 |
|
|
|
December 20th, 2012
06:00 AM ET
Christmas exposes atheist divide on dealing with religionBy Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) – The Christmas season is revealing a growing rift among American atheists when it comes to the question of how to deal with religion. Some atheist activists are trying to seize the holidays as a time to build bridges with faith groups, while other active unbelievers increasingly see Christmas as a central front in the war on religious faith. With the dramatic growth of the nonreligious in the last few decades, more atheist leaders are emerging as spokespeople for atheism, but the Christmas rift speaks to growing disagreement over how atheists should treat religion. On the religion-bashing side, there’s David Silverman, president of the group American Atheists, which raised one of its provocative trademark billboards in New York’s Times Square last week. “Keep the MERRY!” it says. “Dump the MYTH!” “Christianity stole Christmas in the first place and they don’t own the season, they don’t own the Christmas season,” Silverman said, pointing to pagan winter solstice celebrations that predated Jesus Christ. “When they say keep Christ in Christmas, they are actually saying put Christ back in Christmas.” The New York billboard, which will be up until early January and is costing the group at least $25,000, is the latest in a long line of provocative American Atheists signs, which attacked then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s religion during this year’s presidential campaign. It’s not the only way Silverman is using Christmas to attack Christianity. In a recent TV interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, he said the American Atheist office be open on Christmas Day and called for an end to Christmas as a federal holiday. O’Reilly, in turn, called Silverman a fascist. Despite Silverman’s knack for making headlines, however, other prominent atheists are putting a softer face on the movement, including during Christmastime. “I just think the whole war on Christmas story is bizarre” said Greg Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University, who has emerged as another spokesman for the burgeoning atheist movement. “I think that any atheist or humanist that is participating in that story needs to find better things to do with their time.” From his point of view, atheism and religion can happily coexist, including at the holidays. At the chaplaincy, Epstein has reached out to local religious groups, packaging holiday meals and breaking bread with believers to discuss their similarities and differences. Sponsored by the Humanist Community at Harvard, evangelical Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Zoroastrians, along with a number of atheists, were among those represented at a recent meal packaging event for hungry kids in the Boston area. Around 250 people participated and over $10,000 was raised – including donations from local Lutheran and Methodist churches. “We as a community need to be about the positive and we have so much positive to offer,” he said. “I think that we really can provide a positive alternative to religious holidays that are not meaningful because of their religious content.” “We should look at the results - people are listening to us because we are shouting,” he said. “They don’t hear you unless you shout. … Sometimes you have to put political correctness aside. We need to get louder. I believe we are seeing the fruits of that volume.” As proof, American Atheists points to the way their donations skyrocket after every billboard campaign. “We get donations and memberships because we are taking the stand that we do,” said Silverman, who would not give specific numbers on fundraising. “The donations are flowing in right now. People are loving it specifically because of the billboard.” Epstein would rather see more emphasis on volunteerism, though he acknowledges that some atheists are drawn to Silverman’s vocal model. Both men said they appeal to different parts of the atheist movement. “We are GOP and Dem, man and women, black and white – the only thing that holds us together is atheism,” Silverman said. “A movement like ours needs all sides. It needs people who are working to be conciliatory and it needs people who are willing to raise their voices.” Religious “nones” – a combination of atheists, agnostics and the religiously unaffiliated, have been growing their ranks in recent years. According to a Pew Research study released this year, the fastest growing "religious" group in America is made up of people with no religion at all as one in five Americans is not affiliated with any religion. The survey found that the unaffiliated are growing even faster among younger Americans. According to the poll, 34% of “younger millennials” - those born between 1990 and 1994 - are religiously unaffiliated. Though not monolithic, younger atheists, according to Jesse Galef, communications director of the Secular Student Alliance, are more prone to celebrate a secular version of Christmas than to ignore the holiday. “I am very much in favor of celebrating the secular Christmas,” Galef said. “It is a celebration of the spirit of giving and I think religious divisiveness goes against that effort.” Other atheists celebrate Festivus, a December 23 holiday meant for atheists looking to celebrate during the winter without participating in a Christian holiday. The holiday, which entered into popular culture through the television show “Seinfeld” in 1997, has gained popularity in recent years. At the Secular Student Alliance office in Columbus, Ohio, the staff will play Secret Sagan, a nod to the famed scientist, instead of Secret Santa. And instead of Christmas decorations, they put up a Winter Solstice Tree with ornaments from the movie “When the Grinch Stole Christmas.” “We celebrate the holiday season, just not the religious holiday,” Galef said. soundoff (4,367 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next »
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Thursday, December 20
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
In a Universally-Formed Multiple Cosmos of the Living Triune Cosmological Manifestation of the God-Being
We all live amid two chasms of cosmological orders. We have the inner-cosmos and the outer-cosmos. The inner-cosmos is atomically made and is the universal construct of the outer-cosmos. One could not have an outer cosmos without there being an inner cosmos. Both are synonymously of the same natures. It stands to reason the inner-cosmos was made first and the outer-cosmos came into being only after the passive finalization of the inner-cosmos was made near complete. The inner-cosmos is transcendent and fixed while the outer-cosmos is ascendant and malleable in their dualities nurturing natures.
The third cosmos is of life itself made from the inner-cosmos living upon the terrestrial planetary faces of the celestial outer-cosmos. This third cosmos is the celled cosmos or the cellular cosmologic orders duly ordained of and by and even for all life forms to be made anywhere cellular life can gain a foothold to evolve and gain in the abundant natures toward the evolution of its structures ever evolving in base pairings. Without the two main Cosmos coming into existence; all living cellular cosmologies in the celestial confines could not ever exist.
The trinity or threefold nature of chasm cosmologies is being one of the greatest and grandest gestures ever to have been formulated! To say God had nothing to do with such a feat of cosmologic inter-dependencies seems to me, an infallible congruency inconsistent for one to say or think otherwise. To say the nature of God is to keep inflating the physical elements of the outer cosmos while deflating the essence needs for the inner-cosmos leaves one to wonder about the third cosmological construct’s real nature for having been created. Why then are there cellular cosmos of living cosmologies and when did such celled cosmologic life become established?
The history of multifaceted cosmological expansionism within celestial symmetries comes from the terrestrial complacencies of planetary regularities and solarized objectivism wherever the abundance of inner cosmologies coalesces to form stars, planets and moons among many other fragmented structures within the spatial confines of a universally formed Cosmos.
Life, upon the celestial shorelines of the terrestrially compliant are as a biologic ‘cellularistic’ cosmological constant, and were ever formed and are continually forming seemingly unto forever as well placed living conglomerations in naturalisms arcades of wondrous cavalcades marching in steps of melancholy tributes to God upon the most high cosmos of universally formidable formations on the highest of unimaginable grounds!
If, that's IF our eternal souls were around from the very beginning moments of this cosmos, what are then the reasons for our being physically born and then soulfully die? Were we not soulfully aware of our bodies being conceptualized within motherly wombs? IF our conscious consciences or our eternal souls are given placements within the bodies are we not but a two-folded being left adrift and apart of and away from the realm that our soul or spirit was first made manifest? Are not our consciences more than an abstraction of psychiatric wonderments?
Who among us has the rights and wherewithal to be uncertain of ethereal life being as a realness of relativity suggestive in the grand dichotomies of lividness issues revolving around spiritualisms of suggested faiths? Do Atheisms matters linger upon spiritual negatives and parlor about banters of non-speculative scruples in denying others' faith issues?
oh look more drivel ramblings by the belief blog idiot LL.
Do you have evidence for any of this or is it all just speculation?
@Huebert,
is it not self-evident that LL's ramblings are drivel?
(I jest of course.)
But to expect a coherent anwser from LL is sadly unrealistic.
"In a Universally-Formed Multiple Cosmos of the Living Triune Cosmological Manifestation of the God-Being"
Was that supposed to be a sentence? Where are you going with this rambling. If you're going to copy and paste, at least make sure you're getting the whole thing.
@GOP
I know it's pure drivel. But occasionally LL tries to support his drivel, and I find the attempts hilarious.
1.) Santa is a myth also.
2.) Elderly Christians who may have this as their last holiday may see that bill board
3.) Even those of us who do not have a religion ourselves, still have grandparents, friends and neighbors who do.
4.) It looks like a prank by a 17yr old and the fact that it is done by grown adults is actually creepy.
Good points, I especially like point 3.
Very nice
Those who scream, bish and moan about "god" seem to need God the most.
1.) Santa is a myth also. – correct
2.) Elderly Christians who may have this as their last holiday may see that bill board – whats your point? Dont teach the elderly? nice
3.) Even those of us who do not have a religion ourselves, still have grandparents, friends and neighbors who do. – Whats your point? Dont educate the uninformed? Nice
4.) It looks like a prank by a 17yr old and the fact that it is done by grown adults is actually creepy. – Creepy, like symbolicy eating another mans flesh and drining his blood creepy? Or you dont agree with it creepy?
"Those who scream, bish and moan about "god" seem to need God the most."
Why do Christians think just because someone doesn't believe in their god their lives must be miserable. Sorry, it's not, we aren't angry, we're not bitter in fact we are at peace full of joy and love of the life we have. It might help if you actually woke up and stopped looking at life so negatively.
Basically what he is saying is "Just because Santa isn't real doesn't give you the right to tell my children!!" To which I would respond "Why would you lie to your children? Is it that you like to lie or that the truth is somehow to hard for them to handle?"
> 2.) Elderly Christians who may have this as their last holiday may see that bill board – whats your point? Dont teach the elderly? nice
Some of us need God's help. I do. I have handicaps I can not overcome on my own. I wish I could be more self sufficient, but I can't.
"It is not in our strengths but our weakeness that God is perfected."
That sign doesn't really bother me. I don't like it. It reminds me that God says the world will hate His ways.
I have sympathy for those who made it. I pray for them. That is what God asks me to do.
I actually helps me.
If the "elderly" are offended by anything, then that indicates an inability to think for themselves and consider the content, source, motivations and reasoning for doing the thing that "offends"...
Such an infection of narcissism among the religious and non-religious...
"Some of us need God's help" – that doesnt make god real. I know plenty of atheists with handicaps and that last statement bothers the heck out of them.
Good for those atheists and handicapped. My hat is off to them.
I ask. He answers. My evidence.
The handicapped atheists I know asked for answers too, but he didnt answer. Maybe god just likes you more.
@ Bereave...
Men, women and kids of all faiths have pet itioned their gods for a wide variety of things and have received "answers"....experience is a powerful thing and is not limited to your relationship with your god.
> The handicapped atheists I know asked for answers too, but he didnt answer. Maybe god just likes you more.
He never answers in the way I want him to. And sometimes his answer is no. He has a better ideas than me. My handicaps draw me closer to God. Maybe that is why he has blessed me with them.
I, Too, found it funny that the AA used a myth to try and dispel another myth.
The elderly are going to see the sign and, according to their belief systems that they have at that point, either dismiss it or agree with it.
The fact that it is elderly eyes that look upon it matters not one way or another; they are not going to look at it and suddenly have an epiphany one way or another...and if they do, their beliefs were not that strong to begin with.
How does one become "gruntled"? And is it painful? I want to know.
Pete, nonbelievers know how to spell the words, but, they can't feel them.. Maybe you still have some sensation now because your Christian parents raised you, but, keep raising those atheist robot kids and soon, they too will be a computer. They'll compute but not feel.
Kelly has demonstrated her lack of capacity to "feel" or care for others....perhaps you should do some volunteer work at a hospital and comply with Mattew 25:31-41...it is, afterall about the failure of Christians to obey...
Maybe if you lifted your finger to care for another person in need, you might understand what it means to feel....
Until then, the Pharisee label is appropriate...a white washed tomb, Kelly...that describes your life...
There's a verse for that, Jesus said nonbelievers are spiritually dead. You folks prove his trutht then complain when we see right through you and agree with Jesus. It must be that you came from Christian parents and haven't evolved to a powered computer yet.
Haha! 1% of a wing? 1%? That is nothing more than a nub! lol! You talk like that could possibly give an advantage. How would that help to fall out of a tree? To land on a nub that barely even protrudes out of your body? I would rather just fall on my back! It sure can't produce any resistence to slow the fall down? 1% is like having a just a finger instead of the whole arm. Would that really be useful? You guys are truly a funny group! Just admit that there are PLENTY of holes in the theory. You can put all your FAITH in Wikipidea if you want, but it still doesn't prove how it or why that nub would have been kept and made the next step. You are very much jumping to conclusions, which is not the "sound, rational thought" you all claim to possess.
Your problem is that you dont understand scale. You've already proved you cant comprehend the length of time evolution takes, now you are showing you dont understand scale. What size tree are we talking? If its a small tree, then yes, it would help. If its a tall tree, no it would not. The higher the tree, the more % of a wing would help.
Why do you keep ducking the question? Would 99% of a wing help you in a fall ?
The base of a wing was most likely found on an early fish. Structurally a wing and a fin are very similar. And while it requires a large complex wing to provide lift a very simple fin, little more than an interestingly shaped protrusion, can provide stabilization while traveling through water.
The 1% has to help first before you get to the 99%. It is a stupid question.
No, its not a stupid question. Its funny that you refuse to answer it becuase you know where im going with it.
How about you stop being a coward and answer the question. Would 99% of a wing help you while falling out of a tree?
1% of a wing could be helpful to a creature that lives in the ocean.
Since you are a coward and I have to go soon, Ill just pretend you agree, because some even as stupid as you has to agree that 99% of a wing would assist you while falling out of a tree. And 98% of a wing would help assist you falling out of a slightly smaller tree and 97% of a wing would assist you in falling out of an even smaller tree. See where I am going with this? Take it all the way down to 1%. Still dont get it?
Mathew 6:33 "But seek ye first the kingdom of God!"
Luke 17:21, "The kingdom of God is inside you!"
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world!"
1Corinthians 3:9 "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building!”
People talk evolution yet most do not know the rationalizations of evolutions' doing. They claim evolution to be a naturalism, an instinctual process of manipulation without due reasons. I have rationed with sound reason that deeply held within all cellular commodities there lies a manifestation of very intelligent beings so darn small that we of megalithic proportions dare scoff at such a relativism being Truth! Ye of little faiths to deny that God lives upon life's insides are mere structures within yourself of denying mentalities dribbles of non-intellectualized forsakenness!
God and the kingdom domains are of the internal varieties within all manner of living life. From the very first cell in the beginning to the ever ongoing multi-cellular combinations was and is and shall ever be God inside us all! The inner dimensions of cellular activities is where God and God's godly ever do live and take residencies upon the insides of megalithic structures of living monoliths be they trees or animals or even of mankind's ferments.
lamb – i have yet to read any "reasoning" in any of your posts.
"those are all faity tales" – Me, book 1, chapter 1
Do you have any evidence to support your invisible cell men proposition? Ill look at it if you do.
-more drivel ramblings from the belief blog idiot LL.
ReligionIsBS, you mean that fairy tale of evolution you hold so dear. If you ever have children, or, if you do already ... notice how the evolution tale beginning is childbirth. I know, I know, atheists don't have an imagination so we Christians have to point out the facts to the tale you believe. Without being conscience about it must be true and it feels right. Yeah, because they disguised childbirth as the beginning of your tale.
And the debate is still active.
Kelly, you compare someone to Charlie Brown and think anyone should "learn from a Christian"?
You continue to display your immaturity...perhaps you sit quietly in timeout and listen to what Chad, Troph and others who, at least, have something to say....
For Christians........."1Cr 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?".................For atheists........Tell us who is dwelling in your temple. Cut to the chase. Action, scene one.
humanity. our fellow brothers and sisters all over this world.
lol – no mythical beings are dewelling in any temples. one fact is indisputable, with the myriad of deities, religions and doctrines today and throughout history, man is very adept at inventing god.
Please refer to Gray's Anatomy...no need for a temple or a dweller...those who need a temple and a dweller tend to be afraid of life, despite their scriptural admonition that "perfect love casts out fear...."
Let's get back to this "rift" among the atheists. How fascinating that you actually believe such a thing. Do you perceive it as a war between Dawkinsites and Hitchensites, with the winner controlling all "atheist churches" and living high on the tax-free collection plate money? I bet in your fantasy world we all meet in "atheist churches" and listen to a sermon about beating up Christians . . .
jesus sounds like a real loving and compassionate sword-wielding guy:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
That's how they imagine he'll come back, with a sword or maybe a Bushmaster in hand.
TheRit
Please post some more nonsense so we can refute it again.
It's enough like knocking down bowling pins that it makes me suspect that he's just a strawman, except that I know plenty of Christians who say similar things.
" I know plenty of Christians who say similar things." The business about "eyes" is a giveaway. They are taught that eyes can't evolve. We were supposed to be completely defeated by that and have no answer. It's from a Liberty University bio course.
Those who cannot think for themselves do tend to need "talking points" from a prescribed agenda...
It is also a sign of cowardice, a trait that runs rampant among the Body of Christ
So what makes you so certain that consistent logic can predate the human mind, to be a prerequisite for life and even the big bang? "In the beginning, there was cold, hard logic." LOL
Isn't this just another frowny faced truth claim concerning knowledge of the Supreme Being?
the supreme being:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOzHoJYKMtM
We can be pretty certain that the imaginary space father didn't have anything to do with it.
2357
You have that backwards. Cold, rock solid logic is helping us figure out what happened in the beginning. Logic is the product of intelligence and, since your idea of God likely involves intelligence without a physical brain to create that intelligence, logic would be closer to what your God could have created the universe out of, wouldn't it? Name one physical thing that our intelligence can create just by thinking about them like God supposedly does?
the bible constantly praises obedience, but never has a good word to say about intelligence.
We create statements. Constantly.
Do words exist? How can you prove that one with empirical evidence?
no words do not exist, similar to god. next question.
2357
Yes words exist. My evidence for this position is that we are using words right now.
" Name one physical thing that our intelligence can create just by thinking about them like God supposedly does?"
Love.
Words are symbolic social constructs whose existence is merely through consensual acknowledgement within a culture. The vast universe is almost completely devoid of words. They have no material existence. Bootyfunk in fact takes the genuinely atheistic position on the existence of words, just observe the abject absurdity. The rest of you are sentimental pseudo-intellectuals.
2357
The fact that words are a social construct has no bearing on there existence. Humans created words, therefore words exist. they may only exist on one planet in the entire universe, but they do exist. If words don't exist, what are you typing?
I don't actually believe in the non-existence of words. I'm merely pointing out to you the absurdity of requiring evidence from something that happens to be the origin of reason and language, namely the person of God. He is not called Father because he's big and old. He is the origin of all things, including intelligible knowledge. And that is why it is utter foolishness to say to one self "there is no god" you stare into the sun when you do that.
People talk evolution yet most do not know the how's of evolutions' doing. They claim evolution to be a naturalism, an instinctual process of manipulation without due reasons. I have deduced with sound reason that deeply held within all cellular commodities there lies a manifestation of very intelligent beings so darn small that we of megalithic proportions dare scoff at such a relativism being Truth! Ye of little faiths to deny that God lives upon life's insides are mere structures are yourself of denying's forsakenness!
anyone have a babel fish so i can understand Lion?
The Babel fish is small yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier, but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the unconscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them.
The practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
So you are saying that there are tiny, super advanced, life forms residing with in all living things?
Sorry all the bablefish died out when they heard Lion.
He's saying he thinks God resides in all of us.
Just a roundabout way of saying it.
Bootyfunk,
He's only here to entertain himself, since few, if any, think otherwise. If he actually cared at all about people reading his pompous babble, he'd try to communicate effectively. Sad.
Huebert,
Yes, I am saying that deeply within all cellular life does live very intelligent forms of being so tiny and very small! They are the husbandry of all megalithic life form structures. Christendom calls them as being Gods yet Star Wars calls them as being 'midichlorians', the force of all living megalith structured life. I would rather call them very intelligent beings of unknown to us varieties of superior small life forms that dared to evolve a celled creation of their own doing and thru time modified their ever evolving structures to finally create us!
"I have deduced with sound reason"
ROTFLMAO
Huebert, et al
Yes, I am saying that deeply within all cellular life does live very intelligent forms of being so tiny and very small! They are the husbandry of all megalithic life form structures. Christendom calls them as being Gods yet Star Wars calls them as being 'midichlorians', the force of all living megalith structured life. I would rather call them very intelligent beings of unknown to us varieties of superior small life forms that dared to evolve a celled creation of their own doing and thru time modified their ever evolving structures to finally create us!
thetans!
Lionlylamb
Congratulations!!! That is officially the dumbest thing I have ever read on belief blog. Bob tell lionly what he has won.
Bob: Lionlylamb has won a lifetime supply of aluminum foil, too prevent monitoring by those pesky CIA agents/space aliens, and a permanent 10mg increase in his Haloperidol prescription.
midichlorians?
"Ye of little faiths to deny that God lives upon life's insides are mere structures are yourself of denying's forsakenness!"
Are you implying that to you, God is a tapeworm? And should I forsake denial or deny forsakenness? I'd hate to get that wrong, but I really don't have any forsakenness OR denial, or a tapeworm. Good luck with your ongoing mental breakdown and worminess.
Midi-chlorians are microscopic organisms which allow Jedi and other Force-sensitive beings to connect to the Force. May the force be with you!
ReligionIsBS
"Surely you can agree that 1% of an eyeball is better than 0%. Surely you can agree that 1% of a wing is better than 0%. 1% of a wing would allow you to fall from a tree more safely than o% of a wing. And with 2% of a wing, you could fall more safely from even higher up a tree than with 1%. And guess what, 3% of a wing would be even better than 2% of a wing. And so on and so on. How can you claim to beleive in evolution but not understand this?"
WRONG! This goes entirely against the principle of evolution. Either the mutation helps or it doesn't! 1% of wing would do nothing, just like 2% of a wing. I know this destroys your simplistic views of evolution, but it is correct that it does take a LONG time. But answer why it would keep 1% of a wing if it gives no advantage whatsoever!
the first eyes likely could only tell if it was light or dark. very very simple compared to our eyes today. but it'd be a hell of an advantage. seriously, do some research.
Because that 1% of a wing gave an advantage-regardless of if that advantage was a ssociated with full-wingship or not.
Why do keep asking questions when you plainly do not like the answers?
it might not keep 1%, but it might not lose it either. If some genetic mutation offers even the slightest advantage, it will become more prevelant, and then that 1% deviation, could become a greater variation due to more genetic mutation.
Try studying the slime mold. a single cell organism. but when it is in a mold colony, it will move and has shown problem solving intelligence, working its way through a maze to find a food source. Each individual cell is a completely seperate organism, but combined, it has the intelligence of all.Excellent example of how traits can develop over time.
Wait a minute, you dont think having 1% of a wing would help you fall more safely to the ground than 0% of a wing would? LOL. Do you think 99% of a wing would help you fall out of a tree more sdafely than 0% of a wing. Your ignorance is outstanding!
"WRONG! This goes entirely against the principle of evolution." No, thats the entire point of evolution by natural selection. A species doesnt just grow the new appendage overnight. LOL. Maybe this is why people like you keep asking why there are still monkies.
"Either the mutation helps or it doesn't! " – correct
"1% of wing would do nothing, just like 2% of a wing." Incorrect. 1% of a wing is more beneficial than 0% of a wing, for the reasons ive already listed.
"I know this destroys your simplistic views of evolution" – No, it just makes you look like an idiot for not understanding it.
" But answer why it would keep 1% of a wing if it gives no advantage whatsoever!" – It does give an advantage. It would protect a bird from following out of a tree. Granted, a small tree. But with 2%, it could be an even taller tree. And 3%, an even taller tree. Seriously, you cant admit that?
I know it might be hard for you to actually do some study, but look up "epigenetics". Once many people thought like you did, that a gene was either there or not there and that major gene swapping or jumping would be required for significant change in our makeup. But we now know this is not the case and subtle changes in environment, available food resources and even social interaction can have dramatic effect over even relatively short periods of time when looking at the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed.
I'm going to go outside and argue with a rock, knowing it will comprehend logic better than you can.
the truth sayz, ".....major gene swapping or jumping .....".... Many have found out that the swapping business doesn't really work and got divorced. Socie Science.
"But answer why it would keep 1% of a wing if it gives no advantage whatsoever!" Well, if there was no advantage, it wouldn't matter. If there WAS any advantage, it would result in a higher survival rate for the 1%, meaning they would soon outnumber the wingless. Next, ten thousand years pass. A few of the winged now have 2% or even 3% wings, meaning they begin to outnumber the 1%. Ten thousand more years pass, they are all up to 3% and a mutant is born with 6% wings, and in a thousand years they all have 6%. Then more years pass, and , , , you need to admit the world has a natural explanation. Sorry. I know it hurts.
Sam's "I’m going to go outside and argue with a rock, knowing it will comprehend logic better than you can." made me LMAO!
"1Cr 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."...........snicker, snicker heh heh
@lol?? and other verse-wielding visitors...
This would explain the Christian god's distaste for critical thinking, rational thinking and the free will to think for ones self (much like most Christians)...and considering the mind is "enmity" toward god, the Christian is safe, and doesn't need to have to do the hard work of thinking...
Who else thinks its funny when TheRit asks questions that he thinks there are no answers to?
TheRit's most important question: When will i lose my virginity?
He asked about the origin of the eye, I cave him the Wikipedia article but it was above his reading comprehension level.
Bootyfunk: that made me LMAO!
The answer is "Never" btw, TheRit is saving himself for some suicide bomber in heaven some day...
So who designed the Mosquito?
Why does the Bible not mention Chinese or African human beings & their countries along
with other only white saints & prophets ,anyway it's folk tales that really took off ,also where
is the mention of a world of dinosaurs ,the ice age & where.......
you're focusing on the negative. there are unicorns, dragons, satyrs and c.ockatrice in the bible! also a talking snake and a talking donkey (just like in Shrek!) and a guy lives in the belly of a whale for 3 days (just like in Pinocchio!)
aren't fairy tales grand?
Cancer, flesh eating bacteria, bot flys, brain eating amoeba........god is such an amazing creator.
The (sad) answer from the Evangelical is that sin transformed the world from the paradise of Eden to "Cursed is the ground because of you..." (Gen. 3:17).
I do, however, find a bit of irony that all the "bad" things of the cosmos can be extrapolated from this single verse...but Christians tend to be one-verse-wonders...devising entire theologies from a single sentence while ignoring whole texts of inconvenience...
But then, as a Christian, I wasn't known for my critical thinking skills...
Religion is like food. If you don't like what the other guy ordered, quit eating off of his plate.
that'd be fine if the christian at the next table didn't try to force everyone in the restaurant to eat his ignorance.
Stop trying to force us to eat off your plate or sneaking food off of your plate onto ours.
Tell that other guy to stop ordering for me. I can run my own life.
If you say somebody eating a live chicken, wouldn't you want to say something?
Religion,
please stop craping in my big mac.
Oops, I meant "saw" someone eating a live chicken.
...But I like Chic Fil A....damn!
Check!
So… for the fuzzy fool atheists Satan Claus and invention, a product of the imaginations of businessmen is a symbol or merriment but Jesus is a myth. Really, who are now then the myth maniacs and the mythologists?
They rather choose to believe big bangs, evolutions, and chemical soup mixtures somewhere etc. Even Satan Claus is better for them than Jesus. No wonder the atheists unlike the monkeys descend to levels below the ground, like the swine they descend to the miry mud.
gibberish
Salero
Do you get your pot from lionlylamb?
@ Salero21. Dropped out of school in the 5th grade, right?
"Really, who are now then the myth maniacs and the mythologists?"
There's more of meth than of myth to your insane screed, my gibbering friend.
I see Salero21 is still blathering on like a mouthy little b1tch....i suppose it engages his mind, such as it is
How many times are you going to post your abject ignorance?
This one is not too bright. It's like one of those hunchback little "helpers" that doesn't really help anyone that much.
I have to thank Salero21, Pedro, Chad, Dina and so, so many other former brother's and sister's in Christ for giving creedence to the illiteracy crisis in the United States...
"The Two Universal Sects
They all err—Moslems, Jews,
Christians, and Zoroastrians:
Humanity follows two world-wide sects:
One, man intelligent without religion,
The second, religious without intellect. "
Al-Ma'arri
, born AD 973 /, died AD 1058 / .
Al-Ma’arri was a blind Arab philosopher, poet and writer.[1][2] He was a controversial rationalist of his time, attacking the dogmas of religion and rejecting the claim that Islam possessed any monopoly on truth."
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/resalat-al-ghufran#ixzz1lI6DuZmZ and http://www.humanistictexts.org/al_ma'arri.htm
Death's Debt is Paid in Full
Death's debt is then and there
Paid down by dying men;
But it is a promise bare
That they shall rise again. "
Al-Ma'arri
Can somebody please explain to me how we obtained vision? I posed that question earlier but it must have gotten overlooked;) Evolution would never suggest that all the parts developed at once, but each part would have been rendered useless and discarded the next generation if they developed independently. That is a FACT! What good is an eyeball (and all its parts) without an optic nerve? What good is an optic nerve without the eyeball (and all its parts)? What came first? The nerve? The pupil? The iris? the rods and cones? the cornea? the lens? Get my point?
Also just how have we managed to absolutely dominate the planet considering we are such a relatively new species? Are we really just that lucky to "evolve" that quickly? To believe that is NAIVE!
And for the record, I do not deny evolution entirely. But to go from slime to the great civilizations we have today is a WAY BIGGER leap of faith than the existence of God.
wow, you really don't know how to do a basic google search, do you? just put in 'evolution of vision' and you'll find plenty of scientific explanations for vision. that's a bad one that christians like to bring up. here's something from one of hundreds if not thousands of websites explaining the evolution of vision:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history - and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
I posted this a few pages back when you asked the same question. I guess you missed it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
If you don't have a subscription to Scientific American, the Wikipedia article also explains the evolution of the eye very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Just because you cannot comprehend the knowledge that science offers does not invalidate it. You choose to go the easy route and let people make up stuff and write it into a book, letting them think for you, knock yourself out. You will never be able to gain knowledge from your book,
You probably believe that god created man, in his own image....to take from your question, why would god need eyes, a nose, mouth, pe nis, nip ples, hair...etc? If he is all things, and everywhere, why would your god need genetalia?
Reason indicates god was created by man, that is why you picture your god with man features.
TheRit,
God and the kingdom domains are of the internal varieties within all manner of living life. From the very first cell in the beginning to the ever ongoing multi-cellular combinations was and is and shall ever be God inside us all! The inner dimensions of cellular activities is where God and God's godly ever do live and take residencies upon the insides of megalithic structures of living monoliths be they trees or animals or even of mankind's ferments.
Do you seriously hope to learn evolution from an blog on the internet? Or are you just showcasing your ignorance?
All of your questions have answers. You should actually study evolution if you're seriously interested (but be warned, you're going to have to use more than 1 book to fully understand it).
Surely you can agree that 1% of an eyeball is better than 0%. Surely you can agree that 1% of a wing is better than 0%. 1% of a wing would allow you to fall from a tree more safely than o% of a wing. And with 2% of a wing, you could fall more safely from even higher up a tree than with 1%. And guess what, 3% of a wing would be even better than 2% of a wing. And so on and so on. How can you claim to beleive in evolution but not understand this?
Also just how have we managed to absolutely dominate the planet considering we are such a relatively new species? Are we really just that lucky to "evolve" that quickly? To believe that is NAIVE!" Humans have existed for around 100,000 to 250,000 years. Some say 250,000, but most agree at least 100,000. And the species we evolved from , was already the dominant species. And the species before them was most likely the most dominant species.
"And for the record, I do not deny evolution entirely. But to go from slime to the great civilizations we have today is a WAY BIGGER leap of faith than the existence of God" No, evolution has evidence, so it doesnt require faith. Religion requires faith because there isnt any evidence.
Do you really think there is a god because you dont know how evolution works? And how can you beleive it and not beleive it at the same time? What dont you understand abuot it? From your post, it seems the time aspect is confusing you. Evolution takes a very long time. You cant seem to comprehend that.
Why do you have no apparent trouble believing in a God that existed prior to the beginning of the universe? Can you explain how that could happen? Show us your reasoning, please.
Not if you have a basic understanding of a 3rd grade education, it's not hard to understand evolution at all.
You honestly don't see all the holes in that? HAHA! "Over time a lens developed..." That's hilarious! Every bit of that is theoretical at best! What is the difference between that and, "God created the heavens and the earth?" Both are nothing more than statements with no explanation of how.
And, again, have you discovered the information (although entirely misrepresented as fact) by yourself? No, you put your faith in the authors. Once again, athiests are the worst hypocrites of all!
@ therit. Lazy fukk, aren't you?
Rit, if god created eyes, he did a crap job. Ask any eye doc.
TheRit
You dont know what a gene is, do you?
TheRit
I see you are proud of your ignorance. You may carry on.
the difference is that 'god created the universe' = magic
how do you explain flatworms with the most rudimentary vision? they can tell if it's light or dark. sounds like exactly how eyes would begin. first thing you detect is light or dark - day or night. that'd be quite an advantage. then go from there.
at the end of the day, your explanation of god is unsatisfying. it was magic! so stop looking, stop questioning, stop using your brain - because we already have the answer: MAGIC!
"Can somebody please explain to me how we obtained vision?"
I realize that you have been told that this is a real stumper and confounds every atheist instantly. Unfortunately, that's not true and it just makes you seem homeschooled. Vision has existed in living creatures almost since life's beginning.
therit – you are like a bad parody of an ignorant christian. the stages of evolutionary development of vision are easily apparent in species everywhere around you. from the most basic light sensing cells to the most advanced vision.
TheRit,
Even if it turned out that intelligent design is correct, it does not in any way PROVE that God exists. This all could have been created by Zeus or a committee of zombies.
As a designer and engineer this "God" character would get a barely passing grade for the human body. Who would design a recreation area with the sewer right next to it?!
It's as if you love wallowing in blatant stupidity. You realize outside of fundies Christians accept evolution as a fact right?
But they're not "real" Christians, apostate, or hadn't you heard?
Pope: Gay rights an "attack" on traditional family
jesus wasn't special. aside from the fact that there's no good evidence jesus was a real human being, even if he did live, he was just a crazy cult leader, like david koresh or any other. he certainly didn't do any "magic" - no walking on water, no healing the blind, no turning water into wine, no resurrection... if jesus did live, he was a cult leader with a giant ego that went around telling people he was literally the son of god. so what did jesus do that was so special?
Or, he could have been just a wise rabbi who ended up having an outlandish legend built up around him like Davy Crockett had. There is no reason to just assume that he was in any way responsible for any of it.
in the stories, he tells people he is the son of god. that's a pretty good reason. unless you want to pull everything he said. in which case, who is jesus? he didn't do any of the miracles, obviously. but if he didn't even say what is attributed to him, can it be said the character in the bible is based on anyone?
Bev
There's enough about Jesus in the gospels that runs counter to what you would imagine a wholly created character might be to highly suspect that a real person was the basis for the legend.
booty – not one word attributed to jesus was written down within decades of his fabled life. the veracity of anything he is purported to have said is highly suspect.
@snow
agreed. what i'm saying is, if there was a real jesus, he didn't do any of the magic stuff and wasn't the son of a god that doesn't exist. so if he didn't even say the things attributed to him - how can we say there was an original guy that the myths were based on?
Geez, people, some clear thinking please, why am I the one sticking up for the Christians today? Simply put, the audacious idea that God loves YOU, not just your tribe, demolished every other religion in it's path. God never did anything except order and threaten before; now His emissary is saying He loves all mankind as his children? It was a game-changer.
except you turn the page and it says he doesn't love everyone, only christians. he says non-believers are to burn in hell for all eternity.
the game changer was a religion that will take anyone - as long as they get down on their knees.
Bootyfunk
That's because everyone already had national gods, even the Jews. So, when Christianity started enrolling people from many cultures they had to invent a god that wouldn't be identified with a single nation. "Everyone" was joining so their god was everyone's god. Simple.
Whats the point of Christmas without Jesus
None.
There is however the real reason for celebration which is the solstice. Celebrated by men long before men created your god.
love, family, friends, gifting, sharing, comforting food, connecting....
maybe you should go and ask the pagans that made up xmas before the myth of jesus ever started...
Considering that most of the festive aspects of Christmas actually come from pagan ceremonies then what you're left with after you remove Jesus is still a very fun and joyous holiday. I'm OK with that. 🙂
@Rebel
Family, friends, and togetherness.
Hey rebel, merry christmyth!
we celebrate a secular christmas. it is simply a tradition.
rebel.....plenty of reason.....hang out with the family, give presents, eat too much. do you feel all pious?
Saturnalia
"Whats the point of Christmas without Jesus"
Tradition. We always gather in the dark of winter and light fires. We hang out lights in the cold, bring out the good food, and celebrate. Families get together, and you see people you haven't seen in a year. Old songs are sung, and who cares if they accurately describe reality? People who drink get loaded and people who don't laugh at them. Maybe some rabbi was born on this day, or maybe it's just a tradition; we have a day for Columbus too. What do you do, get together and hate on us until you feel all warm inside?