Outrage at 'Noah's Ark' creationist zoo which denies Darwin's theory of evolution

[Liffrea]

A secular group is demanding that tourism groups stop promoting a 'creationist' zoo which questions the traditional view of evolution.

The Noah's Ark Zoo is accused by the British Humanist Association of misleading tens of thousands of visitors annually and 'threatening public understanding'.

The BHA says the zoo farm, run by husband and wife Anthony and Christina Bush in Wraxall, near Bristol, promotes creationism - the belief that all life was created by God - and seeks to discredit scientific facts such as carbon dating, the fossil record and the speed of light.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209474/Outrage-Noahs-Ark-creationist-zoo-denies-Darwins-theory-evolution.html#ixzz0vHBht7sF

[Beorn]

It's a really a rather good day out. The kids loved it and so did we.

Haters will always hate.

[Wulfhere]

It's a really a rather good day out. The kids loved it and so did we.

Haters will always hate.

I hate lies dressed up as truth, which is why I hate creationism.

[Óttar]

These stupes should get dealt with. It's people like this that are destroying/have destroyed America. I would've thought our cousins across the pond were safe from this trash. I think it's high time we re-feed the lions.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w218/guthog/Male_lion.jpg
http://images.travelpod.com/users/lingchick/southafrica-07.1184209440.lions-eat-giraffe.jpg

[blan]

These stupes should get dealt with. It's people like this that are destroying/have destroyed America. I would've thought our cousins across the pond were safe from this trash. I think it's high time we re-feed the lions.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w218/guthog/Male_lion.jpg
http://images.travelpod.com/users/lingchick/southafrica-07.1184209440.lions-eat-giraffe.jpg

its no ones place to tell others how to think,
everyone has the right to think and go where ever they want.
im sure most of the people trying to make creationist parks illegal would love to do the same with european preservationist forums

[Wulfhere]

its no ones place to tell others how to think,
everyone has the right to think and go where ever they want.
im sure most of the people trying to make creationist parks illegal would love to do the same with european preservationist forums

It's not a question of making them illegal, but of not promoting them as truth.

[Beorn]

My children are six and 3, and already discuss previous conversations about 'monkey-Humans whos wer hairy' and 'lived very long ago. Way before even granddad was born'.

The farm made about as much dent into their minds and imaginations as it did mine whilst reading the Bible and the tale of Noah and his ark as a child.

I think people are more annoyed at their sanctimonious beliefs and POVs not being the all dominating dogma, and recoil at the horror of not having this being shoved down people's throats considered the authoritative belief in today's modern society.

[Arrow Cross]

These stupes should get dealt with. It's people like this that are destroying/have destroyed America. I would've thought our cousins across the pond were safe from this trash. I think it's high time we re-feed the lions.
You and your fashion-pagan "faith" are exactly as relavant today as the statue in your avatar.

[Arrow Cross]

'We are slightly different from popular creationism. We hold a view that the natural world around us is the product of both God and evolution.

'We do not hold the stereotypical creationist views that the world was created in 6,000 years.'
I don't know what's the problem here, this seems to me the most reasonable approach I've ever heard in this debate.

[Liffrea]

The answer is simple, along with teaching children reading, writing and arithmetic add critical thinking skills (of course this presupposes us having an education system designed to promote thinkers rather than churn out economic units and obedient drones) that way they can rationally assess different points of view.

My niece enjoys science but she also asks me questions about God and do I believe in Jesus etc, I don’t tell her what I think I try to get her to understand how to think about it herself, her father hates all and any religion he’s an evolutionist in the way most people are who don’t understand much about it. When I was at school my science teacher couldn’t answer a basic question about why monkeys aren’t jumping out of trees today and driving off in Ford Fiestas, it has become a dogma, personally I’m a Darwinist and find it difficult to see where evolution could be proven false but when it becomes a belief system it affects the science, I wouldn’t have qualms about taking her (or my own children if I had any) to this zoo, I don’t believe creationism myself (personally I find more purpose and nobility in Darwinism) but that’s my choice to make, children should have the opportunity to question.

[BiałaZemsta]

Many people regard Evolution as how we came to be, and religion as why. As long as proven evidence isn't being contradicted, I don't see a problem.

[nisse]

It makes absolutely no sense to be shutting down places like this while pictures of pigs are being take down.

[Óttar]

You and your fashion-pagan "faith" are exactly as relavant today as the statue in your avatar.
There is more value in one line of classical epic, than in the entire Bible. I honestly can't wrap my head around why on earth anyone would give a shit about some damn Jewish carpenter in the desert. Christianity only rose to power due to an imperial decree. Had Constantine decided to make Isis or Mithras the imperial State-cult, we would today all be Isians or Mithraics. And we would all be the better for it. Christianity spread due to Roman roads. Tell me, what is so great about the teachings of Jesus that make them superior to say, Mani, or any other schizophrenic mad man with a cult following? Bertrand Russel said that he could not be a Christian because in order to be a Christian one must accept that Jesus Christ is the single highest example of human morality in history. This, he could not accept. Secular people are always paying lip service to the Bible saying things like, the Bible is filled with wonderful allegories etc. If someone truly believes that the Bible is a great template for morality and how to live one's life then they have obviously never actually read it, and if they have, then I seriously question their sanity. The Bible is filled with incest, rape, slavery, murder, child-killing, and genocide not to mention contradictions, bad science, bad logic and bad math. The world would be a much better place if Abrahamic religions were never conceived. Indeed, Abrahamic monotheism is the single worst thing to ever appear on the historical scene. :coffee:

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Óttar
The Bible is filled with incest, rape, slavery, murder, child-killing, and genocide not to mention contradictions, bad science, bad logic and bad math.

Erm……so are the Greek myths, Hera (Zeus’ sister) had her work cut out with Zeus’ sexual antics, which usually meant raping some mortal women or other, and the Germanic Gods aren’t what you would call nice :D(thank the Gods), it’s myth (Bible included) it’s not supposed to be taken as literal truth or science.

Can we not have another your God(s) is gay thread, can't we all just get along.:D:)

[blan]

Many people regard Evolution as how we came to be, and religion as why. As long as proven evidence isn't being contradicted, I don't see a problem.


There is more value in one line of classical epic, than in the entire Bible. I honestly can't wrap my head around why on earth anyone would give a shit about some damn Jewish carpenter in the desert. Christianity only rose to power due to an imperial decree. Had Constantine decided to make Isis or Mithras the imperial State-cult, we would today all be Isians or Mithraics. And we would all be the better for it. Christianity spread due to Roman roads. Tell me, what is so great about the teachings of Jesus that make them superior to say, Mani, or any other schizophrenic mad man with a cult following? Bertrand Russel said that he could not be a Christian because in order to be a Christian one must accept that Jesus Christ is the single highest example of human morality in history. This, he could not accept. Secular people are always paying lip service to the Bible saying things like, the Bible is filled with wonderful allegories etc. If someone truly believes that the Bible is a great template for morality and how to live one's life then they have obviously never actually read it, and if they have, then I seriously question their sanity. The Bible is filled with incest, rape, slavery, murder, child-killing, and genocide not to mention contradictions, bad science, bad logic and bad math. The world would be a much better place if Abrahamic religions were never conceived. Indeed, Abrahamic monotheism is the single worst thing to ever appear on the historical scene. :coffee:

you have taken the debate in a whole new direction and made it into what your real beef is. you have anger towards some christians most likely family or some one you know who wronged you and you saw there hypocrisy.
or maybe you just hate a the teachings of christ. love, humbleness, empathy, passive resisitance, self control, discipline, not judgeing others, ect ect,
well this mad man as you call him this small little carpenter as you see him some how created a doctrine and way of life that has affected this world in massive ways, many postive ways may i add, and his teachings have millions and millions of of people in every country many of whom are great people doing great things in the feilds of science, engineering, medicine, ect.
and the bible is a great template for morality if you are reading the teachings of christ. christ was going against the immoral actions of the injustice that upsets so many people.

[Osweo]

There is more value in one line of classical epic, than in the entire Bible. I honestly can't wrap my head around why on earth anyone would give a shit about some damn Jewish carpenter in the desert.
Man, your resentment is getting the better of your good sense. This is an overly emotional response. Christianity proved an impressive meme for its inherent content, and you only embarrass yourself to deny this.

That carpenter had a lot of good thoughts, and by all accounts was a pretty holy sort of feller, inspiring followers to give up all for him and his teachings. You love your India, and I bet if some yogi there did the same as this Jeshuah, you'd be singing his praises to no end...

And Palestine is hardly a desert.

Christianity only rose to power due to an imperial decree. Had Constantine decided to make Isis or Mithras the imperial State-cult, we would today all be Isians or Mithraics.
But it had spread up to then by its own resources. And was already a force to be reckoned with.

And we would all be the better for it. Christianity spread due to Roman roads. Tell me, what is so great about the teachings of Jesus that make them superior to say, Mani, or any other schizophrenic mad man with a cult following? Bertrand Russel said that he could not be a Christian because in order to be a Christian one must accept that Jesus Christ is the single highest example of human morality in history. This, he could not accept. Secular people are always paying lip service to the Bible saying things like, the Bible is filled with wonderful allegories etc. If someone truly believes that the Bible is a great template for morality and how to live one's life then they have obviously never actually read it, and if they have, then I seriously question their sanity. The Bible is filled with incest, rape, slavery, murder, child-killing, and genocide not to mention contradictions, bad science, bad logic and bad math. The world would be a much better place if Abrahamic religions were never conceived. Indeed, Abrahamic monotheism is the single worst thing to ever appear on the historical scene. :coffee:
Monotheism would have appeared sooner or later, without Abraham or Jesus. And human nature would have shaped it into something that had its evil shameful periods and episodes, like any other big idea.

Best to accept it as a phase we had to go through, in order to learn of its dangers.

[Óttar]

Erm……so are the Greek myths, Hera (Zeus’ sister) had her work cut out with Zeus’ sexual antics, which usually meant raping some mortal women or other, and the Germanic Gods aren’t what you would call nice :D
At least the Greeks, Romans and Norsemen weren't hypocrites. They accepted that life was bloody, that sex was good, and that killing and death was necessary. This was an affirmation of life, not a denial of the self.


it’s myth (Bible included) it’s not supposed to be taken as literal truth or science.
But the problem is that there are plenty of people who do accept the Bible as literal truth, and this causes havoc and mayhem for millions, further promoting ignorance.

[Agrippa]

Many people regard Evolution as how we came to be, and religion as why. As long as proven evidence isn't being contradicted, I don't see a problem.

Exactly, but unfortunately most Creationists, even the more modest ones, tend to show ideas and theories which are misleading, lies and dangerous too - disproven by the facts. But probably those do better.

If it's about religion, I'm rather a complicated Agnostic, but fact is, there is primarily one place in nature and "the creation of life" for a god or a higher intelligence, namely in the creation of the Universe and the creation of physical rules which make life possible.

After that and from a certain stage on, there is neither a need nor a place for a god, especially no standard Mosaic god like we know it from Judaism, Christanity or Islam, in Evolution, that's just absurd and Evolution is a fact and no theory nor a belief, it's just a fact people recognise and accept or not.

The theoretical aspects being present in the DETAILS, but the general approach is just something which is a milestone for the our own realisation and anyone or any group trying to spread lies or deny that is dangerous, because they just preach lies, dangerous lies, because without the knowledge about Evolution, many aspects of life and future developments have to go in the wrong direction.

Also, Evolution in itself can't deny God, it can just disprove certain religious ideas and writings, like many of the old testament f.e., which are just fantasies for the cohesion of the Jewish people anyway, even later Christians like Martin Luther saw it as the "Jewish bible" what it is - quite reasonable in it's outlook in some aspects - for Jews primarily though.

[blan]

At least the Greeks, Romans and Norsemen weren't hypocrites. They accepted that life was bloody, that sex was good, and that killing and death was necessary. This was an affirmation of life, not a denial of the self.


But the problem is that there are plenty of people who do accept the Bible as literal truth, and this causes havoc and mayhem for millions, further promoting ignorance.

your being silly now, you support pagan ritual even though its nature is immoral and supports blood shed but you claim you are anger at the bible and christ because it supports mayhem and blood shed??
and no christ did not support killing and wrong doing if you ever read the scriptures based on him yes there are people who kill in his name, but there are anarchists that kill in the name of anarachy, democrats, republicans, americans, english, french, who kill in the name of america and france and england, hindus and buddhists and pagans and racalists, ect ect ect humans are a violent and will kill in the name of anything they can,
does that mean all republicans and all democrat and all socialists and all anarchists are worthless people becuase there are fools amgosnt the masses???perhaps yo ushould stop being a european preservationist because many kill in the name of it such as kkk and neo nazis ect. does tha mean we should forsake european culutre and the preservation of it becuase we have those among us who are violent and foolish???
i dont know where you anger comes from? your from massachusetts there are so few devout christians in your region boston is a humanist paradise man!
and chrisitanity spread threw out the world without hte help of the romans, it was already huge in egypt and ethiopia and other parts of the middleast before the romans made it officila and they made t official becuase of the massive amounts of christians threw out there kingdom so really christianity rose to what it is on its own merit

[Osweo]

your being silly now, you support pagan ritual even though its nature is immoral

He was being silly, but so were you in the above quotes! :rolleyes:;) Most of your post was right though.

[Óttar]

Man, your resentment is getting the better of your good sense. This is an overly emotional response.
Someone claiming that ancient religion is of no value or irrelevant is ignorant.


Christianity proved an impressive meme for its inherent content, and you only embarrass yourself to deny this.
Christianity proves impressive because of influence from classical antiquity i.e. Roman art/realism, Roman architecture, Roman law, Roman tradition, Greek philosophy, all of which had their origins in a traditional "pagan" world. You could not have had this,

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a148/Kalidasa/dea_pulchra_resize.jpg

Without first having this

http://lipizzaner.at/data/page639/Goettin_Isis_NEU.jpg

Or this,

http://www.digitalrendezvous.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/christ.png

without this, (Apollo)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a148/Kalidasa/apollo_mosaic.jpg

And quite frankly, we would've been a lot better off as a civilisation with the Roman and the Greek without all the Christian.


That carpenter had a lot of good thoughts, and by all accounts was a pretty holy sort of feller, inspiring followers to give up all for him and his teachings.
And Palestine is hardly a desert.


or maybe you just hate a the teachings of christ. love, humbleness, empathy, passive resisitance, self control, discipline, not judgeing others, ect ect,
Who nowadays has given up everything for him and his teachings? Not judging others!!? HA! Christians are not living according to his teachings. A true Christian would give up his family, go to a place with some like-minded people and renounce the world for Christ. For as Jesus said, (and I paraphrase) 'One cannot be my follower unless they give up everything and follow me.' He goes on about how one must even renounce their parents.

He said things like 'If thy sight offend thee, cast out your eye, and if thy (virile) limb offend thee, cut it off (:eek:), for it is better to lose it than to lose your immortal soul.' Why then are these Christians not walking around like eunuchs? Priests wear fine gold-threaded raiment and build palatial churches despite the fact that Jesus encouraged poverty, and condemned the Pharisees for wearing fine raiment yet having decayed and blameworthy souls. How many Christians actually practice humility and being good to people? I mean, this guy here, who calls himself a 'Reformed Protestant' is a Nazi. :rolleyes:

But it had spread up to then by its own resources. And was already a force to be reckoned with.
Maybe so, but by the time Constantine converted, only 10% of the empire was Christian. I am peeved by claims of the transition from antique religion to Christianity as being some natural and inevitable progression to a superior world view.

You love your India, and I bet if some yogi there did the same as this Jeshuah, you'd be singing his praises to no end...
I have my own beef (no pun intended, but perhaps apt :D) with certain elements of Hindu Dharma. I don't think that all of Hindu philosophy is blameless and praiseworthy. I am a great opponent of the asceticism that crept in from Buddhist and Jain influence.


Monotheism would have appeared sooner or later, without Abraham or Jesus. And human nature would have shaped it into something that had its evil shameful periods and episodes, like any other big idea.
I highly doubt that the general monotheism of the Stoics or the Platonists, or the monism of the Hellenistic period could have possibly taken the turns that medieval Christianity did. I can't conceive of Stoic, Platonic, Hellenistic holy wars or entire swathes of violent, ignorant, Stoic, Platonic, Hellenistic rednecks.

[blan]

He was being silly, but so were you in the above quotes! :rolleyes:;) Most of your post was right though.

i dont think all pagans are immoral but there is immorality in its history amything that has been around more than 100 years has flaws and has had people that can make it look bad that was my point

[blan]

Who nowadays has given up everything for him and his teachings? Not judging others!!? HA! Christians are not living according to his teachings. A true Christian would give up his family, go to a place with some like-minded people and renounce the world for Christ. For as Jesus said, (and I paraphrase) 'One cannot be my follower unless they give up everything and follow me.' He goes on about how one must even renounce their parents.

He said things like 'If thy sight offend thee, cast out your eye, and if thy (virile) limb offend thee, cut it off (:eek:), for it is better to lose it than to lose your immortal soul.' Why then are these Christians not walking around like eunuchs? Priests wear fine gold-threaded raiment and build palatial churches despite the fact that Jesus encouraged poverty, and condemned the Pharisees for wearing fine raiment yet having decayed and blameworthy souls. How many Christians actually practice humility and being good to people? I mean, this guy here, who calls himself a 'Reformed Protestant' is a Nazi. :rolleyes:

there are christians who renounce everything for christ and live with those who are like minded i could introduce you to many,
and it seems you think christians are foolish for taking the bible literal sense.
christ was making a statement about sin not cutting yourself up in a self destructive manner.
the same as turn the other cheek, and i come with a sword, dont take scriptures out of context.
again did you read what i wrote?? you are angery at hypocrisy from christians and there wrong doing but you are judgeing all who claim christ as there religion, and you put your hate on christ and his teachings when i said humans by nature are....forget it it no need to repeat myself if you wont read what i said the first time you wont read it the second time.
dont worry man i know how hard it must be in the bible belt of new england... :rolleyes2: dont let those over whelming number of christians get you down

[Óttar]

dont worry man i know how hard it must be in the bible belt of new england... :rolleyes2: dont let those over whelming number of christians get you down
My country is being destroyed by the Christian Taliban in the midwest and the south. Not to mention the so-called "Christians" among the Neo-Conservatives. Why do you think I was motivated to move, or rather move back, to New England in the first place?

[Osweo]

Someone claiming that ancient religion is of no value or irrelevant is ignorant.
Of course. As is someone who claims the same of mediaeval European religion. ;)


Christianity proves impressive because of influence from classical antiquity i.e. Roman art/realism, Roman architecture, Roman law, Roman tradition, Greek philosophy, all of which had their origins in a traditional "pagan" world. You could not have had this,...
You are quite a Catholic, whether you like it or not... :D Actually, the things you find impressive in Christianity, and which you show pictures of there, aren't the same that most strike me.

Can you not feel the power in Puritanism???? I remember you many times mocking the 'churches that are whitewashed barns', and so I believe you are by disposition unable to. But you can't deny that it DID impress others. And MANY others. You should read about the early Quakers. Or look at the older Church in Europe, in the times of St Martin, and his spiritual heirs in the Irish Sea world, up to Cuthbeorht and Colum Cille. There was a power in those men. They were driven by a mighty idea. I don't share it, but I can at least acknowledge that fact.

And quite frankly, we would've been a lot better off as a civilisation with the Roman and the Greek without all the Christian.
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis...

- Times change, and we change with them.

Who nowadays has given up everything for him and his teachings? Not judging others!!? HA! Christians are not living according to his teachings.
Yes. It's had its day. But it had a good long one. :)

Maybe so, but by the time Constantine converted, only 10% of the empire was Christian. I am peeved by claims of the transition from antique religion to Christianity as being some natural and inevitable progression to a superior world view.
Whether it peeves you or not, it happened. And I'm not so convinced it was as close a call as you seem to be. A tenth is a lot, if it's the right people!

I have my own beef (no pun intended, but perhaps apt :D)
:D

I highly doubt that the general monotheism of the Stoics or the Platonists, or the monism of the Hellenistic period could have possibly taken the turns that medieval Christianity did. I can't conceive of Stoic, Platonic, Hellenistic holy wars or entire swathes of violent, ignorant, Stoic, Platonic, Hellenistic rednecks.
None of those ideas had it in them to spread and create a new society. They were self-conscious often elitist thought-systems, not mad wild new Revelations! And that's why they were overcome (and absorbed). Rome was ripe for a change.

[Óttar]

Can you not feel the power in Puritanism????
Are you kidding!!? I HATE the Puritans with a passion! "Breathing is a sin!!!" :rolleyes2:

In medieval times, churches to Mary were called "Palaces of the Queen of Heaven." (Queen of Heaven was a title applied to several mediterranean goddesses BTW.) If I have to have Christian, give me this,

http://blufiles.storage.live.com/y1pMXMAIll__iBLwP769SWloW6hzRD8inaFECLONaDd7Kf0Vxc ZqA9-BQ6WekAdRhaIFG5kmS1A0RU

http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/25/quebec-F76T1265.jpg

http://photo.bldesign.org/photos/europe/DSCN5631.jpg

over this,
http://www.glogster.com/media/2/3/49/4/3490465.jpg
...any day of the week.

What I do admire about Catholic aesthetics is its romanism, and the mysticism associated with the early and medieval Mary cultus that was more reminiscent of devotion to mediterranean goddesses than anything Christian per se.


Or look at the older Church in Europe, in the times of St Martin, and his spiritual heirs in the Irish Sea world, up to Cuthbeorht and Colum Cille. There was a power in those men. They were driven by a mighty idea. I don't share it, but I can at least acknowledge that fact.
Irish Christianity was not as bad as the continental Church. They at least were more mystical and had a healthy attitude towards sexuality.


Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis...
- Times change, and we change with them.

Well, they could've changed differently. One can only wonder what if Constantine had patronised a cult like Mithras or Isis.


Whether it peeves you or not, it happened.
But it was not inevitable. It is the story of a man who sold out his Patria, mos maiorum and Imperium, for merely 14 years after the removal of the Altar of Victory in 396 CE, in 410, the Empire for all intents and purposes collapsed. Mater Mundi mortua. Ita est. Well done. :rolleyes:

None of those ideas had it in them to spread and create a new society. They were self-conscious often elitist thought-systems, not mad wild new Revelations! And that's why they were overcome (and absorbed). Rome was ripe for a change.
I think if you strip away the older external traditions and philosophy from Christianity all you are left with is a book and a man. So if that is the case, why not pick better ones?

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Óttar
At least the Greeks, Romans and Norsemen weren't hypocrites. They accepted that life was bloody, that sex was good, and that killing and death was necessary. This was an affirmation of life, not a denial of the self.

Well the debate over the teachings of Christ and the reality of the Church is a long one, as is the history of Christianity, suffice to say that the hippy dippy Christ of 21st century Anglicans (and to a lesser extent Catholics) would have gone down like a Bernard Manning gig in a Mosque in 7th century Anglo-Saxon England, the Christ of the Dream of the Rood isn’t the same character that many modern Christians would recognise. God(s) fit the man.

Don’t misunderstand me I believe that real spiritual perception has to come from autochthonous growths, that’s why I’m Heathen/Odinist, hence, despite the ability of Christianity to be absorbed into the European psyche, it will never be as close to our true nature (which most modern Christians would be disgusted by) as the various indigenous growths are.

Woden isn’t rising, he never went away in the first place, but the form he retakes in the psyche of northern man will be far different than anything before moulded as it has been by time. Debate the nature of deity as you will but man has need of a mythic/play/ritual dimension to being and the need for a spiritual meme.


But the problem is that there are plenty of people who do accept the Bible as literal truth, and this causes havoc and mayhem for millions, further promoting ignorance.

As I’ve wrote before this is probably more an American issue, I don’t believe creationism has that many adherents in Britain and they certainly don’t have any power.

Of course people of any sort only have the power of control on your mind that you allow them to have, a man can be clapped in irons or have a bullet put in his skull and his body tossed in a ditch, but no one on this earth can control your mind if you have the will to prevent it.

Teach people how to think, not what to think.

[Óttar]

chrisitanity spread threw out the world without hte help of the romans, it was already huge in egypt and ethiopia
:rotfl:

The Romans first reached, and annexed Egypt as a province in 30 BCE.

[blan]

:rotfl:

The Romans first reached, and annexed Egypt as a province in 30 BCE.

i said it was excepted as official before the romans, africa already had orthodox christian faith,
you are really building straw man arguments and you have little ammunition to combat your feeling against the christian faith,
i think you should let it rest because these types of debate only are compsed of contention, you really have no want to share views and facts you simply wish to share you anger and frustration with the human race but you are looking for a cause for your frustration.
the cause is man kind and it flaws please keep in mind you are as imperfect and hypocritical as those you comment on, as i have pointed out in your early statements, we all are we are humans and there are flaws in all of our sceince spirtuality, and politics accpet it move on and live your life.

[Nodens]

i said it was excepted as official before the romans, africa already had orthodox christian faith,


47 Eusebius of Caesarea, the author of Ecclesiastical History in the fourth century, states that st. Mark came to Egypt in the first or third year of the reign of Emperor Claudius, i.e. 41 or 43 A.D. "Two Thousand years of Coptic Christianity" Otto F.A. Meinardus p28. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Christianity#Footnotes)

Aegyptus was a Roman province for 72 years prior to the advent of Coptic Church.

[Osweo]

Are you kidding!!? I HATE the Puritans with a passion! "Breathing is a sin!!!" :rolleyes2:
Hating people from 300, and even 1700 years ago, can't be good for a man... ;)

In medieval times, churches to Mary were called "Palaces of the Queen of Heaven." (Queen of Heaven was a title applied to several mediterranean goddesses BTW.) If I have to have Christian, give me this,

Nice, but a rousing hymn or sermon can be as powerful or more, to those of different dispositions than yourself.

30 BCE.
BCE... :rotfl:
Allergic to even saying Christ?! You give the word and idea too much power, by such treatment!

1 Anno Domini is no 'common era' to anything! Islam has yet to show up! WHat an absurd misnomer!




Irish Christianity was not as bad as the continental Church. They at least were more mystical and had a healthy attitude towards sexuality.
I've seen little indication of that. How do you mean?


Well, they could've changed differently. One can only wonder what if Constantine had patronised a cult like Mithras or Isis.
If it was only Constantine, or only a certain clique, then later reigns would have reversed his actions. Only one tried, and doesn't seem to have been able to summon enough of a wider reaction. :(

But it was not inevitable. It is the story of a man who sold out his Patria, mos maiorum and Imperium, for merely 14 years after the removal of the Altar of Victory in 396 CE, in 410, the Empire for all intents and purposes collapsed. Mater Mundi mortua. Ita est. Well done. :rolleyes:
It's still there. I recommend you read the last few pages of The Golden Bough, to get an appreciation of this in a more aesthetic sense that might appeal to your character...

I think if you strip away the older external traditions and philosophy from Christianity all you are left with is a book and a man. So if that is the case, why not pick better ones?
The man died for what he believed. He didn't hide or recant. That's pretty impressive. And it impressed people for centuries.

[Óttar]

1 Anno Domini is no 'common era' to anything!
Year of the lord? Whose lord? Not mine. It is called common era because people (among ourselves) commonly use this calendar. Common to us. Not the Muslims. Who gives a f*ck what the Muslims do.

The French Revolutionary calendar never caught on.

I've always proposed 2763 (MMDCCLXIII) AVC "Ab Urbe Condita" 'from the founding of the city (Rome)' but alas...

[Osweo]

Year of the lord? Whose lord? Not mine. It is called common era because people (among ourselves) commonly use this calendar. Common to us. Not the Muslims. Who gives a f*ck what the Muslims do.

The French Revolutionary calendar never caught on.

I've always proposed 2763 (MMDCCLXIII) AVC "Ab Urbe Condita" 'from the founding of the city (Rome)' but alas...

BCE is posturing. It still IS the Christian calendar, but coupled with a petty attempt to hide its name.

Is the name so powerful?!? You flatter Christianity!

Let it slip away into a mere relic. That's far more powerful than outright suppression.

And I'm not Roman. My city was founded around 79 AD. Much as I wish it were 1931 again, I think I'll stick with convention.

My TX ex once read summat I wrote for university once, an archaeology essay, and was shocked that we used BC... Madness! :rolleyes::D

[Smaland]

At least the Greeks, Romans and Norsemen weren't hypocrites. They accepted that life was bloody, that sex was good, and that killing and death was necessary. This was an affirmation of life, not a denial of the self.


Genesis 18 (King James Version)

1) And the LORD appeared unto him (Abraham) in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

In vv. 2-8, Abraham and Sarah prepared a meal to be hospitable and respectful to God and those who were with Him.

9) And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.

10) And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.

11) Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.

12) Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord (Abraham) being old also?

13) And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

14) Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

15) Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

In vv. 13-15, God does not fault Sarah for having enjoyed her husband Abraham. Rather, He corrected her for not believing that He would do as He promised.

[Cato]

A secular group is demanding that tourism groups stop promoting a 'creationist' zoo which questions the traditional view of evolution.

The Noah's Ark Zoo is accused by the British Humanist Association of misleading tens of thousands of visitors annually and 'threatening public understanding'.

The BHA says the zoo farm, run by husband and wife Anthony and Christina Bush in Wraxall, near Bristol, promotes creationism - the belief that all life was created by God - and seeks to discredit scientific facts such as carbon dating, the fossil record and the speed of light.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209474/Outrage-Noahs-Ark-creationist-zoo-denies-Darwins-theory-evolution.html#ixzz0vHBht7sF

What're these atheist shits so upset about? The theory of creationism is no more and no less a theory than the theory evolution. In my own way, I'm a believing man (in God), but I don't regard the yarn of the Garden of Eden or the story of Noah's Flood as literal. All that it is is another case of "Bwahaha sniff sniff let's feel offended about something." Are they all Jews?

Wimps.

[Psychonaut]

The theory of creationism is no more and no less a theory than the theory evolution.

Creationism is not an idea that was arrived at by any variation on the the scientific method. Calling it a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) denigrates the term itself into meaninglessness. Dressing an immutably held belief in scientific window dressing does not a theory make.

[BiałaZemsta]

What're these atheist shits so upset about? The theory of creationism is no more and no less a theory than the theory evolution. In my own way, I'm a believing man (in God), but I don't regard the yarn of the Garden of Eden or the story of Noah's Flood as literal. All that it is is another case of "Bwahaha sniff sniff let's feel offended about something." Are they all Jews?

Wimps.

Evolution is not theory, it's fact. :thumbs up You have the right to believe in any religion you choose. Don't disregard something that did happen.

[Cato]

Arid intellectualism will save the day just as much as vapid faith will! Huzzah.

[Austin]

I think it is fine, just two people running a little operation for zealously religious people or curious onlookers, I don't see any real harm.

[BiałaZemsta]

Arid intellectualism will save the day just as much as vapid faith will! Huzzah.

What?

[blan]

My country is being destroyed by the Christian Taliban in the midwest and the south. Not to mention the so-called "Christians" among the Neo-Conservatives. Why do you think I was motivated to move, or rather move back, to New England in the first place?

im sure your life was in danger and they were trying to behead you and make your life hell.... how did you ever survive??

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by BiałaZemsta
Evolution is not theory, it's fact.

Evolution is a theory, a scientific theory, there are no “facts” in science as such just better models for how the observable universe works. Evolution is the best model for explaining variation at present but that doesn’t mean it won’t be superseded by a better or more refined model, a few biologists already question the isolated role of selection and have argued for selection based upon spontaneous arising of order.

[Agrippa]

Evolution is a theory, a scientific theory, there are no “facts” in science as such just better models for how the observable universe works. Evolution is the best model for explaining variation at present but that doesn’t mean it won’t be superseded by a better or more refined model, a few biologists already question the isolated role of selection and have argued for selection based upon spontaneous arising of order.

Who did so? How exactly?

Evolution is a fact and no theory any longer, like that the Earth is no disc or a heliocentric view, solar system.

You can only discuss the details, f.e. how mutations and genetic-phenotypic changes can happen in detail, Epigenetics being an example of new forms of research, so are others.

But all of that don't really change and can't really change the basic evolutionary principles which are proven by so many facts that no sane individual can really question it in a principle manner.

And all those people which still do so, have no better theory and can't disprove anything so far, but come up - as a rule - with religious and pseudoreligious ideas and psychological-ideological blinders.

Details can be discussed, but Evolution as a general principle is fixed and can be observed in all of life.

To challenge that, people would have to come up with wholly different kinds of proofs than those Creationists present, which are all just lies and crap which misleads people and makes them irrational, unable to face reality and it's demands in the biological sphere.

This are idiot's memes, probably only good to make up a herd of people which can't think for itself anyway, but if higher level people, people with power and influence, might get influenced by this dangerous ideas, it becomes very problematic and a healthy group should protect itself from this nonsense and harmful memetic codes as it should from Liberalism and Cultural Marxism - both of which would be unacceptable for any reasonable being which really accepts and understands the biological nature of humans - for which Evolution is a premise.

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
Who did so? How exactly?

I don't understand what you're asking me.


Evolution is a fact and no theory any longer,

Then I respectfully suggest you are no longer viewing it as a science. I fully agree that it is inconceivable at present as to how evolution may be disproved there is certainly no credible science I am aware of that would fit the bill, it will more likely be added to, indeed this is ongoing.

However a scientific theory is only such as long as it can be practically disproved, that doesn’t mean to say it will be but the possibility has to be there otherwise it isn’t science.


And all those people which still do so, have no better theory and can't disprove anything so far, but come up - as a rule - with religious and pseudoreligious ideas and psychological-ideological blinders.

But creationism isn't science is it? So I fail to see the problem. I could say the Care Bears created man but unless I have observational evidence, an experiment with replicable results and a theory that can be disproved by scientific methods then it's not science.

[nisse]

Evolution is a fact and no theory any longer, like that the Earth is no disc or a heliocentric view, solar system.
Earth's shape makes a statement about now, and can be easily veryfied by a few simple measurements. Theory of evolution makes a statement about the entire history of life on Earth, and as long as we are unable to observe the emergence and evolution from the very first cell, it'll remain a theory.

[Agrippa]

I don't understand what you're asking me.

I referred to this:

a few biologists already question the isolated role of selection and have argued for selection based upon spontaneous arising of order.

So which biologists state what?


However a scientific theory is only such as long as it can be practically disproved, that doesn’t mean to say it will be but the possibility has to be there otherwise it isn’t science.

That's correct, which is why I made the last statement about future methods and details.

But the possibility in science can mean many things, in this case it means what we say in German: "Mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit".

With a probability being close to certainty - that say scientists if they are absolutely sure and just add it to leave a small room for errors open, like in very clear cases of a paternity test f.e., where in fact only an unknown twin might be a second choice.

In the case of Evolution, things are fixed, because to be wrong, some force would have made up a huge pile of evidences for Evolution just to mislead us and that's obviously idiotic to assume.


But creationism isn't science is it?

It is no science, but many proponents claim it is one and try to argue on the same level as scientists and with the bible being a stronger proof than proven facts.


So I fail to see the problem.

The problem is weak minded individuals believe it and try to convert others, I met various individuals of that kind in fora already and even among Germans such nonsense being spread, being in some circles even more widespread now than it was decades ago!


I could say the Care Bears created man but unless I have observational evidence, an experiment with replicable results and a theory that can be disproved by scientific methods then it's not science.

Of course it is not and I wouldn't mind scientific debates on a serious and high level about details of Evolution, even on the contrary, I want that. BUT I don't want the Creationist ideology being spread and Evolution neglected, because weak minds are vulnerable and can become dangerous once they are infected, because they try to fight down any really scientific appraoch to the problem, I know that very well...


Earth's shape makes a statement about now, and can be easily veryfied by a few simple measurements. Theory of evolution makes a statement about the entire history of life on Earth, and as long as we are unable to observe the emergence and evolution from the very first cell, it'll remain a theory.

Evolution is a fact because life developed after it's principles and if you look at most Creationists, they don't just tell you god made some rules or the first cell might be extraterrestrial or the like, unlikely things which can be discussed though, but they question that humans developed out of primates, that Dinosaurs lived and died out like science tells it to us, that the age of the world might be different and the like...

It's really much more basic and contradicts facts much more clearly than you suggest now and of course, no matter how the first cell started, for which we have plausible theories too, from then on Evolution worked as a fact and can be proven by so many scientific facts that it is a proven theory, one of the best proven we have.

I would compare it with you observing a man standing at one point at this time and at another one minute later.

The most reasonable assumption would be to say he simply moved, walked from one place to the other in this minute.

But Creationists now claim that he probably disappeared and reappeared by the intervention of god, was beamed from one place to another, because he couldn't walk for himself.

Now you didn't watch all of his steps, but you saw him at one place and walking in the direction of the other, so what are people claiming that something different happened by the intervention of god? In any case not rational...

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
So which biologists state what?

Stuart Kauffman, Professor at Santa Fe Institute, argues in his work At Home In the Universe that natural selection is underpinned by a process of spontaneous order. In a sense it is a variation of the idea that given the laws of nature in science we should expect that complexity would arrise naturally.


In the case of Evolution, things are fixed, because to be wrong, some force would have made up a huge pile of evidences for Evolution just to mislead us and that's obviously idiotic to assume.

I don’t believe I agree, if I understand you correctly. We start from the premise that there are observable facts in the world, this is why I wrote above that science isn’t about stating facts it is about explaining how things came to be, we know the earth is (roughly speaking) a sphere, we know it orbits the Sun, but the why is what science is about. The evidence for natural selection (and sexual selection, genetic drift for that matter) would still be there even if evolutionary theory (or more specifically Darwinism since evolutionary theory of some form or another goes back to the ancients) proved to be wrong, which I grant you is highly unlikely to the point of being impossible, but, nevertheless the possibility has to be at least accepted as such.


It is no science, but many proponents claim it is one and try to argue on the same level as scientists and with the bible being a stronger proof than proven facts.

Well this takes us into the realm of philosophy of science and the relative merits of scientific enquiry over other enquiry, which I’m sure isn’t that relevant given that we are looking at theories within the accepted definition of scientific investigation. Many people believe that an intelligence is behind existence, I personally do not but I cannot prove or disprove the contention by scientific methods.


The problem is weak minded individuals believe it and try to convert others, I met various individuals of that kind in fora already and even among Germans such nonsense being spread, being in some circles even more widespread now than it was decades ago!

I understand your point, the problem is neither you nor I can do a great deal about what people choose to believe other than to argue our point of view in as rational a manner as possible.

It is a general characteristic of humanity that most people believe what they want and have little time for anything that disagrees with their cognitive bias. I doubt I’m free of this.

In my experience as well many (perhaps most) need a simplified explanation of reality and a purpose, religions like Christianity provide that a loving deity that looks out for you and a nice place to go when you die, I’m not mocking it I can even understand the appeal, it’s not my outlook, personally I’m not afraid of seizing to be when my brain dies (though I fear dying as any sane human does) nor do I need a deity to look out for me, as for purpose, well that’s all down to me. However I believe man is predisposed to some form of spiritual/mythological interpretation of the world, whether one chooses to believe in a “supreme being” or in any form of supernatural entity I believe is largely irrelevant to the need to mythologise (spl?) existence itself. We are, to use a phrase I like, the story telling ape. As someone who believes fully in the ability of man to understand his world in a rational sense but also as a human being who has needs beyond simple logical thought I have started to look into this greatly.

[Agrippa]

Stuart Kauffman, Professor at Santa Fe Institute, argues in his work At Home In the Universe that natural selection is underpinned by a process of spontaneous order. In a sense it is a variation of the idea that given the laws of nature in science we should expect that complexity would arrise naturally.

I think that there can be correlations and networks in habitats, but usually that's just what I consider an evolutionary detail. F.e., just for some sort of inspiration, the book "Global Brain" of Howard Bloom was interesting to read as some sort of "other perspective" to Richard Dawkins & Co.

I guess Kauffman goes in a similar direction as Bloom. Also an Austrian, Rupert Riedl, made interesting comments about how evolution can work with many great details etc.

That's all something I consider - to compare it with biological evolution, just variation of theme, not comparable - unless you tell me something different about the author, in ANY WAY with Creationist crap.


The evidence for natural selection (and sexual selection, genetic drift for that matter) would still be there even if evolutionary theory (or more specifically Darwinism since evolutionary theory of some form or another goes back to the ancients) proved to be wrong, which I grant you is highly unlikely to the point of being impossible, but, nevertheless the possibility has to be at least accepted as such.

Well, most people which attack Evolution, sooner or later start to attack those mechanism you consider proven and go, like I mentioned, far beyond the details which can be discussed in a scientific manner.

The more they argue, they more crap they have to invent to still justify their absurd theories and this ends in madness, so far away from the facts, that is is a real threat, huge lie or pathological delusion.

By keeping up the fact of mutations, selection, genetic isolation etc. being factors for the development of life and its differentiation, including the formation of new species, primarily due to this factors, you accept Evolution as a fact regardless of other details which can be discussed.


Many people believe that an intelligence is behind existence, I personally do not but I cannot prove or disprove the contention by scientific methods.

That's not the problem though, you can believe or claim whatever you want outside of the proven facts, but you have to keep an inner logic and outer logic. Most traditional religious belief systems have, in the end, neither, especially not the outer logic which could stand facts.

So in my opinion, you would have to adapt religion and beliefs into something higher, if you want to keep them up without living in a total and dangerous delusion, to the current knowledge and scientific standards.

Religion was often there to explain thing which humans couldn't explain any better, give them useful rules and order supported by imagined transcendental forces and something like an additional hope in life. As long as that was met, religion was a memetic code and cultural construction which could support the existence and survival of individuals and groups. In fact, evolution in a way can even explain the existence of religion in humans.

However, like the biological adaptation too, the cultural, memetic adaptation and codes need to be updated from time to time.

Creationism is nothing else but a now outdated system and ideology defending itself in an environment in which its insufficience was already proven.

God can't be proven or disproven (at least not by now), but rules can be analysed along the lines of cost : benefits, ideas and dogmas along the lines of probable : improbable, useful - neutral/harmless - harmful.

In this case, Creationism of the kind, especially the Evangelicals in the US of A practise is, is a threat and danger, because it limits our understanding of ourselve and the habitat, the world, makes us believe nonsense which prevents us from acting effectively to our own favour.

A religious pretext for the denial of reality and to act accordingly.

If a religion is able to adapt itself to the best of the people, it is useful, but the problem with religions is, that they are "made for eternity", with "eternal rules and teachings", often based on the opinion of individuals, as good or bad as they were and adapted primarily to the environment and knowledge they had.

Obviously, most religions carry on a large baggage of crap from the past and insufficient teachers.

Evolution is really, like I said, the benchmark - without it, any religion is too irrational for being acceptable.

It's like a physician which doesn't accept some basic facts about the human body and it's treatment, you never let such a doctor do something at people you care for, especially not without another one controlling him. Because his ill view makes him unable to decide on his own what's the best for patient - like a moralistic religious teaching without accepting biological reality and rules.


I understand your point, the problem is neither you nor I can do a great deal about what people choose to believe other than to argue our point of view in as rational a manner as possible.

The problem with many fairly rational people is, that they think - as reasonable people - that they can accept other's point of view too and can do nothing but argue, but in fact, you have to defend the truth, because otherwise misled fanatics will sooner or later hijack movements, people, states or the like and then it will be too late!

So one needs to defend the truth and attack the liar at every occasion, to force him back into his retarded hole where it belongs until there is no place for it in this world or until there is a place reserved for that crap, so that the human development and higher evolved societies won't be threatened or hampered by that irrational nonsense of misled minds.


It is a general characteristic of humanity that most people believe what they want and have little time for anything that disagrees with their cognitive bias. I doubt I’m free of this.

That doesn't matter, the only question which remains is how good your brain and personality functions.

F.e., we see a chair in a certain color, form etc., that's what our eyes, nerves and brain produces. But what is this chair "in reality"? Can we even trust our eyes, nerves and brain?

It doesn't matter that some individuals have a different perspective, what matters most is which perspective is closest to reality, can grasp it and can produce ideas and actions which are appropriate, will be useful and beneficial for those carrying the same kind of senses, the same kind of cultural instructions, memetic codes.

The false codes which are clearly disproven by reality and/or harmful to the people carrying it on the longer run are an aberration like an unfavourable mutation is.

Culture works in a similar way and there is a constant competition for cultural norms and traditions, in the cultural and social species Homo sapiens biological and cultural aspects are interwoven, so a biologically superior group might lose ground because of a false cultural-memetic code and vice versa.

So again:

It is a general characteristic of humanity that most people believe what they want and have little time for anything that disagrees with their cognitive bias. I doubt I’m free of this.

In fact, certain genetically and memetically coded individuals and groups ALWAYS compete for dominance and the best strategy for the future is to do this in a CONSCIOUS WAY - so to know the principles behind it, the dangers and reasons, why people act irrational, aggressive, destructive, corrupt or the like at times.

To properly analyse that, you need to use SCIENTIFIC methods and knowledge, because otherwise your interpretation will be, like those of the religious teachers of the past and present times, be misled, erroneous and probably even dangerous in many ways, unable to evolve on a higher level with all that superstitious baggage.

That is, why it doesn't matter whether you have a bias, because all people have, the question is just whether your bias is more beneficial and closer to the truth or not. A benchmark for this evaluation is to compare your views with scientifically proven facts.

Creationists know, deep inside themselves, that they believe a pile of crap, so they try to avoid the scientifical approach by just making up their own fantasy which can be brought in accordance to their ill beliefs, which looks like this, watch especially the Creationist senator and park owner, from minute 34 on:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1470552690859108147#docid=-3791007322683758535

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Agrippa
That's not the problem though, you can believe or claim whatever you want outside of the proven facts, but you have to keep an inner logic and outer logic. Most traditional religious belief systems have, in the end, neither, especially not the outer logic which could stand facts.

The whole project of metaphysics is, itself, a rational endeavour, though it is certainly not a science. Of course metaphysics isn’t religion (at least religion isn’t necessary to it) and is even a questionable area of insight itself yet it is still one that has to be rational, Aristotle’s Metaphysics, undoubtedly, has little or no basis in reality but it is a logically consistent work. I wonder how far logic alone can take us?


So in my opinion, you would have to adapt religion and beliefs into something higher, if you want to keep them up without living in a total and dangerous delusion, to the current knowledge and scientific standards.

Personally I agree.


In fact, evolution in a way can even explain the existence of religion in humans. However, like the biological adaptation too, the cultural, memetic adaptation and codes need to be updated from time to time.

Joseph Campbell writes of the yawning chasm that is the knowledge of mortality, in the myth of Prometheus we read a mythological tale of this very awakening of knowledge, Prometheus is at one and the same time both god and demon. For Nietzsche the Olympians were created by the Greeks as an interposition between the Greek and life, born of the same impulse that creates music, painting, architecture and sculpture, perhaps myth (maybe even god/s) are man’s finest and most beautiful creations, his ultimate art? How far art is an impulse born of selection is an interesting question.


Creationism is nothing else but a now outdated system and ideology defending itself in an environment in which its insufficience was already proven.

On one level it’s resonant of a state of mind that cannot find purpose or sanctuary in man, the whole Christian faith cannot find purpose and sanctuary in man.


God can't be proven or disproven (at least not by now), but rules can be analysed along the lines of cost : benefits, ideas and dogmas along the lines of probable : improbable, useful - neutral/harmless - harmful.

I believe the ultimate question of “god” is simply a question of why is there anything at all rather than nothing at all, ultimately it is probably unanswerable. Ultimately, though, people need to believe in (and often through) something.


If a religion is able to adapt itself to the best of the people, it is useful, but the problem with religions is, that they are "made for eternity", with "eternal rules and teachings", often based on the opinion of individuals, as good or bad as they were and adapted primarily to the environment and knowledge they had.

Depends on the religion, which is why I believe that Heathenism whose central outlook is life affirming has a valid place in the 21st century. As I have posted already I believe that man is an inherently spiritual creature, if this is so then why not have belief in a system that empowers man, one that doesn’t hide from death or fear it but laughs at it, one that doesn’t fear being ephemeral but builds and advances even though we probably will end our days as dust bone and monuments of old stone? The treasure from the mound of the wyrm that Beowulf died slaying belonged to a race that disappeared from the earth, that treasure was all that remained and the dying Beowulf understood this but he didn’t fear the fact of it. The point of life is life, we live because we enjoy it, even the suffering and pain. I can’t think of anything more noble than those who strive, who create, who build in a universe that simply doesn’t care whether you live or die, nay doesn’t have the human derivation of intellect, morality or will, it just is. Spengler painted a picture of the Germanic Gods as akin to night and to the nature of music, the image of music whose notes sore into the dark and gloomy cold of universal night to gradually fade away is a powerful one in my mind. I have deliberately left out my other thoughts regarding Heathenism, I have always regarded the religion both as a philosophy of living with what we know to exist sensually and as a “mystical” faith, the later being purely personal speculation, the former a practical application.


Evolution is really, like I said, the benchmark - without it, any religion is too irrational for being acceptable.

Certainly I am predisposed towards scientific knowledge, perhaps I’m only removed from some form of naturalism because of my questions over matters science lacks the ability to answer.


The problem with many fairly rational people is, that they think - as reasonable people - that they can accept other's point of view too and can do nothing but argue, but in fact, you have to defend the truth, because otherwise misled fanatics will sooner or later hijack movements, people, states or the like and then it will be too late!

Heck this is a whole new discussion on the nature of truth but I agree that the mechanism of science is one that is worth defending.


But what is this chair "in reality"? Can we even trust our eyes, nerves and brain?

Epistemology is, again, a whole other topic but I think it reasonable to assert that the human senses are useful enough to detect obvious patterns in the world around us and that our brain can then competently enough interpret them, presumably we wouldn’t have survived very long if this wasn’t the case.


It doesn't matter that some individuals have a different perspective, what matters most is which perspective is closest to reality, can grasp it and can produce ideas and actions which are appropriate, will be useful and beneficial for those carrying the same kind of senses, the same kind of cultural instructions, memetic codes.

Consider that the Pope in medieval Europe often had far more power than any King, one German Emperor even stood bare foot in the snow when his empire was excommunicated to get the Pope to change his mind. The Pope’s authority, ultimately, relied on convincing people he had influence in a realm that nobody knew existed. Medieval peasants toiled for their masters and put up with abuse because of the meme of “heaven” the belief that their mortal lives were temporary that, if they followed the Church’s teachings, they would live happily ever after in “heaven”. Christianity, like any religion, has no proof of its contentions, no sensual proof, it is ultimately on faith, ultimately man has need of spiritual memes in some form, but yes some are more useful and beneficial than others.


To properly analyse that, you need to use SCIENTIFIC methods and knowledge, because otherwise your interpretation will be, like those of the religious teachers of the past and present times, be misled, erroneous and probably even dangerous in many ways, unable to evolve on a higher level with all that superstitious baggage.

I would argue more that it is logic that provides the most impartial and rational tool, logic is central to the scientific method but it is independent of it as well. However it is interesting to think of what inspires humans, what leads to our growth, what, objectively, we can see as advancement, a topic for another time perhaps.

[Agrippa]

How far art is an impulse born of selection is an interesting question.

On an individual level it is to a large degree an alternative way to social status, material wealth and especially potential sexual partners, a higher partner value - if you look at it sociobiologically.

For the group it is too some form of expression which might strengthen group cohesion, feelings and experiences which bind the people together etc., so in a way, beside simple "entertainment", similar to religion - which is what art was quite often, an religious expression.


I believe the ultimate question of “god” is simply a question of why is there anything at all rather than nothing at all, ultimately it is probably unanswerable. Ultimately, though, people need to believe in (and often through) something.

It should be something useful from an objective point of view and compatible with the truth, reason and rationality.


that man is an inherently spiritual creature

I agree, but don't think, at the same time, that all kinds of spirituality are really comparable nor that all people are as spiritual, there are significant individual differences present.


The point of life is life

Exactly. EVEN IF people believe in some sort of afterlife, the rules for reaching a better afterlife should be the same as those for a good life here and the good of the group, the greater whole. This is a transcendental legitimation of logical, just and useful rules, nothing more, nothing else.

The greatest problems come from religious rules and morals which are directed against life and the needs of the human reality of life.


Epistemology is, again, a whole other topic but I think it reasonable to assert that the human senses are useful enough to detect obvious patterns in the world around us and that our brain can then competently enough interpret them, presumably we wouldn’t have survived very long if this wasn’t the case.

Exactly - the best adapted eye, nerves and brain - like the best adapted personalities, perspectives and cultural bias, should prevail to give us more potential, which was my point.

Deviating views and mechanisms might have existed or still exist, but they are suboptimal in comparison.

Probably some questions can never be answered for our current brains, I mean I certainly have fixed limits for mathematical or physical questions, some others have not. They can view the same problem in a different way and on a higher level than I can - I on the other hand might have a superiour personality and brain to some other people in some other areas and so on.

So to answer certain high level questions sufficiently, we first would have to need to develop a new state of mind and probably higher developed personality and brain than we have now - for sure we have some biologically determined limits - even in those individuals which are "best in their fields..."