Atheists Unite Here - Page 14

quote DG

I agree but also disagree.

Teaching of dogma IS child abuse, I say.

However, I think some kids are just plain incompatible with religion.

I always thought it was a load of crap even though my primary and secondary schools both involved Christianity, as did the boy scouts.

I appear to be immune to dogma and preaching.

Though perhaps it's just because I wasn't assaulted with it even younger.

Nah I think some people are just immune to it, I remember being pretty young and being taught the stories of Noah and Jonah in Sunday school and thinking it was a crock of shit. Jonah especially, I'm surprised any kid would believe that, never mind fully grown adults.

quote Xenctuary

I hold similar views to KR_1250. Teach religion in schools, not to brainwash, but to educate children on the diversity in the world.

As a requirement? I wouldn't say that. I think it's a great option to have and an interesting subject. I minored in it in college and I thought it was fascinating. But by no means do I think it should be a requirement in the curriculum, especially not in primary education. I think it's enough that you are made aware of various religions perhaps in tandem with social studies classes. I learned a lot about the beliefs of various people around the world through social studies classes, and I think that was enough. I'd much sooner make philosophy a requirement, or an argumentation requirement. Things that are really neglected in the school system.

Yes, I've complained about that before. It's ridiculous. There's nothing immoral about experimenting on a 10 cell embryo. It's not a child until it has a brain.

And besides, God seems to kill children quite frequently (miscarriages, childhood disease, etc), so you'd think Christians would be OK with it... Don't they usually argue that the kids automatically go to heaven?

quote xxskelterxx

Christian's are just pathetic. The reason they act like that is because the government. If the government would ignore them like a stray dog, I bet they would go away like one.

I don't think remarks like that are in the spirit of this thread, man. Not to be difficult, but we're trying to talk about atheism and its content, not bashing the Christians. Considering this thread is on trial, it'd suck to get it shut down when the Christian thread is handling itself fine.

Government will always bow to the will of the people, and like it or not Christianity still makes up about 60% of the US population. That is why all US presidents claim to follow some form of Chrisitanity when running for office. That is why laws are passed that favor christian thinking. It is simply a matter of numbers. And in the US the numbers favor the religious.

The funny thing is that most of the people claiming some form of Christianity probably don't really practice it at all. My GF believes in God and talks about going to church. But I can't remember the last time she actually did.

quote Jesus

he said they adapted to their environment. he doesnt believe in evolution.. :\

Adaptation is not evolution. Blacks are not a seperate species from whites. The various breeds of dogs are forced adapations and mutations created by humans controlling the breeding process. But a dog is still a dog no matter what breed. It can be logically argued that one can accept adaptation without evolution.

THE LORD HAS COME. OH CRAP WE WERE ALL WRONG!

Ahem.

As for adaption and Evolution, I don't see a difference.

As far as I know the definition of Evolution is "Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations."

It doesn't need to result in a new species.

Therefore white people did evolve from black people.

Adaption = Evolution to survive better in a certain environment.

Koloth, I think you're mistaken slightly on that front. Genetic variation between generations is always evolution- short-term or long. The difference between adaptation and evolution isn't time-scale, but rather that adaptation is not necessarily a result of evolution. That is to say you can adapt to an environment without evolving, and it can be done within a generation. For example if I go throw myself out into the woods to live for months, I can adapt to that environment within my life time by learning what's edible, developing certain hunting and gathering skills, and so on. That's not evolution. However, if my family and my ancestors move to Africa and live out in the sun for generations, then over time off-spring with darker pigmentation and resistance to harsh sunlight will be favored to pass on their genes. Similarly if we live in an overcast climate for generations we need to develop lighter skin to avoid Vitamin E deficiency from lack of sunlight. That's adaptation by means of genetic variation and natural selection over generations (evolution). It's not speciation, but it's word for word an example of evolution. Christians who disagree with that have mistaken the definition of evolution.

What I do often see is the denial that microevolution (which is an issue of time-scale) can lead to speciation, which is a more fair claim, albeit a false one.

As I said Mastix that is the Christian argument. Not mine.