What is Holy to Non-Religious People? (Video)

By on May 27, 2012 in News 90

Inherit The WindInteresting post from Hemant Mehta (a.k.a. “The Friendly Atheist” on Patheos:

Using dialogue from Inherit the Wind, the movie about the Scopes Monkey Trial, Fibbs1701 made this powerful video answering the question “What is Holy?” (from an atheist’s perspective). The scene features lawyer Henry Drummond (played by Spencer Tracy) questioning Bible expert Matthew Harrison Brady (played by Fredric March):

, , , ,

  • revolver04

    Man, that was awesome. Great job.

  • ARGUE WITH ME

    Read this if you want an educated argument:

    I feel like he proved religions case in his argument. What else on this earth has the ability to reason, can you tell me what else in this world has a neocortex? Did you see the anatomical drawing of the human? A picture representing the inherently beautiful being, a human.

    The bible says that God made man in his image.

    Does that drawing come anywhere close to being similiar to any animal? Our intelligent design? Horses are faster. Whales are larger. But which has the ability to think? Do animals create representations of themselves?

    The bible says don’t put your trust in men, put it in God, which is the all-knowing consciousness that has decided to create a perfect game, and in that creation our existence was born. The game is simple. He is going to create the universe and all aspects of it, his creation will be built in complete detail. The game will span all the way from the depths of the heavens down to the deeps of the earth. It will be a beautiful creation. Now, think of being the user in the game The Sims. Would it be any fun if it was just empty land? So the being known man was created. It was perfect. Man was surrounded in a perfect environment, one meant to support his vitality. It was full of life in the form of botany and animals, coming in varieties, but to each its own its distinction.

    Ladies and gentleman there is no proof of evolution between genomes, we are being lied to. The lack of evidence is perfectly exemplified in what we all know as the IntraGenomic Conflict. Look it up.

    This is not to be confused with intraspecies evolution in which there is evidence and does happen rarely, but as to the naked eye affect, the concept must apply “to each it’s own” in regards to each and every species in the genome (family) it belongs too.

    Then God said “go”. And  there man was. Standing with the literal or metaphorical apple in his hand. Man. Born with power of reason. The only one with a neocortex. Is left with the only decision that matters. Do I choose to believe that I am the smartest individual for my own being. Do I trust that my own rationale is correct to fully believe where I originated from? Those choosing not to believe create a thought system of inherently desiring earth-born materials/desires of the flesh, over, the desires of the spirit, in which are exemplified in the 10 commandments and what concepts are derived from the numerous parables in the bible.

    As you can see now, we live in a world where we believe there could be no god if evils like this exist on the earth. But where did it all come from. This is where the metaphor comes in. Eve’s apple. We are inherently destined as a world to chose our desires, such as expanding our societies, becoming smarter, living healthier, living for the intelligence of the brain. We have the choice: to pursue life in view of our own intelligence; or to choose God, the creator’s of the games intelligence.

    We have it figured out of course.. With all these theoretical assessments and predictions on where we came from, how the universe was created, how life is created, all the way down to the exact cellular and nano-science of it all. We are figuring out the obvious. What was put right in front of us. We have well thought out completely convincing theories. We completely trust these theories. And in that we put our trust. That in man.

    The man says “Darwin took us forward to the hilltop” in the progression of knowledge.

    We are putting our faith in a man. A man that puts the same metaphorical pants on as you do. A man so powerful he changed the world with a very convincing theory. One that is correct in many cases. But when twisted, and still very convincible, it can easily be assumed that intragenomic evolution can and has occured. And throughout the masses of the population it can easily be mistaken that a farm pig transforming into a wild boar is enough proof that we could just start growing parts in response to the environment, instead of just accepting the simple limitations of gene switches and the reality that mutagenisis is not all that it is hyped up to be. As well, as accepting the limitations of bacteria. The idea that they will always be and forever remain as, bacteria.

    But there in lies the faith of millions of the world. In a man. Instead of accepting this wonderful creation as it is, and realizing the needs of the human are what’s wrong with the world, the desires of the flesh and the reciprosic consequences are whats wrong with the world. If something as simple as the 10 commandments was followed be every being, our world as a whole would be in an enormously better state.

    But yet we continue to believe in our own intelligence.

    We humans will conquer this world. We will conquer the subatomic world. We will conquer the afterlife. Moore’s Law end’s in 10 years; then what? We will create the unimaginable. We will create heaven here on earth. In revelations the concept is derived that identity theft will be the key player in the oncoming role of the mark of the beast. This device will be immaculate. It will continuously provide optimum health. It will house all your money. You are your own bank. It will normalize hormone dysfunction. It will identify you. It will track you for optimum reasons. You can’t buy anything without it because money doesn’t exist. It all exists wirelessly in the Mark of the Beast. It will be connected to a cloud of consciousness towards all people, share experiences, talk, relive memories, relive other peoples memories, communicate with the dead, all that with increased bandwith communication, meaning you informate to the other person with more emphasis if you could imagine.

    http://disinfo.com/2012/05/identity-thieves-scamming-u-s-government-with-fake-tax-refund-claims/
    The beginning stages of the end.
    http://disinfo.com/2012/05/after-you-die-your-digital-afterlife/
    Control over after-life.

    We will have beat the flaw of death ourselves. We will have conquered this world as the spitting images of God we are.

    But thats when the absolute end happens. The moment where we proclaim there is no God, we are greater than any god could be. And can prove it. But can still not answer how the first breath of life got into the very first person. Read revelations for the rest, it has to do with the mass murder of millions of non-believers, a fight, a battle, in what will be the unveiling of the ultimate question. Where did we come from.

    God will end the game. He will show himself. There will be no need for faith anymore. There will be evidence. And you know how the one saying goes “If I tell ya, Ill have to kill ya”, well, he told. Thus ends the world. The demise of a creation going up against the creator. The consequences of a failed attempt at killing the goose that laid the golden egg. There ya have it.

    Christianity is the right religion because (Ill save the longtalk) its the completely most fair to ones spirit. The power to chose ones destiny does not rely in how many acts he can do, prerequisites, or requisites. Our body is our body, if you took it out of the equation and left the spirit (A metaphorical person with all legs cut off and no motor/sensory function) then Christianity is the only religion that has absolute fairity. It is your conscious that makes the decision to believe in our human or to believe in our God. It is an absolute 50/50 choice. A yes or no. Left or right. And there in relies your destiny.

    How to be a Christian:
    1) Believe that we are created by the all knowing conscious that is God. An in that therefore, it is deducted that we are not the absolute master’s of knowledge. We are living in the world and trying to explain it, as well as harnessing the earth’s potential for our gain as it says in Genesis. We are spectating/analyzing this phenomenon known as reality. Witnesses in a grand scheme. We cannot say we know so much that we are positive there is not a god so then we will put our faith in his absence. We can harness the world to the maximize degree, yet we cannot ever know for certain that god does not exist. That is a fact.

    2) Believe that God created the world initially absolutely perfect. And that the gift of our neocortex was our downfall. Our needs and desires are what destroyed this perfect world. More specifically, our know-how on how to obtain our needs and desires, in which have manifested into the tragic world that is seen today. Reciprocic consequences. What goes up must go down. A sort of ying and yang. Therefore due to this presence of the “metaphorical” yang which could represent evil, which evil itself is just a manifestation of our choosing of human and material desires over desires of the spirit, in which the spirit is connected to this grand consciousness that is God. Heaven is a perfect place. We are inherently imperfect. The only way we become viable to enter this perfect heaven, is to believe, along with rule 1), that God had to somehow “take a hit” in order to overcome the spiritual imperfection that are created with a person choosing desires of the flesh. So God manifested himself into a human, his metaphorical son, and had to experience the pain of death, in which all desires of the flesh lead toward. All in order to say that,
    “I made this world and your spirits perfect, but you guys messed it up. There is no way you guys can get in heaven now since I explicitly said in the beginning that you have to be perfect in order to get into heaven. These rules are non negotiable. So now I got to make myself feel the pain of Imperfection that is death, in order to get you in. You guys wouldn’t be qualified otherwise. But hey, I’m actually the only one that can come back to perfection after being marked with this heavy burden of imperfection that is now presently represented as holes in my hands and feet. In that I rose. And gave hope to every single human that has entered heaven.That death, in this case represented as human desires, is the end all be all for every human; but eternal death is not the destiny for the ones who realize our inherent imperfection: having sin a product of being able to reason; thus giving rise to the main aspect of the Game that God created; the phenomenon we know as,    choice.

    3) We are destined for downfall. Revelations 17:17. The most important verse in the bible.
    For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by
    agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God’s words are
    fulfilled.

    Watch “The Quantum Activist” on Netflix, good source of information
    Note that the predicted the re-establishment of Israel

    • Mrtchops

      the only thing you’ve convinced me of is that you’re a fool…

      • ARGUE WITH ME

         Whats foolish?

    • BGD
      • ARGUE WITH ME

         as serious as id ever be

    • Monkey See Monkey Do

      Too much preaching. Learn how to ‘discuss ideas’ and maybe i’ll bite. ‘The Quantum activist’ is a good source of information. There are many more like Goswami but its good he can use his name to get these ideas out there. (There was nothing in the book that predicted anything)

      • ARGUE WITH ME

         tell me how I should discuss ideas. I gave my viewpoint, you either agree or not. Come back with a rebuttle, just like any argument would. If i did it in your way in which you would bite, this self proclaimed “christian type don’t come around here” disinfo website would have a field day before the full argument could even be explained in detail. What is preachy in my argument? What isn’t sequentially logical in my argument?

        • ARGUE WITH ME

           And its not about predicting, its actually about quantum physics. He literally wrote the text book for intro to quantum physics used at universities

        • BGD

          One line among many “christianity is the real religion…” that line alone is preachy enough to cast any other argument you might have burning to the floor. 

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             How is that preachy? Its correct, if you analyze every religion, the only religion that asks for a yes or no answer and nothing more, is, Christianity. It is the absolute most fair religion. No prerequisites, no required deeds, no travels, no inheritance, just your personal decision.

            It might burn to the floor with you because you don’t think outside of your little box of thought that your so proud of. Like a child still believing in santa clause.

            The only deed that is required of christianity is that you live life with a respect towards God that is comparable to your best friend jumping in front of a bullet for you, saving your life, almost dieing, and then being revived. Wouldn’t you always be looking out for your boy that did that for you? Wouldn’t you always want him to come to the parties with you? Wouldn’t you want to bring that boy some appreciation?

          • JaceD

            I think your argument of belief in God runs along the lines of; ‘It’s easy to believe in God, just choose to’- which isn’t something you can just choose to do.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             I’m saying its hard to believe in God, because you have to let go of your own unproven theories in which people identify themselves as intelligent, as they try to explain the world in a manner of their own intelligence. Thats something you choose to do, believe that our intelligence is the most intelligent idea, and that any other option is worthless.
            This idea can go both way for christians alike.
            But I feel, that I explain my ideas, come to logical conclusions. And than am presented opposing viewpoint with supporting information from you guys, I look at the opposing information, and see legitimate falseness in your claims. I then call out the falseness and find the answer in return. A logical one. Not a fake idea that we created that has no proof what so ever and that we accept as the general truth.

          • JaceD

            Mmmh… “Not a fake idea that we created that has no proof what so ever and that we accept as the general truth.” Personaly, I feel this way towards religious folk. I don’t claim to know the answers nor do I believe anyone truely does, but replacing one mystery for another and saying “this is the truth” is not much of an answer. You’re obviously an intelligent person who’s thought about this a lot… However, if you don’t mind me asking, how long have you had this belief and what was the catalyst (if there was one) to make you believe what you do?

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             You are right, “fake idea with no proof what so ever” is a little exaggerated towards the concept of a theory accepted as fact but still contains large unknowns.

            Christian all my life. One day I came to the realization that I needed to derealize my ‘intelligence’ and search for a smarter one. I figured that sequential cause-and-effect type logic is what rules the world. Not only seen as point a to point b in a linear fashion, but logically understanding that there is always a possible point c or point d that can join in from anywhere other than the linear plane that points a and b reside, thus creating convincing phenotypic affects as a result. I broke down every idea I had to its base stripping off any premonition I might of had. I then proceeded in rebuilding my ideas step by step using just logical, factual, unbiased elements and taking every possible viewpoint into consideration. I wanted to take out my personal opinion, and pursue the logic of every situation. I did that to religion, and came out that calvary chapel type Christianity was the most fair in respect to religious qualifications.

          • JaceD

            Obviously this was a long and well thought out period of time for you… discussions like these are better suited to real conversations, I would’ve been very interested in hearing further explainations of of your ideas (out of genuine interest). I can’t say I can believe, I can’t say I want to believe, but who can turn down the grace of a divine being right?

    • http://twitter.com/jasonpaulhayes jasonpaulhayes

          I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the
      most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his
      mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it
      seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption.
      The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has
      turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and
      every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me
      of its “humanitarian” blessings! Its deepest necessities range it
      against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates
      distress to make itself immortal. . . . For example, the worm of sin:
      it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!–The
      “equality of souls before God”–this fraud, this pretext for the
      rancunes of all the base-minded–this explosive concept, ending in
      revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole
      social order–this is Christian dynamite. . . . The “humanitarian”
      blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a
      self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any
      price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All
      this, to me, is the “humanitarianism” of Christianity!–Parasitism as
      the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and “holy” ideals,
      sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the
      beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing
      mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,–against health,
      beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul–against life itself. .
      . .
      This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write
      upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found–I have letters that even
      the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great
      curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of
      revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean
      and small enough,–I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human
      race. . . .

      And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when
      this fatality befell–from the first day of Christianity!–Why not
      rather from its last?–From today?–The transvaluation of all values!

      Friedrich Nietzsche

      • ARGUE WITH ME

         Don’t confuse the church with personal religion. Dont confuse the crusaders with a man of a God. It is a personal idea. A personal concept. Man’s fleshly and worldly desires are the inherent spec of the world. How is it not?

    • Calypso_1

      lame gunney

      • ARGUE WITH ME

         of course you must have a better, more logical answer

        • Calypso_1

          Yet another notion to which you succumb to complete falsehood.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             yet another pussy response

          • Calypso_1

            mmm yes, pussy is without a doubt responsive, delightfully so.

          • ARGUE WITH ME
          • Calypso_1

            well that IS what jesus would do

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             yes, he WOULD put a metaphorical penis into your metaphorical state of mind in the metaphorical fashion that is exemplified in this song

          • Calypso_1

            naughty boy

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             lost boy

          • Calypso_1

            Hardley, my spatiotemporal awareness within the bardo realms is well honed.  Enjoy your skull fucking zombie lord when the day of ‘glory’ arrives.    

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             that was intelligent

          • Calypso_1

            you have no idea

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            * I had no idea how pathetetic athiests are in response to someone that isn’t just fresh out of bible school

          • Calypso_1
    • Mysophobe

      Dolphins have a neocortex. Many experts say it’s more advanced than it’s human counterpart.

      • ARGUE WITH ME

        Sorry for a long post again, I do have a problem making short posts I have a lot to say, but this is less me and more educational:

        From: In Search of a Unifying Theory of Complex Brain Evolution

        - Leah Krubitzer 2009

        “It is also important
        to consider the constraints imposed on the evolution of the neocortex.
        Observations of highly conserved features of cortical organization that all
        mammals share, as well as the convergent evolution of similar features of
        organization, indicate that the constraints imposed on the neocortex are
        pervasive and restrict the avenues along which evolution can proceed. Although
        both genes and the laws of physics place formidable constraints on the
        evolution of all animals, humans have evolved a number of mechanisms that allow
        them to loosen these constraints and often alter the course of their own
        evolution. While this cortical plasticity is a defining feature of mammalian
        neocortex, it appears to be exaggerated in humans and could be considered a
        unique derivation of our species.”

         

        “The studies cited above represent only
        a few of the many examples of convergent evolution in mammals, from the level
        of social systems and cognition to the level of neural response properties.
        These examples of independent emergence of behaviors, brains, and cortical
        fields indicate that the evolution, and thus the development of the nervous
        system, is highly constrained. Although genes are the cornerstones of
        evolution, natural selection acts on individuals and behaviors, rather than on
        larger or smaller levels of organization. Because the constraints imposed on
        developing nervous systems are the same for all animals, it is not surprising
        that cortical phenotypes are highly predictable. In fact, it has been argued that
        homologous developmental programs that are subject to similar selective
        pressures and the same intrinsic and extrinsic constraints generate inescapable
        outcomes at all levels of organization (e.g., Padberg et al. 2007).”

         

        “The
        persistence of a common plan of organization and the independent evolution of similar
        types of modifications to this basic plan are due to two major constraints
        imposed on developing and evolving nervous systems: the genetic code and the
        laws of physics. There are several ways in which genes constrain the evolution
        of the nervous system…recent evidence has shown that there are very old, highly
        conserved noncoding elements of genes in both vertebrates and invertebrates,
        and these elements (cis regulatory) regulate genes involved in major developmental
        processes such as body patterning and morphogenesis (McEwen et al. 2006;
        Vavouri et al. 2007)…A final way in which genes constrain cortical evolution is
        in how they are deployed during development… If we consider cortical
        development as an “if/then” proposition, then the removal of one event will
        halt or disrupt the subsequent cascade of events necessary for individual and
        brain viability. The earlier in development that some change to this genetic cascade
        occurs, the greater the probability for significant change to the phenotype,
        but also for decreased viability.”

         

        “But what about
        humans? Are they fundamentally different?… Human brains have more cortical
        fields, cortical fields have more neurons, and specific cortical fields are
        associated with unique behavioral specializations such as language. Humans have
        unique types of neurons and more and varied interneurons, and several features
        of the genome that have been characterized as unique to humans are involved in
        brain development. So, of course humans have specializations that make them
        unique, but so do all other species…Probably the most remarkable feature of the
        human neocortex is one that is difficult to measure and cannot be reduced to a
        cell type or a particular cortical field. This is our ability to loosen the
        constraints imposed on the development and evolution of our own nervous system;
        the ability to be plastic; the ability of our neocortex, and, in turn, our
        behavior to change dramatically throughout a lifetime. This plasticity is
        present in all mammals, but appears to be exaggerated in humans.”

         
        My own words:

        […. (Or can easily be
        explained by: each animal being a distinct species that cannot evolve into the
        creation of a new upgraded type of ‘animal’. That environmental adaption is not
        the same as evolution. That natural selection is not the same as evolution.
        That the realistic capacity for an animal’s ability to adapt to an environment
        phenotypically is minimal at best due to due to the inherent on/off nature of
        gene activation. Simply: You can only become who you already are, and that the
        value of mutations to the survival of a species is only as epic as ensuring the
        species remains the same species)….]

        • ARGUE WITH ME

           Thought it was good info

        • ARGUE WITH ME

           http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/03/14/fifty-seven-years-of-darkness/

          Scientist left flies in complete darkness for 57 years, and documented what he observed

      • ARGUE WITH ME

         ”The second major constraint on evolving nervous systems is the shared physical environment that includes but is not limited to light, sound, temperature, heat, and gravity.”

        My opinion: Another flaw in evolution is the idea that everything in a given environment developing into the lowest common denominator. In an extreme example imagine a patch of grass, now imagine a world covered in the infinintly replicated patch of grass; looking at just land animals on top of the ground, they should have all evolved, after millions of years, into the lowest common denominator form of an animal due to the physical effects the environment would evoke on evolution.

        • Mysophobe

          Modern evolutionary theory doesn’t predict everything in a given environment developing into the lowest common denominator. Random genetic mutation happens whether the environment likes it or not. The environment doesn’t directly drive evolutionary change, it merely picks winners and losers. Elements of the environment, or the grass in your example, are constantly evolving and diversifying as well, allowing for more diversity in higher organisms. Everything tends toward more complexity and more diversity, not a lowest common denominator.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             

            “These
            examples of independent emergence of behaviors, brains, and cortical
            fields indicate that the evolution, and thus the development of the nervous
            system, is highly constrained.” – (Krubitzer 2009)

             

            “There are
            several ways in which genes constrain the evolution
            of the nervous system…recent evidence has shown that there are very old, highly
            conserved noncoding elements of genes in both vertebrates and invertebrates,
            and these elements (cis regulatory) regulate genes involved in major
            developmental
            processes such as body patterning and morphogenesis (McEwen et al. 2006;
            Vavouri et al. 2007)”

             

            “The earlier in
            development that some change to this genetic cascade
            occurs, the greater the probability for significant change to the phenotype,
            but also for decreased viability.” (Krubitzer 2009)

             

            value of
            mutations to the survival of a species is only as epic as ensuring the
            species remains the same species

            blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2012/03/14/fifty-seven-years-of-darkness/

             

            And as for human
            evolution, this might be of some help:

            http://forum.friendlyatheist.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1550

            <!–
            /* Font Definitions */
            @font-face
            {font-family:Times;
            panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
            mso-font-charset:0;
            mso-generic-font-family:auto;
            mso-font-pitch:variable;
            mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
            @font-face
            {font-family:Cambria;
            panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
            mso-font-charset:0;
            mso-generic-font-family:auto;
            mso-font-pitch:variable;
            mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
            /* Style Definitions */
            p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
            {mso-style-parent:"";
            margin:0in;
            margin-bottom:.0001pt;
            mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
            font-size:12.0pt;
            font-family:"Times New Roman";
            mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
            mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
            mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
            mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
            mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
            mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
            mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
            mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
            @page Section1
            {size:8.5in 11.0in;
            margin:1.0in 1.25in .5in 1.25in;
            mso-header-margin:.5in;
            mso-footer-margin:.5in;
            mso-paper-source:0;}
            div.Section1
            {page:Section1;}
            –

          • Mysophobe

            1400 generations of flys, or 30,000 years for humans, is nothing when compared to the 140,000+ generations that the Homo genus has been evolving. That’s assuming that a human generation has always been 21.4 years, big assumption. I don’t disagree that humans have reached something of an evolutionary plateau as many other life forms temd to do in times of a stable environment, but that doesn’t preclude there being earlier rapid evolution in a much more chaotic and dangerous environment.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            “There are several ways in which genes constrain the evolution of the nervous system…recent evidence has shown that there are very old, highly conserved noncoding elements of genes in both vertebrates and invertebrates, and these elements (cis regulatory) regulate genes involved in major developmental processes such as body patterning and morphogenesis (McEwen et al. 2006; Vavouri et al. 2007)…the removal of one event will halt or disrupt the subsequent cascade of events necessary for individual and brain viability. The earlier in development that some change to this genetic cascade occurs, the greater the probability for significant change to the phenotype, but also for decreased viability.” -

            ***how much could we really change?

            “That the realistic capacity for an animal’s ability to adapt to an environment phenotypically is minimal at best due to due to the inherent on/off nature of gene activation. The
            value of mutations to the survival of a species is only as epic as ensuring the species remains the same species”

            ***so now all of a sudden, the rules that govern the universe in terms of evolution, according to an atheist, plateau or stop when humans become enlightened about the principles?
            ***the fly study is so far one of the most conclusive studies so far on the theory of Natural Genomic Evolution. 1000+ generations in a 50 year period of flies. Covered in complete darkness. And the only observations made were that of natural selection, gene switching, and mutations. The mutations didnt help the flies first of all. And second the mutations, if any were positive, would ensure that the fly remains the same species in complete darkness; not darkness creating a new species of fly.
            Humans, realistically can maybe squeeze 3 generations out in a fifty year time period.

            As for human evolution, it is disproved right here: http://forum.friendlyatheist.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1550

          • mysophobe

            Don’t paint me with the atheist brush as if it’s an argument. I’ve refrained from pointing to your belief system, which you shamelessly put on display while claiming to seek a scientific argument. The fact is that man has proven at every turn that every living organism on this planet can trace it’s ancestry back to the same source. Where you see stark differences between man and great apes, science sees amazing similarities. The truth is that it’s all connected and it’s all vibrating at the same frequency. A person who is not a prisoner of their own belief system would see God in that. I honestly don’t care what force or entity set it into motion. I seriously doubt that it cares if I know either. I know for damn sure that if it is your “god”, it’s not seeking my praise or withholding it’s graces based on my petty lip service to it, that would be silly. Don’t confuse god with your own ego.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             ” so now all of a sudden, the rules that govern the universe in terms of
            evolution, according to an atheist, plateau or stop when humans become
            enlightened about the principles?”

            Thats what you think I was painting you with?
            Does the majority of modern athiests believe in evolution. Yes. Does the majority think that we are plateau’d as species. Yes.
            Are you athiest? who knows, but according to the average atheist, that is what would be says. I don’t care what religion you hold dear.
            You are giving me logic as to why you have your belief, and I am reading it, seeing if it makes sense, and the less it makes the sense the more Ill respond questioning it. If you don’t want the logic flaws examined than i guess stop responding. Id expect, if i I have logical flaw in my own argument, that you’d exemplify it.
            There is no personal attacks, if I am not personally attacked first. Just an educated debate on the information displayed.

            “The fact is that man has proven at every turn that every living organism
            on this planet can trace it’s ancestry back to the same source. Where
            you see stark differences between man and great apes, science sees
            amazing similarities.”

            These traces of ancestry are purely speculative. Its a science based on established speculations, and we forget that what we use to classify new speculations, is a speculation itself.

            Science sees amazing similarities. Where I see stark differences. If this was the case, we should all be able to reproduce together in some way. But we cannot. Or that the DNA is so similar between, yet we cannot insert gorilla genes into humans. I want to know where the logic is in saying Gorillas and Humans are related, just off being similar. Since when has that ever been a absolute truth?

          • Calypso_1

            Yes, other species genes can be inserted into humans. 

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             and then what happens?

          • Calypso_1

            have we reached the end of your expertise?

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             I can tell you that it doesn’t work

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            You get monkey kids that grow up to be Xtians.

          • mysophobe

            Alright then, share your competing scientific theory with me. No cherry picking quotes containing words like “constrain” and “decreased viability” out of context as if you understand their meaning. No references to the supernatural, only the natural. Not another convoluted refutation of evolutionary theory which you’ve made clear you reject; but a separate, rational, testable, falsifiable scientific theory that provides a better explanation of how humans came to be.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            Those words you are referring too are actually part of the quoted material I got the information from. Not to mention, I think a think a 12th grader can know what ‘decreased viability’ and ‘constrain’ mean.

            To save an uneeded cycle of arguments between what I believe what proof is:
            I believe whatever we can truly prove in our sciences. If we throw a ball up in the air, there is no evidence of gravity, yet it is actively happening. Therefore it is.

            Theories like the big bang, begin to be stretching the lack of active proof, and starts to fade more into assumptions. But I feel that there is solid sequential evidence of elements of theories like the big bang/dimension ect. and thats the reason why it is a science. But that does not disprove God. If it was part of a part of a perfect plan to be made as such, then that is not for me to decide. The more science finds the more I approve, but none of it disproves God, but is more of a statistical and explanatory picture of the creation that was made. The speed an intensity of the big bang can truly never be determined because we don’t know how intense the initial creation was.

            Evolution: Even less proof then big bang theories in my opinion. A LOT of questionable evidence. A lot of human error in early examinations and excavation. Bias towards providing public with logical explanation before the dawn of the information/technology age. The fly study. The actual limitations of mutations. The realistic chance of the one animal that first gets the mutation live and doesn’t get eaten. Are all reason I do not believe it.

            so in difference to evolution, I do not know how we got here, my notion is to say adam and eve, but this could be metaphorical for a city or a nation. I cannot even begin to comprehend how the first breath of life was ever taken. For animals, I believe that they were literally created out of the land.  In the bible its says it took a day. What is included in that day, I cannot answer. Thats not for me to know yet, because however it was created, as in the actual explanation that has all the proof if science can find it or its me asking at the pearly gates, then thats when Ill know what was included in that day in genesis.

            I am a supporter of science, I am not a supporter of science disproving the notion of God

          • mysophobe

            That’s what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.

          • JaceD

            I feel the need to chuck my 2 cents in here; http://forum.friendlyatheist.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1550 doesn't disprove evolution

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            A sample:
             
            “Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks
            that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to
            evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull, the Castenedolo
            skeletons, Reck’s skeleton, and others. Remains such as the
            Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil
            present similar problems. Evolutionists almost always ignore these
            remains.”

            “For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man
            was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some
            Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.
            Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were
            humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than
            people today. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man
            are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,”
            especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are
            not supported by the evidence. ”

            ***Matured at a slower rate. Id like to note that the bible has said that humans, in earlier times, lived longer lives.

            “If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and
            gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps
            or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record. At the most
            fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells
            have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those
            that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae). Fossil
            links are also missing between large groupings of plants, between
            single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without
            backbones), among insects,d between invertebrates and vertebrates
            (animals with backbones, between fish and amphibians, between
            amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between
            reptiles and birds,  between primates and other mammals, and between
            apes and other primates.  In fact, chains are missing, not links. The
            fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude
            that these gaps are real; they will never be filled”

            “Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.”

          • JaceD

            Yes, well done. It makes for a very interesting read… How ever, it doesn’t disprove evolution.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             Then you could say evolution doesn’t prove itself

          • JaceD

            I could say that, but I’d say the same for God.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            The bible did accurately predict the re-establishment of a country

          • JaceD

            This is a response about Israel. Have you ever thought that perhaps the men who “re”established Isreal were also believers of God? A self fullfilling prophecy?

    • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

      You know ALL mammals have a neocortex right? Also all birds have something different, yet functionally comparable to the neocortex as well.

      Also, all-knowing and conscious cannot both be a definition for god, since consciousness is part of the ability to deal with reality while being limited of all the information. If god were All knowing, then his actions would be robotic and rigid(which to my knowledge this at least isn’t how the world I live in works but I suppose you could be thinking from the perspective of some meta-reality where you believe it does work that way). Otherwise if god is conscious then he must not know everything, meaning there is information, and therefore potential value in that which is outside of god.

      A completely separate issue of whether or not god is reasonable is reliant on whether or not god would accept the value of the external or not(but again, if you try to say there is no external to god, then it goes back to him being all-knowing which is a completely separate situation from being conscious).

      • ARGUE WITH ME

        “… This is our [human] ability to loosen the constraints imposed on the development and evolution of our own nervous system; the ability to be plastic; the ability of our neocortex, and, in turn, our behavior to change dramatically throughout a lifetime. This plasticity is present in all mammals, but appears to be exaggerated in humans” –

        ***plasticity (the neocortex) is present in all mammals, but is exaggerated in humans…

        Your right, being all knowing and a consciousness would create robotic actions. But your forgetting something. He created 1 variability in this world and that is the yes or no choice to belief. With the power of choice, and God giving us “the ability of our neocortex, and, in turn, [allowing] our behavior to change dramatically throughout a lifetime”; God must have the ability to reason. If we are constantly changing, and he is allowing us to change through our own personal choice, then there must be something compared to a civil court at judgement, analyzing the known independent variable that He created and that the human is given control of, thus at death determining(reasoning) the persons current state of belief and their impending spiritual destination. I believe this proves that the all knowing conscious cant be mechanical, but is in fact somewhat human. God has empathy. God, an all-knowing, non local consciousness, that has the power to reason in concordance with what he has created, choice.

        • ARGUE WITH ME

           ” Otherwise if god is conscious then he must not know everything, meaning
          there is information, and therefore potential value in that which is
          outside of god.”

          Youve played the sims before. If you create it, you know everything. If you create a variability, such as a yes or no answer, you know the cascading effects of the variability and possible ranges of the variability. There would be nothing more external to it. In a game where he created the choice of no, and created the choice of yes, it is up to us to make our own independent decision since it is part of the game. Sort of like putting a snicker bar in front of a kid, saying don’t eat this candy bar, and you go off to watch from a hidden distance. You created the variability, you created the situation, its up to the child to choose, but the impending consequences of either decisions is up to the hiding parent. If the kid eats a little of the bar and puts it back in a sort of realization, and is truly sorry he did it, the parent has the power of reason in terms of consequences for the child’s action since the child realized its mistake, and stopped in the process of eating the sweet candy bar. But, if the kid eats all the candy bar, and you told the child not to, there is open defiance for the situation you created and there was no realization for what is right. Therefore as the creator of the situation, and in a situation of the created defying the creator, punishment shall be handed down.

          • Calypso_1

            Goddamn I Love Xtian Logic

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             you must love not being able to respond so please continue standing on the sidelines

          • Calypso_1

            sidelines, frontlines, behind the lines – there is nothing to respond to here.  It’s regurgetated sunday school tripe. 

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             there is nothing to respond because you dont know how. How could you possibly come back from my assertions. They are logical and sequential.

          • Calypso_1

            Indeed how could one come back from your assertions – they go   nowhere  

          • PooPooPlatter

            they go no where? That pure logic he said just led to the answer, but your clearly seen ignorance can only respond by saying “they go no where”. Way to be so obvious..

          • smokintokinjokinbrit

            the religious ones a prick !, they don’t like their beliefs challenging, just give it up as a bad job mate

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            I don’t like my beliefs challenged? My name is ARGUE WITH ME. Im accepting any and all challengers. Please use your own rationale to explain your thoughts if you wanted to argue against my first post which says “Read if you want an educated argument”.

            Im not attacking anybody first.

            Don’t be sensitive because Christains get torn up on this website all the time, and it seems once someone stands up with actual logic and some intelligence on the christian viewpoint, many who want to argue bring up the same redundant unproven gap filled points.

          • Calypso_1

            Your version of logical christian viewpoint is nothing but
            tautology and confirmation bias.  There is no desire to exchange ideas or commune with your fellow man, only the desire to reinforce your own penultimate  self-righteousness and ability to badger others with the superiority of your ‘truth’.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            False I gave you an answer and a half rebutting exactly what you said, and giving the detail of my logic which lead me to lead to my response. I have chosen a side, I’m explaining it in terms that explain how it could happen and why. Your telling that I don’t want to converse with my fellow man when 90% of these responses have been personal attacks instead of rebutting the information. Most of the people on here attack personally first, proceed to give no answer as to why they think what think, therefore becoming a biased useless waste of space

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             I love atheist logic, if you can’t answer an opposing question towards your beliefs (or lack there of) you can do nothing but condemn it.
            When you ask an athiest about a platypus all I hear is about how they love Darwin’s nuts, and proceed to get some half ass explanation about bacteria proving evolution and that it was all done in millllllions of years but zero evidence has every been presented. Only speculation. By a man. In which you put your complete livelihood in.
             
            Atheist logic – the epitome of a bullshitter.

            You, Calypso, make Christains who argue using bible verses to atheists, look amazing.

          • Calypso_1

            Not an atheist and I think nary a whit about Darwin, nor would I wish to promulgate logic as a mental state worthy of perception above all others.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             That might be the most comprehensive statement you said this whole forum

          • Calypso_1

            Don’t confuse range of expression with your abilities to comprehend.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             ”Of course you must have a better, more logical answer” – ARGUE WITH ME
            “Yet another notion to which you succumb to complete falsehood.” – Calypso_1
            “Yet another pussy response” – ARGUE WITH ME

            My abilities to comprehend are on point
            Your range of expression is also evident in a dog just caught pissin inside the house

          • ARGUE WITH ME

             And sequential logic, as in cause and effect, is the only mental state worthy of examining

          • Calypso_1

            Careful, stay on this line and you might have to come to terms with causality, positive feedback and self-fulfilling prophecy.  Don’t worry though, Faith allows you to abandon ship just in the nick of time.  As to worthiness, for sooth, breaking the bonds of self-delusion is a small price to pay to unmoor the mind from that which ‘rules the world’.

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            How is Xtian Logic present in this? Any thing to do with material, when God says not to do it, its for your own health, he’s looking out for you. Hes not saying, NO you guys cant come in if you do this.
            Such as: No sex, no drugs, no rock n roll. This idea is there to protect the human spirit from turning into what it has become now, a world putting material desires over spiritual. Once engaged in sex, drugs, and rock n roll. Health problems from drugs arise, AIDS/diseases from polygamous sexual relations arise, and the false sensation that there is someone more important than us due to rock n roll arise..when in reality we are all created equally.
            This creates a search into earthly materials to fix the problems that flesh and material desires already created. And once something material is found to fix the problem, it creates a seen or unseen problem again, which again needs to be fixed. Thus the process continues. Destroying the human body and the Earth.

            What Xtian about that? He just wants you to live good. and only just acknowledge that your not perfect due to the inherent desire of flesh, thus one big realization that we are “pawns in a game” rather than the one moving the pawns, is what is looked for.

          • Monkey See Monkey Do

            Sex, drugs and rock and roll are my spiritual desires. In the church of the mother fucker.

          • Jin The Ninja

            love the new avatar;)

          • http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

            Issues get more complicated when the kid has justifiable doubts of the authority, or has a hunch that he is being lied to. Even if he is wrong, he is still in the dark about what may or may not be right dependent only on the chaotic mix of experiences the kid has endured.

            But of course the standard argument against this is that he’s just been confused by the devil etc. etc. Which ends up being a copout argument to the effect of “everything that speaks against my beliefs is wrong”

          • ARGUE WITH ME

            Im not going to give a controlled by the devil copout
            Yes, if it is looked at like a realistic physical example those ideas would be true.
            But, looked at in a conceptual light, its one of: can I accept a unseen notion and believe it correct.

            That sounds like santa clause.
            But a book that accurately predicted the re-establishment of a country 2700 years ago says I should do one thing and I will find peace. It says nothing about abandoning the pursuit of science in it.
            or
            A bunch of theories that are always subject to change made by men that have no definitive proof, contain logical and evidencial gaps, yet push their theories as a proven science on an unknowing public.

        • ARGUE WITH ME

           And…
          Your definition of consciousness is wrong.
          Consciousness, according to most broadly accepted definition in philosophy:
          “”Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness…” – Schneider, Velmans 2008 (From the The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness

          Without sounding like we’re in our church: Why would this not work.
          All Knowing:
          As it sounds, knows the past, present, future.
          A perfect plan with a living variable. Alone knows what all will do before we are born. (should ruin the whole notion of living.) But notion of a perfect plan must include an ending. Thus control is needed of individuals to perform events that propagate ending. Use of individuals willing to be used in the direction that is intended in the plan. Free will left undiminished in regards to belief.

          Thus a free will choice is possible in an already planned out schematic.

          Consciousness: Aware at any given moment, an inclusion in ‘all-knowing’

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_E2YKNJBKUJEL7IN6HROUXSNCAY david

    There is nothing new under the sun.  Man continues to mock God, his Creator.  http://atheistlegitimacy.blogspot.com/

  • Calypso_1

    doulblepost