current news and science of it all, provided the research that makes all the reasons to be for the War on Drugs subjectively and objectively evil and irrational. This is using their previous reasoning to have a lack of belief in god, migrating to those who disbelieve in a godthing, their reasons for being irreligious, reasons for stance on abortion (usually voting FOR the legality, with a very few against).
I provide the atheist bit simply to show I don't give a fck who or what I am speaking about either for, against or about, provided I feel it's backed up with enough knowledge and verification. There's nothing I can or want to do to stop you from stating I lack the credentials to make such stereotyping mind you. You did help me notice that I wasn't clear
So, to finish this small bit off, I'll add that ATHEISTS (though it's reaching a nonsensical value or it always has been) will to a high consistency claim to be critical thinkers and pull the same delusional crap of which they despise. They will then deny this realization to the point they show again how little the use of atheist actually is (limited to its definition, which means not much can be taken if someone declares themselves one). I have actually seen their thinking clearly instantly shut off and switch to the exact model of thinking they lament! It's very eye-opening, especially when one gets sick of atheists and others add attributes to what shouldn't be used anymore as it is.
Back to the reason for worship thing:
King James Version
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Mathew 10:28 (Jebus talking)
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 3:17 (John the Baptist talking)
Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Sooo basically if you don't accept Jesus, even if you BELIEVE in Jesus and that god, there is a very clear result.
You don't get into heaven.
Where do you go if not heaven? Hell.
What happens in hell?
You are tortured, with eternal fire.
With what we know about self deception, specifically how the ACC (Anterior Cingulate Cortex) is raped so we can believe in nonsense and delusional things to feel certain and safe from the scary reality of things, it's obvious people can be extorted to feel they worship as a result of want because of love and joy-joy feelings.
Anyways, in error I didn't clarify. It's not uncommon that people will declare that it's love for god and life, to which is the reason for worship. The issue stems from them not knowing what they are talking about, which includes what their holy book says and what it clearly requires of them and to the demeanor of their god.
Take people who declare their worship as a result of appreciation and love with quiz of the actions in the bible from fellow followers and god, they reveal how false their view of reality in fact is. They ascribe the "goodness" that other humans, which can and does at times include themselves (they are what does the good and evil) to a concept which is derived not from the bible/Christianity, but their own ideas of morality and ethics. What gets the blame for EVIL and all that is wrong? Not god (even though verses say otherwise), but the actions of the inherently wicked human nature. And yes, the core blame stems from the innocent action of a female.
There is a consistent pattern they have of unintentionally refuting they believe in the god of the bible. Keep in mind it's not just belief in god, it's belief in god and the want for heaven no matter the cost of admission which includes the harm this world receives as a result.
There was a time I thought they were conscious of these oddities and were intentionally lying (some are, just not all). Live and learn.
I have on more than one occasion had a person state they would kill their child if god demanded it, which would almost suggest they are a true believer of the god in the bible/NT. They in fact only reveal subservience to a variation of the biblical god as they still are incapable of following the rulebook as it's written (impossible actually - thus making fundamentalist fail once tested).
As I lack the ability in general and lack the drive to memorize the thousands of variations of the bible/nt, I migrate towards using only a limited number of examples from the bible on my part to increase the chances I comprehend the story. So, again I will refer to what I have already in this topic.
God's loving and good nature?
Take the misadventures of Abraham and Jeptha.
Asking most believers (assuming they know one or both stories - I have had to explain the latter far too many times) what their view on god's obsession with sacrifice and burnt offerings.. Making reference to the verses where god is quoted with loving the stench of boiling blood and cooked flesh is used at times too.
There is the response of that being the god of the old bible and it can't be used in the here and now god they worship or that of Christianity.
This still fails overall and we find such horrid things done in the NT, which they ignore. Although some have taken other routes, all either reducing their religion to nothing except a feeling in their heart and soul they have or blame some of the verses being inaccurate or misunderstood due to scribes (yet opening up more refuting factors).
---Oh yes, we also have people being burned for witchcraft in this day and age. Those acts of burning adults and children are theologically defensible with the bible.
They tend to avoid answering many a times or perhaps in some cases toss a red herring out as a pseudo-apologist with directing to the story of Abraham and god sending an angel down to stop the human sacrifice.
They have nearly always remained mute or basically refused to continue once the story of Jeptha is brought up, as he did sacrifice his daughter (perhaps it was because she's a female, whereas the angel came down to save the son/male).
The simple concept here is there is no good reason that some loving god, a god worth respect, would let the studly Jeptha cook his daughter merely because he didn't think of the repercussions of begging for a favor from god.
Imagine this promise was made to a human leader.
That if the commander is granted enough resources to decimate the enemies throughout his campaign and all goes wondrously, he will offer up what ever so he meets at his homes doorstep as a burnt offering in honor of his success and to his leader, what would we think of both the leader and that commander?
There have been tactics used by the Abrahamic religious followers that take the route of applying absolutes and objective reality concepts.
God is the absolute of all that is good. God can not do wrong and so on. God says eat your feet and fingers, it must be done and it's Good.
If god declares an action to be done by his followers, that action/belief is good and cannot be evil or wrong. Therefore, we as humans are supposed to submit our will and subjectivity through his absolute of goodness and sole source of objective morality, thus leading to that those sacrifices are in fact not evil/bad.
If such actions are without god's endorsement, then they are evil/bad.
If we are to explain this was from long ago and things were different, therefore we can't judge the actions of them as we would someone today - Then, god changes with the times, as a result of humanity changing, thus god is our b***h and subjected to the proverbial zeitgeist.
Yet again we can understand how and why humans are capable of what almost looks like insanity through science and evolution. There are appreciable reasons that faith based belief (which is actually just belief, now that we understand it better) of which holds an abstraction which plug stops infinite regress, is the foundation of absolute certainty from which subjective beliefs leech onto and builds from and all in all tends to reduce stress and anxiety to the point of allowing sisters and brothers to be horrifically raped while we are at ease since they will be in heaven waiting for us and the perps shall forever be punished.
"Thank god for ultimate and absolute justice from the proverbial alpha dog and reality creator," I am sure far too many let fester in their mind till it beguiles their mind from action and uprising. Worse, to defend either with words or other actions of the same belief system or any other, as a means to sustain their illusion of reality.
I'll have to start working on the examples from interviews between various people with religious types (mainly Christian) that perfectly reveal what I state is accurate. Not factoring in other possible related reasons, my AS yielded the difficulty with social ques, forcing me to analyze and listen listen listen and watch to the things people say, what their write and what they do, which is a type of suffering
that I gained something positive... Too bad I didn't start young enough (watch the series Psych, his character represents learning something very young and later it becomes uncontrollably automatic), since it didn't dawn on me till later.
At the same time, I still do not Know many of the things such as body language beyond that of a catalog store in my brain. It is a form of suffering to not know these things from within and only without.
Such sweet suffering?
Last edited by psychointegrator on 09 Jun 2010, 1:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
ColdBlooded
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,136
Location: New Bern, North Carolina
08 Jun 2010, 11:19 pm
ColdBlooded
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,136
Location: New Bern, North Carolina
08 Jun 2010, 11:26 pm
jc6chan wrote:
ColdBlooded wrote:
I think the "ape rights" thing makes a lot of sense, actually. They aren't the same as humans, because they are still different species, but we should show some amount of respect to our fellow apes because, whether we like it or not, they are family 
Plus they do have a lot of the same mental abilities, just not to the same degree as your average human. But, i think we can agree that people with less intelligence are still entitled to rights, so why not our ape family? Koko the gorilla scored higher than some humans on an IQ test.
Plus they do have a lot of the same mental abilities, just not to the same degree as your average human. But, i think we can agree that people with less intelligence are still entitled to rights, so why not our ape family? Koko the gorilla scored higher than some humans on an IQ test.So would you be offended by the idea that some people hunt monkeys to eat? Yes, some cultures eat monkeys.
Monkeys and apes are different things, first of all. I don't really like the idea of humans hunting monkeys, but hunting apes is disturbingly close to cannibalism.
09 Jun 2010, 1:34 am
ColdBlooded wrote:
Okay, yes, i agree that my wording in the title wasn't very good. But that's the only way i've ever heard that question, and if i said "Do You Accept Evolution?" then i probably would have alienated any potential poll-voters who don't "believe" in it. In my mind "believe in" meant the same as "accept" or "hold to be true" in that sentence, at the time.
A quote from Richard Dawkins (The Ancestor's Tale is a good audiobook for long distance bike riding)
Quote:
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
I realized it might help to lay down what dictionary.com provides as possible definitions of believe. This may further assist to see how the wording could be abused by naughty Believers.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe
Quote:
–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
—Verb phrase
6. believe in,
a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.
–verb (used with object)
2. to have confidence or faith in the truth of (a positive assertion, story, etc.); give credence to.
3. to have confidence in the assertions of (a person).
4. to have a conviction that (a person or thing) is, has been, or will be engaged in a given action or involved in a given situation: The fugitive is believed to be headed for the Mexican border.
5. to suppose or assume; understand (usually fol. by a noun clause): I believe that he has left town.
—Verb phrase
6. believe in,
a. to be persuaded of the truth or existence of: to believe in Zoroastrianism; to believe in ghosts.
b. to have faith in the reliability, honesty, benevolence, etc., of: I can help only if you believe in me.
To verify I said this, one can believe in evolution and there isn't any problem that deem much warrant. Except, when they take believe to be FAITH in the TRUTH as a tool to illustrate how they have shown the theory and fact of evolution are what? Matters of faith, and as such suggests either scientists (they might use physicalists) use faith and science is also a religion. It's silly, but science/evolution has been called religious beliefs which lets loose them calling science dogmatic, which is also false.
Note:
If you're with a group that uses Darwinist a lot, that tends to be a tell they have ulterior motives which focus on the need for belief in a god and/or religion. People can use the term and not fall into this description, to avoid failing to address the some who don't.
Here's one of the few (or maybe it's many) attempts to make evolution a faith based thingy:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html
Quote:
Claim CA612:
Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 4.
Response:
1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.
2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.
A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.
Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 4.
Response:
1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.
2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.
A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.
Your realization that you might alienate those of whom you sought at answer is a good sign on your part! I had to learn the hard way that you have to ask in ways to of course not trick people, but provide a safe area where they are free to answer without ego self-defense mechanisms trigger. It also helps remove some possible bias.
Imagine asking Do you accept the FACT of evolution?
Not that they know what a fact is and is not, beyond their sense of the meaning. Which is why ...gravity is a nobrainer for them and it doesn't even occur to them to use the theory of gravity. Then again, asking them to define a theory will reveal they lack this answer other than perhaps "it's an idea or something a person made up."
There is some blame towards the educational system, their community, parents, etc., to be fair.
That and gravity for the most part isn't attacking their core belief system that gives them their fix for their addiction to certainty.
Perhaps one last item dealing with the wording of questions and answers.
Answer this:
Do you believe in god?
This one is far more vague and depending on where you live/grew up, it may be very clear to what/who god is or have you perplexed.
In the US, if someone uses god, it's highly unlikely to mean anything but the Christian-like god. Asking most US citizens which god is meant would yield something like "there is only one God," or "there is only one God, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
The latter revealing a cognitive dissidence in wait.
They hold there is a GOD, which is NOT Jesus, proclaim Jesus GOD, then refer to Jesus as the only begotten son of God who killed himself to absolve our ancestral sin (hidden in the DNA I hear and/or male semen), enforce there is only one true god and that this god is both GOD and Jesus at the same time.
It can get more screwy than that.
Wofl
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Joined: 8 Jun 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 52
Location: Eagle River, Alaska, US
09 Jun 2010, 2:08 am
ColdBlooded
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,136
Location: New Bern, North Carolina
20 Jun 2010, 1:51 pm
20 Jun 2010, 3:43 pm
DaWalker wrote:
Except for Snickers, they got that one right and it should not be altered.
Sorry, but my dog's name is Snickers.
Anyway, I'm Catholic and believe in evolution. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
20 Jun 2010, 5:37 pm
RainSong wrote:
DaWalker wrote:
Except for Snickers, they got that one right and it should not be altered.
Sorry, but my dog's name is Snickers.
What is it that's wrong with Snickers, and why do you want to alter him
BTW:
Here is a pic of my babygirl (now passed on, to guard the pearly gates)
RainSong wrote:
Anyway, I'm Catholic and believe in evolution. I don't think they're mutually exclusive.
Even Catholicism itself has "evolved" - thank God
Blindspot149
Veteran
Joined: 7 Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,516
Location: Aspergers Quadrant, INTJ, AQ 45/50
21 Jun 2010, 5:25 am
21 Jun 2010, 5:32 am
21 Jun 2010, 5:40 am
21 Jun 2010, 6:42 am
