Atheists on the march in America

[Givemeliberty]

You still arguing for the invisible sky wizard? What an idiot.

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
From a sky god to a magical realm where dead matter mysteriously comes to life. A quantum leap indeed! LOL!

[Some Random Dude]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Such thinking allows science to have no morality, to ignore its responsibility to hold itself accountable for what it does.
A moral science that works to raise our humanity is imperative, particularly in the face of an endangered planet and nightmarish weapons spreading everywhere.

Unfortunately... short of a radical overhaul of our values as civilized people, there is no real way to "raise our humanity" to levels that it would require to stop our destructive path. We have been trying for at least 10,000 years to build a society that works but have failed every time because every system we build is based on a flawed premise that "this time man will act better than he ever has before". "He will be more moral". "He will be less destructive". "He will have more compassion". "He will be less greedy". Etc. Meanwhile, he repeats the same exact mistakes over and over again. He grows without limit. He expands "his" territory and subjugates whatever and whoever lives there... insisting that HIS way is the only way. He builds vast empires while oppressing his own subjects. It's invariably the same story every time. We are basically prisoners in a lifestyle that compels us to destroy the earth in order to survive. Science has of course provided evidence to support that assertion, but our system itself is fundamentally flawed in a way that in order for the system to work it must continue to play out this way and there are no other possibilities.

[Givemeliberty]

You lack the tools needed to understand. That's ok half wit. Get your GED and you might start catching on.

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Science hasn't been any more successful proving that genes alone guide human conduct than it has its bogus theory of evolution.

[polymath257]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
If science is not responsible for compassion, where does it come from?

Strange question. Science is the method we use to learn about how the universe works. Compassion is the feeling of identification we have to another intelligent being. So the question makes no sense to me. Now, compassion *is* a brain state and so is based on a physical process, if that was your issue/.

[polymath257]

Some Random Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately... short of a radical overhaul of our values as civilized people, there is no real way to "raise our humanity" to levels that it would require to stop our destructive path. We have been trying for at least 10,000 years to build a society that works but have failed every time because every system we build is based on a flawed premise that "this time man will act better than he ever has before". "He will be more moral". "He will be less destructive". "He will have more compassion". "He will be less greedy". Etc. Meanwhile, he repeats the same exact mistakes over and over again. He grows without limit. He expands "his" territory and subjugates whatever and whoever lives there... insisting that HIS way is the only way. He builds vast empires while oppressing his own subjects. It's invariably the same story every time. We are basically prisoners in a lifestyle that compels us to destroy the earth in order to survive. Science has of course provided evidence to support that assertion, but our system itself is fundamentally flawed in a way that in order for the system to work it must continue to play out this way and there are no other possibilities.

And part of the problem is that the morality of 2000 years ago doesn't work well in today's society...we have to get rid of the religious mumbo jumbo and actually learn how to work together rather than using superstitious beliefs to drive us apart.

[Some Random Dude]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Such thinking allows science to have no morality, to ignore its responsibility to hold itself accountable for what it does.
A moral science that works to raise our humanity is imperative, particularly in the face of an endangered planet and nightmarish weapons spreading everywhere.

Yes... science invented the A-bomb and developed poisons. Science also played a major role in making our destructive population expansion possible. But science ALSO woke up from it's sleep in the early 60s and has been willing to acknowledge the evidence put forth about our effect on the environment. Since then, science has taken steps to minimize our impact on the ecosystem. Granted, we have a long way to go (and I'll be shocked if we don't kill ourselves off before we get there); but science is making an effort. Science is perfectly willing to admit when it's been proven wrong. Religion is still denying hard evidence about nature and the origin of life.

[Drew Smith]

postscriptt wrote:

Such thinking allows science to have no morality

*Humans* have morality. Science doesn't. Science is a collection of information (facts and theories) and a process to obtain it.

postscriptt wrote:

to ignore its responsibility to hold itself accountable for what it does.

Science itself has no such responsibility.*Humans* have a responsibility to hold themselves accountable for what they do, but that's true even when it's not science they are engaging in.

Don't confuse the process with the person engaging in it.

[Independent]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Really bad cop-out fallacy.
If you don't have actual evidence, then you cannot make the assertion. You have no evidence, therefore all it is you have is wishful thinking.

I can't explain it, the bible states that all will be revealed in the end. But I do know this, when I chose to live under his leadership, my life has changed profoundly, I have almost been granted everything that I have asked for, from family to career and I couldn't be happier.:) Call it what you will, but I am sticking to believing and most that say they just believe but do not really adhere to the gospels , I hate to say , live miserable existences, from drugs to alcoholism, etc. I am not saying I am a perfect christian, but I do succeed at most endeavors that I seek, and I always pray and ask God for his guidance, plus I give to three different charities, because of my successes through him and it looks like I am having another door open for me career wise in January, which will triple what I make now, so that I may be able to give more. So, again call it what you will, I am sticking with my game plan, which is believing and serving the lord. Oh and by the way, have a Merry Christmas!

[Some Random Dude]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
And part of the problem is that the morality of 2000 years ago doesn't work well in today's society...we have to get rid of the religious mumbo jumbo and actually learn how to work together rather than using superstitious beliefs to drive us apart.

Honestly, the morality of 2000 years ago didn't work then either. There were still the same kinds of moral problems as we have today, they just SEEM smaller in retrospect... mostly because they've been magnified by population expansion and technology. The religious mumbo-jumbo never really has worked. Religion was invented by man in an attempt to tell us the right way to live. The reason man needs prophets to tell him how to live is because we've basically abandoned our roots and a system that worked in favor of a system that runs contrary to our nature on almost every level. For man's first 2-3 million years, we lived in tribes. There was a sense of security and inclusiveness within the tribes that we've never even come close to replicating in society... as society is fundamentally based on material wealth and for the most part autonomy. With the evaporation of the tribal sense of security and the ushering in of a new way of life that divided people with hierarchy; people were left largely disenfranchised. It's no surprise that people began to develop a sense of emptiness and longing. In order for people to get some sense of reason for all of this, they invented religious legends to try to explain away what didn't make sense and has never made sense. If we look at the way our tribal ancestors operated for most of man's existence, we will find the answers to what works best for people. We are brainwashed by our culture to believe the tribal system was wrong and that we've culturally "evolved" to what we are today. But that itself is a myth. We didn't evolve to this. It was just a certain group of people who developed a certain lifestyle that gave them the power to force that lifestyle on the rest of humanity.

[Rose_NoHo]

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you? It's all been hashed and rehashed a gazillion times over. The fact remains, religion can't prove God exists and science can't prove God doesn't exist. It's an endless circular argument - round and round it goes proving nothing. Using a raft of fallacious arguments based on the out-dated pseudo science of talkorigins doesn't make your assertions any more plausibe, or even intelligent for that matter.

If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence. But there is none, so we can conclude he doesn't exist.

[postscriptt]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
And part of the problem is that the morality of 2000 years ago doesn't work well in today's society...we have to get rid of the religious mumbo jumbo and actually learn how to work together rather than using superstitious beliefs to drive us apart.

Compassion is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

[postscriptt]

Some Random Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes... science invented the A-bomb and developed poisons. Science also played a major role in making our destructive population expansion possible. But science ALSO woke up from it's sleep in the early 60s and has been willing to acknowledge the evidence put forth about our effect on the environment. Since then, science has taken steps to minimize our impact on the ecosystem. Granted, we have a long way to go (and I'll be shocked if we don't kill ourselves off before we get there); but science is making an effort. Science is perfectly willing to admit when it's been proven wrong. Religion is still denying hard evidence about nature and the origin of life.

That's like saying a government is not responsible for its actions. Science is not an entity unto itself. It's peopled by humans who have grown used to an ethos of amorality made possible by people like you who look the other way when scientists engage in activities that border on the diabolical. Any technology that produces weapons that kill all living things while leaving buildings intact is based on the skewed and immoral rationale that bricks and mortar are worth more than human lives.

The theory of evolution has been instrumental in replacing the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest. Yet morality cannot be divorced from a deeper reflection about the purpose of human life, and it is this reflection that is missing in scientific endeavors.

[postscriptt]

OOPS! The above post was meant for polymath's remarks #65723

[postscriptt]

Rose_NoHo wrote:

<quoted text>
If god existed, there would be evidence of his existence. But there is none, so we can conclude he doesn't exist.

Since the non-physical cannot be investigated in a laboratory, we can conclude that God does exist.

[postscriptt]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Strange question. Science is the method we use to learn about how the universe works. Compassion is the feeling of identification we have to another intelligent being. So the question makes no sense to me. Now, compassion *is* a brain state and so is based on a physical process, if that was your issue/.

Perhaps your confusion stems from your definition of the word compassion which has nothing to do with identification, but everything to do with empathy.

I have discussed the nature of consciousness at length. Since science cannot locate the seat of thought and feeling in the brain, it cannot assume that emotion is a physical process.

[postscriptt]

Givemeliberty wrote:

You lack the tools needed to understand. That's ok half wit. Get your GED and you might start catching on.
<quoted text>

And this from an ape-man. LOL!

[postscriptt]

"The Intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." - Albert Einstein

"The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms – this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness”.- Albert Einstein (The Merging of Spirit and Science)

Consciousness forms matter. It is not the other way around.

There are many gradations of matter that scientists do not perceive and many of these particles move faster than the speed of light. Light represents only a portion of an even greater spectrum and when scientists study its properties, they can only investigate light as it intrudes into the three dimensional system. The same applies to the study of the structure of matter, or form.

There are universes composed of such faster than light particles. Some of these share the same space as our own universe but they are not perceived unless these particles are slowed sufficiently to experience them as matter.

Some of these particles (emanations from consciousness) drastically alter their velocity, appearing sometimes at our slower rate, usually in a cyclic fashion. The inner vortex of these particles have a much greater velocity than the orbiting portions. The intensity is the core (feeling and intent) around which these electromagnetic emanations of consciousness form. The more intense the core, the sooner the physical materialization. Coordinate points magnify or intensify the behavior, the latent spontaneity inherent within the properties of physical matter. They act as psychic generators.

The intensity of the thought or emotion determines the characteristics of these emanations of consciousness. As certain ranges are reached, they are propelled into physical actualization. This is how consciousness becomes matter. This is the spirit made flesh.

[Givemeliberty]

Yes science is the great satan! The billions of lives it has saved and enriched! All a clever scheme to distract people from the great invisible sky wizard in the sky!

Dastardly evil people those scientists! Next thing you know they will cure millions of blind or paralyzed people!

Lmfao!

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
That's like saying a government is not responsible for its actions. Science is not an entity unto itself. It's peopled by humans who have grown used to an ethos of amorality made possible by people like you who look the other way when scientists engage in activities that border on the diabolical. Any technology that produces weapons that kill all living things while leaving buildings intact is based on the skewed and immoral rationale that bricks and mortar are worth more than human lives.
The theory of evolution has been instrumental in replacing the value of moral behavior with the concept of survival of the fittest. Yet morality cannot be divorced from a deeper reflection about the purpose of human life, and it is this reflection that is missing in scientific endeavors.

[Givemeliberty]

Yes a majority of people in Cuba to this day are Catholic. Chavez in Venezuela is a devout Christian and yes there are several churches and religious people in North Korea although churches are closely watched for uprisings and such. And that doesn't begin to go into all the Buddhist shrines and other Asian worship centers there.

Oh you didn't know this I guess. No shock there.

sugarfoot7 wrote:

<quoted text>
Like in Cuba? N. Korea?
Vandalized any creches this year?

[Thinking]

Why?

postscriptt wrote:

<quoted text>
Based on what evidence, 15th century delusions?