Someone else asked the question: Do Christians accept evolution, and it occured to me that whether or not evolution accepts Christians would be the more relevant question. Will natural selection eliminate those too rigid in their beliefs to adapt?
I'm an unapologetic atheist, but I truthfully don't understand threads which exist for the sole purpose of mocking Christians. It merely confirms to them that we are exactly the type of derisory, condescending jackasses that they suspect we are.
But not mocking their nonsense leaves us the same situation that Liberal politics faces, it is reasonable and useful and does not attack with the same venom and lies - and in the end, if it gains any ascendancy, the opposition murder the leader!
And I will own up to being an irritating t**t but not a Jackass I think
I actually saw the OP as a clever twist, and it raises a good point
But I am not kidding. I didn't precisely spell it out, but the group I meant was the fundamentalist evangelical who will accept nothing but a literal bible and an inerrant bible and speaking with them is a lost cause as they reject any information from any source that disagrees with their beliefs.
I really do wonder if that group is too stupid to survive because of their rigid belief systems. Intelligence is the ability to adapt.
It is a legitimate question.
no it isn't a legitimate question it only reveals where you come from and what you're made of. You live to twist things around and manipulate them to your whims. You are a nonconformist, a rebel, a dishonest logician and fervently so to your credit, sir, i admire your tenacity.
evolution cannot make wise decisions. It does not have keen insights into the future. There are no laws or intellect (other than God) that governed the evolution of my highly developed eye over the optical spot on a flat worm. My brain does not expand because it thinks that it should or its time.
mankind may eliminate the christian as some of us are being killed in countries today, of course so are black people and hispanic and whites, but this is not natural selection it is a genocide, a racist effect. The holocaust of the ww2 nearly eliminated the jewish people but did not.. so did natural selection save them? did it bring them back? How does natural selection pertain to the christian then? does your question come into force when we are all gone or when only a few remain?
Natural selection is a term derived from looking back over a set of circumstances and arranging them into an order that means something to the organizer. But this does not make it reality or truth or a living entity.
Some may say the animals that roamed the earth were color blind, seeing only gray plants and not green therefore the gray plants were eaten and the green ones survived the evolutionary process.
the evolutionary process is invented. There may not even be factual evidence for a color blind animal and what about other animals, where they all color blind? or were the gray ones just tastier and smelled better. some animals eat more than others perhaps this is the migratory path of a herd of hippobuffalomooses. :0)
Mankind often fools itself with conjured theories to explain things that he sees but doesn't understand how or why.
"evolution doesn't make wise choices...insights into future" - cancer is a striking example of that - cancer cells multiply quickly, even though it kills the body
(Natural selection is a term derived from looking back over a set of circumstances and arranging them into an order that means something to the organizer.)
You are factually wrong in your claim. Natural selection means nothing to the orgnizer but means much to a population. Take the moths of London as a simple example. Naturally they were either dark or light colored, but as the Industrial revolution spread dark soot across the London landscape, the light-colored moths became easier to be spotted by the birds that ate them while the dark-colored moths became more difficult for the birds to see.
Over time, the population of light-colored was eliminated. That was natural selection at work.
It has to do with gene pools and heredity.
so what are you saying.. natural selection doomed a percentage of london moths? I said it was a fancy term to explain something and you backed me up i think.
Mankind often fools itself with conjured theories to explain things that he sees but doesn't understand how or why.
your words are perfectly true...exactly that is reason why religion exist...since mankind can't understand how and why , it creates religion...
Nobody created the bible except God. The inner part of man knows there is something else beyond this world. When God breathed life into man this awareness was part of that package of life.
God is not the conjured theory i was talking about. Indeed just the opposite. To believe in God is to see through all this muck and mire and behold the truth. There is truth in the bible, tons of it. One is not fooled by your turning about my words.
Jesus, God and christ likeness are the only truths, all other theories are mans attempt to explain things without admitting God.
people wrote the bible - you just happen to believe that it was inspired by god because it makes that claim about itself
@hanging out what about quran?...according to muslims it is god sent..now we can't say one book is god sent because 33% believe in that while another is not because 24% believe in that...
You are a terrific example of how one can so easily see the delusions of other beliefs yet fail to see the self-delusions of his own belief.
Do you believe an angel named Moroni appeared to a man in the U.S. and provided him with "seer stones" so he could read golden tablets? No? Then you easily see the nonsense of Mormon delusion.
Do you believe a man could have jumped on the back of a horse and fly to heaven and then back? No? Then you easily see the nonsense of the Islamic delusion.
Do you believe that a superbeing created himself as his own son in order to sacrifice himself to himself to save a world of inferior creatures from suffering an eternal punishment he could have eliminated with a snap of his fingers?
See. bubbles of delusion are much easier to penetrate from the outside - one inside the bubble, an invisible shield of rationalization makes the bubble almost impenetrable.
Good luck with that.
(Mankind often fools itself with conjured theories to explain things that he sees but doesn't understand how or why.)
Humans are terrific at creating agents to explain phenomena. This is why the creaking stairs at night is explained to onesself as a possible intruder (an agent) instead of simply being the result in a change in temperature. There is little in the way of negative consequences for error - when we mistake the coiled rope on the floor for a snake all we suffer is a little sudden fright, but if we ignore a real poisonous snake on the floor the consquences can be severe.
It is this agent-creating psychological need that causes humans to use gods as their explanations for the unknown. That is our view of the world, that agents cause actions based on personal motives, and so we apply these same characteristics to our invented god.
Genesis came close - man created gods in his image.
Btw, Chasuk, the title came as a play against the other thread, but if you notice the question, it says this:
Will natural selection eliminate those too rigid in their beliefs to adapt?
That is not limited to Christians - Fundamentalist Muslims would fit that description as well as would many Tea Partiers and just about every female ex-governor of Alaska I can think of. :-))
There is no doubt that monotheism is a "fad."
A couple thousand years in the ongoing evolution of the human species is less than a blink.
If it were possible for extant man to survive the oncoming holocaust, he will, again, be reduced to fighting for his very existence, but he will not become extinct. Religion will, necessarily have to be re-invented. If there are surviving monotheists, they will have experienced their "armageddon" and it will not have produced the results they were expecting.
Human life will have been reduced to a manageable number.
Hidden safely underground, will be the human illuminati. The most capable, highly educated and talented members of the human species.
The potential for a powerful 1 world gov't sans the deleterious concept of a supernatural "creator," will be strengthened.
Over a very long period of time, as outdoor radiation levels drop to a point that will again nurture human life, a force will have to be created that can control the mutated survivors.
The new world gov't would have to be dedicated to the viability of humanity.
All facets of human life that threaten it would necessarily have to be destroyed in Machiavellian style and control would have to be absolute.
Now, if we humans can, in the near future, somehow, bypass "armageddon" and come together to work in concert to ensure our survival, there is no doubt that man will progress like no time in his history. Unimaginable, miraculous results will be realized in the subjects of genetic engineering, health and technology.
But, I'm extremely skeptical about our future.
The most likely scenario is a nuclear catastrophe perpetrated by monotheistic fantaticism within the next 50 yrs.
Absolutely. Religions lose ground every day. With the advent of cheap computers and internet services, it is almost equivalent to when the printing press was created and the masses had access to knowledge. Today, so many have access to most of the knowledge in the world at their fingertips. As a result, the magical kingdoms and fairy tales of religious belief are disintegrating away.
Religions will no doubt make their final last stands in a vain attempt to continue existing, but their end is inevitable.
They are making their final stand - they are flooding this amazing new info world with their twaddle endlessly repeated.
Those with all the art works are hiding away all the paintings that show the evolution of religious art. The philosphers who really banged home the coffin nails of religion are hidden under a zillion dribbling papers by american so-called professors - all talking about 'what they really meant' - I kid you not, go try to find some original Derrida !
Isn't the rapture button proof you are going to implode in on yourselves?
The rapture will be little more than the end of Christianity and hopefully all the other religions.
Why are you throwing pearls before swine, hanging out?
religion evolved and is in danger of becoming extinct - part of the evolutionary process
Can I point you towards the Darwin Awards....
This may help explain what happens to those too stupid to evolve and perhaps we should be grateful that they remove themselves from the Gene pool.
Believers should reject Theories ... for they Believe, in The Truth.
Which translates as : Believers should reject reason - for they believe in [some vague aggressive ideological and ancient concept indoctrinated into them by their equally ignorant parents and which have no foundation anywhere except in the imagination of some guy who sat on his roof gazing at the stars because he had the time because he had beaten his way to the top of the social group he dominated]
It does not Translate ... Belief Requires ... though it transcends Reason.
Belief is in The Truth ... and Truth Is Daylight ... its not dusk or foggy mornings.
And let me assure you, I am not one who gazes up at night skies, and follows the star dials.
I am a humble person ... who has not a dollar in his account ... yet I am the richest one around... because I Bellieve, and Know, what I believe in is the Truth.
No, it ignores, defies or completely forgets it altogether, but it does not transcend.
How very superior of you to vocalize your status amongst us.
Appears, its time to say good byes ... but in parting, let me give you a gift ... something, to think about ...
Do you know, the pseudo's pix you've adopted, as yours, is of a person, whose maths is all wrong ... as you continue promoting him as a god of science, and his genius, transcending, that of the Greeks !
Will you believe, that Theory of Relativity, which propounds the posiibility of Time Travel ... by Matter Transcending Time and Space' Continuum, at the Speed of Light ...and thus, freely moving forwards and backward in Time ... is basically an "incorrectly calculated hypothesis" ... But inordinately showered with Praised by its followers, and the Peers, rewarded Nobel Prizes ...
The Truth, my friend, Is ... that speed of light, calculated, and thus, presumed at 186,000 miles per second ... is vastly off the mark ... !
That the Signs of the Zodiac you follow, are also misplaced ... Scorpio being where Saggitarius should be ...
Alphas and Omegas on paper look impressive ... but remember, these are kites ... people do not fly in Paper aeroplanes.
Good Bye my friend...
That would be an interesting debate, but I seriously doubt you even understand the math.
Not sure if that word salad had a point? If the question is, do I believe in your uninformed perceptions of science, the answer would have to be, no.
I'm so glad you're here to advise us of that. Most likely, you've taken measurements that contradict the mountains of precise data on the speed of light?
I didn't think so.
Wow, that sure is an interesting segway to other fantasies. I suppose you just ran out of irrational beliefs to support more irrational beliefs?
Funny how you won't see too many believers rejecting the theory of gravity, for example.
What you call "Theory" ... Is in justifying, the other assumptive nonsense. Gravity, to you is a Theory ... what in fact ... Is a Universal Truth ...
Though, in terms of its strength, it may vary ... nevertheless, the Stars and Planets, universally have Gravity.
Therefore,what you call Theory ... I call it a Fact ... yours, is an existence in Doubt ... mine, is in Firm Belief.
Or, more precisely, what you claim to believe is assumptive nonsense.
While it's most likely you did not get that information from a holy book, the theory of gravity is just as evident to exist as the law of gravity, both having relative preciseness in their execution, usage and delineation.
I would suspect few believers to deny gravities effects as they ponder walking near the edge of a cliff or tall building, but surely would if they felt it jeopardized their "firm belief".
That is quite hilarious and demonstrates a poor understanding of the academic, who does not live in doubt, but instead lives to seek understanding with a bold sense of curiosity coupled with the integrity and honesty to never just accept or propagate someones else "firm belief".
I do not claim being an academic ... and what I say, are my own words ... I uphold not, someone else's notions of the Firm, or Belief.
Yes, the known, I state, is not stated in a textbook like manner, in my Book ... The Book States The Truth ...
The Truth, Is, The Universal Law, it Governs the Existential's Reality ... and thats what, and why, I believe in, Truth, most Firmly ... be it within, or without, your Limitations of Grammar, Syntex, or Reason ... or the fear of reprimand and persecution...
I share ... Because it is Goodness, I share ... Goodness, is Truth, and it can only be Shared overtly and Feely.
I would agree, but opining about academics falsely is the point of contention.
Your religious beliefs, as you've presented them so far are all of someone else notion.
Yes, and unlike you, academics are not bound by a single book of so-called Truth as it inevitably and evidently leads to narrow-minded and obtuse thinking.
You are free to embrace your holy book and ignore what academics wish to pursue beyond it, but it certainly doesn't give you the right to opine falsely on that which they pursue and that which you have no understanding.
Its not beyond, but whats within thats important to me
So far, it would appear that scientific theories with strong supporting evidence is something so important to you that you feel compelled to tell others they should reject those theories in favor of your holy book?
Your own words:
"Believers should reject Theories ... The Book States The Truth"
It is quite dishonest and lacks integrity to do such things. Is that important to you?
Ok, here we go again ... I have netted yet another "Fan" ...
My friend, Theories are Assumptions, Limited to the Tools Employed ... These are incomparable with Truth ... Because, Truth does not need the devised Tools of Human Cognition ... Truth Is Freely Manifest, and Shared ... Universally ... by all.
Thanks and Good bye
The Tools being reality. Theories are assumptions based on the nature of reality. It is reality that we all share.
The Truth being is a particular set of religious beliefs chosen amongst many sets of religious beliefs. Not all people share your religious beliefs but they do all share reality.
Yes, religious beliefs do not require reality, but people do require reality even when they chose to ignore it.
But, it isn't universal because your Truth is only one of many perceived.
Really, which Theory of Gravity are you referring to?
(Believers should reject Theories ... for they Believe, in The Truth.)
How about backing up this bald assertion with at least a definition of truth. And I don't mean a synonym like god is truth, but a real working definition of how we as human beings come to understand truth.
Here, let me help in this. The only method we have to determine what is true is a human-made system of logic. We base logic systems on axioms. And the truth is determined by the resolvement of the presented dichotomy, utilizing correct application of the logical system.
In other words, truth is simply a logical necessity created from a human system of thought - and it only resides within the logical construction.
Truth does not reify into an object in reality.
There, does that help?
Truth is, the Universal Constant, In, Creation ... This, Is,. The First Truth ... hope, it plants a few hairs on your called ... my, bald assertion.
Can you see ... an Electron on Earth ... if you could, you will see it has the same, Form, and Structure it retains ... throughout, and at the outermost fringes of the Physical Universe ...
I "Believe" in this Truth ... its my observation, based in Fact ... lets hear, what your Logic has to say in the matter.
For if you tried Reasoning, to Justify Existence ... viz. our Birth, Life and then Death ... you will only be terribly disappointed ... For your logical Axioms will be no help ... you will shout ... injustice !
Logics will only lead you to more Assumptions ... and assumptions vary, from individual to individual.
So in Reasonings, you either go to war... as in this present case ... or you go insane ... or revolt, against The Truth ... of Existential Reality ...
Well, let's see how you did defining truth.
(Truth is, the Universal Constant, In, Creation )
Synonym, synonym, synonym.
Hmmm. Guess you earned your F in definition writing; however, you have earned a C- in fiction writing, so you have that going for you.
Let's try a different experiment: explain to me where in the universe I might find this "Universal Constant" concept you capitilize on - this concept that you have the power to reify into an actual "it" with substance, which must have shape and location, else it cannot exist.
The simple fact of this matter is that you do not have a definition of truth so you have no idea what truth is or how it comes to be known - all you have are blind assertions or faith taught to you by your High Priest of Silly Talk, who I am quite sure at one time was a member of Monty Python.
I liked them, too, by the way, but I never took their shows as gospel.
This seems to be getting personal ... I thought your addressing me as SB in your first mail, was within the routine, and an inadvertant ... I do not think it to be so, now.
Because, you are commenting, on my written, without reading ... though I am sure, if you had tried, you could have understood, what I am saying ... is the Truth.
Good bye, Winston.
Temporarily yes. Permanently no. Every time we make new discoveries truth of old no longer exists.
Truth is defined not by what we say but by how we make the determination of truth. Either we define truth as subjective, observer-dependent, i.e., opinion, or we define it as a conclusion of system of logic, which then means that particular truth has no bearing on reality but only occurs within its logical framework.
Then there are both ways of determining. Either way they are not fixed ways of viewing what is.
That would be how we use the term in common speech, but common speech does not translate to theories or expressions of ideas. If we want to understand what the other person is really saying, the word has to be unambiguously defined.
Using a duality of definitions leads to basically gibberish - when a religionist claims his holy book as Truth, he is simply using the "opinion" definition, but at the same time he wants to pass off his opinion as factual, i.e., proven.
But truth cannot be both. It is either opinion or it only applies to its system of logic and cannot be reified into a real-world object. The religionist arguer wants it both ways, though, as that is the only way Truth can be reified from a subjective concept into an object of worship.
If we used cartoon as a proxy for logic system, it might be easier to visualize. Truth is either a cartoon character or a real-life figure, but we cannot take the cartoon character out of the cartoon and make it real.
The only option after that is to simply believe it can be done and make the claim based on belief alone that Elmer Fudd does indeed walk the streets of this world.
If only one person makes this claim we label him crazy - if millions make the same claim we call them religious believers.
Truth being determined by way of observer - dependent or a conclusion based on a system of logic are both subjective experiences. Whether or not there is objective reality to confirm or deny either/or, truth will continue to change. This is what I am pointing to. Therefore there are no absolute truths.
The earth was flat - our truth was based on a system of logic that we bought into at one time that is subjectively experienced because we believed what we were told. The earth is round - our truth changed based on a system of logic that was proved to be wrong by those who dared to explore beyond the boundaries of truth as we knew it.
Religionists truth is observer dependent for the most part, I do agree. However, sometimes these truths are based on experience that for some have objective reality as evidence of their truth or a system of logic that can be proven through object reality. Yet these truths are still subjective experiences.
These truths change also when new experiences change what they have observed dissolving or eliminating what one might have held to be true.
If I make the claim that I have a sister, then that can be shown to be true by a system of logic. We start with (P) If I have a sister, then (-P) it is impossible for me to not have a sister at the same time. That establishes the axiomatic relationship that is the basis for making a determination of the true/false nature of each individual proposition.
All sisters are female
Siblings are either male or female
My sibling is female
Therefore I have a sister
The conclusion is absolutely true within the system of logic. But the trouble is I don't really have a sister at all. Reality does not coincide with the logic.
Now, logic tries to get around this problem by claiming a necessity for a sound argument is that it is based on true premises - but then you are into a circular argument about truth. How do you know the premises are true? You either believe them true or prove them true within a system of logic.
And here we are, right back where we started.
It is the word "truth" which causes the problem - the far better term is logical necessity. It is a logical necessity based on the above argument that I have a sister - but that logical necessity has nothing in particular to do with reality, and it is only true because we use the label true, not really knowing that truth has no bearing on or relationship with reality.
Reality has to do with whether or not this person exists, meaning does this person have the requisite shape that distinguishes a female and can she be found in a particular place in the universe - is she an object, regardless of opinion? If she is, I do not have to prove her or believe in her or show her to be true - all I have to do is define what she is. She then is because of definition, not because of any subjective opinion or logic system.
Ok lets see if I get what you are pointing to.
Reality is what we perceive it to be. You might perceive you have a sister. Reality proves this to be true or not based on a system of logic providing that object exists (sister) and can be defined. Perception of a sister can be a subjective reality by way of logical necessity but does not exist as an object in reality and therefore makes it untrue.
Our perceptions are subjective. Our logic and reasoning are subjective. Our reality appears to be objective and unchanging however our reality is always subjectively experienced.
Without perception, logic or reasoning a sister would not exist. Even though the sister may may exist as an object.
Gosh that sounds clinical hehe.
What I am getting at is the subjective experience of reality. These experiences change. We might see a tree as separate to us because that is reality and that is how we experience a tree. When our experience changes whilst our reality does not, our relationship to it does. So then do our truths change.
I probably attacked this bear from the wrong end.
Here it is in a nutshell. Existence is defined. It is totally objective. To have any use, to make any sense, the definition must be unambiguous. Here is that definition: exit - that which has shape and location in the physical universe.
In other words, only objects - whether seen or unseen, invisible or visible, can exist. Not because I can prove it or because I believe it but because it is defined. The moon has shape and location, and thus exists regardless of whether I am a toadstool or a blind man who has never seen the moon.
Truth cannot exist because it is not an object - it is a concept - so truth is always subjective. - it is opinion. Opinion has no bearing on reality.
The end. LoL.
It's the "natural" way.
I hope we're not disappointed...lol :
Has natural selection according to your understanding eliminated those who still have not yet adapted? There are many that believe behavior is naturally selected too and cannot evolve past what it already subscribes to. Many who subscribe to this naturally selected behavior cannot explain why some behave differently when it is natural to be adverse to different situations.
Perhaps those who subscribe to natural selection only cannot adapt themselves?
(Perhaps those who subscribe to natural selection only cannot adapt themselves?)
Very possibly, as the key issue to understand is that natural selection is a theory of how evolutionary changes may have occured, so it is not to be believed or defended as if it were a religious dogma - it is to be understood and utilized until either falsified or a better explaination comes along.
I do agree. Falsified by whom or given a better explanation by whom?
Human behavior has adapted by natural selection according to some. For some it is natural to feel aversion toward someone who claims to be holier than thou. Or someone who is arrogant. Etc. For these people behavior is coded in our genes due to natural selection.
If this is the case we would "all" feel this aversion toward such people to a greater or lesser degree. How is it then that some do not feel this aversion? Perhaps they have adapted to a different set of selections?
what is it about the Christian that is not adapting? evolving is to do with surviving in the physical world, belief is a philosophical mind set, how does this effect a person staying alive?
Since Christianity is the world's largest religion at slightly under 2 billion adherents and growing at a rate of 25.2 million per year, it is an unlikely that the Christian faith is going away any time soon.
It will take many years - generations even. The current loss of adherents - and you are losing membership - is amongst young people. The latest crop of American teenagers are the most atheistic since your history began. They simply do not need your religion.
Evolution is a long slow process of adaptation to change over many generations. This is why you do not see monkeys giving birth to humans.
I think that church attendence may be falling .??
But you can not measure Faith in that manner ... BY ; How many people fits into a building. I think not !
What you are saying may be true in America and Europe. But Christianity is a world religion and not just an American or European religion. In many other parts of the world it is growing quite dramatically. And if it dies completely in America, though detrimental to our culture, it is far from dead elsewhere.
And since it is growing, it goes against your premise. In fact I have read some statistics that say it may reach 3 billion in a few years.
(But Christianity is a world religion )
Yes, but we eliminated small pox so there is hope...
I know. Christianity thrives on ignorance.
No matter what you may believe is the cause for it thriving, still it does. And to make your premise true, you not only have to eliminate Christianity, but all other world religions as well.
Good luck with that!
They are going the way of the dinosaur as we speak. Let us hope you do not destroy us all trying to hang on.
And, as I said, worldwide this is far from true, thank God. You take partial facts and call them the truth. But I forgot, you don't believe there is objective truth. And of course, if there is no objective truth, then we are both right. That ends the argument. I'm glad we settled that.
I think this is a very relevant question. Any species that refuses to evolve becomes either extinct or, if it is very lucky, it finds a niche in some mountain backwater where nothing else wants the territory, like the platypus.
Species that regress in the way christians do usually end in some catastrophic event, the mammoths did ok for ages until they met man as he spread all over the planet following the ice age. I guess if christians weren't so indigestible some new breed of ideology, maybe some kind of goth-punk, would have eaten them all by now.
I have been reading some comments on another random site I Googled, a site about evolution, and from the comments about the article I am now totally convinced that there are some evangelical Christians who are simply too stupid to survive the natural selection process.
I think the #1 comment was this one: "I hope there is lots of popcorn in heaven because I can't think of anything more satisfying than sitting around eating popcorn and watching you burn in hell."
the fundamentalist/literalists will likely isolate themselves in this overcroweded world and form a cult
sadly, I agree. My family would rather embrace their invisible god than their own flesh & blood
You should phone home more often and be open to their ideas even their religion. Share quality time, send a card saying thanks or showing love. Two people facing the opposite directions have difficult time chatting.
did you know the platypus and echidna both poo, pee and lay eggs out of the same hole? And the male platypus has venomous spurs.
That sounds exactly like our fundies - if they talked out of the same hole they would BE our fundies especially the venomous spurs
Will natural selection eliminate those too rigid in their beliefs to adapt?
All the evidence actually suggests that this is happening, most countries are no longer in the grip of government through the moron lens of religion, the current desease of religion in the US could just be a result of the total confusion of modern information and simple minds like simple rules to follow.
So - maybe they are becoming extinct, it is just a shame that the process is so slow.
natural selection does eliminate rigidity...but vatican too is evolving...they are more open and less rigid these days...
Of course they do. That spirit of antichrist will accept anything that contradicts Gods word. Don't you find it odd how the largest and most corrupt religion in the world woos you to say nice things about it while christ still wants you to deny yourself and pick up the cross and follow him.
That's a funny question. But I've noticed there's no lifeguard standing over the gene pool so they'll still be with us until we evolve into little gray men with out five toes. Conversely, the anti creationists might still be here if man finds out they weren't entirely right.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage racers throughout the world." Charles Darwin
"I have the right to exterminate an inferior race that breed like vermin," Adolf Hitler.
I love the way you all think about me. Makes me feel special to know that you believe my demise will make you better people.
Sir Dent, I'm sure they aren't serious. People appear to post rather harshly on these forums. I thought the question was presented tongue in cheek.
They are serious. Look at all the posts they make here.
Why Are You Playing the Victim Card?
You have been serious making extremely arrogant holier-than-thou statements in our forums as well, in the past!!
In fact, you have really gone for it on occasions!
These forums are Sick at the Best of Times mate!
I don't give a rat's butt what someone's religious beliefs are.. but I don't appreciate them waving them in my face and criticizing my personal choices..
Is it Not Your Way to treat people as You Wish to be Treated Yourself?
I have to say that you (as a person) come across far better (with greater credibility) when you leave your religious beliefs out of the conversation.. like so many others of us here do!
I know posts can seem hateful. I've seen it on both ends of the spectrum, but I'm pretty sure they are actually very nice people that wouldn't say such things if they were sitting across from you. Nor would any of them seriously advocate or participate in the persecution of people of different beliefs. If you do believe that, I hope you remember that such a mindset would never gain ground in our country. I'm sorry if my post, in any way, was offensive to you. It seemed like a silly question to me and I thought it was presented as religious humor.
what a hypocrite - and you've called people satan and schitzo
Written in the final stages of the American genocide of the indigenous peoples the statement had nothing to do with religion, even if religion had everything to do with justifying the act.
Hitler had little relevance to evolution and everything to do with the occult, just another facet of religious thinking.
Putting up two emotive quotations is everything to do with a constructed false argument.
You make yourself redundant in terms of evolution, nobody does that to you.
If one is trying to understand the Holocaust, here is a worthwhile quote:
"Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew" - Martin Luther
Notice this is no generalization adapted to make it appear that it applies. No, this is a specific hate message about precisely Jews. It is from the father of modern Protestanism.
You mean, dishonest? Like the two quotes you just placed together, which were most likely taken from a controversial book by Richard Weikart; "From Darwin to Hitler" which opines that Darwins theories led to the atrocities of the Third Reich.
Here is the complete quote that actually refers to "evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime". Of course, creationists like Weikart dishonestly have used it to further the agenda of creationists. Sorry to see you are following in the footsteps of Weikart, SirDent.
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"
Darwin wasn't making a recommendation; he was speculating what might happen. He was against racism & cruelty.
As per usual, you twist things
The OP actually is a good question. IF answered in the spirit that (I think) was intended,
Science (evolution) does not rule out the possibility of there being a "God" of some kind.
As belief in a "God" of some kind does not rule out the importance of science.
It is only the "rebels" found in each group that cause conflict and disharmony.
I think that there is a peaceful path toward knowledge and wisdom on middle ground; like …
“A river which runs through it.”
Kayos is found on either side of this river, the farther we stray from it, the more there is of it.
People can fish on both sides of this stream in peace.
I think that it is those people that do not live along side this river, that creates a concept of US vs. Them.
The further we are from the truth, the more convinced we are that Truth is US
Yes I was. I appreciate open ended logic as you presented.
Does Evolution Accept Christians?
Christians are also human beings and got evolved as did others. I think the Christians need to accept this fact.
I think most educated and rational Christians believe in Evolution.
OK...Here is an Example of A Fundie that just needs help... I seriously hope this person is joking...
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1uq45R/ww … hp?t=45427
With a thought process like this... some folks are in need of some serious assistance
Wow. People actually promoting the Dark Ages as superior knowledge because the oral myths and legends of an ancient, primitive clan of nomadic desert dwellars were eventually written down.
It is hard to argue with such devastating proof
P.S. The frightening part was about halfway down the page when the claim was made that due to their understanding of hidden knowledge, Christians are s-u-p-e-r-i-o-r. It is thinking of that sort that led to the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and the Crusades.
And the really scary part...This person is a televangelist and he spreads this kind of "knowledge"(ILK) to others...and there are people who believe him.
Yes, the chilling aspect is that some people believe him. What chance does a child have after having been reared in that environment - meet David Koresh.
Well to use the bible as a reference for this one..."Raise a child in the way he should be raised and he will never stray far from it" (Paraphrased of course).. So they have no chance unless they get out of that enviroment and learn to think for themselves...
The good news is this turns out to be a satirical website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church
The idea that it is hard to distinguish from a real website is kind of spooky, too.
Really sad that someone has to create a phoney church to point out the flaws of all of the real "phoney" churches..
I know that you have heard the expression; "If It Ain't broke ... don't fix it ! Maybe that is the problem !
Truth wasn't broken, but we been trying to fix it
(from the beginning) anyway.
What was it like before they started fixing it ?
The Atheists are in a quandry; they don't have any good arguments for their concepts.
by jacobkuttyta4 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by thetruthhurts20097 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You...
by Mark Knowles4 years ago
Some one just accused me of making a personal attack on them because I said they are ignorant of certain facts. Any one who has interacted with me here will know I try not to make personal attacks, other than to make...
by JimLow4 years ago
This list of beliefs I wrote about 5 years ago, came from an approximate 20-year study of the Statements of Beliefs by many different Christian denominations. These were the beliefs I found that were of most common...
by kirstenblog3 weeks ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
The human brain in all its complexities is now just being unraveled, however slowly, via various research modalities at various/multiple research centers across the country. The team of Ed Lein (a...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.