No, I would not agree with that statement, because there is much in the world and the universe that is not genetic: stars, plate tectonics, hurricanes, etc. However, more of human experience than most people like to admit is the result of natural selection. We experience love because there is survival value in the inter-personal bond: both members of a couple are more likely to survive if they support each other unconditionally; and offspring are more likely to survive if the parents are prepared to defend the offspring at any cost. Truth is an abstract concept. There is probably survival value in holding strong beliefs. But facts about the material world are true or false regardless of the genes of any animal, human or otherwise.
Can someone please tell me why a political party would embrace what I would consider religious racism? The writing on the wall for me was when the republican party embraced prayer in the classroom, even more than the abortion issue. The trickle down effect seeped into widespread discrimination of every issue related to human rights...pick your issue. How many readers would embrace real republican core values that do not incorporate these constant bias if we weren't bombarded with the slime from the religious right? And if some readers believe this is the republican party's core position, what happened to the seperation of church and state?
Nothing, it was never there in the first place. At least not in the way that everyone is trying to interpret it nowadays. The founding fathers of this country would be turning in their graves if they could see how things are going now.:tsk:
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you propose is that human consciousness and intellect are included in the present iteration of the evolving human animal because they have survival value. This human is capable of knowing the truth or falsehood of facts concerning the material world. These facts exist separately , and the truth or falseness of them as well, before they are apprehended or discovered through man's intellect. So there are facts, including truths, which exist whether man does or not. Some of these facts are absolutely true. Do you agree with these statements?
There's Reality - the capital R, really big picture philosophical concept - and then there are perceptions of reality. They're not always the same. Reality is what it is, and is not affected by what we think it is. Sometimes we think correctly, and sometimes we have to alter our perceptions to fit the facts.
Correct. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There are such "facts," though the world is constantly changing, and much that is true today was false yesterday and will be false again tomorrow (figuratively speaking). As long as you do not plan on playing semantics with the word "truth," then I agree. But yes, there are many things whose factuality or "truth" does not depend on the existence of humans. Most of what "is" about the world does not depend on us unless we have directly or indirectly affected it. We've caused species to go extinct and atmospheric carbon levels to rise. But there would be trees whether we existed or not, and the speed of light is not dependent on our having measured it. I generally don't like words like "absolute." However I have said that there are facts which exist in nature. As commented on individually.
All I know is, that I don't really consider myself a preacher any more...but I do believe in the philosophy of Christ, and consider him a peaceful man, who did not want war, but wanted the world to get along. I am not a Christian by name; but I am a follower of Christ. Now, I suspect, this will be greeted by snorts of derision by many, but whatever. It's where I have suspected I was heading for some time, having serious problems with Bible belting religious types.
I might as well jump into the fray for a post, though it won't be popular so I won't push it. I'm not trying to offend anyone or to force my views or opinions, only to express them since the subject is here. It is certainly true that no one can prove the existence of God to another person. Neither will anyone find God by looking for physical evidence, because He is Spirit and must be spiritually discerned through the Bible. That's how He has chosen to reveal Himself. Men are naturally repulsed by this idea and reject it out of hand in every instance unless God inclines the heart and illuminates the mind spiritually. I know, this sounds weird to our natural, rational thought process. Men want physical proof or forget it. But God's claim is that His wisdom is higher than ours, including our scientific prowess, and He is not subject to the negative judgments of men, so He reveals Himself to whom He pleases and as He pleases. This is why those who truly "know" God are looked upon a crazy kooks by the world at large -- just as Noah was, just as Jesus Himself was. They "see" what others do not from a spiritual perspective, but can't prove it, but are called to declare it anyway, and that's craziness to the natural man. Granted -- there are many who claim to know God but do not live accordingly, and there are many crazy cults and professors who simply make a mockery of their own religion. So, little wonder that religion in general is mocked and scorned. I hope it's okay for me to post links -- if not, just let me know and I'll be glad to remove them. They simply expand on what I've stated above. Line Upon Line Special Knowledge I acknowledge this will not sit well with most, but I'm not trying to force this on anyone. Please do not read these if they will offend you.
Oh I don't think so, after all every state has a well armed melitia, every man has the right to bare arms. how can that be bad?:crazy: I guessing they were thinking that it can get hot even in the northern states so every man has the right to wear short sleave shirts.:second:
NC Prius ~ As I understand it, this forum supports your right to speak freely and point others in a direction of your choosing. The links may prove to be valuable for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. No one is forced to follow or read them.
The implication being that if people exercise their right to believe something other than what the links say, they must be blind and deaf? Is it safe to assume you don't believe in freedom of religion?
As an atheist, I have a lot more respect for a follower of Christ than most so called "Christians". Rob
Indeed. If more christians chose to listen to what the lad said rather than just worship him the world would be a better place.
Rob and Tripp, well said. I wish more "followers of [ ]" would realized that worshiping a God is simply a big waste of time and energy and is just routed in selfishness. It accomplishes and contributes very little to society.
What you're really saying that you wish people would just realize that you're right and they're wrong. Now, I'm not what you'd call a religious person, but I do know that churches and their patrons contribute greatly to the poor, charities and many many world causes. That doesn't sound like people who are "just routed in selfishness" to me. Now, if that selfishness comes from them knowing that they just helped someone and that makes them feel good; I say "be selfish"!
Awww, for Christsake, none of you Zealots except for "Spectra" :cheer2:have noticed that the title for this thread is MISSPELLED????? You can select from the following list of words and continue on!!:wave: religious religiously religions religiousness religion religiosity religionists 73 de Pat KK6PD
Maybe somebody should talk to the producer - the thread title is borrowed from the movie of the same name.
