Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2017, 06:51 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
He didn't have evidence. And you don't have evidence for transmutation. And its not evolution to care you have to learn that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 06:58 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Meaning we come from a common ancestor or the beginning of all species. How was it evident to make a free society. Didn't the forfathers of the us just speculate how things would be with no given evidence. Thinking that way the bible doesn't seem that far of from how we dream of something better. As god being the boss and making to where it ends in him showing how great he is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2017, 10:28 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Love romanticizing poetry if you feel the deep sensation from inside of you know its from me. Love as the birds and the bees feel fresh and rejuvenated like the trees and look as far as the eyes can see and at worlds end the love will be you and me.

Happy Valentine's day
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 12:58 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Point of Order.

Question for Moms: can we ban people just for incoherence?

Huh

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like DLJ's post
15-02-2017, 02:36 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(15-02-2017 12:58 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Question for Moms: can we ban people just for incoherence?

[Image: anigif_enhanced-buzz-13751-1366921839-37.gif?w=640]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
15-02-2017, 06:44 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(14-02-2017 04:00 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Its like darwin didn't have the technology to prove at the moment what he discovered. That's faith.

It is, if you don't know anything about science or evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 06:46 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(14-02-2017 06:51 PM)socialistview Wrote:  He didn't have evidence. And you don't have evidence for transmutation. And its not evolution to care you have to learn that.

You said "what Darwin discovered". Have to have evidence to discover something. You're pretty dense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 06:51 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(14-02-2017 06:51 PM)socialistview Wrote:  He didn't have evidence. And you don't have evidence for transmutation. And its not evolution to care you have to learn that.

Transmutation? No, I have no evidence for alchemy... as far as having to learn anything you are in no apparent position to talk about that. Please learn to write English sentences and how to use the 'reply' function so we have some clue who you are trying to answer. Your responses bear so little relevance to prior posts that it can be hard to figure out what the fuck you are trying to say.

(14-02-2017 06:58 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Meaning we come from a common ancestor or the beginning of all species. How was it evident to make a free society. Didn't the forfathers of the us just speculate how things would be with no given evidence. Thinking that way the bible doesn't seem that far of from how we dream of something better. As god being the boss and making to where it ends in him showing how great he is.




Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2017, 07:00 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
*sigh* SV, honestly, you really should read On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (in PDF format here, free). No, really, read it.

Darwin was exceedingly careful to lay out what his lines of evidence were, where he was fairly certain, where he was guessing or lacked sufficient evidence, and what things would later demonstrate the parts of his ideas he couldn't demonstrate by the time he wrote it.

He actually knew most of what was in the book almost 30 years before he published it, so careful was he to avoid putting this "wild idea" of his out there without sufficient grounding. He only published when he did because someone on the far side of the planet had returned to England with the same discovery, and word got back to Darwin that Wallace was about to scoop him.

He speculated that we came from one, or a few, original forms because he saw the diversity of life for what it was: a result (continuing ever onward) of divergence from common forms in to more diverse forms. Tracing that backward, it wasn't hard to see that it likely led to one or a few original forms.

In his concluding paragraph, he summed it up with what I consider one of the best bits of science-writing before Carl Sagan:

“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Darwin didn't get everything right. Nor did he expect to. This was a new explanation (Natural Selection) for an idea (evolution of species) that was itself only a couple of generations old by the time Darwin published.

But he most certainly was not just guessing without evidence. He was trying to explain the clear pattern he saw in the evidence he spent years of his life collecting.

You have a pretty muddled view of things, SV... please, take a few days of your life and actually read Origin before you presume to tell others what Darwin thought. See for yourself what he thought.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
15-02-2017, 07:11 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2017 08:28 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(14-02-2017 06:58 PM)socialistview Wrote:  Didn't the forfathers of the us just speculate how things would be with no given evidence.

No, they did not just speculate with no evidence. They had plenty of evidence from numerous political systems to see what worked and what didn't for the type of government they were trying to create. You apparently have no understanding of what constitutes evidence.

Quote:Thinking that way the bible doesn't seem that far of from how we dream of something better. As god being the boss and making to where it ends in him showing how great he is.

Your dream of something better is having an ultimate boss? That's incredibly sad. Stand on your own two feet instead of crawling in the mud and you'll find that you can see a whole universe that you never knew existed.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: