Question for christians/jews/muslims

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:25 pm

Ahso!;1429370 wrote: God does not belong in a conversation regarding science, and evolution in particular. I haven't mentioned God. That's you. Your mind is as closed as Fred Phelps. The two of you should get along famously.

Science is nothing but what-ifs phrased in positive statements. They're called "hypotheses." Perhaps you've heard the term. Run in fear, coward, but you will probably live longer if you acknowledge that the origin of humans doesn't matter in the way we lead our lives.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:26 pm

AnneBoleyn;1429389 wrote: Ahso! believes there are adults who play with imaginary friends. I'm sure in his life he has thoroughly considered god already. He has his truth, there is no god. It would be absurd for him to backtrack on what he has already thought through. He has reached his conclusion, has made his decision & is acting decisively. I think it is stability. His belief system is strong, he is confident he came to the conclusion right for him. I think in this he shows strength of character & non-passivity. I do respect him for it. That's fine, but the conversation I've been in hasn't been about God at all. Ahso (and apparently you) read that into it all by yourselves.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:33 pm

gmc;1429382 wrote: posted by saint

I wasn't referring to you specifically.

Oh. Ok then.

There are plenty of christians who believe natural disasters, or just anything, are a punishment from god.

True. I consider them the less intelligent and enlightened Christians.

What makes you think I or any other atheist believes life is meaningless?

Ok, but random for sure, right? If you believed in a pattern, that, by default, would describe God.

Which version of Christianity are you referring to?

My version. I believe in a very BIG God, big enough to encompass a Universe. I guess I have some funny views on Christianity. ( I used to belong to the United Church of Christ when I was little) I believe that the New Testament is True and that Jesus did exist and did accomplish all the miracles associated with him. The old testament I see as a collection of good stories and (mostly) good advice for living that are not scientific fact, since they were handed down for centuries before being written down.

How about the current fuss over gay marriage? It's mainly christians that are so vehemently opposed to it. What is it then - treat all others as we would be treated and love everyone unless the preacher tells them otherwise?

Again, I don't get that. I don't attend church anymore...at all. But what I learned there was that Jesus was very much about "Love, Live, and Let Live." I'm for that. I obviously oversimplify everything, but hey, that's me.

So are you sure your version of Christianity is the right one? I dare say there are plenty of forums where you will find fellow Christians only too happy to tell you where you are wrong.

Oh, fascinating point and very true! But, yes, I'm convinced that it is. Like I told ahso, the universe seems created to give rise to intelligent life. To me, that impies a Creator who is concerned with sentience. Makes sense to me, especially knowing that you exist after the body dies, that monotheism would be the way to go and that the Creator would attempt to contact each sentient race. (I sometimes wonder if there aren't billions of separate "Messiahs" on billions of inhabited planets in the galaxies.) Again, strange, but it's how I reconcile a scientific education with a religious upbringing.

How about images of god?

That's one of those things that makes no sense to me, so I ignore it. Meh.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:41 pm

Accountable;1429393 wrote: That's fine, but the conversation I've been in hasn't been about God at all. Ahso (and apparently you) read that into it all by yourselves.
You said an intelligent being created the first DNA. That would mean a being that existed before any life such as we know it did. Besides God, I've referred to your imaginary friend as a mad scientist and a super human. Take your pick. In the scenario you've set up it amounts to the creator of life, and that, my friend, sounds an awful lot like God in spite of your denial. Find someone else to do your thing with. Don't be mad because I don't want to play.

BTW - it's a strawman!

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:43 pm

Accountable;1429393 wrote: That's fine, but the conversation I've been in hasn't been about God at all. Ahso (and apparently you) read that into it all by yourselves.

In my comments I did not say how I felt, so "(and apparently you)" is not appropriate. Until I say something myself it remains unknown to you & unfortunately sometimes for me! My point is that there is no point in being hypothetical about something when a conclusion has been reached. That's being indecisive. About the G Word he's very decisive.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 2:51 pm

Question 4 Accountable. You said "Some intelligent being designed the DNA"

Any intelligent being in particular? Why wouldn't someone think you are discussing G-d? Or God, or gods for that matter?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 3:52 pm

posted by saint

True. I consider them the less intelligent and enlightened Christians.

and they would perhaps consider you unenlightened and possibly a heretic. What fun you could start your own religious conflict.

My version. I believe in a very BIG God, big enough to encompass a Universe. I guess I have some funny views on Christianity. ( I used to belong to the United Church of Christ when I was little) I believe that the New Testament is True and that Jesus did exist and did accomplish all the miracles associated with him. The old testament I see as a collection of good stories and (mostly) good advice for living that are not scientific fact, since they were handed down for centuries before being written down.Again,

I don't get that. I don't attend church anymore...at all. But what I learned there was that Jesus was very much about "Love, Live, and Let Live." I'm for that. I obviously oversimplify everything, but hey, that's me.

You could have such fun on religious forums arguing with your co-religionists if you wanted. In my opinion some religious people get angry not because you are challenging their beliefs and don't share them but because they don't have the peace of mind that faith is supposed to bring. In a very real sense you can't argue with faith and a belief in god and if that was all there was to it there would be no problem but some of the religious beliefs are so ridiculous they should be ridiculed endlessly.

Ok, but random for sure, right? If you believed in a pattern, that, by default, would describe God.

No not at all. It's not about belief, if you can discern a pattern in evolution and see a logic behind it that is something you can prove to your own satisfaction. It does not follow that a god or gods had anything to do with it. Finding some kind of cosmic knitting pattern is not proof of god it's evidence there is a pattern.

posted by ahso

God does not belong in a conversation regarding science, and evolution in particular. I'm happy to demonstrate that all day long. But play "what if" games? No thanks!

Yes he does. science and evolution help explain the world about us do they point to the presence of a creator - yes or no. I would say no. I can't prove god doesn't exist but I don't need to

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:12 pm

"Yes he does. science and evolution help explain the world about us do they point to the presence of a creator - yes or no. I would say no. I can't prove god doesn't exist but I don't need to"

He? btw, like Jews write "G-d", Xians write, referring to JC or G-d, He or Him with a capital H. Just observing idiosyncrasies.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:38 pm

AnneBoleyn;1429404 wrote: Question 4 Accountable. You said "Some intelligent being designed the DNA"

Any intelligent being in particular?No.

AnneBoleyn;1429404 wrote: Why wouldn't someone think you are discussing G-d? Or God, or gods for that matter?

Until I say something myself it remains unknown to you. Besides, Ahso is convinced there is no God, therefore God couldn't be included in the conversation.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 7:44 pm

AnneBoleyn;1429397 wrote: In my comments I did not say how I felt, so "(and apparently you)" is not appropriate. Until I say something myself it remains unknown to you & unfortunately sometimes for me! My point is that there is no point in being hypothetical about something when a conclusion has been reached. That's being indecisive. About the G Word he's very decisive.
Sure, but existence of a god is not the discussion. The discussion is about whether intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. Nothing about God at all.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 8:47 pm

No, you don't get it do you. Evolution and ID being exclusively mutual is YOUR discussion. I've opted out. When it comes to a subject such as evolution it's best to deal with facts instead of speculation. Now if you've got your intelligent being around who would like to tell us about his/her/its plan and reasoning behind it and has been vetted I'm happy to listen. Otherwise, I'm not interested. Thanks anyway.

Why don't you lighten the load and play Rock Off with us.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 10, 2013 9:04 pm

Ahso!;1429427 wrote: When it comes to a subject such as evolution it's best to deal with facts instead of speculation.
:yh_rotfl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:58 am

Accountable;1429429 wrote: :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 12:33 pm

Of course it is always possible that god does exist and we are all figments of his demented imagination.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 2:15 pm

gmc;1429414 wrote:

and they would perhaps consider you unenlightened and possibly a heretic. What fun you could start your own religious conflict.

No doubt. I don't discuss religion with people in the real world. I'd get my ass kicked.

science and evolution help explain the world about us do they point to the presence of a creator - yes or no. I would say no.

And I'd actually agree with you....at this point in our development. I consider our level of science on the scale of the universe about the equivalent of a one year old's knowledge of the world, though. There are literally billions of things we don't know. Hell...we can't even unify our most basic understandings of the big and the small.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:14 pm

Ever wondered

Q. Why is there TIME?

I was once told, it is God's way of preventing everything from happening all at once.

Well gee, I realized that answer wouldn't work so well for atheists, so I went with it's Natures way. Somehow, that just doesn't work so well.

Doesn't matter, not say'n that is why there is TIME anyway.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:04 am

tude dog;1429521 wrote: Ever wondered

Q. Why is there TIME?

I was once told, it is God's way of preventing everything from happening all at once.

Well gee, I realized that answer wouldn't work so well for atheists, so I went with it's Natures way. Somehow, that just doesn't work so well.

Doesn't matter, not say'n that is why there is TIME anyway.

It might take me a bit to wrap my head around this one.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:56 am

YZGI;1429536 wrote: It might take me a bit to wrap my head around this one.Take your time.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:35 am

Accountable;1429547 wrote: Take your time.

:wah:WOW! Another curve. Do I have time?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:36 am

I never seem to have time.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:15 am

Ahso!;1429187 wrote: Which would mean that it's not natural selection at all if a super human designed the DNA.

What is the problem with the concept of someone designing a system that uses natural selection as one of its mechanisms?

That is no different to a programmer writing a system that uses neural learing to optimise its workings whilst in operation.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:24 am

Accountable;1429392 wrote: I haven't mentioned God. That's you. Your mind is as closed as Fred Phelps. The two of you should get along famously.

Science is nothing but what-ifs phrased in positive statements. They're called "hypotheses." Perhaps you've heard the term. Run in fear, coward, but you will probably live longer if you acknowledge that the origin of humans doesn't matter in the way we lead our lives.

Science is more about turning hypothises into theories by introducing logical proofs and observational evidence to corroberate them.

Discussion is not about calling people cowards

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:27 am

Saint_;1429395 wrote:

Ok, but random for sure, right? If you believed in a pattern, that, by default, would describe God.

Why?

Of course there is a pattern to life as there is to the universe. Even if there is no God then the laws of physics would ensure that was the case.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 6:17 am

Bryn Mawr;1429991 wrote: Discussion is not about calling people cowards

Ahso's clearly not interested in discussion when he makes unfounded claims then refuses to examine them. The accusation, however accurate, was designed to dislodge him and continue the discussion. Obviously I was unsuccessful. I believe he's let personal animosity influence him here. Had my post challenging his spurious claim about evolution and intelligent design being mutually exclusive come from anyone else, he might have given it some thought rather than his habitual duck & dodge.

He'd rather ruin a pretty interesting discussion than concede an obvious point. He shows his compulsive competitive nature that he berates everyone else of having.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:46 am

Bryn Mawr;1429992 wrote: Why?

Of course there is a pattern to life as there is to the universe. Even if there is no God then the laws of physics would ensure that was the case.

That's what I think, too. I also think Saint_'s experience does not depend on there being a God. I'm so glad you said this Bryn.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:04 am

Bryn Mawr;1429988 wrote: What is the problem with the concept of someone designing a system that uses natural selection as one of its mechanisms?

That is no different to a programmer writing a system that uses neural learing to optimise its workings whilst in operation.Nothing wrong with that discussion whatsoever as long as we're discussing it in that context and the foundation of the concept is established. An example might be a bacterium introduced into the body to offset another bacterium.

The discussion my angry friend wants to engage in involves a concept that has no foundation (a creator of life) other than storytelling where any investigation into such a being has failed to produce evidence.

I'm happy to discuss Natural Selection without the inclusion of any creator. Asking me if the two are mutually exclusive assumes both are accepted concepts. I'm not going to accept the idea of a creator without hard evidence of that creator. Period. Let crybaby have that discussion with a person that's interested in it because I'm not.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:19 am

Ahso!;1430022 wrote: Nothing wrong with that discussion whatsoever as long as we're discussing it in that context and the foundation of the concept is established. An example might be a bacterium introduced into the body to offset another bacterium.

The discussion my angry friend wants to engage in involves a concept that has no foundation (a creator of life) other than storytelling where any investigation into such a being has failed to produce evidence.

I'm happy to discuss Natural Selection without the inclusion of any creator. Asking me if the two are mutually exclusive assumes both are accepted concepts. I'm not going to accept the idea of a creator without hard evidence of that creator. Period. Let crybaby have that discussion with a person that's interested in it because I'm not.

You lie. You, Ahso, are a liar. You made the claim:

Ahso!;1429082 wrote: This is the problem with ID folks, they continue to call ID Evolution. That's what Pahu does as well.and refused to discuss it at all.

You are a coward in that you, just like any other zealot, are afraid to examine your own beliefs. You state as much here.

Ahso!;1429276 wrote: Not unless it's out of nature. You want to call that "random chance" go right ahead, but you'd sound awful silly to those who actually understand the process.

No we can't agree that it matters not one whit! If we're the product of a process by a mad scientist who started it all in an incubator, it's all controlled and I'm not buying one morsel of that unless you want to produce your creator. Do that and I'll happily admit my error.

You're only willing to pretend to discuss issues, and only so long as you can control what's said. Odd that you continuously and consistently engage in the very activities you falsely accuse others of doing.

I'm done with you, troll.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:21 am

Accountable;1430031 wrote:

I'm done with you, troll.Promise?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:53 am

Another dead end to a discussion when the existence of a creator won't be assumed by one party. Who's trying to control the discussion?

FYI, I understand that I cannot control anyone other than myself. You, OTOH, cannot accept when I refuse to take your direction. If I'm as resistant to facing my own "beliefs" as you claim the readers of the thread will determine that and I'll appear stubborn. Let them decide for themselves without you trying to influence them by employing cheap ticks as name-calling. If your arguments are as strong as you claim, it's a shame you've chosen to cheapen yourself enough to make me appear the more informed.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:48 pm

tude dog;1429521 wrote: Ever wondered

Q. Why is there TIME?

I was once told, it is God's way of preventing everything from happening all at once.

Well gee, I realized that answer wouldn't work so well for atheists, so I went with it's Natures way. Somehow, that just doesn't work so well.

Doesn't matter, not say'n that is why there is TIME anyway.

Why did it work for you? Is time linear or circular? How do you klnow everything doesn't happen at once but we remember it in such a way that it seems time exists? If people can remember past lives (allegedly) why not future lives as well? Is Deja vu proof there is such a thing? Recently came across someone who claimed to use hypnosis to help people remember future lives, claimed it had been used to predict the stock market by investment companies. be fair to say I am seriously sceptical about it especially when he could cite no evidence for it but find the notion intriguing.

How about fate? You have free will but god knows what you are going to do beforehand so are you really choosing or did god decide that when he created you? Or God has a plan for your life and everything that happens is down to him. Take your pick.

Cogito ergo sum. An argument I quite like - the only certainty you have is that you exist but does that prove god does? I would say no. It's nice for you that you have such certainty but it's something you choose to believe that doesn't give you (no not you in particular but religious people in general) a moral superiority no matter how much you choose to believe it.

I would go so far as to say religion does not give a greater morality and that atheists are without morals for the simple reason that religion requires you abrogate all responsibility for your actions and trust in god or those who interpret his will for them while an atheist is making his own decision. One cannot act freely and responsibly the other does.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:56 pm

Humans developed moral/ethical behavior, probably in the early days of hunter gatherer society.

They developed religion in an attempt to enforce those moral and ethical practices.

I believe God was there to help with the first step.

The second, I think we did all by ourselves.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:39 pm

LarsMac;1430051 wrote: Humans developed moral/ethical behavior, probably in the early days of hunter gatherer society.

Fine

LarsMac;1430051 wrote: They developed religion in an attempt to enforce those moral and ethical practices.

One way of looking at it.

I see religion as a way to communicate from one generation to another the basic morals and values.

LarsMac;1430051 wrote: I believe God was there to help with the first step.

The second, I think we did all by ourselves.

And he gave us the ability.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:19 pm

LarsMac;1430051 wrote: Humans developed moral/ethical behavior, probably in the early days of hunter gatherer society.

They developed religion in an attempt to enforce those moral and ethical practices.

I believe God was there to help with the first step.

The second, I think we did all by ourselves.Out of curiosity, why are you assuming that one social adaptation is influenced by a God and another one not?

It appears as though you're saying the one that came first in your mind took more imagination than the second.

It is possible that reverence to nature and therefore dedications, rites and rituals (religion) came before social morality.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:58 pm

Ahso!;1430082 wrote: Out of curiosity, why are you assuming that one social adaptation is influenced by a God and another one not?
Because the one appeals to my understanding of God, and the other appeals to my understanding of humans.

Morality is an understanding of what is right. How to treat those with whom you live. A study of modern hunter gatherer humans shows that they have a strong moral sense. I believe we developed that as a method of learning to live together. Most animals who live in cooperative societies have some form of social ethics. My universe includes God. And I would assume that God would have some influence in developing ethic, morals and altruism. Religion is a human construct, with a principle purpose of enforcing some set of ethics and laws. The evolution of religion began when humans sought some control over their environment, instead of simply being a part of it.

Ahso!;1430082 wrote: It appears as though you're saying the one that came first in your mind took more imagination than the second.
No, I would say that the first came quite natural. It was the second that took imagination.

Ahso!;1430082 wrote: It is possible that reverence to nature and therefore dedications, rites and rituals (religion) came before social morality.

IT is possible, I suppose. I would offer that morality came natural, though.

Most hunter-gatherer groups seem to have had some basic morality.

Thou shalt not kill. (usually means thou shall not kill other members of the group.)

Thou shalt not steal (from other group members)

Thou shalt not bear false witness( don't lie about other group members)

etc., etc.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:05 pm

gmc;1430049 wrote: Why did it work for you? Is time linear or circular? How do you klnow everything doesn't happen at once but we remember it in such a way that it seems time exists? If people can remember past lives (allegedly) why not future lives as well? Is Deja vu proof there is such a thing? Recently came across someone who claimed to use hypnosis to help people remember future lives, claimed it had been used to predict the stock market by investment companies. be fair to say I am seriously sceptical about it especially when he could cite no evidence for it but find the notion intriguing.

My experience, TIME is linear, if you will.

But then, I am not in a spaceship flying away at near speed of light to a rock 10 light years away, then soon come back at the same speed.

For you, here on Earth, 20 years passed. Me, perhaps one year. Or such possibilities are possible, so I am told.

Doesn't matter, it's all relative.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:36 am

LarsMac;1430085 wrote: Because the one appeals to my understanding of God, and the other appeals to my understanding of humans.And that's what's important, appealing to your understanding of each? What is your understanding of God and where did that come from?

LarsMac;1430085 wrote: Morality is an understanding of what is right.Is it? Did the concept of right and wrong come before morality?LarsMac;1430085 wrote: How to treat those with whom you live.So morality/right&wrong are confined locally? LarsMac;1430085 wrote: A study of modern hunter gatherer humansWhat study are you referring to?LarsMac;1430085 wrote: shows that they have a strong moral sense.Morality is a "sense"? LarsMac;1430085 wrote: I believe we developed that as a method of learning to live together.You might be right and I might agree with you. However, you're now labeling morality as a method rather than a sense. LarsMac;1430085 wrote: Most animals who live in cooperative societies have some form of social ethics. Most animals are philosophical about their coexistence? LarsMac;1430085 wrote: My universe includes God. And I would assume that God would have some influence in developing ethic, morals and altruism.I'm not certain altruism belongs so closely associated with morality and ethics. Altruism has been observed by many species with much smaller brains than ours and appears instinctual while morality and ethics, being philosophical, is more of a cognitive thought process. LarsMac;1430085 wrote: Religion is a human construct, with a principle purpose of enforcing some set of ethics and laws.I agree religion is a human construct, though we obviously differ on why. I think religion was created out of a need to negotiate and reconcile with forces not understood or known. Possibly as time passed, religion, like almost any other human construct, became a tool for manipulating masses. LarsMac;1430085 wrote: The evolution of religion began when humans sought some control over their environment, instead of simply being a part of it.It appears to me that that occurred somewhere along the line, but I'm not convinced religion itself was invented with the intent of controlling others, though religious stories such as the bible do appear to use religion to that end. I think it's important to remember though that the bible is only one of many religious ideas that relies heavily on the concept of a controlling God. I see religious corruption as the result of a God-myth that's outlived itself. Religion has been and still is relevant though I think the God idea has to go so religious ceremonies, rites and rituals might have the freedom to adapt to todays realities.

Simply because a thing can be attributed to Evolutionary Selection doesn't mean it's the best outcome or condition for the times. As an example; sexual drive for the purpose to procreate is not necessarily a healthy behavior for the species or the planet. So curbing either the behavior itself or the consequences of the behavior are necessary to the survival of the species. It's the same with myths; they might fit a certain time, but it's important when to recognize that the time has come for change. That's where the God myth stands today. It'll change, we're living during a certain period of that transition. It appears to me to be happening quite swiftly too.

zenda7 · Post by **zenda7** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 6:44 am

"Simply because a thing can be attributed to Evolutionary Selection doesn't mean it's the best outcome or condition for the times. As an example; sexual drive for the purpose to procreate is not necessarily a healthy behavior for the species or the planet. So curbing either the behavior itself or the consequences of the behavior are necessary to the survival of the species. It's the same with myths; they might fit a certain time, but it's important when to recognize that the time has come for change. That's where the God myth stands today. It'll change, we're living during a certain period of that transition. It appears to me to be happening quite swiftly too."

I completely agree with this.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:02 pm

At least you put that all in quotes, a LINK would have been nice. Sorry if my GoogleFu wasn't all that good.

zenda7;1443462 wrote: "Simply because a thing can be attributed to Evolutionary Selection doesn't mean it's the best outcome or condition for the times.

Hardly a revelation.

zenda7;1443462 wrote: As an example; sexual drive for the purpose to procreate is not necessarily a healthy behavior for the species or the planet.

Species, I can work with.

The planet it a rock.

zenda7;1443462 wrote: So curbing either the behavior itself or the consequences of the behavior are necessary to the survival of the species.

I have read, heard/tell that way more "species" have come and gone than exist today. I suspect that in in the far future when the Sun collapse/go nova, many more species of life will come and go.

zenda7;1443462 wrote: It's the same with myths; they might fit a certain time, but it's important when to recognize that the time has come for change.

I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly.

zenda7;1443462 wrote: That's where the God myth stands today.

Oh Golly

I don't know what the God myth is.

zenda7;1443462 wrote: It'll change, we're living during a certain period of that transition. It appears to me to be happening quite swiftly too."

I completely agree with this.

Zenda, I don't know who wrote that foolishness, but would like it to know just who he/she is.

Didn't spend much time at all to search as it mostly be out of idle curiosity.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Dec 30, 2013 5:16 pm

It was Ahso, Zenda quoted from directly above her response. Gosh, you're lazy.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 01, 2014 7:40 am

tude dog;1443552 wrote:

The planet it a rock.

If the planet were just a rock then we would have no existence. The planet is a complex interlocking ecosystem that incorporates a series of feedback loops which have so far served to keep the environment within the narrow limits required to sustain life.

As a species, disregard the planet at your peril. We are on the verge of several of those feedback loops reaching critical mass and making a paradigm shift in planetary conditions - should the ocean temperature rise enough to start the mass release of methane hydrate for example or the polar ice melt drop the salinity of the artic ocean enough to stop the North Atlantic Conveyer or the South American rain forests pass the point at which they can maintain the rainfall needed to sustain themselves, all changes that are close to taking place, then there will be a step change in the environment that we, and many other species, would be unable to survive.

Also, as to your point about species coming and going in large numbers - too true and long will it continue. The current climate change (whoever or whatever is causing it) is triggering an extinction event similar to many that have taken place in the past - the fight is to prevent our species from being one of those that loose out in the near future.

Mickiel · Post by **Mickiel** » Sun Jan 26, 2014 9:14 pm

Certainly Atheist have morals; no doubt about it.