Atheism Rules !

Jump to Last Post 101-150 of 666 discussions (1781 posts)
  1. profile image0
    MOmmagusposted 11 years ago

    wow, this is a great forum.  I have said a short prayer for each person on this forumn to receive a REAL and undeniable sign and/or visitation from our Creator, to provoke faith in the faithless and increase faith in other believers.  I will be waiting to hear what will come of this!

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      LOL - I look forward to it. On the other hand, I hope that one day, you will see the light and realize there is no such thing as a Creator.

    2. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've been praying for Mark for a few weeks now, so the more the merrier.  He is all but converted.

      big_smile

      1. Misha profile image67
        Mishaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Told ya there is a conspiracy big_smile

  2. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    I agree with Mo- great thread.

    I'll be off line in a bit, though, so to be continued!

  3. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    Even though I'm supposed to be logged off by now, I'm not, and I thought I'd say that I agree with Mark on this one- Sandra I'm having a hard time understanding your reasoning here!  I thought it was that my brain is fried from doing all this schoolwork lately, but I'm starting to think I'm just missing what you're trying to say!

    http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_12_12.gif

  4. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
    Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years ago

    A conspiracy implies some kind of secrecy.  I'm totally out in the open for all to see.

  5. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 11 years ago

    You are the weak link Peter smile

    (j/k)

  6. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
    Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years ago

    I suppose so.  big_smile

    It's not like our manual isn't...oh, I don't know, the biggest selling book ever.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's supposed to be free big_smile

      1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
        Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        They are free, if you go to the right place...and don't need a calf-leather, gold-embossed, monogram-emblazoned one that costs $200.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That about sums up my whole problem with the church.

          1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
            Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            DITTO.  I couldn't agree more.

          2. Misha profile image67
            Mishaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, that's an excellent analogy smile

  7. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    I knew it - PROOF LOL

    Peter - I agree, but they don't exactly have a good track record in this regard. smile I guess what I mean is - survive in their present incarnation LOL

  8. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    I guess I didn't understand this bit. Are we all the most significant bit of dust? In which case, what about the 100,000+ dead in Iraq? Were they all equal to God? Man needs to win what? LIke I said, not really understanding this. --Mark

    We aren't equal in our actions, we aren't equal in our minds, we aren't equal in wealth, we aren't equal to our parents,  but we are all equal in that we are all bread the same way,  we were all birthed the same way,  we all die the same,  ( different ways, but still, death is death, what happens prior to death is yours and not equal to anything else, it's yours alone).

    So what I mean as the most significant bit of dust is that, there isn't anyone else in the cosmos anywhere yet, that has the ability to destroy or create anything at all, except for the one deviding factor that no ones has the mind to understand, not you, not me, not hard core christians or catholics, not scientist, not philosophers, not doctors or scientist have what it takes to understand the greatestness of what we are in the vast multitudes of space, but what is different is we are the only species that can even attempt to understand it, which in time I think many many many things can be understood and proven but the answer to Why...in the first place will never be answered, which is were I believe God is, just the answers that you look for.

    I think that is why people pray, I think it's why we discover what we discover, understand the way we do, eat the things we do, etc.  it goes on for ever and ever until, you reach the point in which everything get's reversed because it is perfectly logical from a scientific perspective, that everything will resolve in itself. 

    I don't see anyways around it,  but because humans are the only ones who can even have the capability to even make a question and get an answer in my mind makes us all Gods.  I really don't believe in a guy with a white robe,  I don't.  If I could pick out a name to describe what I try to say, I couldn't anyways, because it hasn't even been discovered yet.  Yet we think we have all the knowledge in the world to prove or disprove or think of anything we can think of but when it comes to what God actually is, the only true name for it is something that will never really have a true name.  And even with a name, we would never be able to understand it so....

    I don't care for hard core religion,  I think it takes away from discovering what I call God in the first place,  it takes away people ability to think for themselves, and it cause wars and death and stuff like that, but I can see why, and I can see why an atheist is an atheist, I don't consider either of them wrong, but I do believe that both sides should understand both sides, which I think I do, and even though I can't stand Christianity, doesn't mean I don't like the people for what they are, and it really takes a big mind to see both sides.  So the bigger the mind the better, or better to have both sides work together than apart because as far as I can tell,  science wouldn't have tipped this far if it wasn't for some of those people from a long time ago wanting to seek God.  Which the search to me is for the ultimate understanding of life in the first place, you don't have to look for a firely chariot to believe in God, but the word God has been exploited and propagated to point in which God lost all meaning.  cool

    1. Misha profile image67
      Mishaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And that is why I strongly believe all communist, socialist, feminists alike are dead wrong - we are not equal in an earthy sense. But we do in spiritual (for a lack of better word) one...

      Sorry for off top...

  9. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    And by the way,  the only thing people are really looking for is life.

  10. Marisa Wright profile image96
    Marisa Wrightposted 11 years ago

    I'm not going to start quoting from other posts because there are too many!  But my response to the debate on evolution would be:

    The fact that fish haven't evolved out of the water - whereas man's ancestors did - isn't just irrelevant, it's actually an argument AGAINST the idea of an Architect behind the scenes.  If evolution were a planned process, everything would have evolved in a neat, orderly way.  Whereas if evolution is a natural, imperfect process then some evolutionary changes will work, and some won't. 

    If evolution were planned, then the Architect would be able to speed up evolution so His carefully designed species wouldn't need to die out when circumstances change.  So the dinosaurs wouldn't have disappeared. 

    Finally, if evolution were planned, then man wouldn't have so many badly designed components (unless the Architect is a pretty poor designer).

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But fish have evolved out of water, their called flying fish, or walking fish, tadpoles to amphibians to reptiles to dinosaurs...Also, there have been recent discovories about modern man bones found to exist with the dinosaurs as well as co-existing with homosapiens. 
      Yeah history channel!  So while the guy who discovered it, left everything untouched and called some well known and credible archiologist to make the dig, and found everything to be credible, it was thrown out as acceptable evidence because it was found by someone other than the man who did the dig itself and even testified that it was ligit, however could not be credible evidence because well,  that guy didn't find it himself.  I wonder if he was an athiest?

  11. Marisa Wright profile image96
    Marisa Wrightposted 11 years ago

    I should also say that even if evolution is a natural process,  that doesn't throw God or Christianity into doubt.  The only people who have a problem with evolution are those whose religion insists that the Bible is true, word for word. 

    I don't know how anyone can make that assertion unless they've never read it. There are so many contradictions in the Old Testament, it can't possibly be literally true in every detail.  If we view Genesis as a mythical explanations of our origins, like the Aboriginals' Dreaming, then there's no conflict with evolution.

  12. privateye2500 profile image40
    privateye2500posted 11 years ago

    "If evolution were a planned process, everything would have evolved in a neat, orderly way."


    >>>Why would it have evolved in a *neat orderly way*?  Because you think it should have?? What you *think* is neat and orderly is merely your own concept.>>>


    "If evolution were planned, then the Architect would be able to speed up evolution so His carefully designed species wouldn't need to die out when circumstances change.  So the dinosaurs wouldn't have disappeared."


    >>>Why does anyone assume an/or the aforementioned *architect* would be a *HE* or a *SHE*?  Why does anyone at all have the arrogance to *ASSUME/think* they would know the purpose at all?

    What does *speed* have to do with anything at all whatsoever?  Simply because human/all life spans are *short*???  As in to your line of *thinking* it is?

    You know what is said of assuming ...!>>>


    Finally, if evolution were planned, then man wouldn't have so many badly designed components (unless the Architect is a pretty poor designer).

    >>>Badly designed...?  Again, to whos line of *thinking?  Not mine.  I don't *think* you get to have the right to *think* for me or anyone else.  I get to *think* for myself - and I *think* I am very well designed, however it ocurred.>>>

    "And by the way,  the only thing people are really looking for is life."

    >>>Again, who died and left YOU to think for every person what it is that all people are looking for?>>>

  13. Inspirepub profile image81
    Inspirepubposted 11 years ago

    I am coming in late to this, I know, but I have so say I am a bit disturbed by the evident lack of understanding of what is mean by the word "evolution" - on BOTH SIDES of this discussion, in places.

    A couple of people have already dealt with the whole "why are there still fish and apes?" question, so I will just say that if you THINK OF that question, and it seems like a sensible question to ask, you do not understand the theory of evolution.

    I would also like to point out the error of saying "look at photos from a few hundred years ago ... we are taller ..."

    Evolution selects for genes. They way those genes are expressed in any given individual depends on the environment in which they live. Pre-agricultural nomadic hunter-gatherers in Europe averaged six feet tall for men. Post-agricultural societies dependent on a high-crab staple like wheat or oats averaged something like five feet tall. Same genes, different diet.

    The recent gains in average height are more likely due to improved diet than widespread genetic mutation.

    There is a gene which about 80% of humans have, which enables us to store carbs as fat quickly and easily. As you can imagine, where food supplies are erratic, people with that gene are more likely to survive the harsh times, using the supplies they stored in their bodies during the good times. But we do still have 20% of people who can eat whatever they like and not gain weight. We don't NEED to store carbs as fat these days, but we reproduce before being overweight kills us, so evolution is not going to change the ratio of that gene in the population.

    However, the availability of food, the average activity level, and the level of nutritional education in a culture will affect the proportion of actual, visible fat people.

    I would also say that is it very loose use of language to equate changing thoughts, education, levels of self-awareness, etc, with the word "evolution", because those things are not changing the genotype.

    If you want to watch evolution in action, infest your child with head lice, dilute some head lice treatment 20:1, and treat them. Two weeks later, repeat with dilution 15:1. Two weeks later, 10:1. Carry on like this, and in a few months you will have a fins crop of treatment-resistant head lice. You will be able to apply the treatment full strength, and it won't kill 'em. What you have done is gradually cull out the ones that are sensitive to that particular treatment, leaving the resistant ones to breed. Eventually, only resistant ones remain.

    This is how we are breeding anti-biotic resistant superbugs, by the way. All those people who don't take the full dose of their antibiotics because they "feel better now".

    There is nothing purposeful about the evolutionary process. It is completely automatic. No planning is involved, and no logic, other than the logic of "severe environments will kill susceptible individuals" and "he who breeds most, breeds most". The product of an evolutionary process does not continuously improve - it continuously changes as it survives and prospers in its environment, or it dies out. The changes are not necessarily toward something "better" - they are the random individual differences that make them less likely to die in this particular environment.

    Occasionally, a species has a lucky hit on an environment that doesn't change much, like the shark and the alligator, and then it stays pretty much the same for millennia.

    One more example - white bits on animals.

    As a prey animal, they last thing you want is a big white splash the light up at dawn and dusk and say "Come Eat ME!!" to your predators. The gene for white bits is there in the population of most small mammals, but any individual born with an actual white spot tends to get eaten before it's old enough to breed.

    UNTIL ... man comes to dominate the planet, wipes out the other predators, and starts keeping prey animals safe for his own purposes.

    Now lots of small mammals have lots of white bits. Humans like white bits. They think they are cute.

    But if Ebola wiped all humans off the planet one day, it would take about 6 months until there wasn't a spot of white to be seen on any small mammal anywhere any more.

    That is evolution in action.

    Is a cat with white "better" than one that is all tabby? No, but it's more likely to be chosen as a pet. Is an all-tabby cat "better" than one with white bits? No, but it's more likely to survive in the wild.

    Is a pesticide-resistant head louse "better" than a non-resistant one? No, but it's more likely to survive to reproduce.

    And that is ALL there is to the Theory of Evolution.

    It got horribly distorted by idiots called "Social Darwinists" later in time, but the original is totally neutral.

    Jenny

    P.S. On the "but it's just so unlikely" argument - we did that one already in the other thread - go check it out. Basic probability is very badly taught in high schools. You can't look backwards after the event and talk about probabilities. Probablilities only work looking forward, BEFORE the event. Think of it this way - suppose you take a fair coin, and toss it 100 times, and somehow, through a really unlikely coincidence, you get 100 heads, even though it is truly a fair coin. Does that "prove" there is a God? I mean, it's really unlikely to get 100 heads, isn't it? Actually, AFTER you have thrown 100 heads, the probability of HAVING THROWN 100 heads is 1, because it happened. Your chances of doing it again are microscopically small, but the unlikely events that have already happened are not unlikely in retrospect - they are certainties in retrospect.

  14. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    Jenny, you are quite right. I was trying to explain how species change over time to some one who thinks that the fact there are fish in the sea is proof that evolution is not happening.

    You did a much better job. But us as a species changing and becoming taller is also part of the process. We are becoming taller because we are surviving better - we have more food available to us. We have created tools to make this food for us and adapted crops to produce greater yields, therefore we have more food, therefore we are taller (and fatter). This is a distorted version of evolution as Darwin described it, and I guess you could more call it "development."

    Good explanation, by the way big_smile I am interested to hear any responses.

    1. Sprinkler Man profile image58
      Sprinkler Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Mark,

      This is one of many reasons evolution is not happening and never happened. Care to explain a dolphin?

      Why does it have that whole in the back of its head to breath air from? How did it develop sonar to locate fish? Their young are born alive, they have to breath air and they spend their entire lives in water. Huh, did they evolve and then just stop?

      What about Whales? The same thing, they bear they young alive as well and breath the air.

      If you cannot see or understand that we were created, just from these couple of examples, how do you explain it to yourself?

      It takes two of every kind of mammal to reproduce, how do you figure they evolved reproduction?

      Birds don't just migrate, some go back to the same spot at different ends of the planet every year. Do you know how hard it is to navigate? One degree off and that bird would end up in China. But they do not make mistakes, how did they learn this? Care to elaborate?

      SM

  15. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 11 years ago

    Mark/Jenny

    Evolution is not happening - A bug that can develop a resistance to a man made substance is not all there is to the Theory of Evolution.

    The Theory of Evolution from evolutionists/scientists/atheists is summed up that we evolved from water, dirt, electricity, the sun and other elements coming together and forming our bodies the way they are now. My point is simple, there is no DNA in anything other than our bodies and there is no way in this world that those elements bumped into each other and created our DNA - then everything just happened to fall into place.

    Every living creature on this planet has a set pattern of DNA and it is not changing and evolving into something else. It recreates itself through reproduction and is created daily. This should prove to you that evolution does not exist. There are millions of reasons in front of you everyday that prove we are not evolving.

    That flying fish has always been able to jump out of water and that frog has always laid its eggs in the water. Tadpoles grow up, just like all animals but they don't turn into anything else and they never will.

    If evolution is / was possible and we evolved how did reproduction evolve?

    Reproduction = Creation - It will never = evolution....

    One thing could not create itself (a male thing for example) and then another thing create itself (female for example) and then those things start creating things together. It just doesn't add up.

    There are male and female types of animals as well. How could each different type of animal have the ability to reproduce if it evolved from something?

    1. Inspirepub profile image81
      Inspirepubposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Of course not. But it is proof positive that evolution is occurring.



      Well, that is an incorrect summary of the Theory of Evolution. If you think that's what it is, no wonder you disagree with it, LOL. I would too. That's just a completely ridiculous idea. Not even a completely deluded cult member would ... no, actually, they just might ... but nobody who has actually listened in high school biology (in a place where they teach it, of course, which is not a given in the US) would think that was what the Theory of Evolution says.



      This is incorrect - there is DNA in every form of living creature, even viruses which are smaller than a single cell, and there is also DNA in soil and other products of decomposition.



      Well the creationists say that's what happened, not the evolutionists. Evolution says it was a process which took billions of years and a complex interplay between random mutation and environmental culling. It's creationists who say it just happened in an instant.



      Ahem, the DNA of those bugs that developed resistance is different now, is it not?



      As far as I can tell, the ability to watch creatures evolving in response to a changing environment is pretty solid proof that the process occurs. You don't even have to use a microscope to watch it happening. You can see it in fruit flies and mice and rats in laboratory settings, for example.



      You seem to be totally misunderstanding the whole theory of evolution. An individual's DNA doesn't suddenly and dramatically change - sexual reproduction produces offspring which are automatically different from either parent, and before sexual reproduction developed there was random mutation. That still occurs, but its impact is much less than sexual reproduction because so many mutations make the offspring unviable.



      RNA works with DNA to reproduce the DNA strand. There was reproduction before there were cells, let alone animals. And there was asexual reproduction for billions of years before there was sexual reproduction.



      Without reproduction there cannot be evolution.

      Creation, on the other hand, can happen without reproduction. And did, as the story goes, with Adam and Eve.

      Therefore, as far as I can see, the existence of reproduction is more of a problem for creationists than evolutionists. smile

      (I'm joking, of course, there is no logical way to conclude anything from the fact that reproduction exists. It could be something the Flying Spaghetti Monster thought up to keep his noodly appendages occupied, for example, and all the evidence for evolution may have been noodled by Him for His own inscrutable reasons ...)

      Jenny

  16. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    Sprinkler man,

    I am certainly glad you entered the discussion, although I must admit to being a little perplexed as to where you get your idea of evolution from. I can only imagine it is from some one who is trying to muddy the waters.

    Looking forward to your response to Jenny's comments. I won't add anything - she does a much better job of explaining the scientific stuff than I can big_smile

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You make an excellent cheerleader, Mark.

  17. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 11 years ago

    Both of you are hilarious....

    Please teach me what the theory of evolution is. How did I get to be what I am today?

    How did I evolve into this? With my somewhat perfect body, eyes spaced proportionately, nose sort of in the center of my face, mouth right under my nose, so I know what to watch out for before I stuff it in my mouth.

    Bugs that can grow stronger or viruses getting stronger, does not come close to a theory on evolution. They are still the same bugs just getting stronger, they are not going to change into humans or little cute kitty cats or caterpillars . They are going to stay what they are and reproduce into what they are.

    I can inject myself with snake venom until I am not affected by certain types of snake bites. I am not going to turn into a snake or anything else.

    OK -  DNA similar to human DNA.........

    Not following your comment on if reproduction exists, care to follow up? Do you have any children? How about parents? I am pretty sure reproduction exists.

    Still thinking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster though. Maybe we need a new topic wink

    1. Inspirepub profile image81
      Inspirepubposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are a blend of the DNA of both your parents. They survived to reproduce, which means their DNA is full of useful stuff.



      But they are not the same bugs. If they were the same bugs, the same poisons would kill them in the same way.



      You can inject yourself all you like with snake venom, but it won't change your DNA, so your offspring won't have any increased resistance to snake venom.

      To do the equivalent of the head lice experiment with humans, you would have to inject 10-year-olds with a high enough dose of snake venom to kill at least half of them, then make sure the survivors bred with each other. Repeat when the next generation is 10 years old - you will need a higher dose of venom to kill half of them. Make sure the survivor interbreed. Repeat for 20 generations and yes, then you will have humans who are genetically resistant to that form of snake venom.

      It's fairly obvious why people do these experiments on bugs instead of humans, isn't it?

      The short life cycle means you can see results in the lifetime of a single researcher.

      Oh, and the ethical issues, LOL ...




      You are the one who said reproduction = creation. I just said that as far as I can see, reproduction is necessary for evolution and not for creation, so if everything really is "created", why have reproduction at all?

      The fact that there IS reproduction is an argument in favor of evolution.

      Jenny

      P.S. I have both children and parents, but I am not convinced that their existence is the result of anything supernatural.



      I have a hub on the subject.

  18. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 11 years ago

    A brilliant exposition, Jenny - as always.

    I am constantly surprised that after all this time the evolution -vs- creation question hasn't been lain to rest once and for all.

    I realise that there are one or two isolated pockets of creationism in Australia and the UK - but of all the nations in the developed world America is the only one where it is still a "live" issue. Most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc. just wouldn't bother giving it the time of day!

    1. WeddingConsultant profile image65
      WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thom, I agree.  And I don't think it will be laid to rest until we all ....well....lay to rest!

      I do enjoy, however, that these topics bring up good discussions as this.  Although my eyes are begging for mercy at reading the super long posts (and I'm just as guilty here), I really appreciate the different challenges that go back and forth.  I was talking with a friend just yesterday about this thread and was telling him how grateful I am for atheists and agnostics such as yourselves on here because how would everyone be mentally stimulated and challenged without the other side's criticisms?

      1. Thom Carnes profile image60
        Thom Carnesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Couldn't agree more. But why do *you* think this is a question that only seems to raise its head in certain parts of the US?

        Even the Roman Catholic Church - and has there ever been a more closed, narrow-minded, reactionary, change-resistant organisation in the history of mankind? - now accepts that evolution is a scientifically-proven fact.

        Being the Catholic Church, of course, with over 2,000 years' experience in this sort of thing, it has its very own "take" on the question: it simply says that evolution refers only to mankind's *physical* development, and that somewhere along the line God chose the appropriate moment to bestow the divine gift of an immortal soul - which wasn't subject to the evolutionary process, but to the divine will of God.

        (I can't believe that I'm here acting as an apologist for the Catholic Church! Whatever next?)

        I just wondered why the more evangelically-minded churches couldn't adopt the same (relatively) enlightened approach ....

        What do you think?

        1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
          Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Simple: because they see it as a challenge to a very narrow interpretation of the Bible that many people have a great deal invested in.

          1. Thom Carnes profile image60
            Thom Carnesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting, Peter. Do you mean ideological or financial investment?

            1. profile image0
              sandra rinckposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              My two cents...with the churches:  from what I have heard coming out of Pastors mouths and such is that, the believe if they allowed people these theories then they wouldn't have "strong hold" on anything.  And they use the word "strong hold", which makes me wanna puke.

              1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
                Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I don't follow sandra rinck, could you elaborate please?  Do you mean stronghold as is the church's control, or stronghold as in addiction?  It sounds as if you are actually talking about both in 2 different contexts.

                1. profile image0
                  sandra rinckposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  can't say I am sure, it was the actual terms that the pastor was using.
                  It came about when I contested that gay people should be welcomed to the church because I thought it was better to welcome all, instead of try to change them all and that I did not view man or women who are "gay" to be a bother to society and that they aren't the ones who should be viewed as the hates of the church.  (hate crimes to the church).
                  So his response was that it was wrong before God, they needed to be changed and if we allowed people to be "gay", that it would ruin the structure of the church, the "strong hold" of the church, and in return there would be more hate crimes.

        2. WeddingConsultant profile image65
          WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thom, if I had to answer your question as to why the US doesn't fully accept evolution, I'd say this:
          1st, I'm not an expert!
          2nd I think it goes back to the Christian heritage of the United States.  Disagree if you'd like, but I think the U.S. has always been a couple steps behind Europe in it's moral standards.  The Netherlands, for example, is (I believe) the ONLY country that has legalized the euthanasia for humans.  (As we speak, my Dutch grandmother is considering this!)  Along with that, there is legal prostitution, legal "hash," and so on.  Will America eventually become this way?  Well, I don't know, but I think we're going that direction, unfortunately!

          Getting back to the answer- all of America hasn't fully accepted evolution but is on the path to moral degradation.



          http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_2.gif

          What is next? haha

          1. Thom Carnes profile image60
            Thom Carnesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            WeddingConsultant wrote:

            Thom Carnes wrote:


            Getting back to the answer- all of America hasn't fully accepted evolution but is on the path to moral degradation.


            Are you saying that America is on the path to moral degradation *because* it hasn't fully accepted evolution - or because some of it has?

  19. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    Yes, Jenny should be a teacher tongue

    Sprinkler man - why hilarious? If you don't see that the Spaghetti monster is just the same as an all-powerful Christian God - you are the hilarious one LOL Personally, I prefer the Star Goat or A'Tuin the turtle.  big_smile

    Here is an adequate explanation of the theory of evolution. And you can't go in and edit this one as some of your like-thinking friends have tried to do. No mention of making people from dirt instantaneously either big_smile

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I though Capt. Kirk was your man, are you now worshiping other gods?

  20. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 11 years ago

    Mark,

    That is a generalization at best. Why would I or anyone else try to edit it? What exactly do you believe? How did we evolve? What did we evolve from?

    As humans, we cannot think forever or infinity, we can only think in terms of a beginning and an end. At one point something had to start evolving, so where did that one thing come from? How was it created? How did it form?

    This is how I generalized the theory of evolution. I am not a scholar on the subject and I don't think anyone in this forum is either. It is just a good discussion.

    Origin of life

    The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens, does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.[144] The current scientific consensus is that the complex biochemistry that makes up life came from simpler chemical reactions, but it is unclear how this occurred.[145] Not much is certain about the earliest developments in life, the structure of the first living things, or the identity and nature of any last universal common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[146][147] Consequently, there is no scientific consensus on how life began, but proposals include self-replicating molecules such as RNA,[148] and the assembly of simple cells.[149]

    The assembly of simple cells - This is what I am talking about when simple elements had to come in contact with each other and develop into something. There are only so many elements that are on this planet.

       Sprinkler Man wrote:

        The Theory of Evolution from evolutionists/scientists/atheists is summed up that we evolved from water, dirt, electricity, the sun and other elements coming together and forming our bodies the way they are now. (assembly of simple cells) Write from the definition....

    Well, that is an incorrect summary of the Theory of Evolution. If you think that's what it is, no wonder you disagree with it, LOL. I would too. That's just a completely ridiculous idea. Not even a completely deluded cult member would ... no, actually, they just might ... but nobody who has actually listened in high school biology (in a place where they teach it, of course, which is not a given in the US) would think that was what the Theory of Evolution says.

    That wasn't my idea or any cult member - unless you are referring to the scientists who created the definition yikes

  21. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    Of course it is a generalization. It's only one page, but there are any number of specific examples if you wish to read them:

    http://www.santafe.edu/~hag/ecal95/node8.html
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a … 5/5682/371
    http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
    http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
    http://www.stsci.edu/resources/

    Creationists have, in the past, attempted to edit that page to match what you think of as evolution. i.e that we were turned from dirt to humans in a short space of time.

    Nobody believes this and the only people propagating this idea are those who wish to destroy any credibility of evolution as a theory.

    No one knows for certain how life began, and over the centuries there have been any number of creationist theories. All of them as believable as the current Christian model. i.e. that the earth was created in six days by an all-powerful being big_smile

    We evolved from hominids, which evolved from another ape-like creature which evolved from a simpler version back down to the primordial ooze. A human did not just stand up out of the basic building blocks. It took millions of years of trial and error development before we evolved into our current form. That's what I believe.

    http://www.sciencenetlinks.com/sci_update.cfm?DocID=298

    And I believe it because there is substantial evidence that this happened. I also "believe" that there were other species on the planet before us called dinosaurs.

    As I understand it, the theory suggests that life as we know it started 4000 million years ago and sexual reproduction first started around 1200 million years ago. If you are interested in the full time line it is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o … _evolution

    So, I guess we did evolve from water, dirt, electricity, the sun - it just took 4000 million years.

    Peter - LOL The Star Goat is from a Douglas Adams book, A'Tuin from a Terry Pratchet book, and I worship many "Gods" LOL big_smile

  22. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
    Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years ago

    Both, of course, but I meant ideologically when I wrote it.

  23. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    Well, I think America is on the path to moral degradation, period.  It's not necessarily because it hasn't fully accepted evolution (although in my opinion that wouldn't help! smile)

    I think this movement toward moral relativism and wishy-washy beliefs is encouraging America's move toward accepting things such as evolution.

    Maybe we're asking which comes first, the chicken (belief in evolution- for example) or the egg (moral relativism- for example)?  My answer is the egg!

    wink

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that the only reason belief in evolution comes about is because of a drop in moral standards? Nothing to do with the evidence?

      1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
        Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I must admit Wedding Planner, I don't quite understand what you are trying to say, either.  Could you elaborate please.

  24. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 11 years ago

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, almost the whole of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have fully embraced the theory of evolution by natural selection.

    I may be wrong (well, anything's possible!) but I'm not aware that these countries are spiralling rapidly into a maelstrom of moral degradation.

    There probably aren't any really effective measures of morality. But it is demonstrably true that countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK (all secular countries) give a higher proportion of their gross national product to internal and external charitable causes than "religious" countries such as the US.

    I realise this is a superficial indicator - but surely it tells us *something* about the relationship between moral responsibility and secularism.

    1. Inspirepub profile image81
      Inspirepubposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not to mention the rate of death by gunshot in all those countries is at least two orders of magnitude lower than in the US, and the rates of teen pregnancy are also significantly lower ...

      Jenny

  25. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 11 years ago

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got an impression that "moral degradation" in WeddingConsultants interpretation equals allowing people to do what they want to do - in other words "freedom". At least how it follows from the set of examples he gave... Accordingly, high morale equals police state... big_smile

    1. SparklingJewel profile image71
      SparklingJewelposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There is no true freedom with out moral stability. Its not freedom to kill because someone wants to, its not freedom to steal from another, its not freedom to...you got the idea.
      True Freedom is soul honor, dignity, kindness, restraint, moral actions, values and standards. Everyone is not going to agree on the degree of specifics of such, because there are infinite positions in life from various experiences...but there is ball park that everyone can accept.

      I realize my response here is not up to current conversation...but TRUE FREEDOM is a lot different than freedom, as "what ever ya want...anything goes...'cause I feel like it".

  26. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    I suppose I should clarify:

    Mark said: "Are you saying that the only reason belief in evolution comes about is because of a drop in moral standards? Nothing to do with the evidence?"

    Not necessarily.  This goes back to my comment about America being founded on freedom of religion grounds.  Using Christianity as an example, I think we'd agree that there is a direct correlation between belief in Christianity and belief in creationism.  Since these two factors are true (1- that US was to be a country with freedom of religion- but established by Christians and 2- that Christians = creationists mostly), then doesn't it make sense that when America seems to denigrate it's Christian heritage it also moves toward evolution?
    Hopefully that helps to clear up what I was trying to say.


    Misha wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I got an impression that "moral degradation" in WeddingConsultants interpretation equals allowing people to do what they want to do - in other words "freedom". At least how it follows from the set of examples he gave...

    For clarification purposes, I was using the 2nd definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary


    Thom commented: "I may be wrong (well, anything's possible!) but I'm not aware that these countries are spiralling rapidly into a maelstrom of moral degradation.

    There probably aren't any really effective measures of morality. But it is demonstrably true that countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK (all secular countries) give a higher proportion of their gross national product to internal and external charitable causes than "religious" countries such as the US."

    The second paragraph of what you wrote is true and disheartening.  I'm just not sure we can make a direct correlation between two, very complex things (moral degradation and the overall state of countries!).  So maybe I opened a larger can of worms than I realized because it's not possible (is it?) to point to a country and say things about it because it won't always be true across the board.  So I should probably stress that (again, my opinion) moral degradation is a contributing factor to America's gradual acceptance of evolution as truth.  Now, I know you won't agree, but did I at least make sense this time around?  Sometimes the limitations of communication over the internet can be a hindrance!


    Peter- Maybe you should just stick with calling me "ed."  Courtesy of your baby names hub, another hub and threads I've been called wedding planner, wedding consultant, wedding singer and, my favorite, stalker! wink

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not really big_smile because you are implying that belief in evolution stems from a denigration of it's christian heritage, and that this in some way is a moral decline.

      And there were a lot of people already living in America who held a completely different set iof beliefs than christian ones smile

      You don't need to be a christian to have high moral standards  smile

      So, perhaps I am putting you on the spot, but do you believe that the only reason people believe in evolution is because they have low morals?

      And freedom of religious grounds also means the freedom to not believe in any religion big_smile

    2. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There may be a loose correlation between denigrating the Christian heritage and a move toward the belief in the theory of evolution, but it is a very tenuous correlation, and I don't believe there is any causation.

      Christians should never shun science or scientific discovery.  I believe God spoke the universe into existence, and I would absolutely love to know how it happened scientifically speaking.  "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter." Prov. 25.2.  I believe this is not only true of the Word of God, but of the workings of God as well.  If faith is so tenuous as to be brought into question by scientific discovery, then I think our understanding of "faith" is wrong.



      I'll stick with Pete, how's that?  It's easier to remember and easier to type.

    3. Misha profile image67
      Mishaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This exact definition by Merriam-Webster does not say anything about moral degradation, neither it explains your examples wink

      1. WeddingConsultant profile image65
        WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry folks, I had no time to log on this weekend as I am in the process of making our home baby-ready!  I know I'm behind a couple of pages on this thread, but I'd like to answer the questions you all asked of me, one at a time.



        Misha, here's what the definition says:
        1: the act or process of degrading
        2 a: decline to a low, destitute, or demoralized state b: moral or intellectual decadence : degeneration
        (emphasis added)

        I suppose I'm not sure what you're saying, because it seems that moral decadence is mentioned right there in the definition of moral denigration.

        1. Misha profile image67
          Mishaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          WC, I was asking you for your definition of "moral degradation", you are giving me somebody else's definition of degradation (without moral), that even do not include "moral degradation" in the explanation part...

          I'm not going to agrue over this, never mind...

          What I actually was trying to steer your attention to may be clarified by self-quote from another post:

          1. WeddingConsultant profile image65
            WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hmm, that's an interesting take.  I know you don't want to argue over it, but may I offer one final comment?  I was just attempting to define "moral degradation" for clarification purposes.  That's why I borrowed the definition of degradation from Merriam-Webster.  And there is no mention of the word "degradation" in the definition because one is not suppose to use the vocabulary word when attempting to define that same vocabulary word!

            In any case, I appreciate what you bring to the table with your Russian background! smile  You bring up an interesting point when you say, "perceived right of a person to do what [they] want to do within the boundaries of law and custom" as this might differ from country to country.

  27. profile image0
    MOmmagusposted 11 years ago

    http://www.reasons.org/


    This is a really cool website that has TONS of interesting theories.  I especially like some of the perspectives on UFO's.

  28. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    ps.  I could very well have just bumped into one "bad" seed, (which isn't cause for damnation) but if he is supposed to represent the church and Christ,  I think he is doing a poor job of it, so my views on christianity are Huray, when they do as Jesus would do, but....mumms the word...when they do things that are what I call blasphemous and controlling, and taking truth and campassion as means to conform society to shape what they belive is right, when people are not all the same.  Maybe in Christianity, it's one body, but one body is a lot of different ones.

  29. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
    Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years ago

    These are fair criticisms, sandra.  It's unfortunate that the Church is represented in this manner.  Jesus never criticized a single sinner.  He was openly critical of religious leaders for the burden they placed on the people.  If our religious leaders would follow in Jesus' example rather than the example of the religious leaders whom Jesus criticized, there would be fewer people that feel like you...and to a lesser extent me.

    ...perhaps even Mark & Thom.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      LOL - If the "Church" practiced what it preaches, I would be far less an atheist than I am. smile  On the other hand, I also hold many of the "Scientific Advances," in the same contempt.

      For instance - mad cow disease. It is largely accepted that the root cause of this "disease," comes from feeding cows with sheep's brains. WTF? No one stopped to say -"hold on, this might not be a great idea."?

      And now the latest attempt to "hold dominion over all animals," is to attempt to introduce a genetically-engineered mosquito that doesn't carry malaria? Insane. big_smile This is one area where I can agree with the "Christians."

      1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
        Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        There's a topic for you.  Another thread perhaps. "...far less atheist..."  That is interesting.  Is it even possible?  They may be few and far between, but there are a few (churches not just people) that do. And if you were forced to go to one that didn't, I would understand your hostility.  I do, actually, before I became an agnostic I was Catholic.  Upon my reentry into the faith, I found a group of believers who actually believe AND practice what they preach.  It is totally cool.



        WTF Indeed.  Yeah, making cows cannibals (because if wasn't just sheep's brains, it was cow parts too) was a bad idea.  Capitalism at its finest.

  30. profile image0
    RFoxposted 11 years ago

    Wow! You don't log on to your computer for a week and look what happens while you're away. wink

    I must say I agree with Thom on the whole: why is the evolution/creation debate still raging? (Although I think I come at this from a different angle.) It does seem though that when Christians and Atheists get together it inevitably turns into arguments for and against evolution and I personally don't understand it.

    Of course my belief system doesn't care how the world was created only that 'it is'. I don't spend any energy thinking about how I came to be here, only that I am, but that's one of the biggest differences between Eastern and Western philosophies.

    Something that piqued my curiosity when I started reading this thread was: If I don't believe God is in control of the universe does that make me an Atheist?
    I believe in many states of being as do most Buddhists. So I have faith that there are states of existence I can't physically see or touch but I do not believe a 'higher power' is the architect of the universe or that this God or Gods control the universe.

    So does that technically mean I'm an Atheist? big_smile

    1. Thom Carnes profile image60
      Thom Carnesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Probably not. I don't think that you have to believe that God actually *does* anything - He could just be sitting there paring His fingermails or contemplating His divine navel - but if you believe He exists in any form at all, you aren't an atheist.

      What a shame!

      1. profile image0
        RFoxposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry, I guess you don't have a new member then. sad
        Lol.
        Except I don't believe in 'God' either. Heaven is a state of existence but it is transitory just like human rebirth. You could be reborn as a divine entity Thom and then a human being and then a flea. Lol.

        So I guess I'm wondering how my non-belief in God is different from your non-belief in God?
        I have never really thought about this question until now. It's not something I really have to contemplate but I'm a curious person. big_smile

  31. Inspirepub profile image81
    Inspirepubposted 11 years ago

    My take would be that Buddhism is more like agnosticism, although there are many varieties of Buddhism, and some have complex cosmographies with multiple planes of existence and various types of higher beings - it would be a little hard to call them "atheist" or even "agnostic". They seem to be claiming some definite gnosis there.

    Western Buddhism is more minimalist, and that is what I am talking about when I say that Buddhism is more like agnosticism. Anyone who is comfortable to acknowledge the equal validity of other religions and their alternative belief systems is, IMHO, less a believer and more an agnostic ... "true believers" BELIEVE their beliefs to be TRUTHS and therefore by extension the conflicting beliefs of others to be untruths. Hence the name.

    Jenny

    1. funride profile image78
      funrideposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Jenny, that is why I have to consider myself agnostic - respect for other´s opinions and options. That is why I think atheists are no "better" than God believers, as they both try to convince each other they are the ones who are right roll. And I guess this thread it´s the living proof of that but please don´t stop because of me I´m loving to read it big_smile.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I respect others' opinions and options also. Unless they try and insist I believe them too. In fact,  I could care less who believes what, but when they impinge on me, I rebel big_smile Take abortion for instance. When the anti-abortionists try and insist that abortion be made illegal because their belief in God tells them abortion is wrong, that's where I get upset. Especially when the same anti-abortionists also insist that they are not in any way responsible for the unwanted baby after the birth. If they said, "Abortion should be illegal and we pledge to feed, educate and generally look after the baby," I would have a different opinion of them.

        It's fair to say that I have a low opinion of most Christian religious sects. Not because of what they preach, but their lack of ability to follow their own teachings. smile And they do insist on trying to inflict their warped values on others. If you had spent as much time being forced into church as I have you would probably hold a similar view.

        Plus, there are so many other options who consider themselves to be RIGHT, how on earth can anyone make a valued judgment?

        And any one who denies that evolution is happening based on a 2,000-year-old rewritten book with no provenance and the fact that there are fish in the sea as "proof," that evolution doesn't happen? Well........ big_smile

  32. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 11 years ago

    RFox writes:

    "......There are religions that don't believe in God or a creator figure."

    Is that right? I didn't think it was possible (although I'm willing to take your word for it) to have a "religion" that didn't include the idea of a God or a creator figure. Isn't that precisely what the word means: belief in, and reverence for, a God or gods?

    On that basis, I guess Buddhism wouldn't strictly be a "religion" - and would probably be none the worse for that.

    1. ZEV profile image65
      ZEVposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure, but I believe I read about the following in the 1968 book, Chariots of the Gods by Erich von Däniken. The jest of the content was this. Scientists make contact with a tribe of people in the jungle that had never seen any other living human beings beside themselves. They had no religion and didn't know anything about God. The scientists arrived in a small plane and left the same way.

      Upon returning a year or so later they discovered the tribe had built an effigy of the plane and were worshiping the plane as a God, not the men that flew in it. This tribe, by all counts saw the plane as a God that came there from the heavens. If we knew nothing of God could we have taken something else to be the creator, why was it God? For us to believe in God wouldn't there have to have been some event that happened like the plane to lead us to believe in him in the first place? If you follow this logic there had to be an event that occurred that changed us from believing in nothing to believing in something.

    2. profile image0
      RFoxposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting thought. Is Buddhism a religion or simply a philosophy? It has been elevated to a religion because it is practiced in a way that mirrors other religions but there is no belief in God or a creator figure.

      Buddhism was founded by Buddha ( a man) on the principles of the 4 Noble Truths:
      1. Life contains suffering
      2. Suffering is caused by desire and attachment
      3. Cessation of suffering is possible
      4. The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration or:
              1. Correct thought: avoiding covetousness, the wish to harm others and wrong views (like thinking: actions have no consequences, I never have any problems, there are no ways to end suffering etc.)
               2. Correct speech: avoid lying, divisive and harsh speech and idle gossip.
               3. Correct actions: avoid killing, stealing and sexual misconduct
               4. Correct livelihood: try to make a living with the above attitude of thought, speech and actions.
               5. Correct understanding: developing genuine wisdom.
               6. Correct effort: after the first real step we need joyful perseverance to continue.
               7. Correct mindfulness: try to be aware of the "here and now", instead of dreaming in the "there and then".
               8. Correct concentration: to keep a steady, calm and attentive state of mind.

      All of this is designed as a way to create compassion, empathy, joy and non-attachment to our lives. But as you can see there is no God or creator figure mentioned.
      An Atheist can achieve enlightenment the same as a religious person can because it is determined by your actions not your personal belief system.

      And Karma is not a creator figure either. It is simply the mechanism that perpetuates the universe. Like the scientific principle: 'Every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. Karma just 'is' like the moon and the tides and the seasons, it is simply a self perpetuating mechanism.

      So I do not believe in a God nor is Buddha my savior. He cannot save me, only I can save myself because I am responsible for my actions in this life and others.
      In this respect I definitely have more in common with Atheists than Believers (for want of a better word) because I do not give over control of my life to a higher power. big_smile

  33. funride profile image78
    funrideposted 11 years ago

    Mark, I think you know that I agree with you on that (and "thanks to God"/"My father" smile I have never been forced to go to church) but you have to admit that no matter who´s right (if any) atheists also try to covert or convince others about their believes. Personally I tend to prefer atheist logic if compared with other more intuitive believes but that don´t mean I ever try to convince someone that his/her God doesn´t really exists roll. But you made your point, I believe you respect others opinions wink.

  34. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    funride - I'm just messin' with ya big_smile

    Peter - Perhaps I should rephrase that to - "Far less antagonistic towards the church." big_smile

    Although, I have to say, their behavior was one of the things that first led me to doubt the things I had been "taught," as a child/young man, so perhaps the former is true also.

    1. SparklingJewel profile image71
      SparklingJewelposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I knew the meaning of hypocrite before I knew the word itself! My mom loved Jesus, but she had a yardstick she used without much discrimination (to whip us kids). She also had my dad whalin' on her, so there ya go. No one is perfect and we all have stuff to work on. I just found it important to not become someone else, because of patterns of psychology exampled...but rather to seek my own beliefs, connect individually with my own sense of higher  Source/God/Infinite/Original Energy and learn from reading others experiences what I believed...and accept that beliefs can change and that is ok.

    2. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I do not know what you were taught as a child, but I know what I was taught as a child (Catholic), and I would assume it was very similar.  Yes, it was the difference between what was preached and what was experienced that made me doubt as well. 

      If Christians would simply insist on not living vicariously through 2000 year old Apostles and preaching what good things are theoretically possible and actually go out and get testimonies of their own and bring the power and not just the word (as Paul says) the doubters would turn to believers instead of believers turning to doubters.  Being a minister of the Gospel is much more than being a preacher of the Gospel.  We are all called as ministers, I just wish most preachers would realize this.

  35. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 11 years ago

    LOL Jewel, as hectic as my own thoughts are on the subject, yours seem to be even more eclectic smile

    First I would state that the TRUE freedom does not depend on any external factors, including any moral. As I understand it, it is listening to your own inner self and doing whatever it's telling you to do. Even kill... And I don't think there is any common denominator to it - definitely not ten commandments smile

    What I was referring to in my post is more common definition of freedom consistent with western culture, i.e. perceived right of a person to do what them want to do within the boundaries of law and custom. And what WC was saying looked like he was associating the expansion of those boundaries in some countries with "moral degradation"...

  36. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    I was just thinking of a song by NoFx from the song Pods and Gods,   check it.

    Martian men are coming to earth.
    They're abducting all of the jerks,
    Martian men are coming to earth.
    Martian men don't take me.

    Pods are landing from outer space.
    Pods are duplicating my face.
    Pods are landing from outer space.
    Pods thing leave me alone.

    I don't know what conventions you go to.
    I don't know what movies you've seen.
    I don't wanna hear explanations of unexplainable things.

    It's not that I don't believe in aliens.
    It's just I really don't care.
    I wouldn't mind some interplanetary friends,
    until they come I'll hang in my own atmosphere.

    Holy Ghost is coming to earth,
    Saving souls of all of the jerks.
    The Holy Ghost is coming to earth.
    Savior men don't take me.

    The number one son is flipping the tab.
    Paying for sins and fun we all had.
    The number one son is flipping the bill.
    Let me chip in for the tip.

    I don't understand why you beg for forgiveness.
    Just before you do it again.
    Is it more altruistic to worship.
    Or actually help fellow man?

    It's not that I don't believe in Jesus Christ.
    It's just I care about other things.
    The world could certainly use some miracles,
    Until then I'll put my faith in human being.



    Thanks to Simon (melvin_nofx@web.de), Sarah (plumsky@cox.net) for correcting these lyrics
    NOFX LYRICS

  37. Inspirepub profile image81
    Inspirepubposted 11 years ago

    I believe Buddha said something to the effect of "Don't look at me - look at where I am pointing ..." to try to prevent his ideas from becoming lost in worship of his persona.

    Didn't work 100% effectively, though ...

    Jenny

    1. profile image0
      RFoxposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, he also said "Do not worship me as I am not a God". There are some people who haven't followed this advice, however, there is also a lot of misunderstanding regarding the temples and images of the Buddha in Mayahana Buddhism.

      When people see Buddhists bowing or prostrating in front of the statues they take it as worship when it really isn't. Prostrating in public is a way to remove the ego and humble yourself. Pride and ego are the enemy, so to speak, and bowing down in public is a very humbling experience.

      It's the same with giving offerings. The idea behind offerings is that it helps to remind you to be generous in spirit. To get in the habit of giving freely, so this will hopefully translate into daily life with the people around you.

      These practices are easily misconstrued by people who haven't read the Dharma. big_smile

  38. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 11 years ago

    RFox - Although I am not a Buddhist, if this is your "religion," it seems awfully close to mine (zen atheist). And makes complete sense to me.

    The discussion in another thread seems to have come to the conclusion that you don't need to believe in God to live ethically.

    1. profile image0
      RFoxposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I love the name 'zen atheist'. From what I have read of your beliefs in other threads they are very similar to mine. Of course zen has always played a big part in Buddhist philosophy and God is irrelevant to the Dharma path, so it's not surprising our beliefs cross over. big_smile

      Glad to hear people agree that ethics and God are not one in the same. wink

  39. Thom Carnes profile image60
    Thom Carnesposted 11 years ago

    As the Buddhist said to the hot-dog vendor:

    "Make me one with everything!"

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I second that, excluding sourkrout, that's just sufferable to me!

    2. profile image0
      RFoxposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.freewebby.com/happy-smilies/smarty.gif

      Lol. big_smile

      1. Thom Carnes profile image60
        Thom Carnesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        And when the Buddhist complained that he hadn't received any change from a 20-dollar bill, the vendor told him:

        "Change can only come from within!"

        1. profile image0
          RFoxposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Lol. You have the best jokes Thom!

  40. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
    Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years ago

    Welcome back Ed...I mean Pete.  Yeah, you can't leave these guys alone for any time at all or they just go wild.

    1. WeddingConsultant profile image65
      WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Tell me about it!  My fingers have gone sore from clicking 'report' for all this heresy.

      Just kidding!
      http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_1.gif

  41. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    Mark said:
    "Not really because you are implying that belief in evolution stems from a denigration of it's christian heritage, and that this in some way is a moral decline."

    AND

    Peter said:
    "There may be a loose correlation between denigrating the Christian heritage and a move toward the belief in the theory of evolution, but it is a very tenuous correlation, and I don't believe there is any causation."

    I think you two are saying similar things here, so I grouped a response together with both of your comments.  I think I opened a can of worms that was non-existent.  I should stress that I was implying that moral degradation is a small, contributing factor to our growing belief in evolution as a nation.  Mark, it's not that evolution "stems" from it; I would say evolution is not hindered by it (or it serves as an encourager of evolution).  I mean, we agree that it doesn't hurt evolution's cause right?
    And Peter, this is where I would have to disagree- I think there is sufficient causation, as difficult as that is to prove with one broad stroke of the paint brush.  The cause of evolution isn't hurt by the fact that we're moving away from our nation's Christian heritage!  It's helped.

    -BUT-

    You're right Mark, one doesn't have to be a Christian to have high moral standards.  I've meet plenty of people with high standards/morals who don't know God.

  42. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    I agree Peter that Christians shouldn't shun science.

    And that's a great scripture passage to bring up- there are just some things in life we'll never know.  Just as I said that I'm a young-earth creationist, I believe that the days in Genesis were literal days.  I certainly wasn't there, though.  In fact, there was a creation story in existence around the same time as the Genesis account!  It was held by another people group in the Babylonian region and could be seen as cause for doubt that the Hebrews "stole" the story.  (I think it gives credence to the story as another culture had the same story!)  But the actual account of creation is one of those things that might never be explained!

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, we will know...one day.  It may be that the Big Guy is the one doing the explaining, but we will know.  I absolutely believe that His explanation will be perfect agreement with the scriptural account, I just think our comprehension of the scriptural account is limited by human experience.

      For example, it is not until day four that we get the Sun and the Moon which are to mark our seasons, months, days, etc.  In other words, there is no earth day until day four at the very earliest, and even then only at the completion if day 4 was the making thereof, so really day 5.  I think we borrow our concept of "day" from God, not the other way around.  So, yes, I believe it is 6 days, but I'll rely on God's explanation on what His "day" means whenever He chooses to explain it.  I think we agree in principle, if not entirely in how we count.

      1. WeddingConsultant profile image65
        WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Well, I must warn you, math was my favorite and strongest subject!
        http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_18_3.gif

  43. WeddingConsultant profile image65
    WeddingConsultantposted 11 years ago

    No worries about putting me on the spot!  As tedious as it is sometimes to write out explanations, I happen to enjoy it (mostly!). wink

    I don't believe that the only reason people believe in evolution is because they have low morals.  To say that would be ignorance on my part.  I would say that to accept evolution would be a show of low Christian morals.  I think that much is clear, but maybe someone will find a reason to disagree with me?



    Absolutely!  And although I don't believe the pilgrims went to America with that in mind, that door was certainly left open.  This is evidenced by the fact that many of the founding fathers varied in faiths.

  44. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
    Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years ago

    You better watch it, a car is coming.  It might be a cop.

  45. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    hi sprinkler man,  evolution takes a really, really, really long time, it does not happen over night, and hardly can a person ever see it in real time.  It's just a proccess of change, even growing from infant to adult and then to death could be considered an evolutionary proccess.  New ideas, ways of thinking, new philosophies and such are also evolutionary. 

    I think I can see what you are trying to say though, ( so I think ) that because a fish was always a fish and a dolphin was always a dolphin, means that it was always here.  But in evolution a fish looked different a billion years ago, then it does now, same with the dolphins and whales and people we changed to suit our environments.  Like the birds, if they migrate to a certain location every year like clockwork, but one day its gone, they will find a new place to migrate to and they will adapt to their environment.

    Evolution is also like the flu or a sickness, like how it is said, you can not get the exact same flu once you have already had it because, you body changed and it has become immune to the disease, but also because of it, the flu strand also changes.  So like that, it is survival of the fittest,  we change to become immune to the flu, but the flu also changes to become immune to us. and the theory of natural selection is also an evolutionary proccess because people bodies while made up of the same things have built over the billions of years an immunity to certain things, so turtles live in water that is polluted with salmanila that make people sick, but turttles need it. 

    Does it make more sense like this?

    1. Sprinkler Man profile image58
      Sprinkler Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It makes more sense for you.

      Thanks for your reply.

  46. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    some can wonder if anything at all makes sense to you, if it does, then what are you looking for? smile

    1. Sprinkler Man profile image58
      Sprinkler Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Who are some? Are you talking about yourself as a group of atheist? They say this and they say that......Sandra are you in charge of this post?

      You didn't make any sense when you posted your reply and you are not making any sense now.

      I am wondering why you are trying to defy creation when you have no proof of evolution.

      I am looking for proof of evolution, what are you doing here? What are you looking for? Atheism Rules what? Not me!!! Mark started this thread but I don't see him defending his stance or answering anything I have to show for creation.

      The atheist do not believe there is a creator and that evolution had to happen. I am here to prove all atheist/scientist wrong.

      If you think you can answer any one of my facts with an actual intelligent answer then be my guest. If not, please move on and let someone else try.....

      Thank you,

      SM

      1. Inspirepub profile image81
        Inspirepubposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I think you misrepresent yourself, Sprinkler Man.

        You do not conduct yourself like someone looking for proof of evolution.

        You don't even understand what evolution is, and you have shown no desire whatsoever to engage with any of the evidence for evolution mentioned in this thread.

        You conduct yourself like a person who has already decided, without even understanding what evolution is, that it is all wrong, and who will not open their mind to learn and evaluate any of the available information.



        I think this is a better representation of your true intention.

        Unfortunately, to prove someone wrong, you have to understand what they are saying.

        You clearly don't.

        It makes you look a little silly, actually, trying to prove someone wrong when you can't even articulate the theory you are trying to prove wrong.

        Every atheist in this discussion is better informed about creationism than you are about evolution.

        If you sincerely wish to engage in rational debate in order to prove these atheists wrong, it is necessary that you become as educated about their position as they are about yours.

        Otherwise, they will continue to run rings around you, and you will continue to look ignorant and misinformed, which will mean that you will fail in your objective.

        Many very intelligent Christians have conducted rational debates on the theory of evolution, and made some good points. I haven't seen you mention even one of those very good points in any of your posts.



        So far, you have comprehensively failed to make any intelligent answer to any of the serious points made by the atheists, Sprinkler Man. The ball is in your court. I suggest you go and read up, because just asserting things won't work here.

        To be taken seriously, you MUST know what you are talking about. The material you need is all available online. Go and read up on the Theory of Evolution (as explained by its proponents), then go and read the counter-arguments (by scientists, not preachers - the preachers will just lead you astray again).

        Come back with some meaty, intelligent commentary about evolution, and you will get some thoughtful and considered replies.

        Until then, your repeated "nya nya, because I say so, so there, and you are just poopyheads if you believe differently" form of argument is unlikely to get you anywhere.

        This is a forum where people with very different belief systems can compare and contrast, and expand one another's understanding.

        You have some work to do before you can converse at that level.

        It seems to me that you have the capability to do that work and join the conversation as an equal, and I encourage you to do it. We need more educated, rational Christians in this forum.

        If you would like me to suggest some sites to read, just ask, and I will happily provide half a dozen.

        Jenny

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        First of all, apologies to those I am not responding to. Too many different tacks on this thread.

        I couldn't resist this one though smile

        I have one word for you: Fossils

        I don't see you providing any evidence or proof whatsoever for your theory that the world was spoken into being in six days. If you could please provide me with some, I would be happy to change my tune.

        I personally have seen evidence that the world has been around for longer than christians would suggest. I am also aware of the many previous religions that christianity stole it's ideas from. Christianity is more about politics and power than anything else. If there is a version I respect, it's Peter's version. Yours is based on nothing, as far as I can tell. Nothing.

        But let's also be clear on one thing -

        I am not an atheist because of the theory of evolution. I came to the conclusion that there was no such thing as a God by a simple process. I looked at all the information I had available, which included a study of the bible, and came to the conclusion it was wrong. Based on my own observations and experiences. It just doesn't make any sense. Simple as that. It relies 100% on a belief in something that clearly does not exist.

        The next step for me was to then ask myself the question. "OK, if the bible is a work of fiction  - how did we come to be?"

        So, I looked at all the other theories available and chose one that made the most sense to me, based on my own observations and experiences.

        Guess which one wins? - Yes, the theory of evolution. And make no mistake either - Darwinian Natural Selection is not the same thing as evolution.

        You have demonstrated a complete ignorance of both Darwinian Natural Selection and Evolution. I do not believe you understand either the underlying theory or the wealth of evidence for both processes. If you would care to educate yourself, I would hope that you could provide some sensible counter-arguments. The fact that there are fish in the sea as being "proof," that evolution does not occur just didn't cut it for me big_smile

        If christians had any sense, they would be saying, "Of course evolution happens - It's proof that there is a God controlling things." I would have a tough time arguing against that LOL

        And I thought you were fed up of coming down to my level of ignorance?

      3. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
        Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I love ya' Sprinkler Man, but if this is your stated aim I'm jumping ship.  Jesus never set out to prove anyone "wrong" other than religious leaders.  He came to save that which was lost.  Jesus loved people, his heart would be and is broken for the very people you are trying to "prove wrong".

        The best way is to demonstrate a superior way.  Remember the words of Paul, "For the kingdom of God is not in word but in power."  1 Cor. 4:20.  You will never argue anyone into faith, only turn people away.  Kind of counterproductive, don't you think?

        Participate, get to know people, love on people, and when someone needs something, give it to them.  One day, someone will need a miracle, and you can give them that.  That's how Jesus changed lives.

        1. WeddingConsultant profile image65
          WeddingConsultantposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          (I added bold)

          Peter, I agree with what you said, especially the second paragraph's final sentences (bold)

          If Peter (or myself or anyone else) were able to "argue someone" into believing in God on a thread such as this one, it would be just as easy to argue that someone back to believing in no God.  It's certainly not my goal to argue someone into believing anything.

          As far as jumping ship- I didn't know there were ships!  I've been pretty happy reading and interacting with others here on a non-personal level.  I don't necessarily draw lines and figure out who's on which side, but that's just me!

  47. Misha profile image67
    Mishaposted 11 years ago

    SM, if you did not notice this yet, we have a conversation here, not a fight. If having a conversation without a fight does not make sense to you, find another thread or better another site to fight your point...

  48. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 11 years ago

    I feel like I am eating popcorn watching the Greatest Story Ever Told, being played before my eyes. 

    Really this program is great, you should watch it from my side, it's really good!

  49. profile image0
    RFoxposted 11 years ago

    Jenny...you rock!!

  50. Sprinkler Man profile image58
    Sprinkler Manposted 11 years ago

    Thanks Peter,

    Its just interesting to see how these people react, I understand that even if I could bring someone back from the dead, they would still not believe and want to persecute me even further. I am so ignorant - as everyone says, I can see that I am getting no where and I will stop wasting my time.

    You are all so great, thanks for the great information.........

    Thanks again Peter,

    1. Peter M. Lopez profile image85
      Peter M. Lopezposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, no, I don't mean to suggest you stop participating, only that a change of tactic might be more appropriate.  You are not ignorant, but to quote Ed (Wedding Consultant), you can't come in "guns blazing" and expect to win over anybody.

      It's precisely because Christians seldom produce what they preach (healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.) that people turn away from Christianity.  The answer is not to give up, but to go about doing the real business of Christianity. 

      I mean to encourage you, my brother, not discourage you.

      Ed, I used my words carelessly, I did not mean to designate sides, but it did seem like sides were being designated.  We are all in this together, you are correct young padawan.

    2. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Persecute?  big_smile

      I have said on several occasions that I would welcome an intelligent discussion with you. And you can take it from me that if I saw you bring someone back from the dead, I would switch my belief system in a heartbeat.

      Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for you. You are closed to all arguments and I very much doubt you looked at any of the resources either Jenny or I linked to for you.

      I would love to say it is interesting to see how you react, unfortunately, you are rather predictable. Almost as though you got it all out of a book you read, but didn't understand. smile

      Ciao

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)