Victory for evolution in Texas

[ElNono]

What would the world be like without the Judeo-Christian philosophy? Better or worse off?

Indifferent at this stage, IMO. It was important in the past as it was probably one of the first, if not the first, psychological therapy known to man.
To me, religion is simply that, one avenue to instill a psychological effect (be it through fear, hope or both). I'm not a huge fan of psychology in it's current state, but I do think it's a useful alternative right now until science gets a better understanding of chemical and synaptic interactions in the brain.

[boutons_deux]

"that's trying to take away a religion"

Nobody's denying anybody a right to believe anything. Go drink the Kool-Aid for all I care. It's your right.

btw, the scammiest, most materialistic, predatorily greedy frauds around are "religious" huckster preachers living in multi-$M tax-free "parsonnages", with tax-free private jets, massive expense accounts, etc, etc.

[mingus]

Good q

We have come of age in our evolutionary process. We are past evolution as a species now. We don't act on natural instinct, in the sense that our empathy can outweigh basic, animalistic desires... like exiling a blind cousin through natural selection.

If we have a disadvantage, we can invent. You have to look at the human species in a way, that our brain is essentially the human, and our body is the evolved tool. Now, our evolution is on another tier from biological to technological. Instead of taking a mass amount of time to evolve x trait to solve y problem, we can, in less time, build n tool to solve y problem.

In Freud's quote, he is essentially saying, religion was there when we needed it, to grow as man. It taught us morality, and answered curious questions that we couldn't answer scientifically. Now that we have come of age, to understand that Zeus isn't pissed when we have a lightning storm and have a set in stone sense of morality, religion can only hold us back be keeping us ignorant to truth.

I'm specifically talking about Judeo-Christianity... Don't know enough about other religions...

It taught us morality. And people have the ability to not give a shit about them anymore when their source is forgotten.

[mingus]

Then I guess God sucks at getting his point across and Christianity can't stop divorce and greed from being prevalent in society.

You were raised/taught by some really, really uninformed Christians my friend.

[redzero]

You were raised/taught by some really, really uninformed Christians my friend.

I'm sorry, what?

What I am saying is that Christianity is not preventing large divorce rates and greed. Am I wrong?

[mingus]

"that's trying to take away a religion"

Nobody's denying anybody a right to believe anything. Go drink the Kool-Aid for all I care. It's your right.

btw, the scammiest, most materialistic, predatorily greedy frauds around are "religious" huckster preachers living in multi-$M tax-free "parsonnages", with tax-free private jets, massive expense accounts, etc, etc.

Never met a priest or rabbi that lived any better than your average person. By and large, they live very modest life styles. But according to the media...they all little boy fondlers and millionaires...

[mingus]

I'm sorry, what?

What I am saying is that Christianity is not preventing large divorce rates and greed. Am I wrong?

People have a choice whether to practice it. When people make those choices irrespective of God, you see what happens. People are at fault, not Christianity.

[redzero]

People have a choice whether to practice it.

And they choose not to, which pokes holes in the doom and gloom theory that the world would go into chaos if people didn't practice Christianity.


When people make those choices irrespective of God, you see what happens.

Everybody does it. Do you believe that beating slaves is okay? Do you think that killing unruly children is okay? If not, you are going against God.

Can you give me one benefit to believing in God? Something that I can't get anywhere else?

[mingus]

And they choose not to, which pokes holes in the doom and gloom theory that the world would go into chaos if people didn't practice Christianity.



Everybody does it. Do you believe that beating slaves is okay? Do you think that killing unruly children is okay? If not, you are going against God.

Can you give me one benefit to believing in God? Something that I can't get anywhere else?

No I don't believe beating slaves is okay. Jews and Christians don't believe that. A large proportion of abolitionists were Quakers.

For me personally believing in God teaches me there's something bigger than myself. Ive been around some of the poorest of the poor and sickest of the sick. Ask them why you should believe in God.

[redzero]

No I don't believe beating slaves is okay. Jews and Christians don't believe that.

Then you are going against God.


Ive been around some of the poorest of the poor and sickest of the sick. Ask them why you should believe in God.

They believe so they can have peace of mind. They don't care if they are right or not. I, however, do care whether I'm right or not.

[LnGrrrR]

so you don't know the alternative and yet you're doing everything you can to attain it. Sounds like a great plan.

Why not? Maybe we'll all get ice cream out of it.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know what is with the hostility toward me lol. Just asking a question. Guess I'm a retard, sorry. LOL

It's rare that a forum poster realizes how dumb they sound. Thanks for being an exception!

[LnGrrrR]

50% divorce rate, excess materialism, greed. The biggest problems this country has and you're a part of a movement that's trying to take away a religion that speaks out against those things.

Makes perfect sense.

One nation, under IPod.

Surely, times were much better a scant 50 years ago, when women stayed in the home, blacks weren't considered equal, and gay people were in constant fear of being outed.

Damn these immoral times!

[LnGrrrR]

I'm specifically talking about Judeo-Christianity... Don't know enough about other religions...

It taught us morality. And people have the ability to not give a shit about them anymore when their source is forgotten.

I'm pretty sure morality existed before the Judeo-Christian philosophies :lol :lol :lol

[baseline bum]

I'm specifically talking about Judeo-Christianity... Don't know enough about other religions...

It taught us morality. And people have the ability to not give a shit about them anymore when their source is forgotten.

Sociopath god taught us morality? What nonsense.

[Blake]

Never met a priest or rabbi that lived any better than your average person. By and large, they live very modest life styles.

I've never met the Pope either.

[baseline bum]

Never met a priest or rabbi that lived any better than your average person. By and large, they live very modest life styles. But according to the media...they all little boy fondlers and millionaires...

What about this douchebag?

http://www.rickross.com/reference/tv_preachers/tv_preachers7.html

[mingus]

Surely, times were much better a scant 50 years ago, when women stayed in the home, blacks weren't considered equal, and gay people were in constant fear of being outed.

Damn these immoral times!

I don't know any modern day preist or rabbi who believes women should "stay at home". Where are you getting this information?

Blacks were empowered by Christianity. The Second Great Awakening spawned many "black" churches which expanded roles of blacks in society. Martin Luther King was a clergyman.

As for homosexuals, I don't know a priest or rabbi that wouldn't allow them in their church any day of the week.

[mingus]

What about this douchebag?

http://www.rickross.com/reference/tv_preachers/tv_preachers7.html

For every religious leader douchebag you can point to, I can point to a hundred others that live very modest lifestyles and do enormous good in the community.

It's left out of what the media reports though. It's a distortion of reality.

[mingus]

Sociopath god taught us morality? What nonsense.

Sure. The Bible admonishes greed and materialism. It emphasis charity.
That isn't teaching us morality? Greed and materialism are good things? Being charitable isn't a good thing?

[Blake]

As for homosexuals, I don't know a priest or rabbi that wouldn't allow them in their church any day of the week.

I'm sure there are plenty that are very much against homosexuals getting married.

A big knock against judeo-Christian philosophy, imo.

[Blake]

For every religious leader douchebag you can point to, I can point to a hundred others that live very modest lifestyles and do enormous good in the community.

It's left out of what the media reports though. It's a distortion of reality.

sure, just like anyone else. People will use whatever motivation they think they need in order to help others out.

where are you getting this sense of persecution from?

is your religious butt hurt because your local walmart declared war on Christmas by having their greeters say 'season's greetings'?

[ChumpDumper]

Sure. The Bible admonishes greed and materialism. It emphasis charity.
That isn't teaching us morality? Greed and materialism are good things? Being charitable isn't a good thing?I learned never to call someone "baldy" or count a group of soldiers or God will kill over 40 children and 70,000 adults respectively.

[Blake]

I learned never to call someone "baldy"

:lmao

When my daughter goes to the zoo, I make it very clear that she is not to use that word around the bears.

[mingus]

I'm sure there are plenty that are very much against homosexuals getting married.

A big knock against judeo-Christian philosophy, imo.

There's a lot of debate going on in the Church about it. The stance has softened considerably. Maybe one day they'll be allowed to get married by the Church. I doubt it. Regardless, they should be allowed to get married by government. Let God decide in the end.

[Blake]

There's a lot of debate going on in the Church about it. The stance has softened considerably. Maybe one day they'll be allowed to get married by the Church. I doubt it. Regardless, they should be allowed to get married by government. Let God decide in the end.

who do you think it is that helps keep government from allowing gay marriage?

[mingus]

sure, just like anyone else. People will use whatever motivation they think they need in order to help others out.

where are you getting this sense of persecution from?

is your religious butt hurt because your local walmart declared war on Christmas by having their greeters say 'season's greetings'?

I don't understand where your coming from in the first sentence.

[mingus]

who do you think it is that helps keep government from allowing gay marriage?

I think gays should be able to get married. I don't think Christianity has the answers to everything. There are things in the Bible i dont agree with. There are many churchgoers who are split on it as well.

I'm not going to throw the religion under the bus though because of that. There's more (good) to the religion than that issue.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't know any modern day preist or rabbi who believes women should "stay at home". Where are you getting this information?

Blacks were empowered by Christianity. The Second Great Awakening spawned many "black" churches which expanded roles of blacks in society. Martin Luther King was a clergyman.

As for homosexuals, I don't know a priest or rabbi that wouldn't allow them in their church any day of the week.

Are you deliberately not paying attention to my point? You decried the loss of "morality" due to high divorce rates etc etc even though I'd say that the current generation is more "moral" than the ones even 50 years ago.

[Blake]

I don't understand where your coming from in the first sentence.

It's possible to do good deeds without a crutch.

[RandomGuy]

Where are dinosaurs in the Bible



One would think that creatures who commonly stood 20+ feet tall would merit some mention.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Apatosaurus_scale_mmartyniuk_wiki.png/800px-Apatosaurus_scale_mmartyniuk_wiki.png

The obvious inference, is that the Bible represents the worldview and knowledge base of Bronze-age peoples who would not be expected to have knowledge of such creatures.

God would not have such limitations.

The existance of fossilized dinosaur bones represents a rather insurmountable problem for creationists to overcome. Unless, of course, you take the position that the Flintstones was a documentary. This is essetionally one of the chief prepositions (humans and dinosaurs living together at one point) of the Creation(ist) Museum (http://creationmuseum.org/), meant to inspire the faithful.

[Blake]

I think gays should be able to get married. I don't think Christianity has the answers to everything. There are things in the Bible i dont agree with. There are many churchgoers who are split on it as well.

They shouldn't be split. Pretty cut and dry imo.


'm not going to throw the religion under the bus though because of that. There's more (good) to the religion than that issue.

I've got no issue if someone wants to believe in fairy tales.

I take issue when politicians give in to pressure from the fairy tale communities.

[mingus]

It's possible to do good deeds without a crutch.

No shit you can do good deeds without ascribing to Judeo-Christianity. I have athiest friends who do a lot of charity and are great people. They're more Christian than some of the people I know who call themselves Christians. Calling yourself a Christian doesn't necessarily make you one.

[mingus]

They shouldn't be split. Pretty cut and dry imo.



I've got no issue if someone wants to believe in fairy tales.

I take issue when politicians give in to pressure from the fairy tale communities.

And the worst aspects of our culture (greed, materialism) have invaded Christianity. Christian communities have succumbed to political pressure way more than the other way around.

[mingus]

Are you deliberately not paying attention to my point? You decried the loss of "morality" due to high divorce rates etc etc even though I'd say that the current generation is more "moral" than the ones even 50 years ago.

Why are we more moral?

[Blake]

No shit you can do good deeds without ascribing to Judeo-Christianity.

agreed, no shit.

[Blake]

Christian communities have succumbed to political pressure way more than the other way around.

bullshit, tbh.

[mingus]

One would think that creatures who commonly stood 20+ feet tall would merit some mention.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Apatosaurus_scale_mmartyniuk_wiki.png/800px-Apatosaurus_scale_mmartyniuk_wiki.png

The obvious inference, is that the Bible represents the worldview and knowledge base of Bronze-age peoples who would not be expected to have knowledge of such creatures.

God would not have such limitations.

The existance of fossilized dinosaur bones represents a rather insurmountable problem for creationists to overcome. Unless, of course, you take the position that the Flintstones was a documentary. This is essetionally one of the chief prepositions (humans and dinosaurs living together at one point) of the Creation(ist) Museum (http://creationmuseum.org/), meant to inspire the faithful.

Creationism isn't ascribed to my many, many Christians. I don't know the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's way higher than the media has one believe. The Pope himself believes in evolution. He accepts it as a reality. The leader of the Catholic church isn't Michelle Bachmann and she far from represents what many Christians believe.

[boutons_deux]

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pp05ytoxcuijd73t-qrr3w.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

[mingus]

bullshit, tbh.

Capitalism doesn't work when a left-controlled media disseminates a distorted picture of Christianity and diminishes it.

[Blake]

Creationism isn't ascribed to my many, many Christians. I don't know the exact number, but I'm pretty sure it's way higher than the media has one believe. The Pope himself believes in evolution. He accepts it as a reality. The leader of the Catholic church isn't Michelle Bachmann and she far from represents what many Christians believe.


2009: Charles Darwin would have been 200 tomorrow, an event that Gallup is marking with a new poll showing that 39 percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. A quarter say they don't believe in evolution, and 36 percent say they have no opinion.

The strongest predictor of respondents' views on evolution? Church attendance.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution

[baseline bum]

Capitalism doesn't work when a left-controlled media disseminates a distorted picture of Christianity and diminishes it.

Left-controlled media :rollin

[Blake]

Capitalism doesn't work when a left-controlled media disseminates a distorted picture of Christianity and diminishes it.

lol wtf does capitalism have to do with Christianity?

you are getting more incoherent by the post.

[mingus]

On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/pp05ytoxcuijd73t-qrr3w.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

it'd be interesting to see the age group of those surveyed. A lot of adults who studied biology in highschool 30-40-50 years ago studied a very different biology. The theory has developed quite a but since then. Hard to find a young Christian that doesn't find it quite compelling at least. Most outright believe it. And many of the younger priests and rabbis accept it.

[boutons_deux]

Catholic Church has accepted evolution for decades, just not unmitigated evolution, their required mitigation being God's intervention to create the soul.

[mingus]

lol wtf does capitalism have to do with Christianity?

you are getting more incoherent by the post.

What I meant to say is that this country would be in better shape if both entrepreneurs and consumers were more moral.

[DarkReign]

The halcyon days of religious poverty and utter selflessness are more myth than legend, anyway.

There never existed a time of near total moral enlightenment, never was there an era where religious morality reigned supreme over the minds of men.

It strikes me as odd that one would argue for a "lost time" that really never existed, ever.

At no point in civilized history did there exist a more "moral" time than the one in which you find yourself today. None, ever.

Just because divorce rates are up does not mean something is wrong. It means women stood up to the status quo of being marginalized and unheard. Marriages of the past where prisons for (looking at divorce rate of today...) damn near 50%. Whether one spouse was abusive, a drunken loser, an adulterer or all three, those marriages lasted only because society's stigma attached the "D word" precluded a lot of marriages from ever ending like they should have.

...and this only addresses the divorce rate, which is overall, a terrible benchmark to use as a basis of contention about current moral standards and practices.

I cannot remember the quote, but there is a famous line about the acts of war being the benchmark of society's moral capacity. At no time in the history of man has war between civilized nations been so (relatively speaking) merciful.

Rome made famous the act of crucifixion of the conquered. Rome would demand surrender of the nations they targeted and rarely did they. To Rome and Her Glory, it was an affront to them that a "lesser nation" would balk at the chance to join their empire. So, after demolishing their military on the battlefield(s), they would enter the cities and crucify men, women and children along both sides of the main road leading into and out of the city for dual purpose. One, to inform the conquered of their new master's tolerance for resistance and rebellion. Two, to remind all other future and present enemies to the fate that awaits them.

Fast forward to Medieval Times, ie the Dark Ages. The Western Roman Empire has fallen to the Goths and countless others, sacked, re-sacked, pillaged and re-pillaged a hundred times over. An outbranch of Christianity has risen to power, the Roman Catholic Church with its epicenter in (you guessed it) Rome, or Vatican City. Thousands if not millions were reformed to conversion via torture of unimaginable horror. Quartering, the Rack, nail beds, hot coals being force-fed, etc. Convert or fall was the song heard throughout Europe. This church was the first of its kind and still is today, a church of incredible political power and as yet unheard of wealth (so much so, they paved their streets in fucking gold).

The best part about it? They had domain over the single most mysterious aspect of life, death. They had a patent on God's word, His intent, His plan ever-changing, His will. The Church used that license to suppress scientific advancement that wasnt sanctioned by the Church (countless scientists killed for the observation of nature), they used that power to subjugate the masses to the whims of the Pope (ex. fish on Fridays). They used that power to consolidate their position of power in every royal court of the time (until England split). To wage Holy Wars for worthless plots of desert thousand of miles away, but not on their dime. Needless to say, the only example in European culture that fits the moral high water mark you refer to is something we collectively call the Dark Ages. When religion over everything else, reigned supreme. No fucking thanks.

No one, not you, not me, not your priest/pastor, no one knows what happens when you die. Who or what you see, who or what you meet. Is there a return to the "source"? Or are we just worm food? Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan, to be mocked, scoffed at and ridiculed.

No one can know the unknowable. Its fine to wonder to yourself and others about the possibilities in death, but its nothing more than a mental exercise to drum up a conversation. Anyone who feels compelled to fight for their view of it over another is trying to sell you something, period. Whether its like-mindedness, social acceptance, their version of living salvation or a collection plate, there is always a hook, a catch, a contrived and inflated sense of self-worth perpetuated by a congregation of people who cannot admit their fear and total non-understanding of the world they find themselves in.

Religion is comfort food to the morally obese. A very half-ass attempt (and I mean very half-ass) to answer questions all people have, very natural questions. But the virulent nature of religion and its component parts, the injection of its "answers" into your everyday existence, is something to scorn and ridicule.

If existence is as Christianity states, then so be it. This universe is far less interesting for it and fear the unimaginative and uninvolved God responsible for our current position.

But since I know its all bullshit, a relic mythos fed to the uneducated, mumbling masses at a time when average lifespan was under 40 years old and oratory was still a substitute for reading and writing. That somehow it has endured the test of hundreds of wars and hundreds of years, other competing doctrines, but most of all, scientific advancement is not a testament to the validity of its claims.

No, its continued existence and importance only verifies that the questions around death still persist and that people still want to believe they rank in the universal equation, when in fact you and I do not. That religion is still around speaks only to the vanity of man, nothing more, nothing less.

[boutons_deux]

it'd be interesting to see the age group of those surveyed.

try reading the article, lots of by-age, etc graphs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx

[mingus]

I go back to the states in a few days. I'm posting on my iPhone. Hard to have a discussion. I'll look at them in a few days.

[clambake]

good post DR

[Blake]

What I meant to say is that this country would be in better shape if both entrepreneurs and consumers were more moral.

No shit. what does judeo-christian philosophy have to do with it?

Christian doctrine follows that praying for God to help your business succeed is not the way God works.

You need to gouge the consumer and then pray for forgiveness later.

[LnGrrrR]

Why are we more moral?

Probably based on a number of factors. I'd like to think that, just as people and ideas evolve, our morality evolves too. (Recent enthusiastic support for torture excluded.)

[MaNuMaNiAc]

the halcyon days of religious poverty and utter selflessness are more myth than legend, anyway.

There never existed a time of near total moral enlightenment, never was there an era where religious morality reigned supreme over the minds of men.

It strikes me as odd that one would argue for a "lost time" that really never existed, ever.

At no point in civilized history did there exist a more "moral" time than the one in which you find yourself today. None, ever.

Just because divorce rates are up does not mean something is wrong. It means women stood up to the status quo of being marginalized and unheard. Marriages of the past where prisons for (looking at divorce rate of today...) damn near 50%. Whether one spouse was abusive, a drunken loser, an adulterer or all three, those marriages lasted only because society's stigma attached the "d word" precluded a lot of marriages from ever ending like they should have.

...and this only addresses the divorce rate, which is overall, a terrible benchmark to use as a basis of contention about current moral standards and practices.

I cannot remember the quote, but there is a famous line about the acts of war being the benchmark of society's moral capacity. At no time in the history of man has war between civilized nations been so (relatively speaking) merciful.

Rome made famous the act of crucifixion of the conquered. Rome would demand surrender of the nations they targeted and rarely did they. To rome and her glory, it was an affront to them that a "lesser nation" would balk at the chance to join their empire. So, after demolishing their military on the battlefield(s), they would enter the cities and crucify men, women and children along both sides of the main road leading into and out of the city for dual purpose. One, to inform the conquered of their new master's tolerance for resistance and rebellion. Two, to remind all other future and present enemies to the fate that awaits them.

Fast forward to medieval times, ie the dark ages. The western roman empire has fallen to the goths and countless others, sacked, re-sacked, pillaged and re-pillaged a hundred times over. An outbranch of christianity has risen to power, the roman catholic church with its epicenter in (you guessed it) rome, or vatican city. Thousands if not millions were reformed to conversion via torture of unimaginable horror. Quartering, the rack, nail beds, hot coals being force-fed, etc. Convert or fall was the song heard throughout europe. This church was the first of its kind and still is today, a church of incredible political power and as yet unheard of wealth (so much so, they paved their streets in fucking gold).

The best part about it? They had domain over the single most mysterious aspect of life, death. They had a patent on god's word, his intent, his plan ever-changing, his will. The church used that license to suppress scientific advancement that wasnt sanctioned by the church (countless scientists killed for the observation of nature), they used that power to subjugate the masses to the whims of the pope (ex. Fish on fridays). They used that power to consolidate their position of power in every royal court of the time (until england split). To wage holy wars for worthless plots of desert thousand of miles away, but not on their dime. Needless to say, the only example in european culture that fits the moral high water mark you refer to is something we collectively call the dark ages. When religion over everything else, reigned supreme. No fucking thanks.

No one, not you, not me, not your priest/pastor, no one knows what happens when you die. Who or what you see, who or what you meet. Is there a return to the "source"? Or are we just worm food? Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan, to be mocked, scoffed at and ridiculed.

No one can know the unknowable. Its fine to wonder to yourself and others about the possibilities in death, but its nothing more than a mental exercise to drum up a conversation. Anyone who feels compelled to fight for their view of it over another is trying to sell you something, period. Whether its like-mindedness, social acceptance, their version of living salvation or a collection plate, there is always a hook, a catch, a contrived and inflated sense of self-worth perpetuated by a congregation of people who cannot admit their fear and total non-understanding of the world they find themselves in.

Religion is comfort food to the morally obese. A very half-ass attempt (and i mean very half-ass) to answer questions all people have, very natural questions. But the virulent nature of religion and its component parts, the injection of its "answers" into your everyday existence, is something to scorn and ridicule.

If existence is as christianity states, then so be it. This universe is far less interesting for it and fear the unimaginative and uninvolved god responsible for our current position.

But since i know its all bullshit, a relic mythos fed to the uneducated, mumbling masses at a time when average lifespan was under 40 years old and oratory was still a substitute for reading and writing. That somehow it has endured the test of hundreds of wars and hundreds of years, other competing doctrines, but most of all, scientific advancement is not a testament to the validity of its claims.

No, its continued existence and importance only verifies that the questions around death still persist and that people still want to believe they rank in the universal equation, when in fact you and i do not. That religion is still around speaks only to the vanity of man, nothing more, nothing less.

Amen! Hallelujah!

[RandomGuy]

The halcyon days of religious poverty and utter selflessness are more myth than legend, anyway.

There never existed a time of near total moral enlightenment, never was there an era where religious morality reigned supreme over the minds of men.

It strikes me as odd that one would argue for a "lost time" that really never existed, ever.

At no point in civilized history did there exist a more "moral" time than the one in which you find yourself today. None, ever.

Just because divorce rates are up does not mean something is wrong. It means women stood up to the status quo of being marginalized and unheard. Marriages of the past where prisons for (looking at divorce rate of today...) damn near 50%. Whether one spouse was abusive, a drunken loser, an adulterer or all three, those marriages lasted only because society's stigma attached the "D word" precluded a lot of marriages from ever ending like they should have.

...and this only addresses the divorce rate, which is overall, a terrible benchmark to use as a basis of contention about current moral standards and practices.

I cannot remember the quote, but there is a famous line about the acts of war being the benchmark of society's moral capacity. At no time in the history of man has war between civilized nations been so (relatively speaking) merciful.

Rome made famous the act of crucifixion of the conquered. Rome would demand surrender of the nations they targeted and rarely did they. To Rome and Her Glory, it was an affront to them that a "lesser nation" would balk at the chance to join their empire. So, after demolishing their military on the battlefield(s), they would enter the cities and crucify men, women and children along both sides of the main road leading into and out of the city for dual purpose. One, to inform the conquered of their new master's tolerance for resistance and rebellion. Two, to remind all other future and present enemies to the fate that awaits them.

Fast forward to Medieval Times, ie the Dark Ages. The Western Roman Empire has fallen to the Goths and countless others, sacked, re-sacked, pillaged and re-pillaged a hundred times over. An outbranch of Christianity has risen to power, the Roman Catholic Church with its epicenter in (you guessed it) Rome, or Vatican City. Thousands if not millions were reformed to conversion via torture of unimaginable horror. Quartering, the Rack, nail beds, hot coals being force-fed, etc. Convert or fall was the song heard throughout Europe. This church was the first of its kind and still is today, a church of incredible political power and as yet unheard of wealth (so much so, they paved their streets in fucking gold).

The best part about it? They had domain over the single most mysterious aspect of life, death. They had a patent on God's word, His intent, His plan ever-changing, His will. The Church used that license to suppress scientific advancement that wasnt sanctioned by the Church (countless scientists killed for the observation of nature), they used that power to subjugate the masses to the whims of the Pope (ex. fish on Fridays). They used that power to consolidate their position of power in every royal court of the time (until England split). To wage Holy Wars for worthless plots of desert thousand of miles away, but not on their dime. Needless to say, the only example in European culture that fits the moral high water mark you refer to is something we collectively call the Dark Ages. When religion over everything else, reigned supreme. No fucking thanks.

No one, not you, not me, not your priest/pastor, no one knows what happens when you die. Who or what you see, who or what you meet. Is there a return to the "source"? Or are we just worm food? Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan, to be mocked, scoffed at and ridiculed.

No one can know the unknowable. Its fine to wonder to yourself and others about the possibilities in death, but its nothing more than a mental exercise to drum up a conversation. Anyone who feels compelled to fight for their view of it over another is trying to sell you something, period. Whether its like-mindedness, social acceptance, their version of living salvation or a collection plate, there is always a hook, a catch, a contrived and inflated sense of self-worth perpetuated by a congregation of people who cannot admit their fear and total non-understanding of the world they find themselves in.

Religion is comfort food to the morally obese. A very half-ass attempt (and I mean very half-ass) to answer questions all people have, very natural questions. But the virulent nature of religion and its component parts, the injection of its "answers" into your everyday existence, is something to scorn and ridicule.

If existence is as Christianity states, then so be it. This universe is far less interesting for it and fear the unimaginative and uninvolved God responsible for our current position.

But since I know its all bullshit, a relic mythos fed to the uneducated, mumbling masses at a time when average lifespan was under 40 years old and oratory was still a substitute for reading and writing. That somehow it has endured the test of hundreds of wars and hundreds of years, other competing doctrines, but most of all, scientific advancement is not a testament to the validity of its claims.

No, its continued existence and importance only verifies that the questions around death still persist and that people still want to believe they rank in the universal equation, when in fact you and I do not. That religion is still around speaks only to the vanity of man, nothing more, nothing less.

Well said. Thank you, it was a good read.

[RandomGuy]

try reading the article, lots of by-age, etc graphs.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx


Implications

As Darwin is being lauded as one of the most important scientists in history on the 200th anniversary of his birth (on Feb. 12, 1809), it is perhaps dismaying to scientists who study and respect his work to see that well less than half of Americans today say they believe in the theory of evolution, and that just 55% can associate the man with his theory.

Naturally, some of this is because of educational differences. Americans who have lower levels of formal education are significantly less likely than others to be able to identity Darwin with his theory, and to have an opinion on it either way. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans' religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin's theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.

Basically the more one reads about the theory of evolution, the more credence it is given.

[mingus]

Divorce rate is a benchmark when it's happening at 50% rate. Anyway, I
don't dislike divorce. I dislike the preventable things leading up to it. That's what I take issue with.

About religion and education. Our current president is a Christian. Charles Darwin was a Christian. Albert Einstein was Jew. Being a Jew or Christian does not mean one is anti-education or anti-science.

[baseline bum]

Divorce rate is a benchmark when it's happening at 50% rate. Anyway, I
don't dislike divorce. I dislike the preventable things leading up to it. That's what I take issue with.

About religion and education. Our current president is a Christian. Charles Darwin was a Christian. Albert Einstein was Jew. Being a Jew or Christian does not mean one is anti-education or anti-science.

Einstein wasn't a Jew in any kind of religious sense. Are you serious? And Obama's a Muslim.

[Proxy]

Divorce rate is a benchmark when it's happening at 50% rate. Anyway, I
don't dislike divorce. I dislike the preventable things leading up to it. That's what I take issue with.

About religion and education. Our current president is a Christian. Charles Darwin was a Christian. Albert Einstein was Jew. Being a Jew or Christian does not mean one is anti-education or anti-science.

You're just never going to understand because you've closed your mind off to the possibility already. Your mentality is basically, 'let us live in the past. Lets never progress, and when we get facts, let us disregard them.'

Just admit that you're mentally weak, and can't handle the truth. There's a reason why Darrin and Wild Cobra stopped posting on this thread, and that's because you have to argue against fact, logic, and common sense, when you defend dogma.

[Wild Cobra]

Einstein wasn't a Jew in any kind of religious sense. Are you serious? And Obama's a Muslim.
Obama was raised with a Muslin education. Now that doesn't mean he is one, but silly shit slips out on occasion like "57 states."

[Proxy]

Obama was raised with a Muslin education. Now that doesn't mean he is one, but silly shit slips out on occasion like "57 states."

We're going to argue Obama's religion? It would be political suicide for him to say he was anything other than Christian.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama was raised with a Muslin education. Now that doesn't mean he is one, but silly shit slips out on occasion like "57 states."This shit again?

Really?

[mingus]

You're just never going to understand because you've closed your mind off to the possibility already. Your mentality is basically, 'let us live in the past. Lets never progress, and when we get facts, let us disregard them.'

Just admit that you're mentally weak, and can't handle the truth. There's a reason why Darrin and Wild Cobra stopped posting on this thread, and that's because you have to argue against fact, logic, and common sense, when you defend dogma.

Why are you quoting my post when you\re not responding to it.

[mingus]

Einstein wasn't a Jew in any kind of religious sense. Are you serious? And Obama's a Muslim.

He wasn't an observant Jew. However he went to a Catholic elementary school and was probably morally influenced by Judeo-Christianity.

[baseline bum]

He wasn't an observant Jew. However he went to a Catholic elementary school and was probably morally influenced by Judeo-Christianity.

You're really stretching there.

[LnGrrrR]

Obama was raised with a Muslin education. Now that doesn't mean he is one, but silly shit slips out on occasion like "57 states."

Does that mean you were raised Muslim too? Afterall, a lot of silly shit slips out of your lips too.

[Wild Cobra]

Does that mean you were raised Muslim too? Afterall, a lot of silly shit slips out of your lips too.
Ahhh...

My silly shit gets people thinking and agitated...

[RandomGuy]

Ahhh...

My silly shit gets people thinking and agitated...

Meh. Not really.

The misstatement by a clearly fatigued guy on a brutal campaign schedule is exactly news only to those who want to find a reason, however flimsy, to say unflattering things about the guy.

I am neither agitated nor thinking, other than a mental roll of the eyes at how some people will believe the stupidest shit when it fits into their worldview.

[DarkReign]

Divorce rate is a benchmark when it's happening at 50% rate. Anyway, I
don't dislike divorce. I dislike the preventable things leading up to it. That's what I take issue with.

Who are you to say that if Women's Liberation happened in 1860/1760 instead of 1960, that a 50% divorce rate isnt normal?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the religious slant you see in a very young divorce rate has absolutely zero correlation?

Divorce Rate != Religious Degradation

Shit, the divorce rate might not even be directly related to Women's Lib, but I believe it is and would think that correlates better to it than any religious fantasies.

[RandomGuy]

Who are you to say that if Women's Liberation happened in 1860/1760 instead of 1960, that a 50% divorce rate isnt normal?

Has it occurred to you that maybe the religious slant you see in a very young divorce rate has absolutely zero correlation?

Divorce Rate != Religious Degradation

Shit, the divorce rate might not even be directly related to Women's Lib, but I believe it is and would think that correlates better to it than any religious fantasies.

I think it says a lot about how shitty fathers and mates many men turn out to be that, when finally given the ability/right to seperate from their spouses, many do.

These things go both ways, but given that women end up with the kids, and the biological imperative that mirrors, it would seem to make sense to me that was the reason for the higher current rate.

[Blake]

Ahhh...

My silly shit gets people thinking and agitated...

your silly shit has got people thinking you are a complete fool.

[Wild Cobra]

your silly shit has got people thinking you are a complete fool.
Yep, I have them fooled again!

[Winehole23]

muslin (http://dictionary.die.net/muslin)

[Wild Cobra]

muslin (http://dictionary.die.net/muslin)
LOL...

Damn "n" key must have jumped in front of the "m" key...

[Winehole23]

possible. cross reference "Muslin" with your username. i bet you get two or three hits.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4098106&postcount=19

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3597331&highlight=Muslin#post3597331

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3474525&postcount=51 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129006&highlight=Muslin&page=2)

[Wild Cobra]

Must be something I unconsciously do.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2824767&highlight=Muslin#post2824767

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2814347&highlight=Muslin#post2814347

[Winehole23]

Muslin, gabardine, Damask...

[DarkReign]

I think it says a lot about how shitty fathers and mates many men turn out to be that, when finally given the ability/right to seperate from their spouses, many do.

These things go both ways, but given that women end up with the kids, and the biological imperative that mirrors, it would seem to make sense to me that was the reason for the higher current rate.

Well put, thats exactly as I see it.

[Blake]

Yep, I have them fooled again!

such trickery.

You must fool everyone on every post.

[mingus]

I think it says a lot about how shitty fathers and mates many men turn out to be that, when finally given the ability/right to seperate from their spouses, many do.

These things go both ways, but given that women end up with the kids, and the biological imperative that mirrors, it would seem to make sense to me that was the reason for the higher current rate.

I think consumerism has entered the way men and women relate to eachother. People don't appreciate what they have. Brains are wired so that we want a better version of what we have... I believe that's one factor. We want more when what we have is actually great.

There are shitty fathers and mothers, but there's a reason they are shitty fathers and mothers. I don't believe you're born a shitty father or mother. I believe you succumb to cultural pressures which make you that way. Christianity can play a big part in preventing that.

[Blake]

I think consumerism has entered the way men and women relate to eachother. People don't appreciate what they have. Brains are wired so that we want a better version of what we have... I believe that's one factor. We want more when what we have is actually great.

wanting more has been around for pretty much forever.


There are shitty fathers and mothers, but there's a reason they are shitty fathers and mothers. I don't believe you're born a shitty father or mother. I believe you succumb to cultural pressures which make you that way. Christianity can play a big part in preventing that.

Plenty of shitty christian fathers and mothers.

Plenty of great christian fathers and mothers that still end up with shitty kids.

Plenty of non-religious people in the exact same boat.

Shittiness can be avoided as easy with or without the 'help' of christianity.

[Blake]

I can't think of one aspect of life that one can point to and say "thanks to Christianity, our society has moved forward."

I can think of many aspects of life that religion and Christianity have held society back.

[Winehole23]

I can think of many aspects of life that religion and Christianity have held society back. Like what?

[LnGrrrR]

I can't think of one aspect of life that one can point to and say "thanks to Christianity, our society has moved forward."

Art and sanitation are two off the top of my head.

[ElNono]

For a while there, they certainly put a stop to advancing the sciences.

Galileo and heresy come to mind.

[DarkReign]

The net benefit of religion cannot be denied, but to overlook its glaring mistakes and weaknesses is entirely too much to condone.

Example: The Dark Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29)

Historians today, according to the link, a trying to research whether in fact the Church was as coercive as is commonly thought. So much so that saying the "Dark Age" would apparently offend any historian in the vicinity.

Seeing as there is a dearth of writing, literature and art from the time period, I will pull a Wild Cobra here and truly only believe the known writings of the time. Numerous writers of the time cite the weight applied by the Church in all walks of life.

That historians may clarify how much that weight was and to what degree was it applied is irrelevant to the core tenant that the weight did in fact exist and that it was used to suppress information and theory that ran contrary to religious doctrine as the Church deemed necessary.

Even much later, Newton wasnt immune to the pressures of possible/perceived religious backlash associated with his seminal work(s).

Whether you would like to lay blame at the feet of the Church itself, or the zeitgeist of the religiously influenced culture being told something contradictory and fearing it is, IMO, a rather unimportant detail in net effect.

But again, religion taken as whole, surely benefited European culture more than it hurt it. I would not argue that.

But the point will always stand that it never had to have a negative effect in any way whatsoever had power and wealth not corrupted the stewards of religion.

No man, no organization should want to or even attempt to hold power over death and by proxy, God. That this compulsion even exists, for me, immediately alerts my inner cynic to the end of these means.

[DarkReign]

Art and sanitation are two off the top of my head.

From a strictly European perspective, sanitation was a Roman invention (which might have been completely lifted from the Greeks, but I do not know).

If youre saying the Church re-instituted its importance, I would agree to some very small extent.

[LnGrrrR]

From a strictly European perspective, sanitation was a Roman invention (which might have been completely lifted from the Greeks, but I do not know).

If youre saying the Church re-instituted its importance, I would agree to some very small extent.

I believe (could be wrong) there are some passages about cleanliness in there that were ahead of their time.

[Blake]

Like what?

as El Nono mentioned, science for one.

slavery: in an effort to defend their rights to have slaves, the Confederate Constitution 'invoked the favor of God Almighty'. Some Southern preachers said slavery was God's punishment for their African paganism.

women: the Bible and other religions establish the man to have superiority over the woman instead of total equality and it is obviously something that has helped hinder women's rights movements

politically: yeah.

[Blake]

Art and sanitation are two off the top of my head.

Art, literature, and music. Ok.

Sanitation? Pretty sure necessity, not religion, that pushed it forward.

[DMX7]

Obama was raised with a Muslin education. Now that doesn't mean he is one, but silly shit slips out on occasion like "57 states."

A "Muslin" education? Are you saying he was a cotton picker? Your racism knows no limits.

[mingus]

For a while there, they certainly put a stop to advancing the sciences.

Galileo and heresy come to mind.

Galileo lived in an Era where the Catholic Church wielded too much control. It was directly involved on state affairs. I don't want a Roman Inquisition being instituted. The Catholic Church doesn't either. As I already stated, the Pope himself has accepted evolution as a reality. The Catholic church isn't stopping scientific inquiry.

The only thing I can think of which the Church opposes is the use of embryonic stem cells for research and other things. It interferes with the strong belief that life starts when egg and sperm fertilize.

[Winehole23]

Art and sanitation are two off the top of my head.Is religion holding it back now?

[Winehole23]

The net benefit of religion cannot be denied, but to overlook its glaring mistakes and weaknesses is entirely too much to condone.

Example: The Dark Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29)

Historians today, according to the link, a trying to research whether in fact the Church was as coercive as is commonly thought. So much so that saying the "Dark Age" would apparently offend any historian in the vicinity.

Seeing as there is a dearth of writing, literature and art from the time period, I will pull a Wild Cobra here and truly only believe the known writings of the time. Numerous writers of the time cite the weight applied by the Church in all walks of life.

That historians may clarify how much that weight was and to what degree was it applied is irrelevant to the core tenant that the weight did in fact exist and that it was used to suppress information and theory that ran contrary to religious doctrine as the Church deemed necessary.

Even much later, Newton wasnt immune to the pressures of possible/perceived religious backlash associated with his seminal work(s).

Whether you would like to lay blame at the feet of the Church itself, or the zeitgeist of the religiously influenced culture being told something contradictory and fearing it is, IMO, a rather unimportant detail in net effect.

But again, religion taken as whole, surely benefited European culture more than it hurt it. I would not argue that.

But the point will always stand that it never had to have a negative effect in any way whatsoever had power and wealth not corrupted the stewards of religion.

No man, no organization should want to or even attempt to hold power over death and by proxy, God. That this compulsion even exists, for me, immediately alerts my inner cynic to the end of these means.Favored us with a bit of nuance, a bit of critical forbearance, and some readerly complexity in that post. DarkReign continues to impress.

[Winehole23]

as El Nono mentioned, science for one.

slavery: in an effort to defend their rights to have slaves, the Confederate Constitution 'invoked the favor of God Almighty'. Some Southern preachers said slavery was God's punishment for their African paganism.

women: the Bible and other religions establish the man to have superiority over the woman instead of total equality and it is obviously something that has helped hinder women's rights movements

politically: yeah.The beef that religion is down on women and warps politics seems to have legs, but what about slavery and science? Is religion still a big oppressor in those two areas?

[ElNono]

Galileo lived in an Era where the Catholic Church wielded too much control.


The beef that religion is down on women and warps politics seems to have legs, but what about slavery and science? Is religion still a big oppressor in those two areas?

Blake's point was that he could point out areas where 'aspects of life that religion and Christianity have held society back'.

I concur that currently the power they wield is fairly minor compared to the past, but that doesn't mean they've not commanded much higher power in the past and have not been shy to use it to the detriment of science (thus my mention of Galileo and his charge of heresy).

Contemporarily speaking, while it's true that stem cell research is one thing they oppose, and chicken shit politicians domestically would rather prioritize catering to a segment of the electorate than the advancement of that part of science, such restrictions don't exist on other countries, and thus the advancement can continue there. Another testament to the diminished influence the church has these days.

[DarkReign]

The beef that religion is down on women and warps politics seems to have legs, but what about slavery and science? Is religion still a big oppressor in those two areas?

ElNono already touched on it, but to reiterate, religion's role in Western culture is about where it needs to be today. In the very back of the bus.

Unfortunately, if you limit the subject to only the USA, it isnt back of the bus.

Does religion and the religious hold back art, science and advancement today? No, no, no.

But I would contend that here in the States, religious people do waste a lot of people's time and science's effort trying to change education in this country.

Side note; I always seemed to chuckle about the ID vs Evolution debate because ultimately the end user of the debate were/are children. Science proponents dont care who reads, writes or teaches their theories and laws. ID/Creationists on the other hand, have their sights set strictly on the children of this country. Early education and introduction to ID and its principles.

Seems rather obvious to me what theyre attempting, and it isnt the merits of debate on the subject. Spell brainwashing.

[LnGrrrR]

Is religion holding it back now?

I think you misread my post. Those were two things I think religion advanced.

[Winehole23]

My bad, LNGR.

[Proxy]

The beef that religion is down on women and warps politics seems to have legs, but what about slavery and science? Is religion still a big oppressor in those two areas?

Of course. It's done in a more subtle fashion. One could argue that it oppresses indirectly. You could say that religion oppresses intellect, thus leading to the naivety of the hive-mind. In that, the oppression of women and science, and the warped views of politics and slavery, stem from.

[RandomGuy]

BTW Lenski's experiment still continues... his current E. coli cultures have reproduced somewhere beyond 50,000 generations from their starting point... That said, the bacteria are all still E. coli and the notable 'change' that allowed his cultures to begin digesting citrate were fully manifest by the 31,500 generation (even if they progressively happened in steps)...

...Think about that for a second [we've done this exercise before]... A couple of genes in an asexual organism were altered after 31,500 generations...

If humans were able to "add" two (or being generous, three) beneficial genes to their genome at this rate, and if we conservatively considered a human generation to be all of 20 years (again generously) then under single lineage dynamics humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!

Ummm… that presents quite the conundrum for the accepted evolutionary timeframe of human lineage… especially when one considers there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome… and if it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…

[I know RG will tweak the math and make it all conveniently feasible…]






You mean tweak it like you tweaked it to make it conveniently *unfeasible*?

Let's dissect this here, as I think it is pretty symbolic of the kind and quality of arguments being made.

Facts stated:

1) "Two genes were altered in an asexual organism after 31,500 generations"
2) "there are over 40 million differences between our genome and the chimpanzee ‘next-of-kin’ genome…"
3) "it’s generally accepted that our lineages broke apart only 6 million years ago…"

Assumptions made to complete calculation:


1) Humans and bacteria mutate (add beneficial mutations) at the same generational rate, or 50% more (3 mutations as opposed to 2)
2) a human generation to be all of 20 years

Calculation:
20*31500= 630,000


humans would be able to add three beneficial genes to their genome every ~600,000 years!!!
I will grant, assumption #2, and fact #3.

The rest of it, will require some facts to be confirmed to fully see if this calculation has been "tweaked". I think the fatal assumption in this calculation is the first one, that an asexual bacteria will mutate as fast, generationally speaking, as a sexually reproducing (vive la difference!) human being. It is a very messy, flawed assumption, as far as I can tell.

Bullshit has been called. Back up fact 1 and 2, and show me on what you base assumption 1.

We will see who is tweaking what.

(edit)
Although it is ultimately YOUR responsibility to back up YOUR claims and assertions. If you can't, or won't, try after a few days, I will do so myself, so don't bitch at me for getting something wrong, when you can't be bothered to back up your claims.

So, going all the way back to this, I will take PM's word that the physical copy of the article he has in his office, different than the online version, supplied him with the figure. So we have fact 3 supported, in some round about way.

PM has also in some round about way stated that bacteria will mutate at a rate much faster than humans for a few reasons, on a per generation basis in any given single lineage. This will make his calculation a bit "generous". I will accede this, as I can buy his given reasons.

Now we get to the difference between "beneficial mutation" and "mutation".

The calculation here concerns "beneficial".

"Beneficial" had a very specific meaning in Lenski's experiment. It meant one thing, and one thing only. Did it increase the ability of the bacteria to reproduce on a medium with citric acid, and digest it.

If that were the ONLY "beneficial" trait that affected genes, that might mean something.

How many other "beneficial" genes were introduced that were not considered part of the experiment?

The environment determines what is "beneficial" and what isn't, for both humans and bacteria.

Evolutionary theory states that selective pressures are the other shaper of change.

Lenski very actively selected for only one trait.

Did past human environments only select for ONE trait and the genes that affected that trait?

Did the bacteria exibit other changes that would, in a more complex environment have also changed genes?

PM himself acknowledged that mutations happen all the time at VERY high rates for bacteria.

(repost, don't want it to get missed/buried) Gotta get going.

It would seem PM has abandoned his defense if this turd sandwich.

[mingus]

ElNono already touched on it, but to reiterate, religion's role in Western culture is about where it needs to be today. In the very back of the bus.

Unfortunately, if you limit the subject to only the USA, it isnt back of the bus.

Does religion and the religious hold back art, science and advancement today? No, no, no.

But I would contend that here in the States, religious people do waste a lot of people's time and science's effort trying to change education in this country.

Side note; I always seemed to chuckle about the ID vs Evolution debate because ultimately the end user of the debate were/are children. Science proponents dont care who reads, writes or teaches their theories and laws. ID/Creationists on the other hand, have their sights set strictly on the children of this country. Early education and introduction to ID and its principles.

Seems rather obvious to me what theyre attempting, and it isnt the merits of debate on the subject. Spell brainwashing.

at some point people are going to either believe or not going to believe and it's going to come from something other than brainwashing, but actual life experience. i've felt the presence of God in my life. i was lucky, it happened without me even looking for God. before i was a non-believer. some people have to actively look for God. anyway, i made the choice to believe in God after that. apparently you haven't encountered God. or maybe you have but you'll do anything to deny it (since that's the cool thing to do these days). if you're anything like i was before (hard-nosed a athiest) you probably won't look for God either. i don't know. i'm not going to be a condescending ass about it though and call you brainwashed for not believing in God. you have your reasons for your position and i have mine.

[baseline bum]

Side note; I always seemed to chuckle about the ID vs Evolution debate because ultimately the end user of the debate were/are children. Science proponents dont care who reads, writes or teaches their theories and laws. ID/Creationists on the other hand, have their sights set strictly on the children of this country. Early education and introduction to ID and its principles.

Seems rather obvious to me what theyre attempting, and it isnt the merits of debate on the subject. Spell brainwashing.

If you were a full-grown adult and it was your first time hearing it, would you believe someone could be born of a virgin, die, rot and stink for 3 days, and then... abracadabra, he's back!? Would anyone believe he could survive his own death if he was first told this beyond the age where older people are to be obeyed?

[mingus]

If you were a full-grown adult and it was your first time hearing it, would you believe someone could be born of a virgin, die, rot and stink for 3 days, and then... abracadabra, he's back!? Would anyone believe he could survive his own death if he was first told this beyond the age where older people are to be obeyed?

It sounds crazy, but life after death isn't that crazy of a concept at all. Plenty of people have encountered spirits, or ectoplasms or whatever you want to call it. Hear me out, because I thought it was all bullshit until something happened to me.

I was brushing my teeth in the public restroom of a college dormitory at night when behind me I feel this presence of something run past me. I looked behind me only to see nothing. I didn't even believe in ghosts before, but I knew what had ran by me was a a ghost. I eventually found out from the staff working there that a kid died in that restroom I don't know how many years before. He slipped and hit his head in the shower.

Am I just brainwashed? Is that going to be the explenation to everything one experiences that cant be corroborated with evidence. If your looking for empirical evidence to answer questions about God or the immaterial you're not going to find them. It's faith. You're obviously going to have to make leaps of faith. But are they sensical leaps of faith? From my own they are I think.

[redzero]

Plenty of people have encountered spirits, or ectoplasms or whatever you want to call it.

Oh really? Is there any evidence of this besides stupid stories?


I didn't even believe in ghosts before, but I knew what had ran by me was a a ghost.

No, you don't.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Plenty of people have encountered spirits, or ectoplasms or whatever you want to call it.
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Like what?
Hmmm lets see, because of the Church, scientists were discriminated against for nutty, "Satanic" views like the Earth being round and the Earth rotating around the Sun.

If the Church had its way, we'd still believe the world was flat and Planet Earth was the center of the Universe.

[Blake]

It sounds crazy, but life after death isn't that crazy of a concept at all. Plenty of people have encountered spirits, or ectoplasms or whatever you want to call it. Hear me out, because I thought it was all bullshit until something happened to me.

I was brushing my teeth in the public restroom of a college dormitory at night when behind me I feel this presence of something run past me. I looked behind me only to see nothing. I didn't even believe in ghosts before, but I knew what had ran by me was a a ghost. I eventually found out from the staff working there that a kid died in that restroom I don't know how many years before. He slipped and hit his head in the shower.

Am I just brainwashed? Is that going to be the explenation to everything one experiences that cant be corroborated with evidence. If your looking for empirical evidence to answer questions about God or the immaterial you're not going to find them. It's faith. You're obviously going to have to make leaps of faith. But are they sensical leaps of faith? From my own they are I think.

Lol dying and going to a dorm