Jump to content

Smart people don't believe in god...


Recommended Posts

i dont think faramir was saying that the evolutioanary theory had no merit, i think he was saying that it wasnt godless.

 

There is no evidence of any inteligent design on evolution.

 

Some times evolution screws up, the dinos for examples were (almost) wiped out because of radical enviroment changes and died out, if there was a God that knows all and had a hand in evolution he surely would have made then evolve in order to survive.

 

Unless he left then died because its "God's plans" with is nothing but a excuse when "theories" about God being behind something fall apart.

 

Unless, of course, "God" could not care less ...

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Metadigital:  "Your literacy notwithstanding, I find christianity in general a patronising social contruct. Defending it merely impoverishes your credibility: why aren't women permitted to be Bishops? (Let alone homosexuals -- didn't Jesus preach inclusion -- prostitutes, tax collectors, gentiles, anyone except gays?)"

 

How odd that you talk about the intolerance of Christianity and how exclusive it is to others and then make a statement that cannot be taken as anything other than divisive.  I've not been so arrogant as to expect other to "defend" their religion or lack thereof.  I need not defend my faith.  I am more than willing, however, to discuss it.  If you desire contrition, then you will find yourself unfulfilled.  If you desire a rational, cordial discussion, then I am glad to comply.

My apologies for seeming to target only Christianity. I lay the blame for intolerance at the feet of all fundamentalists (whether religious or not), and I brook no syllogism from them. (A fundamentalist I define a someone who is convinced that they are right beyond all doubt. That is too close to thought-police for my liking.)

 

The skewing of the thread towards Christianity is more indicative of the collective backgrounds of the posters, rather than the relative comporable merits of religions, per se.

 

For the record, I am aware that one of the main reasons for the anti-homosexual stance of the (African) Christian Church is due to the direct confrontation with Islam and -- I'm sad to say -- the race to appeal to the baser, lowest-common-denominator instincts of the laity.

 

My main bugbear with the ORGANISATION known as the Christian Church (to follow up one of FarimirK's earlier comments about the Christian God being a personal one and not any form of theocracy) is the inherrent and blatant hypocrisy. Not to start a holy war ( <_< ) about birth control, but the Catholic church stance is, at best, counter-productive and, at worst, horrifically nasty when it is applied to the developing world; where starvation and fatal illness of millions is preferable to using contraception? The absolute position on abstenance is commendable (and I agree with it in principle, but I also think Marx had a fabulous thought experiment in Communism -- and look how that worked out). In sum, the Church is no better (or worse) than any other totalitarian regime.

 

... Who is of stronger convictions?  The one who tolerates the opposition and actively supports their right to government protection from violent bigots, or the one who angrily and provocatively attacks your beliefs and hates everything you stand for enough to seek that your religion and beliefs are banned?

Can't argue with that: I am a believer in your philosophy, FarimirK! :lol: John Stuart Mill was a visionary.

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no evidence of any inteligent design on evolution.

 

There is evidence that evolution couldn't happen by chance, and it's adherrant's are beginning to outnumber the atheists, because atheism is morally bankrupt, and chance evolution is unscientific.

 

Some times evolution screws up

 

You can't personify evolution if you believe it's random. Your statement alludes to intelligent (dramatic) manipulation of nature...

 

Unless he left then died because its "God's plans" with is nothing but a excuse when "theories" about God being behind something fall apart.

 

Open deism, I believe its called.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "faith" on the evolution process, there is supporting evidence as for evolutionary process that happening by sheer chance that is incorrect since evolution is the adaptation (and expecialization) of life forms to their enviroment and there is no "sheer chance" on that, if a species grows wings there is a reason for it.

That is false. There is faith in the evolution process in that since it's not a law you have to assume it's correct in order to draw any conclusions from it.

 

And while neo-evolutionism seems a pretty solid theory, science has as of yet been unable to explain the mechanisms and processes that led to the conception of the first living being from organic compounds. Hell, they can't even agree what is truly alive and what is merely a complex set of chemical reactions.

 

I know you hate to see yourself as a believer, but you are one. Science is your religion. But perhaps you should know your religion a little better before lunging forward like that. :lol:

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What species grew wings?  None. 

 

How about ALL or you think they come out of the ocean with a pair of wings already developed?

 

Bats are mammals and they have wings and fosil evidence shows the first mammals were wingless.

 

Oh boy...

 

Finding a fossil of a wingless mammal older than one of a bat does not prove mammals grew wings by random mutation!

 

Random mutation of genetic code to produce wings in a wingless animal is a fairy-tale! There is no proof or even evidence...just faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we dont know the origin of the first cell organisms.

 

We are making some progress with now finding cell life in another planets (and moons) but there is still the question how they got there in the first place and how it end up on Earth.

 

The problem with religion is what its not know its God that made it as science says "we dont know" and goes looking for the anwer.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh boy...

 

Finding a fossil of a wingless mammal older than one of a bat does not prove mammals grew wings by random mutation!

 

Random mutation of genetic code to produce wings in a wingless animal is a fairy-tale!  There is no proof or even evidence...just faith.

 

Few mammals have wings, bats are the best known example and a successeful species.

 

Now go read this.

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/...Evolution.shtml

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we dont know the origin of the first cell organisms.

 

We are making some progress with now finding cell life in another planets (and moons) but there is still the question how they got there in the first place and how it end up on Earth.

 

The problem with religion is what its not know its God that made it as science says "we dont know" and goes looking for the anwer.

 

That's an awful generalisation. You'll find plenty of religious people who when they come across something they don't know, go and find out how God did it. So many of our greatest scientists were religious, how can you possibly say such a thing? You are seeing a conflict where there is none at all, much like religious fundamentalists do.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is too close to thought-police for my liking.

 

Why? I don't understand? Is it really that hard for people to have an exclusive moral belief and a tolerant social action?

 

Thats practically my mantra...unshakeable faith in my religion and ultimate tolerance towards anyone who opposes it.

 

The skewing of the thread towards Christianity is more indicative of the collective backgrounds of the posters, rather than the relative comporable merits of religions, per se.

 

FarimirK's earlier comments about the Christian God being a personal one and not any form of theocracy) is the inherrent and blatant hypocrisy.

 

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches heirarchy are based on Imperial systems borrowed from Rome, not biblical truth.

 

The absolute position on abstenance is commendable.

 

In countries with STD infection off the map (like Russia), waiting to find someone to settledown with (married or no) is the safest way to avoid infection. If you decide to take the risk, then please use contraceptives...the catholic ban on such things are not found in the bible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... but it could all be part of god's plan.

 

I'm an atheist but at the same time i dont feel the need to disprove the existence of god to those who believe in such a being.

 

And its people like you, who totally disagree with my beliefs and yet tolerate my right to hold them, that build free, happy societies...

Link to post
Share on other sites
What species grew wings?  None.  Or at least none who's fossils we've found.  Many species have lost things (cave fish have eyes but are born blind, wingless beetles on small islands identical to winged beetles on the continents etc.)

 

There is no good scientific reason to believe that an animal can "create" new systems from scratch, by chance.  This too is taken in faith by atheistic evolutionists.

FarimirK, you are wandering into dangerous territory.

Aercheopterix is one of the first proto-birds (common arcestor of modern birds), with some proto-feathers and other bird-like features on its mainly reptilian body.

 

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have a common ancestor with modern cows, which they left behind when they returned to the sea about 15 million years ago.

 

Furthermore, during the development in untero the foetus develops wings, a tail and gills, before these are abandoned.

 

There is evidence that evolution couldn't happen by chance, and it's adherrant's are beginning to outnumber the atheists, because atheism is morally bankrupt, and chance evolution is unscientific.

Morally bankrupt? Not necessarily. Morally self-managed, perhaps. But Humanism is within the umbrella of atheism, and it is most certainly not morally bankrupt. Watch your generalisations, please. :)

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an awful generalisation.  You'll find plenty of religious people who when they come across something they don't know, go and find out how God did it.  So many of our greatest scientists were religious, how can you possibly say such a thing?  You are seeing a conflict where there is none at all, much like religious fundamentalists do.

 

How God did it?

 

Sorry but religion anwer was that God did the unknown, we did not know how life come to exist and so religion anwer was that God did it.

 

I can understand why faith is needed, it can be a confort when facing the unknown that is death.

 

When Dino fossils were found there was quite a rackus about it since God would simply not allow mass extinctions (now we see indications of a mass extinctions circle) and fossils were said to be of the giants that died in the flood.

drakron.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an awful generalisation.  You'll find plenty of religious people who when they come across something they don't know, go and find out how God did it.  So many of our greatest scientists were religious, how can you possibly say such a thing?  You are seeing a conflict where there is none at all, much like religious fundamentalists do.

 

How God did it?

 

Sorry but religion anwer was that God did the unknown, we did not know how life come to exist and so religion anwer was that God did it.

 

I'm religious. I'm giving you an answer based on my religious beliefs. Therefore, the answer I gave you is one possible religious answer. If the Supreme Being meant for us to sit around and say "God did it" without looking that the hows and whys, she wouldn't have given us such large brains and inquisitive minds. To do anything less than pursue the answers to those questions relentlessly is to defy that apparent purpose.

Especially when there is as many religions as there are people, insisting that all religions and religious people have only one answer is frankly silly.

 

I can understand why faith is needed, it can be a confort when facing the unknown that is death.

My faith has nothing to do with death. In fact, my religion is almost entirely silent on the afterlife. I don't need faith for death, I'm enjoying my life on Earth.

 

When Dino fossils were found there was quite a rackus about it since God would simply not allow mass extinctions (now we see indications of a mass extinctions circle) and fossils were said to be of the giants that died in the flood.

 

God would allow mass extinctions. Some people would say God wouldn't, but said people do not speak for all religious people, or even for all Christians. You are generalising to completely pointless extents, and are slandering a great many religious people.

Hawk! Eggplant! AWAKEN!

Link to post
Share on other sites
FarimirK, you are wandering into dangerous territory.

Aercheopterix is one of the first proto-birds (common arcestor of modern birds), with some proto-feathers and other bird-like features on its mainly reptilian body.

 

It's a pretty functional bird, albeit unique in its one right. It's wings are fully formed, so thats no proof of some transformation from wingless to winged.

 

Cetaceans (whales and dolphins) have a common ancestor with modern cows,

 

There are no fossils of animals between "specialized aquatic animal" and "specialized land mammal", so the link is theoretically possible but unfounded.

 

Using an atheistic evolutionist's rational (with a hint of satire) we could assume that hedgehogs and cactus are also cousins, since they are similar too.

 

Morally bankrupt? Not necessarily.

 

Well, most of the "moral" atheists I met grew up in a very watered down judeo-christian environment where you are generally expected to treat life with dignity. With Atheism comes the mandate that there is no authority higher than you - and that is very, very dangerous.

 

Morally self-managed, perhaps.

 

Yeah, I was part of one of those experiments, thanks. Morality based on Mob-rule majority? No thanks. All the research myself and others have done on social behaviour within a group shows that in a group, people no longer feel personally responsible, because they're "just carrying out orders", and "everyone else is doing it".

 

That is why I wish some country would write a constitution in stone that said "Life is sacred above all, Life is to be free from civil regulation of thought, speech and non-violent action", and then let me move there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
... There are no fossils of animals between "specialized aquatic animal" and "specialized land mammal", so the link is theoretically possible but unfounded.

 

Using an atheistic evolutionist's rational (with a hint of satire) we could assume that hedgehogs and cactus are also cousins, since they are similar too.

Now you're just being silly. There is plenty of corroborating evidence for the gradual and externally-driven change of evolution: radio carbon dating, commonalities in the genetic sequence, language development, disease patterns, celestial bombardments, seismic activity, etc etc.

 

It might help to simplify evolution for our purposes by looking at life that has a shorter lifespan so that many orders of generations can be observed during human history: bacteria have an average lifespan of forty minutes and fruit flies have a lifespan of a couple of days. This allows us to see Darwinian survival of the fittest -- even MRSA is just plain old garden variety Staphylococcus Aureus that has evolved to be resistant to the panacea treatment used by hospitals (methicillin).

... I wish some country would write a constitution in stone that said "Life is sacred above all, Life is to be free from civil regulation of thought, speech and non-violent action", and then let me move there.

Revolution! Who's with us?

OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS

ingsoc.gif

OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before you again find your self in error, this is the second time you have both mis-read my posts and sought to put me down as irrational...I assume your silence regarding my correction of your reply to my argument on marriage in society means you agree you mis-read?

 

nope, i just realised that we will never agree on homosexuality and adoption rights and stuff like that... :)

 

i'll comment on the rest of this post later

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is for weaklings who need to believe in fairy tales to survive.

 

I take reality as it is. And I don't see any evidences for the existence of catholic God.

 

It is all matter of indoctrination. Millions of intelligent people belive in god only becouse their families raised them in that belief.

 

There is a lot of work before we'll return to the age of enlightenment.

 

The only reason that you can drive cars and play video games today is decisive blow that Voltaire and other philosophers inflicted on church 300 years ago. Church wanted to stop time and celebrate middle ages for eternity. You are free thanks to atheists.

HERMOCRATES:

Nur Ab Sal was one such king. He it was, say the wise men of Egypt, who first put men in the colossus, making many freaks

of nature at times when the celestial spheres were well aligned.

 

SOCRATES:

This I doubt. We are hearing a child's tale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Atheistic Evolution is what I was taught in school, primarily to re-emphasise that there was no guiding hand in creation, as opposed to (for example) Theistic Evolution, which states that a god used evolution to create."

 

Could you please summarise what exactly were you taught? I'm not quite getting what "atheistic evolution" could be.

9/30 -- NEVER FORGET!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Religion is for weaklings who need to believe in fairy tales to survive.

 

Lol you sound like some kind of movie villain :):lol:

 

i would assume that theistic evolution is guided by god whereas atheistic happens on its own/by chance/ whatever method you deem to be the most godless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only religion that shouldn't be banned is a religion of tolerance.

 

This unofficial religion was praised by many great men like Voltaire or some arab philosophers or by Thomas Jefferson.

 

We are surrounded by broken shells of christianity and other superstitions but dominant mental form today is tolerance and thanks to it you can evolve freely.

HERMOCRATES:

Nur Ab Sal was one such king. He it was, say the wise men of Egypt, who first put men in the colossus, making many freaks

of nature at times when the celestial spheres were well aligned.

 

SOCRATES:

This I doubt. We are hearing a child's tale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nope, i just realised that we will never agree on homosexuality and adoption rights and stuff like that... :)

 

I'd still be interested in hearing your opinion. You are correct that we will probably never agree morally on Homosexuality, but as far as your opinion on the purpose of marriage/child raising in a modern free society, fire away. I can't see any vaild reason for adoption of children by a married gay couple. If you have some, please share.

 

My basic argument is this:

 

Homosexual relationships should be protected from persecution in a free society.

 

Homosexual and heterosexual relationships based on love/companionship etc are different from Family Building which is exclusively heterosexual, simply because thats how human reproduction functions.

 

Question out of real curiosity...

 

Why does the gay rights movement want to synthetically copy heterosexual marriage?

 

The Ancient Greeks and Romans were open to homosexuality, and they never confused marriage with homosexuality.

 

Thoughts?

 

Please don't flame, I am obviously not a homophobe...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I've always thought that homosexuality was a bad basis on which to judge someone else's morality. First of all, I think it's dangerous to judge someone else's morality in the first place, but homosexuality is a particularly bad basis for drawing conclussions. ...And I believe that regarding homosexuality regardless of whether it is a lifestyle choice or a genetic predisposition. Why? Because homosexuality, if it is a sin, has minor impact on the community. Civilizations have had more or less tolerance over the history of mankind and still we have thrived as a species. Why should I see homosexuality as a serious threat to either morals or survival?

 

However, I will say that the Greeks and Romans didn't have a no holds barred approach to homosexuality. Mostly, if you were the penetrator, then there was nothing wrong. However, if you were the penetrated, then there certainly was a stigma attached to your name.

 

Nevertheless, if I were going to pass judgement on ancient Greek culture, I would say that the practice of 30+ year old men marrying girls in their early or even pre-teens was worse. What of that, though? It's something despicable to our age, but the Greeks had a flourishing society and a vast treasure of literary and philosophical works. What are we to think of a civilization that is long gone but provided the foundation for so many academic principles of our own day?

 

BTW: we had a measure here in California regarding gay marriage. I voted that homosexuals should have the right to marry. That's not my true belief, however. I think gays and lesbians should have the the obligation to marry if they are to get the same treatment as other married couples. I see marriage as a civil, rather than religious, arrangement at any rate. For that reason, I don't see why I should care if two men or two women get married. If they do, then I hope for the best for them.

Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community:  Happy Holidays

 

Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:
Obsidian Plays


 
Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris.  Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...