Kirst; I am not one who is in to "political correctness." I just ask questions as I think of them. If others are insulted, isn't that their problem? One can only be insulted if one allows that to happen. Besides, I like to ask questions that arouse passion in responses. Is that wrong?
You say 'political correctness' I say 'maximizing effectiveness in choosing my words wisely', patato, pototo (something like that, hard to covey different pronunciations of the same word in text lol). The choice of words you use is not likely to inspire energetic debate and seems likely to spiral into name calling by those on both sides who are easily triggered into such states. It's not wrong to want to arouse passion but it sounded like you were trying to arouse anger? It's all about the words you choose that produces results on a forum that only uses words in text. What point is there in asking questions that have barriers to honest debate within the question itself, why ask something in a way this is not likely to actually produce the response you really want?
Kirst: Ah, but I want to use words that cause passionate response. I wan't challenge! During response to challenge, the challenger is hell bent upon making and winning a point. When I ask a question like the one I ask here, you said I was insulting? So be it! Look at the wonderful responses I'm getting from you? In the long run, I get another view of things that may or may not be of value to me. :-) I'm not going to ask benign questions which might interest the average Joe blow. I want to pique interest and get strong responses from others whom agree or diagree with me. It's fun and can be enlightening. What are the forums for? Hmmmm? :-)
well I am rather evolved (see I can even use cool smileys! haha) Not to mention hard to insult Joking aside I think my point is that I am not answering your original question but have instead chatted with you about your choice of words, not that that does not have entertainment value (I would go elsewhere if I found it boring) but the scope of the conversation is more limited to the semantics of word usage. I suppose its good training for a site full of writers!
Thanks Kirst: :-) I got you to to reply! That's my intention. Why ask questions in the forum that get no responses? I am perfectly serious when I create a question tho. I get both sillyness and seriousness in response...that's expected. I love "input" if it is well thought out and well expressed. If people get mad at me..cool! Their anger causes me to "think!" What's better'n that? Thanks for your wonderful responses...:-)
The challenge for a writer, choosing the right words to illicit the desired response using text alone (used to be that one of the big challenges was spelling, thank the computer gods for spell check! lol)
They are the same. Sorry to confuse you. True Believers and Fanatics use religion to justify the hate they feel for the human race. They want to control us with hate and fear for each other. God Fearing Christians and Jew, and Muslim just want to live in peace and practice thier faith in a way that does not hurt, but helps to improve the world around them.
Always a loaded topic and so I hope I don't get into too much trouble here. But here's my take;
Believers are not lesser. But I do think that it is fair to say that believers are not open-minded. Now, that said, neither are non-believers open-minded. If you can't see the possibility of another truth, then you are closed-minded. So, if you cannot believe God could NOT exist, or if you cannot believe that he CAN exist, you are closed-minded.
Does that make one lesser?
No. It just means you are not willing to accept other possibilities.
I tend to look at everything, including religion with an open-mind. I'll do my homework, I won't automatically debunk any one theory or ideal, I'll simply put the pieces of the puzzle together and make a decision at the end of the day as to what I think is right...
And also accept the possibility that what I think may still be wrong.
Having said all of THAT, I would have to agree that your question had an ill-slanted bent.
Spring: I have to agree with you. The question was "slanted." which way is relative to one's bent in ref. to reality or myth. I too, put the "trivia" together, like a jigsaw puzzle. When "it" all comes together I can form an opinion which can be used to make decisions and guide my life. Do you think monotheists do this? Or are they taught the contents of a book which is not at all credible, about characters as unreal as those in "Grimms" fairy tales and then guide their lives by the illogics of it? To my way of thinking that is a form of insanity and is generated by "primitive" fear and superstition.. That's why I think that those who involve themselves in primitive thought and action and reaction are the lesser evolved of the human species.
Believing in a religion does not make one insane, though there are insane people who happen to be religious. But then neither does NOT believing make one SANE—there's plenty insane people who AREN'T religious. People have all sorts of reasons to believe or not believe. At the end of the day I may disagree with one's belief system, but it doesn't mean they are lesser of a human being.
You said you put the trivia together like a jigsaw puzzle. But you're still debunking the pieces that you don't think quite fit to your liking. I said that I was open-minded enough to understand the possibility that what I think to be true may, in fact, be false.
Without getting too confusing with a lot of metaphors and analogy here, when I put my puzzle together it may look just fine to me and look really out of place to you. Keep in mind that in the case of THIS puzzle, no one knows exactly what it is SUPPOSED to look like. No one can. There's no picture on the box. These are just a bunch of random pieces we have to try and piece together for ourselves.
If you point to my puzzle and say "That's wrong," and then follow it up with "because you're a lesser form of human intelligence," suddenly your argument becomes moot. How we see the finished puzzle is a matter of where we individually put the pieces—there's really no way (now) to conclusively determine your way is right or mine is not.
Spring: pls re-read what I wrote to you. I put the pieces (trivia) together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. If all the trivia "fits" the only conclusion can be a correct picture (concept.) I can then make decisions based upon the "correct" picture (concept) all the pieces just created. All people are not created equal! I am not an Einstein or a Hawking...but they are weak in areas I have proven to be strong in. Ability and aptitude are controlled by genetics. Which makes us all very unique creatures. All people do not evolve at the same rate. Evolution is controlled by "environment." If one's environment is not rich in the availability of everything needed to produce the kinds of genetic possiblities that are intrinsic to you, evolution takes a different path. This path has been defined as "natural selection." I believe that religious belief frustrates open minded learning and therefore controls the believers environment. It frustrates man's ability to "adapt." What does "Cruel" Mother Nature do to those who cannot adapt? ...EXTINCTION. UNFORTUNATELY! The majority of humanity is monotheistic and frustrated.
It's starting to look like Atiest, High Minded Thinkers, True Belivers, and Fanatics all have one thing in common. They all take words out of the Bible that were not meant to be taken literally and they run with those words in four different directions. It's not hard to understand the Bible if you read it with an open mind and common sense. There are great lessons in the Bible for anybody looking to learn about life. Instead, some people are looking to confirm some idea they already had.
Pro: It might be thought of as being that if the subject was backed by more reliable and acceptable knowledge of the subject. In this case, no arrogance here, just an honest perception based upon my knowledge of anthropology and the rise of belief in supernatural entities by frightened evolving human creatures. Modern man has been here for about 30 - 40 k years. He is an "infant" species that when frightened creates and holds tightly to a surogate savior. There are those who have intellectually risen far beyond a need for that kind of valueless security. They have replaced that need with education, an understanding of that which creates fear. Understanding quells fear. I believe that these people have evolved to a great deal greater extent, intellectually, than believers in myth..
Well, that's assuming that all you are is determined by whats in your genes. Do you think that the situations you have been in, and the way you reacted to them have not played a part in making you who you are? If so, then you could argue the less evolved theory (either way it will seem arrogant). I think the answer to the question is undoubtedly no. I have known many intelligent religious people. I have also known many intelligent spiritual people. In fact, some might consider spiritual gurus to be MORE evolved. Note though, that even though they may think that themselves, nobody mentions it.
Pro: All you CAN BE, IS determined by your "genes. of course I agree with you in ref to my experiences making me what I am. I can't intellectually respond to any of your questions about "intelligence or spiritual." I have no idea what your definition of intelligence is. When you speak of intelligence as I define it, the religion is the antithesis of it. Spiritual? Clarify pls...I know ya don't mean "booze."
Sure, but all that you ARE is not determined by your genes.
Spirituality. As an intellectual individual you cannot deny the fact that we do not know much about the universe. You also cannot deny that there MIGHT be a "spiritual world" existing on a different dimensional plane that allows communication of thoughts and information through some alternate channels (paranormal). It is possible. If these channels do exist, and spiritual gurus are able to tap into it, would they not be more intelligent because they were able to utilize it?
I'm not talking religion here. Religion is a bad thing, no doubt. It breeds ignorance and violence in the name of a "prophet" who preached peace and acceptance. I'm talking about spiritual people.
I hate to answer for someone else but hey I am going to anyway (sorry pro)
The use of the word lesser in reference to a group that you are vocally not a part of can be easily seen as arrogant as there is the implication that the group you belong to is greater then the other lesser group you are referring to. That would be arrogant. How you choose your words make a wold of difference as to how people respond
Hmmm, well the people whom I have considered more "enlightened" than myself, usually look at others as valuable beings, and therefore, usually don't think of themselves as "better." They look at others as being on a journey, and where they are is what is supposed to be. They believe ultimately, the journey brings us to the same place, but at different rates, depending on our resistance or acceptance of "enlightenment."
In other words, "evolved" has nothing to do with the equation of who we are individually or collectively, at least as I understand "enlightenment."
It depends what you called evolved, Im glad that message I sent last time screwed up because of syntax or whatever because it seems more appropriate here.
Western civilization has been disregarding the knowledge of less developed civilizations for decades, making people ignorant , where as they live in peace with better form of communications.. while there are wars over money and material gain over here and t.v encourages us to compete over material gain just to serve the economy.
So if your question is regarding the believe of a god being 'less evolved' or the definition of the word evolved.
The main issue is once again a huge misunderstanding of evolution. It doesn't have 'purpose' or 'drive'. It isn't setting out to enhance anyone. If a species is here it works. Religious people are here, and so are non religious. The word 'evolution' can only be used here as a metaphor and no more.
For a while as I challenged the nature of how the question was asked and if it was maybe a waste if its not likely to produce honest debate but anger and name calling and all the junk, who knows, if a religious question is asked in a way that honestly inspires some spiritual debate it might change
Well I take evolution seriously, its a complicated and highly detailed process with no lessers or greaters. One question that comes to mind is, are humans (taken as a whole) 'better' then say, dogs which can be quite loyal and intelligent or say the dolphin or elephant, both considered to be highly intelligent and capable of some form of communication. This is the problem with your question for me, the lesser value implied because of some 'perceived' difference. It cannot be answered if one does not think in terms of greater and lesser, and is distasteful to one who thinks that it is the very plethora of variations on life that makes being alive wonderful, with those values all life has almost equal value (in a choice ones own species does tend to come first).
As for the idea that people are differently evolved, genetically there seems to be proof, different face structures and skin colors are kinda clues to me that regions people lived in influenced their bodies. As far as spirituality in regards to evolution, no connection. No 'religious' gene responsible for believing in Jesus, no 'atheist' gene that keeps you from being able to believe in God. My dad and mom are atheists yet as a kid I went to church every sunday alone. I have moved beyond church but I do still believe, if you had any valid point then there would have to be a genetic bio-chemical reason for my belief but I am more then just the sum of my parts.
I was not challenged on my comment that I am highly evolved Shall I fetch my trenches helmet and await the bomb explosions?
Richie: I don't know why I dont get a message when someone reads one of my "hubs" and leaves a message. Sorry I didn't get back to you. I answered your response. Thanks for taking the time to read it and for your question.
Can you see the lines being drawn? One can only be for God or against. Gathering or scattering. Even if it is through unbelievers or Believers- The choice is coming to the forefront. I see believers in Jesus -even me...
How the people who do not think there is God get so uppity when talking to/about the believers. The lofty all-knowing position they take never ceases to amuse me. I mean, do be vehement in your non-belief but why do you...
No, this isn't a 'bash the believers' thread, nor do I wish to see it become as such. Instead, I have an earnest question I want answered, and I'm afraid non-believers aren't qualified to answer this one, for reasons...
We have the ability to delete hubs we have written. Is there any way to delete questions? If we have asked some that have gotten no answers after a period of time, it might be a nice option to be able to...
Atheists sometimes claim that & they do have some reason for such claims. Whats your views on this? & WHY?Remember, exceptions should not be examples. We are talking about the majority of the group not...
Why question God or his believers? I think that the people that don't believe in God went through something and the situation didn't turn out the way they wanted it and they blame God. We all are put through tests and...