Evolution, Christian Darwin's Theory, Now Proven Wrong

"

IMSilver wrote:

Why does CHRISTIANITY trigger leftists SO MUCH but not ISLAM or JUDAISM or BHUDDISM...? Because they have been PROGRAMMED to HATE IT...! FACT

Since this was relatively ignored by the posters here...

All I can say is that it is relative to what part of the world you are in. If you are a Hindu in India, chances are you more annoyed by your war-mongering "friends" from the north that also happen to be Muslim.

So as a Hindu-Indian, you tend to demonize the more aggressive territorial people that are you feel are "invading your land". If they happen to be Muslim...then now "All Muslims are bad".

It's the same thing in the U.S. I live in Texas but I am not Christian. I have never demonized the religion as A LOT of my friends are very devout Christians.

The fact is that the right heavily leans on Christianity and often blurs the lines between the State and Religion. Should religion be part of governance? Should it be part of Law? The right seems to think that there is no other way for people to have a moral compass without an organized religion such as Christianity to govern that moral compass. The "left", as a result, tend to place a negative connotation on Christianity because the right has chosen to use it as a pillar of their political belief system.

The "left" doesn't rely on any specific religious pillar. So there is no central religion to demonize for the "left".

I personally have a lot of friends that are both Christian and left-leaning. They, however, do not share the idea that just because they believe in Christ that everyone they know should as well.

The right has weaponized Christianity. If they didn't want the religion to be the target of "left" vs "right" politics, they probably should have left it out. BUT... it's easy to use religion to sway the minds of uneducated, single-platform voters on the right. Similarly it is easy to use "social justice" to sway uneducated, single-platform voters on the left.

Each side chose their weapon. The right's simply used a religion...so that's why people hate on Christianity of the right more so then any other religion as it relates to U.S. politics.

(imo).


Also Templar G...

Why do you keep insisting there is no fossilized proof of evolution?

Feathered Dinosaurs:


I mean you can keep spouting that lie if it helps justify your position for you... but please understand you are lying to yourself and only yourself.

Also please google "Fossil Fallacy" as you seem to be a prime candidate for some self-enlightenment.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham


...enjoy.

"

solwitch wrote:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/04/271648691/watch-the-creationism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham


...enjoy.

Bad example, Bill Nye cannot be taken seriously after his gender talks.

Like If you would invite a scientist to talk about the superiority of archeological evidences vs pure speculations but at the same time he would make videos elsewhere about aliens building pyramids.


Revelation TV Interview with Richard Dawkins, amazingly idiotic Creationist questions!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk1RnwbFIps

"

Prizy wrote:

The fact is that the right heavily leans on Christianity and often blurs the lines between the State and Religion. Should religion be part of governance? Should it be part of Law? The right seems to think that there is no other way for people to have a moral compass without an organized religion such as Christianity to govern that moral compass. The "left", as a result, tend to place a negative connotation on Christianity because the right has chosen to use it as a pillar of their political belief system.

The "left" doesn't rely on any specific religious pillar. So there is no central religion to demonize for the "left".

Saying everyone on the Right is an evangelocon is just as much of a strawman as saying everyone on the Left is a socialist.

As someone who identifies as a center-right atheist, I don't think moral compasses need to be instituted by law at all, thus any answer to "is is no other way for people to have a moral compass without an organized religion such as Christianity?" is a moot point. The purpose of law is to ensure we have the liberty to decide our moral compasses for ourselves, not have them thrust upon us by legislators or activist judges.

"

lolozori wrote:

This is so moronic on so many level and clearly you don t even have any idea of what s in the new testament.

The vast majority of Christians are unaware what's in the New Testament. But that's normal for religions. If you do a survey of American Christians on the more nonsensical biblical instructions (for instance "is money evil?") the majority will disagree, much as if you poll American Muslims on whether they believe Allah rewards those who die slaughtering the infidel, the majority will contradict their texts and say He doesn't.

When taken at maximum levels of textual literalness, Jews are deceptive Ferengi schemers, Muslims are bloodthirsty Klingon warriors, and Christians are some obscure Star Trek race I'm not familiar with that is extremely pacifist to the point of hypercuckoldry, and also vaguely communist (if one can be considered a true communist while still auto-conceding to any form of class struggle while daydreaming of the afterlife).

Because of Christian textual literalism, I've previously declared the early Christian church to be an unspeakably evil institution. I blame the spread of Christianity to the Romans generally, and "Saint" Augustine's The City of God specifically, for the fall of Rome and Europe's descent into the Dark Ages. Much like Venezuela, as soon as the Roman Empire went pacifist-communist its days were numbered and a post-apocalyptic future assured.

But that's not where the story of Christianity ended. Despite the wanton self-destruction, Christianity preserved. Its messages of meekness and slave morality were useful tools for The Powers That Be that arose from the fall of Rome to keep their servants pacified, beginning a long period of human bondage. This was, of course, maintained only through hypocrisy; those at the top of the hierarchy did not hold to the Christian teachings of pacifism or of selfless giving, at least not beyond the maintenance of apparent piety; this formed an important precedent of religious moderation -- that is, quotemining the Bible for text that backs your specific positions and maintaining a willful ignorance of those that would contradict your positions -- that is practiced widely throughout Western civilization to this day.

Then eventually, the printing press was invented. With the ability to make copies of the Bible cheaply and thus distribute the text to a much wider audience, the Church's particular, relatively uniform brand of moderate Christianity was now vulnerable to alternative forms of selective quotemining. This naturally led to the Protestant Reformation, creating a mass splintering of almost endlessly varied denominations of Christianity and to much greater transparency even within the Catholic church itself.

This is why I do not identify Christianity generally but Protestantism more specifically as the religion of the Enlightenment. This particular mish-mash of selective interpretations of the Bible, among the common folk if not in their usually deist intelligentsia, created hyperproductive societies that advanced human technology in both the physical and the social sciences to previously unimaginable levels. There is something in that particular cocktail of belief that is not merely valuable but precious; it should not be discarded so casually.

So to cycle back to the survey idea, you're attacking what Christianity was, not what Christianity is -- unless you're referring to a fundamentalist sect very few are a member of. For the most part, you're attacking a strawman.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This particular mish-mash of selective interpretations of the Bible, among the common folk if not in their usually deist intelligentsia, created hyperproductive societies that advanced human technology in both the physical and the social sciences to previously unimaginable levels. There is something in that particular cocktail of belief that is not merely valuable but precious; it should not be discarded so casually.

The Greek civilization got everything this "mish-mash" had. There is nothing new the christianity mixed with paganism and reformism from the Enlightenment brought to the table. From science to philosophies. Even the question of slavery or morality (even if not appliqued ) was there during the Greek era.

The western civilization would have evolved pretty much the same if christianity had not castrated the advancement of europe for 1000 years. We might have went to the moon in 1800 century already, the Greek and Roman almost developed a technology that was "reinvented" only in the 14 century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Imagine if 1000 years of obscurantism had not stopped the europeans. Imo Christianity did not help europe at all and it is ironic that the muslim world by copying some of the Greek books was more advanced than europe until Europe decided to go back to it s root.

The real root of the european success is Imo the greek science and philosophy not Christianity.

"

Head_Less wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

This particular mish-mash of selective interpretations of the Bible, among the common folk if not in their usually deist intelligentsia, created hyperproductive societies that advanced human technology in both the physical and the social sciences to previously unimaginable levels. There is something in that particular cocktail of belief that is not merely valuable but precious; it should not be discarded so casually.

The Greek civilization got everything this "mish-mash" had. There is nothing new the christianity mixed with paganism and reformism from the Enlightenment brought to the table. From science to philosophies. Even the question of slavery or morality (even if not appliqued ) was there during the Greek era.

The western civilization would have evolved pretty much the same if christianity had not castrated the advancement of europe for 1000 years. We might have went to the moon in 1800 century already, the Greek and Roman almost developed a technology that was "reinvented" only in the 14 century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Imagine if 1000 years of obscurantism had not stopped the europeans. Imo Christianity did not help europe at all and it is ironic that the muslim world by copying some of the Greek books was more advanced than europe until Europe decided to go back to it s root.

The real root of the european success is Imo the greek science and philosophy not Christianity.

While I consider Greek and Roman civilization of 2000-3000 years ago superior to the Dark Ages that followed them, I disagree that ALL the ingredients of the Industrial Revolution were of Greek (or Roman) origin. Some, sure. I think rediscovering the classics and reconciling those ideas with those of selected portions of the Bible made all the difference.

While it might not be true that all those ingredients were around pre-Christianity, one would presume all those ingredients were present during Augustine's time and that Roman civilization could have found a different way to assimilate Christianity that ingested the good of the Bible without swallowing the hemlock of self-sacrifice and killing itself. That would have been nice. Didn't happen.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

... Christianity preserved. Its messages of meekness and slave morality were useful tools for The Powers That Be that arose from the fall of Rome to keep their servants pacified, beginning a long period of human bondage.

This puzzles me, Scrotie. I don't think you mean slavery, per se, as that is as old as human societies, and common since the invention of agriculture. What do you mean by human bondage?

"

erdelyii wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

... Christianity preserved. Its messages of meekness and slave morality were useful tools for The Powers That Be that arose from the fall of Rome to keep their servants pacified, beginning a long period of human bondage.

This puzzles me, Scrotie. I don't think you mean slavery, per se, as that is as old as human societies, and common since the invention of agriculture. What do you mean by human bondage?

Accepting miserable living conditions because you have been told to believe in a book.

Kind of like Amish and Jehova's witness

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Christianity preserved. Its messages of meekness and slave morality were useful tools for The Powers That Be that arose from the fall of Rome to keep their servants pacified, beginning a long period of human bondage.

"

faerwin wrote:

Accepting miserable living conditions because you have been told to believe in a book.

Kind of like Amish and Jehova's witness

Ah. Is that what you meant, Scrotie?

"

鬼殺し wrote:

You're going to hate me but you totally need to read Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation (of Christ). Jesus as a psychological entity is almost infinitely fascinating to me, and while Scorsese's movie drew a lot of fire, it's the book that almost won Kazantzakis a nobel prize.

Taskmaster! I just read the blurb, and it does sound like a book I would enjoy. I still haven't got to the library and looked for the Eco, though.

"

erdelyii wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

... Christianity preserved. Its messages of meekness and slave morality were useful tools for The Powers That Be that arose from the fall of Rome to keep their servants pacified, beginning a long period of human bondage.

This puzzles me, Scrotie. I don't think you mean slavery, per se, as that is as old as human societies, and common since the invention of agriculture. What do you mean by human bondage?

Okay, you're right that slavery existed prior to that point. But early Christianity took it to a new level.

Economically, early Christianity was "from each according to their ability, to each according to their wickedness." It glorified the slave not just as a victim but as a moral exemplar -- a role model. At the same time, it encouraged the rendering to Caesar what was Caesar's, without protest. Those were new ideas, and with practical uses for nonbelievers.