Victory for evolution in Texas

**Blake** · 08-01-2011

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

No . 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** · 08-01-2011

Originally Posted by mingus

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** · 08-01-2011

Originally Posted by 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 ing 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 ing 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 bull , 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 subs ute 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** · 08-02-2011

Originally Posted by 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 ing 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 ing 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 bull , 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 subs ute 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** · 08-02-2011

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

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

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/da...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 iden y 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 at udes 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** · 08-02-2011

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** · 08-02-2011

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Proxy** · 08-02-2011

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 08-02-2011

Originally Posted by baseline bum

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 slips out on occasion like "57 states."

**Proxy** · 08-02-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Obama was raised with a Muslin education. Now that doesn't mean he is one, but silly 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** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

This again?

Really?

**mingus** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by Proxy

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** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by baseline bum

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** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by mingus

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** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

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

**Wild Cobra** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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

Ahhh...

My silly gets people thinking and agitated...

**RandomGuy** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Ahhh...

My silly 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 when it fits into their worldview.

**DarkReign** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by 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.

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

, 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** · 08-03-2011

Originally Posted by DarkReign

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

, 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 ty 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.