Hey Atheists - Page 4

**SageTree** · 11-08-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rev

No, I meant that the samurai was talking to Master Po, Master of Kung Fu!

The Rev

Ok gotcha'

farmergiles · 11-09-2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar420

i cant see anything i have said here that could be considered offensive or rude to atheists or anyone. if i did offend anyone, i apologize, i'm sorry.
it is a shame that atheists are often very offended and upset by being witnessed to, since they are among the people most in need of salvation from hellfire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury

Most athiests I know never read the Bible, or any book for that matter. They're completely in the dark and they like it that way. Just because you abstain from reading the Bible doesn't mean not the most important thing in the world.

Origin of Species and The God Delusion are good reads too... but the Bible is just in another realm of importance. It's the foundation for humanity. No other book of any kind, and certainly no video or song, truely empowers a person like the Bible. If you don't understand that then you are either illiterate or blind.

Merc's effort is much better IMO.

**SageTree** · 11-09-2011, 02:03 PM

A different man, with a different take on Christianity... please watch this YT, it might surprise you a little bit.

Bishop John Shelby Spong:

Beyond Theism -- John Shelby Spong - YouTube

Roach · 11-09-2011, 02:20 PM

Quote:

it is a shame that atheists are often very offended and upset by being witnessed to, since they are among the people most in need of salvation from hellfire.

Sugar420 · 11-09-2011, 03:17 PM

all right, im sorry.
this thread went wrong from the beginning because of my very poorly written original post and i shouldnt have chosen a title just because i found it personally amusing. i didnt want to get into any specifics of any particular religion or spiritual tradition, i didnt intend to preach or convert anyone.

the idea i was trying to get at was the issue of religious and spiritual practices for all people everywhere throughout human history, seen through the lens of evolutionary theory.

little kids are picky eaters. they wont eat anything that tastes bitter or weird to them. is there a darwinian reason for this? it could very well be that children who are willing to eat anything dont grow up to pass on their genes to the next generation. after a million years or so, there is no one left who wants to eat berries that taste like burning.
of course the reality of natural selection is not so simple when it comes to things like the development of language or complicated social structures or religion. but if natural selection can account for things like a sense of smell or bones or teeth then is it far fetched to think it may be at least partly responsible for the "spiritual sense" of individuals?

i know some people want to make a big distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" but i dont think from an evolutionary point of view the difference is important. spirituality is for individuals and religion is for groups. the point here is that more or less religious groups composed or more or less spiritual individuals have been very successful at surviving and spreading.

now contrast this idea with the thoughts of people like richard dawkins and christopher hitchens who seem to say, in a nutshell, that religion is bad for both individuals and society. a lot of anecdotal evidence is given in support of this view, but there is nothing you could call empirical data that backs up this claim.
the empirical data is this: humans have managed over the last million years or so to not only survive but to thrive, all the while being religious in some form or another.

anyway thats the idea i was thinking about when i wrote my first fail post

Roach · 11-09-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

that religion is bad for both individuals and society.

never read either, but I agree with them.

to me it's a distraction for many, from the real causes and cures for antisocial behavior, among other things.

but that's just mho

farmergiles · 11-09-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sugar420

i know some people want to make a big distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" but i dont think from an evolutionary point of view the difference is important.

Massive difference IMO, that's the difference between Jesus and the Pope.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

11-09-2011, 03:17 PM	#65 (permalink)
Sugar420 Freedom Bird Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,138 Thanks: 41 Thanked 183 Times in 733 Posts	all right, im sorry. this thread went wrong from the beginning because of my very poorly written original post and i shouldnt have chosen a title just because i found it personally amusing. i didnt want to get into any specifics of any particular religion or spiritual tradition, i didnt intend to preach or convert anyone. the idea i was trying to get at was the issue of religious and spiritual practices for all people everywhere throughout human history, seen through the lens of evolutionary theory. little kids are picky eaters. they wont eat anything that tastes bitter or weird to them. is there a darwinian reason for this? it could very well be that children who are willing to eat anything dont grow up to pass on their genes to the next generation. after a million years or so, there is no one left who wants to eat berries that taste like burning. of course the reality of natural selection is not so simple when it comes to things like the development of language or complicated social structures or religion. but if natural selection can account for things like a sense of smell or bones or teeth then is it far fetched to think it may be at least partly responsible for the "spiritual sense" of individuals? i know some people want to make a big distinction between "spiritual" and "religious" but i dont think from an evolutionary point of view the difference is important. spirituality is for individuals and religion is for groups. the point here is that more or less religious groups composed or more or less spiritual individuals have been very successful at surviving and spreading. now contrast this idea with the thoughts of people like richard dawkins and christopher hitchens who seem to say, in a nutshell, that religion is bad for both individuals and society. a lot of anecdotal evidence is given in support of this view, but there is nothing you could call empirical data that backs up this claim. the empirical data is this: humans have managed over the last million years or so to not only survive but to thrive, all the while being religious in some form or another. anyway thats the idea i was thinking about when i wrote my first fail post

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)