Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

10 Things Christians and Atheists Can (And Must) Agree On »

Posted by: JessicaLaurie 8 months, 2 weeks ago

8.8

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 12

Propped: 63

Comments: 94

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

The war that is coming between the fundamentalist Christians and the hard core Atheists might not be the most violent of the holy wars. But it has the potential to be the most annoying

Read Full Story at cracked.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 94

0%
Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago

Read the whole article. Problem: The Bible says that men know instinctively there is a God. They can either choose to honor what they know and worship Him or suppress that knowledge. If they do then they turn and worship the creation or themselves. This God calls rebellion. The atheist has taken this a full step further and denied there is a god but still worships his own intellectual abilities. He is saying "I am god, because if there truly was a god he would show himself to me MY WAY.!
SIN is a man's claim to his right to himself, his own way. God says all men have turned to their own way and as a result are sinners and guilty before Him. It is not a matter of they have not had an "experience" like the author claims the religious have had. They have made a choice suppressing the knowledge God has placed in the heart of every human at birth according to Romans chapter one. Paul agrees with all the OT prophets and declarations of God through them.
Reply
1 Reply
- AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
0%
Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago

Quote: "No, if there is a God, it appears that some good people honestly don't perceive him. For whatever reason. And there has to be some tolerance in God's rules for the Honest Mistake."
Sincerity counts for something? Sorry, no dice. Human way of thinking. A legal rule in the USA: "ignorance of the law is no excuse", springs from a Biblical concept. Sincerity does not count. One can be sincerely wrong about whether a limb will support one's weight but gravity still works. Romans chapter one addresses this. Good intentions or "ignorance" are no basis to expect God to forego Divine Justice. God has set a witness in the universe and heart of every man and all cultures. Apostle Paul answers this question: "we have proven all men are without excuse before God and therefore guilty. All are counted as sinners." To be acquitted one must meet God's requirements for righteousness: Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. No other way.
Reply
3 Replies
- 0%
  icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  And the award for totally missing the point of the article goes to... Redneck!
  Reply
  1 Reply
  - 0%
    Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    I did not expect you to understand my posts.
    Reply
- AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
0%
icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago

I have read the whole article, and it does make a lot of sense. I understand that Christians honestly believe that I'm going to hell for not thinking there's a god.
The only part of the article I dispute is the idea that atheists still act as if they think there's a god by getting angry and being swindled or their girlfriend cheating on them. It's not that we're governed by some innate law, but that we recognize the rules that people need to obey in order for society to function smoothly.
If we can't trust people not to swindle us, at least a little bit, the entire system of commerce would break down. So we put a small degree of trust in people we're engaging in a transaction with and get angry when this trust is broken.
continued...
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  The same goes for sexual infidelity. We put trust in our relationship partners so that we can be comfortable opening up to them and, maybe, having children with them. We get angry when they break that trust. Not because of some invisible justice molecule, but because we know that trust is necessary for relationships and society to function properly.
  Showing a boob on TV is a stupid thing to get angry about because there's not the kind of trust there that we associate with a romantic relationship.
  So, while the other points in the article are really quite good, this one is just shy of the mark.
  Reply
0%
SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago

Only half way through...great read so far!
Reply
0%
rockman0698 months, 2 weeks ago

The only thing icelander fails to understand is that any belief whatsoever in a moral system indicates some belief in right or wrong. Complete anarchy is what Darwin would preach, making us no different than animals.
I actually found the article to be rather understanding of both sides, trying to bridge a rift. Unfortunately, that will not help mend the present issues, because there is too much bad blood between both campaigns. I doubt a compromise will be reached either.
Reply
81 Replies
- AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
- HmacComment removed: User banned.48 Replies
  - 0%
    cantfoolme8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    " "Complete anarchy is what Darwin would preach, making us no different than animals."
    Arguably one of the dumbest things I've seen posted. "
    Not arguably. It is THE dumbest thing i have seen posted.
    Reply
  - 0%
    SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    I don't know if Darwin meant to preach anarchy or not, I doubt it. But, the point behind Rockman's statement is that reducing mankind to "mere animals" starts us down the path to invalidating all moral codes as nothing more than a veneer of civilization that hides our true "animalistic" natures.
    Reply
  - 0%
    Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    "What so many other fail to understand ... does not depend on any supernatural entity dictating ...."
    You fail to understand you are the product of your culture so you have had a morality taught to you by example. If man is left to himself what occurs is stated in the Bible: "every person did what was right in his own eyes" which led to the Flood which destroyed that world. In the absence of Divine dictate of what is moral, right or wrong then to whom or what is the person responsible? Where is the authority which will require an accounting?
    Con't
    Reply
    45 Replies
    - 0%
      smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Red
      Place children on an island and assuming they survive they will develop their own culture, including accountability, quite possibly by inventing their own divine dictate. Like Lord of the Flies, it may not be pretty, but morals and culture will naturally arise.
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        ". . . will naturally arise." "Naturally" from what? If it is "natural" and God created and designed man then the "natural" part is of Him and not a product of "evolution" or whatever you may wish to label it. This is what Paul was writing about. Paul acknowledges even in Romans that men can in fact keep the law of God instinctively but it is because He has implanted it in their hearts. But they cannot willfully suppress that knowledge and refuse to honor the creator even if they do not know His Name is Jehovah or Jesus. Thus according to Paul man has not and does not create the concept of God.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Naturally, as in part of our natural evolution as social animals.
        A group of chimps who don't know each other, will work out their social standings shortly after being introduced.
        The same thing occurs when humans meet for the first time. Think summer camp.
        Reply
    - 0%
      Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Con't
      An Accounting will come.
      That is what atheists, reprobates, and those rebellious against God who excuse their suppression of the Truth and engage in all sorts of evil reject: accountability. The constant denial is either "God has no right to judge me, or there is no God to judge me." Secondly, there are those who say "He must judge according to human perspective." They have their standard. Romans 10:3 "Israel being ignorant of God's righteousness set out to establish their own." But God will judge all men according to Truth. Not man's standards or perceptions: Romans 2:16 "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel."
      Reply
      37 Replies
      - 0%
        icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Don't you get it? We're not rebelling against god. We just don't believe in god. That doesn't make us reprobates or evil in anyone's eyes but yours.
        Reply
        36 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Not what the Bible says. Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
        Reply
        35 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        The key phrases are in verses 21 and in verse 18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness;"
        Unrighteousness and ungodliness is suppressing the truth or refusing to acknowledge the Truth about God.
        Reply
        14 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Funny, how a religion that claims TRUTH, has led to so many varied, distinct sects. No doubt, Redneck, belongs to a TRUE sect, but obviously they can't ALL be TRUE. If the Snakehandlers are the TRUTH, there's going to be a lot of unhappy Christians, likewise, if the Mormons are the TRUTH, all those Snakehandlers killed by snakes, sort of made a mistake.
        
        Reply
        13 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Sect? No, I am not part of a "sect". I read the Bible and believe it. If that sets me at odds with some that makes them a "sect". I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ worldwide who believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and Jesus is His Son and the Savior of the world.
        Along with most of them I also think considering the plain langauge of the Word and listen to the Holy Spirit. The portions I have quoted are not held by one "sect" differently than another "sect". The passages are self-explanatory and clear language. Paul indicts the human race and explains why God holds man responsible and guilty as well. He is not the leader of a sect either. He is an apostle of Jesus Christ.
        
        Reply
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        BTW Mormons are not Christians because they deny the basic tenets of the Church. They hold the Book of Mormon to be inspired and not the Bible. The Bible contradicts the Book of Mormon. They also believe Joseph Smith is their savior and final authority. Christians acknowledge only Jesus as Lord and Savior.
        
        Reply
        11 Replies
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I have interacted with enough Mormons and read their materials to make the statements. Also, there are resources available online from many former Mormons some direct descendants of the leaders after the move to Utah, which declare exactly what the LDS teach and believe. Brigham Young said he could not get into heaven except Joseph Smith shake his hand and welcome him in. Smith said he was greater than Jesus because he had kept all of his twelve closest disciples! But after his death most of them recanted seeing the gold tablets they swore seeing while Smith was alive.
        The Bible defines a disciple of Jesus Christ. Mormons define a "true believer" as follower of Joseph Smith and in different terms.
        Reply
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        That is the belief of your particualr SECT. It is not for me to judge who the TRUE Christians are, I will leave that to you, Redneck, but according to the definition a Christian is one who claims to follow the teachings of Christ. While the TRUTH is easy for YOU to see, I can only go by what a person claims, which makes Mormons as Christian as Catholics, or Snakehandlers, or David Koreshians, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Amish, or Quakers, or YOU.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Catholics as well as Protestants (the only "sect" I admit to belonging to) outline what a Christian is. It is not who claims to be christian but who meets the criteria of faith. Certainly Jesus laid out guidelines for His disciples. The Apostles set out requiements in their writings and practice. If you wish I can give you a very short list of tenets necessary to be called a disciple of Jesus or as we have come to be called "Christian." It is definitive and some of the groups you have cited deny them. Catholics, Quakers, Amish and some snakehandlers do not but Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses do.
        Actually I am Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, etc. because all of them affirm the tenets of orthodox Christian faith and have restored or embraced a truth which may have been lost for a while but began to be restored to the Church since Luther.
        I am a Christian. A disciple of Jesus Christ.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Main Entry: [1]ChrisÂ·tian
        Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
        Function: noun
        Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
        Date: 1526
        1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
        Just because you believe different, doesn't make you right and it doesn't make Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses less Christian than yourself. They believe they are following the teaching of Jesus, just as you do and in many cases they think they are the only one's who are right, just as you do.
        It just goes to show what I often say, Christians are their own worst enemy. As an atheist, I am not the one, eliminating entire sects from the Christian faith, it's Christians such as yourself.
        You certainly point out the importance of the separation of church and state, which protects atheists such as myself, but was really intended to protect Christians from themselves.
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        So do I have this right? You cite a defintion for Christian which predates Mormonism or the Advent of Jehovah's Witnesses which all of orthodox Christianity classify as cults? Avoiding addressing my post in all its points.
        Quote: "Just because you believe different, doesn't make you right and it doesn't make Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses less Christian than yourself. They believe they are following the teaching of Jesus, just as you do and in many cases they think they are the only one's who are right, just as you do."
        This you will have to prove. They assert in their own teachings they are following the teachings of Joseph Smith primarily. The JW's have altered the New Testament so much it is hard to know what they believe. But no mainline church or of orthodox doctrine accepts thme as christian. And it is not a power thing or merely a disagreeement over sematics or details in either case. Do you want a doctrinal statement of a true Christian?
        Reply
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Mormons believe God once was a man who became God. Joseph Smith said so.
        Christianity flatly rejects that assertation from the Bible.
        JSmith also said God now has a glorified body which once was like ours.
        The Bible and Jesus flatly reject that teaching.
        JSmith said God is only one among many hundreds of gods and is married procreating human spirits to inhabit human bodies.
        The Bible flatly denies that as did Jesus in His teaching. He said there is no marrying in the spirit realm and that God is a Spirit. Jesus has a Resurrected body. His human body has been made alive and He posesses Resurrection power.
        JSmith said Jesus is the half-brother of Lucifer or Satan.
        Jesus and the Bible teach that Satan is an angel, therefore created by God and Jesus is God the Creator.
        Con't
        Reply
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Con't
        Mormons believe the following: "From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent" (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:289).
        Christians believe Jesus Christ must confess each and every person who believes in Him before the Father in heaven. "confess Me before men and I will confess (acknowledge) you before My Fahter.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Yep, Mormons have different beliefs than YOU, but they are still Christians just like YOU. To qualify as a Christian they just have to claim a belief in the teachings of Jesus, and a fundy Mormon would say you refuse to follow the aditional teachings of Jesus found in the Book of Mormon, in short, they can just as easily claim to be the TRUE Christian while at the same time calling you the false, or misguided one.
        All religions meet the defintion of the word cult. Cult at one time meant nothing more than the word sect, it is only fairly recently that it has taken on a negative meaning. How do you suppose cult is defined? You can list wacky Mormon beliefs till the cows come home, wacky beliefs go hand in hand with all religion, including the sects you listed as TRUE Christians.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        So the definition of a Christian lies in the hands of one who has no faith? NO!
        You have evaded my comments and are give a definition with which the Church worldwide does not argee. If you insist then I must declare that I am first and foremost a Disciple of Jesus Christ if anyone who tips their hat toward the New Testament is a Christian.
        Criteria defining Believers is in the New Testament and in Church history dating back long before there were Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. Sects claiming to be christians which the Church classifies as cults or heretic have sprung up claiming to restore the True Church because of distortion of truth. The criteria must be applied to those claiming to be Christian by other Christians.
        For me the questions are: Have you made Jesus the Lord of your life and what happened to you when you did? What has He said to you since that day? Are you obeying His voice? Do you love the brethren as the Apostle John said in his epistles?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 1 week ago
        
        I didn't write Websters so don't credit me with the defintion of Christian.
        I have not evaded your comments, I am well aware of your BELIEF that YOU are a TRUE Christian while Mormons are not. I have no doubt you can produce link after link that claims Mormons are not TRUE Christians, however, the same can be done with any sect of your religion or any religion for that matter. You listed Catholics as part of the TRUE Christianhood, but surely you are aware of the many vocal Christians that say Catholics are NOT Christian. It is very common to see these vocal Christians making the exact same claims you are making about Mormons, about Catholics anytime that sect comes up on a board. I guess those folks forgot to clear the definition of Christian with you.
        PS. Need I point out that the pos for your post was a slip of the fingers?
        Reply
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I know that "this generation" is the subject of weighty discussion down through the ages. I know that those that want to find a way to "disprove" the Bible absolutely insist that "this generation" had to be the generation of Jesus and the disciples.
        I think there is a very solid interpretation that Jesus was not speaking to "this generation" being the one of his earthly lifetime, but rather "this generation" being the generation that sees the abomination of the desolation and the sign of the Son of God in the sky.
        You can call it excuse making if you wish...but I don't think so.
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.8 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Matthew 24:30 "And then shall appear the sign of the coming of the Son of Man in heaven". And yet, in Mark 8:12 when the Pharisees demand a sign from heaven for Jesus to prove he is Christ, Jeses says that no sign from heaven shall be given to "this generation". These seem to conflict.
        Also, the gospel of the kingdom has to reach all the world and the abomination of the desolation must be seen in "the holy place". Well the gospel didn't get published to the whole world within the disciples' generation despite their efforts. And it's not clear what the abomination of the desolation is (lots of theories) so it is unclear if this thing was done or not. And there are other things. All those things had to be fulfilled. Were they?
        This are just a few things, it is a lengthy discussion, I'm just touching a few points. I'll try to come back and discuss further, but it's been a long day, time for some rest.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.1 Reply
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        That's a silly response. If the end times are presaged by the gospel reaching the whole world, then if the gospel didn't get to the whole world in the disciples generation what does that mean, do you think? Maybe that the end times weren't supposed to be in the disciples generation. Hey, how about that?
        Reply
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Sorry, no, it's not just about the fall of the temple. There were three questions. Jesus, in leaving the Temple, had made the comment that the buildings would be totally destroyed, no stone left standing. Then, after he and the disciples get to Mount Olivet, he is asked three questions. When will "these things" happen, what is the sign of his coming, and what is the sign of the end of the world. Read his answer carefully. He is talking primarly about his coming and the end of the world. And take in context that he said even he did not know the hour and the day, only the Father. The reason I brought up the issue of the gospel not being published to all the nations of the world is that Jesus distinctly says that it is the generation that sees "all" those things come to pass that should take heed for the end of the world and his coming. The gospel was not published to the world as of AD 70. The conditions were not fulfilled.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        No. First, Jesus made the comment regarding the Temple's destruction as they exited the temple. Then, they walked to Mount Olivet which is a half mile away. Then the disciples asked questions. So, it is not clearly evident that Jesus was answering simply the question of the destruction of the Temple rather than his coming and the end of the world. Especially considering the disciples asked in Mark as well as Matthew about "all these things" and not "this thing" or "this destruction of the temple". If they were only inquiring about the destruction of the temple, then why does Jesus (in both Mark and Matthew) begin by telling them to not be deceived about his "coming"...sounds more like he was answering the questions as more clearly set forth in Matthew. And why then in Mark does Jesus say, after mentioning wars and rumors of wars, that these "things" must be, "but the end is not yet".
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
        
        0%
        icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Why do you expect someone who doesn't believe in god to accept your bible as valid evidence?
        The bible wasn't written for nonbelievers, it was written for believers. It's not convincing to use bible verses in discussions with nonbelievers.
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        You accused me saying: "That doesn't make us reprobates or evil in anyone's eyes but yours."
        The reason I quoted the Bible is that is my Authority. I did not originate the statement. The Bible identifies reprobates and makes those statements about them. I have agreed with God to agree with Him. It is called repentance. It is required in making Him Lord and He is my Lord.
        Reply
        7 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.6 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Not to enter into a long discussion with you due to your comments in the pas tbut Jesus did not indicate the person striking one's cheek was necessarily evil. What He did teach was going the second mile even if the person has a legal right to make an odious request of you. Roman soldiers could legally compel one to carry their pack one mile. Jesus said carry the pack with the right attitude and then carry it the second mile out of a motive of love.
        I have yielded in some situations but if the person is set on doing bodily harm to me or mine or a neighbor then my response will be different and I believe well within the teaching of Jesus. The issue is not the action as much as the attitude and cause for the action. For that reason I try not to make disrespectful unkind and rude comments about you even though you make them to and about me. :-)
        "How is my driving or writing and responding in this case?" Am I polite and courteous while stating my convictions and views?
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        That would depend on why someone was planning to nail me to a cross. :-) Would I deny my Savior to save myself? No. But a Roman Centurion planned to give Paul the third degree by whipping him before questioning him. Now Paul was beaten on occasion and was once stoned and left for dead (actually he was dead but prayer raised him) but on this occasion he kept the soldiers from beating him by asserting his rights as a natural born Roman citizen. Later, He kept the Jews from killing him by appealing to Rome for judgment.
        Should he have "turned the other cheek" in every situation? What is your opinion. I believe contrary to some that Jesus did not preach passivity or that one should not ever act in self defense. As I said it is the attitude and motivation of the heart that Jesus spoke to most often. To clarify my theology on this issued would take more time and space than I am willing to commit at this time but I am clear before the Lord in my heart.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 1 week ago
        
        The Lord did deliver him from the ambush. The plot was revealed and they took steps to avoid it! LOL
        'Bye
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
    - HmacComment removed: User banned.3 Replies
      - 0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        That depends on whose interpretation of geological record you wish to accept. There is a flood story in the literature or oral record of every tribe on earth. If it was merely a localized flood then you have a problem. They all must have had a representative ancestor in the region which passed the record down to them.
        The Bible record says that man was Noah with his family. All mankind sprang up again from them. Thus the common story.
        
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I accept the same interpretations of the geologists, mining companies hire to find their minerals and oil. How many young earthers does Exxon have finding oil for them? There is a reason companies, such as Exxon, use geologists who accept a 4.6 Billion year aged Earth. Quite simply, they work, they produce results, they make predictions and their predictions are accurate enough to generate profits. If Exxon could hire young earthers, cheaper than the geologist they now hire, they most certainly would, but obviously, they do produce the same results.
        MOST, not all, cultures have flood myths. SO? Floods are very common, humans like living near water, what's so surprising that flood stories make common myths? People tell stories about things they experience-what people don't experience floods?
        
        Reply
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.
- 0%
  Helixbuilder8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Rock,
  "making us no different than animals"
  Just what are we then if we are not animals? Plants? You're total non-comprehension of even the most basic concepts of science is mind blowing!
  Reply
  2 Replies
  - 0%
    SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    The point is that most religious folks believe that mankind are not animals except in the most general sense of "beings" that are animated or able to move about. Perhaps that escapes your thinking on the matter because you feel so strongly the other way.
    Reply
    1 Reply
    - 0%
      Helixbuilder8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      Humans are animals get over it. By they way the Earth isn't the center of the universe either, and it is not flat! Just in what physiological way do humans differ from other animals?
      Reply
- 0%
  jordan118 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Complete anarchy is what Darwin would preach, making us no different than animals.>>>>
  Really? What species of 'animals' killed thousands in name of 'gods?'
  Reply
  26 Replies
  - 0%
    SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
    
    Another good question: What "animal" is so unique that (among other things) it comprehends the idea of "God"; comprehends the idea of life after death; invented and appreciates music and the arts; has used abstract throught to explore the universe, including the invention and construction of spaceships, deep-sea submersibles, and aircraft to take us into places our bodies couldn't normally go?
    Reply
    25 Replies
    - AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.10 Replies
      - 0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Show me another "animal" that has ever had a theory on where it (or the world it resides on) stands in relation to the universe. And, better yet, show any other "animal" that has been able to improve its theories on that subject.
        In fact, why not show us another "animal" here on Earth that has "theories"?
        (Maybe we could get their feedback on these issues?)
        Reply
        9 Replies
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I didn't claim to "prove" anything at all. I asked a question. You've provided a reply: "we're unique". I agree. No other "animal" whether "at this time" or any other time in the history of this planet has accomplished the things that mankind has.
        It is a point worth pondering, in my opinion.
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.2 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I agree. Let's separate out the make-believe that science and evolution have eliminated "God". ;)
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        AtheismIsRealityComment removed: User banned.
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Here is an example of a particularly smart monkey who came up with a theory for cleaning her food, it is also an example of culture and cultural diffusion.
        http://www.normanallan.com/Sci/100monkeys.htm
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        Redneck8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        "Theory???" A method of cleaning but a "theory" ??
        What you attribute to thought by an animal can be explained as "programming" by a Creator. Why do deer mate in the Fall? What causes them to mate then? or Canada Geese fly South in the Winter? Did they theorize and then decide? Or did God program them to do it?
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 1 week ago
        
        Yes, theory. Read the article I cited, not all of the monkeys were 'programed' with the abstract thought of washing food, indeed many of the tribe (older males) refused to learn from the monkey with the original theory of washing her food, as Carl Sagan said when he related this tale, "they prefered to eat grit, rather than defer to a female". This monkey analized a set of facts, washing potatoes remove sand, thrown rice into water will float and leave the rice sand free. Analysis of sets of facts is the defintion of theory.
        Eventually, the cultural phenomenon, of washing their food, not only spread to the entire tribe, but was transported to other tribes of monkeys by immigrants.
        The same type of theorizing can be found in chimps who 'fish' for termites with twigs, of specific size, shape and strength. Just picking any old stick does not work, it takes training and not all chimp tribes utilize this food source.
        Of course, I never said, deer or geese theorize.
        Reply
    - HmacComment removed: User banned.11 Replies
      - 0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Are you tense today, hmac? You seem a little bit excited.
        I see a lot of other "animals" out there. Do they understood everything going on around them and therefore not "need" to invent "God"? Only "primitive humans" had this problem?
        About that "BIG BRAIN"...how quickly did that evolve again? It went from how big to how big in how short of a time? What was up with that again, from an evolutionary standpoint? No other "animals" have seemed to make that same progression. Too bad for them, I guess.
        
        Reply
        10 Replies
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.9 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Hmmm. It seems to me the "BIG BRAIN" factors fairly large into the issues here. If all these wonderful things that set us apart so distinctly from the "animal" world proceed from our "BIG BRAIN"...then why is it "irrelevant" to examine how that "BIG BRAIN" got there? And to ponder why it hasn't been "provided" to our nearest "cousins" on the proposed "evolutionary tree"?
        Reply
        8 Replies
        
        HmacComment removed: User banned.7 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I know, I know, hmac, ever the evidentialist objector. I feel your angst.
        And, yet somehow you wish to dismiss the mysteries of the "big brain explosion" as irrelevant, even though they constitute the only naturalistic "evidence" as to how we became so distinct. What environmental pressures led to the increase in our brain such that the ratio to body mass is 7 times larger than the average mammal? Are we somehow distinct? Did we evolve in some "different" way than other "animals"?
        Reply
        6 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Neanderthals had bigger brains than humans, however when the larger frames of Neanderthals are factored in, their brains were comparable in size to humans. Were they somehow distinct? Did they evolve in some different way than other animals?
        Reply
        5 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I'm not an expert on Neandertals, but as one of very closest cousins genetically, it would not suprise me that they had a similar brain/body mass ratio issue compared to other mammals.
        My point in this line of discussion is that "big brains" seem to be a key to our distinct differences from the "animal" kingdom. Yes, Neandertals had large brains too, but for some reason they did not survive. We don't know why.
        Somehow, roughly 50,000 years ago, homo sapiens reached a critical mass and began to produce cultures. There have been a number of recent investigations as to why humans seem to have evolved very speedily, for example Lahn and Hawks, Wang, Cochran. There is genetic evidence that human evolution is FAR faster than any other "animal". And, is continuing to accelerate. Hawks argued that we are more genetically different from humans 5,000 years ago than they were from Neandertals. I find that very interesting.
        Reply
        4 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        As I pointed out, probably not very well, Neanderthals had a brain/body mass ratio comparable to humans, ie. big brained.
        Few other animals have had their genes mapped as well as humans, so while I can see where humans are evolving faster than other animals, I suspect there other animals evolving faster and at the same pace as humans.
        This seems to support Stephen Jay Gould's idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, if you ask me, rapid change followed by long periods of little change. Humans are in a period of rapid change brought on by the extreme differences in our life styles from 5,000 years ago. This link, about the topic of our speedy evolution, uses the mutation that allows certain humans to drink milk into adulthood as an example.
        http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/...
        Reply
        3 Replies
        
        0%
        SonOfTheMask8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        Actually, on the accelerated evolution, one of the interesting studies was an analysis on how genes had "selected" over time between humans v chimpanzees compared to chimpanzees vs chickens. And the interesting result was that in a very short period of time more genes had selected between humans and chimpanzees (close relatives) than between chimpanzees and chickens (not so close relatives). This part of that study was basically saying, if I understood it rightly, that it did NOT expect to have so many changes between humans and chimps, i.e. humans were selecting far more rapidly than they suspected.
        Now that's just a trio of species, but Lahn's work also suggested a significant distinction for human evolution comparably speaking.
        Reply
        2 Replies
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        SOTM
        I agree, it is interesting. It's too bad Gould died before this study, cause I see it as an example of his theory.
        Like I said above, I suspect this 'speedy evolution' is due to the dramatic changes in our life styles in such a short period. Chimps are basically doing the same things they were doing 10K years ago, they are eating the same diet and they face basically the same conditions.
        Humans, on the other hand, are living in completely different conditions than 10K years ago, which I believe truly began to take off with the advent of agriculture. Fire, tool use, language, have nothing on the impact agriculture had on how we lived. Before agriculture, groups were small and conflict could be escaped by simply moving on, but when you had crops you had to protect those crops. History shows that soon after the invention of the farm community came the invention of the wall, a different diet and dramatic changes in group dynamics.
        Reply
        
        0%
        smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
        
        I would like to see a comparative study done with dogs. Dogs would be interesting since they have outwardly changed so much in their 10K year partnership with humans.
        Reply
    - 0%
      smithichie8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      SOTM
      Neanderthals buried their dead, with quite possibly the thought of an after-life, they also appreciated art.
      If it takes spaceships and aircraft to separate us from animals, what does that say about the humans who existed before these inventions?
      
      Reply
    - 0%
      Helixbuilder8 months, 2 weeks ago
      
      You can only ASSUME that we are the only self aware beings, that may not be so.
      Reply
- 0%
  icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  Yeah, there's right and wrong. "Right" is what increases happiness, makes society run more smoothly, and respects the rights of the individual. "Wrong" decreases happiness, creates social friction, and violates the rights of the individual. I need no further definition.
  And Darwin doesn't "preach" anything. Evolution makes specific claims about the nature of biology. It doesn't say anything about how anyone should behave. You're wrong if you read guidelines for social interactions into evolution.
  Reply
0%
crespi8 months, 2 weeks ago

The interesting thing is I was always very respectful of the religious, UNTIL THEY REPEATEDLY SAID I WAS THEIR ENEMY and that they were going to "get ahold of this Country and force commies like YOU out!!" -A Christian telling me this in 1986.
Well after a few years of this, and violence perpetrated by Christian Neocons on some gay people I know, I decided to accept the Fundamentalist's challenge and accept that THEY WERE MY ENEMY AS THEY HAD SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN, LIKE A MANTRA and that as a good American, I should stand up to the bullying thugs who hide behind GOD for their hate.
Anyone who wants to let the 150 planted Pat Robertson folks sabotage our government from within just stay out of our way while we clean this mess up.
Maybe God has some ideas on how to rebuke his out of control followers...
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  icelander8 months, 2 weeks ago
  
  This is so true. I don't have any quarrel with the majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus or any other believer out there. THEY called me enemy first. I am simply defending myself.
  Reply
0%
Socrates18 months, 2 weeks ago

His whole point is to respect the other person's position and not go out of your way to disrespect it. How ironic to argue over such a point. You believe, I believe, just don't force that belief on the other. Somewhat libertarian I would say.
Reply