Butterfly evolves 'instant evolution' - Page 4

why waste your time!??? You cant see the wobble of any star from Earth with any of the tech that the greeks had at the time.

But as its a worthwhile endevour - please carry on...I've been checking it out too, and found some interesting things...

And you know that is just a sign of psychotic delusions?

Only for those who have never felt the Holy Spirit tugging at their heart before...


My point, however, was that Columbus was being hailed in the thread for using scientific methods while he simultaneously held to religious notions that would have Marc and Sego dismiss him as a fundie.

Actually, everyone of us that is human feels these things in one way or another, we could put many different explanations on it from psychotic delusion to supernatural guidance. How this effects you is down to you personally, and is not written in a book.

I've felt that effect and I promise you, it is exactly the same feeling as you experienced. What differs is what we attribute the cause and effect too, and in some ways I could attribute that feeling to God.

But where we would differ is how we define and understand God.

Tell me, when you get that feeling, does it feel like the feeling of a cold hard fundamentalist God?

Here is my God. You might find it hard to believe, but when I see this, I feel that Holy Spirit tugging at my heart. I wouldn't naturally call it a holy spirit, because I feel it as something I dont try to consciously understand - perhaps I'd call it being human. The same as you do with whatever floats your boat. I feel a sense of purpose, a destiny, a journey, contentment, a completement of soul, a desire, and union of my place within.



My question is, when I 'feel' God, I dont have a burning desire to rush out and proclaim Gays are abhorrent, I dont feel the need to organise myself into supporting harsh political idealogy. I dont feel the need to bomb the crap out of Muslims because they dont feel the same God, I dont feel the need of possessions, money, love or hatred, I dont feel the need to poke my views into the corners of everyones lives and proclaim them all sinners.

In fact, I can feel God, and nothing else at all. Its just me, God, and my contemplations.

Everything else is of utter insignificance. My problems, my worries, my life, utterly insignificant. It doesn't matter anymore, because I feel something higher that transcends all the petty insignificances of a trivial life.

Why does the Holy Spirit of the 'other' God, command his followers to do a multitude of horrible shallow introspective things. Isn't that Satan - to borrow an expression.

Crap. Crap. Crap! That was a pretty cool text, too -- I'm getting zippo.

I've searched the archives, it must have been one the pdfs of tiffs. (No text to search.) I'll do a free association google search at some point. The only thing I remember for certain, is that it had something to do with another star, and the position was either wobbling or not where they thought it was, and they came up short.

Only modern fundies appear to be unable to recognize the power of the scientific method (gross over generalization, I know)...

And no, I have never felt like I was guided to an action.

Wait, it was Posidonius: He did measure Canopus, but for some reason screwed up his number.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posidonius

http://www.shrewsbury.org.uk/index.c...ntent&cmid=263

Now that sounds scientific.


How nice for you. Of course, in a world that full of slavery, disease, tragedy and death, I'd hope that your 'God' (which seems to be the human mind) does more than simply provide personal contentment.


Your thing is better than my thing. Got it. My thing is evil. Even though you don't even know who I am or when I stand on that skewed list of perspectives. But somehow, I'm the fundamentalist here.


Life is only trivial when you believe in shallow concepts like evolution. Otherwise, a human life should be highly valued. When it is working toward its purpose set out by its Creator, it can greatly enrich everything and everyone around it.

Is God supposed to guide us morally from enslaving people (Guantanamo), toward addressing the causes of disease (Christian Scientists), tragedy and death (civilian deaths in Iraq since the occupation)?

I think we'd have less of all of the above if we had an atheist in the White House. Honestly.

Or is God supposed to be our only way to "deal with" these things? Can't we deal with them through reason and compassion instead?

For instance, if my own mother were to die (knock on wood) I would feel secure in the peace that she lived a wonderful and full life, and that she loved and was loved in return. No God is necessary for that kind of peace to establish itself in my heart.

"Life is only trivial when you believe in shallow concepts like evolution."

Life is never trivial to those of us who know its limits.

To believe in an "afterlife" may be comforting, but it definitely trivializes this life.

To worship the "miracle of God's power" trivializes the true miracle of the complexity and adaptability of nature.

I feel obliged by this comment to point out that 'your' god appears to be either blind or utterly heartless faced with this sort of stuff, and that, historically, people acting in his name appear to be responsible for more of this sort of shit, from the arctic circle to the Australian outback, than followers of any god in history. So you're on damn shaky ground to compare yours favourably to Marc's.

Not lately.

I think you meant to type "people acting in the name of/inspired by atheism..."

No, I mean 'people acting in the name of the Christian god,' just as I wrote.

I refer to the years between 1550 and about 1940, when the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish and the British Christians killed and enslaved millions of people from Greenland to Tasmania by way of the Pacific and the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, very openly and proudly in the name of Jesus Christ and His Father. These years saw entire peoples, tribes, religions and cultures destroyed.

It's a matter of historical fact that the colonial project of Christian Europe killed and enslaved on a geographical and human scale utterly unprecedented in human history.

Well, going back 450 years doesn't qualify as "lately." And no, it is not "a matter of historical fact that the colonial project of Christian Europe killed and enslaved on a geographical and human scale utterly unprecedented in human history." You need to brush up on your history -- maybe in the mind of Ward Churchill, but not in reality.

If you would like to compare and argue for the savagery of native cultures agianst life in the West at any time in the last 100 years, I would really love to hear it -- along with an explanation of how Christianity invented greed and the historical struggle of world powers. And, I can't let you slide by on the guilt-by-association thing -- I need to see the Pope, or Archbishop of Canterbury, or any Christian leader issuing edicts on why they signed off on the "millions" of killings.

I don't care about 'lately'. You were the one who brought up 'lately'. It is a matter of indisputable historical record that the colonial project of Christian Europe killed, enslaved and stole on a geographical and human scale without precedent. Christianity didn't need to have 'invented greed or the struggle of world powers' to have taken it to utterly unprecedented, disastrous and violent lengths.

People killed and stole and enslaved in the name of Jesus Christ and his representative on Earth, the Pope. Er, yes, this isn't exactly news. You may have heard about the 'requiriemento'. It was read in Spanish (although the Portuguese and the British had their own versions) from the side of boat when natives were encountered in places that were about to become colonised. Once it was read, the land was stolen and the people were enslaved or killed.

'Let it be known that our coming is beneficial ... because we bring tidings of the true God and Christian Religion sent by the Pope (the Vicar of Jesus Christ, God and Man) and the Emperor King of Spain, so that you may become Christians peacefully of your own free will; but should you refuse the peace we offer, then the death and destruction that follow will be entirely of your own account.'

There's a much longer text than this if you care to look for it.

The Pope gave his blessing to Diaz, and to Columbus, and to Pisarro. Their voyages were sanctioned. They were Christians, on a Christian mission. The people that followed them, they were Christians, too. Like the Pilgrims, for example.

This went on for centuries.

Do you go to church, dmz?

Your church is on stolen land. It was stolen by force from the native people of North America, by Christians. The language of those people is probably extinct, as are their customs, their dress, their myths and their culture. The soldiers who took that land were Christians.

Do you celebrate that essential American festival 'Thanksgiving', dmz?

It is a Christian festival, after the first Thanksgiving on that December the 4th in the 1600s, when some Christians thanked their God for their survival.

So, yes, like I say, Christians have been responsible for the largest enslavement of human beings, and death of human beings from massacre, disease and poverty, and the theft of two continents entire. They did it explicitly in the name of their God, as hundreds upon hundreds of letters, bulls, proclamations, placenames, feast days, churches and memorials should attest.

I do.







For the last hundred years or so, colonialism has been reversed in Africa and elsewhere, slavery has been abolished, and certain Native land claims settlements have been disbursed, hundreds of millions have been spent on persevering native customs, free education provided, the list goes on, and on, and on.

In the West, that is.

The Pope no longer issues "convert or the sword" ultimatums, and hasn't for centuries. Communist dictatorships and Jihadi regimes, however, still use famine/mass murder as a weapon in Africa, and Communist/Islamic countries still murder/imprison Christians daily.

Today. Not 450 years ago.

And this doesn't change the fact that people acting in the name of the Christian god were responsible for the worst theft, massacre, murder and enslavement that this will planet will ever, ever know.

And if you are or were a member of any of the thousands of peoples made extinct, physically or culturally, by Christians, there's no recent history that can undo the terrible wrong done you.

Also, Christian missionaries, today, are continuing to do really fucked up things in Africa and South America.

As opposed to what? The God you believe in? WTF is he doing? Nothing, because its a figure of your imagination. I will admit my God is conceived in the human mind, because that is exactly what God is, and always was. Look back through every religion to the dawn of time and that's exactly what God was. It was even this in Christianity by its founders, until it was perverted. The whole meme of Jesus - someone you are supposed to respect was originally a figurehead for what goes on in your mind. To claim the sort of Jesus you propose is paramount to supporting a complete corruption of teachings by a perverted political/milatary idealogy. No wonder that fundies continue to rapidly support exactly the same style of perverted corruption today.

It is the fundies who crave the power, the money, the war in Iraq, the hardline rigidity, the fascism, the national pride and hubris, anti-homosexuality, anti-immigration, anti-science this, anti-evolution that, go to hell, burn, suffer. Authority. Police States. Censorship.

Fundies, fundies, fundies.

Fuckers. Fuckers. Fuckers.




My thing, doesn't crave the power, the money, the war in Iraq, the hardline rigidity, the fascism, the national pride and hubris, anti-homosexuality, anti-immigration, anti-science this, anti evolution that, go to hell, burn, suffer. Authority. Police States. Censorship..

Apparently, that makes me an evil athiest pinko commie hippy. Fine.

By any metric, this God of yours turns any passion for life into a fucking hell hole. Or worse still a hell-hole for someone else, who by all rights, you should be leaving well alone.

For someone else, it doesn't matter if they find their God in Music, Art, sex, poetry, quantum Mechanics, drama, literature. My 'universe' God doesn't suggest to me that I beat fuck out of everone who finds God in Art, that I create a 'Universe' lobby group to wield political power so that I can have all science books changed to include Marc's theory of time dilation across large distances. Madness. The universe isn't telling me to bomb Iraq for their oil.

None of these Gods command their people to go out and commit attrocities and murder. By the same hand these Gods dont actively stop any of these things either. Your God really doesn't stop these things either - and so you have to proclaim that he moves in mysterious ways, and dont dare question him!

But then if we were all marvelling at something, would we want to commit attrocities?

So really, it is a case of Any God but that savage OT Cunt is better than yours.



That life is trivial is the brutal honest truth. If it were not trivial, we wouldn't be making up fantasy supernatural guardians to delude ourselves with the notion that when life is over, it will somehow be wonderful.

Who the fuck am I? No-one! a year after I die, i will be remembered by a few handfuls of people, within 50 years maybe a few. After 100 years no-one will even give a fuck that I existed. Same for you and the same for 99.99% of the rest of us that ever existed. Life is trivial. So what? Keep it in context.

That life is trivial is reality. Accepting that reality is the way to make it non-trivial, and then you can marvel at the wonder of it all.

Fundyism is all about insignificant people in denial of relity trying very hard to convince themselves that they are actually worth something.

Fuck you, youre not worth shit, neither am I, so Fuck me too!

And that is the beauty of it. Realising that there is something far more important and magnificient than our trivial lives.

And there you find God, or science, or maybe they're the same thing depending on your perspective.

No, that's just not supported by the facts. How many people died of starvation in Africa during the 20th century?

Even bending over backwards and allowing for your Rousseauian pipe dreams, Christians have adjusted historically; the politics of atheism still has a few "issues" to work out.

People are generally fuckers whatever their self attached label.

Like I said the other day, it doesn't matter if you're Athiest, Christian, Muslim, Communist, Right wing, left-wing, English Chinese, American, Indian, White, Black, Mixed, Young, Old, Middle Aged...every God damn label you can think of.

Because a fucking moron, is a fucking moron. And that is universal.

Yes, Christians have thier history and attrocities, so do Athiests, so do communists, so do Muslims, etc etc.

Why be a moron and deny it? Its all bad, and its all true. BUT universally it was all done without exception - by the fucking moron idealogy.

As deeply, desperately as you wish it were otherwise, it's a truth of history that European colonialism is a vital, terrible part of Christian history, and that it was Christiansand explicitly, proudly Christiansthat did those terrible things to the Americans, Australians and Africans.

These are some of the worst things that ever happened. In terms of scale, without doubt the worst.

I don't know why you're citing Rousseau, either, but go for it.

The thing that kills me, is that, looking at pure statistics -- who's tending to kill whom at the moment -- I somehow must listen to a diseration on Cortez's shenanigans.

It seems to me, looking at the state of the world, that the possibility of Christians pulling a fast one, and reinstating the paradigm of small, bickering, european kingdoms, with the Pope and his Jesuit minions as their comic foil, constructing a military power base, then sailing around the world enslaving anyone....


....c'mon you guys, help me out here -- what are the chances?

The problem is, is that the statistics are broken down into pointless labels. There is only one label required, and I mentioned that above. And with the one, correct label the chance is precisely 100%

I distinctly remember typing "Lately." "Lately" can also be interpreted as "relevant."


Is "lately" just not something you feel comfortable working with?

TFTFY!

I was addressing franksargent. And 'lately' is within the last 100 years, now you mention it. So 'lately' is pretty recent. And if the terrible wrongs inflicted by people of your faith can be dismissed so lightly then you're not trying hard enough. In short, you pulled 'lately' out your butt. Who cares about 'lately'? It happened, and it's worse than anything any 'atheist' state has ever done.

"Lately" implies that some ideologies have learned their lesson(s).

The State as the messiah -- the promise of political policies that will cure us of greed, poverty, and crime, etc., still hasn't learned the concept of modesty.

quit jocking my SIG!!!! :-P

And this doesn't change the fact that European colonialism was a Christian enterprise that led to death, poverty, theft and enslavement on a scale that has never been matched in the history of our planet. Your church is on stolen land and it was stolen with violence by Christians.

Africa wasn't colonised by atheists. The Americas weren't colonised by communists. Australia wasn't stolen by atheists. Atheists didn't control an entire continent and fund exploratory trips by atheist captains that led to bloodshed and misery for millions.

When this happens, on this scale, let me know, and that'll be the day that I tell Marc his god's useless in the face of the disease, tragedy and misery of millions suffering today. Because people acting in the name of your god caused most of it, your god didn't stop them then and he's not doing anything at all, nothing, about it now.

Look at Iraq. Isn't that just colonialism under a different guise? Isn't it just as bloody? And isn't it "lately"?

Although it's a war waged in the name of "freedom" it's clear that Christianity vs. Islam has a hell of a lot to do with it.

You know... Mr. Bush, thinking he's doing "God's work"?

This is the most hateful, bigoted post I have read in a long time.

So every major injustice perpetrated in the Western world is to be blamed solely on Christianity?

Apparently no-one had any motivations in colonial times other than spreading the Gospel? Are you insane? Every textbook will tell you that Columbus' journeys were authorized for the purpose of finding a route to the East for economic reasons, not for his personal religious views. (Though he himself was a Christian.)

Empire building predates Christianity by millennia, and everyone from Genghis Khan to the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians and many many others have soiled human history with death, destruction and mayhem that accompanies it. Pretending that Christianity somehow inflicted this on the world through its teaching or practice is disingenuous at best.

The wrongs you mention were the handiwork of human greed, manifested in the unbridled lust for money and power, coupled with a solid dose of racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Those conditions existed in humanity then, and they do now. They exist across national, religious or cultural divides. Combating that sinful nature of mankind is actually whole point of Christianity.

And the last time I checked, the decrees handed down to colonize the New World were the work of Royalty, Aristocracy and Elites. The average person in the pew didn't have a vote, and had only just gained intimate knowledge of the Bible, which had been kept from them by the selfsame Royalty, Aristocracy and Elites. The King James Bible wasn't even published till 1611.

The Church is by no means blameless, and we should have done a lot more a lot sooner to break the ties between church and state that existed in those times. But to blame Christianity outright for such disasters, you have to ignore pleas by priests and church officials to stop the misery of slavery in the New World. You have to ignore the fact that Christianity eventually carried the day and that Evangelical Christians, led by William Wilberforce, led a worldwide campaign to stifle and then end the slave trade. (Plug: The Amazing Grace DVD is out November 13.) You also have to ignore that the Church is still fighting the fight against slavery today, along with record-breaking worldwide campaigns against poverty, abortion and disease to name a few.

I have news for you. The same kind of brutality and misery you mention is being inflicted on hundreds of millions around the world today. Some of it is being done by nominal Christians, some by non-Christians. Who are you going to blame for those injustices? Of course, those who engage in angry tirades like yours are usually the ones who do the least about them. (You need to engage in reconciliation and coalition-building across lines of belief to be useful in such things.)

Anyway, your time is probably better spent trying to figure out what drives you to embrace such anger and bigotry in your heart, that you must demonize adherents of an entire world religion for the crimes of a few of its pretenders.

While it is true that Bush has attempted to use religious language to promote his policies to the public (as almost every modern leader has) it has yet to be explained to me precisely how the war in Iraq was ever going to advance the Christian cause in any way, shape or form.

And remember, I was a Christian who didn't oppose the war. But I didn't promote it thinking it would advance Christianity.

Now if you mean the conflict's being framed as "Us vs. Them" that's certainly possible, but that appeals to bigotry, not Christianity.

But Frank, that Christianity and its sacred texts were used as an excuse in the enslavement, death, displacement and starvation of millions is a fact of history.

You cite Genghis Khan and the ancient Greeks. I'd add Alexander the Great, Josep Stalin, the Ottoman Emperors, the Emperor Moctezuma and Senzangakona Shaka Zulu for good measure.

None of these people, none of these empires, none of their armies, ever enslaved and murdered and stole on the scale of the European Christians. It never happened. None of these saw their temples erected in Australia, Asia, Africa and the Americas. None of them saw entire peoples, languages and cultures eradicated, displaced, starved and enslaved like the Christians of Europe.

It's an awful fact of history that the religions of the people of the Americas were at best invisible and at worst reviled by the Europeans. It's another awful fact of history that missionaries were used as a tool to destroy the beautiful cultures of the Americas and Australia, and many in Africa and Asia, in tandem with colonial armies.

Your church, Frank, which is on stolen ground, is not a Hindu temple, a mosque, a Shinto shrine or a grove sacred to Artemis of Ephesus. It is a church, and Christianity is the state religion of Canada, and I expect of every nation in the Americas.

This is not a coincidence. The Christian world view, its understanding of the relative worth of peoples and material culture, and history, and property, and notions of 'progress', was an essential part of the impetus that took people to the New World and both provoked and justified the things they did when they got there. Any of the terrible wrongs done by followers of Hinduism or Shinto animism will not take away the fact that Christians wrought this, and proudly, and if you care to look at any ethnography, almanacs or newspapers from, say, Victorian Britain, you'll see that Christianity was cited as an excuse to the very last, Wilberforce be damned.

You write that "Combating that sinful nature of mankind is actually the whole point of Christianity."

When will it begin to work?

I mean, it wasn't working 1550 years after the death of its founder, not at all—it was bringing misery to millions at the hands of 'sinners', if you like, everywhere on the earth. Let MarcUK praise the cosmos without asking him what his god's done lately. Yours has a lot to undo.

100% unsupportable, you're not making much sense here.

When I discuss the Christian roots of America, I hear again, and again, and again, how it was in no wise formed as a Christian country, or was formed with Christian principles in it's Constitution -- but you're more than willing to throw around a term like "Christian Europe," or tell me how all the Christians in America stole the Native's land. You need to make up your mind. There was this thing called The Enlightenment.

Napoleon was not following Christian principles, neither was Voltaire. Andrew Carnegie's business practices weren't examples of Christlike behavior, and neither were the actions of the East India Company -- if you would like to try to separate the fiduciary aspects of acquiring all that territory, and still term it a "Christian enterprise" I would love for you to break that down for me.

When pastors bent over and kissed Charles Darwin's ring on eugenics, that didn't make eugenics a "Christian movement," The men who shot and stuffed Aborigines in Australia for the Smithsonian probably went to Church that Sunday, but it doesn't make what they were doing "Christian."

Love to hear it -- peel away the Enlightenment from the Reformation and tell what you have left.

Stop muddling, already.


Love you.

That's actually funny.

What does Hassan's yammering have to do with butterflies and evolution? No wonder these topics always get locked. So much for a potentially enthralling discussion. DERAIL AWAY!

Because there is nothing absolute and everything is relative, religious and athiest doctrine is exactly what it is today.

It doesn't matter what the original doctrine of a religions founder is, because once he has told someone, it is then out of his control.

Let me pick on Jesus - because it is fun. Take this example in the imaginary context there really being a founder at the start of Christianity as per what some would have us believe. It makes no difference to my point that this is not true, the same could be said of any religious foundation.

Jesus has an idea for his religion. Christianity is then solely what Jesus knows.

Jesus teaches 12 disciples. Jesus has lost control of his idea. Christianity is now exactly what 13 people believe. They all have differing interpretations of Jesus' idea. Therefore its utterly moot, what Jesus' Christianity is, because now Christianity is the product of 13 people.

These disciples teach each teach have 12 disciples of thier own. We now have 170 Christians. It doesn't matter if they are teaching something of a corruption of the founders idea, because Christianity is now what 170 say it is.

These 170 people can argue about what the founder meant, but because it is open to relative interpretation, they will never really know. If half of these break away and form a different Christian sect based on their interpretation, then we now have 2 sets of Christians, neither of which are really true to the founders intent. But none-the-less they are still Christians. Simply because that is what they claim they are.

Christianity is now a mishmash of 170 peoples ideas. All of them are wrong, because they all are interpretations of something they dont truly understand, but nonetheless "Christianity" is 170 ideas and not Jesus'.

Today, we have in excess of 1 billion people claiming to be Christians. Simple fact. None of them are in context of the founders idea. But its irrelavent because any human endevour is relative. They are all Christians, because that is what each individual is claiming they are.

Christianity is now a mishmash of 1 billion peoples ideas. All of them are wrong, because they all are interpretations of something they dont truly understand, but nonetheless "Christianity" is 1 billion ideas and not Jesus'.

Therefore what Christianity means today, is what 1 billion people say it is today. And what matters as far as Christianity is concerned is what these people are doing Today. Its utterly moot, what Jesus intended, because he is not here today to give an opinion of it straight from his mouth.

All there is, is human interpretation of what has been left for us about Jesus from the texts that remain. If there really is such a thing as absolute, there would be 1 Christian denomination, all exactly on message, saying exactly the same thing.

This is not the case. And was never the case as soon as Jesus diluted his idea amongst the original 12 disciples. Even they could not agree and split.

SO, if we find that half of the Christians today are militant, and half are hippies, then what Christianity means is what they say it does. If the militant half go on holy war, then Christianity is on a holy war.

The hippy half can argue that this is not Christianity. They are not Jesus, so they do not know they are any more right than the militant half. All they have is a corrupted interpretation of something they will never truly understand.

Jesus is irrelavent. He has no direct say in what Christians do today. If Christianity becomes perverse and corrupt, then Christianity IS perverse and corrupt, because that is what the followers of Christianity are doing today.

You can argue forever about the intent of the founder, and claim this and that, that group x are not really Christians, that group Y have misunderstood parable Z.

Rubbish! Its irrelavent, because if someone is claiming that they are acting under duress of instruction from God, then thats exactly what God means right here and now.

Please lock this thread. It is 'a corruption of the founder's intent'. (teehee)

And apparently 12 (disciples) + 1 (Jesus) * 12 (disciples each) + 13 (the original 12 + 1)=170.
13*12+13=170

If man becomes perverse and corrupt, then man IS perverse and corrupt, because that is what men are doing today. So, according to your own logic, Man actually does want wars, fighting and conflict, etc. because that is what we are doing. That's a quality double standard you have there.

I dont see what the double standard is there, I completely agree.

In your rant against Christianity, you said (paraphrasing here to make the point) that a group is defined by what they are doing, not their ideals. Which then changes their ideals to what they are doing. Right? Or at least close? Then when talking about man and astronomy, you said that man doesn't want to be bothered by all the trivial crap that comes our way, but just wants to be left alone and discover. But, Since we are concerned about this, than this is what we want. Still good? So man wants to be immersed in this junk constantly, but also wants to be left alone to discover, which are mutually exclusive events. So you either are either lying, using faulty logic, or applying a double standard to man and Christianity. I assumed the last as you seem to be an otherwise intelligent individual, but biased against the religiously inclined.

Feel free to correct me if your implied meaning was different than my interpreted one.