286 thoughts on “Evolution

  1. Between trump supporters and religious fanaticism, which are often the same, I am bone weary of them. Their brains have an impenetrable wall around them than cannot be broken.
    Only, if like some of you, it comes from within and reason and intelligence begins to outpace dogma, mythology, fantasy and plain blind stubbornness.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wot?
      If I (ever) voted, I’d vote for Trump—he has an “I know my own mind and you can go suck eggs” individualistic hairstyle. (Hell, we have a person down here who votes for the mayor because “on school gala days he dances with the children!”)

      If that ain’t applied intelligence and reasoning … nothing ain’t. But we am still evolving …

      Like

  2. But he never comes back to his main thesis, namely, his question about why was the theory acceptable to the religious in the later 1800s but faces so much hostility from the religious in the early 2000s?

    I wanted to hear him say, “Because of the rise of belief in religious historical creationism, which is incompatible with the established science called evolution.” And this is the belief that stands diametrically opposed to I think the strongest scientific theory we have in our human understanding of the world in which we live – the hypothesis that has undergone the most rigorous testing ever and has aligned perfectly with the results from genetics. No other theory is as well supported and no other theory – whether its germs or atomic or gravity, whatever – has triumphed to the same explanatory extent. No other theory enjoys the level of confidence evolution deserves no matter what our belief preferences might be.

    Stating the logical conclusion to the question he raised is important to say, important to recognize, because it directly challenges the idiotic notion that science and religion are somehow and magically compatible when they are not. Obviously not in this matter where evidence-adduced facts and religious beliefs cannot coexist. Evolution and creationism is an ‘either/or’ case. There is zero room for some invertebrate fence-sitting position commonly called ‘agnosticism’ – a position that serves only to provide space for Oogity Boogity Poof!ism to seem a reasonable alternative to overwhelming contrary evidence. It’s important to say because it demonstrates that any attempt to try to create an area of space, an area of compatibility, between this either/or position is clearly an attempt to deceive by either misunderstanding and misrepresenting creationism/evolution or playing a silly and deceitful word game to misrepresent reality. And that is what religious belief in creationism achieves: ignorance and a refusal to deal with reality as it is by substituting superstitious nonsense as a reasonable alternative.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. The answer lies within your own first para—the religious back then (effectively) had a monopoly.
      But now they are threatened.
      As sciences/knowledge advance, God has no option but to retreat.

      His purveyors are afraid, they retrench, they counterattack—with outright brute force (stake and chips, anyone? Scimitar and whips?) whenever they can get away with it. Their income is their livelihood and their flocks are their income. Hee hoo has a good racket going ain’t gonna give it up without a fight …

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Incredibly, these are the very same people who give up Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny because those are childish. My sense is they are afraid of the outside real world, and hide behind a Bible and religion– and trust in a “real” god to make it all better. That one makes me shrivel a bit.

    Reality is a dangerous place to be, sometimes, and a lot of people are hiding from it. They literally wall themselves away from the realities of magic, and games that threaten the very fabric of society, and from people who consort with devils. yep. It’s a lot easier to believe in an invisible deity and magic spells than it is to face what’s really out there, and easier to blame the nearest atheist for all the troubles in the world.

    My mother epitomized that mindset, saying more than once, “well, it won’t matter once I’m gone, someone else will have to take care of it…” I believe that is also known as passing the buck.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Hello Ark. I love Aron Ra’s video series for schools on evolution. He takes it from the beginning and has worked up to like 30 plus some short videos. It maybe even more I have lost count. He also does a really good video showing that the world wide Noah’s flood couldn’t have happened and clearly shows that it never did happen. Although he likes to use large words his videos are clear and easy to follow. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

      1. I sat through that one and then found the one about Jesus. I can’t believe I watched both of them–(I don’t handle verbal stuff all that well, im a reader/writer not a listener, so…)

        Like

    1. SCOTTIE:

      Total submergence of the world in a world-wide flood I can’t accept. But a sudden flood of massive proportions, raising the sea levels by some 400 feet quite quickly … I do accept. The religious thank God for massive drownings, some of us blame an asteroid some thousands of years ago—a chance hit that ended the ice age (one of ’em).

      Hey, don’t smile … I remember when the extinction of the dinos was laughed out of court — then some anti-social git came up with that crater in Mexico — and the big giggle is now a functioning part of the lexicon of science.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hello Argus. Regional floods we know have happened both in history and recently. Remember the tsunami in Japan.

        Less than an hour after the earthquake, the first of many tsunami waves hit Japan’s coastline. The tsunami waves reached run-up heights (how far the wave surges inland above sea level) of up to 128 feet (39 meters) at Miyako city and traveled inland as far as 6 miles (10 km) in Sendai.

        Complete devastation. But you mention something I have been wondering about. Why do Christians celebrate and adore horrible actions that include mass death and torture? Hugs

        Liked by 1 person

        1. It is much like the glorification of violence one sees in the movie Clock Work Orange.
          Such glorification as seen in Christianity allowed Luther to get away with inciting violence against Jews and we all know where that led, don’t we?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Hello Ark. No you’re right. But is it wrong to want people to be better and to hold people to a higher standard when they are claiming to be more moral than the rest of us? I admit I am getting rather tired of the “I am better than you are” religious people. Especially when they are using that holier than thou attitude to call for my death and denial of rights. If you have not heard yet look up the “make America straight again” convention in Orlando celebrating the deaths of gay people at the Pulse nightclub. Hugs

            Like

          2. Hello Ark. Sadly they are gaining ground here in the US. Their churches are gaining members even though most of them are storefronts in strip malls. They are part of the angry violent bigotry taking over the US. Hugs

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Hello Ark. Not better judgment, in fact because I am directly affect I may not have as clear a picture as you do. But it does upset me especially as these are people forcefully claiming to represent the will of the Christian god. So when people like the Wee Flea and those other jerks you argue with go off on tangents, I scream inside to ask them to deal with the evil being done to people like me in the name of their god. Can they defend their god calls for my death? Hugs

            Liked by 1 person

  5. A little more recent and coming from a different angle which doesn’t dispute evolution per se, but puts it into its proper context. An even better way to spend an hour, in my opinion:

    Like

    1. Meyer is a proponent of Intelligent Design. His understanding of paleontology is outdated – they do not refer to a Cambrian Explosion these days – and his outlandish hypothesis are driven by his hard core Christian belief.

      So why waste an hour on creationist nonsense wrapped up in pseudo science?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Watch or listen at your leisure and see if his arguments stack up. That’s what an honest sceptic needs to do and shouldn’t be indoctrinated with the ‘proven’ theory of evolution to the extent that his thinking is blurred by it. Meyer even acknowledges that ID doesn’t prove the existence of God, but he explains how evolution fails to explain the absolute origin of life. This is a worthwhile video for people on either side of the fence as well as those sitting on it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I have listened to Meyer before, and
          as I have also told you on several occasions , I have read and /or watched every argument of this fallacious garbage.
          Why will you not understand?, All this stuff is simply an excuse to try to insert your god into the equation.
          Read the Wedge Document.
          It is all rubbish with no evidence to support it.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. An honest skeptic? That’s beyond laughable.

          Meyer is a paid Discovery Institute shill (Templeton money hard at work) trying desperately to keep this money flowing in to pay him and his Fellow hacks pushing Intelligent Design (Blessed Be His Name) in spite of ZERO evidence from reality in its favor and 100% evidence from reality contrary to it. That’s what ‘the other side’ is in fact when it comes to evolution vs creationism: science deniers. Such denialism is empowered only by the dishonest Peddlers of Doubt where no doubt exists honestly.

          Sure, you can be skeptical and hide being this label to deny all kinds of well understood processes and mechanisms as if it were reasonable to do so (who would need tin foil hats otherwise?), but not for one minute can you do so honestly because the level of denialism necessary to pretend there is room for honest doubt is greater than for any other scientific understanding humanity has ever developed. Such a skeptic – to remain consistent, which is what honesty requires for this label – would have to then pretend every other scientific theory you gladly accept and utilize without second thought every day of your life is even less likely to be true and worthy of even MORE skepticism than evolution, and none of these Discovery Institute theologians holds what you call this ‘honest skepticism’ towards the rest of our scientific understanding in any other field. They demonstrate that they are dishonest hypocrites at the very least.

          Look, CumbriaDaydreamer, you can sometimes have a religion without creationism but you will never find creationism without religion. That’s a clue, by the way, about its scientific merit. It’s not there. There is no evidence from reality for it and nothing but evidence contrary to it. It is religious belief alone – pure and simple belief contrary to reality – that creates the ‘other side’ and it is due entirely to the manufacturing of faith-based belief necessarily divorced from reality. But if you respect reality and what it tells us is most likely true about the world and then have an explanatory model adduced from it that has produced and continues to produce astounding advancements in all kinds of applications, therapies, and technologies – advancements that work for everyone everywhere all the time – then skepticism is not reasonable. To maintain skepticism, one must reject reality’s role to arbitrate such beliefs about it. Belief in creationism (even if called ID) is manufactured in denial of this evidence and is therefore dishonest. That’s what creationism is in all its forms: dishonest denialism of reality. That’s what Meyer is selling. And you’re buying… not for good reasons but for your theological ones. And theology has a very long track record of spectacularly failing to produce any knowledge about reality ever. That’s the ‘side’ you’re choosing. It is intellectually bankrupt and holds not one shred of ‘honesty’ if one has any respect for allowing reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it. That what your theology has done for you: it makes you a reality denier, a science skeptic, and a shill for dishonest hucksters.

          Liked by 4 people

          1. … erm, what is the ‘100% evidence from reality contrary’ to ID, please?

            Like

          2. Name where you want look and there you find evidence for change to life over time by various natural processes and mechanisms. That’s how we utilize the theory (which is WHY it is a theory) in everything from dendrology to zoology, from resource extraction and farming to medicine.

            Here’s the thing, CumbriaDaydreamer: it didn’t have to be this way. There should be all kinds of evidence of POOF!ism if it were true. Most significantly, genetics should not show what it does show, descent from common ancestry right across the board, not just from algae to the flower Paris japonica, which has an astonishing 149 billion base pairs, making it 50 times the size of a human genome, but supported completely from biogeography to geology. We could have found unique genomes indicating a creation event, but it’s simply absent… in all cases. Even a rudimentary study of evolution will offer the honest skeptic nothing but mounting evidence that the model is true.

            In fact, the explanatory model is so robust that you can bet your life on it… and you do. Knowledge advances in all kinds of areas continue on a daily basis indicating a completely lopsided support by reality for this explanatory model and the use of the model that produces reliable and consistent results – results business invest billions assuming it’s true and reap billions in profit from trusting it – indicate the highest confidence possible.

            In any fair comparison, creationism gives back nothing… no new knowledge, no consistent explanation that can be applied profitably and consistently, no trustworthy insight into how life changes over time and why it is the way we find it to be, and stands incompatible with the theory of evolution. That’s why you have to be batshit crazy to throw away all this consistent evidence, all these trustworthy applications and technologies, all the confidence we have for understanding why medicine works, to go with a supernatural Just So story that does absolutely nothing for us but presents us as ignoramuses and fools against actual knowledge adduced from reality. Oh, but it allows us to feel pious. That’s a terrible trade-off.

            Liked by 5 people

  6. Meyer is a philosopher of science, not a biologist, nor distinguished in any other field — such as paleontology or phylogenetics — relevant to evolution in general. As such, he is not qualified to reinterpret the Cambrian biota according to his own theistic agendas.

    In short, Meyer is incompetent.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. CD, I will trust a man who says “I really don’t know” over someone who makes educated (or ill educated) guesses and passes them off as truth or fact.. We may never know what started the whole business, or we may know next week, or in ten years. But it’s the honest answer that draws me in, not the “100% evidence” that then escalates into “but you say it’s evidence, where’s the proof? where’s the documentation?” and we off to the races again.

    Like

    1. Maybe I’ve misunderstood you comment here, Judy54, and if so I apologize. But when it comes to evolution, we know. Full stop. We know nothing with a higher degree of likelihood. Nothing. This is what a fact looks like. If this theory isn’t knowledge, then nothing can be because the bar is held too high. Everything – and I mean any knowledge claim whatsoever – is less certain than evolution. So to equivocate on this to make room for, “I don’t know” I think is the kind of cop out that makes just enough wiggle room and doubt for all kinds of anti-scientific denialism and religious idiocy. We really do know with a likelihood greater than any other knowledge claim. It always works… for everyone…. everywhere… all the time.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I think you read me backwards, or I wasnt clear enogh, tildeb. I meant that the young earth folks refuse to say “I don’t know” because they think it puts them in a position of weakness, so they say “God did it”. end of discussion.
    However, if a scientist is studying something like the big bang or something which right now needs to be extrapolated from evidence and there is no surety, only educated hunches and clues, they will say, quite honestly, “we are studying it, but we really can’t be sure. Yet.” I have no problem with evolution, or fossils, or stars and round earths. Trust me on that one, lol.

    The magic comes because a scientist will generally be willing to give up his pet project if someone can show him the numbers that suggest a slightly (or even majorly) different hypothesis.

    So saying, honestly, “I don’t know” leaves the door open for all kinds of reasoning and discovery. Saying “God did it” in the same context slams it shut. And frankly if I don’t know why we have tornadoes or the power went out, I do NOT say, god did it, I will say,” I have no idea. Let’s find out.”

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I get it and I agree.

      I just said to a young musician certain of his playing prowess but clueless and therefore entirely ignorant about ensemble playing when I asked him what his role was playing this Book or that, “When you can admit you don’t know something and mean it, only then is when you can start learning.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. exactly. And whew.
        My dad was a flawed man, given to arrogance and a temper, but if you could prove he was wrong about something, he’d capitulate without a struggle. But you had to prove it, all the way down to the ground.

        Like

    2. Belief in creationism (or Intelligent Design) is identical with ignorance and casting doubt on evolution is identical with hubris. And you see this demonstrated by YECs who are absolutely clueless about why this science is the pinnacle of human knowledge and completely unaware of the vastness of their ignorance.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. But look at it this way: if they allow themselves to listen and believe in geology, dinosaurs, tecttonic plates and fire, then they will find themselves without a faith or a God to cling to, and they would suddenly have to face their own personal responsiblity for themselves, with no god to hold their hand. Not everyone is suited for life in the real world.
        (I’m not being snide, here, I really think there are a lot of dependent people out there who would have trouble functioning in a world without their god to guide them.)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I don’t know why this argument doesn’t carry more weight and used more often by those wishing to criticize how religion poisons everything; the idea that it requires religious belief to be a moral agent is exactly backwards.

          As you point out, holding to religious belief for ethical and moral guidance demonstrates that the believer is at best an ammoral agent… as in, not responsible for their own morality. It is borrowed. This means the religious person who follows this guidance is in fact morally and ethically irresponsible as an agent. This misguided belief in some other agency to justify moral and ethical considerations is what allows religious believers to support the despotic ideology of Divine Command Theory, which is identical in principle to the failed Nuremberg defense by Nazi’s… that they were, “Just following orders” and so should be considered innocent moral and ethical bystanders to the action they personally undertook. The court rejected that argument then and held these people accountable and yet (failing to learn from history) far too many people continue to capitulate to the religious and go along with the charade that religious belief qua religious belief bestows some kind of moral benefit when, in fact, it provides exactly the opposite: a moral deficit for the individual believer. A religious believer who uses their religious belief to justify support for a moral position has already capitulated their moral responsibility to their preferred scripture, which assumes ‘superior’ moral and ethical authority, which makes them by their own admission less of a moral agent than the non believer who accepts personal responsibility for their moral and ethical effects.

          I think this is a powerful anti-theist argument when it comes to discussing moral and ethical issues and should yield stronger sentiments against providing a place at the grown-up’s table for the religiously irresponsible. What the most highly respected religious leader has to say about this or that moral or ethical issue is therefore of less moral agency than what any non believer, non subscriber, to religious ideology may think. And we should treat religious people in the same way we treat children when it comes to responsible decision making: excuse them and let them go play their childish games with other children.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. The word ‘children” resonates. My husband’s cousin was a 7th Day Adventist, and she leaned heavily on her church in everything she did. Her belief system was based on that very premise, that there was a God/Devil struggle going on endlessly, for everything in her life. If she did something right, “God showed me the way.” and if something bad happened, “the Devil won, that time” like a game of religious football.

            Passing the buck is so easy. Blaming the invisible demon for your mistakes and praising the invisible sky god for your successes means you never get to take responsiblity at all. She had the moral mentality of a 10 year old.
            With apologies to any ten year olds out there who might be watching.

            Liked by 1 person

  9. Per request, I have read the post and watched the video. It’s interesting, it doesn’t contain any information I wasn’t already aware of. I’ve watched somewhere over 40 videos/lectures on the subject from when I studied it years ago.

    We’ve made newer discoveries that I think are more interesting because they challenge prior understandings. I still think that the theory of evolution is the best-recorded observation we have to date of life on earth.

    This is more along the lines of what I focus in on nowadays in relation to evolution:

    I’m more into discoveries that disrupt common understanding or belief rather than what we already know. (on all subjects)

    I believe you had some questions for me because you wanted to gain a better understanding of how I perceive evolution and the bible.

    Like

      1. You Stated — “It would probably be far easier if you explained how you perceive evolution and the bible.”

        My Response:

        Evolution is the theory of change in different characteristics as a result of variation over successive generations, ranging from molecular, genetic, to even species level. Evidence with the largest consensus is, considered to be, the best explanation of life within different scientific institutions throughout the world.

        The Bible is a compilation of a select number of books that were formed from a larger pool of ancient scrolls, letters and sacred text copied from an unknown selection of original source materials. Varying parts of the Bible are, considered to be, of divine inspiration within different religious sects throughout the world.

        Like

        1. 1. Do you agree with the consensus regarding evolution?
          2. Do you consider parts of the bible are divinely inspired?
          If yes, which parts ( if these are too numerous a brief summary will suffice) and how do you come to this conclusion?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You Asked — “Do you agree with the consensus regarding evolution?”

            My Response — I’ve never disagreed with the consensus. The body of people who except it seems sufficient to me. I do take interest in parts of evolutionary data from time to time and do my own studies. I then post articles online, from what I find, on my website Reality Decoded or in other forums. None of which make claims against it being true but do challenge some conventional understandings within it. I have not yet read all of the available material. I do understand that there are people who disagree with evolution based on smaller arguments against parts of it but I find such debates to be trivial compared to the core argument. This is to say I don’t see value in small arguments, they should just disprove the possibility of the origin of life within a 100% degree of certainty until then I remain unconvinced by them to disbelieve evolution.

            You Asked — “Do you consider parts of the bible are divinely inspired?”

            My Response — I’ve never disagreed with any parts being divinely inspired. The body of people who except it seems sufficient to me. I do take interest in parts of the bible from time to time and do my own studies. I then post articles online, from what I find, on my website Reality Decoded or in other forums. None of which make claims against it being divinely inspired but do challenge some conventional understandings within it. I have not yet read all of the available material. I do understand that there are people who disagree with divinity based on smaller arguments against parts of it but I find such debates to be trivial compared to the core argument. This is to say I don’t see value in small arguments, they should just disprove the possibility of god within a 100% degree of certainty until then I remain unconvinced by them to disbelieve divinity or in it’s ability to inspire.

            Like

          2. There is no such thing as divine evidence, there are only personal accounts and the credibility of those observers.

            This is to say that divinity is impossible to prove since the amount of needed data would equal the amount of capability within the divine being. This is the same with any paradox, like the origin of reality from one object leads back to the origin of that object and so on – ad infinitum

            Like

          3. I want to understand on what grounds you accept the bible to be divinely inspired.
            It seems a fairly straightforward question.
            Just keep it simple if you can.

            Like

          4. You already asked that question and I provided a detailed answer. You didn’t indicate any misunderstanding of it at the time. What part of that answer do you disagree with.

            Like

          5. I disagree with the claim the bible is divinely inspired as this claim is based on no evidence whatsoever and is solely part of Christian doctrine.
            The only verse that openly claims the text is God breathed is 2 Timothy and many biblical scholars consider 1 and 2 Timothy to be forgeries.

            Therefore your claim is a faith statement.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. As I stated above I use the same method for all things, I first except the consensus of my environment since I don’t have time and resources to read all materials and then study parts I find interesting.

            If someone claims that the consensus is wrong all they have to do is provide me with proof within a margin of 100% certainty.

            This is most likely why no Christian has ever convinced me that evolution is false or why no atheist has convinced that divinity doesn’t exist.

            I myself don’t see a need to convince others of any of those topics since they are paradoxical in nature. This is to say I don’t claim evolution or divinity I just haven’t been convinced yet to disbelieve them.

            Like

          7. Unless the environment you are referring to are fundamentalist biblical literalists/inerrantists , then the scholarly consensus is that only 7 of Paul’s epistles are considered genuine.
            Are you suggesting Yahweh inspired forgeries?

            So, again, regarding the bible, we are agreed, there is no evidence for any divinely inspired claims and your belief is based solely on faith.
            Thank you.

            I would have phrased the next question: ”As you are a Christian I presume you believe your god was/is involved in evolution.”
            but,
            I am wary how I ask so …

            Do you consider your god plays/played any part in evolution?

            Like

          8. So we are somehow not communicating correctly since my answer to your original question differs from your modified version of my answer. This can be seen by just scrolling up.

            We will have to agree to disagree with no common understanding between us on this topic.

            If you agree we will move on to the next question you have, if not we can go back to the original answer and you can tell me what you don’t agree with.

            Like

          9. Scroll further up you may have accidentally skipped my simple “agree or disagree”

            After you finish up with that request from me we can then move on to more questions

            Like

          10. I first except the consensus of my environment since I don’t have time and resources to read all materials and then study parts I find interesting./blockquote>

            If this is the case your environment falls outside the scholarly consensus , which includes the majority of Christian scholars.

            Unless you can provide evidence then your agree to disagree means you have no case – sorry-.

            Like

          11. I’m still waiting on you to simply agree or disagree to continue this branch of our discussion.

            I wouldn’t want us to get into a pattern of skipping any questions or requests in the exact order they were posted.

            Like

          12. Which means, personal attributions… stuff that people experience and then attribute to some divine figure without any means of being able to justify that attribution other than personal preference, which is why all gods are geographically located by their believers. Gods come from people, the evidence shows, which is why it is such a gross inaccuracy to attribute that people were created by some god. reality does not support this explanation even at this most basic level.

            Liked by 2 people

          13. Divinity? I said the evidence is compelling that geography is the most important indicator of which god is the ‘right’ god when speaking of people who share the same beliefs. That indicates these gods seem to come from people and not the other way around. Are you denying that geography plays such a role?

            Liked by 2 people

          14. I have no idea if geography plays any role or not. It would require making a number of unnecessary assumptions.

            This would be easier to answer if you make a claim that all gods are not the same god. If you do that then it would reduce the number of assumptions required.

            Like

          15. You have no idea about the role of geography? Really? You think you’ll find the majority of Hindus in, what, Ecuador? Mormons in Saudi Arabia? Bhuddists in Istanbul? Jews in New Guinea? Daoism in Finland? Christians in Afghanistan? Scientologists in China?

            Seriously, Lander7, this kind of response really does boggle the mind that you say you honestly can’t stretch your curiosity even this little bit to consider the obvious connection between geography and predominant religious belief. My tiny little list of obvious examples is hardly something surprising or difficult to grasp. After all, no one wakes up in Tahiti and comes up with the Aztec pantheon of gods any more than a Californian wakes up and is sure about Zoroastrianism. The same is true for people who claim some level of confidence about the truthfulness of every branch of Christianity. None of these beliefs come from a collection of evidence from an indifferent and independent reality leading one to this conclusion or that; every single one of them has to be taught first before believed. And the reason(s) for the belief – and the confidence applied to it – is entirely exempt from anything reality has to say in the matter. But we know from the geography factor that none of the religions have anything better or worse than any other… including Scientology.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. I see what you mean now, that’s not what I thought you were saying. I was thinking of what you asked from a position of people in different geological zones encountering the same deity presenting it’self in different forms. One deity many forms like from the movie Hancock where they stated that they were every deity ever encountered just given different names over the years.

            You are talking about people creating religions without influence from any type of encounter. Something created by local culture mixed with imagination to form a deity image or story.

            I’ts not something I study so I can’t fully speak to it but I would imagine if people made up things local it would fit what you stated. It would also look the same if they encountered a deity and processed the encounter through local culture even if it was the same being.

            With that said I wouldn’t find that to be convincing enough to dismiss what I have been told but it’s somewhat interesting.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. The Bible also states this as a fact that a person cannot believe without a personal event.

            These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion.

            Like

          18. I never said atheism is a religion

            As for the Bible, I was asked a question about it I didn’t reference it. I’m only here by request to answer questions.

            Like

          19. Sorry, in my email, your response related to the bible appeared as being directed to me … so I responded.

            However, putting that aside, your last comment that you “never said” atheism was a religion: These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion. Not sure how else to interpret it …

            Liked by 1 person

          20. NP

            Atheism is just a position on the existence of a god or gods. An atheist is simply someone not convinced of a god or gods. An atheistic religion is one that does not have a god or gods nor a doctrine of any to be worshipped such as buddhism. There are a number of religions that don’t have a god or gods.

            Like

          21. So, by this reasoning an a-philatielist does not collect stamps?
            This would include me as I deconverted from philately around the age of 14.
            Deconversion wasn’t too traumatic but even to this day I sometimes miss licking those little paper hinges used to mount the stamps and I still can’t bring myself to throw out my old stamp book. Furthermore, every now and then I feel the urge to reach for a copy of a Stanley Gibbons catalogue.
            Sigh … the power of indoctrination.

            Like

          22. I used to collect stamps so this is true if you specialize in rare stamps that you cannot acquire but still have expertise in.

            Like

          23. I was taught at an early age to collect stamps and had to keep them cataloged in books with weekly study plans. It was a big deal to my family. I stopped in my 20s because it didn’t seem logical or profitable. I tried to sell them for years but ended up giving them away. BUT only after painstakingly checking each one to make sure it’s not one of those million dollar lost stamps. It’s why I still have about 20 left to research. Just to boring to do, it doesn’t provide any new exciting information.

            Like

          24. I have no relationship with collecting stamps or anything else. I don’t form attachments to things or develop a love for them. I don’t have the feature within my thought process.

            But I am a foodie if that has any meaning. I often think that food may be the meaning of everything.

            Like

          25. I just gave up red meat 2 months ago and I don’t miss it.

            BUT

            I don’t see any issues eating meat and I have not been convinced to give it up fully. I just want to learn more and see what happens.

            Like

          26. One evening I looked at my dog and realised I would never eat her so I could see no reason to eat a cow or pig or any other animal so I stopped right then.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. Wow! Now that’s fascinating. You had an epiphany and made an immediate life change. Was it out of love for the dog or logic in relation to the dog?

            Like

          28. Well, I love my dog and thus it seemed hypocritical to eat any other animal.
            So I got up from my desk, went to the kitchen and informed my wife.
            She blinked and said okay, and we took it from there.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. Good for you, My family are still ”carnivores”.
            I don’t push it.
            The past season or two I’ve been trying to rearrange parts of the garden in an effort grow enough veggies to feed us.
            Haven’t got it right yet, but it’s fun trying.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. We have a new thing here called the impossible burger and I honestly can’t tell it’s not a real burger. I may do a deep dive study on what it is a post an article

            Liked by 1 person

          31. I couldn’t reply to your response because of some kind of wordpress thing. So I moved it here:

            You Stated — “In this case, L-7, “Atheist” was used as an adjective to the word “Religion,” i.e. Atheist religion, which indicates you were describing a type of religion.

            Had you written: These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist religion or Atheism, there would be no need for further discussion.

            Perhaps English is your second language?”

            My Response : — First my Statement that you are struggling with: “These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion.”

            Theism is not a religion but rather a perspective.

            Atheism is not a religion but rather a perspective.

            Theist is an individual and is not a religion.

            Atheist is an individual and is not a religion.

            A religion that believes in a god or gods is a Theist Religion

            A religion that does not believe in a god or god is an Atheist Religion

            The religion itself is either atheistic or theistic.

            There are many religions
            There are many different theistic religions.
            There are many different atheistic religions.

            A single theistic religion is a theist religion (singular) believing in a god or gods and is in fact a practiced religion

            A single atheistic religion is an atheist religion (singular) not believing in a god or gods but is in fact a practiced religion

            An individual is either atheistic or theistic.

            There is no such thing as a religion named “Atheist Religion”

            Atheist people can have a religion of their own but that religion will not have a god or gods.

            Theist can have a religion of their own but it must have a god or gods.

            A theist must believe in a god or gods and does not need to be in a religion

            An atheist must not believe in a god or gods and does not need to be in a religion

            Again: There is no such thing as a religion named “Atheist Religion”

            Once someone becomes an atheist or theist they are not part of any religion, they both can become part of a religion that matches their position on a god or gods as stated above repeatedly.

            Like

          32. A religion that does not believe in a god or god is an Atheist Religion

            There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. An. Atheist. Religion. Period. End of discussion.

            Liked by 2 people

          33. I’m not sure why you keep returning to this when I already said you can claim victory since we aren’t learning anything new.

            Like

          34. It is not a case of you allowing me to claim victory. You failed to make your case.
            You were shown to be incorrect.
            I am happy that you acknowledged your position was incorrect and that you have conceded this.

            Like

          35. Scroll up ….

            Lander7 14 Feb 2020 at 19:35 Edit
            The Bible also states this as a fact that a person cannot believe without a personal event.

            These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion.

            Liked by 1 person

          36. Apparently he has problems reading his own comments … or maybe it’s an “interpretation” thing? 😁

            Like

          37. This doesn’t say anything about atheism being a religion. It also doesn’t say anything about theism being a religion. Since both are just positions on the existence of a god or gods.

            I answered this in detail to the other person in our conversation.

            Scroll up

            Like

          38. Ah … and now the disingenuity begins.

            There is no such thing as an Atheist religion.
            It is an oxymoron.
            I consider you owe Nan an apology,

            Like

          39. Ark, does it seem familiar to you that we’re being asked to ignore the words and instead consider the meaning ?? What do they call it? Oh yeah. Interpretation. Meaning I said it but that’s not what I really meant — you just interpreted it wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. Just point out which definition is incorrect rather than making it personal and calling me a liar.

            I’m happy to debate a point or answer questions but I’m not into the personal stuff.

            Like

          41. It’s what a religion is that does not believe in god or gods. It by definition is an atheistic religion.

            Do you disagree?

            Like

          42. If you feel I am playing a game with you and not simply asking that we only acknowledge exactly what words mean and answer all questions in order then we should stop the conversation.

            This would be fair for both of us. Maybe we can try again in the future.

            Like

          43. First you deny making the comment then you try to weasel out of acknowledging your mistake.
            I don’t play games with people who lack basic integrity.

            Like

          44. If you stated that I’m lying via deception then why are you still asking me questions?

            I thought you already dismissed me?

            If that is not the case and you believe I am providing honest answers then we just need to go back and focus on the points that were not accepted by you in the order they were presented.

            Like

          45. Lander7 14 Feb 2020 at 19:35 Edit
            The Bible also states this as a fact that a person cannot believe without a personal event.

            These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion.

            Liked by 1 person

          46. My Statement that you are struggling with: “These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion.”

            Theism is not a religion but rather a perspective.

            Atheism is not a religion but rather a perspective.

            Theist is a person and is not a religion.

            Atheist is a person and is not a religion.

            A religion that believes in a god or god is an Theist religion

            A religion that does not believe in a god or god is an Atheist religion

            The religion itself is either atheistic or theistic.

            An individual is either atheistic or theistic.

            There is no such thing as a religion named “Atheist Religion”

            Atheist people can have a religion of their own but that religion will not have a god or gods.

            Theist can have a religion of their own but it must have a god or gods.

            If we can’t understand this we will not have any luck with anything else and should give up now.

            Like

          47. Atheist people can have a religion of their own but that religion will not have a god or gods.

            Really?
            For anyone to label it an atheist religion such a body would be recognised as such, not only by the religion itself but also officially.
            In the US for example an officially recognised religion is usually awarded tax exempt status upon application.

            Give me an example of an atheist religion that is officially recognised as an atheist religion and has tax exempt status.

            Also, give me examples of the practices, rites and rituals of an atheist religion?

            Liked by 1 person

          48. Also one of the oldest religions in America, Quakers, have both branches. they have churches that do not believe in a god or gods.

            I once almost became a Quaker in my earlier days.

            Like

          49. Took me ten seconds on Google ….
            https://www.economist.com/erasmus/2019/04/26/quakers-ponder-the-ultimate-religious-question
            THE QUAKERS are well-known as the least doctrinaire of all the religious movements that have emerged from Christianity.

            Silent reflection has been the hallmark of their gatherings ever since 1652 when George Fox, an independent-minded preacher, had a hill-top vision in the English Lake District which convinced him that many people would adhere to his free-ranging form of faith. All people, he believed, have God inside them and can experience the divine without mediation by clerics. With an influence on world affairs that far outstrips their numbers (below 500,000), …..

            Nest …

            Liked by 1 person

          50. Yep that’s them and they now have two branches, the first believes in a god or gods and the second does not believe in a god or gods.

            Evolution of Religion Oo

            Liked by 1 person

          51. Also, from the Oxford English Dictionary: atheism: 1.”The cannibalistic practice of eating Christian infants whether baked, BBQ’ed, or deep fried.” 2. “The act practiced by atheists when they hunt human prey to eat for dinner, i.e. ‘She used atheism to get the supper she prepared me for our Valentine’s Day meal.'”

            Liked by 1 person

          52. That’s the exact definition I provided so then you now agree with me, great we can move on to the next part where I stated that there are religions that do not have a belief in a god or god’s so you can tell me where I was incorrect in calling those atheist religions.

            Like

          53. Lander7 14 Feb 2020 at 19:35 Edit
            The Bible also states this as a fact that a person cannot believe without a personal event.

            These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist or Atheist religion.

            Like

          54. You go understand the difference between Atheism as a position and a religion that is atheist correct?

            Are you really missing what it says?

            Like

          55. religion
            /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
            Learn to pronounce
            noun
            the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
            “ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
            Similar:
            faith
            belief
            divinity
            worship
            creed
            teaching
            doctrine
            theology
            sect
            cult
            religious group
            faith community
            church
            denomination
            body
            following
            persuasion
            affiliation
            a particular system of faith and worship.
            plural noun: religions
            “the world’s great religions”
            a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
            “consumerism is the new religion”

            Atheism is none of these.

            Try again …

            Like

          56. Atheism is not a religion, it is a position on a god or gods

            An atheist religion is a religion that does not have a god or gods

            Atheist and Theist do not have to have any religion of any kind but if they choose to have a religion and remain either Atheist or Theist then the religion of choice must also be Atheistic or Theistic in nature.

            The definition you pasted is from google and it returned 3 definitions, the last two at the bottom of your reply are those that Buddhism is in, along with others that do not worship a god or gods

            Second definition
            a particular system of faith and worship.
            plural noun: religions
            “the world’s great religions”

            Third definition
            a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
            “consumerism is the new religion”

            Like

          57. Many Liverpool supporters, of which I am one , are fanatical to the point of being almost devout and follow the club religiously.
            Ergo… the official Liverpool fan club can be considered a religion.
            You seem to be getting more and more desperate to avoid acknowledging a mistake and to make a simple apology.

            I am sure your god will forgive you. It isn’t that big a sin(sic)

            Like

          58. So before you wanted to know why I limit my talks with you, it’s because you do not believe people can disagree.

            You believe that I have a need to be right and will do anything to keep that position.

            You also use that mindset to get nasty and make it personal.

            I will give you the last word so you can claim your victory.

            Like

          59. Of course people can disagree. And as often happens in such disagreement one is correct and the other one isn’t.
            This time you are the latter.
            Maybe next time you will be correct?
            If this is the case rest assured I will acknowledge and, if necessary, apologise.

            Liked by 1 person

          60. No need to apologize you can claim victory in a debate that works for me. I have no need of winning or loosing so I’m fine with whatever seems fair to you.

            I’m more interested in digging into perceptions and positions to find understanding. We weren’t moving forward and I wasn’t hearing anything we hadn’t already talked about so I’m ok with the conversation ending.

            Maybe next time.

            Like

          61. The reason we weren’t moving forward is because of your intractable nature and incessant desire to spin word salads.
            You mentioned narcissism on one of your posts. You’ve exhibiting such traits on numerous occasions during such dialogue.

            Perceptions and positions are meaningless if one is not prepared to exercise genuine critical thinking and accept evidence when it is presented.

            In my experience in dialogue with Christians this happens all too often.

            Like

          62. Maybe this will bridge the difference here as I see it:

            Buddhism is widely considered a religion but when matched against the usual definition, it’s actually closer to the definition of a philosophy. However, it contains very similar accouterments to other religions and is commonly referred to as a religion with many followers and so I don’t think it is wrong to call it a religion… a religion without a god, which actually fits the sense in which Lander7 is using the term, “Atheist Religion”, namely a religion with no god or gods… an atheistic religion, emphasis on the noun religion and atheist (perhaps atheistic would have avoid the confusion here) used to describe it’s lack of a god or gods.

            We are so conditioned as atheists of being accused by the religious of holding non belief as a substitute belief (as if it were an equivalent kind religious belief) that when Lander7 used the term atheist religion, we naturally assumed he meant it in this sense… when, in fact, he was trying to use the term atheist to describe a kind of godless religion rather than describe atheists themselves as another-kind-of-religious-believer.

            I hope I have that right. Correct me if I’m wrong.

            Liked by 1 person

          63. It’s pretty clear that we are stuck here early on because you think I’m being dishonest and deceptive.

            I think the exact same thing about you that you think about me.

            You are not going to accept what I am saying until I match your exact wording and I will not accept what you are saying since it doesn’t match the actual definition in the dictionary.

            We will have to agree to disagree. I feel you just invited me over to argue small nonsensical points about the questions you asked me.

            If you offer something compelling I will change my perspective but arguing definitions is not very exciting.

            Like

          64. If you feel you have a case for an atheist religion then why are you prevaricating in supplying the names of such religions?

            Seriously, how difficult can this be?

            Like

          65. In this case, L-7, “Atheist” was used as an adjective to the word “Religion,” i.e. Atheist religion, which indicates you were describing a type of religion.

            Had you written: These are just the basics but are the same in any Theist religion or Atheism, there would be no need for further discussion.

            Perhaps English is your second language?

            Liked by 1 person

  10. Evolution isn’t a theory by way of the number of people who think it may be the case but the strength of the mounting evidence in its favour, not least of which is the continual robustness of the theory in creating more knowledge and successful applications of this knowledge that work for everyone everywhere all the time.

    When cast in this light, one can better appreciate why the theory of evolution is a fundamental pillar of biology and why it is then taught to successive generations of students around the globe in science classes. It has nothing to do with a preponderance of people who accept it and everything to do with the fact it is the right explanation for how life changes over time and by what natural, unguided materialistic mechanisms it does so; people grant confidence to this explanation for very compelling reasons fully supported by reality.

    Religious belief in some creator and intervenor of this life is contrary to how we know evolution works because it introduces a notion of some kind of non-materialistic guidance and tweaking… for which there is – to be absolutely clear – no evidence. So the number of people who believe this is a reasonable explanation has nothing to do with the utter paucity of evidence; many people grant some level of confidence to this supernatural explanation for no compelling reasons and in spite of no support from reality.

    You can’t have it both ways, Lander7; you can’t believe in some kind of supernatural guided changes to life over time and also no guided changes over time by natural materialistic processes. It’s an either/or case. And only one of these has support from reality in the form of compelling evidence.

    Liked by 1 person

          1. To quote The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:

            “Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”

            Liked by 1 person

    1. You Stated — ” It has nothing to do with a preponderance of people who accept it and everything to do with the fact it is the right explanation for how life changes over time and by what natural, unguided materialistic mechanisms it does so; people grant confidence to this explanation for very compelling reasons fully supported by reality.”

      My Response — Agreed and I would also add that we use this knowledge effectively in medical research of DNA.

      Like

    2. You Stated — “Religious belief in some creator and intervenor of this life is contrary to how we know evolution works because it introduces a notion of some kind of non-materialistic guidance and tweaking…”

      My Response — I would disagree, we have no way of differentiating a mutation from direct manipulation. Mankind has caused an evolutionary change to many lifeforms via direct alteration of the environment, cross-breeding, and even scientific alteration of genetic material.

      To be clear, I’m not making a claim of what made everything, I’m stating we would not know the difference via observation between a random change and a manipulated change.

      Like

      1. Although your position makes sense in a general way (mutations could be guided and we wouldn’t know), it does not fit how mutations actually work to produce change over time. How mutations present is subject entirely to so many factors of variability including changing environments for progeny that prediction of it presentation as if a goal were being sought is considered impossible.

        As you know, the vast majority of mutations are null or degrading. This means a guided mutation does not link to a positive designed response (presentation)… unless an entire protein is radically altered wholesale (or directly substituted) and inserted in a very specific location (CRISPR). These leave telltale traces that are entirely absent in our genome or we would have found them. This is important to realize because it could have been there… if design or guidance had in fact happened. What do we have?

        I’m going to use an analogy here to make the point.

        What we have is similar to, say, a functional aircraft that has maintained over time a very clear lineage of all the changes that have occurred leading up to now… starting with a wooden structure, fabric, wooden, metal, and plastic struts, aerodynamics compatible with first flight, still laden with multiple kinds of engines, additions of all kinds of fuel sources and seating possibilities… in other words a ungainly mess of all the previous states still intact, still being flown around, mostly non operational, and quite clearly a clear compilation of everything that came before the current model. What we do not find is streamlined efficiency, wholesale replacements, clever engineering for function, all the hallmarks of interventionist design. Our misshapen flying craft makes no sense in design, and so to suggest some mutations could have been inserted to produce intended results is highly unlikely when what would be preferable by far is wholesale overhaul along the way to get rid of the non functioning yet still interfering inherited bits. That’s what we have in genomes, ungainly yet functioning genetic inheritance.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You Stated — “As you know, the vast majority of mutations are null or degrading. This means a guided mutation does not link to a positive designed response”

          My Response — It depends on the changes being made and the agenda of the individual making them.

          To change DNA all one has to do is change the environment. Mankind has done that with pollution. We introduced new substances into the Eco system and caused some organisms to become stronger over time as others have become extinct. If we had more knowledge and resources and a better view of time we could alter the course of life on earth via a more controlled change in the environment.

          We already have simulations that evolve over time that are directly effected by changes we make to the program to see how they respond. When we see positive out comes we restart the simulation and make better choices with how we alter the environment.

          I think what you are talking about is direct changes to organisms via genetic code which I think would be the wrong way to see what works best. You would have to target what you think is the best life form (out of millions) and then try to change it to work best with the environment.

          What I am suggesting is the change of the environment to see which lifeforms change the best over time to adapt to it.

          Such a change would be undetectable by the subjects being studied. It would all show up as natural occurrences. This is to say that someone in a realistic simulation would not know they were in one or even that everything being done was for a random outcome.

          We as a species will be running highly advanced simulations in the future that do the exact thing I’m talking about. The AI NPC’s within the simulation will not know they are artificial and we will run them repeatedly (possibly millions of times) to see what happens when we make simple changes to the environment. The focus will be less on individual code and more on planetary design and response to the environment.

          Just a thought.

          Like

          1. I see what you’re getting at, but this is the standard brain-in-a-jar, we’re-part-of-a-dream/AI-sequence kind of philosophical pondering that doesn’t really address what seems to be the case based on verification by reality to the best extent possible. This is why the answer to the meaning of life provided by Douglas Adams is as good as any other: 42.

            But something that needs a bit of clarification is the role of the environment plays when it comes to evolution: you are at high risk of getting it exactly backwards, of thinking the environment selects winners and losers. This is not the case (as Lenski’s experiments demonstrate with identical environments on a dozen streams of e coli, some that have evolved and some that have remained static.)

            Changes to life over time involve this fitness idea that is widely misunderstood. Fitness simply means producing more offspring that reach reproductive age are more fit than the local competition for those same resources. There might be a lot or few resources. Doesn’t matter to the unguided mechanisms that we call evolution. It’s all about heritability, about producing genes that the offspring inherit which makes them more capable of reproductive success. It’s not about the environment affecting genes. That’s exactly backwards. Genes don’t care about environments; they care about replication. A mutation that gains wider distribution in the gene pool is a result of fitness whatever the environment might be. Changing the environment will not select for fitness.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. You Stated — “I see what you’re getting at, but this is the standard brain-in-a-jar” … “thinking the environment selects winners and losers”

            My Response — I’m thinking a bit higher, Universe in a bubble. I’m saying we could very well be in an entirely real universe (one of many) but with subtle changes to each one. I’m not saying we are virtual but rather that the same principle is being used on a higher scale in real constructs.

            There doesn’t have to be a goal of winners and losers. You spin up what you want and run it for a set time. Changes to the environment equal changes to lifeforms over a period of time. This can be seen in many studies like Epigenetics as an example that involve changes to gene activity and expression in addition to the traditional genetic basis for inheritance.

            Keep in mind that I’m also not claiming that this is happening I was just stating that we wouldn’t know the difference.

            Earth reboot 200 with slightly warmer weather day one versus Earth reboot 34765 with a moon in orbit this time. Changes on a grand scale causing major evolutionary outputs down the line. We as human beings wouldn’t be able to grasp a real world test by a god or even by anything else that got to the point where it could be done.

            Where we are now we don’t know how the universe was made and why or how it’s evolution started.

            We may not even be able to exclude a programmer like you were talking about in a simulation.

            It could all be setup to spin new realities on every change, how would we know?

            Just a thought

            Like

      2. Is there any evidence to suggest any manipulated change via supernatural means (intervention) or any reason whatsoever we should postulate a manipulator?

        Like

        1. I’m not sure how supernatural would apply since I’m talking about changes to the environment.

          You would have to define what you mean by supernatural.

          Like

          1. What do you mean by supernatural? As I have stated Ad nauseam to you before I only study Philosophy, the Bible, Computers, and Science. The term supernatural isn’t used in any of those.

            Like

          2. *Sigh*
            This is like asking me ”what do you mean by evidence?”
            Please, in future, simply take it as a given that I am aware of the meaning of words I use not least because I am able to read and understand what the dictionary says, okay?
            Therefore …..

            supernatural
            /ˌsuːpəˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/
            Learn to pronounce
            adjective
            (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

            Your god, for example.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. I have no idea if this word applies so let’s skip using it. It’s not mentioned in anything I read.

            Back to what we were talking about before you brought up this distraction, any change to a past environment would not be detectable if it were made by direct manipulation, such as causing a meteor impact on purpose as opposed to a random natural collision.

            Like

          4. So you do, or do not consider your god to be supernatural?
            After all, it is right there in the dictionary definition, and as you consider your god to be divine it would have to be considered supernatural.
            So now you know that the word does apply.
            As for your manipulated scenario:
            One can only relate to the environment on
            natural terms, this is the nature of our reality.
            However, perhaps a meteor impact was caused by a superior ”alien” race .
            How would you know?
            Perhaps evidence would reveal the meteor’s manipulation, but on the face of it this seems unlikely. But then, I am not a forensic anything so who knows?
            Be that as it may, the manipulator would still be considered part of our reality . a natural occurrence.

            If not, we might as well claim Goddidit, and that would be very silly.

            Like

          5. You keep jumping off topic, I have no need or reason to address supernatural since I’m not claiming it and it’s not listed in anything I study.

            Like

          6. The Bible didn’t mention supernatural. Maybe if you ask the person who made that association they can answer your question.

            Like

          7. The bible doesn’t mention a lot of things.
            Are you, therefore, stating that your god is not divine/supernatural?

            Who or what do you consider might be responsible for manipulating a meteor?

            Like

          8. *Smile*
            The garden of Eden,the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth and pretty much everything in between.
            So …. take your pick, the verse is your choice.

            Like

          9. You are unaware of the verses that recount the resurrection of the character Jesus of Nazareth?

            Google is your friend … no wait. You claim you are a Christian.
            Shame on you that you don’t know the verses.

            Like

          10. You really don’t know a single verse in the story where the character Jesus of Nazareth is resurrected from the dead?
            So you’re not a Christian after all.

            Like

          11. I wasn’t going to respond to this line of thinking – constant rebooting – because it’s not only non-productive but is of such incredibly low probability that it doesn’t bear much consideration because there is no reason to do so when other explanations are far more reasonable and have some support from reality. This rebooting line of thinking is the same genre of creationist trope about fossils: the Jewish war god Yaweh could have place them there to confuse paleontologists the world over about deep time capturing previous lifeforms. So, too, is the reasoning that known rates of isotope decay in every measureable way could have been universally fiddled with to make the room necessary for rebooting genetic mutations over and over again.

            Although it’s true that if this were done, would wouldn’t know anything about it because reality does not provide us evidence to follow, considering the scale and scope of re-tweaking everything necessary to make it look like uninterrupted deep time in every way possible flies in the face of what is reasonable and enters the realm of ridiculous. Surely an isotope or two should be missed by the Grand Fiddler, a spot of erosion poorly redone, a small error in the cosmic radiation field… something… anything… to give even a smallest nudge in evidence from reality to suggest twiddling with deep consistent time across every nook and cranny of reality. That evidence might elevate the hypothesis beyond absolute empty conjecture with absolutely no evidence to support it to something extremely unlikely with the ever-so-slightest sliver of possibility. To date, nada. So the hypothesis is meaningless.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. It’s not a hypothesis it’s a possibility and as I stated earlier I’m not claiming it to be true, I was simply answering a question.

            Ark asks questions that I have stated many times are a literal waste of time mostly because I find religion to be boring. If I don’t answer he has a fit.

            Like

          13. Like always believe what you want since that’s all that matters to you. Again you can have another victory and we can end this topic.

            Like

          14. That’s not your usual victory dance. You usually use the word “burn” in an awkward way and then say something random like “what flood”

            Anyway, victory for ark etc

            Like

          15. This is a new one, but very interesting. You have me curious Ark, what does being embarrassed of religion online mean?

            Like

          16. Perhaps my choice of words was in error?
            Let’s explore this shall we?
            You are a Christian.
            Ergo, a member of the Christian religion.
            The primary qualification to gain entry into this religion is belief in the totally unsubstantiated claim that the bible character, Jesus of Nazareth, rose from the dead after being crucified in around 33CE.
            The tale is recorded in the four gospels – although in the first one, Mark, the ending is a forgery.
            The bible is the foundation of the Christian religion. Without it there wouldn’t be a Christian religion.
            Now let’s look at what you mentioned to Tildeb
            ”I find religion to be boring.”
            What impression does this convey to the outsider?
            I am interested in your thoughts on this.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. Don’t curb my curiosity so quickly, give me a moment before we go back to the script.

            If you won’t tell me what being embarrassed of religion online is then at least describe the last person you encountered who was.

            I’m not big on emotions but I find them to be fascinating! I will then address your next round of religious stuff.

            Like

          18. As I wrote in the last comment, perhaps my choice of words was in error …

            So, back what you mentioned to Tildeb
            ”I find religion to be boring.”
            What impression might this convey to the outsider do you think?
            I am interested in your thoughts on this.

            Like

          19. That’s to bad I was finding that interesting.

            You Asked — “What impression might this convey to the outsider do you think?”

            How would I know what other people think? The people in my circles don’t have any thoughts on it or they agree, if that helps.

            The question seems a bit nonsensical since it would require mind reading.

            Like

          20. Actually one would think that verbal communication is part of your day to day interaction with fellow believers.
            You certainly have enough to write and to say here in blogland.
            Based on your Christian dogma, ”mind reading” would be the sole (soul?) preserve of your god.

            So, why do you find religion boring when you are, in fact, religious?

            Like

          21. You Stated — “Actually one would think that verbal communication is part of your day to day interaction with fellow believers.”

            My Response — This is either about to get very interesting or very weird.

            Are you saying that verbal communication is a Christian thing? Or that you communicate differently in your country?

            Like

          22. Both probably. And you are definitely quite weird.
            I am surprised that you were unable to offer any view on how fellow believers in your circle / group / acquaintance would react to your statement that, considering you are religious you thought ”Religion is boring.”

            Like

          23. Ark I stated in my reply that they don’t care. This is the weird part I keep telling you about. The reply is still there lol.

            You are either playing around or you flat out don’t read replies.

            This topic is also way off of evolution and about what? If people care if religion is boring or not lol. Who cares?

            Like

          24. YOU are playing word games … which is why this conversation continues to drag on and on and on and …

            Ark has 99.9% more patience than me with individuals like you. Plus a MUCH larger tolerance for boredom.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. I stated to Ark day one that I didn’t want to talk about religion. But Ark goes to my website and keeps posting questions to me that I find to be nonsensical that are based on assumptions. So I agreed to come to his site and answer as many as he liked.

            So my patience is much higher than his and yours because I can deal with him weekly posting on my site about RELIGION even after I repeatedly tell him no one wants to talk about it. He can’t even resist turning a post about astronauts into religion.

            So when Ark says to me, “your religion”, I’m curious what that is since I’ve never stated what religion I am.

            This is a post about evolution. Scroll up and look at the questions he’s asking me. How does it relate to evolution and why would any of us care?

            Like

          26. You Stated (or Asked… not sure) — “Based on your Christian dogma, ”mind reading” would be the sole (soul?) preserve of your god.”

            My Response — What is my dogma?

            Like

          27. You Asked — “So, why do you find religion boring when you are, in fact, religious”

            My Answer — in what way am I religious?

            Like

          28. So because I’m Christian I’m religious? Hmmm…. interesting. I’m not sure what to do with that but I think I like it 😀

            People usually accuse me of being non religious so this is refreshing.

            Like

          29. The part I find boring the most about religion is when asked endless questions that don’t connect in any way with me as an individual. It’s boring to be stereotyped into nonsensical roles and then asked to explain them as though they were true. Religion can be boring that way.

            It’s especially boring when asked the exact same questions repeatedly month after month. Conversation is best when it’s on a mutually enjoyed topic rather than a gauntlet being dropped out of nowhere about what Moses couldn’t possibly have been eating on a Tuesday. Boring.

            It’s boring to hear canned questions with no passion or real interest driving them, just some weird need some people have to talk about Religion at random. Very boring.

            Religion, politics, sports and culture are by definition boring to me because those who talk about it rarely bring any interesting ideas to the table, all they want is an argument where they can claim some silly victory. Boring

            There are a few people who do have interesting conversations about these topics (except sports) but they are the rare exception. They make it interesting by engaging in a dialogue that produces new ideas on both sides.

            Sports remains fully boring no matter who talks about it, no exceptions.

            Like

          30. And yet you are such a hypocritical fucking Arsehat that you have a blog where you’ve made a point of announcing to blogland that you are a Christian and posted an entire series about the things you learned about Christianity when you became a Christian, and then spend Yahweh knows how much cyber space in a boring narcissistic passive-aggressive demonstration telling us all that you are not religious!

            Like

          31. Lol 10 posts where I complained about bad experiences I had 15 years ago when I was trying religion.

            You came on my site didn’t read any of those articles… posted a ton of canned ridiculous questions that had nothing to do with the articles. You just go around asking the same questions over and over on other people’s websites and then challenge them relentlessly to come back to your site so you can pretend they’re trying to push religion on people.

            Lol

            Like

          32. I read several of the articles and the drivel you wrote is pretty much on a par with everything I have read from Christians for years.
            You really should read someone called Mel Wild. He also does not consider himself religious and he is a Pastor in a church for the gods’ sake!

            I hardly ever bother suggesting to Christians, ”come back to my site”, and have probably done it no more than half a dozen times in the years I have been blogging. In fact, I usually suggest such a move only to those who don’t have a blog, such as John Kilpatrick – or those, like you whom I consider write such drivel they will give the former Christians who visit the Ark’s spot another opportunity to read the kind of religiously motivated garbage you revel in, thus once more validating why they ditched Christianity in the first place.

            This is perfectly illustrated from Nan’s comment and, to date, you still haven’t offered an honest answer and continue to behave in the manner I described above.

            Here is a great video from Seth Andrews titled: Christianity made me talk like an idiot.

            In all seriousness I cannot recommend it enough.

            Liked by 1 person

          33. You Stated — “I hardly ever bother suggesting to Christians, ”come back to my site”, and have probably done it no more than half a dozen times in the years”

            My Response — Then I am very pleased and honored since I account for over six of them. I did point out to you over a year ago that you have a bit of an obsession with me and that may prove it.

            You Stated — “I read several of the articles and the drivel you wrote”

            My Response — You find it to be drivel yet you keep reading them. How strange Oo

            As for “honest answers” I’m not the one sidestepping with comments like “I miss spoke” so you don’t have to answer my questions. You may not always like my answers but at least I give you one every time. You on the other hand are a 50/50 chance of getting a response.

            I’ll check out the video but I’m hoping it’s not dated like your evolution video.

            Like

          34. I have no obsession with you, – and there’s the ego driven narcissist coming through once again. – and I pointed out why I use your writing
            I didn’t ”keep reading them” . .
            I regularly re-read Terry Pratchett novels because he is a brilliant writer.

            Who is ”Miss Spoke”?

            I read several of the articles on your Christian experience. And read them once.
            Seth Andrews video is as relevant now as it was when he recorded it.

            Like

          35. Ark you pursue me not the other way around.

            You come to my site asking me tons of canned questions about things I don’t post about and the taunt me to come back to your site so you can pretend I’m claiming something.

            I’m here at your request to answer your questions, if you want me to leave just say so OR ask your next question.

            Like

          36. |Ark you pursue me not the other way around.

            Hilarious!
            I read some of the articles on your blog.

            If you would like an intelligent conversation then while you are here post something intelligent.

            Please, stay as long as you like. Colorstorm does and he believes in a flat earth, so if BruceGodsmanforever shows up we will have a trio of religious half-wits.
            Maybe you could exchange emails and start a singing group? A christian version of the Andrews sisters?

            Like

          37. To be absolutely crystal clear, and trying to be as unambiguous as humanly possible, while at the same time attempting to remove any possibility that you will come back with yet another asinine response in the form of a comment which is really more drivel in yet another attempt to draw out a thread in your very own inimitable style of garbled religious waffle – in this regard, yes, you are a half- wit.

            Have a day!

            Ark

            Like

          38. I just wanted to be clear because every time I accuse you of name calling you give me this overly long response on how you didn’t.

            With that said: as I predicted you hounded me to come on your site so you could ask me religious questions just to, at some point, resort to name calling.

            I also predict that this will soon be followed up by your standard victory announcement with one or two final putt downs.

            Like

          39. I also predict that this will soon be followed up by your standard victory announcement with one or two final putt downs.

            I am unfamiliar with ”putt downs”. Is this a golf term?

            Like

          40. It’s the same language game you’re playing when you repeatedly ask Ark for definitions of words in his simple questions as if this will yield the necessary clarifications you must have before you can answer them. In the same vein, spelling mistakes are even greater issues regarding full comprehension for someone so very concerned about articulated definitions, wouldn’t it be fair to say?

            Liked by 2 people

          41. I am here per request. I didn’t make a claim. I didn’t push any religion on Ark. I didn’t pressure him.

            He came to my site and just unloaded a plethora of questions, which I stated, ad nauseam, were a waste of time because they were off topic and about religion. After he wore me down I agreed to come here so he could get it all out of his system.

            But once here I get stupid questions about things like “the supernatural”. ??? I don’t have any posts on the supernatural. I’m guessing that he places anything I believe in that category somehow, so the expectation is that I can just speak to it regardless of the fact that I’m a real person with real concepts and beliefs of my own.

            If you already have a locked in opinion of what someone else is and what they themselves believe then why ask them questions?

            I would like to know what is the point of these nonsensical questions? What does it matter what I believe if I’m not claiming anything or pushing my beliefs on anyone?

            Why keep spamming my site with stupid repetitive questions about nonsensical topics not related to my posts?

            Why ask me to come here to explain things I don’t study or claim?

            Let me say it again. These questions are stupid and a waste of time. This conversation is ridiculous and a waste of time. It would be more fun if he just asked a real question that would offer some real insight or spark a bit of curiosity.

            As for spelling mistakes in relation to wanting to know what a person is asking neither are of much interest to me. If my phone responses (which is what I was using earlier) were off a bit on the spelling who cares (I don’t). I’m sure people can piece it back together and figure it out. If you want to relate that to me asking what he means by supernatural be my guest. I have a post I made about “not using it” because it’s such an annoying word. If I respond to it they claim I’m using it wrong, if I ask what they mean when they use it I’m playing games.

            The word isn’t in the bible or anything else I study and I haven’t used it to make a claim so why am I being asked to explain it?

            Like

          42. I think he’s trying to challenge you to think about what you believe and why regarding religion and have you see how it colours your perspective in areas where it has no justification or expertise to do so. This is his method.

            Liked by 2 people

          43. You Stated — “I think he’s trying to challenge you to think about what you believe and why regarding religion and have you see how it colours your perspective”

            My Response — That is my point tildeb:: What perspective?
            What perspective do I have that is coloured?
            What area am I using my belief in that it has no justification or expertise for me to do so?

            He hasn’t asked me anything about me as a person so how does he know what my perspective even is?

            He hasn’t even challenged anything I believe since his questions are about things I don’t post about or study.

            I don’t have a religious site so I don’t know what this guys problem is. He’s like a blog stalker or something but he only wants to talk about religion and if you don’t comply he spams you with more questions lol

            I’m trying to get to the bottom of it by finally accepting his invite and seeing where this all goes.

            So far it’s just more silly questions. If it’s what you stated and he is trying to change my perspective then he can just tell me what he read that I posted that his disagrees with and why he disagrees. I have not yet seen him do that.

            I still suspect that he just likes having this nonsensical banter. Which achieves no real goal or understanding of my perspective and offers me no real insight into what he thinks as a person.

            Just saying

            Like

          44. For goodness sake, man, your religious beliefs colour your perspective as you accept the doctrine of sin, that you are a sinner requiring the ”saving grace” of the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth, who, according to the tale, was the physical earthly manifestation of Yahweh, crucified as a human sacrifice , whose shedding of blood represents the ”cure”.

            And all of this is based upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever. This inevitably begs the question:
            Why in Gehenna do you believe such palpable nonsense in the first place?

            Just saying!

            Like

          45. Ark I hear your default speech (we all have)

            My question to you is what perspective has offended you, that I have, that you feel needs to change?

            You have never once told me what post I made or position I took that you find offensive to your position. You just keep posting on my site questions detached from anything I’m talking about.

            What did I say or do on my site that goes against your way of life or opinions or whatever? Just say it so we can get to it, I’m waiting.

            Like

          46. Lander 7: ”I am here per request. I didn’t make a claim.”

            Lander7
            February 12, 2020 • 10:10 am
            Let’s try something easier. If you have a post on evolution share it and I will answer the question there, that way you can control the content.

            Like

          47. Yeah, that was me giving in to you many challenges to come to your site and have a conversation.

            Until that moment of pure frustration I always thought there was no need.

            But again we ended this conversation so there is no need to keep beating this poor horse lol just let it go

            Like

          48. So, not only was it you who made the suggestion to come to my site but now you are here there seems to be a definite reluctance to leave.
            Interesting.
            Furthermore, you have continuously questioned any suggestion that you are religious so I was wondering if you would like to double your points tally and let all the boys and girls see where you mention about your religion?

            Like

          49. Why are you so obsessed with this? Points for what lol? All these questions you keep spamming on people’s web sites aren’t making any sense.

            This type of conversation is not productive, just drop it. We can agree to disagree.

            Like

          50. You do like to lol, don’t you?
            So now it’s ”spamming on people’s websites.”
            You really are disingenuous.

            We can agree to disagree.

            Well, you can, simply because you are wrong.
            And if we were to add the other things you have tended to …. let’s just say exaggerate …. I might soon be tempted to say you are telling porky pies.
            Tsk tsk.

            Like

          51. Understood, let’s leave it there and stop talking to each other about religion on both sites. I think we’ve covered enough of it. A break from all the questions will work for everyone thanks.

            Like

          52. As I stated before, let’s not have any more religious conversations between us. No religious questions or comments from me to you and none from you to me.

            This would be the best route, thanks.

            Like

          53. I’m looking more for something where you move on from this, I feel like you’re going to continue posting religious questions on my site if we don’t come to a conclusion that we no longer need to have this type of conversation. So let’s just never talk about religion.

            Like

          54. So I can’t ever ask you why you deconverted?
            When you do, of course.
            I’ll wager when that happens you won’t be able to shut up.

            Like

          55. It’s just good manners to answer when a person makes a comment, so I answer.
            If you were to far cough without making any more comments then I can hardly reply, now can I?

            Like

          56. Ahh, got it now, this is that last word thing.

            I officially give you the last word, all yours, I will not respond on the next one, thanks.

            Like

          57. I reviewed the video. That’s one of his old ones, I’ve seen that multiple times years ago (very funny) one of my favorites that he made.

            What’s the point?

            Are you saying that I said something that made me sound crazy?

            If so what was it, I’m curious?

            Like

          58. I would have thought it obvious. That you even have to ask merely illustrates the point further, namely, you are a Christian.

            Like

          59. Lol Yikes!!!

            Let’s try something different so I can understand what you are trying to either ask of define.

            Is my being Christian my religion from your perspective?

            Like

          60. Wow I can see now you are never going to interact

            I tried. You may now claim said victory so this horse can get some rest

            Like

          61. You seem to have developed an obsession that the goal here is to obtain some sort of ”victory” out of this dialogue. While such behaviour does not strike me as normal for the average adult, the ‘Gotcha’ type of approach is fully in keeping with the typical behaviour of many internet religious types – such as you- that non-believers interact with – of which there are myriad examples.
            In fact, any minute now I’m expecting you to quote biblical text and chant, ”Neener-neener!”

            Like

          62. Ark I have a stack of your conversations and you love to claim a win at the end don’t put that on me lol

            The last time I gave up on you you spent 3 days gloating asking me how that “burn” felt.

            Who does that lol.

            If you’re changing your ways then that’s fine with me. We can simply agree to disagree and drop it. This conversation is not productive so it’s good for everyone to just let it go.

            Like

          63. Gloating? Really!
            Imagine how short – and productive – this conversation would be if you had the integrity to answer truthfully.
            You are on record using the term, my religion and yet you seem positively averse to acknowledging that your religion is Christianity?
            Why is this I wonder?

            Like

          64. So we aren’t going with agree to disagree. You just want to start the questions from the begging again lol

            What’s the point if all this Ark? Why do you have this need to keep this conversation going with me?

            Like

          65. You just want to start the questions from the begging again lol

            I never beg.

            What’s the point if all this Ark? Why do you have this need to keep this conversation going with me?

            You are in no way obliged to stay. And no one is holding a gun to your head either.

            Liked by 1 person

  11. Judy:

    quoting you—

    “that there was a God/Devil struggle going on endlessly, for everything in her life”

    I’m having trouble coming to grips with the notion that The Omnipotent has a struggle with anything~?

    (For those who miss my point: ‘omnipotent’ means that He can do anything. Any-God-damned-thing whatsoever. End of story. Omnipotents do NOT struggle.) (No?)

    Like

  12. I got lost in all the words … but if challenged, I’d be happy to (and often have, in fact) describe myself as a devout Atheist. Even if …

    Like

  13. @tildeb

    Your post is the only one without a reply tab so I posted in the main window:

    You Stated — “Buddhism is widely considered a religion but when matched against the usual definition, it’s actually closer to the definition of a philosophy. However, it contains very similar accouterments to other religions and is commonly referred to as a religion with many followers and so I don’t think it is wrong to call it a religion… a religion without a god, which actually fits the sense in which Lander7 is using the term”

    My Response — Agreed, also adding that in the US they are seen by the state as a religion. Jainism also has no god or gods and is also seen as a religion.

    You Stated — We are so conditioned as atheists of being accused by the religious of holding non belief as a substitute belief (as if it were an equivalent kind religious belief) that when Lander7 used the term atheist religion, we naturally assumed he meant it in this sense… when, in fact, he was trying to use the term atheist to describe a kind of godless religion rather than describe atheists themselves as another-kind-of-religious-believer.

    My Response — Correct, It was not my intent to indicate that non-belief is a belief system. Atheism is a position on whether a god or gods exist, not a belief. I would go even further and state that atheism is also not a “disbelief” but rather a lack of compelling evidence provided to cause belief. I don’t believe that atheist are a different kind of believer or that atheism is a religion of non-believers.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s