Spirituality
01 Jan 12
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell hey listen if could, I will rather resign than to teach children evolution if I was a teacher. The core of evolution is actually to tell those children that no God exists as we must thank the big bang and everything that happened after that that created all of this.
Stop trying to ban the teaching of evolutionary theory in science classes, or claiming it isn't true,
or that it has no evidence, or that it is a religion... then evolution will stay on the science forum.
Actually it rarely gets brought up in science because there isn't any debate as to whether it's true or
not in the science community, it's only between science and religion that it's an issue,
which is why it gets brought up here.
Evolution has no evidence to prove that God does not exist, so it is save to say I welcome the evolutionists in this forum, as they lack spirituality and maybe this is the best place where they can get it.
07 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou have a good point but ...
So it's ok for you to spew vicious hatred towards religions you don't follow, but if somebody calls your god 'it' rather than 'him' you feel offended?
I have not read one post where a Christian referred to another god in another religion "it" except in cases where such a god was the sun, moon, crocodile or statue (in those directions). Further more, no respect comes from the other side either. Evolutionists and atheist have a lot to say about grammar but yet they fail in the same thing they try to lecture.
Thus, as we too, would like to help you right and you continuing the way you do, is childish and insulting. We have differences and continuous insults will only be returned by insults and this is where it mostly ends.
Edit: If you look at images of the FSM - it definitely falls under the "it" category.
07 Jan 12
Ah, Nicksten, there you are.
When you call every evolutionst an idiot, as your postng to robbie shows, then do you exclude me or do you really think I am an idiot just for believing in evolution, for just don't sharing your religious views?
Just remember the words of Christ" Don't treat others as you don't want to be treated yourself" By not giving others respect, then you don't respect either. By calling others idios, then you are an idiot yourself, right?
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by FabianFnasYeah - I'm not that type of person and try not to be. It is hard to keep my pose. So to those that I have offended, I do apologize.
Ah, Nicksten, there you are.
When you call every evolutionst an idiot, as your postng to robbie shows, then do you exclude me or do you really think I am an idiot just for believing in evolution, for just don't sharing your religious views?
Just remember the words of Christ" Don't treat others as you don't want to be treated yourself" By not giving ...[text shortened]... you don't respect either. By calling others idios, then you are an idiot yourself, right?
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by NickstenI was mostly thinking of RJHinds' comments regarding muslims when I made this post. He has repeatedly shown not only a lack of respect, but distinct and unpleasant disrespect towards people of this faith. That he should then feel offended by somebody not speaking of his god in the way he feels they should strikes me as rather ridiculous - why would you expect somebody else to behave in a way in which you yourself are not prepared to behave yourself?
You have a good point but ...
I have not read one post where a Christian referred to another god in another religion "it" except in cases where such a god was the sun, moon, crocodile or statue (in those directions). Further more, no respect comes from the other side either. Evolutionists and atheist have a lot to say about grammar but yet they fail in t ...[text shortened]... ds.
Edit: If you look at images of the FSM - it definitely falls under the "it" category.
As to the rest of your post; you don't have to look far in this forum to find instances of disrespectful and insulting behaviour from christians towards atheists, towards those of other religions and even towards each other. I think we could all learn from FMF in this respect. He stands out as somebody who is almost unfailingly respectful even of those who probably don't deserve such treatment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
07 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by NickstenWrong, most people who accept evolution are Christians and most Christians accept evolution.
Well hey listen if could, I will rather resign than to teach children evolution if I was a teacher. The core of evolution is actually to tell those children that no God exists as we must thank the big bang and everything that happened after that that created all of this.
Evolution has no evidence to prove that God does not exist, so it is save to say I w ...[text shortened]... in this forum, as they lack spirituality and maybe this is the best place where they can get it.
Only creationists have a problem, and they are the fringe minority.
Science lessons don't mention god, at all, it doesn't come up.
In biology classes you get taught about evolution as the mechanism by which the diversity of
life came about.
The big bang or the creation of the universe or the earth is not mentioned because that is
physics and not biology.
Evolution doesn't TRY to prove god doesn't exist because all evolution is is the process by which living
organisms change and adapt to their environment.
God did it is not a scientific idea and can never be so in any guise.
And frankly if you were a teacher resigning is the best thing you could do because you have no
concept of what science is or how it works.
EDIT:
Even if evolution was wrong (it isn't) it would still be infinitely better than creationism.
Creationism fails as a hypothesis because it makes no predictions at all whatsoever.
It is a requirement of scientific theories that they make testable predictions, and can be
falsified.
Creationism is the idea 'god did it' applied to biology and as the motives and abilities (and existence)
of god is unknown and unknowable there is no way of predicting what god might do or why.
Thus creationism can't (and doesn't) make ANY predictions that can be tested or falsified at all.
So while creationism does 'fit all the facts' we observe in nature, it would fit ANY set of facts in nature.
Evolution on the other hand also fit's all the facts, but will not fit any facts, there are things we could
discover that would not be compatible with evolution.
Thus Evolutionary theory is better and more useful than creationism even if creationism is right and
evolution is wrong.
So creationism will never, and should never, be taught as science.
07 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by NickstenThen please give others respect of the kind you want yourself from others in the future. If your apologize is sincere.
Yeah - I'm not that type of person and try not to be. It is hard to keep my pose. So to those that I have offended, I do apologize.
You once wrote to me: "Where has this become such a level of discussion? Your comment "Your words mean nothing. Not worth commenting. You are indoctrinated. Nothing more." but then actually making a comment doesn't really make you sound any better now does it? Kids!" at Thread 144208, page #6, remember? Read and feel embarrassed.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeThose Christians were fooled into believing false lies. It's a shame really.
Wrong, most people who accept evolution are Christians and most Christians accept evolution.
Only creationists have a problem, and they are the fringe minority.
Science lessons don't mention god, at all, it doesn't come up.
In biology classes you get taught about evolution as the mechanism by which the diversity of
life came about.
The big bang o ...[text shortened]... tion is wrong.
So creationism will never, and should never, be taught as science.
Firstly you are getting way too technical - even if the big bang is physics, nothing stops the lecturer to mentioned it in the class now does it? Nothing stops them either to teach them that something extra.
I know what the evolution process is, thus my reason for saying i will not teach such crap to children.
You are also trying to argue religion scientifically which is where you're problem is. And to proof you don't know what you are talking about is that the Bible has many predictions, some of them that has come true and some yet to come true. But this I assume is not the predictions you actually meant.
Religion does not fail as a hypothesis...the only logical thing to do is to actually go to church and observe how we do it. This maybe would much better way that suites you than to complain about it not being a hypothesis. And for heaven sake, don't go to the church of the FSM.
Until then, for as long as it fails a hypothesis it is because you have failed to visite a church.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by avalanchethecatAre you serious? You can't mean FMF. You must be thinking of
I was mostly thinking of RJHinds' comments regarding muslims when I made this post. He has repeatedly shown not only a lack of respect, but distinct and unpleasant disrespect towards people of this faith. That he should then feel offended by somebody not speaking of his god in the way he feels they should strikes me as rather ridiculous - why would ...[text shortened]... who is almost unfailingly respectful even of those who probably don't deserve such treatment.
someone else. Why should I respect Satan under the name of
Allah and all those murderers and liars that worship him? But I
do refer to their false god as he and not it. IMO that is enough
respect.
07 Jan 12
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe same goes for you too, remember that.
Then please give others respect of the kind you want yourself from others in the future. If your apologize is sincere.
You once wrote to me: "Where has this become such a level of discussion? Your comment "Your words mean nothing. Not worth commenting. You are indoctrinated. Nothing more." but then actually making a comment doesn't really make you soun ...[text shortened]... es it? Kids!" at Thread 144208, page #6, remember? Read and feel embarrassed.
I apologized and that is good enough for me as it was sincere.
I no longer feel bad for any previous comments thus by bringing the post up does not make me feel bad or embarrassed at all. But now that I think of it....even after apologizing and you still bring this up...
08 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by NickstenIn my way of thinking the only thing(s) that could be eternal is that which is not affected by time or decay in anyway.
Yes karoly aczell, really.
RJHinds did point it out well.
Perhaps our sexless "souls" goto heaven (to be with god)- now even that is a stretch for me- but I can still work with that. What I cant work with is a "God" that has a sex.
"God" is the creator of all, (unless you are referring to his physical sidekick, Jesus), and I cant see a creator, who is 'pre-manifestation' as having any reproductive organs.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWe call our newborns "it" until we determine the sex. (As I remember, our 8th grade teacher asked that to our class, and no one could answer it, but he had it right. We call our newborns, or pre-borns (these days) , "It".
If someone called a member of your family an it, do you think
any of your family would consider that offensive? Do you ever
call your mother or father, it? What did it get for Christmas?
No I dont call my mum or dad "It", using "he" or "she" is just a handy communicative tool for me, but in this day of ...(for example) let's say people like you having a fully grown gay son, I would say that the lines between sexes and what the roles are for one sex as opposed to the other, have never been more blurred than in the last 20 or so years.
I got a new (used)electric guitar for xmas. It's fun 😀
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelI don't recall ever calling a baby "it". I call a baby "he" unless I know
We call our newborns "it" until we determine the sex. (As I remember, our 8th grade teacher asked that to our class, and no one could answer it, but he had it right. We call our newborns, or pre-borns (these days) , "It".
No I dont call my mum or dad "It", using "he" or "she" is just a handy communicative tool for me, but in this day of ...(for exam ...[text shortened]... the last 20 or so years.
I got a new (used)electric guitar for xmas. It's fun 😀
the baby is a female. Don't you know my God's name by now? Even if
you don't you could at least be respectful enough to just call him "your
God". I may refer to an object as "it", but not a person.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
08 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI sometimes refer to god as he, sometimes as she, but mainly as it.
I don't recall ever calling a baby "it". I call a baby "he" unless I know
the baby is a female. Don't you know my God's name by now? Even if
you don't you could at least be respectful enough to just call him "your
God". I may refer to an object as "it", but not a person.
I mainly use he, for linguistic convenience when talking to a Christian as its often quicker to talk
about your specific god than talking about gods in general (and sometimes the argument may
only apply to a specific god)
I use she, when I want to (subtly) point out the manifest sexism of the assumption that god is a he.
And I mainly use it, partly because I find the idea of a singular universe creating omnipotent super
being having genitals and thus gender absurd. And partly because I try to make my arguments apply
generally to any god and not just the god of the bible and many gods are in fact goddesses, or gender
doesn't apply.
But mainly its for these reasons...
Why should I be respectful to your god?
If real your god as described in the bible is abominable (and I have said so many times), given I think
that why would I respect it?
Also as it isn't real, respecting it is pointless.
The only potentially valid argument is that relevant theists might find it offensive.
But then I am vociferously claiming that your god/s don't exist and are abominations if they do.
By being an atheist and talking about it I am being 'offensive' to your religion by simply existing.
I say again, getting caught up on whether I, or any other atheist, refers to your god as it, given everything else
I/we say about your god, strikes me as missing the bigger picture.
It is not acceptable to abuse people, to threaten people, or to incite hatred towards people.
But it's not possible to go through life without offending people and sometimes people need to be offended.
I call your god it because I don't respect it, I think it's imaginary (and as described also evil) and say so.
It would be hypocritical of me to bow and scrape to your evil tyrant of an imaginary friend.
So why obsess over calling god it? Surely the bigger issue is that I call your god non-existent...