Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
chelle

I guess I was wrong...

Recommended Posts

Evolving snaf.gif

 

I hope you believe in Evolution cause you're going to Hell!

 

Some thoughts for the prison your religion imposed on your mind:

 

If the universe embodies creativity becoming manifest as an emergent property and as a natural function of physical matter and the laws it operates under, why do we have to postulate a conscious agent behind the workings of the universe? Why do we need to multiply the names of god if the word 'universe' covers it?

 

Is it any coincidence that most religions offer the idea of eternal life or life beyond our mortal coils? Is it so difficult to envision the idea of a soul apart from the body by examining how primitives understood dreams? For example, the Australian aborigines believe in dream entities that exist independently. Is it any wonder that primitive man when faced with consciousness of the eventual death of his physical body became afraid and created the idea of a conscious agent that lives on? Wouldn’t you want to belong to a religion that offered to let you win the lottery or live forever?

 

A deeper, more primitive being underlies our contemporary veneer of modernity, our clothes, our attitudes, and our beliefs. How else could the most culturally and technologically advanced nation at the time (Nazi Germany) have turned to superstitious scapegoating of a group of people? How does religion deal with the problem of human evil? Some religions saw the need to create the image of an evil being that causes mischief to occur. Again, religion tried to provide answers to society’s problems by acting as its authority. One only has to look at modern day equivalents of rudimentary religions by examining the development of cults and the tactics these cults use to influence group behavior.

 

It seems, in my mind at least, that we must be comforted by the idea that we are not alone in the universe and that there is a higher purpose among life than reproduction and competition for resources. This implies that there is some grand goal that a conscious agent has in mind, an omega point, as it were. Why do we have to have a conscious agent directing our development and how do we account for events such as genocide? Why do we have to take such a circuitous route to whatever omega point we are approaching? In other words, saying that god acts in mysterious ways is not enough for me to subsume my responsibility to become self aware and an active agent in this world.

 

Face it, scrambled legs, all the gods exist in the human mind as does good and evil in our own hearts. We don't need the existence of beings exterior to us to account for these things and when we accept that social motivations come from our desires and fears then maybe we'll live in a saner world free from irrational superstitions. And, the way to do this, is to continue to study the human mind and body, its history of development, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discuss the theory that fossils were created by the Creator in order to "fake" evidence for a non-existant process of Evolution in order to test our faith yellaf.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Discuss the theory that fossils were created by the Creator in order to "fake" evidence for a non-existant process of Evolution in order to test our faith yellaf.gif

 

Uh, yeah. The real creator of this world is the ultimate trickster god, the Devil. yellaf.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that you have chosen not to respect my wishes for you to stop ostracising other religions. I respect yours and I just wish you could do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And about transforming from apes... the fossils that were in our textbooks proving the transformation have been riddled with lies and deciebt. Confessions of the discovers on their death beds admitting to creating a fossil from two different digs. Simply attatching an ape skull to a human jaw bone. Also several fossils only accounted for 25% of the total reconstructed artifact. They filled the rest in with plaster to produce the proper bone structure to the best of their knowledge. In other words, creating the missing link out of plaster.

 

Don't you find it peculiar that only one skull of each transformation was discovered. Wouldn't you think that there would be several discoveries of the lastest transition to man before they discovered the earliest? I mean if you started digging for skulls, you'd find millions of present day man before you'd find one of man a 1/2 million years ago. So you should find thousands of man 1/2 million years ago before you find one of man 1 million years ago.

 

A site with some strong arguments against creationist fossil record critic: Click Here!

 

I don't think I could offer a better critique than they did. So there! What they said...

And if we developed from apes, why are there still apes around now adays? How come apes didn't develop? How come none of the other current spiecies didn't evolve from another current spieces. How come there aren't groundhogs that evolved from groundhogs to become some intelligent being that can kill the farmers that constantly kill them?

I have never heard anybody but a creationist suggest that we descended from any ape species that exists today. Rather the great apes and us hominids descended from distant simian ancestors and developed our own unique characteristics that worked in our environments. Humans seem to have scored with the whole prefrontal lobe thing.

 

I think that suggesting that that ground hogs haven't developed the ability to kill farmers shows an incredible misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. As far as I know, ground hogs don't seem to going extinct. They seem to have an ability to reproduce and hide that doesn't neccesitate them to develop an intelligence to create a farmer missle defense shield. And of course they couldn't develop dramatically new traits in the eyeblink of the time that modern agriculture has been present in North America. I'll stop talking now because I feel like I've been hooked by a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If wishes were fishes, Scott, then fishermen would be outta work. Fishers of men, otoh... well, imo there's a new school of marks born every minute. That gal in Georgia's just trying to build the new American Madrassa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't respect my religion!

 

Yes I do.

It's hard to respect something that doesn't exist! grin.gif

 

If you want to play the semantic game... then fine. I respect your belief system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scrambeled Legs said:

As for the arguments, who brought in creation? Wasn't the original post just about leaving Evolution out of the ciriculum. No-one said anything about bringing in Creation.

 

I am the guilty party:

Mothboy88 said:

OK, so most of us agree that its ludicrous to not teach evolution in school. My question then is do you think the latest permutation of creationism - Intelligent Design - should be given any time in a science class?

 

I thought it would be intersting to juxtapose the issue and see of those of us who believed it was a bad idea to ban the mention of evolution also thought it was a good idea to ban mention of creationist theories that are attempting to get a foothold in the scientific world.

 

To get back to the orginal topic - I think attempts to censor words and ideas is pretty spooky in an Orwellian sort of way. And it probably makes the ideas seem more powerful if people are so threatened by them.

 

So by the same standard, I think its fine to discuss creationism in school since it is a very prevalent idea and I hope that kids could be armed with some ability to debate the validity of creationism in a scientific context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scrambeled Legs said:

As for the arguments, who brought in creation? Wasn't the original post just about leaving Evolution out of the ciriculum. No-one said anything about bringing in Creation.

 

I am the guilty party:

Mothboy88 said:

OK, so most of us agree that its ludicrous to not teach evolution in school. My question then is do you think the latest permutation of creationism - Intelligent Design - should be given any time in a science class?

 

I thought it would be intersting to juxtapose the issue and see of those of us who believed it was a bad idea to ban the mention of evolution also thought it was a good idea to ban mention of creationist theories that are attempting to get a foothold in the scientific world.

 

To get back to the orginal topic - I think attempts to censor words and ideas is pretty spooky in an Orwellian sort of way. And it probably makes the ideas seem more powerful if people are so threatened by them.

 

So by the same standard, I think its fine to discuss creationism in school since it is a very prevalent idea and I hope that kids could be armed with some ability to debate the validity of creationism in a scientific context.

 

thumbs_up.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Creationism has no place in the formative educational development of our young people in our liberal democratic society. Creationism is fundamentalism, the literal interpretation of the Bible, and smacks of the closing of the American mind. Leave the debate of creationism to college courses. The subjugation of high school students to creationism is wrong because it's confuses the development of a rational worldview. Teaching creationism is akin to teaching students to believe in ghosts, demons, angels, supernatural powers, etc.

 

Look, you want students to believe in miraculous things, teach them about science and technology.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

--Arthur C. Clarke, "Technology and the Future"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul, Iain said that Religion creates solace, no? I believe that it does not

Scott-

Spend some time around the dying (the old, the sickly, the infirm) and you'll see the solace that religion brings to people before their end - and to those who are left behind. It's amazing religion's ability to bring peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Creationism has no place in the formative educational development of our young people in our liberal democratic society. Creationism is fundamentalism, the literal interpretation of the Bible, and smacks of the closing of the American mind. Leave the debate of creationism to college courses. The subjugation of high school students to creationism is wrong because it's confuses the development of a rational worldview. Teaching creationism is akin to teaching students to believe in ghosts, demons, angels, supernatural powers, etc.

 

Look, you want students to believe in miraculous things, teach them about science and technology.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

--Arthur C. Clarke, "Technology and the Future"

 

But people do beleive in ghosts, demons, angels, supernatural powers, etc. Wouldn't it be effective to take the approach Carl Sagan did in The Demon Haunted World and confront these concepts through the lense of the scientific method?

 

I agree though, you obviously can't do this early on in a kids education. I wish kids could be trained to be critical reasoners by high school so we didn't limit such discussions to those who are college educated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things are real in as much as they can influence your experience. In other words, something doesn't have to exist in concrete reality to have a real effect on you. A belief, however irrational or unfounded, can influence your actions. So yeah, these things such as ghosts exist even if not physically proven but as mental constructs such as the embodiment of conscience as in Shakespeare's MacBeth, in other words, as projections of our minds.

 

The important thing, I believe, is not to confuse things such as imaginery threats versus real threats. If you imagined a tiger in the trees, it poses no real threat to your life. However, if you didn't see a real tiger in the trees, then you might not live to tell about it. Also, it's a matter of perception. You might imagine a coil of rope to be a snake and react accordingly. The imaginery snake and tiger might cause you to recoil but once you realize these as illusory appearances, your ignorance is dispelled and your fears disappear.

 

So, what I'm trying to say is to recognize things as they are, to see clearly if possible. We do not see by our eyes alone but also with our minds, our preconceptions, etc.

 

I am a believer in using the imagination and sometimes it calls for using it in ways that seem to be unorthodox. What I am against is using imagination as a tool to force control over others such as instilling the belief of heaven and hell. What better way to stifle intellectual dissent than by saying someone will burn in hell for questioning his beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you believe in Evolution cause you're going to Hell!

What's evolution got to do with Hell?

 

BTW, I'll see you there, if it exists. bigdrink.gif

 

I just stated the other reflection of views. Many people pass of religion as an emotional escape to the fact that their life sucks. I on the other hand believe that evolution is just as much of an escape. If you believe in the extreme view of evolution rather than small adaptations through time, than you can't believe in Christianity. If you don't believe in Christianity, then you don't have to worry about upholding morals, not porking the girlfriend and the wife, swearing, getting drunk, orgies (as if any of us have had the chance.. ahahah) So those evolutionists that pass off christianity, may be so concentrated on evolution being true that they are simply seeing what they want to see. I mean they don't have to worry about going to hell no matter how bad they screw up here.

 

Its a lot harder to be a christian than an evolutionalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and stoner... you havent' answered my question. If evolution disputes creation than how was the beginning matter formed? The very Science that evolution is based upon also states that you can't create something out of nothing. Maybe it is a good thing to take a step back and simpilize things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word to that Stonehead. Well said. But I don't think your intellectual dissent has been stifled by a few yahoos telling you they think you are hell bound. I think it would be great if everyone could present an articulate response like you can in a debate about creationism the world would be a better place. But I don't think that is going to happen if we were to uniformly prohibit discussion of creationist attempts at scientific theories like intelligent design. How can someone counter an argument he doesn't understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
religions are society's coping mechanisms for the harsh reality that sometimes life sucks. They provide half-baked stories that are supposed to comfort you when life kicks you in the pants for no apparent reason.

 

If this is how you see it then how about,

 

Evolution is society's coping mechanism for the harsh reality that they're going to hell. They provide a half-baked hypothesis that is supposed to comfort them so they can feel guilt free while sinning.

Huh? How so? Christianity says that if you're good then you'll go to Heaven when you die, and you'll keep living up there. Thus it's comforting when your son dies, because you know he'll keep living in heaven and you'll see him there. Also, when life sucks, you can console yourself that you'll go to heaven soon and life is perfect here. That's how it's comforting.

 

But how does the theory of evolution comfort us and keep us from feeling guilty? confused.gif

 

Christianity isn't peaches and roses. It also provides rigid guidlines that you have to follow in order to obtain heaven. It's a lot harder to live these guidlines than it is to deny they exist through the belief of Evolution. As a Christian you also know and belive in a hell. Simply having a good son doesn't mean you'll see him in heaven. He too has to give his life to the lord. Evolution says we are free to do whatever we want. There is no afterlife simply science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and stoner... you havent' answered my question. If evolution disputes creation than how was the beginning matter formed? The very Science that evolution is based upon also states that you can't create something out of nothing.

 

The theory of evolution focuses on the interaction between life on this planet and the planet itself. It has nothing to do with the original creation of matter in the universe. Scientists, remarkably, are willing to say "I don't know" when there is no evidence to support something yet. Seems to make more sense than making up some fairy tale don't you think?

 

step back and simpilize things!
confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
religions are society's coping mechanisms for the harsh reality that sometimes life sucks. They provide half-baked stories that are supposed to comfort you when life kicks you in the pants for no apparent reason.

 

If this is how you see it then how about,

 

Evolution is society's coping mechanism for the harsh reality that they're going to hell. They provide a half-baked hypothesis that is supposed to comfort them so they can feel guilt free while sinning.

Huh? How so? Christianity says that if you're good then you'll go to Heaven when you die, and you'll keep living up there. Thus it's comforting when your son dies, because you know he'll keep living in heaven and you'll see him there. Also, when life sucks, you can console yourself that you'll go to heaven soon and life is perfect here. That's how it's comforting.

 

But how does the theory of evolution comfort us and keep us from feeling guilty? confused.gif

 

Christianity isn't peaches and roses. It also provides rigid guidlines that you have to follow in order to obtain heaven. It's a lot harder to live these guidlines than it is to deny they exist through the belief of Evolution. As a Christian you also know and belive in a hell. Simply having a good son doesn't mean you'll see him in heaven. He too has to give his life to the lord. Evolution says we are free to do whatever we want. There is no afterlife simply science.

 

If the virtue of Christianity is that it is hjarder to believe and follow the faith than humanism, scientism, whatever - then logically, worshipping some sort of giant three-nippled pig, and having to walk around with a ten ton anvil strapped to your head, and not saying the word "The" on weekdays - is even a more difficult faith to follow. I expect you will convert immediately.

 

snaf.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×