View Full Version : Nine year old rape victim has abortion, is excommunicated
http://img.timeinc.net/time/i/logo_time_print.gif (http://www.time.com/time)
Friday, Mar. 06, 2009
Nine-Year-Old's Abortion Outrages Brazil's Catholic Church
By Andrew Downie / São Paulo
The case of the pregnant 9-year-old was shocking enough. But it was the response of the Catholic Church that infuriated many Brazilians. Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion. The Church excommunicated the doctors who performed the procedure as well. "God's laws," said the archbishop, dictate that abortion is a sin and that transgressors are no longer welcome in the Roman Catholic Church. "They took the life of an innocent," Sobrinho told TIME in a telephone interview. "Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored."
The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) When the incident came to light in local newspapers, the Church first asked a judge to halt the process and then condemned those involved, including the 9-year-old's distraught mother. Even Catholic Brazilians were shocked at the harshness of the archbishop's actions. "In this case, most people support the doctors and the family. Everything they did was legal and correct," says Beatriz Galli, the policy associate for Ipas Brasil, an NGO that fights to give women more say over their health and reproductive rights. "But the Church takes these positions that are so rigid that it ends up weakened. It is very intolerant, and that intolerance is going to scare off more and more followers." (See pictures of the Pope's last visit to Brazil. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1620584,00.html))
Brazilian devotion to the Catholic Church has declined over the past several years. Whereas Brazil was once an almost entirely Catholic nation, only 74% of Brazilians today admit allegiance to Rome, with large numbers, especially the urban poor, having defected to Protestant Evangelical sects. Many more water down their Catholicism with dashes of African religions such as Candomble or spiritist beliefs such as Kardecism. Only recently has the decrease in Catholic affiliation seemingly leveled off.
Evangelicals have not projected a united pro-life platform in Brazil, certainly not one as monolithic as the Catholic Church's. But at least one major sect, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, has taken a stance that showcases its differences with its Catholic rival. The Universal Church's television channel TV Record recently aired spots featuring a woman declaring, "I decided who to marry. I decided to use the pill. With my vote I decided who'd be elected President. I decided to work so that I won't be discriminated against. Why can't I decide what to do with my own body? Women should be able to decide for themselves what's important." (See the top 10 religion stories of 2008. (http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/article/0,30583,1855948_1855958,00.html))
The public-relations campaigns of the Catholic Church's rivals do not impress Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho. He told TIME that the Vatican rejects believers who pick and choose their issues. Rome "is not going to open the door to anyone just to get more members," he said after comparing abortion to the Holocaust. "We know that people have other ideas, but if they do, then they are not Catholics. We want people who adhere to God's laws."
In Brazil, that hard line carries over into public life and government policy. While equally devout neighbors Mexico, Colombia and Uruguay have taken steps to give women more of a say in the matter of terminating pregnancies, Brazilian public opinion supports the status quo, and the country's Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to reject a modest attempt at decriminalizing abortion. The advances that have taken place are mostly local initiatives carried out almost surreptitiously, such as the move by São Paulo states to offer the morning-after pill and heavily discounted contraceptive pills at state-run pharmacies. (See pictures of S[t {a}]o Paulo trying to renew itself. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1860599,00.html))
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva did make a halfhearted attempt to spur a national debate last year, calling abortion a public-health issue — even as he declared himself steadfastly against it. But with the Church quick to stifle such talk and the general public not sufficiently engaged to demand action, the debate never took off. In truth, abortions and unwanted pregnancies are a sad constant in Brazil. Although abortion is illegal, an estimated 1 million women each year have one. The poor are forced into clandestine clinics or take medication, while the better-off are treated by qualified physicians at well-appointed surgeries known to anyone with money and overlooked by colluding authorities.
That secrecy has a price. More than 200,000 women each year are treated in public hospitals for complications arising from illegal abortions, according to Health Ministry figures. Those who don't have the courage or the money to be treated take the pregnancy to term. Although the fertility rate has fallen considerably in Brazil (from 6.1 children in 1960 to about 2 today), 1 in 3 pregnancies is unwanted, according to Dr. Jefferson Drezett, head of the Hospital Perola Byington, Latin America's largest women's health clinic. Meanwhile, 1 in 7 Brazilian women between the ages of 15 and 19 is a mother, and the average age at which women have their first child has fallen to 21, from 22.4 in 1996, according to a government-funded study. (See pictures of America's purity ball. (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1822906,00.html))
Those numbers shock the Catholic Church. But the Church's response to the Recife rape and abortion has shocked public opinion. Some Brazilians hope the controversy may compel the country to deal seriously with an issue that affects so many of its citizens. "Brazil wants to be a world leader, but the government can't guarantee equality for women," says Galli. "This is not a topic that anyone wants to debate."
<!-- End Buttons --><!-- Begin Find this article -->
Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
i guess raping and impregnating your stepdaughter is not "taking the life of an innocent" huh?
this little NINE year old girl, should have to endure pregnancy and motherhood via incest, b/c god forbid a fetus is aborted.
how is it the fetus matters more than this little girl? and now her church tosses her out?
very merciful, let's perform a C section on a 9 year old child that was raped by her stepdad.
unbelieveable.
eL FryEdo
03-31-2009, 10:26 AM
wow ... shows how backwards religion and some countries still are :booted i hope these priests get raped so they know how it feels ... then again nowadays they might like it
wow ... shows how backwards religion and some countries still are :booted i hope these priests get raped so they know how it feels ... then again nowadays they might like it
I just don't understand how they can preach the "innocence" of life as justification for putting this little VICTIM through this?
this little girl was innocent, she is a child, she was raped by A STEPPARENT, if that's not having your innocence and life stolen, i don't know what is.
rather than abort a pregnancy, it's best to have a 9 yr old kid carry TWINS to term and birth incestuous babies via c section?
what kind of sick butcher subjects a child to such a thing in the face of what she's already endured? she's supposed to birth AND RAISE the kids of her stepfather?
such lack of compassion & understanding from a group that preaches both
Defekted
03-31-2009, 10:39 AM
Fundamentalism has no religious preference.
eL FryEdo
03-31-2009, 10:40 AM
I just don't understand how they can preach the "innocence" of life as justification for putting this little VICTIM through this?
this little girl was innocent, she is a child, she was raped by A STEPPARENT, if that's not having your innocence and life stolen, i don't know what is.
rather than abort a pregnancy, it's best to have a 9 yr old kid carry TWINS to term and birth incestuous babies via c section?
what kind of sick butcher subjects a child to such a thing in the face of what she's already endured? she's supposed to birth AND RAISE the kids of her stepfather?
such lack of compassion & understanding from a group that preaches both
the church is one of the most hypocritical institutions there is ... this is one of the many examples ... some are more lax but this is an example of the extreme lengths these people go to sometimes ... makes me glad to not be affiliated with any of them whatsoever
La La Lori
03-31-2009, 10:45 AM
this disguts me at the same time these people shouldnt want to be a part of an institution that would do this to them. It's almost humiliating.
JustLikeHeaven
03-31-2009, 12:00 PM
Wow...what fucken fanatics. That is sickening.
J. Martin
03-31-2009, 12:34 PM
can a 9 year old even get pregnant?
La La Lori
03-31-2009, 01:10 PM
can a 9 year old even get pregnant?
if she has her period yea. isnt that terrible?!
eL FryEdo
03-31-2009, 01:13 PM
can a 9 year old even get pregnant?
why do you think brazilians are so busty ... them bitches develop madd early apparently
:heart
J. Martin
03-31-2009, 02:36 PM
if she has her period yea. isnt that terrible?!
damn, those brazilian chicks mature fast. no wonder they're so developed
just b u
03-31-2009, 07:29 PM
Fundamentalism has no religious preference.
exactly. this thread shouldnt be about bashing religion but about being fanatics and taking religion too far.
metfan85
03-31-2009, 07:32 PM
wow ... shows how backwards religion and some countries still are :booted i hope these priests get raped so they know how it feels ... then again nowadays they might like it
Yeah it's a good thing they're not like the post-Christian world. <--- obviously sarcastic
Backwards religion still has long ways to go to being as evil as secular democracies, statists, socialists and communists of all types. At least 200,000,000 killed in 100 years by advanced progressive societies. That's something to be proud of.
eL FryEdo
03-31-2009, 07:33 PM
Yeah it's a good thing they're not like the post-Christian world. <--- obviously sarcastic
Backwards religion still has long ways to go to being as evil as secular democracies, statists, socialists and communists of all types. At least 200,000,000 killed in 100 years by advanced progressive societies. That's something to be proud of.
alot of the above mentioned are brought up in religiions like this
metfan85
03-31-2009, 07:40 PM
alot of the above mentioned are brought up in religiions like this
Yes, Stalin militant atheist, Abraham Lincoln the non-believer, FDR, Pol Pot, secular France in Morocco, Viet-Cong et cetera all known for being religious. :rolleyes:
JenniFa
03-31-2009, 08:27 PM
these kind of situtaions are what pull me away from the catholic church. How can they expect a 9 year old to carry twins. I cant even carry one kid and im 28th. All the complications i am having and i CHOSE and PLANNED this pregnancy.
that would of been more dramatizing to her than to have the abortion.
TrippinFace101
03-31-2009, 10:44 PM
Wow this kid is gonna be so fucked up when she gets older:disappoin such a sick world we live in. I love how some people say its fair and balanced:rolleyes:
eL FryEdo
03-31-2009, 11:12 PM
Yes, Stalin militant atheist, Abraham Lincoln the non-believer, FDR, Pol Pot, secular France in Morocco, Viet-Cong et cetera all known for being religious. :rolleyes:
whats wrong with good ole abe brah you unpatriotic?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 01:05 AM
whats wrong with good ole abe brah you unpatriotic?
i don't know if you're being serious or not :hmmm
exactly. this thread shouldnt be about bashing religion but about being fanatics and taking religion too far.
i'm not bashing religion, i'm bashing this roman catholic archbishop for excommunicating a little girl & others on this premise, and i'm bashing the retarded mentality of harming this girl for the sake of an unborn fetus.
like it or not, religion is the factor here tanya.
Yeah it's a good thing they're not like the post-Christian world. <--- obviously sarcastic
Backwards religion still has long ways to go to being as evil as secular democracies, statists, socialists and communists of all types. At least 200,000,000 killed in 100 years by advanced progressive societies. That's something to be proud of.
so what do you think about the article? do you agree w/ the excommunication? do you agree that she should not have had an abortion?
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 11:12 AM
i don't know if you're being serious or not :hmmm
:rolleyes:
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 11:17 AM
The bishop had every right to ask the family and girl not to go ahead with the abortion because of xy and z.. ex communicating a child who is 9 is ridiculous .. gotta leave it to the family .. but no reason to ex communicate this kid she been thru enough ..
The bishop had every right to ask the family and girl not to go ahead with the abortion because of xy and z.. ex communicating a child who is 9 is ridiculous .. gotta leave it to the family .. but no reason to ex communicate this kid she been thru enough ..
he excommunicated the kid, her mother, and the doctors.
wanna make a bet he doesn't excommunicate the stepfather for raping his little girl?
what priest honestly recommends to a mother of a 9 yr old girl, a c section?
a 9 yr old body carrying twin babies and going thru c section? unbelieveable.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 11:24 AM
so what do you think about the article? do you agree w/ the excommunication? do you agree that she should not have had an abortion?
Obviously the 9 year old could not have the kids. The mother's life is at risk, an abortion is necessary. Excommunication is a bit harsh, I'm sure the Pope will reinstate her. But to condemn religion as being backwards for this action, while not surprising, is wrong.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 11:26 AM
Obviously the 9 year old could not have the kids. The mother's life is at risk, an abortion is necessary. Excommunication is a bit harsh, I'm sure the Pope will reinstate her. But to condemn religion as being backwards for this action, while not surprising, is wrong.
not religion as a whole ... but the religious practices of some that are still going on are ass backwards
Obviously the 9 year old could not have the kids. The mother's life is at risk, an abortion is necessary. Excommunication is a bit harsh, I'm sure the Pope will reinstate her. But to condemn religion as being backwards for this action, while not surprising, is wrong.
i didn't say religion was backwards here. I criticized their putting the fetus above all else, in this case, a child victim of rape.
why is it the stepfather rapist can remain in the church and seek forgiveness? but this little girl, thru no fault of her own, is cast out?
In my opinion, it's very backwards to punish the innocent in this case (the girl), tell her the lives she had no say in conceiving are more important than her own, yet her parent that raped her falls by the wayside.
protecting the innocent, what about her? she immediately becomes irrelevant when there's a fetus involved to the church, i don't get it.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 11:31 AM
i didn't say religion was backwards here. I criticized their putting the fetus above all else, in this case, a child victim of rape.
why is it the stepfather rapist can remain in the church and seek forgiveness? but this little girl, thru no fault of her own, is cast out?
i said it was backwards
metfan85
04-01-2009, 11:46 AM
not religion as a whole ... but the religious practices of some that are still going on are ass backwards
According to you. But according to them going into a dungeon to hear repetitive, electronically produced beats for hours on end, while high on drugs is a hell of a lot more "ass backwards".
I think when you call somebody or some group backwards, you're implying its actions are contrary to or counterproductive to what it claims it's principles or intentions are.
more hypocritical, or counterproductive to your purpose.
when i say this is backwards it's b/c i feel like the church preaches one way and then conducts itself in a manner that they claim to be just, but in the end, is contradicting their preaching.
like protection of innocence and life, nobody was protecting this girl's life, the church wanted her to sustain this high risk pregnancy and undergo dangerous surgery, but they did so saying they're "protecting unborn life".
so whose innocence matters more? whose life? we can all be forgiven, but the little girl that got raped cannot, she has to be thrown out of the church?
everything about this case contradicts every teaching i ever got from catholicism.
If you wanna spend your days partying, i don't see how that's backwards. It's ill advised, it's not especially productive, but you're not running around proclaiming yourself otherwise.
saying you're for the sanctity of life, the forgiveness of sins, compassion, love, etc. and then casting this girl out is BACKWARDS
.laurenx.
04-01-2009, 12:10 PM
If you wanna spend your days partying, i don't see how that's backwards. It's ill advised, it's not especially productive, but you're not running around proclaiming yourself otherwise.
saying you're for the sanctity of life, the forgiveness of sins, compassion, love, etc. and then casting this girl out is BACKWARDS
exactly
what happened to love thy neighbor?
catholic church is such a joke.
exactly
what happened to love thy neighbor?
catholic church is such a joke.
i'm sure she could buy her way back in, that's how they used to do it in the old days lol
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 12:15 PM
I think when you call somebody or some group backwards, you're implying its actions are contrary to or counterproductive to what it claims it's principles or intentions are.
more hypocritical, or counterproductive to your purpose.
when i say this is backwards it's b/c i feel like the church preaches one way and then conducts itself in a manner that they claim to be just, but in the end, is contradicting their preaching.
like protection of innocence and life, nobody was protecting this girl's life, the church wanted her to sustain this high risk pregnancy and undergo dangerous surgery, but they did so saying they're "protecting unborn life".
so whose innocence matters more? whose life? we can all be forgiven, but the little girl that got raped cannot, she has to be thrown out of the church?
everything about this case contradicts every teaching i ever got from catholicism.
exactly, thats what i meant by it
.laurenx.
04-01-2009, 12:19 PM
i'm sure she could buy her way back in, that's how they used to do it in the old days lol
lolol yea exactly.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 12:44 PM
It's so funny how the textbooks education is such full of shit. The catholic church has done more to advance the cause of liberty the last 2000 years than any other institution.
But then again liberty is out of fashion nowadays, so it's no wonder the Church is ridiculed.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 12:51 PM
It's so funny how the textbooks education is such full of shit. The catholic church has done more to advance the cause of liberty the last 2000 years than any other institution.
But then again liberty is out of fashion nowadays, so it's no wonder the Church is ridiculed.
exactly for this one harsh decision ..how many people were fed? clothed? given medicine? .. news only reports the negatives on a church who membership is millions upon millions..they scream about being liberal and compassionate but i dont see them in africa helping people for no money .. such hypocrisy
It's so funny how the textbooks education is such full of shit. The catholic church has done more to advance the cause of liberty the last 2000 years than any other institution.
But then again liberty is out of fashion nowadays, so it's no wonder the Church is ridiculed.
you don't think any ridicule is deserved?
that's as narrow minded as thinking they do no good whatsoever, and I'm not even saying that.
advance of liberty? nuns can't even say mass, can't offer eucharist, so much for liberty.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 12:56 PM
exactly for this one harsh decision ..how many people were fed? clothed? given medicine? .. news only reports the negatives on a church who membership is millions upon millions..they scream about being liberal and compassionate but i dont see them in africa helping people for no money .. such hypocrisy
Yup, but then again the government could have done a better job if we just gave them more of our tax money. Right?
and what do you mean they didn't help? They signed their tax forms. That's all the charity needed nowadays, Bush and Obama decide who needs our money most. I'm glad they choose for me to send billions of our dollars to Africa to "fight" a disease of actions, AIDS.
Forget that I much rather would have seen that money, voluntarily, going to researching genetic diseases that are not a consequence of actions.
exactly for this one harsh decision ..how many people were fed? clothed? given medicine? .. news only reports the negatives on a church who membership is millions upon millions..they scream about being liberal and compassionate but i dont see them in africa helping people for no money .. such hypocrisy
so if I kill somebody, but I was a very charitable person up until committing murder, it's ok to overlook my horrible actions in light of the good i did ?
cmon.
nobody is saying the church is ALL BAD, i cited a very specific example here, and said THIS APPALLS ME, and I do not understand the larger mindset of how this is justified in the church.
how you can trample one person in "defense" of another and call yourself faithful, compassionate, forgiving and loving.
one harsh decision jamez? you think this is the first injustice?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 12:58 PM
you don't think any ridicule is deserved?
that's as narrow minded as thinking they do no good whatsoever, and I'm not even saying that.
advance of liberty? nuns can't even say mass, can't offer eucharist, so much for liberty.
No of course, that's all liberty means. It's obviously so evil and cruel, that the Nuns have to be forced at gunpoint to comply. Oh no wait, that's the government that does that, and the laymen who complain about the policies that free people voluntarily entered into. Maybe we need the Supreme Court to intervene and fix the injustice that laymen care so much about.
It's a complete contradiction, unborn babies matter more than anything and everything else. Matter more than the health and well being of this little girl, her suffering at the hand of her stepfather, his betrayal of her, her LIFE, you name it.
the hell w/ all that, have the babies at any cost whatsoever, if not, get the hell out of the church. what's christian in that?
No of course, that's all liberty means. It's obviously so evil and cruel, that the Nuns have to be forced at gunpoint to comply. Oh no wait, that's the government that does that, and the laymen who complain about the policies that free people voluntarily entered into. Maybe we need the Supreme Court to intervene and fix the injustice that laymen care so much about.
where did i say that's "all liberty means?"
and how on god's green earth is this turning to another hate thread of yours about gov't?
gov't had NOTHING to do w/ this, the church did. talk about deflection.
.laurenx.
04-01-2009, 01:07 PM
No of course, that's all liberty means. It's obviously so evil and cruel, that the Nuns have to be forced at gunpoint to comply. Oh no wait, that's the government that does that, and the laymen who complain about the policies that free people voluntarily entered into. Maybe we need the Supreme Court to intervene and fix the injustice that laymen care so much about.
you seem to hate everything lol . is there anything you like about living in this country?
i think we should all chip for a nice little desserted island for you . we'll even include a vollyeball for ur entertainment
http://weberville.net/images/castawayWilson.jpg
so quick to believe the gov't is utterly corrupt, completely malicious, and dysfunctional, and the church is a bastion of goodness responsible for all the wonderful things in modern civilization lmfao
not like there's lots of land, power, money, wars, and greed tied up in both throughout history.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 01:33 PM
you seem to hate everything lol . is there anything you like about living in this country?
i think we should all chip for a nice little desserted island for you . we'll even include a vollyeball for ur entertainment
http://weberville.net/images/castawayWilson.jpg
why you like govt in your life? ..and you claim to be a republican? .. ahh i get it your probally a crist / schwarzenegger fakester that killin the party
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 01:36 PM
It's a complete contradiction, unborn babies matter more than anything and everything else. Matter more than the health and well being of this little girl, her suffering at the hand of her stepfather, his betrayal of her, her LIFE, you name it.
the hell w/ all that, have the babies at any cost whatsoever, if not, get the hell out of the church. what's christian in that?
like we said ..it was stupiod harsh decision by one bishop .. the amount of good the church does far outweighs the negatives ..and they do it alot more effectively than govt does
.laurenx.
04-01-2009, 01:53 PM
why you like govt in your life? ..and you claim to be a republican? .. ahh i get it your probally a crist / schwarzenegger fakester that killin the party
a simple LOL wouldve been sufficient.
am i supposed to hate the government? bc i dont. does that make me a fake republican? lol get a grip.
the only thing ive ever done for the republican party is vote for mccain, just like you did. so if that's me killing the party, then guilty as charged.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 01:56 PM
a simple LOL wouldve been sufficient.
am i supposed to hate the government? bc i dont. does that make me a fake republican? lol get a grip.
the only thing ive ever done for the republican party is vote for mccain, just like you did. so if that's me killing the party, then guilty as charged.
no way in hell did i pull the lever for him .. he was a joke are you kidding me?
like we said ..it was stupiod harsh decision by one bishop .. the amount of good the church does far outweighs the negatives ..and they do it alot more effectively than govt does
ok , so essentially you agree this is a terrible instance but you're giving them a pass for past good deeds.
got it.
yet neither of you can discuss absolutely anything without drawing comparisons to the gov't, for what reason, i have no clue.
.laurenx.
04-01-2009, 01:59 PM
no way in hell did i pull the lever for him .. he was a joke are you kidding me?
apologies, i thought u did. i happened to like him.
a simple LOL wouldve been sufficient.
am i supposed to hate the government? bc i dont. does that make me a fake republican? lol get a grip.
the only thing ive ever done for the republican party is vote for mccain, just like you did. so if that's me killing the party, then guilty as charged.
yea b/c there's one "type" that's killing the republican party lmao
be serious jamez.
how many "harsh" incidents like this one do you think have occurred in the church's history?
you're assuming they're few and far inbetween.
it boggles my mind how you're so quick to see the opportunity for and motivation for manipulation by gov't, but are complete SHEEP when it comes to religion lol
blindly follow, religion is good, say it with me class :disgusted
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 02:03 PM
it boggles my mind how you're so quick to see the opportunity for and motivation for manipulation by gov't, but are complete SHEEP when it comes to religion lol
blindly follow, religion is good, say it with me class :disgusted
but if we blindly followed we be agreeing with this wacky bishop lol .. again no clue what your talking about
.laurenx.
04-01-2009, 02:04 PM
yea b/c there's one "type" that's killing the republican party lmao
be serious jamez.
how many "harsh" incidents like this one do you think have occurred in the church's history?
you're assuming they're few and far inbetween.
its me, me and arnold schwarzinager have weekly calls on how to bring down the republican party
ta90w4t90u0940e
i was a little apprehensive about posting in this section bc i thought id prob argue with u shannon lmfao boy was i wrong. i cant even with this forum. i tried my best but it blows. off to the dancefloor i go :snaway
but if we blindly followed we be agreeing with this wacky bishop lol .. again no clue what your talking about
then you ought to read more carefully :)
i said you BLINDLY FOLLOW in the sense that you assume they have done far more good than bad, and that they are GOOD overall. not that you agree w/ every single thing they've ever done :yourcrazy
any misjudgment or horror is dismissed as "well they've done a lot of good".
imagine if you had that attitude about the gov't? never happen, yet BOTH institutions are run by man.
interesting.
see:
blindly follow, religion is good,
not clear enough?
its me, me and arnold schwarzinager have weekly calls on how to bring down the republican party
ta90w4t90u0940e
i was a little apprehensive about posting in this section bc i thought id prob argue with u shannon lmfao boy was i wrong. i cant even with this forum. i tried my best but it blows. off to the dancefloor i go :snaway
damn you lol :heythere
george bush is gone, we have no more need to argue lol
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 02:09 PM
apologies, i thought u did. i happened to like him.
he an american hero & very decent for a poltician .. i hate his policies and the bailout was the nail in the coffin besides his horrible immigration policy ..
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 02:10 PM
see:
blindly follow, religion is good,
not clear enough?
no because we dont like religion and govt mixing .. and we both oppose this bishops dumb decision .. so how could it be clear?
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 02:13 PM
its me, me and arnold schwarzinager have weekly calls on how to bring down the republican party
ta90w4t90u0940e
i was a little apprehensive about posting in this section bc i thought id prob argue with u shannon lmfao boy was i wrong. i cant even with this forum. i tried my best but it blows. off to the dancefloor i go :snaway
schwarzenegger policies is what destroying the party he a perfect example so is Crist .. the dumb blind McCainacs who voted along party lines or for a "lesser evil" .. is certainly a big cause
darius
04-01-2009, 02:29 PM
perhaps the Catholic Church did this family a favor. clearly there are many paths the God and clearly, for this family, while it may be difficult to accept now, may hopefully come realize that the path they were on was not right for them. in the wake of this tragedy, God has offered them a blessing. my hope for them is that they will realize this and slowly will find spiritual nurturing elsewhere.
hopefully, followers of other faiths will arise to assist this family through their ordeal. God's mercy and embrace are vast.
"Take thou thy portion of the ocean of His grace, and deprive not thyself of the things that lie hidden in its depths." - Baha'u'llah
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 02:33 PM
perhaps the Catholic Church did this family a favor. clearly there are many paths the God and clearly, for this family, while it may be difficult to accept now, may hopefully come realize that the path they were on was not right for them. in the wake of this tragedy, God has offered them a blessing. my hope for them is that they will realize this and slowly will find spiritual nurturing elsewhere.
hopefully, followers of other faiths will arise to assist this family through their ordeal. God's mercy and embrace are vast.
"Take thou thy portion of the ocean of His grace, and deprive not thyself of the things that lie hidden in its depths." - Baha'u'llah
and what other faiths do you see steppin up?
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 02:46 PM
perhaps the Catholic Church did this family a favor. clearly there are many paths the God and clearly, for this family, while it may be difficult to accept now, may hopefully come realize that the path they were on was not right for them. in the wake of this tragedy, God has offered them a blessing. my hope for them is that they will realize this and slowly will find spiritual nurturing elsewhere.
hopefully, followers of other faiths will arise to assist this family through their ordeal. God's mercy and embrace are vast.
"Take thou thy portion of the ocean of His grace, and deprive not thyself of the things that lie hidden in its depths." - Baha'u'llah
:shootme
Shae, i found its pointless to argue about religion with religious people ... theres not much rational thought put into it ... they see it one way and nothing can change that ... not even the proof of evolution and hard evidence :rolleyes:
:shootme
Shae, i found its pointless to argue about religion with religious people ... theres not much rational thought put into it ... they see it one way and nothing can change that ... not even the proof of evolution and hard evidence :rolleyes:
i know, but sometimes it gets the better of me. sometimes it's so blatant to me how full of shit some of these religious leaders are, i can't help myself. it's missing the forest through the trees, for lack of a better expression.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 03:00 PM
:shootme
Shae, i found its pointless to argue about religion with religious people ... theres not much rational thought put into it ... they see it one way and nothing can change that ... not even the proof of evolution and hard evidence :rolleyes:
that statement right there is not rational..it's also arrogant and eltist..
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 03:13 PM
i know, but sometimes it gets the better of me. sometimes it's so blatant to me how full of shit some of these religious leaders are, i can't help myself. it's missing the forest through the trees, for lack of a better expression.
thats true in alot of cases .. now if you feel westernized christians are like this how on earth could you support Obama negotiating with religous fanatics such as the mullahs who kill young children over their sexual preference? .. in your view Barry got no shot right?
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 03:20 PM
that statement right there is not rational..it's also arrogant and eltist..
:lol
how is it not rational ... ive had countless upon countless of arguments over everything with believers in christ/ god and theres no wa to deter their views on multitudes of subjects ... as an atheist i have my belief in how everything works and i understand the points of views of others and am open to suggestion and opinions unlike almost all religious believers ... the more religious a person is the more ignorant they are to everything else
thats true in alot of cases .. now if you feel westernized christians are like this how on earth could you support Obama negotiating with religous fanatics such as the mullahs who kill young children over their sexual preference? .. in your view Barry got no shot right?
i didn't say westernized christians are like this. i was referring to RELIGIOUS LEADERS like this bishop that miss the big picture , hence my comment about the forest thru the trees. not all christians in the western world.
and how are you connecting this to obama and gov't? well you have two choices jamez, you either converse or you shut people out. we've shut them out, and it hasn't helped our situation. that is a POLITICAL matter, and you can't refuse to have diplomatic relations w/ every nation that has practices, beliefs, and laws contrary to yours.
kids are harrassed and killed over homosexuality here too. women are oppressed all over the world. i don't think our diplomatic relations should be restricted to nations whose operations we fully approve of.
we can't afford to distance ourselves from most of the world that way, and let things fall how they may. terrorism, the environment, economy, it's all tied together and you can't just exclude every nation whose policies you disagree with from the conversation as if it's some punishment that will get them to change their ways.
my opposition to religious leaders that cause more harm than good, has nothign to do w/ what i think the president of our country should do on the global scale of politics :disgusted
that statement right there is not rational..it's also arrogant and eltist..
the very definition of faith is believing in what you cannot see or prove, despite all evidence to the contrary.
not rational lol
what was that quote?
"having faith, is to make a virtue out of not thinking" lol
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 03:27 PM
the very definition of faith is believing in what you cannot see or prove, despite all evidence to the contrary.
not rational lol
fossils showing the evolution of man = blasphemy
Darwin = heretic
:booted
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 03:29 PM
the very definition of faith is believing in what you cannot see or prove, despite all evidence to the contrary.
not rational lol
again intelligent design is a theory .. as is the big bang .. i think intelligent design offers more evidence ..also you con not prove spirituality you either are ..or your spiritually bankrupt ..thats a feeling that hard to describe and only comes into your life if you tap into it ..some people use organized religion others do not .
fossils showing the evolution of man = blasphemy
Darwin = heretic
:booted
naturally lol
again intelligent design is a theory .. as is the big bang .. i think intelligent design offers more evidence ..also you con not prove spirituality you either are ..or your spiritually bankrupt ..thats a feeling that hard to describe and only comes into your life if you tap into it ..some people use organized religion others do not .
i don't know how you got onto ID/ and creationism.
i'm perfectly happy accepting that the details of the creation of our universe may forever remain a mystery, i have no need to know, would be glad to though. if science can answer some of it, cool, if not, that's not going to lead me to the conclusion THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC answer. just b/c we don't know something, doesn't mean it cannot be known.
also, you don't need to be spiritual to be a quality person.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 03:33 PM
again intelligent design is a theory .. as is the big bang .. i think intelligent design offers more evidence ..also you con not prove spirituality you either are ..or your spiritually bankrupt ..thats a feeling that hard to describe and only comes into your life if you tap into it ..some people use organized religion others do not .
you dont have to believe in god to be spritual
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 03:33 PM
i didn't say westernized christians are like this. i was referring to RELIGIOUS LEADERS like this bishop that miss the big picture , hence my comment about the forest thru the trees. not all christians in the western world.
and how are you connecting this to obama and gov't? well you have two choices jamez, you either converse or you shut people out. we've shut them out, and it hasn't helped our situation. that is a POLITICAL matter, and you can't refuse to have diplomatic relations w/ every nation that has practices, beliefs, and laws contrary to yours.
kids are harrassed and killed over homosexuality here too. women are oppressed all over the world. i don't think our diplomatic relations should be restricted to nations whose operations we fully approve of.
we can't afford to distance ourselves from most of the world that way, and let things fall how they may. terrorism, the environment, economy, it's all tied together and you can't just exclude every nation whose policies you disagree with from the conversation as if it's some punishment that will get them to change their ways.
my opposition to religious leaders that cause more harm than good, has nothign to do w/ what i think the president of our country should do on the global scale of politics :disgusted
its not govt sanctioned with people cheering on in public .. thankgpd you live in a judeo-christian influenced society ..
what you think of religous leaders is 110% relevant .. cause thats who Obama dealing with .. yep a good old theocracy .. the religous mul;lahs run shit ...
Bush was much smarter than Obama he knew there was no talking to these nuts .. As i predicted the mullahs laughed in Barrys face, demanded apologies .. and said negotiating??? fuck -off..
lol let me ask you this..what ever made you think the iranians would cooperate?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 03:41 PM
you seem to hate everything lol . is there anything you like about living in this country?
i think we should all chip for a nice little desserted island for you . we'll even include a vollyeball for ur entertainment
I love baseball, hot dogs, the music, guns and trucks, girls and booze and the people of this country. I love the history, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington.
Can I ask you when did love for your country become love for your government? You seem to have never heard the expresion used by greater American's than you'll ever be "God Bless America, God Damn Uncle Sam." Maybe the seeming contradiction of that quote goes over your head, so I'll break it down for you. You can love your country, without loving your government. Ask Shae how much she loved the George Bush government. The only difference is, I'm for states rights, so I don't like the federal government and I won't like it, even if my man Ron Paul is in power. You should never like your government, the government is the ultimate monopoly, it can tomorrow say no one named Lauren can live in this country and guess what your out of here because they have the big guns.
I'm guessing you wouldn't be aware of Thomas Jefferson advocating a change of government every generation, so it wouldn't become the Leviathan is it now? Probably not, you seem like one of those types who's grateful for the government for the good things they do with others peoples money. The type who's for the wars, but wouldn't fight in them. The type who doesn't trust the people to make their own decisions.
why you like govt in your life? ..and you claim to be a republican? .. ahh i get it your probally a crist / schwarzenegger fakester that killin the party
I'm unpatriotic, but she's voted for someone who has more allegiance to Mexican illegals than the Constition lol.
darius
04-01-2009, 03:44 PM
and what other faiths do you see steppin up?
i'm not sure i can answer that question. i don't know this family, and i don't know who this family knows but i know there are more than just catholics in brazil. maybe this family will simply put their faith and trust in God and see what comes to them. maybe this will turn the family away from religion completely. because faith is a very personal and mystic thing, it would not be feasible for any of us to ascertain exactly what may lie ahead, spiritually-speaking, for this family. one thing is clear, is that they are in definite need of healing -- who wouldn't be as a result of the ordeal itself (forget about what the archbishop decreed). hopefully friends, relatives, concerned neighbors, families of classmates, townspeople, etc, anyone with a kind-hearted soul will come to their aid.
lol let me ask you this..what ever made you think the iranians would cooperate?
you all have reading issues today, lol, i sound like a broken record, i'll say it again:
where did I say that I thought they would?
i said that NOT dealing with them got us nowhere, and that refusing to deal with nations as some type of punishment is not an effective policy.
if you attempt to engage them, you're at least proactive. if you refuse to, you've got ZERO shot of influencing anything, to any extent.
darius
04-01-2009, 03:51 PM
the more religious a person is the more ignorant they are to everything else
now see, i have a very difficult time with this one. i consider myself a very religious person . . . do i give off the impression that i'm ignorant to everything else? i think it's best to leave it at some people have extreme/fanatic religious belief and swaying them, in any way away from that, is very difficult. and then again, some people have a certain religious/spiritual conviction to themselves that regardless of how you try to sway them from certain beliefs, you just can't do it. it doesn't imply that they are wrong and you are right . . . but just a difference of interpretation.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 03:52 PM
:shootme
Shae, i found its pointless to argue about religion with religious people ... theres not much rational thought put into it ... they see it one way and nothing can change that ... not even the proof of evolution and hard evidence :rolleyes:
there's actually no evidence of a big bang and the Darwinian evolution you speak is very much in doubt.
The late, leftist Normal Mailer put it best in describing the downfall of liberalism (http://amconmag.com/article/2002/dec/02/00008/):
NM: The idea that a very rich man should not make 4,000 times as much in a year as a poor man. On the other hand, I am not a liberal. The notion that man is a rational creature who arrives at reasonable solutions to knotty problems is much in doubt as far as I’m concerned. Liberalism depends all too much on having an optimistic view of human nature. But the history of the 20th century has not exactly fortified that notion. Moreover, liberalism also depends too much upon reason rather than any appreciation of mystery. If you start to talk about God with the average good liberal, he looks at you as if you are more than a little off. In that sense, since I happen to be—I hate to use the word religious, there are so many heavy dull connotations, so many pious self-seeking aspects—but I do believe there is a Creator who is active in human affairs and is endangered. I also believe there is a Devil who is equally active in our existence (and is all too often successful). So, I can hardly be a liberal. God is bad enough for them, but talk about the devil, and the liberal’s mind is blown. He is consorting with a fellow who is irrational if not insane. That is the end of real conversation.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 03:53 PM
now see, i have a very difficult time with this one. i consider myself a very religious person . . . do i give off the impression that i'm ignorant to everything else? i think it's best to leave it at some people have extreme/fanatic religious belief and swaying them, in any way away from that, is very difficult. and then again, some people have a certain religious/spiritual conviction to themselves that regardless of how you try to sway them from certain beliefs, you just can't do it. it doesn't imply that they are wrong and you are right . . . but just a difference of interpretation.
that is my exact point ... theres no swaying their opinion ... im open to anything if there is valid proof and verifiable evidence to support it
metfan85
04-01-2009, 03:56 PM
the more religious a person is the more ignorant they are to everything else
you're a fool. you don't realize you are just as fundamentalist as any of these people you speak to. At least they profess to not know everything. But you think you have it all figured out and that is the true end of scientific research.
Oh, but wait you have it all figured out, you're not backwards in your advanced militant atheism. You absolutely know what started this universe without a of your revered empirical proof.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 03:56 PM
there's actually no evidence of a big bang and the Darwinian evolution you speak is very much in doubt.
The late, leftist Normal Mailer put it best in describing the downfall of liberalism (http://amconmag.com/article/2002/dec/02/00008/):
NM: The idea that a very rich man should not make 4,000 times as much in a year as a poor man. On the other hand, I am not a liberal. The notion that man is a rational creature who arrives at reasonable solutions to knotty problems is much in doubt as far as I’m concerned. Liberalism depends all too much on having an optimistic view of human nature. But the history of the 20th century has not exactly fortified that notion. Moreover, liberalism also depends too much upon reason rather than any appreciation of mystery. If you start to talk about God with the average good liberal, he looks at you as if you are more than a little off. In that sense, since I happen to be—I hate to use the word religious, there are so many heavy dull connotations, so many pious self-seeking aspects—but I do believe there is a Creator who is active in human affairs and is endangered. I also believe there is a Devil who is equally active in our existence (and is all too often successful). So, I can hardly be a liberal. God is bad enough for them, but talk about the devil, and the liberal’s mind is blown. He is consorting with a fellow who is irrational if not insane. That is the end of real conversation.
i never spoke of the big bang ... but theres plenty of evidence of darwins theory of evolution are you serious? have you read the book? Do you know how much evidence and studying of species he did before he came out wit hthe book because he knew hed be labeled as a heretic
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 03:58 PM
you're a fool. you don't realize you are just as fundamentalist as any of these people you speak to. At least they profess to not know everything. But you think you have it all figured out and that is the true end of scientific research.
Oh, but wait you have it all figured out, you're not backwards in your advanced militant atheism. You absolutely know what started this universe without a of your revered empirical proof.
i know nothing of how this universe started and dont claim to otherwise ... read my post before I am open to any suggestions on ANYTHING as long as there is some sort of proof or evidence ... very religious people o nthe other hand are not as easily swayed in opinion even when theyre looiing at the evidence
darius
04-01-2009, 04:00 PM
that is my exact point ... theres no swaying your opinion ... im open to anything if there is valid proof and verifiable evidence to support it
now you're backtracking a bit and that's fine . . . but you used the word "ignorant". being ignorant is not synonymous with a lack of desire to sway from an opinion.
how can you say religious people don't claim to know everything? many of them most certainly do claim to know what happens when you die, how you must live your life, who god is, how you should live, what he wants, what he doesn't want, and what the absolute path to salvation is.
how on earth can you say religious people don't claim to know things like that?
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:05 PM
now you're backtracking a bit and that's fine . . . but you used the word "ignorant". being ignorant is not synonymous with a lack of desire to sway from an opinion.
ok maybe ignorant wasnt the most suitabe of words for that statement ... "they believe what they want to believe and wont believe otherwise"
i dont see how im backtracking though ... i never claimed that my thoughts and opinions on matters ARE the right way ... who knows religion might be right there miught be a god ... but all things ive read, learned and experienced throghout my life have led me to believe otherwise .... fuck man itd be nice to live in paradise for all of eternity
one lifetime is long enough for me, seriously lol
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:13 PM
how can you say religious people don't claim to know everything? many of them most certainly do[ claim to know what happens when you die, how you must live your life, who god is, how you should live, what he wants, what he doesn't want, and what the absolute path to salvation is.
how on earth can you say religious people don't claim to know things like that?
that sounds like a fundamentalist nut to me .. certainly not your average religous person
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:15 PM
that sounds like a fundamentalist nut to me .. certainly not your average religous person
have you ever tried reasoning against religion with even the average religious person? If i tried that with my grandparents i could only imagine ... and their just your typical religious followers ... not fanatics at all
that sounds like a fundamentalist nut to me .. certainly not your average religous person
only religious nuts believe that when they die they will be judged by god? and that they have to live their lives by god's teachings or else come death, they're pretty much screwed?
i dont find that belief too uncommon at all.
i know TONS of christians that believe their god, is THE god, the bible is his word, you're supposed to try to live according to it as best you can, and that when you die, god will judge you & determine your fate.
since when is salvation, heaven, and god "fundamentalist" craziness to christians? that's pretty basic.
have you ever tried reasoning against religion with even the average religious person? If i tried that with my grandparents i could only imagine ... and their just your typical religious followers ... not fanatics at all
seriously.
nobody in my family is a religious nut, but many of them believe in god, the bible, and the premise that how you live your life will determine whether you go to heaven or not when you die.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:22 PM
only religious nuts believe that when they die they will be judged by god? and that they have to live their lives by god's teachings or else come death, they're pretty much screwed?
i dont find that belief too uncommon at all.
i know TONS of christians that believe their god, is THE god, the bible is his word, you're supposed to try to live according to it as best you can, and that when you die, god will judge you & determine your fate.
since when is salvation, heaven, and god "fundamentalist" craziness to christians? that's pretty basic.
the bible is a guide ..nobody takes it literally except for nuts.. more like if you lead a good life you will be rewarded accordingly ..here and in the afterliufe .. their are ceratin principles that ALL religions share ..and its usually those principles which cover every continent and every religion that religous and good people adhere to whether they are religous or not .. the 10 commandments are the earliest writings of how a decent society should treat others ..
the bible is a guide ..nobody takes it literally except for nuts.. more like if you lead a good life you will be rewarded accordingly ..here and in the afterliufe .. their are ceratin principles that ALL religions share ..and its usually those principles which cover every continent and every religion that religous and good people adhere to whether they are religous or not .. the 10 commandments are the earliest writings of how a decent society should treat others ..
i didn't say anything about a literal interpretation of the bible.
i said, they believe the bible is god's word, and you should try to live accordingly if you want salvation and eternal life w/ god.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:25 PM
have you ever tried reasoning against religion with even the average religious person? If i tried that with my grandparents i could only imagine ... and their just your typical religious followers ... not fanatics at all
yes my father was a strict roman catholic ..we would butt heads all the time .. but the man had his reasons and they were far from irrational .. he was totally logical ..as were my grandparents ..its a belief system so there no absolut right or wrong .. they didnt take the bible literally where the thought noahs ark was real come on man
metfan85
04-01-2009, 04:25 PM
i never spoke of the big bang ... but theres plenty of evidence of darwins theory of evolution are you serious? have you read the book? Do you know how much evidence and studying of species he did before he came out wit hthe book because he knew hed be labeled as a heretic
Yes, I know the evidence. That means nothing, because the evidence just proves plausibility. Their is no evidence that soup can be turned into life, never been reproduced. There is not evidence of how caterpillars learned to become butterflies. What did it trial and error? Premature dying isn't exactly a trait that is desirable to pass on.
What about the evidence that smarter people breed less, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ from any people on Earth and yet reproduce much less than others. Shouldn't they be most fit to reproduce more?
His conclusions are open to multiple interpretations. (calling Gregor Mendel)
Or how about how his assumptions that we came from apes without any proof?
Evolutionists are not sure of how long DNA mutations take. They assumed it was 300-600 generations, not see it can happen 20 times faster. Which by the way puts the first modern humans at roughly 6,000 years ago, or about the same time the bible does.
Of course I don't believe that dinosaurs weren't real, but I don't believe Darwin is correct. too many variables to be considered science.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:25 PM
the bible is a guide ..nobody takes it literally except for nuts.. more like if you lead a good life you will be rewarded accordingly ..here and in the afterliufe .. their are ceratin principles that ALL religions share ..and its usually those principles which cover every continent and every religion that religous and good people adhere to whether they are religous or not .. the 10 commandments are the earliest writings of how a decent society should treat others ..
you don't need a book to tell you what is right and worng morally ... i have good morals and i dont believe in god ... thats for your parents to teach you when your growing up
you don't need a book to tell you what is right and worng morally ... i have good morals and i dont believe in god ... thats for your parents to teach you when your growing up
completely agreed.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:27 PM
Yes, I know the evidence. That means nothing, because the evidence just proves plausibility. Their is no evidence that soup can be turned into life, never been reproduced. There is not evidence of how caterpillars learned to become butterflies. What did it trial and error? Premature dying isn't exactly a trait that is desirable to pass on.
What about the evidence that smarter people breed less, Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ from any people on Earth and yet reproduce much less than others. Shouldn't they be most fit to reproduce more?
His conclusions are open to multiple interpretations. (calling Gregor Mendel)
Or how about how his assumptions that we came from apes without any proof?
Evolutionists are not sure of how long DNA mutations take. They assumed it was 300-600 generations, not see it can happen 20 times faster. Which by the way puts the first modern humans at roughly 6,000 years ago, or about the same time the bible does.
it was exactly trial and error .... THAT is evolution ... survival of the fittest ... only the strong survive etc. etc. lolol
who says smart people breed less? :hmmm
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:28 PM
you don't need a book to tell you what is right and worng morally ... i have good morals and i dont believe in god ... thats for your parents to teach you when your growing up
yes but all those morals are traced back to that book .. look at the difference between western and eastern cultures
metfan85
04-01-2009, 04:29 PM
you don't need a book to tell you what is right and worng morally ... i have good morals and i dont believe in god ... thats for your parents to teach you when your growing up
completely agreed.
where'd your parents get it from? Where'd their parents get it from? You think everything happens in a vacuum? There are causes to actions.
Did you also ever seem to ask yourselves why does this generation seem to have less morals than previous generations? Or why Western European man is less family oriented than eastern European or South American man?
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:32 PM
where'd your parents get it from? Where'd their parents get it from? You think everything happens in a vacuum? There are causes to actions.
Did you also ever seem to ask yourselves why does this generation seem to have less morals than previous generations? Or why Western European man is less family oriented than eastern European or South American man?
so what if my parents did get it from religion ... the point is moot ... i am against religion and will raise my kids to believe in whatever they choose to believe but i will instill good morals into them regardless of religion
Why must morals be "gotten" from someplace?
You don't think man is born w/ innate aversions to some things and attractions to others? You think if I had not been taught anything by anybody re: right and wrong from birth I'd have no problem murdering another human being?
HUMANITY involves emotions, there is innate knowledge of certain things being dangerous, aborrhent, etc. Just like a baby is naturally drawn to its mother, to affection, humans are naturally repulsed by some things like murder.
by far not all, but I do not by for one second that religion CREATED decent moral behavior, or that people on earth had no sense of humanity or decency prior to it.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:34 PM
Why must morals be "gotten" from someplace?
You don't think man is born w/ innate aversions to some things and attractions to others? You think if I had not been taught anything by anybody re: right and wrong from birth I'd have no problem murdering another human being?
HUMANITY involves emotions, there is innate knowledge of certain things being dangerous, aborrhent, etc. Just like a baby is naturally drawn to its mother, to affection, humans are naturally repulsed by some things like murder.
by far not all, but I do not by for one second that religion CREATED decent moral behavior, or that people on earth had no sense of humanity or decency prior to it.
:shootme
Shae, i found its pointless to argue about religion with religious people ... theres not much rational thought put into it ... they see it one way and nothing can change that ... not even the proof of evolution and hard evidence :rolleyes:
:wallbang:wallbang:wallbang
darius
04-01-2009, 04:34 PM
you don't need a book to tell you what is right and worng morally ... i have good morals and i dont believe in god ... thats for your parents to teach you when your growing up
don't you believe your definition of good moral have an origin? why aren't humans just another wild animal species?
I think this generation has less morals b/c they have less guidance at home, period, and more powerful influences from less reliable sources like pop culture and the media.
i dont think it has anything to do w/ religion.
my mother did not need religious instruction to know right from wrong, neither did her mom, or anybody before her. TREAT OTHERS AS YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE TREATED, is a pretty basic concept any human can understand.
you all act like human beings have no HUMANITY and we must all be TOLD, or indoctrinated, as to what's right and wrong.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 04:35 PM
it was exactly trial and error .... THAT is evolution ... survival of the fittest ... only the strong survive etc. etc. lolol
who says smart people breed less? :hmmm
yeah, right so what caused it? If it was trial and error and they were dying before they were able to reproduce how does that constitute survival of the fittest? Not being dead is normally a requirement for reproduction. Did these changes happen immediately? Over hundreds of generations?
How did giraffes get their extended vertebra? If there was a transformation in genes, why can it not be pinpointed?
Evolutionary theory, is not a science it is a series of beliefs.
Smart people breed less, that's common knowledge. Just take a look at the white collar/blue collar baby gap.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:36 PM
you don't need a book to tell you what is right and worng morally ... i have good morals and i dont believe in god ... thats for your parents to teach you when your growing up
if that was true radical islam in the middle east would have been stamped out .. just as radical fundamentalist christianity has been stamped out of europe .. when was the last crusades you heard of?
don't you believe your definition of good moral have an origin? why aren't humans just another wild animal species?
because humans have sentient thought, we are not mere animals. we do not act merely on instinct, we have complex thought processes and brains.
and i think that morals have been defined, classified, and reinforced by religion over time, but they were not CREATED by it.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 04:37 PM
so what if my parents did get it from religion ... the point is moot ... i am against religion and will raise my kids to believe in whatever they choose to believe but i will instill good morals into them regardless of religion
dont you get you have religious morals. The morals are based on the religions belief system of how to act towards another man. You are teaching your kids what the 10 commandments and Christ's 2 greatest commandments taught our ancestors.
so sorry to break it you
Smart people breed less, that's common knowledge. Just take a look at the white collar/blue collar baby gap.
so you're saying blue collar isn't as smart as white collar?
and from an evaluation standpoint, you can only attribute this gap to level of intelligence and NO OTHER FACTORS? you gotta be kidding lol
that's an experimental calamity right there.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:38 PM
yeah, right so what caused it? If it was trial and error and they were dying before they were able to reproduce how does that constitute survival of the fittest? Not being dead is normally a requirement for reproduction. Did these changes happen immediately? Over hundreds of generations?
How did giraffes get their extended vertebra? If there was a transformation in genes, why can it not be pinpointed?
Evolutionary theory, is not a science it is a series of beliefs.
Smart people breed less, that's common knowledge. Just take a look at the white collar/blue collar baby gap.
you obviously dont understand the theory of evolution ... exactly if your dead you cant reproduce ... so if your genetically inferior you will die off resulting in the weaker species to die off and thats what you would refer as "only the strongest survive" ... of course this isnt going to happen all at once it takes generations
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:39 PM
dont you get you have religious morals. The morals are based on the religions belief system of how to act towards another man. You are teaching your kids what the 10 commandments and Christ's 2 greatest commandments taught our ancestors.
so sorry to break it you
exactly
yea ,b/c if christ hadn't been around NOBODY WOULD HAVE ANY CLUE MURDER, THEFT, OR DESTRUCTION for pleasure is wrong lol
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:40 PM
dont you get you have religious morals. The morals are based on the religions belief system of how to act towards another man. You are teaching your kids what the 10 commandments and Christ's 2 greatest commandments taught our ancestors.
so sorry to break it you
:lol my morals arent restricted to guidelines from "the bible"
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:40 PM
yea ,b/c if christ hadn't been around NOBODY WOULD HAVE ANY CLUE MURDER, THEFT, OR DESTRUCTION for pleasure is wrong lol
:lol seriosuly :wallbang
:lol my morals arent restricted to guidelines from "the bible"
seriously, in that case, go out, grab a slave, stone a woman, marry a few others, kill a homosexual, have at it.
bible says it's ok
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:41 PM
so you're saying blue collar isn't as smart as white collar?
And from an evaluation standpoint, you can only attribute this gap to level of intelligence and no other factors? You gotta be kidding lol
that's an experimental calamity right there.
statistics are science are you disputing science now?
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:42 PM
yea ,b/c if christ hadn't been around nobody would have any clue murder, theft, or destruction for pleasure is wrong lol
exactly just like stoning women to death especially when the father and son throw the first stone .. Then all the town's men join in .. Its quit ritualistic ..
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:43 PM
seriously, in that case, go out, grab a slave, stone a woman, marry a few others, kill a homosexual, have at it.
bible says it's ok
yesssss
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:43 PM
exactly just like stoning women to death especially when the father and son throw the first stone .. Then all the town's men join in .. Its quit ritualistic ..
and thats part of their belief system ... bad point to make there
statistics are science are you disputing science now?
read carefully.
if you tell me white collar workers have less kids than blue collar, there can be MANY factors that led to that statistical fact.
could be the amt of money they earn, their religious upbringing, their intelligence, their geographical location, their ethnicity, etc.
take any psych class, do a study, and when you get your facts, try saying you've isolated the ONE AND ONLY FACTOR that caused the results. NOT POSSIBLE.
i do not dispute blue collar workers may have more offspring, i'm disputing that the ONLY CAUSE OF THAT is level of intelligence vs. white collar.
that simply cannot be proven.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:45 PM
UM KILLING A HOMOSEXUAL WOULD BE A SIN .. REACHING OUT AND GIVING AIDS BABY MEDICINE AND THE WAY cARDINAL JOHN O CONNOR HELPED GAY AIDS PATIENTS IS THE REAL CATHOLIC THING TO DO .. .ALSO ALL THE MONEY THEY DONATE TO AIDS PATIENTS
darius
04-01-2009, 04:46 PM
because humans have sentient thought, we are not mere animals. we do not act merely on instinct, we have complex thought processes and brains.
and i think that morals have been defined, classified, and reinforced by religion over time, but they were not CREATED by it.
i believe studies scientific studies show that dolphins too have sentient thought, and that they do not act merely on instinct. they have complex thought processes and brains. they are still a wild animal.
do you have definitive proof that morals were not originated from a supreme being through messengers? do you have proof of where good morals actually do originate from? i just want you to accept that instead of stating "they were not CREATED by it", to make the claim, "while i don't know where they came from, i don't think they were created by religion".
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:47 PM
and thats part of their belief system ... Bad point to make there
actually is a perfect point to make . .
UM KILLING A HOMOSEXUAL WOULD BE A SIN .. REACHING OUT AND GIVING AIDS BABY MEDICINE AND THE WAY cARDINAL JOHN O CONNOR HELPED GAY AIDS PATIENTS IS THE REAL CATHOLIC THING TO DO .. .ALSO ALL THE MONEY THEY DONATE TO AIDS PATIENTS
and then the pope tells them not to use condoms, it's dangerous.
yea, very helpful. just what a place like africa needs to hear, CONDOMS=BAD, rampant aids, let's go!
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 04:50 PM
i believe studies scientific studies show that dolphins too have sentient thought, and that they do not act merely on instinct. they have complex thought processes and brains. they are still a wild animal.
do you have definitive proof that morals were not originated from a supreme being through messengers? do you have proof of where good morals actually do originate from? i just want you to accept that instead of stating "they were not CREATED by it", to make the claim, "while i don't know where they came from, i don't think they were created by religion".
so mystical beings told people how to behave is what your saying :yourcrazy
to each his own
metfan85
04-01-2009, 04:50 PM
you obviously dont understand the theory of evolution ... exactly if your dead you cant reproduce ... so if your genetically inferior you will die off resulting in the weaker species to die off and thats what you would refer as "only the strongest survive" ... of course this isnt going to happen all at once it takes generations
no you don't understand the difference between plausibility and evidence.
How did the caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? How did they get the ability to wrap itself in silk. Why did it wrap itself in silk and learn to become a butterfly? Wouldn't they all have died out before figuring out how to do this if like according to Darwin evolution happens over a prolong period of time?
Do you realize the difference between the butterfly and caterpillar? Completely different animals, the species doesn't get a second chance at learning metamorphosis. it either does it or it doesn't. So your saying that the species changed radically at once from a caterpillar, to a caterpillar that can produce silk wrap itself in it and become a butterfly? Doesn't that put a dent in the drawn out evolution phase? And if you can't answer those questions, then you are NOT a science. Science can explain why things happen, not maybe why it happened.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:52 PM
so mystical beings told people how to behave is what your saying :yourcrazy
to each his own
well why is stoning one celebrated in one society .. Yet absolutly repulsive in another ?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 04:53 PM
i believe studies scientific studies show that dolphins too have sentient thought, and that they do not act merely on instinct. they have complex thought processes and brains. they are still a wild animal.
do you have definitive proof that morals were not originated from a supreme being through messengers? do you have proof of where good morals actually do originate from? i just want you to accept that instead of stating "they were not CREATED by it", to make the claim, "while i don't know where they came from, i don't think they were created by religion".
That's all I'm arguing here, there is no concrete evidence in either direction. Believing in the theory of evolution is just as much a leap of faith as believing in a God ruling over the universe.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:54 PM
and then the pope tells them not to use condoms, it's dangerous.
Yea, very helpful. Just what a place like africa needs to hear, condoms=bad, rampant aids, let's go!
he's talking to his followers ..true catholics do not sleep with multiple partners nor are they premiscuous .. They dont need condoms
i believe studies scientific studies show that dolphins too have sentient thought, and that they do not act merely on instinct. they have complex thought processes and brains. they are still a wild animal.
do you have definitive proof that morals were not originated from a supreme being through messengers? do you have proof of where good morals actually do originate from? i just want you to accept that instead of stating "they were not CREATED by it", to make the claim, "while i don't know where they came from, i don't think they were created by religion".
i've heard that about dolphins, that may very well be true, but define "wild" animal?
studies have shown that babies/small children express emotions & behaviors like compassion, aversion to inflicting pain on others, the ability to identify suffering and respond, so are they acting on morals they've been taught? at such a young age, i doubt it, it seems innate that they offer comfort, express revulsion to harming others, and genuinely seek affection.
i think certain things are innate in humanity, and being innate, they didn't need to "be created" or "be instilled". destructive, murderous people are not born, they are made. our humanity is ours to ignore, or to disregard as we go through life.
the fact that people do not appear to be born wicked, but express positive respect for other life, compassion, etc from the start, makes me think it's how we're wired, NOT to do harm, not to be eager to kill, or harm, etc. if we turn out that way, it's as a result of our life, not our being.
i don't think you have to "create" a human beings sense that taking life senselessly is wrong or that brutality is aborrent. killing is HARD to do, there's a reason for that, and it's not just because of guilt.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 04:58 PM
That's all I'm arguing here, there is no concrete evidence in either direction. Believing in the theory of evolution is just as much a leap of faith as believing in a God ruling over the universe.
atheists are a lot scarier for killing all the people they did .. for worshipping god .. no morals, no value of life .. christianty really values life .. i disagree with them on war and the death penalty but they are consistant
he's talking to his followers ..true catholics do not sleep with multiple partners nor are they premiscuous .. They dont need condoms
don't they need some type of birth control?
who can afford unlimited babies today?
the church is against all contraception except the rhythm method.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:00 PM
i've heard that about dolphins, that may very well be true, but define "wild" animal?
studies have shown that babies/small children express emotions & behaviors like compassion, aversion to inflicting pain on others, the ability to identify suffering and respond, so are they acting on morals they've been taught? at such a young age, i doubt it, it seems innate that they offer comfort, express revulsion to harming others, and genuinely seek affection.
i think certain things are innate in humanity, and being innate, they didn't need to "be created" or "be instilled". destructive, murderous people are not born, they are made. our humanity is ours to ignore, or to disregard as we go through life.
the fact that people do not appear to be born wicked, but express positive respect for other life, compassion, etc from the start, makes me think it's how we're wired, NOT to do harm, not to be eager to kill, or harm, etc. if we turn out that way, it's as a result of our life, not our being.
i don't think you have to "create" a human beings sense that taking life senselessly is wrong or that brutality is aborrent. killing is HARD to do, there's a reason for that, and it's not just because of guilt.
oh children definitly are .. if you neglect one, and show no love ..vs a baby who is nurtured and shown love ..the children develop into totally different people
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:01 PM
no you don't understand the difference between plausibility and evidence.
How did the caterpillar evolve into a butterfly? How did they get the ability to wrap itself in silk. Why did it wrap itself in silk and learn to become a butterfly? Wouldn't they all have died out before figuring out how to do this if like according to Darwin evolution happens over a prolong period of time?
Do you realize the difference between the butterfly and caterpillar? Completely different animals, the species doesn't get a second chance at learning metamorphosis. it either does it or it doesn't. So your saying that the species changed radically at once from a caterpillar, to a caterpillar that can produce silk wrap itself in it and become a butterfly? Doesn't that put a dent in the drawn out evolution phase? And if you can't answer those questions, then you are NOT a science. Science can explain why things happen, not maybe why it happened.
what are you trying to say here ... these are natural born instincts ... do you think GOD tells the caterpillar how to become a butterfly?
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:02 PM
don't they need some type of birth control?
who can afford unlimited babies today?
the church is against all contraception except the rhythm method.
well a woman ovulates only 3- 4 days per month correct? ..
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:03 PM
well why is stoning one celebrated in one society .. Yet absolutly repulsive in another ?
because the history and beliefs are structured throughout the history of a people ... stoning was once celebrated here in the 1700's also ... try that now though
darius
04-01-2009, 05:03 PM
i've heard that about dolphins, that may very well be true, but define "wild" animal?
studies have shown that babies/small children express emotions & behaviors like compassion, aversion to inflicting pain on others, the ability to identify suffering and respond, so are they acting on morals they've been taught? at such a young age, i doubt it, it seems innate that they offer comfort, express revulsion to harming others, and genuinely seek affection.
i think certain things are innate in humanity, and being innate, they didn't need to "be created" or "be instilled". destructive, murderous people are not born, they are made. our humanity is ours to ignore, or to disregard as we go through life.
the fact that people do not appear to be born wicked, but express positive respect for other life, compassion, etc from the start, makes me think it's how we're wired, NOT to do harm, not to be eager to kill, or harm, etc. if we turn out that way, it's as a result of our life, not our being.
i don't think you have to "create" a human beings sense that taking life senselessly is wrong or that brutality is aborrent. killing is HARD to do, there's a reason for that, and it's not just because of guilt.
do you feel you are in possession of a soul?
oh children definitly are .. if you neglect one, and show no love ..vs a baby who is nurtured and shown love ..the children develop into totally different people
that is precisely what i'm saying, if they turn out hateful, it's probably as a result of how they were neglected or treated. they were not born that way.
i don't think man desires brutality, conflict, isolation, and a life of theivery and is driven to such, if not stopped by morals instilled by religion lol
i think you are born w/ positive attributes that generally make you lean toward wanting approval, affection, draws you to others, not to harm them, and makes violence and brutality something frightening, not something you're comfortable with.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:03 PM
what are you trying to say here ... these are natural born instincts ... do you think GOD tells the caterpillar how to become a butterfly?
again bro why is stoning and martydom celebrated in one society .. and repulsivbe in another?? its the value system bro
do you feel you are in possession of a soul?
I only know the term in a religious context, in that respect, no. Do I think each person may have a spirit about them? some intangible energy, or aspect that's uniquely theirs? yes.
depends in what way you define "soul"
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:06 PM
That's all I'm arguing here, there is no concrete evidence in either direction. Believing in the theory of evolution is just as much a leap of faith as believing in a God ruling over the universe.
i agree here ... but i think fossils and things of that nature are more evidence than a book written by man saying there was a guy named jesus who was gods son that could perform miracles
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:07 PM
because the history and beliefs are structured throughout the history of a people ... stoning was once celebrated here in the 1700's also ... try that now though
im talking about today .. the middle east has history just as long as europe ..stoning was made illegal here .. so was slavery .. why you think that is ?? you think values and morals had something to do with it?? of couyrse
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:07 PM
again bro why is stoning and martydom celebrated in one society .. and repulsivbe in another?? its the value system bro
because the history and beliefs are structured throughout the history of a people ... stoning was once celebrated here in the 1700's also ... try that now though
.
metfan85
04-01-2009, 05:08 PM
don't they need some type of birth control?
not your choice to make. Being a Catholic is not a right, it a choice people voluntarily make, obviously taking the rules into effect when making their decision.
who can afford unlimited babies today?
people who live in blue states
Baby Gap
How birthrates color the electoral map (http://amconmag.com/article/2004/dec/20/0004/)
...Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities: “If you want to live in New York, you’ve got to insulate, insulate, insulate.” Manhattan liberals all believe in celebrating diversity in theory but typically draw the line at subjecting their own offspring to it in the public schools. With Manhattan private K-12 school tuitions now approaching $25,000, insulating multiple children rapidly becomes too expensive for all but the filthy rich.
In tempting contrast, the cost-of-living calculator provided by Realtor.com says that a $100,000 salary in liberal Manhattan buys only as much as a $38,000 salary in conservative Pinehurst, North Carolina. Likewise, a San Francisco couple earning $100,000 between them can afford just as much in Cedar City, Utah if the husband can find a $44,000-a-year job—and then the wife can stay home with their children....
http://amconmag.com/Cover/AmConservative-2004dec20
just b u
04-01-2009, 05:09 PM
i'm not bashing religion, i'm bashing this roman catholic archbishop for excommunicating a little girl & others on this premise, and i'm bashing the retarded mentality of harming this girl for the sake of an unborn fetus.
like it or not, religion is the factor here tanya.
i wasnt directing that response to you but to the overall feeling i got from the responses in this thread.
yes there is a religious factor here but only terms of extremes and fanaticism. Religion wasnt created to shun out the raped or abused but to help them get through the hardships. So this is clearly abuse of religion.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:09 PM
im talking about today .. the middle east has history just as long as europe ..stoning was made illegal here .. so was slavery .. why you think that is ?? you think values and morals had something to do with it?? of couyrse
so our morals are better than theirs ... maybe they picked the wrong religion :rolleyes:
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:10 PM
.
but what led us to progress faster i mean this nation is a baby compared to other countries and nations..why do you believe slavery, and stoning is ok to them?? .. why is it not ok in judeo christian societys whether it bbe america, australia, israel, greece, or iceland or puerto rico?? vs egypt, iran, pakistan etc?
well a woman ovulates only 3- 4 days per month correct? ..
depends on the woman how many days, and which days it happens for that woman also varies each period. it's not an exact science, so many things affect it.
it is by no means a reliable method of contraception, it's just better than nothing.
i have been getting my period since i was 12 years old, and i have never been on a reliable enough schedule that i could tell you when each month I'm ovulating lol
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:11 PM
but what led us to progress faster i mean this nation is a baby compared to other countries and nations..why do you believe slavery, and stoning is ok to them?? .. why is it not ok in judeo christian societys whether it bbe america, australia, israel, greece, or iceland or puerto rico?? vs egypt, iran, pakistan etc?
its just part of the evolution of man ... maybe it has to do with how "westernized" we are compared to how they would still be considered third world countries in most of those places
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:12 PM
so our morals are better than theirs ... maybe they picked the wrong religion :rolleyes:
but i thought a book couldnt tell one whats right or wrong.. that people have a sense of justice and morality? ..my point is christian values such as forgivenees, compassion, justice, totally influence you whether you want to admit it or not
darius
04-01-2009, 05:12 PM
I only know the term in a religious context, in that respect, no. Do I think each person may have a spirit about them? some intangible energy, or aspect that's uniquely theirs? yes.
depends in what way you define "soul"
ok, fair enough . . . for the purposes of this dialogue, i will say that for myself, i simply don't know enough about a soul to "define" it. i can define the word apple, or proximity, or the design of a house, because they are fully tangible to me. i believe in the existence of a soul but to know and define all its characteristics, traits, limitations, etc is beyond my understanding. i can only attribute some things to how i feel about my soul and about how its integrated in my life, but even that is not easily communicated. basically, i'm not going to profess to know everything about the soul and how it works, cuz i just don't know -- only learning as i go. do u feel me?
anyhow, i came across an interesting read, i'd thought i'd share with you. it's a review of a book by Richard Dawkins entitled "The God Delusion" by a member of my faith. the interpretations might give you some high level perspective as to how i believe religion to exist/function.
The new atheism, reconsidered
The God Delusion
By Richard Dawkins
Houghton Mifflin Company
Boston – New York,
In a world threatened by religious extremism, the need to take stock in religion and to search for new perspectives is an urgent one.
Among the most vigorous of such examinations is a movement dubbed “the new atheism,” led by scientists who argue that not only can science better explain reality than a belief in God but also that religious belief itself has become a threat to humanity.
Foremost among this group is Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist at Oxford University, whose latest book, The God Delusion, has remained near the top of best-seller lists.
“Faith can be very, very dangerous,” writes Dr. Dawkins. “Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities....”
But while Dr. Dawkins and other new atheists believe the way forward lies in a world without religion, Bahá’ís approach the issue of God, nature, and religion from an entirely different perspective.
Stating that traditional religious beliefs are inadequate for the modern age, the Bahá’í Faith recasts the whole conception of religion, suggesting it is the principal force impelling the development of consciousness.
In this light, there is much in Dr. Dawkins’ book that Bahá’ís would agree with — including his condemnation of religious fanaticism, his call for the application of reason and science in the battle against irrational theologies, and his argument that the theory of evolution can explain the emergence of complex life.
Central to Dr. Dawkins’ project of dismantling the foundations of religious belief is an attack on what he calls “the God hypothesis” — the idea “that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the universe and — at least in many versions of the hypothesis — maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles, which are temporary violations of his own otherwise grandly immutable laws.”
The arguments in the first half of The God Delusion flow from this assertion, beginning with a solid, if at times dismissive, rebuttal of the traditional proofs for God’s existence and culminating in an exposition on how evolution explains how life might arise through a gradual and cumulative process without the need to invoke an intelligent designer. Indeed, Dawkins argues that a designer of the kind defined by his “God hypothesis” must be even more improbable than its handiwork.
When set against traditional religious understandings of God, Dr. Dawkins’ arguments are quite powerful. But against the Bahá’í understanding of God and nature, the contradictions that he identifies between science and religion simply dissolve.
Bahá’u’lláh describes God as an “unknowable essence,” “sanctified above all attributes,” and “exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness.” As such, Bahá’ís understand that God is far above all that we can ever know. The very categories of “being” and “existence,” which underpin logic itself, are inadequate when referring to God.
Accordingly, Bahá’ís would agree that the traditional logical proofs for the existence of God fall short. But it does not follow that because God is far removed from physical reality that God is therefore irrelevant to the workings of the universe.
A number of passages in the Bahá’í writings suggest that God’s action and the laws of nature are folded together — and that the natural laws that, say, guide evolution, are merely an extension of God’s will. “Nature is the expression of God’s will in and through the contingent world,” writes Bahá’u’lláh, explaining that “all the atoms of the earth have celebrated Thy praise,” and yet are “under one law from which they will never depart.”
In this vein, distinct categories of natural and supernatural action blend together allowing Bahá’ís to view the physical world in both sacred and secular terms. God’s action in the world looks more like physics than magic.
Moreover, reason is given a place of honor in the Bahá’í writings. “Religion must conform to science and reason; otherwise, it is superstition,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Bahá’ís embrace the theory of evolution without believing that it implies that human life is merely some wildly improbable accident.
In the second half of the book Dr. Dawkins turns to the subject of religion and its effect on human society, attempting to extend the theory of evolution to explain our innate moral sense and the roots of the religious impulse. While this argument is intended to invalidate religion, here too the central idea under discussion is given an unexpected new meaning in the Bahá’í writings.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated that the founders of the world’s great religions “aware of the reality of the mysteries of beings,” and that from this awareness they establish religion, which is defined as “the essential connection which proceeds from the realities of things.”
“The supreme Manifestations of God,” he said, “establish laws which are suitable and adapted to the state of the world of man.” Such Manifestations have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad — and, most recently, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh.
While religion is seen in the Bahá’í writings as an expression of interconnectedness, so too is nature: “By nature is meant those inherent properties and necessary relationships derived from the realities of things,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Religion, then, becomes an expression of the limitless unfolding potentialities of creation; and revelation takes on, like nature itself, an evolutionary character: its form and content are a function of time and place, even as its underlying purpose, the transformation and sublimation of human consciousness, remains unchanged. The idea “that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is not final but progressive” becomes, in the words of Shoghi Effendi, “the fundamental verity underlying the Bahá’í Faith.”
From this perspective there is no necessary tension with Dr. Dawkins’ argument that our deepest religious and moral sensibilities might have an evolutionary explanation. Even if religion in principle arises from the natural order of things, there is no reason to assume that every part of that order can be encompassed by the ordinary human mind, or that religious morality is arbitrary.
Rather, Bahá’ís understand that those moral precepts which have most critically guided the development of human civilization, and which have resonated most deeply with the human soul, stem from the articulations of the Manifestations of God, who have been given a preternatural grasp of the deepest interconnections between things. Like all-knowing physicians, they perceive the disease afflicting human society in every age and prescribe the appropriate remedy.
The disease that is most gravely afflicting the world today is religious fanaticism and hatred, as Dr. Dawkins acutely observes in his closing chapters. With this Bahá’is would wholeheartedly agree. “The fire of religious fanaticism is a world-devouring flame,” wrote Bahá’u’lláh.
For Dr. Dawkins the source of the decline of religion in the modern age is in part a “changing moral zeitgeist” that has superseded much of the moral message of sacred scriptures of past ages, and in part a persistent rejection of reason and adherence to man-made doctrines. With this, too, Bahá’ís would fully agree.
The remedy lies in building up the new as the old collapses. Bahá’ís see religion as a living phenomenon, having its own life cycle on the scale of centuries — individual faiths have their birth, efflorescence, and decline, in the end providing the seeds for the renewal of the one “changeless faith of God.”
Without this larger perspective, it is easy to conclude in a world “dimmed by the steadily dying-out light of religion,” as Shoghi Effendi put it, that religious belief in any form is incompatible with the needs of the modern age. But evidence of a rebirth, embodied in the worldwide Bahá’í community, composed of millions who are gradually building open-minded and God-centered oases of faith in action, is dawning on the horizon.
— by Steven Phelps
Asking families to use no contraception in a time where the cost of raising ONE kid can cripple two income earners is unbelieveably stupid to me.
Advising a continent of peope suffering from aids NOT to use condoms is a detriment to all of their health, period. We cannot change the existing level of infection in africa, yet the church propagates against STEMMING it by saying protection is dangerous???
how is that caring for the faithful? the people are already sick, and are spreading it to others b/c they are ignorant as to how to prevent it, treat it, and are told NOT to by things like this.
people are going to suffer as a result of the church frowning upon condom use in this case, fact.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:15 PM
its just part of the evolution of man ... maybe it has to do with how "westernized" we are compared to how they would still be considered third world countries in most of those places
why havent they evolved if their history is longer? whats makes one "westernized" .. the value system is what does ..
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:16 PM
but i thought a book couldnt tell one whats right or wrong.. that people have a sense of justice and morality? ..my point is christian values such as forgivenees, compassion, justice, totally influence you whether you want to admit it or not
the :rolleyes: was for the sarcasm meant to be depicted from my statement ... the reason stoning is still celebrated because obviously their morals havent changed throughout the years and they keep getting brought up that this is ok to do
metfan85
04-01-2009, 05:17 PM
its just part of the evolution of man ... maybe it has to do with how "westernized" we are compared to how they would still be considered third world countries in most of those places
does the evolution of man include eradicating whole cities within seconds? If so I'll take the values of Russell Kirk's Permanent Things (http://www.kirkcenter.org/), of the old Christian West, where murdering and starving millions at a time was unacceptable, where warfare was relegate to soldiers and not of bombing of civilian cities.
I'll take Christian gentlemen like George Washington and Robert E. Lee over over so-called progressives like FDR, Clinton and Obama.
ok, fair enough . . . for the purposes of this dialogue, i will say that for myself, i simply don't know enough about a soul to "define" it. i can define the word apple, or proximity, or the design of a house, because they are fully tangible to me. i believe in the existence of a soul but to know and define all its characteristics, traits, limitations, etc is beyond my understanding. i can only attribute some things to how i feel about my soul and about how its integrated in my life, but even that is not easily communicated. basically, i'm not going to profess to know everything about the soul and how it works, cuz i just don't know -- only learning as i go. do u feel me?
anyhow, i came across an interesting read, i'd thought i'd share with you. it's a review of a book by Richard Dawkins entitled "The God Delusion" by a member of my faith. the interpretations might give you some high level perspective as to how i believe religion to exist/function.
The new atheism, reconsidered
The God Delusion
By Richard Dawkins
Houghton Mifflin Company
Boston – New York,
In a world threatened by religious extremism, the need to take stock in religion and to search for new perspectives is an urgent one.
Among the most vigorous of such examinations is a movement dubbed “the new atheism,” led by scientists who argue that not only can science better explain reality than a belief in God but also that religious belief itself has become a threat to humanity.
Foremost among this group is Richard Dawkins, a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist at Oxford University, whose latest book, The God Delusion, has remained near the top of best-seller lists.
“Faith can be very, very dangerous,” writes Dr. Dawkins. “Suicide bombers do what they do because they really believe what they were taught in their religious schools: that duty to God exceeds all other priorities....”
But while Dr. Dawkins and other new atheists believe the way forward lies in a world without religion, Bahá’ís approach the issue of God, nature, and religion from an entirely different perspective.
Stating that traditional religious beliefs are inadequate for the modern age, the Bahá’í Faith recasts the whole conception of religion, suggesting it is the principal force impelling the development of consciousness.
In this light, there is much in Dr. Dawkins’ book that Bahá’ís would agree with — including his condemnation of religious fanaticism, his call for the application of reason and science in the battle against irrational theologies, and his argument that the theory of evolution can explain the emergence of complex life.
Central to Dr. Dawkins’ project of dismantling the foundations of religious belief is an attack on what he calls “the God hypothesis” — the idea “that the reality we inhabit also contains a supernatural agent who designed the universe and — at least in many versions of the hypothesis — maintains it and even intervenes in it with miracles, which are temporary violations of his own otherwise grandly immutable laws.”
The arguments in the first half of The God Delusion flow from this assertion, beginning with a solid, if at times dismissive, rebuttal of the traditional proofs for God’s existence and culminating in an exposition on how evolution explains how life might arise through a gradual and cumulative process without the need to invoke an intelligent designer. Indeed, Dawkins argues that a designer of the kind defined by his “God hypothesis” must be even more improbable than its handiwork.
When set against traditional religious understandings of God, Dr. Dawkins’ arguments are quite powerful. But against the Bahá’í understanding of God and nature, the contradictions that he identifies between science and religion simply dissolve.
Bahá’u’lláh describes God as an “unknowable essence,” “sanctified above all attributes,” and “exalted beyond and above proximity and remoteness.” As such, Bahá’ís understand that God is far above all that we can ever know. The very categories of “being” and “existence,” which underpin logic itself, are inadequate when referring to God.
Accordingly, Bahá’ís would agree that the traditional logical proofs for the existence of God fall short. But it does not follow that because God is far removed from physical reality that God is therefore irrelevant to the workings of the universe.
A number of passages in the Bahá’í writings suggest that God’s action and the laws of nature are folded together — and that the natural laws that, say, guide evolution, are merely an extension of God’s will. “Nature is the expression of God’s will in and through the contingent world,” writes Bahá’u’lláh, explaining that “all the atoms of the earth have celebrated Thy praise,” and yet are “under one law from which they will never depart.”
In this vein, distinct categories of natural and supernatural action blend together allowing Bahá’ís to view the physical world in both sacred and secular terms. God’s action in the world looks more like physics than magic.
Moreover, reason is given a place of honor in the Bahá’í writings. “Religion must conform to science and reason; otherwise, it is superstition,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Bahá’ís embrace the theory of evolution without believing that it implies that human life is merely some wildly improbable accident.
In the second half of the book Dr. Dawkins turns to the subject of religion and its effect on human society, attempting to extend the theory of evolution to explain our innate moral sense and the roots of the religious impulse. While this argument is intended to invalidate religion, here too the central idea under discussion is given an unexpected new meaning in the Bahá’í writings.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá stated that the founders of the world’s great religions “aware of the reality of the mysteries of beings,” and that from this awareness they establish religion, which is defined as “the essential connection which proceeds from the realities of things.”
“The supreme Manifestations of God,” he said, “establish laws which are suitable and adapted to the state of the world of man.” Such Manifestations have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad — and, most recently, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh.
While religion is seen in the Bahá’í writings as an expression of interconnectedness, so too is nature: “By nature is meant those inherent properties and necessary relationships derived from the realities of things,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Religion, then, becomes an expression of the limitless unfolding potentialities of creation; and revelation takes on, like nature itself, an evolutionary character: its form and content are a function of time and place, even as its underlying purpose, the transformation and sublimation of human consciousness, remains unchanged. The idea “that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is not final but progressive” becomes, in the words of Shoghi Effendi, “the fundamental verity underlying the Bahá’í Faith.”
From this perspective there is no necessary tension with Dr. Dawkins’ argument that our deepest religious and moral sensibilities might have an evolutionary explanation. Even if religion in principle arises from the natural order of things, there is no reason to assume that every part of that order can be encompassed by the ordinary human mind, or that religious morality is arbitrary.
Rather, Bahá’ís understand that those moral precepts which have most critically guided the development of human civilization, and which have resonated most deeply with the human soul, stem from the articulations of the Manifestations of God, who have been given a preternatural grasp of the deepest interconnections between things. Like all-knowing physicians, they perceive the disease afflicting human society in every age and prescribe the appropriate remedy.
The disease that is most gravely afflicting the world today is religious fanaticism and hatred, as Dr. Dawkins acutely observes in his closing chapters. With this Bahá’is would wholeheartedly agree. “The fire of religious fanaticism is a world-devouring flame,” wrote Bahá’u’lláh.
For Dr. Dawkins the source of the decline of religion in the modern age is in part a “changing moral zeitgeist” that has superseded much of the moral message of sacred scriptures of past ages, and in part a persistent rejection of reason and adherence to man-made doctrines. With this, too, Bahá’ís would fully agree.
The remedy lies in building up the new as the old collapses. Bahá’ís see religion as a living phenomenon, having its own life cycle on the scale of centuries — individual faiths have their birth, efflorescence, and decline, in the end providing the seeds for the renewal of the one “changeless faith of God.”
Without this larger perspective, it is easy to conclude in a world “dimmed by the steadily dying-out light of religion,” as Shoghi Effendi put it, that religious belief in any form is incompatible with the needs of the modern age. But evidence of a rebirth, embodied in the worldwide Bahá’í community, composed of millions who are gradually building open-minded and God-centered oases of faith in action, is dawning on the horizon.
— by Steven Phelps
I'll check that book out, i just finished hitchens' book so this'd probably be an interesting followup to the topic lol
i don't know that i agree about the "threat" some atheists believe religion is. i believe it can be used harmfully, it can be a threat, but not that it innately IS one by merely existing.
about the soul bit, i agree, it's hard to define. but i think it's pretty clear there is something more to a person than their physical self, whatever it's derived from.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:19 PM
the :rolleyes: was for the sarcasm meant to be depicted from my statement ... the reason stoning is still celebrated because obviously their morals havent changed throughout the years and they keep getting brought up that this is ok to do
their morals have changed they become much harsher since the late 50's .. wahhabism in SA much bigger now than 40 years ago correct?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 05:19 PM
Asking families to use no contraception in a time where the cost of raising ONE kid can cripple two income earners is unbelieveably stupid to me.
Advising a continent of peope suffering from aids NOT to use condoms is a detriment to all of their health, period. We cannot change the existing level of infection in africa, yet the church propagates against STEMMING it by saying protection is dangerous???
how is that caring for the faithful? the people are already sick, and are spreading it to others b/c they are ignorant as to how to prevent it, treat it, and are told NOT to by things like this.
people are going to suffer as a result of the church frowning upon condom use in this case, fact.
A condom has a 10% rate of failure, not having sec with an infected person has a 0% chance of failure.
Just in case you didn't know the math, there it is
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:20 PM
does the evolution of man include eradicating whole cities within seconds? If so I'll take the values of Russell Kirk's Permanent Things (http://www.kirkcenter.org/), of the old Christian West, where murdering and starving millions at a time was unacceptable, where warfare was relegate to soldiers and not of bombing of civilian cities.
I'll take Christian gentlemen like George Washington and Robert E. Lee over over so-called progressives like FDR, Clinton and Obama.
i guess your referring to hiroshima and nagasaki ... who ordered that again Truman? was he religious?
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:21 PM
their morals have changed they become much harsher since the late 50's .. wahhabism in SA much bigger now than 40 years ago correct?
idk what wahhabism is
A condom has a 10% rate of failure, not having sec with an infected person has a 0% chance of failure.
Just in case you didn't know the math, there it is
great, i'm sure that'll work for the entire continent.
let's just tell every single person (whether they know they're infected or not) to simply NOT have sex.
perfect solution.
b/c all the girls that get pregnant were unaware that if they hadn't had sex, they wouldn't have gotten pregnant.
ugh.
just b u
04-01-2009, 05:22 PM
and what other faiths do you see steppin up?
i think he's recruiting to Islam lololol
Darius just because an institution fucks you over doesnt mean you stop believing in what your faith preaches.
For example, just because a rabbi would be found to have raped a child, doesnt mean i would turn to another religion :yourcrazy
the fact is, people are infected, some know they are, some don't. how can you stop, or slow, the spread of infectious disease?
institute practices that provide PROTECTION, 90% protection, correct? sounds like a plan.
ideally, nobody would have sex w/ an infected person, or everyone would know they are infected, but they do and they don't.
men contract it, don't know, and bring it home to families. we shouldn't encourage practices that could prevent some of this?
please.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:23 PM
just gotta have faith bern bernow bernow bernow now
darius
04-01-2009, 05:24 PM
I'll check that book out, i just finished hitchens' book so this'd probably be an interesting followup to the topic lol
i don't know that i agree about the "threat" some atheists believe religion is. i believe it can be used harmfully, it can be a threat, but not that it innately IS one by merely existing.
about the soul bit, i agree, it's hard to define. but i think it's pretty clear there is something more to a person than their physical self, whatever it's derived from.
just for the sake of clarity . . . it's not the book i'm referring to. i'm specifically referring to the article which was written by a Baha'i (a co-religionist of mine) addressing a number of the fundamental points raised by Dawkins in his book. you don't need to have read the book the appreciate what Phelps addresses. i think you'll find it interesting.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:26 PM
just for the sake of clarity . . . it's not the book i'm referring to. i'm specifically referring to the article which was written by a Baha'i (a co-religionist of mine) addressing a number of the fundamental points raised by Dawkins in his book. you don't need to have read the book the appreciate what Phelps addresses. i think you'll find it interesting.
Dawkins book "the god delusion" i actually own ... i think youd find it interesting as well ... he brings up very valid points if your open-minded enough to read through it
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:27 PM
just gotta have faith bern bernow bernow bernow now
wahhabism is a radical form of islam .. that promotes alot of injustices towards their fellow man and especially women in SA .. in Iran they have another mradical form where armijihad claims he speaks to sleeping imam .. these radical forms are much more prevalebnt today .. thats regression not evolution .. why in your opinion is it acceptable in these societys and not westernized societys?
darius
04-01-2009, 05:28 PM
Dawkins book "the god delusion" i actually own ... i think youd find it interesting as well ... he brings up very valid points if your open-minded enough to read through it
read the article i posted . . . we'll talk more :)
metfan85
04-01-2009, 05:30 PM
i guess your referring to hiroshima and nagasaki ... who ordered that again Truman? was he religious?
I'm referring to everything, done by the enlightened West, from the bombing of Dresden, Lincoln ordering Sherman's march to the Sea, to the Atom bomb, to the murder of 50 million babies since the 70's...
Yes he was, but the bombing was developed by the cold leviathan he headed, not his Southern Baptist brothers.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:32 PM
read the article i posted . . . we'll talk more :)
i skimmed through the article and from what i interpreted i like those religious beliefs and think they are more suitable than most it todays society ... now do i believe in them ... thats another story
darius
04-01-2009, 05:36 PM
i skimmed through the article and from what i interpreted i like those religious beliefs and think they are more suitable than most it todays society ... now do i believe in them ... thats another story
everyone has to start somewhere ;)
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 05:41 PM
everyone has to start somewhere ;)
lol my religion foundation is set nothings gonna shake that tree at this point unless jesus himself appears in front of me and turns water to wine ... even then ill probbaly just assume that as a flashback of some sort from too much use of psychadelics throughout the years
darius
04-01-2009, 05:44 PM
lol my religion foundation is set nothings gonna shake that tree at this point unless jesus himself appears in front of me and turns water to wine ... even then ill probbaly just assume that as a flashback of some sort from too much use of psychadelics throughout the years
hey, just remember there's a whole lot more to religion than just JC
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 05:47 PM
lol my religion foundation is set nothings gonna shake that tree at this point unless jesus himself appears in front of me and turns water to wine ... even then ill probbaly just assume that as a flashback of some sort from too much use of psychadelics throughout the years
so you just as stubborn as the fundamenatlist when it comes to having an open mind and changing views
lol my religion foundation is set nothings gonna shake that tree at this point unless jesus himself appears in front of me and turns water to wine ... even then ill probbaly just assume that as a flashback of some sort from too much use of psychadelics throughout the years
:lol
so you just as stubborn as the fundamenatlist when it comes to having an open mind and changing views
why is it ok for religious people to be set in their ways and have unwavering belief there is a god, but it's not ok for him to be sure in his stance that he is not, and will not, be religious?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 06:08 PM
so you just as stubborn as the fundamenatlist when it comes to having an open mind and changing views
Of course they are. And they take the least logical approach, while claiming to be high learned intellectuals. They know something can not come from nothing and for no reason change into something else. And yet continue to believe in it.
Of course they are. And they take the least logical approach, while claiming to be high learned intellectuals. They know something can not come from nothing and for no reason change into something else. And yet continue to believe in it.
"they" meaning whom exactly?
"something can't come from nothing", brilliant scientific deduction lol
apply it to your own beliefs? how did god come to be, if something can't come from nothing? oh wait, he's ALWAYS been, right?
do you see how inane this is?
metfan85
04-01-2009, 06:18 PM
"something can't come from nothing", brilliant scientific deduction lol
apply it to your own beliefs? how did god come to be, if something can't come from nothing? oh wait, he's ALWAYS been, right?
do you see how inane this is?
I don't pretend to know where everything came from. I believe in mysticism. I also believe not everything can be explained by human thought. I believe I am right, I do not know 100%, I can not, that is why I do not call my beliefs, science.
People from your school of thought, believe that they are science. They do not have an explanation other than a theory on what might have happened and how ti might have happened and pass it off as fact, when it's merely speculation.
Do you see how insane that is?
I don't pretend to know where everything came from. I believe in mysticism. I also believe not everything can be explained by human thought. I believe I am right, I do not know 100%, I can not, that is why I do not call my beliefs, science.
People from your school of thought, believe that they are science. They do not have an explanation other than a theory on what might have happened and how ti might have happened and pass it off as fact, when it's merely speculation.
Do you see how insane that is?
what's my school of thought? and no, i don't believe my beliefs are science. i cannot DISPROVE the existence of god by any empirical means.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 07:28 PM
hey, just remember there's a whole lot more to religion than just JC
i know just using an easily identifiable example
so you just as stubborn as the fundamenatlist when it comes to having an open mind and changing views
Of course they are. And they take the least logical approach, while claiming to be high learned intellectuals. They know something can not come from nothing and for no reason change into something else. And yet continue to believe in it.
im open to ideas ... doesnt mean i have to believe in them ... and as i said ill believe in god in jesus shows up at my doorstep ... unless some sort of apparition appears in front of me i dont think theres anything that will sway my ideals on the subject at hand ... how is that being fundamentalist ... im not calling for bibles to be burned .... i think religion in some ways can be a good thing at times ... not always but sometimes ... so please spare me wit hthe fundamentalist BS
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 07:30 PM
I don't pretend to know where everything came from. I believe in mysticism. I also believe not everything can be explained by human thought. I believe I am right, I do not know 100%, I can not, that is why I do not call my beliefs, science.
People from your school of thought, believe that they are science. They do not have an explanation other than a theory on what might have happened and how ti might have happened and pass it off as fact, when it's merely speculation.
Do you see how insane that is?
your belief in god is a belief in a theory do you not realize that? Where is proof of gods existence? In the bible? Well we have proof of our theories as well in science books then.
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 07:39 PM
why is it ok for religious people to be set in their ways and have unwavering belief there is a god, but it's not ok for him to be sure in his stance that he is not, and will not, be religious?
i was referrinmg to his comment you can not reason with "religous people" because they wont budge from their views ..thats true of fundamentalists .. im just pointing out your both set in your ways as fundamentalist atheists and nothing will sway your view either.. so why put someone else down for that ??
metfan85
04-01-2009, 07:43 PM
your belief in god is a belief in a theory do you not realize that? Where is proof of gods existence? In the bible? Well we have proof of our theories as well in science books then.
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't say it was a science, I said it was a belief. You're saying you're theory is a science.
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 07:44 PM
i was referrinmg to his comment you can not reason with "religous people" because they wont budge from their views ..thats true of fundamentalists .. im just pointing out your both set in your ways as fundamentalist atheists and nothing will sway your view either.. so why put someone else down for that ??
i never said "nothing" would change my views ... but it would take one of those things you religious ppl call miracles to happen before my eyes
eL FryEdo
04-01-2009, 07:45 PM
What the hell are you talking about?
I didn't say it was a science, I said it was a belief. You're saying you're theory is a science.
quote where i said theory IS science ... theories are a part of science yes ... what i said was God is just a theory ... teres no substantial evidence to prove his existence
i was referrinmg to his comment you can not reason with "religous people" because they wont budge from their views ..thats true of fundamentalists .. im just pointing out your both set in your ways as fundamentalist atheists and nothing will sway your view either.. so why put someone else down for that ??
b/c i find it hard to respect taking god's existence on faith, i don't find it hard to respect NOT believing, b/c that's far more rational.
at least i can say i believed in god initially, tried that, experienced that culture, now i don't.
how many christians will admit to being atheists before converting ? lol how many have ever been exposed to the polar opposite side?
jameznyhc
04-01-2009, 10:04 PM
b/c i find it hard to respect taking god's existence on faith, i don't find it hard to respect NOT believing, b/c that's far more rational.
at least i can say i believed in god initially, tried that, experienced that culture, now i don't.
how many christians will admit to being atheists before converting ? lol how many have ever been exposed to the polar opposite side?
how is that different than disputing gods existence .. both are faith .. you have faith in there being no god .. there plenty of christians who were once atheists and/or non practicing of their faith ...there also alot of converts to christianity.. intelliegent design is a well founded science what exactly do you dispute about it?
did you really belive in god's existence? or did you just go along with what your parents and teachers taught you how you should believe ..thats a huge difference ..
drumaboy
04-02-2009, 12:46 AM
dear james,
if it weren't for science, you would be dead.
.....while the separate groups debate science vs religion, faith vs reality, or as some have argued here, faith vs faith in science, i just want to propose a simple thought......sure, scientists have a theory of how the world started, and it's obviously open to debate......but i look at this argument in a simple way......you have your paranoid, libertarian, conservative, whatever fighting tooth and nail against scientific theory because that would mean defeat against leftist, athiest thought......meanwhile you have people like Shae simply supporting science, and HER belief that it wasn't God who started it all, etc........now, i can't help but to notice those arguing against science, wow, even metfan wants to believe in mysticism, lol, but i look back in history, real undeniable truth, take for example the world proven as round, not flat, church hated that idea.... oh and all the other things that have moved us along, helped us, even hurt us......in the end, if you believe in God as be all end all, then log off your computer because a scientific method invented it, throw your cell away because science was responsible for that, oh and if you break a leg, need an x-ray, ask Jesus to tell you with what's wrong and ask him for a cast, yep cuz it was science that pushed the envelope beyond "seeing" spiritual ghosts, saints, and miracles for healing .... when you die, you might find out if there is a God, meanwhile your ass belongs to science
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 12:52 AM
dear james,
if it weren't for science, you would be dead.
.....while the separate groups debate science vs religion, faith vs reality, or as some have argued here, faith vs faith in science, i just want to propose a simple thought......sure, scientists have a theory of how the world started, and it's obviously open to debate......but i look at this argument in a simple way......you have your paranoid, libertarian, conservative, whatever fighting tooth and nail against scientific theory because that would mean defeat against leftist, athiest thought......meanwhile you have people like Shae simply supporting science, and HER belief that it wasn't God who started it all, etc........now, i can't help but to notice those arguing against science, wow, even metfan wants to believe in mysticism, lol, but i look back in history, real undeniable truth, take for example the world proven as round, not flat, church hated that idea.... oh and all the other things that have moved us along, helped us, even hurt us......in the end, if you believe in God as be all end all, then log off your computer because a scientific method invented it, throw your cell away because science was responsible for that, oh and if you break a leg, need an x-ray, ask Jesus to tell you with what's wrong and ask him for a cast, yep cuz it was science that push the envelope beyond "seeing" spiritual ghosts and miracles for healing which will save you
who is disputing science? lol intelligent design is a scientific theory as is evolution .. neither one can be absolutly proven .. in free judeo- christian societys science thrives leaps and bounds ahead of eastern societys..especially in America ..thanks to individual liberty .. whose paranoid?
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 12:56 AM
dear james,
if it weren't for science, you would be dead.
.....while the separate groups debate science vs religion, faith vs reality, or as some have argued here, faith vs faith in science, i just want to propose a simple thought......sure, scientists have a theory of how the world started, and it's obviously open to debate......but i look at this argument in a simple way......you have your paranoid, libertarian, conservative, whatever fighting tooth and nail against scientific theory because that would mean defeat against leftist, athiest thought......meanwhile you have people like Shae simply supporting science, and HER belief that it wasn't God who started it all, etc........now, i can't help but to notice those arguing against science, wow, even metfan wants to believe in mysticism, lol, but i look back in history, real undeniable truth, take for example the world proven as round, not flat, church hated that idea.... oh and all the other things that have moved us along, helped us, even hurt us......in the end, if you believe in God as be all end all, then log off your computer because a scientific method invented it, throw your cell away because science was responsible for that, oh and if you break a leg, need an x-ray, ask Jesus to tell you with what's wrong and ask him for a cast, yep cuz it was science that pushed the envelope beyond "seeing" spiritual ghosts, saints, and miracles for healing .... when you die, you might find out if there is a God, meanwhile your ass belongs to science
exactly my point because of our healthcare system i got the very best drugs and doctors ..no waiting periods .. look at the care ted kennedy got.. that patrick swayze is receieving .. i dont see them off to secular england now do i?
metfan85
04-02-2009, 01:13 AM
dear james,
if it weren't for science, you would be dead.
.....while the separate groups debate science vs religion, faith vs reality, or as some have argued here, faith vs faith in science, i just want to propose a simple thought......sure, scientists have a theory of how the world started, and it's obviously open to debate......but i look at this argument in a simple way......you have your paranoid, libertarian, conservative, whatever fighting tooth and nail against scientific theory because that would mean defeat against leftist, athiest thought......meanwhile you have people like Shae simply supporting science, and HER belief that it wasn't God who started it all, etc........now, i can't help but to notice those arguing against science, wow, even metfan wants to believe in mysticism, lol, but i look back in history, real undeniable truth, take for example the world proven as round, not flat, church hated that idea.... oh and all the other things that have moved us along, helped us, even hurt us......in the end, if you believe in God as be all end all, then log off your computer because a scientific method invented it, throw your cell away because science was responsible for that, oh and if you break a leg, need an x-ray, ask Jesus to tell you with what's wrong and ask him for a cast, yep cuz it was science that pushed the envelope beyond "seeing" spiritual ghosts, saints, and miracles for healing .... when you die, you might find out if there is a God, meanwhile your ass belongs to science
You might look back at real undeniable truth, but it sure as hell doesn't mean what you're saying is true. The earth is flat story is a myth. If you really know as much as you say you do, then you'd explain to us that Lactantius (c. 245–325), a Christian heretic and a Greek traveler Cosmas. Now Cosmas had explained the Earth as being flat in a very descript manner, however not intending for it to be taken literally. In fact there is no writings on Cosmas during the Middle Ages, and is not heard from again for 1100 years after his death in 1702.
Columbus was urged not to go one his voyage not for fear of falling off the face of the earth, although school age textbook won't tell you otherwise, rather they feared he vastly underestimated the size of the earth, and that his crew would starve to death, before they ever reached land.
...
I don't think you understand at all the great advances and discoveries put forth by religious men and advocated by religious institutions. Not that I expect someone who holds religion in contempt to acknowledge that, but it would nice to see some historical truth's every now and then.
I also don't see how we are "against" science? Merely affirming that Darwinism is only slightly plausible riddled with holes, that can not be explained other than through guesses is being science and scientific discovery?
And if science can explain everything, then why does our scientific knowledge change depending on the time of day? Why can it not explain eastern medicine? I've been to orthopedists, sports medicine doctors, physical therapists, surgeons for my injured pitching arm, and yet chiropractic and acupuncture is what healed me. How can science explain that? My surgeon shrugged it off, saying it was happenstance. Science did a wonderful job with my surgically repaired elbow, but scientifically unexplainable acupuncture healed my shoulder after science said there was nothing they could do.
sadelb
04-02-2009, 01:57 AM
I really have no idea how anybody could argue against evolution. I thought it was strange seeing the republican primaries when 3 or 4 of them raised their hands when asked "who here doesn't believe in evolution?"
Anyways, I dont really come across that many people that argue against it.
sadelb
04-02-2009, 02:03 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GpNeGuuuvTY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GpNeGuuuvTY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RtIQvkQWTZY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RtIQvkQWTZY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vZ17JKIBSS4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vZ17JKIBSS4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iGFvK77Fsz8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iGFvK77Fsz8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gL0tmb3Evhc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gL0tmb3Evhc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 02:20 AM
I really have no idea how anybody could argue against evolution. I thought it was strange seeing the republican primaries when 3 or 4 of them raised their hands when asked "who here doesn't believe in evolution?"
Anyways, I dont really come across that many people that argue against it.
nobody is.. all were saying is its a theory as is intelligent design a theory ..both can co-exist
metfan85
04-02-2009, 02:38 AM
nobody is.. all were saying is its a theory as is intelligent design a theory ..both can co-exist
They don't realize that different views of evolution have been around since the Greeks. St. Augustine way back in the 4th century said that scripture was not to be taken exclusively literal as a guide to natural history. But the know-it-all/know-nothings leftists from the present think they are the first ones, that religious folk are all backwards. You can hardly blame them in a sense because the textbooks all lie about this, but it is also their fault for not educating themselves, while acting educated.
Science changes all the time. The Speed of light was one time thought to be fixed, that has been proven false. It was once thought that continents form over millions of years, but the horn of Africa over the course of a few weeks 2 years ago set itself up for a split in just a few thousand years.
Einstein is thought to have first proposed the Special Theory of Relativity, but he was beat to the relativity idea by a few thousand years, "for a thousand years in your (God’s) sight are like a day." [Psalms 90:4]
As great as science is, it is by no means infallible and we do not owe our very existence to science. Science certainly helps us along, but it is not what makes us who we are.
eL FryEdo
04-02-2009, 10:34 AM
You might look back at real undeniable truth, but it sure as hell doesn't mean what you're saying is true. The earth is flat story is a myth. If you really know as much as you say you do, then you'd explain to us that Lactantius (c. 245–325), a Christian heretic and a Greek traveler Cosmas. Now Cosmas had explained the Earth as being flat in a very descript manner, however not intending for it to be taken literally. In fact there is no writings on Cosmas during the Middle Ages, and is not heard from again for 1100 years after his death in 1702.
Columbus was urged not to go one his voyage not for fear of falling off the face of the earth, although school age textbook won't tell you otherwise, rather they feared he vastly underestimated the size of the earth, and that his crew would starve to death, before they ever reached land.
...
I don't think you understand at all the great advances and discoveries put forth by religious men and advocated by religious institutions. Not that I expect someone who holds religion in contempt to acknowledge that, but it would nice to see some historical truth's every now and then.
I also don't see how we are "against" science? Merely affirming that Darwinism is only slightly plausible riddled with holes, that can not be explained other than through guesses is being science and scientific discovery?
And if science can explain everything, then why does our scientific knowledge change depending on the time of day? Why can it not explain eastern medicine? I've been to orthopedists, sports medicine doctors, physical therapists, surgeons for my injured pitching arm, and yet chiropractic and acupuncture is what healed me. How can science explain that? My surgeon shrugged it off, saying it was happenstance. Science did a wonderful job with my surgically repaired elbow, but scientifically unexplainable acupuncture healed my shoulder after science said there was nothing they could do.
im pretty sure there is a scientific explanation to acupuncture ... id have to look it up ... i thought i saw something on tv or read something about it
I really have no idea how anybody could argue against evolution. I thought it was strange seeing the republican primaries when 3 or 4 of them raised their hands when asked "who here doesn't believe in evolution?"
Anyways, I dont really come across that many people that argue against it.
to me it seems blatantly apparent and makes complete sense but to some .....
nobody is.. all were saying is its a theory as is intelligent design a theory ..both can co-exist
metfan has been arguing against it this whole thread
They don't realize that different views of evolution have been around since the Greeks. St. Augustine way back in the 4th century said that scripture was not to be taken exclusively literal as a guide to natural history. But the know-it-all/know-nothings leftists from the present think they are the first ones, that religious folk are all backwards. You can hardly blame them in a sense because the textbooks all lie about this, but it is also their fault for not educating themselves, while acting educated.
Science changes all the time. The Speed of light was one time thought to be fixed, that has been proven false. It was once thought that continents form over millions of years, but the horn of Africa over the course of a few weeks 2 years ago set itself up for a split in just a few thousand years.
Einstein is thought to have first proposed the Special Theory of Relativity, but he was beat to the relativity idea by a few thousand years, "for a thousand years in your (God’s) sight are like a day." [Psalms 90:4]
As great as science is, it is by no means infallible and we do not owe our very existence to science. Science certainly helps us along, but it is not what makes us who we are.
are you seriosuly comparing einsteins Theory of Relativity to a one line scripture from the bible :booted lolol
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 10:45 AM
im pretty sure there is a scientific explanation to acupuncture ... id have to look it up ... i thought i saw something on tv or read something about it
to me it seems blatantly apparent and makes complete sense but to some .....
metfan has been arguing against it this whole thread
are you seriosuly comparing einsteins Theory of Relativity to a one line scripture from the bible :booted lolol
Alex never disputed the theory of evolution .. he correctly stated there plenty of holes in darwins theory to question it .. its a theory not a factual scientific fact..like he stated there have been many theories of evolution
LittleBouncer
04-02-2009, 11:00 AM
Obviously the 9 year old could not have the kids. The mother's life is at risk, an abortion is necessary. Excommunication is a bit harsh, I'm sure the Pope will reinstate her. But to condemn religion as being backwards for this action, while not surprising, is wrong.
its 100 percent backwards....a loving forgiving god doesnt act in spite against anyone....condemning anyone to a life of damnation goes against believeing in a loving creator...archaic if you ask me
Gspot555
04-02-2009, 11:02 AM
nobody is.. all were saying is its a theory as is intelligent design a theory ..both can co-exist
this is true...both models have "problems" and you can have circular answers for both...point is we are not advanced enough yet to figure it out...
sadelb
04-02-2009, 01:59 PM
nobody is.. all were saying is its a theory as is intelligent design a theory ..both can co-exist
Nobody is? Go to the midwest and ask people if they believe in evolution and you will have a different answer.
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 02:01 PM
Nobody is? Go to the midwest and ask people if they believe in evolution and you will have a different answer.
and i can find that same answer from a strict roman catholic in brooklyn .. are you stereotyping people now? ..
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 02:02 PM
Nobody is? Go to the midwest and ask people if they believe in evolution and you will have a different answer.
nobody in this thread is.. nobody can say its absolutly false or true since its only a theory ..
metfan85
04-02-2009, 02:34 PM
its 100 percent backwards....a loving forgiving god doesnt act in spite against anyone....condemning anyone to a life of damnation goes against believeing in a loving creator...archaic if you ask me
Who says God is a loving creator? I tend to agree more with the Great Awakenening thinkers, the Jews of old and the Muslims, that God has to be feared as much as loved.
Nobody is? Go to the midwest and ask people if they believe in evolution and you will have a different answer.
so who are you to call them out? You're just as backwards. You don't believe in scientific inquiry, you take this theory as science, when it is not. It is not proven and his theories are being disproved all the time. But there is hardly a mention of this in the mainstream press. They act as if it is Darwin or 24 hour/7 day creationalism.
sadelb
04-02-2009, 02:35 PM
Just go to google or youtube and type in "examples of evolution." It really only takes some common sense to realize that evolution is true. Go look at the videos I posted above. It explains everything.
Here is a perfect example. Try and argue against this:
The most infamous case of a species evolving before our eyes is the toxic cane toad of Australia.
The Cane toads were imported from South America in the 1930s to eat pests from sugar cane fields. Instead they escaped and have been leaping across large parts of northeastern Australia ever since.
A few years ago, Australian researchers monitoring the toad invasion discovered that the hind legs of toads at the forefront of the invasion, "the pioneers," had been getting longer over the last seven decades, compared to those cane toads in more settled areas.
Apparently there's a big fat pay off for the first toads to reach virgin territories: more offspring. So over the toad generations, the toads with the longest, strongest legs have been rewarded, while those with shorter legs have lost out or just stayed behind.
Nature has been selecting longer-legged pioneers. Viola! Evolution in action.
http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/rapid-evolution/index-02.html
metfan85
04-02-2009, 02:37 PM
im pretty sure there is a scientific explanation to acupuncture ... id have to look it up ... i thought i saw something on tv or read something about it
to me it seems blatantly apparent and makes complete sense but to some .....
metfan has been arguing against it this whole thread
are you seriosuly comparing einsteins Theory of Relativity to a one line scripture from the bible :booted lolol
Actually I'm arguing against Darwin's theory. It's quite hilarious how people who act so open minded, think it's their way or no way.
The theory of relativity simply states that time differs according to your point in the universe. The one line from scripture argues the same thing... Wait let me try this "Darwin said it, there's no hard evidence to prove it though!" You believe it now?
sadelb
04-02-2009, 02:39 PM
Here's another example....
This everyday lizard has recently made the news by making a radical change in its behavior to deal with invasive fire ants.
When threatened, the Eastern fence lizard normally holds still so it can't be easily spotted by predators. Around fire ants, however, the tactic means the ants can more easily attack and kill the lizard.
So what's a lizard to do? Those who are oddly and fortunately wired to jiggle, jerk and escape fire ant attacks rather than sit there and be bitten to death are surviving and passing that ability on to their offspring.
Oh, and some lizards are also growing longer legs, which makes it harder for the ants to get to them. Our prediction? More and more lizards will turn up with longer legs.
Credit: Virginia Tech
http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/rapid-evolution/index-05.html
sadelb
04-02-2009, 02:40 PM
Yep, you read correctly. One of Darwin's finches has been caught in the act of contradicting its namesake and evolving very quickly in recent years.
Drought conditions over the last 20 years and competition from another finch has caused the "medium ground finch," G. fortis, of Daphne Island, to evolve a smaller beak.
What's more, the change may have happened in a single bird generation, according to Princeton University biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant.
First some larger finches, G. magnirostris, were blown over from another island during the El Niño of 1982. The bigger birds promptly began eating up the larger seeds, pushing the smaller finches to specialize on smaller seeds, and requiring smaller beaks to do so.
What would Darwin think?
Credit: Larry O'Hanlon
http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/rapid-evolution/index-06.html
(They have pictures showing how the beak has gotten smaller)
sadelb
04-02-2009, 02:43 PM
At this point the anti-evolution crowd usually shouts, "But none of this is really evolution! A dog is still a dog! A cow still a cow. A rose still a rose!"
These folks assert that there can be plenty of variation allowed within a species, but they never become new species. In other words, they assert, species were created directly by God and they cannot be changed beyond certain boundaries.
It's a nice idea, but there isn't a shred of evidence to back it up. Quite the contrary...
Credit: State of Utah
http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/rapid-evolution/index-09.html
Then there is the genetic evidence. Genomes carry with them a lot of evolutionary baggage. Comparing that baggage between species allows scientists to see how closely related they are.
For instance, our genome is 98 percent identical to the chimpanzee's because we share a common ancestor which itself went extinct several million years ago.
The bottom line: Neither the fossils nor the genomes make sense unless they are seen through the lens of evolution.
Credit: John Atkinson, Ocean Alliance
eL FryEdo
04-02-2009, 04:28 PM
Alex never disputed the theory of evolution .. he correctly stated there plenty of holes in darwins theory to question it .. its a theory not a factual scientific fact..like he stated there have been many theories of evolution
no he pretty much came flat out and denied it whatsoever ... god is just a theory as i stated before and so is Darwins theory of evolution is just that a theory otherwise it would be a Law ... but evolution in itself is not a theory its been proven time and time again with fossils and even now with examples like sadelb jsut posted ...
Actually I'm arguing against Darwin's theory. It's quite hilarious how people who act so open minded, think it's their way or no way.
The theory of relativity simply states that time differs according to your point in the universe. The one line from scripture argues the same thing... Wait let me try this "Darwin said it, there's no hard evidence to prove it though!" You believe it now?
you argued against Darwins thoery of evolution by posting the theory of relativity and a excerpt from the bible :hmmm please explain the correlation ... hard eveidence for what? if there was hard evidence IT WOULDNT BE A THEORY IT WOULD BE A LAW
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 04:40 PM
no he pretty much came flat out and denied it whatsoever ... god is just a theory as i stated before and so is Darwins theory of evolution is just that a theory otherwise it would be a Law ... but evolution in itself is not a theory its been proven time and time again with fossils and even now with examples like sadelb jsut posted ...
you argued against Darwins thoery of evolution by posting the theory of relativity and a excerpt from the bible :hmmm please explain the correlation ... hard eveidence for what? if there was hard evidence IT WOULDNT BE A THEORY IT WOULD BE A LAW
no doubt evolution happens im talking about darwins theory .. evolution can be proof climate change is certainly not caused by man as well .. we've had many warming and cooling periods where the landscape has changed
LittleBouncer
04-02-2009, 04:43 PM
Who says God is a loving creator? I tend to agree more with the Great Awakenening thinkers, the Jews of old and the Muslims, that God has to be feared as much as loved.
so who are you to call them out? You're just as backwards. You don't believe in scientific inquiry, you take this theory as science, when it is not. It is not proven and his theories are being disproved all the time. But there is hardly a mention of this in the mainstream press. They act as if it is Darwin or 24 hour/7 day creationalism.
well i would never believe in anything i have to fear....to each there own....to those of us that look at God as pure love the church of today is ass backwards
eL FryEdo
04-02-2009, 05:13 PM
no doubt evolution happens im talking about darwins theory .. evolution can be proof climate change is certainly not caused by man as well .. we've had many warming and cooling periods where the landscape has changed
no doubt his whole theory isnt correct ... but he brought to evolution to the masses in a way that noone ever thought before ... paving the way for science around the world and subjecting himself to immense ridicule fro mthe church and religious followers alike ...
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:16 PM
well i would never believe in anything i have to fear....to each there own....to those of us that look at God as pure love the church of today is ass backwards
your just as judgemental as them .. i see the good in both clergy and the spirtual who do not embrace organized religion .. open your mind .. fear is a part of life .. you love to fuck chicks right? would you fuck one you didnt know raw?? .. fear is healthy natural emotion .. if you live extremly promiscius and never use protection than believe it or not .. those church folk may be right when they say aids is a curse from nature & god.. do you ever question why sexual diseases been around from the beginning and have had such dire consequences .. why aids infected homosexual men at such high rates.. now that doesnt mean im some nut who believes god "punishes" fags or sexual deviants .. but i can see there point ..
As alex stated before what claim to be backwards he may feel the same way about people who go to clubs tweek and g-out and do nothing meaningful with there lives ... just because you go and see victor would you liked to be stereotyped .. problem with liberals is they feel morally superior to everyone .. knock the blinders off .. there plenty of great people involved in the church as well as outside
sadelb
04-02-2009, 05:21 PM
problem with liberals is they feel morally superior to everyone .
stereotyping?
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:21 PM
no doubt his whole theory isnt correct ... but he brought to evolution to the masses in a way that noone ever thought before ... paving the way for science around the world and subjecting himself to immense ridicule fro mthe church and religious followers alike ...
point taken just as catholics and christians get much ridicule in our popular culture today ..evolution is taught in schools .. but now that side looking to ridicule the inteligent design theory ... and the scientists who believe climate change is a natural cyclical occurence happening from the beginning of time .. seems the newer science today is gettin trshed as was darwins in the past.. both should be taught and let students decide
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:25 PM
stereotyping?
evidence .. perfect example why did you single out the mid -west earlier? .. cause thats what your programed to do in an elitist north eastern society .. there nothing wrong with bashing southerners, christians, pro-life etc .. we see it all the time in media and hollywood .. to deny the double standard is insane .. liberalism also is a mindset .. it is not a person as you singled out
is that why you tried labeling Rush Limbaugh a racist as well? when he was a strong defender of Clarence Thomas and good friends with Michael Steele and very big defender of JC watts .. why did you trash Rush as racist?
eL FryEdo
04-02-2009, 05:27 PM
point taken just as catholics and christians get much ridicule in our popular culture today ..evolution is taught in schools .. but now that side looking to ridicule the inteligent design theory ... and the scientists who believe climate change is a natural cyclical occurence happening from the beginning of time .. seems the newer science today is gettin trshed as was darwins in the past.. both should be taught and let students decide
thats an argument that will go on forever jsut like the one in this thread though .. .whos to decide whats right to be taught and whats not ... i personally think intelligent design is a strictly relgious belief and shouldnt be taught because religion shouldnt have anything to do with schools unless its the history of it or college courses ... but then again im an atheist so i might be a little biased on the subkect lol ... whos to say whos right and whos wrong ..
LittleBouncer
04-02-2009, 05:28 PM
your just as judgemental as them .. i see the good in both clergy and the spirtual who do not embrace organized religion .. open your mind .. fear is a part of life .. you love to fuck chicks right? would you fuck one you didnt know raw?? .. fear is healthy natural emotion .. if you live extremly promiscius and never use protection than believe it or not .. those church folk may be right when they say aids is a curse from nature & god.. do you ever question why sexual diseases been around from the beginning and have had such dire consequences .. why aids infected homosexual men at such high rates.. now that doesnt mean im some nut who believes god "punishes" fags or sexual deviants .. but i can see there point ..
As alex stated before what claim to be backwards he may feel the same way about people who go to clubs tweek and g-out and do nothing meaningful with there lives ... just because you go and see victor would you liked to be stereotyped .. problem with liberals is they feel morally superior to everyone .. knock the blinders off .. there plenty of great people involved in the church as well as outside
while that retort makes sense.....god doesnt do bad things to people , putting fear into people is a method of social control...historically the church is soaked in blood and uses manmade dogmatic law to strike fear into people to suit whatever the current agenda may be......i made my judgements based on reading and research....and dont be angry cuz i get laid
eL FryEdo
04-02-2009, 05:30 PM
evidence .. perfect example why did you single out the mid -west earlier? .. cause thats what your programed to do in an elitist north eastern society .. there nothing wrong with bashing southerners, christians, pro-life etc .. we see it all the time in media and hollywood .. to deny the double standard is insane .. liberalism also is a mindset .. it is not a person as you singled out
is that why you tried labeling Rush Limbaugh a racist as well? when he was a strong defender of Clarence Thomas and good friends with Michael Steele and very big defender of JC watts .. why did you trash Rush as racist?
come on now james we all know how it is down south and in the midwest in these poduck areas ... most of them are very religious and not as liberal as the bigger cities ... thats astarting to change now wit hthe technological era of TV and internet there getting more information and the younger generation is being influenced more by outside forces ... which im not sure is a good or bad thing just yet
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:30 PM
thats an argument that will go on forever jsut like the one in this thread though .. .whos to decide whats right to be taught and whats not ... i personally think intelligent design is a strictly relgious belief and shouldnt be taught because religion shouldnt have anything to do with schools unless its the history of it or college courses ... but then again im an atheist so i might be a little biased on the subkect lol ... whos to say whos right and whos wrong ..
but intelligent design is a scientific theory .. not priests and fundamentalists .. were talking thousands of scientists .. so why shouldnt both be presented? ..arent you now acting like the church who says evolution should not be taught .. and why cant both theories co exist?
eL FryEdo
04-02-2009, 05:33 PM
but intelligent design is a scientific theory .. not priests and fundamentalists .. were talking thousands of scientists .. so why shouldnt both be presented? ..arent you now acting like the church who says evolution should not be taught .. and why cant both theories co exist?
when you put it that way i guess i have no objection to it being taught really but its more of a religion based theory ... religion dictates that we were made in gods image not science
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:34 PM
while that retort makes sense.....god doesnt do bad things to people , putting fear into people is a method of social control...historically the church is soaked in blood and uses manmade dogmatic law to strike fear into people to suit whatever the current agenda may be......i made my judgements based on reading and research....and dont be angry cuz i get laid
whose angry .. using an example that every man can relate too .. by the way have you reseaarched what catholic charities has done over the past few years .. why not explain to the board .. sure i read about bloody wars centuries ago .. humans twisting religion terrible .. Obamas preacher mad guilty about perverting a christian message towards hate .. but im talking about the people involved who do the real dangerous shit like missonaries in 3rd world countries and catholic charties that get zero news coverage
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:36 PM
when you put it that way i guess i have no objection to it being taught really but its more of a religion based theory ... religion dictates that we were made in gods image not science
not based on religion at all its all science .. there plenty of people that believe in god and dont subscribe to religion.. i believe in god but ill take afterhours over church anyday lol
LittleBouncer
04-02-2009, 05:38 PM
whose angry .. using an example that every man can relate too .. by the way have you reseaarched what catholic charities has done over the past few years .. why not explain to the board .. sure i read about bloody wars centuries ago .. humans twisting religion terrible .. Obamas preacher mad guilty about perverting a christian message towards hate .. but im talking about the people involved who do the real dangerous shit like missonaries in 3rd world countries and catholic charties that get zero news coverage
the people doing these 3rd world missions arent the powers that be...its the little people doing this work..i give the church little credit for that crap....people still arent allowed to believe that mary never got fucked,or that jesus didnt have a family hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:44 PM
come on now james we all know how it is down south and in the midwest in these poduck areas ... most of them are very religious and not as liberal as the bigger cities ... thats astarting to change now wit hthe technological era of TV and internet there getting more information and the younger generation is being influenced more by outside forces ... which im not sure is a good or bad thing just yet
i know people are rational and sane in every organization in every state .. i know there are dickheads in every state or organization ..poltics are tricky .. who ever imagined Rudy winning 2 terms in the most liberal city in the world?? ahh you see that a stereotype .. trust me bro there parts of , bk, queens, nassau and westchester everywhere that is hardcore conservative ..look at staten island wall to wall republican
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:49 PM
the people doing these 3rd world missions arent the powers that be...its the little people doing this work..i give the church little credit for that crap....people still arent allowed to believe that mary never got fucked,or that jesus didnt have a family hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
they arent the powers that be?? do you realize what the pope and the powers that be do for people in those countries .. and nazi germany.. what other organization feeds & clothes as many .. those little people are the real powers that be and make the religion so great..they sacrifice a hell of alot more than i do
LittleBouncer
04-02-2009, 05:55 PM
they arent the powers that be?? do you realize what the pope and the powers that be do for people in those countries .. and nazi germany.. what other organization feeds & clothes as many .. those little people are the real powers that be and make the religion so great..they sacrifice a hell of alot more than i do
thats all fine we werent talking about the nice charitable shit the church does to save face....the initial arguement was the twisting of the true message to suit an agenda....that of power and greed...and not that some people dont find the true message....i believe that god is great enough to shine thru all the churches misteachings
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 05:58 PM
thats all fine we werent talking about the nice charitable shit the church does to save face....the initial arguement was the twisting of the true message to suit an agenda....that of power and greed...and not that some people dont find the true message....i believe that god is great enough to shine thru all the churches misteachings
i know that.. your only bashing it on its negatives .. im talking about the actual good is does do and the people who do sacrifice and not sit on there ass and condem .. again you like victor therefor i guess because the majority of his fans are a certain way you must be as well .. do you see how insane that sounds? ... anybody can focus on the negative .. but the chuirches actions in helping should allways be commended
LittleBouncer
04-02-2009, 06:02 PM
i know that.. your only bashing it on its negatives .. im talking about the actual good is does do and the people who do sacrifice and not sit on there ass and condem .. again you like victor therefor i guess because the majority of his fans are a certain way you must be as well .. do you see how insane that sounds? ... anybody can focus on the negative .. but the chuirches actions in helping should allways be commended
save that for another thread.. the problem here is shunning this poor little girl for getting raped .....in whose absurd mind is that ok....and what else am i supposed to bash the church on....
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 06:07 PM
save that for another thread.. the problem here is shunning this poor little girl for getting raped .....in whose absurd mind is that ok....and what else am i supposed to bash the church on....
nobody everyone agrees this bishop was a wack job .. as did the locals in brazil .. thats why its such a big story
Gspot555
04-02-2009, 08:06 PM
but intelligent design is a scientific theory .. not priests and fundamentalists .. were talking thousands of scientists .. so why shouldnt both be presented? ..arent you now acting like the church who says evolution should not be taught .. and why cant both theories co exist?
Intelligent Design came from William Paley, who was a philosopher, not a scientist...
metfan85
04-02-2009, 09:42 PM
nobody everyone agrees this bishop was a wack job .. as did the locals in brazil .. thats why its such a big story
Imagine if the Bishop was gay and excommunicated someone for being straight. Do you think anyone would say it was indicative of how backwards gay people are?
jameznyhc
04-02-2009, 10:12 PM
Intelligent Design came from William Paley, who was a philosopher, not a scientist...
Paley was aphilosopher ..But it really got credibility from darwins co-founder Wallace..that rift led to Wallace being bounced from darwins circle of elites.. . then explained much clearer in thaxtons book in 1984 ..both men were scientists ..
Gspot555
04-03-2009, 10:12 AM
Paley was aphilosopher ..But it really got credibility from darwins co-founder Wallace..that rift led to Wallace being bounced from darwins circle of elites.. . then explained much clearer in thaxtons book in 1984 ..both men were scientists ..
Ok, I thought you mentioned it was invented or discovered by scientific theory:
Paley's theory is quite fascinating:
He argued that the world could only have come from an intelligent designer (God)
The analogy he used was a watch and watchmaker by saying watches are made by intelligent designers because they have many small parts that work together to serve a purpose. He compared that to the universe which has many parts that work together to serve a purpose
Hume's objection to this was we have seen a watchmaker make a watch before, but we have never seen God make other universes before... (You can only observe cause from effect)
I have been reading about this lately that is why I remember the arguments...it makes for good debate.
jameznyhc
04-03-2009, 10:19 AM
Ok, I thought you mentioned it was invented or discovered by scientific theory:
Paley's theory is quite fascinating:
He argued that the world could only have come from an intelligent designer (God)
The analogy he used was a watch and watchmaker by saying watches are made by intelligent designers because they have many small parts that work together to serve a purpose. He compared that to the universe which has many parts that work together to serve a purpose
Hume's objection to this was we have seen a watchmaker make a watch before, but we have never seen God make other universes before... (You can only observe cause from effect)
I have been reading about this lately that is why I remember the arguments...it makes for good debate.
You got it.. and thats what led to Wallace and darwins rift .. i think if people learned about intelligent design there plenty of counter evidence that all this could just "exist" out of nowhere or came from some big bang .. its way to complex and perfect ..
Sergeant Chaosss
04-03-2009, 10:20 AM
Honestly who cares what the church does or says anyone with half a fucking brain should know all religeons are a fucking scam,tell the catholic church thou shalt not fuck little boys before they go pointing fingers
jameznyhc
04-03-2009, 10:24 AM
Ok, I thought you mentioned it was invented or discovered by scientific theory:
Paley's theory is quite fascinating:
He argued that the world could only have come from an intelligent designer (God)
The analogy he used was a watch and watchmaker by saying watches are made by intelligent designers because they have many small parts that work together to serve a purpose. He compared that to the universe which has many parts that work together to serve a purpose
Hume's objection to this was we have seen a watchmaker make a watch before, but we have never seen God make other universes before... (You can only observe cause from effect)
I have been reading about this lately that is why I remember the arguments...it makes for good debate.
here some more info on the fall out ..
Chisholm notes,
Unlike Darwin, Wallace believed, and believed strongly, in intelligent design, right up to his death in 1913. He is buried about 5 miles from where I grew up in Dorset, England. There are no public memorials to him, although he has an impressive grave with a big fossil tree on top of it.
His final book, "The World of Life", written in 1910, was a response to the atheism of Ernst Haekel which directly criticized Wallace as a religious crank (Wallace was an ardent Spiritualist). Haekel wrote:
"In Germany, A. Zoellner and Fecher are quoted as instances; in England Wallace and Crookes. The regrettable circumstances that physicists and biologists of such distinction have been led astray by such spiritism is accounted for by their excess of imagination and defect of critical faculty, and partly by the powerful influence of dogmas which a religious education imprinted on the brain in early youth" [The Riddle of the Universe, 1899, trans. to English 1905].
A couple of quotes from "The World of Life":
"Darwin himself was quite distressed at my rejection of his own conclusion that even man's highest qualities and powers had been developed out of those of the lower animals by natural or sexual selection"
"This is that beyond all the phenomena of nature and their immediate causes and laws there is Mind and Purpose; and that the ultimate purpose is (so far as we can discern) the development of mankind for an enduring spiritual existence."
This from the co-founder (not co-discoverer) of the Theory of Evolution, the author of Wallace's Law, the discoverer of Wallace's Line, and the founder of the science of biogeography.
Wallace, like many scientists of his day, got caught up in Spiritualism - efforts to explore the immaterial world of the mind without any tools or parameters - efforts that exposed them to cranks and crackpots. This fact was often used to discredit Wallace later.
Indeed, one of the reasons I first became suspicious that Wallace was inappropriately discredited (just as Darwin was inappropriately exalted) was this: I observed that the same people who suppressed or air-brushed Darwin's racism were eager to exploit Wallace's spiritism - essentially to advance their materialist cult.
Darwin's materialist atheist supporters rejected Spiritualism, all right, but for precisely the wrong reasons - not because of fraudulent mediums but because they thought the human mind is an illusion. Fraudulent mediums were a gift to them. Genuine evidence of the reality of the mind was a problem to be suppressed.
eL FryEdo
04-03-2009, 04:18 PM
Imagine if the Bishop was gay and excommunicated someone for being straight. Do you think anyone would say it was indicative of how backwards gay people are?
between you being a met fan and comments like this ... the more you talk the less i want to listen :chuckle where do you get the rationale to make such statements?
just b u
04-03-2009, 08:50 PM
Yep, you read correctly. One of Darwin's finches has been caught in the act of contradicting its namesake and evolving very quickly in recent years.
Drought conditions over the last 20 years and competition from another finch has caused the "medium ground finch," G. fortis, of Daphne Island, to evolve a smaller beak.
What's more, the change may have happened in a single bird generation, according to Princeton University biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant.
First some larger finches, G. magnirostris, were blown over from another island during the El Niño of 1982. The bigger birds promptly began eating up the larger seeds, pushing the smaller finches to specialize on smaller seeds, and requiring smaller beaks to do so.
What would Darwin think?
Credit: Larry O'Hanlon
http://dsc.discovery.com/earth/slideshows/rapid-evolution/index-06.html
(They have pictures showing how the beak has gotten smaller)
I'm no expert in evolution but from reading your examples they seem to all be examples of ADAPTATION. I dont think that adaptation is evolving. if you put all these animals back to the conditions without drought, without displacing them from one continent to the other they would probably adapt to their old environment. Meaning the birds would grow longer beaks, the other example would have shorter hind legs as before, etc...
sooo my question, is adaptation same as evolution?
eL FryEdo
04-03-2009, 08:52 PM
I'm no expert in evolution but from reading your examples they seem to all be examples of ADAPTATION. I dont think that adaptation is evolving. if you put all these animals back to the conditions without drought, without displacing them from one continent to the other they would probably adapt to their old environment. Meaning the birds would grow longer beaks, the other example would have shorter hind legs as before, etc...
sooo my question, is adaptation same as evolution?
yes by adapting to the enviroment they evolve as a species ... the older species dies off and the one that "adapted" survives to further the species
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.