If you're a good person because you expect an eternal reward for it and if you avoid doing crimes because you're afraid of an eternal punishment, that doesn't make you a moral person, it makes you a person that is controlled by fear or desire for gain. Those muslims terrorists that crashed the planes on 9/11 were expecting a divine reward for their actions and are considered highly moral among the islamist fundamentalists. So not only is the fear of God not a valid motivation for morality, morals based on religion are relative between different cultures. A behavior based on empathy and understanding for others is the only true source for an benevolent world. You don't need religious doctrines for that (Which one is the right one among the hundreds that exist anyway?), but you surely need a degree of spirituality into it, as a feeling of connectiveness with the rest of the world. Individual spirituality can be compatible with both atheism or religiousness.
This is what makes following the example of Christ in the Bible (not talking about mainstream Christianity which is all screwed up) different then the other major religions. He sacrificed himself for others instead of thinking about what he would gain for himself or making a bunch of rules to follow. Just a simple (but excruciatingly painful) example to follow - give up your happiness for a friend. Just think if everyone would do that of their own will. And here is where everyone uses the excuse that "I'm not going to because he/she wouldn't do it for me.", but the fact is he/she's not doing it for the same reason. And yeah, I'm mostly a hypocrite, but I got a nice beer buzz so I don't feel like one.
The IQ of the internets drops every time someone refuses to understand evolution and how it really works. Please think of the internets. And no, god won't kill a kitten. But John C. will.
I agree completely, and if everyone on this thread can agree with this then I think we can end this discussion on a friendly note. I will only add this - I agree 100% with SolutionX's most recent post. The example of Christ in the Bible is the only deity-based example of empathy for us. "This is what makes following the example of Christ in the Bible (not talking about mainstream Christianity which is all screwed up) different then the other major religions". That True Christianity (and not the screwed up mainstream variants) is about Loving one another. Can there be any other more noble belief system than that?
Not just yet Corwin, my FRIEND. I kinda get the feeling that I might have had an "out of forum" moment for a while there. . .and I'd just like to make certain that I haven't missed anything. Seems as though they can say pretty much anything they'd like to me, but when I respond in kind (which I've repented "in sackcloth and ashes" for---I shouldn't have stooped to that level, if I'm going to debate people who believe they came down ["descended"] from monkeys), I got suspended (or something like that). But I'm not angry with them for it. . .ONLY myself! But, all that aside, I see that nary a one has answered either of our questions. . .and that, for me, is and was worth the VACATION!!!
I wondered where you had gone Nice to see you back. Nehemiah, evolutionists don't believe they "descended" as such. If anything, we've ascended. And you're incorrect regarding monkeys, which is a common misconception. We have not evolved from monkeys, as they did not exist when we were in our pre-human stages. I think you're confusing when people claim that a certain genus of primates are the closest to ours, as we share the same ancestor and are therefore in the same family - this is different. Everything around us is as evolved as we are, it's just that they're part of a different species. It's not like the monkeys we see in the wild are behind us. It's a time-line which all living organisms evolve together on. Monkeys are as evolved from their predecessing sub-species as we are to ours, such as homo-neanderthalensis - which is our most recent relative, living from as early as ~350,000-650,000 years ago to (as far as we know) ~30,000 years ago. That is, if I'm understand evolution correctly.
The question of where the universe came from can not be answered by science, or religion. Religion just offers an answer that makes no sense. In pre-history people thought lightning came from a god. Now we know it comes from clouds and their interactions creating charged ions. This does not mean that the religions were right - and in fact proved them wrong. The universe is like lightning. There is no sufficient data at this point. You can keep on saying "God made it" or "Fairies made it" or "Sarah Palin made it" but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it wrong for an Atheist to simply say "we do not know yet". It is a moot point. I personally believe, as I stated, in my own simple theory. Nothing created it. Nothing will end it. It just is. Sure, the universe might have a gradual expansion until heat death, or may contract to the big crunch and repeat itself - but it has been and always will be, with neither beginning nor end. I believe in an infinite number of universes, and in each one is a variation of our own, or we are a variation of it. If you cannot wrap your mind around the concept of "always was, always will be, no beginning, no end" then that's your problem. As for human consciousness I already know where that originates. It's called the Neocortex, something that humans have the largest of, followed by the apes, and the rest of the mammals. Mammals are all conscious thinking creatures, with higher emotions. You can debate that all you want, but I can tell you from looking at the structure of the brain in all of our relatives - the mammals - we all share the neocortex, and we all have emotions. Granted, a mouse does not have the range that we do, however their neocortext is only some 60,000 nerves, while ours numbers in the billions. We have a complex mind, enhanced by each new branch until Homo sapiens sapiens dropped out of evolution, and became a mass population incapable of further adaptation due to genetic spread (smaller populations adapt and evolve much faster than large ones. Humans have close to 7 billion - we stopped adapting physically thousands of years ago). Even though Mice do not share a large brain, they are genetically closer to us than horses, carnivores, and most other animals. They share so much in common, they make the perfect lab animal. Their thoughts are simple, but their base emotions and responses are like our own. Fear, aggression, anger, and anxiety. You move up the chain to monkeys, and you get more than just that. You move up the chain to the great apes, and we're talking just about every emotion that we have. You move up to Pan which is our closest relatives with the Bonobos and the Chimpanzees and you have beings who are quite conscious of their surroundings, and can communicate. As can the other great apes such as the gorilla, and even the orangutan which is not in the same Subfamily as humans. The Subfamily Homininae contains Humans, Chimps, Bonobos, and Gorillas. So yes, its obvious they would also be conscious. Orangutans are conscious, and they're further separated but in the same family as humans Hominidae. In the Superfamily Hominoidea are all the apes, and I can guarantee you that each one of them is conscious to some degree, and even a degree of consciousness is still consciousness. It's not unique to humans, and it certainly did not come from a higher being. If I cut out your frontal lobe and all of your neocortex, you would be a vegetable with only base responses to stimuli - reflexes to pain. Same thing happens to apes, mice, cows, et cetera. Now what about Birds? Birds are Dinosaurs, and have been around just as long as we have as Sauropods, and us mammals as Synapsids. Synapsids and Sauropods evolved about the same time some 350 million years ago, after the Amphibians. Synapsids, well, they ruled the world until the end of the Permian, at which point 90% of all life on earth died out. Luckily for us not all the Synapsids did. Sauropods evolved and filled the empty niches, and spawned the Dinosaurs, and specifically among them the Archosaurs. You know Archosaurs, by the way, they're the ones crapping on your car. Before they were birds, and as a branch became birds, they were also the raptors. Well, after the nice extinction event of 65 mya the large archosaurs were wiped out, with the exception of birds which had established themselves beforehand. Synapsids had also survived, but only one group did, and that was the mammals. Mammals took over, and in a sense the Synapsids did again. Now how does this pertain to consciousness? Birds are smart, capable of complex thinking and tasks, and are quite easily listed as conscious. They have no neocortex. This shows pretty much where Synapsids differ from Sauropods. The Sauropods did not develop a neocortex, while the synapsids did. What did the Sauropods do differently? Well, birds have a large cerebrum, as do humans, however they lack the neocortex, but like us they have the other structures, as there is more than one kind of cortex in our own brain. Rather than develop a new layer or part of the brain, they recycled the material already there. This is not divine, this is adaptation. Understanding how adaptation and evolution works is key to knowing the science behind it. To say monkeys begot man is incorrect, as we are apes. To say that apes were around, and then became man is also incorrect and ignorant. Rather, through evolution and adaptation there would be a group of proto-ape which evolved along not a straight line, but a tree limb. As they went on, one group specifies, and goes into the trees, and continued to split into different isolated groups, while at the same time the other group continued on a path to being larger. This larger animal, well, split again into isolated groups, and each time a population is isolated it adapts to its surroundings. Since there is little genetic drift, their genes continue to mutate and adapt, but are no longer the same as the other group. What often happens is a group that splits off actually survives, while the others do not. Then from them would or could come another split. Like how if you have a branch, and you cut the large part that is starting to grow out, but leave the smaller offshoot, the offshoot can become larger and have offshoots of its own. Gradually we come to the proto-humans. They're not chimps, they're not gorillas, they're not orangutans. Instead they have features of all of these, but have not taken any direct path. Through isolation though, one group will become the gorillas, another becomes the orangutans, and finally a group will become proto-man. Proto-man specifies but again, splits. What happens here is that one portion favors the trees, the forest settings, and eventually will become the chimps. The other group goes to the grasslands, the plains of Africa, and adapts by walking upright. However, it is interesting to note that after the first split of the proto-chimp and proto-human groups, there was a re-convergence. The populations intermingled, and proto-chimps mixed with the proto-human groups which were both still fairly close... thus our genetics was intermingled again at a later date. It wasn't like a dude was getting it on with a chimp though, at the time both groups shared similar features, looks, and overall design. Finally though the split solidifies, and proto-man goes through his own tree. Many different species of Homo were around, evolved, adapted, and died. The last ones around before the rise of Modern Man were Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Florinsis, and Homo Erectus. We did not come from any of those, though, our own species was also around as Homo sapiens idaltu. That is four species of human living at the same time. Gradually Erectus, which was already in decline, died out, and then came Homo sapiens sapiens - that's us. Cro-Magnons = H.s. sapiens by the way, they're just the early ones. We out competed Neanderthals, until finally there was just one small pocket left in Spain. When we got to Spain, they went extinct. Finally there is Florinsis which lived until a few hundred years ago, a small offshoot from Erectus. Go look up the Hobbit Man or whatever they call it. And now, after I have said all of this... I expect the following. Unacceptance Avoidance Nitpicking Denial Using misunderstandings of my generalizations against me Marginalization because I don't believe in God and finally trying to say I am wrong. This is my last and final volley into an useless battle. I cannot convince anyone if they don't want to be convinced. Unlike a religion though, I won't be going door to door selling my point of view, I won't be intruding on your property leaving bibles and leaflets at your door, and I won't be shouting from a corner that you will die in sin, go to hell, and burn for all eternity if you do not follow a God that 'loves' you. I simply will write my ideas, and voice them in a public forum - not jam it down the throats of folks enjoying a day at home or going to the store.
Jackuul, you are forcing me to think... Hmmm... Why didn't God mention evolution? Maybe he created humans directly, but evolution is a ontinuous process.. and when humans were expelled from Eden garden, then at that time, life on planet earth was already booming with millions of plants and animals... and evolution was a continuous process. Maybe Adam and Eve met our common ancestors... probably learnt to hunt and fish from them, in return for teaching them about wheel, fire and techniques to make garments outta skin hides... It is possible that free trade took place at that time... And it was tax free... My biggest problem of not understanding theology is... Why did God say he made earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th day? We know that part is untrue. Maybe he meant 6 epoch's of time... and it must be missed in translation... Maybe 1 epoch = 100 million year... Then it make perfect sense. And now the biggest obstacle in understanding theological history... Noah's Ark. My heart says it must be true... but my brain hurts... How did pairs of millions of animals fit into a ship. Even if that Ark was ten times the size of Titanic, it is still not possible. Imagine the logistics involved. Even simple things like feeding the animals and cleaning their shit every morning must have been humongous. I wonder what sort of system Noah must have implemented. Must have been one of the brightest management brains of all times...
ah crap. Nehemia's back. I think it's impossible to believe the bible (or Torah, Quran etc for that matter) literally, and remain sane. Nowadays, they're too inconsistent with our proven scientific conception of the universe. BTW- did you know that the Jewish Torah explicitly acknowledges the existence of Egyptian gods?
Nehemia asks of atheists what he cannot himself provide: answers, as in proof, for some of the greatest mysteries. Sure, any bozos can share their opinions (the universe come from a cosmic fart! the universe is the atom of another universe! God/Goddess XYZ did it! Turtles all the way down!), but opinions are not answers. So I don't understand his gloating. On the other hand, science did provide answers (not opinions!) for about a few billions other questions. How many did his religion provided? None. Nice track record. Maybe a little modesty wouldn't hurt.
It says something in the region of '[the jewish] god prevailed over the lesser egyptian ones'- thus explicitly affirming the existence of the egyptian gods.
(1) Someone made the universe. (2) The universe made itself. Pick one. There isn't enough evidence to confirm either but there's at least some to support (2). Also I thought the big bang theory was fading out and being replaced with the big wobble? The problem with the big bang was always that when everything in the universe was squashed into one tiny point in space it couldn't escape its own gravity without help. So what helped it? As I said there isn't enough on either front but honestly if you find it hard to believe or even recognise the big bang theory but your perfectly fine in believing in a big man in the sky then you would seem to be one contradictory individual. One sounds as insane as the other lol
When did god tell you that? All I know of that statement is in a book that was allegedly written by men just under two thousand years ago. Regarding the stories in the bible, it's best not to think about them, for embarrassment ensues. Jackuul, your post was very interesting. I was shocked to read that we have dropped out of evolution. Could you elaborate on that more please?
According to what you just stated, and by your own rationale, “scienceâ€, also, “just offers an answer that makes no senseâ€, right? Or do you not see what you just stated? How can they both not answer the question of where the universe came from, yet you only point out “Religions being the one that “makes no senseâ€? Is this as fair as you’d like to be treated? How can this have been “pre-historyâ€, with you having knowledge of it? This is what some of you evolutionists do better that anything, use words and phrases that are clearly oxymoronic; and contradict each other, as well as contradicting a previous position that you may have held as a belief. And for me that somewhat tough to understand. Another is “descended from monkeys†.And now that attention is being called to the physical definition and direction of “descendingâ€, some of you state/assert that this is not what you really mean, “man didn’t really ‘descend’ from a monkey, but ‘ascended’ from a monkey’.†Now then just which is it? All humans, “descend†and/or “descended†from other humans (except for Adam, who was created from the most insignificant thing that GOD Created, “dustâ€), with one exception, JESUS CHRIST. In fact, JESUS CHRIST is not said to have “descended†from GOD THE FATHER, but rather “came forthâ€; And the reason it is stated that HE “came forth†rather than “descended†from THE FATHER is that, human who “descendâ€, come from the “bowelâ€, below the waist, of other humans. JESUS CHRIST “came forth†from “the bosom†of GOD THE FATHER. If, “There is no sufficient data at this pointâ€, then how can you know that, “The universe is like lightningâ€? I’m getting more confused here. Without telling me, “It just isâ€, or “If you cannot wrap your mind around the concept. . .then that's your problemâ€, please explain to me how “Nothing†goes about Creating something? How does 0 go about creating 1, 2, 3, etc.? I mean, if 0 contains 1, 2, 3, etc. then how can it still be 0? To me, you’re making no sense. I believe GOD (and NO! I am in no way “religiousâ€; nor do I subscribe to any “religionâ€). I do believe ALL SCRIPTURE as Documented in certain Bibles. Now, why is what you believe more accurate and sensible than what I believe? And were it not for the movie, “The Matrixâ€, would we have such a word as “Neocortexâ€? Does this mean that cows get jealous? Horses hate? BTW, if the Brain tells us when we feel (physical) pain, why doesn’t the Brain tell us when it feels pain? Now, rather that to deal with all the supposition and theory that follows, I’ll just skip down to your next statement that I’ll address. Rather than to disappoint you, I should give you what you “expectâ€. . .but I won’t, because, believe it or not, I do believe that you somewhat believe what you’re saying. But here’s the rub, What makes your belief any more, viable and believable than mine. Why should I believe people who want ‘acceptance’, but at the same time reject that which they cannot understand. . .without first trying to understand it? Why should I not avoid you, and others ‘ats’ and ‘ags’ like the plague, when “x-tians†and “xmasâ€, is how you all [sometimes] write “Christians†and “Christmasâ€? Why shouldn’t your belief be denied by me, when you deny THE VERY GOD that I believe? I could go on, but you surely know this from Scripture, if nothing else, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.â€. . .aka “The Golden Ruleâ€. When I do what I do, you refer to it as "jam it down the throats of folks enjoying a day at home or going to the store", yet when you do what you do, you calling it as, "I simply will write my ideas, and voice them in a public forum - not jam it down the throats of folks enjoying a day at home or going to the store.". Interesting double standard and "double mindedness" you have there.
The Neocortex has been around for years, and you did not disappoint me in using my analogies against me. As I stated that it was my last volley, I refuse any further replies to insipid nitpicking. Read a book. A science book. About the structures of the brain. And if you want one more clue, check out the structure of the eye in mammals (humans specifically) and then that of Cephalopods (Octopi and Squid). Our eyes are actually backwards and have blind spots because they are... backwards. Theirs on the other hand are correct and logical. If there is a "God" he spent a hell of a lot more time on them than us.
How am I "nitpicking"? The questions that I asked you were very legitimate and reasonable. Why not just admit that you cannot answer them, rather that attempting to imply that they're just "insipid nitpicking"? Would you not want me to show you that same honesty and courtesy? Maybe, just maybe, that would explain why you've never seen GOD; could it be because HE only shows up behind you, or maybe in one of your "blind spots"? Think about it, if you were god, and "Cephalopods" believe you more that some of the mankind that you had made, wouldn't you tend to be nicer to the "Cephalopods" than to the unbelieving mankind? BTW, I think it to be very unfavorably revealing of you to just completely ignore all my questions to you in the previous post; and use as a cop out, this being your "last volley". Why are you being so angry and bitter towards me? Did you not learn anything during my absence?
Nehemiah, we all already know about what the bible claims about human history, but that's all it does, claim. It does not give any evidence whatsoever. I've just realised something: of course you're going to think that "atheism" doesn't have answers to certain things, because it doesn't claim things without evidence first, therefore if there isn't enough evidence for something, it doesn't bother speculating about. Remember, quality over quantity. Just because the bible has a supposed explanation for a lot of things, doesn't mean anything really. What if I believed in Greek mythology, which has answers for where the universe came from et cetera. That doesn't make it any more valid, it just means that it gives an explanation, and a hollow one at that. I'm afraid quoting bible passages doesn't count as evidence. I could quote passages from `Mein Kampf` or the `Communist manifesto` to explain lots of things, but without tests to trial claims, they're as empty as the bible. To believe men ascended from other humans requires faith and faith only, but to believe men ascended from a line of evolution, understanding of biology and results of experiments are required. You must admit that the latter seems the most logic to follow? Then again, it has been said many times that religion or possibly even theism, doesn't follow logic itself, so by saying this I may just be pissing in the wind. Oh by the way, to claim that Jackuul needs to explain how the universe "just happened", would require you to explain how god "just happened" - both cannot be done. Why do we need answers anyway? We're never, ever, going to get full answers for everything, or maybe anything. Shouldn't we just forget about these things? All it's doing is showing just how dependent we as humans are at needing answers for everything we cannot understand. Let's transcend that. Who cares how things started? Leave the nitty-gritty to god or scientists, depending on which camp you're in. We only live once, so we're wasting time going around in circles. I'm afraid no-one is going to change their mind or views. Let's concentrate on what we do here in this life - live and let live