Blogs home Dialectical Hilarity
Dear Christians
In the following argument of nine premises, I will aim to convince you that Jesus of Nazareth was a fictional character, and not a real person. I do not intend to sway the beliefs of many of you, nor even budge them - I know this to be an impossibility, for if the religious mind is well-trained at anything, it is circumventing rational argument. I only intend to sew seeds of doubt, in the hopes that perhaps some of you will nurture them and let them grow. Here goes.
Much, if not most, of the Bible is arguably fiction. Quit being so intellectually dishonest, Christians - this is the twenty-first century. That means the burden of proof is on YOU. If you make a claim about the universe, it is up to you to prove it is true, not the other way around. It is not up to us, the rest of the world, to prove your claims false - that is not scientific thinking, that is anti-scientific thinking. Because I am a man of my times, and believe in correcting ignorance, what I am doing here is out of courtesy to YOU, just as if I were to argue publicly that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting Venus preparing to blow up Planet Earth, one of you would probably, out of simple human decency attempt to correct me and point me towards the truth. This is my way of doing that. Now, back to the Bible being fiction... that part's easy. Find me a snake with vocal chords, water that is dense enough for a human being to walk on, or a chemical process that converts complex carbohydrates to fish. Until then, you're out of luck, sucker. The evidence wins, and the evidence sides with me. These are invented stories... fictional dramas meant to impart some moral lesson. They are not real.
Following point two: from an objective, scrutinizing view, there is no reason to believe one story in the Bible over another. We cannot honestly engage shades of truth here - either the books in the Bible are historically true or they are not. Since they almost ubiquitously contain material to make the scientific person skeptical, we can chance to say the same is true of the entire book: either it happened, or it didn't. Therefore, it is no less plausible to disbelieve the Jesus myth than the myth about Enoch the nine-hundred year old man or the creation myth wherein God pats the first humans out of clay. Here's a hint: humans, like all other complex organisms, reached their present condition by millions of years of natural selection through the self-preservation of certain greedy genes. We can observe this happening today; anti-biotic resistant bacteria are a good example. Plus, we've mapped the human genome - we know our ancestry, and it's simian. Even Pope John Paul II said evolution is a historical fact. People did not come from clay.
By definition, intellect, or "reason" is the ability to revise one's beliefs in light of better argumentation. Taking simple, empirical data from the the world around you should make it easy to determine that the physical laws of the universe DO NOT CHANGE. It therefore stands to reason that "miracles" can only possible be one of two phenomena: A, an outside agent actually interfering with the laws of the universe; or B, hyperbolized coincidences. Considering the Bible was written in a time when allegory was the most common form of journalistic reporting and most people still believed spitting on a wound was an appropriate way to cure it, it is far more reasonable to assume the latter.
*Side note: Seriously Hoss, let me clue you in on something: things that are impossible to do now - like walking on water, resuscitation after days of biological death, and wine magically turning into blood - were just as impossible 2,000 years ago. There's a much greater power in the universe than "belief." It's called "observation."
To believe these stories, you must create strange rationalizations that do not hold up to true intellectual scrutiny. This brings us to the issue of honesty. Without deluding yourself, can you honestly answer the following questions? Such as, why doesn't God heal amputees? He heals everyone else miraculously, right? But neither you nor I have ever seen an amputee grow back a leg. Oh wait, God has a special plan for them. But isn't he supposed to be loving and just? What's with the discrimination, man? Or how about Jonah surviving in the belly of that whale? Wouldn't he be partially digested after three days? Maybe Baby Balooga had a slow metabolism?
Following four, and this one is my favorite: if Jesus is the one true messiah, the only God, whom you shall hath no other gods before him, yada yada, how come so many gods DID come before him having nearly identical biographies? There are no less than two dozen god-men of the ancient Mediterranean whose birth was heralded by a bright star in the East (Sirius, for those who don't practice astronomy), who were also adored by wise men, walked on water, fed the hungry, resurrected the dead, were crucified and rose again, etc. Many even had the same birthday as Jesus - December 25th! Not coincidentally, this was the Roman Holiday of Saturnalia centuries before the clergy decided to call it Jesus' birthday. Surprise! Christians plagiarized earlier religions. I cannot spell it out any clearer than that. Knowing that, how can one believe anything Christian doctrine teaches? How do you even begin to separate what was invented from what was borrowed? You don't. The cold, hard truth is, it was an old story then, and it's an old story now. These messianic archetypes - the man that is god, the man who conquers death - existed long, long before Jesus came around. They were old news when soap was a cutting-edge technology, before written language was even invented. They are ancient fricking history. Jesus was not the antitype of these messianic figures, he was their distillation.
Following point 6. If you are skeptical of this information (and you should be, as doubt is the seed of all knowing), investigate the matter for yourself. One hugely recurring problem I find when debating with Christians is that they either know very little about other religions or are ignorant of their existence entirely. This is counter-intuitive to me, and perhaps my own fault in failing to understand the religious mind. Shouldn't it be fairly crucial to make the most educated decision in choosing a religion, if practicing the "right" one is important to you? For example, you wouldn't want to choose a religion based on plagiarism, would you? Or one that literally absorbed every earlier belief system it encountered through endless politicizing or the diplomacy of the sword? Well, better crack those books then - there's a whole heap of gods who fit the Christ mold long before Christ. I suggest you begin by researching Mithra of Rome, Attis of Frigia, Dionysis of Greece, Krishna of India, and Horus of Egypt. The last should be of particular interest to you, as his mythology is almost an exact carbon copy of Jesus', right down to the twelve apostles and three-day rebound time after being murdered by jealous clergy. Though, I should point out that Horus was worshipped nearly 1000 years BEFORE Christianity began spreading through the Hebrew-populated Roman colonies. This should come as no surprise to you, as it's written right in the bible that the Hebrews came out of Egypt.
On a more serious note. Western civilization may have been "built" on Judeo-Christian values (at least the "don't kill" and "don't steal" parts), but we have become a modern society and have adopted the scientific way of thinking. While the aforementioned values have indisputable merits, maintaining the dogma in its entirety is no longer necessary, especially when we consider the violence and segregation it has caused throughout the ages. Furthermore, philosophically speaking, Christian ethics are severely outdated. Since the Enlightenment, the Western World has seen far superior ethicists to Jesus of Nazareth. Kant and Mill, for example, created life-affirming ethical systems that can be applied to a wider range of people without destroying their culture or beliefs about where the universe came from and what kind of sex they should consider perverse. Truly, there is no reason to cling to the old way any longer. We have adopted science and reason in every other aspect of our lives... yet somehow we have retained Bronze Age ethics? It makes no sense. Why should we continue to believe it is better to be tribalists than to be humanists? This mentality is not compatible with a just, egalitarian society. Besides, Jesus may tell us to love one another, but he also says we should maintain the Old Testament in its entirety - no cherry-picking - which means we technically must condone rape, incest, slavery, and genocide (!). If we can do away with these parts (and we have), why not do away with the whole thing?
In the grand scheme of things, it would be generally permissible for one to believe in Christian ethics if it were readily understood that Jesus was not a historical person, and the story is allegory. However, if you are a Christian, you probably do believe that Jesus was a real human being. This is a threat to both the advancement of science and the absolution of religious conflict in the world, two issues that are paramount to our survival as a species as our planet nears carrying capacity and is dangerously on the brink of overheating. It creates too slippery a slope for other theocratic nonsense to take hold; for example, tthe mindset that human beings can literally live after death (how many soldiers would we send to die if everyone believed this is the only life?); or that preserving the existence of cell clusters which bear no conceivable human traits is somehow a better aim than alleviating actual human suffering; or that sex is harmful, but killing, bigotry, and total obedience to clandestine authority are healthy practices; or that blood sacrifice is a value modern societies should endorse. But Jesus WAS a real person, you say! There's a plethora of evidence! No, not really, outside of the gospels. And those hardly count as "evidence." They are secondary sources at best. Here's why: if a historical Jesus really lived and died between 0 and 33 CE, then we know beyond a doubt that at least forty years passed before the earliest gospel - the one written by Mark - was scribed. Because the aforementioned gospel discusses the destruction of Solomon's temple, we know it was written in or sometime after 70 CE. Given the lifespan of the period, that means the author or authors were at best infants or young children when Jesus of Nazareth was supposed to have been crucified. Moreover, the gospel writers are not themselves mentioned in the gospels, and they make no claim to actually having met Jesus. None of the apostles who walked with Jesus nor anyone who even met him wrote accounts to that effect. Granted, there are certain mentions of a "Christ" in the writings of Mediterranean historians from that period (not Justin Martyr or Pontius Pilate - sorry, but those are proven forgeries). However, if are a serious Christian, these should be of little consideration to you, as you know "the Christ" is really a title that simply means "the Anointed," and was taken up by many rabbis of that time. In not ONE of these documents is a man named Jesus, or Yeshua of Nazareth mentioned.
In conclusion, the gospels which discuss the life of Jesus of Nazareth are at best hearsay, almost certainly hyperbolized, and at worst complete fabrications. What we can determine beyond a doubt is that for at least four decades after his death, everyone in the world, including his sworn followers and students, simply forgot their messiah existed. If that doesn't cast on you a serious shade of doubt, then nothing will, and perhaps I'm not "the fool".
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: In My Pants - Come Join The Fun October 13, 2009 · 332 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 108 comments
- Poll: Have you ever attended school outside the United States? November 25, 2009 · 9 comments
- Letter claims bad conditions at juvenile facility November 27, 2009 · 15 comments
- Car-motorcycle accident blocks traffic near 27th and Missouri November 27, 2009 · 7 comments
- Anger control November 27, 2009 · 17 comments
- 3-step approach to health care reform November 27, 2009 · 16 comments
- Obama to promise 17% cuts in U.S. emissions in next decade November 26, 2009 · 61 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 98 comments
- Fear tactics November 27, 2009 · 24 comments
- Santa arriving in Downtown Lawrence Friday night November 27, 2009
- Kansas Athletics seeks football fans to invest $34M for Gridiron Club November 27, 2009
- Kansas Legislature likely to debate judicial nomination process in 2010 session November 25, 2009
- Natural scorer: Xavier Henry used to carrying points load November 27, 2009
- Center of attention: New LAC director acclimates to challenging post November 27, 2009
- The Oread Hotel targets concerns over fire November 27, 2009
- KU follows Cal financing game plan November 27, 2009
- Tight credit slows state’s business development November 27, 2009
- NFL roundup: Broncos back on track November 27, 2009
- Where but in Lawrence? November 21, 2009
19 July 2009
at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Marion (Marion Lynn) says…
The occasional paragraph break would make for much easier reading as well as improving the effectiveness of your writing.
19 July 2009
at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
beatrice (Anonymous) says…
“There are no less than two dozen god-men of the ancient Mediterranean”
My favorite was Brian.
Brian: I am NOT the Messiah!
Arthur: I say you are Lord, and I should know. I've followed a few.
27 July 2009
at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…
it was a difficult read, but it contained a whole lot of truth!
27 July 2009
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
It's well written, but by whom? A google search reveals this has been posted on several sites.
27 July 2009
at 1:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasPerson (Anonymous) says…
You say nine premises, and then you have eight, numbered 1 through 3 and then (starting over again) 1 through 5. You might want to correct that.
27 July 2009
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…
Why do you hate Christians? Will you also be plagiarizing a 9 point attack on Islam and the Jews? If you believe its fake, fine. I'm not going to tell you any different. But this aggressive stance towards Christianity insinuates that you are threatened by Christianity. Why is that?
27 July 2009
at 1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…
“But this aggressive stance towards Christianity insinuates that you are threatened by Christianity. Why is that?”
––––––––––
I believe that author answered that in point number 4: a dogmatic belief system does more harm than good in a world where society changes and we learn the real truths behind events that used to be only explained by religion, but dogma refuses to change. It represents an intellectual dishonesty that threatens us all. The Dark Ages and holy wars can result.
I, for one, feel threatened whenever a world leader who controlls nuclear weapons is forced in the court of public opinion to reaffirm his belief in a religion that believes the end of the world is inevitable, and where over half of believers think it will happen within their lifetime.
This is one example of how I feel threatened by Christianity on a daily basis.
27 July 2009
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
I just read last night that Mary, mother of Jesus, was 14 when she became pregnant with him. Interesting.
27 July 2009
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Can someone explain to me why aethiests and agnostics are costantly trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else? Pretty soon they will be going door to door or begging for loose change and handing out tracts in airports.
27 July 2009
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Cappy (Anonymous) says…
I am willing to submit that the person Jesus of Nazareth may have existed. However, the testimonials written about him incorporate many features of other religious figures of the day and were likely included to popularize his message. Christianity, like ALL religions, was created by men.
One thing I will concede on the Judeo-Christian values front is how the evolution of religion helped create a democratic society. Early, animist religions revolved around a place and associated idol and whole groups of people. Early Judaism reflects this with their being the Chosen People and inhabiting their Holy Land “given to them by God”. Still, salvation or damnation was of entire peoples like Ninevah or Sodom and Gamorrah. When the Persians took many of them away, they continued their faith and created something new, a portable god you could take anywhere. With Christianity, salvation became a personal thing, not subject to the fate of whole peoples. With this, I believe Western societies came to accept the idea of personal input and responsibilities that comprise a democracy. Not to give it too much credit, though since today religion holds back independent thinking more than it allows for societal progress. Oh well.
27 July 2009
at 1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Sigmund - LOL!
Good grief - these weren't even 'new arguments' a hundred years ago. Many great works in apologetics address most of these 'issues'.
“I know this to be an impossibility, for if the religious mind is well-trained at anything, it is circumventing rational argument.”
So, the same old slight - if you don't agree with me and my worldview, you're the irrational one. Certainly makes a convincing argument….
One curiosity though - when did the “natural world” become the all-encompassing limitation of what is 'rational'?
27 July 2009
at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Good points made.
4125: Rationality is indeed not confined to the natural world, as logically deductions rationally follow from accepted premises. So, if you accept that aliens built the pyramids, you can begin to rationally deduce how this might was done.
The “natural world”, however, does encompass all that is real. Rationality without regard to observation about what actually exists in the natural world is merely navel gazing and is useless (e.g. religion).
27 July 2009
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…
“One curiosity though - when did the “natural world” become the all-encompassing limitation of what is 'rational'?”
––––––––—
I feel that you may be misunderstanding the author's use of the word 'rational'. It does not mean closed-minded, anti-religion, or skeptical for the sake of being contrary. It represents a system of thought grounded in replicatable experimentation and empirical evidence derived from that experimintation. The author's point in the sentance you picked out is that in this world, where logic and the scientific method have brought us amazing breakthroughs, and it is understood that an amazing claim requires evidence to back it up, a religious mind is still more likely to disregard that need for reality-based evidence when it comes to their religion, and revert to a state when anything can be believed and any action undertaken in the name of faith. The author is correct when he says that in this day and age, the burden of proof falls on the person making the claim that seems contrary to reality. If I said I could fly like superman, I would be ridiculed and asked to prove it, yet if I call out Jesus for walking on water, I am called 'closed-minded' and 'anti-religion' when I am simply asking for proof of a claim that, to me, seems contrary to reality.
The last sentance of your post actually outlines this idea quite well: you are no doubt a smart, reality based, individual, but when it comes to religion, you forsake the need for evidence and automatically assume that there is something above the “natural world” which should be entered into the discussion when the burden of proof is upon you to first demonstrate that any other “world” exists in the sense that you speak (outside of your own anecdotes, of course). It is not for anyone else to prove for you that this world does not exist; if that were the case, then you would now have be burden of proving that I cannot fly when I say that I can.
I am not attacking anyone's beliefs, here, and if such evidence is found of a 'God' or some supernatural world that can influence this one, I will be the first to drop my jaw and sing hallelujah for a new field of knowledge and learning will be born overnight.
That is a good thing.
27 July 2009
at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Where is the hate for Islam or Jews?? And by the way, where is that athiest blog??
27 July 2009
at 2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
I find Islam and Judaism to be just as unreal as christianity.
I think christianity was used as an example because it is the dominant religion, and world-view, in this country.
“Rational” does not equate to “real”. Harry Potter movies and Lord of the Rings are rationally consistent but are certainly not real.
It all depends on the premises you accept. Deriving premises from anything other than what is real is a big mistake.
27 July 2009
at 3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…
Typical. One writes a viewpoint criticizing the ability of commonly-held Christian beliefs to stand up to the scrutiny deductive reasoning and multiple people cry about the “anti-Christian hate”
There is nothing hateful about criticizing one's beliefs. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a great number of Christians scoffed at the belief system of Scientology in the same way that atheists and agnostics scoff at the Christian dogma.
27 July 2009
at 3:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jimmyjms (Anonymous) says…
The children! Won't someone please think of the children!!!
Geez, divakat, stop acting so hysterical.
No one has to agree with your religion if they choose not to. That doesn't equal “hate.”
27 July 2009
at 4:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Elrond (Anonymous) says…
“The cheese makers!?”
“He doesn't mean that literaly, he means all producers of dairy products”
Elrond
27 July 2009
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Rationality without regard to observation about what actually exists in the natural world is merely navel gazing and is useless (e.g. religion).”
Funny and sad at the same time. “Rational thought” is your god, and you have constructed this 'god' with your own predetermined limitations. Not unlike the carved idols of old. Once this idol strays away from the limited realm you've defined, it suddenly becomes “useless”.
Do you limit “logic” in the same manner? Just discarding anything that becomes uncomfortable for you?
Now that's your worst nightmare.
27 July 2009
at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
obviously jesus existed, and he loves you too, sycophant.
so get on with your life and try to make your next cut and paste 'blog' a little more original.
thanks
27 July 2009
at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilikestuff (Anonymous) says…
Science will come up with some reason to put in the books, but in the end it'll be just a theory. I mean, we will fail to acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our understanding. To be a scientist, you must have a respectful awe for the laws of nature.
-The Happening
I think its utter foolishness to presume a “scientist” or anyone else in the 21st century truly understands the forces at work around us or how humanity came to exist. At a minimum, the biblical worldview is as legitimate as the theory of evolution which as its foundation contains utterly bigoted and racist untruths. For the evolutionists, shouldn’t the dominant human race, Caucasians (?) long ago killed off all the other races?
Where is the evidence for evolution? I know, I know, every time we stumble across an impossibility presented by it we tack on another billion years or so and reassure ourselves that it must happen so slowly, over such immense spans of time that we can’t possibly see it occurring in our lifetime. Fair enough but call evolution what it is, a theory, a hypothesis, speculation.
The fact is we can’t explain how we came to be, there is zero (0) evidence that evolution is or ever did occur thus the making a biblical scenario more likely. It is so naïve, so arrogant to presume that if you can’t touch it, smell it, taste it or see it, it doesn’t exist. If you don’t like Christianity fine, don’t go to church, don’t read a bible, and don’t partake in any aspects of our culture which are the result of Christianity. Enjoy.
27 July 2009
at 4:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
4125 wrote: ““Rational thought” is your god, and you have constructed this 'god' with your own predetermined limitations.”
Huh? You seem to be saying that limiting one's beliefs and opinions to evidence-based thinking is bad. If so, then which of 10 million myths, stories, fables and religions should I believe? How do you differentiate?
“Not unlike the carved idols of old. Once this idol strays away from the limited realm you've defined, it suddenly becomes “useless”.”
Again, huh? You seem to be chastizing me for discarding thoughts and beliefs that have no basis in evidence based thinking and reality. Guilty.
“Do you limit “logic” in the same manner? Just discarding anything that becomes uncomfortable for you?”
A third “huh?”. It has nothing to do with comfort. It as to do with a basis in evidence and reality. Yes, I tend to doubt statements that are not grounded in evidence and reality. I tend to doubt supernatural claims with no basis in fact or reality.
The religious brain can never justify its beliefs based in fact and reality, and is therefore logically, ethically, and morally bankrupt. Because I constantly point this out to you is why I am your worst nightmare.
27 July 2009
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
ilikestuff (Anonymous) says… The fact is we can’t explain how we came to be, there is zero (0) evidence that evolution is or ever did occur thus the making a biblical scenario more likely. It is so naïve, so arrogant to presume that if you can’t touch it, smell it, taste it or see it, it doesn’t exist. If you don’t like Christianity fine, don’t go to church, don’t read a bible, and don’t partake in any aspects of our culture which are the result of Christianity. Enjoy.
_________________________________
Damn dude!
I suggest you go back and take a science class if you believe there is no evidence of evolution. And if you don't believe in evolution, don't use any of the wonderful modern medical achievements that exist because of our knowledge of evolution.
And may I ask which biblical scenario for the creation of life. There are two contradicting ones in Genesis. Have you read the bible to understand this? I asked about it as a child in bible school. If a 6 year old can see there are two creation myths, an adult like you should be able to also notice this.
Why are you so mad that someone expressed their views about your religion? If your faith in this fairy tail is solid, you shouldn't care what one person posted.
27 July 2009
at 5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Oh, and 4125, I forgot to add intellectually bankrupt to the list of bankruptcies plaguing the religious brain. I'm sure there are more I have forgotten.
27 July 2009
at 5:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Well, you can't prove what happened yesterday happened yesterday but I think its pretty well accepted fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. The real question is why proving this to Christians is such a big deal for this guy or gal. Sounds like someone's got a chip on the proverbial shoulder. Religion haters are about as scary as religious fanatics.
27 July 2009
at 5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Actually, it just sounds like you have some emotional issues.
27 July 2009
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
muleish (Anonymous) says…
John 17:17
27 July 2009
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dweezil222 (Anonymous) says…
ilikestuff, even if I accept your contention that evolution has zero evidence (which I don't), there is ZERO evidence for the Biblical creation account either. At best, all you've done is make it a coin toss, not “more likely.” And it is equally arrogant to presume that your something you can't touch, see, or smell is the only absolute truth to the exclusion of all other possibilities.
27 July 2009
at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“Well, you can't prove what happened yesterday happened yesterday but I think its pretty well accepted fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.”
Huh? Jesus, you folks have a hard time with reality. Do you not realize the ridiculousness of that statement?
With thinking like this, how on earth can you support our criminal justice system of trial by facts and evidence to prove what happened in the past?
“Religion haters are about as scary as religious fanatics.”
If stating that religion cannot be supported by facts and evidence makes me a religion hater, then I guess I am.
The bottom line is that no religious person can prove using evidence why they believe what they believe. They must resort to believing something in the absence of evidence or of justification for believing one story and not another.
I think this is an intellectually, morally, and ethically bankrupt epistemology, when one cannot justify their beliefs by evidence and reality.
27 July 2009
at 5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“Actually, it just sounds like you have some emotional issues.”
Good comeback (rolls eyes). Just about what I would expect from a religious mind. No attempt at argument to justify a belief but resort to personal attack. Demonstrates my point very nicely.
When you are left with no argument, attack.
27 July 2009
at 5:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…
Actually, I have a lot of religious training and have many of the same concerns about commonly held Christian beliefs but I don't care if other people wholeheartedly believe the gospels, that's their business. The religion of science doesn't thrill me much either. I guess we'll discover the truth someday or we'll fade to black.
27 July 2009
at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
Sych,
Thanks for the concern. I could probably argue with you point for point, but I won't.
The one thing you have not and could not tear down has been my experience. My church experience has been one of freedom, one of stability and most of all one of love. I've never, ever, experienced such community, such unity or so much belonging in any other setting. I know a lot of people who like to tear down Christians as a group, but my experience is that jackasses are the exception and not the rule.
27 July 2009
at 6:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
cthulhu_4_president (Anonymous) says…
I, for one, feel threatened whenever a world leader who controlls nuclear weapons is forced in the court of public opinion to reaffirm his belief in a religion that believes the end of the world is inevitable, and where over half of believers think it will happen within their lifetime.
This is one example of how I feel threatened by Christianity on a daily basis.
===============================
I'd hate to see you tremble whenever you turn your TV to the history channel. They say we are over due for the caldera in Yellow Stone to explode. We should also eventually get hit by some rock from the asteroid belt or the Kuiper belt which is further out. There are other numerous major disasters just waiting in the wings.
27 July 2009
at 6:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Mixolydian (Anonymous) says…
Brian: No, you don't have to follow me, you are all individuals.
Crowd [in unison]: Yes! We are all individuals.
–––––––—
Obligatory Brian references out of the way. These are all old arguments answered and re-answered longer than anyone of us has been alive.
27 July 2009
at 6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…
“Funny and sad at the same time. “Rational thought” is your god, and you have constructed this 'god' with your own predetermined limitations. Not unlike the carved idols of old.”
–––––-
What's really sad is that you actually believe this tired attempt to paint deductive reasoning as some kind of “god”.
It's faulty reasoning, plain and simple. The scientific method requires no “faith”. There is no submission to a “higher power”.
People who insist on making this comparison are either insecure in the lack of proof for that in which they place their own faith or severely ignorant of the inherent differences between testing and refutation and faith in an unseen higher power.
For example, if a scientist's theory fails to hold up under scrutiny, the theory is changed. Conversely, one's faith must remain the same *in the face* of contrary evidence. That is faith by definition—continuing to believe in spite of support to the contrary.
27 July 2009
at 7:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
My Dear Sychophant,
Where, where shall I begin. Granted that by being a Christian, I am, by your definition, scientific illiterate, intolerant, out to destroy the world, intellectually dishonest, an advocate for rape, genocide and keeping amputees in wheelchairs, I must beg you, my intellectual superior, to indulge me for a brief moment, while I courageously endeavor to share some of your intellectual spotlight.
Ah yes, lets start with your assumption that the Bible is not historically accurate. Being a Christian, I beg you for further clarification. Could you please specify which history you deem to be inaccurate? Would you be refering to the narrative history of the Bible? Or perhaps, the technological history? What about the theological history? Or the political history? Or the socio-cultural history of the Bible? Or even, dare I suggest it, the intellectual history of the Bible.
And please, dear synchophant, would you be so kind as to frame your answers in the different academic, archeological and theological arguments. It would help me so much if you could answer both from the Biblical maximist tradition as well as the Biblical minimalist argument. After all, knowing both sides will help me develope an open mind such as the one you have.
When you are finished with that question, would you please be so kind as to explain to me how you came up with the belief that all Christian beliefs must share the same view of science?. How very shocking it was for me to find that out. Considering that many of the Christian belief systems do recognize evolution as a scientifc fact, I was shocked to find out that they don't. Please, please, dear sychophant, please go through roughly all of the 3,400 Christian sects and please, in great depth, show me where all of them believe in the literal translation of the Bible.
27 July 2009
at 7:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
Third, if finding out that all Christians do not believe in evolution was enough, I also, am being told that Christianity is “wrong” because it “plagerized” from oral tradition. First, on a side note, would you please explain how one plagiazes from oral tradition, and then would you please, if you have time, and I know I am asking an awful lot from you, but really I am so confused right now, would you please explain to me how archeological cross-contaimination of cultures in a specific region somehow invalidates the belief systems of those people in that region? Are you suggest, dear synchophant, that ideas just spring out from no where? That they do not develop over time and change according to their surrondings. My golly, now that I think of ideas, philosophies, religions, political though all change over time…kind of like evolution. But surely, being the scientific person that you are, you are not advocating that religious thought just sprung out of no where?
Alas, I'm afraid I just do not know all the answers. After all, unlike you, I am sure, I do not have the intellectual capability to read all 25,000 of the ancient manuscripts that are in existance today showing the historical, theological, poltical, cultural and archeological evidence for (or against) the Bible.
Unfortunately, I must go now. I very much hope that I am not so befudded by all this thinking that I am unable to log on tomorrow and read your response. I sincerely hope that I have the intellectual capacity to, once again, put a noun and a verb together and endevor to create a sentence. One that I hope you will endeavor to answer, being my intellectual superior, I have only you to look towards for answers.
27 July 2009
at 7:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
ilikestuff (Anonymous) says…
“For the evolutionists, shouldn’t the dominant human race, Caucasians (?) long ago killed off all the other races?”
Here is the problem—this person has no idea how evolution works. Our biology teachers have failed this person.
27 July 2009
at 8:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
alm77 (Anonymous) says…
hey, denak…. could you also use your fancy talk to ask him how since the word translated “day” in Genesis could also be translated “age” and how thousands of years ago someone wrote how levels of life came to be through seven “ages” in the following stages: light, water, fish, birds, mammals, then people? Oh never mind. He'll probably just say that the guy who wrote that back then probably had no clue what he was talking about.
27 July 2009
at 8:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasPerson (Anonymous) says…
From Point #2 (ermmm, that's the first #2, not the second #2 — good thing the plagiarizer^H^H^H^H^author was intellectually superior enough to number his points correctly)
“Following point two: from an objective, scrutinizing view, there is no reason to believe one story in the Bible over another. We cannot honestly engage shades of truth here - either the books in the Bible are historically true or they are not. Since they almost ubiquitously contain material to make the scientific person skeptical, we can chance to say the same is true of the entire book: either it happened, or it didn't.”
Even pretending this is well written (as some of the commenters are claiming), this just isn't doing it for me, logically. The Bible is a collection of books. Isn't this like saying that all the books on my bookshelf must be true, or all must not be? What if I have on the same shelf: 3 books on biology, five books on botany, seven Harry Potter books, two collections of poetry, a book of witty sayings, a volume of Thomas a Kempis, and a novel? It just doesn't make sense to judge their accuracy with the same yardstick, does it?
Some of the Old Testament is music lyrics, some is proverbs and general good advice, and some is “salvation history.” As for the New Testament, most of it is letters, one book is visionary literature, and four books are the Gospels, about which I think you need to do more reading (about why they were written when they were, etc.).
Wherever you got your cut-and-paste, I think you'd better do a little more reading so that you can recognize arguments that were already being debated centuries before you were born. It also wouldn't hurt you to actually get to know some Christians and shed some of your stereotypical thinking. You might find that many of them have already studied a lot more than you have appeared to about this. Sheesh, you sound like a junior-high student who'd be way out of his depth in a real debate.
27 July 2009
at 8:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
I'm glad this was just a cut and paste, because I couldn't see the purpose in spending that much time writing up something like this.
You're not going to convince anybody, leaving this blog as just self-congratulatory glad-handing. Purposeless past boosting your own ego for not believing in the religion.
27 July 2009
at 9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilikestuff (Anonymous) says…
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
ilikestuff (Anonymous) says…
“For the evolutionists, shouldn’t the dominant human race, Caucasians (?) long ago killed off all the other races?”
Here is the problem—this person has no idea how evolution works. Our biology teachers have failed this person.
––––––—
Here is the problem: this person has no idea what conclusions Darwin drew from his observations. Our history teachers have failed this person.
27 July 2009
at 10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
I'm not sure that I remember the part where Darwin said that the dominant species eliminated all of the other types by violence either.
And then, of course, there's the notion that human beings constructed communities and societies precisely to escape from natural law, which might include natural selection.
So yes, clearly someone was failed by something. Too bad, that.
27 July 2009
at 10:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare says:
“The religious brain can never justify its beliefs based in fact and reality, and is therefore logically, ethically, and morally bankrupt.”
This statement makes no sense. Many people of many different beliefs are MORE ethical and are exeptionally moral people because of their religions. Therefore, your statement is logically bankrupt.
27 July 2009
at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound09 (Anonymous) says…
Apparently “stuff” doesn't include knowledge, because ilikestuff is quite ignorant.
There are so many flaws with his/her reasoning that it's hard to know where to start, but just a few of the more important points:
1) Modern evolutionary theory is far more robust and intricate than anything Darwin ever published. I can't help but laugh when evolution skeptics trot out the old spectre of Darwin, as if his original theories somehow invalidate all the subsequent evidence we have found supporting evolution since Darwin's Origin of Species.
2) I can't help but chuckle at your earlier snipe about enjoying all the things in society for which we have Christianity to thank after dismissing the Theory of Evolution as mere speculation. You would do well to take your own advice, given how much modern science owes to the field of genetics and evolutionary study.
3) I would be inclined to agree with you that there are forces at work we just don't understand. The beauty of science is not that it purports to have all the answers, but that it provides a method for continuing to seek and refine possible answers. Religion, on the other hand, throws it's hands up and says “well, it just is because we believe it”. Presuming to know the answer doesn't bring about innovation and knowledge. Continuously seeking answers does. Your belief that Christianity has contributed a great deal to society while science merely provides baseless musings is uninformed. Christianity has not provided anything beneficial to society that would not also have been likely to occur by some other means. More often than not, Christianity has been brought into the modern world kicking and screaming—just look at Galileo and the church.
4) And speaking of point #3, you quoted a M. Night Shyamalan movie to help make your point. Epic fail.
27 July 2009
at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
I don't see the point of the blog, or the responses. None of it matters.
Yes, death has been visited upon others in the name of god. Ditto for eugenics.
Yes, mistakes have been made that limit man's use of nature to better himself and his world. And global warming scares don't do this as well?
Non-testable assertions like all apelike creatures descended from a common ape-like creature is just as stupid as god put this all here. No one knows either assertion and never will. So, forget it.
But, Sycho wants to pick a fight. I don't get it Sycho. Everybody has heard the argument that science is better than faith, as if it is a competition. How 'bout opening your mind to the possibility that there are things in this world that can't be scientifically sorted out?
Those that can be sorted out with observation, reason and test….go for it. Those that cannot be tested……aren't science. Oh, they are also not useful either, so leave it. Forget it. Don't wanna believe in alternative realities other than science? Fine.
Just don't try to convert those who believe you not.
If the religious mind is trained to avoid the rational argument, then the scientific mind is trained to be endlessly optimistic about the power of reason. In the face of chaos, time and displacements frames that are utterly beyond measurement, scientists continue to theorize.
Theory has outstripped the ability to test, so……run a computer model. Create reality in a model and call it fact.
We are living through hard economic times. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the blame really should go to scientists and engineers who are doing nothing but simulating life in a computer.
The economy of the 1950s, 60s and 70s has dwindled because scientists really don't do anything anymore.
New materials like plastics? Not much.
New electronic components that revolutionize information and control? Nope, just more of the same CMOS gates.
New pharmaceuticals? Not many comin' along these days. Too expensive and too many lawsuits.
Whole new technical solutions to our problems based upon chaos theory, string theory, parallel universes?
Yep, harnessed the atom, we did. Controlled nuclear fusion. Energy needs are never going to be a problem again…oh wait.
Physics is out of ideas that can be tested.
I think people should try spirituality just because science has become so trite.
28 July 2009
at 12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
witchfindergeneral (Anonymous) says…
Great stuff, Sychophant (if you are, in fact, the author of this diatribe).
An open question to adherents of the Judeo-Christian belief system: does not the total impossibility of some of the events described in the New/Old Testaments (Noah's Ark is a prime example—there is simply no way all of the extant species on earth could have made it onto one boat) discredit the whole Bible? In other words, doesn't one obviously fictional story in the Bible cast doubt on the whole book? If you believe in Christ, shouldn't you automatically except the Bible (His Word) as literal fact?
I ask out of mere curiosity, not malice. I'm not Christian, but I certainly don't hate Christianity (if this deterrent is not sufficient, remember what Jesus would do—forgive me).
28 July 2009
at 6:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
motocross (Anonymous) says…
This makes me laugh, but it's also sad to see these people who are gnashing their teeth at believers and the truth.
Jesus is the only way, no other.
I'm SOO thankful that I have found the one true God and that I have a relationship with my creator.
The Bible is Perfect truth and whole truth.
Someday you'll see this, and I pray it's before you sit before Him.
In Love
28 July 2009
at 6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
“In other words, doesn't one obviously fictional story in the Bible cast doubt on the whole book?”
Depends - should any Christian accept any critic's potentially (usually) narrow or purposefully limited definition of said story/account?
How does the difference between these words affect your understanding of a concept : fictional vs allegorical vs lie ?
Does the application of modern 'journalistic standards' to ancient texts require that they be thrown out (along with their original purposes and meanings) if they don't meet said those modern viewpoints?
If anyone is hostile to the message of the Bible, they're going to find ways and reasons to attack it - heck, many of Paul's letters dealt with the problems of false teachers and that was within his lifetime. Curiously enough, most of the criticisms mentioned here, and most anywhere, are not new, and have been addressed many times going back to ancient days.
If anyone really was interested in determining the answers or explanations for these criticisms, they could easily find many great works on the subject (also a lot of cr*p, but that's like any subject of study these days).
Cut-n-pasting the same old tired saws in some lame attempt to 'discredit' Christianity is just that - tired and lame.
28 July 2009
at 7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
I know that I would LUVVVV to see a response to denak's questions…….she or he? gets the post for the week!!! great post! And I see that psychopath or whomever, hasnt responded…interesting
28 July 2009
at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
Thanks, motocross, for giving a good mirror image to the original blog. It's good to have a balance on hubris, coming from all directions, ya'know.
28 July 2009
at 9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
exhawktown (Anonymous) says…
Sycophant: Your tone and language obviously betray and undermine any true effort you make to change the mind of a Christian. Christians have something called faith. It's something you probably wouldn't understand, and that is fine. However, what you have here is a TRUE display of ignorance—ignorance of how to craft a truly compelling and convincing argument to persuade those “of faith.” You are preaching to the choir only—which is, essentially, a waste of time. You willingly sew the seeds of intolerance and hatred. Yes, I said it, “intolerance.”
Good luck at this half-assed, (and I mean the “donkey” kind …) narcissistic, self-promoting, alienating… “attempt” to … better the world by ridding it of the “ignorance”of Christianity. What religion will you take on next? (Go for it.)
28 July 2009
at 9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
I think it is silly that some denominations are such Bible literalists that their faith crumbles on topics like evolution. Likewise, it is unbelievable and just as silly that those that dislike religion would expect the Bible to be a science text book. Lets say the Bible's creation story was the evolution story — how man evolved from apes. Would the Israelites from 3,500 years ago have understood it? and believed it? They didn't have any living Neanderthals around as Neanderthal's died out of Europe 30,000 years ago. So there wasn't anything to help digest the concept of evolution to this early civilization.
28 July 2009
at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
This comes down to a choice.
Do you form opinions and thoughts based on evidence, repeatability, and reality?
Or do you form thoughts and opinions based upon stories that have no basis (and can have no basis) in evidence and reality?
If the answer is the latter or both, how do you choose which of the millions of myths, stories, legends, and tales, that cannot be proven, to use as a basis for forming these thoughts and opinions?
28 July 2009
at 10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
To 4125 and other christian apologists:
How did you become a christian? Why do you have faith in christianity instead of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, Bahai, Harry Potterism, Odin, Zeus, Rosecrucianism, Zoroastrianism, Middle Earthism, etc.?
28 July 2009
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
Denak - there is so much you could be taught about the bible and ancient history. Ask some specific questions and not just generalizations and I will be more than happy to answer them for you. Once you learn ancient history, study the ancient religions and read the various forms of the bible you say you worship, it all becomes very clear. The archaelogical finds (many within the last decade and including many books left out of the bible) help to show that your religion is bs. A studying of Egyptian religions and history will also greatly aid you.
I can also list many books you should read to enlighten yourself.
The original post was a bad cut and paste, but the points are true.
And KSDivakat - don't get off on religion again. We all know how you used to hunt for threesomes on the internet. You of all people shouldn't speak about christianity, being someone that was actively hunting for extra partners online. God wouldn't have approved of that, would he???
28 July 2009
at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
Kmat,
Two things strike me as I read your post.
The first is that you would be the last person I would ask about religion whether it was the Mayan religion, Christian religion, Egyptian religion, Celtic religion, or any other religion.
Sarcasm, as well as nuance, contextualization and depth, seem to escape you.
Secondly, on the off chance my religion (which you don't know) is b.s., I would still not be so arrogrant, cruel or spiteful as to “out” another individual about her “alleged” internet activities.
Ksdivakat and I have had our differences in the past but unlike someone such as yourself, I, with all of my “b.s.” Christianity, would not stoop so low as to humiliate another individual just to score some points on a local newspaper blog.
Dena
28 July 2009
at 2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Kmat…you are exactly right! He would most certainly NOT approve of that, but you are incorrect, I out of anyone have the right to speak, you see, it was out of that pornographic life style in which i was rescued! So you tossing that tired old atage out at me doesnt work, and doesnt phase me at all.
Since you are so smart, you must also know that it was several and I mean several years ago, not something that just happened last week, so get over it!
I am just as human as the next person, and even as a christian I have faults and make mistakes and certainly am not perfect, and any christian who says they are, is certainly lying!
I also do not go to anyones door and try to convert them, and I dont try to convert anyone on here, my point is that the vile and venom against christians is so hateful that its almost funny, ridiculous actually.
Do you think that people are born christians and thats the way they stay?? No, Jesus came for sinners, not saints.
So please, so yourself a favor, stop throwing my past out there, nobody cares, and if they do then thats on them. I could have removed that, but I chose not to, maybe there is a reason for that.
I could care less what you, or anyone else thinks of me, or what I believe, or who I am, or what Im about, because what I am about, is being honest with yourself, and I think that if you are, then your self rightousness (sp) will fall to the wayside as well.
Think about it, but definately get over it…I aint going anywhere!
28 July 2009
at 2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Any analytical criticism of christianity and religion equates to hate.
How convenient.
Anyone comfortable in their own religion and beliefs would welcome analysis and criticism.
Why so jumpy?
28 July 2009
at 2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
Denak - you think you are so righteous! Whatever. You are just a typical catholic. I have extensively studied middle eastern history and religions and still take some classes for fun about it. It's been a hobby and passion since I was young. You don't want to utilize resources that could actually enlighten you, your loss. But based on your posts you seem to just be a sheeple. And if you took time to study ancient history and religions, you would start understanding why so many of us refer to christianity as bs, especially the catholic church. It's because we've studied it instead of being brainwashed. Most people are just brought up with their religion and don't ever really question it or really learn about it. And that makes them sheeple.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it guys???? That's why the catholic church in particular worked so hard for so many years to keep the masses ignorant.
And Diva - It was less than only 8 months ago that you were still trolling online for threesomes and dumb enough to use this same username for everything you do online (not very smart). In fact, that was just last November and the comments are still online. And at the same time you you were trolling for threesomes, you were also on here preaching religion and making very ignorant comments (you're good at that and also good at getting posts removed - would Jesus approve of you using language that gets your posts removed from here???). In fact, you actually dissapeared for months after being called out about your hypocracy.
I just point out hypocrits and liars and you are are both. I don't care what anyone does with their personal lives, but don't preach religion when in reality you are a playa! That's what makes you a hypocrit.
Don't act high and mighty and all relgious when you are breaking YOUR gods laws.
28 July 2009
at 2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
kmat….you dont know anything! that profile was made soo long ago and if you try to email that accnt…its been deactivated for a very very long time, so obviously I am not on here under that email addy.
You need to get over yourself, you are hateful, and you are a bully, but i will not be bullied! I didnt disappear, you are giving youself wayyyy to much credit sister! I actually have a job that takes me away from a home base for months at a time, so there goes your theory down the toilet.
Your problem is that you KNOW there is a God and you KNOW the truth but you are running from it and tryng to hide it in the form of vile and spew it at me…still not gonna work! Im not going anywhere, and anytime and I do mean anytime you want to sit down face to face and chat about this…..I would be more than happy to make that happen….anytime…..and by the way, God bless you today! May you have a day of peace…sounds like you need it!
28 July 2009
at 3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sinverguenza (Anonymous) says…
Moot point.
Even if Jesus did exist and every word in the Bible was the absolute “truth,” that's still no reason for worship - which is what religion - be it Christian or any other - really comes down to.
It is what happens in the course of worship that we atheists take issue with, and therefore that's what we should argue against, if we're in the mood to waste our breath.
If Jesus did exist, he sure as hell was a great guy for the most part, according to what we have been told. If he did not exist, he sure as hell remains a great model for us to live up to, according to what we have been told.
I just wish all the people looking to “get right with God” knew how to get right without him.
28 July 2009
at 3:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
oh my….I have heard it all now…if you are so educated in the religions then why are you so hateful about it? And just when did denak ever lie to you or be a hypocrite? umm never!
I have seen you post on here a time or 2 and know that you are not that popular with the regular posters on here who know you are a coward and you try to act like your so educated, but my guess is that you aint so much. Dont you have like 2 or 3 masters and some undergrad degress too? Oh and you put yourself through college cause you didnt have a mommy and daddy to run too, or something to that effect wasnt it?
Again, and listen to this good, anytime there is a “religious” article on here, I am going to be here defending my maker.
The one who saved me from that life, the one who makes me who I am today, and Im not going anywhere, so you can do what you think you must, Im not going away, except for a few months over the winter…but I think I will just check in from time to time on here just to see what is going down.
Now, you can bad mouth me all you want, call me names, think you have shamed me, bullied me, whatever you want to call it, Im not going anywhere.
By the way, you mentioned me having posts being removed so I want to address that real quick, the few posts that I have had removed are because I also posted links to other news sites and thats why they were removed….since you seem to be so ahhh, into me? Why dont you check your facts out sweetheart before you blow about something not correct. I dont care if you blow and tell the truth, but dont blow and lie, cause thats what you are doing now.
28 July 2009
at 3:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
puddleglum (Anonymous) says…
you guys are funny
28 July 2009
at 3:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kmat (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says… Your problem is that you KNOW there is a God and you KNOW the truth but you are running from it
__________________________________
Nope. You are very, very wrong. I was brought up in the church. I've read the scriptures through and through more times than most of you christians ever have. My mom worked for the church. My father was a deacon. BUT, I was also taught the importance of learning and questioning.
Like I stated before, once you learn the origins of religions and study ancient history, it is enlightening.
I'm only hatefull to those that preach christianity and aren't open minded regarding religion, like you. See, if you actually study the history behind these religions, you see how they came to be, what influenced them, how weakness and fear drove people to them and how religion has been used more to control people than anything else.
I said you were a liar and hypocrit, not Denak. Those comments were all about you and are true.
I'm not competing in a popularity contest. Don't care what you or other posters think of me. I speak my mind and speak about subjects I know something of. You could learn from that.
And yes, I am educated. To educate yourself is to better yourself. I have multiple degrees. I value education. You might try learning about your religion and enlighten yourself.
To the rest of your rant - blah, blah, blah, blah, I'm sorry you led such a terrible life before that you have to shroud yourself in your religion to make you feel whole. I think that's sad.
I'm done with you. It is obvious that you don't value education or enlightment.
“A well-informed mind is the best security against the contagion of folly and of vice. The vacant mind is ever on the watch for relief, and ready to plunge into error, to escape from the languor of idleness. ” Ann Radcliffe
And Silver's post is great. READ IT!!
28 July 2009
at 4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…
Time!
Ok enough degenerating into personal attacks. Anybody who thinks just because you become Christian means you become perfect and if you screw up are an automatic hypocrite has no clue about the religion. Paul even talks about running the race (Christianity) and striving for perfection, because he had not yet attained it. The same man who at first persecuted Christ and then wrote half of the New Testament and was martyred for his preaching of Christ.
The teachings of Christ were some of the most culturally shocking of the day. He treated women and men equally, some people even argue women were treated with more respect and reverence than men. He also claimed that he did not “did not come to abolish the Law (Old Testament) but to fulfill it”. You ask why some of the laws in the OT are moot and some aren't? His death and shedding of blood was the perfect sacrifice. His one sacrifice took the place of any further need of imperfect (animal) sacrifices. The gap Adam and Eve created between man and God was bridged by the blood of Christ.
28 July 2009
at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…
Logic and the others claiming all Christians haven't studied religion have obviously not spent time with many Christians. Yes, there are definitely similarities between many religions, but there's obviously some truth in every lie correct? That argument doesn't hold.
Why Christianity over Islam or Judaism? Over Judaism: They still SHOULD be living under the Old Testament. Animal sacrifices SHOULD be required.
Over Islam: Muslims believe in Jesus Christ as well. They believe Jesus was just a prophet but Muhammad received the final revelation from Gabriel. How can a Jesus be prophet if he was crucified for blasphemy by claiming he was the Son of God? Either he was deranged and a liar in which case he could not be a prophet, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. In either case, Jesus could not have been just a prophet and Islam does not work.
28 July 2009
at 4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…
And about evolution, there's proof of MICRO-evolution. No proof yet of MACRO-evolution which is what most people are arguing about. Within the species there is change. Just within the last century or two the average human is….2 or 3 inches taller at least right? Bacteria gains resistances to medication. There is not proof of one species morphing (or evolving) into another. There is no evidence we came from slime, or from apes, or from frogs or dolphins.
28 July 2009
at 4:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sinverguenza (Anonymous) says…
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
“Again, and listen to this good, anytime there is a “religious” article on here, I am going to be here defending my maker.
The one who saved me from that life, the one who makes me who I am today”
Again, moot point. God, being the omnipotent creator, the alpha, the omega, and LOVE, does not need nor request your defense. He commands you to love your neighbor. Even when that neighbor is kmat. If you cannot love another without God's instruction and command, then by all means, use that instruction and follow that command.
The best way to “defend”/love your maker is to help people understand his love and acceptance. To show that God is love and through his love you have your love and through your love you lead others to his love. Suffice it to say, you are failing. Not that those who wrote the Bible wanted you, as a woman, to even try in the first place.
Case in point: Corinthians 14:33-36
“For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?”
Nay, I say.
If you're trying to defend your religion, be a better practitioner of it. Pretty is as pretty does.
28 July 2009
at 5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Bankboy wrote:
“Why Christianity over Islam or Judaism? Over Judaism: They still SHOULD be living under the Old Testament. Animal sacrifices SHOULD be required.
Over Islam: Muslims believe in Jesus Christ as well. They believe Jesus was just a prophet but Muhammad received the final revelation from Gabriel. How can a Jesus be prophet if he was crucified for blasphemy by claiming he was the Son of God? Either he was deranged and a liar in which case he could not be a prophet, or he was who he claimed to be, the Son of God. In either case, Jesus could not have been just a prophet and Islam does not work.”
So, let me get this straight. These are the reasons that you chose christianity over these others? Before you decided, you weighed these options and made a decision to be a christian based upon these theological points?
Or are these points post hoc justification of being a christian? Just as muslims and jews have their own post hoc justifications?
28 July 2009
at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Oh, and bankboy, I would be curious to know the reasons you chose not to follow the other religions I mentioned.
28 July 2009
at 5:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
bankboy119 (Anonymous) says…
And about evolution, there's proof of MICRO-evolution. No proof yet of MACRO-evolution which is what most people are arguing about. Within the species there is change. Just within the last century or two the average human is….2 or 3 inches taller at least right? Bacteria gains resistances to medication. There is not proof of one species morphing (or evolving) into another. There is no evidence we came from slime, or from apes, or from frogs or dolphins.
======================================
On the question of evolution, the debate really gets down to what difference does it make? Is your faith so shaky that if the proof you need on macro-evolution is discovered, that you have to stop believing that there is a God? I don't understand why Biblical literalists are so arrogant as to assume that God owed you an explanation of every detail about life and that he had to put it all in the Bible.
So what if God created mankind by way of a monkey or a one cell organism? That doesn't mean it must be a lie. It also doesn't mean I need a teacher to make sure we need to be preached about intelligent design either.
It is that arrogant literalist mentality that will cause the downfall of Christianity more than any devil with a pitch fork could or any mean-spirited atheist.
28 July 2009
at 5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“It is that arrogant literalist mentality that will cause the downfall of Christianity more than any devil with a pitch fork could or any mean-spirited atheist.”
True dat.
28 July 2009
at 6:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
verity (Anonymous) says…
Silly rabbits–I suspect that our dear and intrepid bloggist wrote this in reaction to some of the recent blogs, faith forums and comments, one of which was about why Catholics are so hated, which I believe was a distillation of what someone else said or wrote, even as this blog is accused of being.
S/he is probably somewhere chuckling to him/herself right now. Naughty Sychophant, you've got the natives all stirred up again.
Religionists, if you want me to respect your faith, then you must respect my lack of faith.
28 July 2009
at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
soldier1 (Anonymous) says…
Thank you for your inquiry on the Christian religion, Sychophant. You obviously seem to understand everything about the bible and can see into the past, so instead of throwing verses at you, I am going to approach your arguement your way: with logic.
1) If any being can do all things, it is God, the creator of the miracle called existance. No one on earth can turn bread to fish or walk on water, only God or the son of God.
2) If we evolved from simians, why are there still simians? Could it be that it is possible for creatures to have similar genes? Logic thinking says 'yes'.
3) If the universe is infinite, then the laws of the universe must also be infinite. We live on one tiny speck of dust in a dust storm. So how, my friend, is it that you understand so much about how the universe works? Do you know something that the rest of us don't? If you do, please share.
*response to side note: again, only God or the son of God.
1 again) for the amputees: why grow limbs back? what purpose would that serve? if it were not for adversity, how could we, as humans, physically and spiritually, become stronger? as for the whale, I will answer your question with another question: Why take things so literal?
2 again) Jesus is not God, but the son of God. Christianity did not start until the birth of Christ. As for the rest of your paragraph, I guess if anything happened by coincidence, we should not believe it to be true.
3 again) For me, personnally, I not only did I find spirituality through Christianity, but it found me. I cannot describe to you the feeling of the first time I accepted Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. It was an overwhelming sense of bliss and peace, to put it simply. ANY other spiritual Christian can attest to that. I have not recieved that from any other religion or cult. Ever.
4) Are you saying that by throwing away the rest of the Bible, you would condone murder, theft, adultery, etc.? That is how wild, soulless animals act, with no sense of love or kindness, and why humans are given dominion over creatures of the earth.
5) Jesus is not mentioned other than the gospels? What about Islam, who admit his existance as a prophet. As far as the earliest gospels, you make it seem like the only people that should write about Christ is the people that were actually there, when most people of the earth didnt 'hang out' with Jesus. What ever happened to history being past on by word of mouth? Do the stories your mom and dad tell you about when they were young automatically become omitted from existence because it was not 'certified' history? I could not have put it any better than bankboy119.
28 July 2009
at 7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
kmat,
I debated on whether or not I should even answer your posts. In the end, I'm not even going to try. I think that they say more about you, than they ever will about me.
Have a nice day!
Dena
28 July 2009
at 7:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
denak (Anonymous) says…
yourworstnightmare,
Even though I suspect your attempt to find out why someone chose Christianity over another religion is really just an attempt to try to show that our choice is nothing more than a mindless pavlovian response to religious conditioning, I'd like to offer this explanation.
The reasons Christians believe what they believe is the same as why you believe as you believe. They are the product of their upbringing, culture, socio-economic status, race and education. All of these things influence individuals to accept or reject different belief systems in their live. One hopes that they also came to this belief system through a lot of reflection and a thorough study of what they believe.
One hopes that you, yourself, came to your beliefs via self-reflection, in depth study, and an appreciation for the complexity of life. And not solely as a reaction against what you don't believe in.
Dena
28 July 2009
at 9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
soldier1 (Anonymous) says…
“…2 again) Jesus is not God, but the son of God. Christianity did not start until the birth of Christ. As for the rest of your paragraph, I guess if anything happened by coincidence, we should not believe it to be true…”
======================================
Yes the religion of Christianity didn't exist before Christ's mortal birth is a true statement.
However, to say Jesus is not God, sounds like a splinter Christian sect theology. Most of Christianity has accepted the concept of the Trinity which includes the believe that Christ existed spiritually before his mortal birth:
John 1:1-2 & 14 (New American Standard translation):
1) In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2) He was in the beginning with God.
14) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
28 July 2009
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
I don't care to argue about the existence of religion, but I do want to say that of the arguments against evolution that I have seen on here - most have fundamental problems with them. Unfortunately explaining those problems is not something that can be done rather quickly.
There are a few points that I saw, which are flawed or incorrect. First, “ilikestuff” there is quite a lot of evidence to support evolution, such as genetic studies and fossil records and much more - the museum of Natural History (in Dyche hall on KU's campus) offers a pretty decent preview to some of the more esoteric academic studies. If you really believe that there is no evidence for evolution, then you can go ahead and forgo your annual flu shot - and Swine flu, go ahead and forget about that too. Given that genetic mutation is at the heart of evolution, if you believe that evolution doesn't occur then the genetic mutation that that caused the swine virus to adapt to the biology of humans (which is in essence evolution in increments) couldn't have occurred.
Secondly, there is quite a lot of evidence for micro-evolution because it can be observed within a reasonable amount of time, macro-evolution on the other hand requires a great deal of time (if we started studying this today we wouldn't expect to see anything for probably a couple thousand years, obviously we won't see the results). But to say that micro-evolution is possible but macro-evolution is not very consistent unless you believe that the world is only a few thousand years old. Much like mountain ranges forming over the incremental changes in elevation of land on a yearly basis that over millions of years to reach formidable and impressive heights (think Everest, which is estimated to currently rise approximately 8 inches/year), incremental changes in biology will eventually add up to large changes overtime. Given that of the estimated 4.5 billion years that the earth is believed to have existed, and the estimated 3.5 billion years that life is believed to have been evolving, it seems very plausible that micro changes would lead to vast differences in species, causing biodiversity.
continued
28 July 2009
at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
Thirdly, “Soldier 1” the argument that “If we evolved from simians, why are there still simians?” is really a tired argument that should be abandoned. This argument really doesn't work because it assumes that evolution requires unidirectional change that is ever improving - leaving old species behind - this is a misnomer. But instead of going through current evolutionary theory, think about it this way, just because dogs evolved from wolves, doesn't mean that wolves suddenly disappeared, wolves are still around and though dogs and wolves occasionally compete for resources there is still plenty of food sources for both species to continue thriving, thus both still exist. As long as an environment exists that allows sufficient food sources and fosters reproductive opportunities continues to exist, both wolves and dogs will survive. Chimpanzees (our closest living ape relative, with whom we share approximately 98% of our DNA) do not frequently compete with humans for food sources, so I hope you can begin to see why it is not a paradox of evolutionary thinking that both humans and apes can co-exist. That's not to say that competition doesn't happen, there is increasing evidence that we did compete with other species of Homo in the fairly recent (20,000 years) past (see recent news releases on the evidence of the Neanderthal man and death by homo sapiens), our competition with Homo Neanderthalensis - if it did occur and is still subject to debate - might have hastened Neanderthal's eventual extinction.
Finally, “ilikestuff” saying that Caucasians are the dominate race was a real mistake, and I hope that you didn't really mean it. But I have to ask, dominant how? Intellectually, culturally, reproductively? If we look at intellect, there have been plenty of studies that have shown that once you hold socio-economic status and education constant, there is no evidence that any race is intellectually superior to any other (if you have the book “The bell curve” as your reference go ahead and throw it away, it's based on bad science). Space doesn't permit an argument against cultural or reproductive superiority, but I hope those answers are fairly clear. But If you want to talk about military dominance, then I'll concede that the U.S. has a military that is dominant over many nations; however, I think you can see how quickly that argument doesn't help your case that some how Caucasians should be the only race left because of US military dominance. If your point was some other type of dominance, then please explain how it should lead to the eradication of all other races because as it stands, quite frankly it is a poor argument and could be interpreted as a thinly veiled form of prejudice.
29 July 2009
at 12:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
You wouldn't believe me if I told you…
:D
29 July 2009
at 1:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
soldier1 (Anonymous) says…
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
Thirdly, “Soldier 1” the argument that “If we evolved from simians, why are there still simians?” is really a tired argument that should be abandoned. This argument really doesn't work because it assumes that evolution requires unidirectional change that is ever improving - leaving old species behind - this is a misnomer. But instead of going through current evolutionary theory, think about it this way, just because dogs evolved from wolves, doesn't mean that wolves suddenly disappeared, wolves are still around and though dogs and wolves occasionally compete for resources there is still plenty of food sources for both species to continue thriving, thus both still exist.
––—
who said dogs evolved from wolves? why couldnt they have been different species to begin with? There are many animals that “share” the same DNA (I do not like that terminology), but yet they are still classified as different species. Is there a creature on this planet that will occasionally give birth to another creature that has different DNA, simply because there is a change in food sources? I can see perfectly how apes and humans can coexist, I just do not buy into the notion that we evolved from apes just because we are similar.
29 July 2009
at 6:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ksdivakat (Anonymous) says…
Sinver…I cant believe I am saying this, but you are absolutely 100% right!
I am commanded to love my neighbor, even kmat, and I do believe it or not. I prayed for her last night, along with a host of others and myself.
Let me be quite clear, as I have obviously not stated my position clearly.
What I meant by defending my maker, was that I get sick of people creating these blogs about religion just to bash it. Or better yet, the faith forum, when people get on there, and mind you, its not a matter of you telling me your opinion and me telling you mine, and we are respectful of that, its about non-believers getting on there and absolutely bashing christians. Its not about a “real” conversation about it, its about an argument. So thats what I meant.
Secondly, I will, at any time, be more than happy to share my personal experinece with anyone who wishes to talk to me about it. I dont feel I was indoctrinated into anything, I was saved about a year and a half ago, so I am still learning, dont know everything, and dont pretend to know everything, but I am hungry for knowledge.
My life, has been a very long laundry list of character flaws, and I believe that I have found my way out of it.
Im not catholic, so Im not sure how that got started, but, I also think that maybe all these religions are worshipping the same God, they just call him something different. At least I hope thats how it is, and thats how I chose to look at it.
I dont know that the bible is “literally” true in every concept, for example, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, those are stories, told by 4 different people, with 4 different spins on how the story played out, kindof like that telephone game I would imagine, so I think the “truth” in those cases probably lie somewhere in the middle.
But my biggest point is this, I have friends who are athiests, (yes I know gasp) and I have many friends who are other things, I respect what they believe or their lack of belief as one poster put it. They have just as much right to believe that, as I do to believe what I believe.
So am I perfect? not even close, I fall down every single day, am I even a “good” christian? Probably not, I dont know what that means, but Im sure not there, I can tell you that, but my point is, that I am repentful for the things I have done, and i wish I would have chosen a different path a long time ago, but I didnt, I was nieve, and probably still am to a large degree. I just know this, prior to being “saved” my life was empty, and I tried to fill that void with things like pornography as well as a host of other things, and it made me happy temporarily, but what I feel now, makes me happy most of the time, and I dont mean smiling happy, I mean happy in my heart, full, fullfilled, complete. I hope that clarifys my stance on this, and as for kmat, well, I hope that she has a peacful happy life, I wish her no ill, and I wish her no harm. Thanks for hearing me out!
29 July 2009
at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
Thirdly, “Soldier 1” the argument that “If we evolved from simians, why are there still simians?” is really a tired argument that should be abandoned. This argument really doesn't work because it assumes that evolution requires unidirectional change that is ever improving - leaving old species behind - this is a misnomer…”
===========================
You didn't get into evolution theory, but just to touch on it a bit … Isn't there a theory now gaining ground that evolution has chaos in it? Meaning that it isn't always some end goal of evolution to produce some superior species. Sometimes, things just happen — such as a catastrophe that wipes out the dinosaurs thus allowing for the rise of mammals. It wasn't because mammals were necessarily superior.
One interesting story I read not that long ago was about Cama — a cross between a Dromedary camel and a Guanaco (predecessor to the domestic llama). They are all part of the Camelid family which originated in North America in the Rocky Mountain regions. Three or 4 million years ago they migrated some over to Asia and others to South America.
So here we have different animals separated by in time by 3 or 4 million years as well as by location by the loss of the land bridge between Asia and the Americas. Yet with all that separation they are able to cross breed. While I may not be an evolutionary expert, that tells me that the scientists have gotten it right: That at some point in the distant past these animals had a common ancestor and simply evolved separately. It is obviously a slow process as 3 or 4 million years and they still can cross breed.
29 July 2009
at 11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KansasPerson (Anonymous) says…
I'm glad I live in a country where I can believe whatever I want. And even more, I'm glad I live in a country where someone can blog against a religion and be free to say whatever he wants. And all the people making comments can do the same.
With the freedom to run off our mouths comes the ability to say nasty spiteful things. That's where being an adult comes in. I don't think it's particularly mature to cast up someone's past to them. Which of us knows what's really going on in that person's life? But in any case, yeah, you have the freedom to do that! Now try to shoulder some responsibility with that freedom — and attempt to consider how your words might actually do some harm or some good, rather than just being pixels on a screen.
30 July 2009
at 6:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
soldier1 (Anonymous) says…
“who said dogs evolved from wolves? why couldnt they have been different species to begin with?”
Th theory that all animals were “originally” (quotes for emphasis) separate species was long held until the early 1900s. Science is about hypotheses, experiments, and evidence. Currently, the evidence supports evolution. If your not sure who thinks dogs evolved from wolves, just do a quick search and you'll find some information on it.
“There are many animals that “share” the same DNA …, but yet they are still classified as different species.”
You're right, many species on this planet share strong correlates of DNA; and evolutionary theory predicts just this case. Some theorists believe that all living species share 1 common ancestor that we descended from, in other words according to this theory, at some point we would have shared a common ancestor even with fish, reptiles, and dinosaurs. There's a book that recently came out called “The Link: Discovering our earliest ancestor” by Colin Tudge that explains aspects of this. I believe the History channel also recently did a documentary on this fossil discovery and its implications.
“Is there a creature on this planet that will occasionally give birth to another creature that has different DNA, simply because there is a change in food sources?”
Not necessarily because of changes in food sources. Mutations in DNA occur for a number of reasons (for example due to copy code errors in sperm production) and do so rather frequently. More often than not this results in what we call “birth defects”. Most mutations are harmful for an offspring and cause its early death thus removing it from the gene pool before reproduction occurs, but every once in a while a mutation occurs that gives the offspring a competitive edge. If this mutation is then passed down genetically then over long periods of time (and with additional genetic mutations) we begin to see new species evolve.
“I just do not buy into the notion that we evolved from apes just because we are similar.”
That's okay, all you need to do now to challenge the scientific community is 1) come up with an alternative hypothesis regarding species origin, 2) find a way to test it, and 3) provide the results of your tests that support your hypothesis.
30 July 2009
at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
none2 (Anonymous) says…
“Isn't there a theory now gaining ground that evolution has chaos in it? Meaning that it isn't always some end goal of evolution to produce some superior species. Sometimes, things just happen — such as a catastrophe that wipes out the dinosaurs thus allowing for the rise of mammals. It wasn't because mammals were necessarily superior.”
As far as I am aware, those are two concepts that have always been fundamental components of evolutionary theory. To say it quickly and with less precision than the theory, 1) Genetic mutations occur, most are bad, some are neutral, few are good. 2) Occasionally environmental changes occur (e.g. ice ages, global warming, catastrophic events), and this gives some species a competitive edge over others. There are more tenets to the theory but you should be able to find them on the internet if interested.
30 July 2009
at 7:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jonas_opines (Anonymous) says…
“You wouldn't believe me if I told you…”
Hmmm… taking the root of the prefix in unbelievable… .
31 July 2009
at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
none2 (Anonymous) says…
unbuckling_the_bible_belt (Anonymous) says…
“…2) Occasionally environmental changes occur (e.g. ice ages, global warming, catastrophic events), and this gives some species a competitive edge over others. There are more tenets to the theory but you should be able to find them on the internet if interested.”
========================
One of the things I find interesting is how (at least the claim is) that sometimes when one group has the advantage and thus alternative groups are forced out, the group forced out adapts and comes back even stronger.
The example given was odd-toed ungulates vs even-toed ungulates orders. The odd-toed ungulates dominated, and thus the even-toed ungulates were forced out into marginal lands. The odd-toed ungulates didn't need much adaption since they had the best of grazing. As a result they have very simple digestive systems. Whereas the odd-toed ungulates developed complex digestive systems…
So now the roles are reversed. Even-toed ungulates with all their adaptions live just about anywhere and their order dominates. The only members of the odd-toed ungulates that exist in modern day are mainly: horses, donkeys, zebras, tapirs, and rhinos. Where as even-towed ungulates include: pigs, peccaries, hippopotamuses, camels, chevrotains (mouse deer), deer, giraffes, pronghorn, antelopes, sheep, goats, and cattle.
So in summary it sounds like even if your group rises to the top, watch out. Other groups' hardships may cause them to come back even stronger. Something that seems to be observed in more than just evolutionary theory.
31 July 2009
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
75x55 (Anonymous) says…
Rooted in the recognition of more fruitful uses of time and effort.
31 July 2009
at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
Why can't we just get a long?
Both sides piss on each other way too much on this issue which is always somewhere on this site every flipping day. Instead of trying to prove the other side wrong, why not consider getting away from your computer screen and doing something positive to make this planet, country, state whatever your focus a better place……
(I am sure some Einstein will not understand the point I am trying to make which is to allow everyone to make up their mind and get a long no matter what each other believe, but as in most cases, I will never look at this thread again and do not care if anyone responds or more so how they respond to my posts – better for my blood pressure then arguing with some of the nuts on here)
31 July 2009
at 6:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (Anonymous) says…
Damn. I wish I'd gotten here sooner… but… then again… I arrived too late for that whole Jesus thang, in the first place. Tell me how it goes again. Don't leave out the good stuff, this time….
2 August 2009
at 7:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gimpypad4 (Anonymous) says…
I have never met Jesus but I believe in him. I have never seen God but I believe in him. It is called faith. However I would never trash a person that has different ideas, opinions or beliefs from me and I have learned after reading these comments that there are a lot of different opinions out there.