Happy 150th to The Origin of Species!
Edwin Hurwitz
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
John Doherty
I'm sorry, you are misinformed. The species did not originate 150
years ago, it was 6 thousand years ago when God created Adam and then
created Eve from his rib. God told me so in the good book!
;-)
JD
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>SSIA.
>
>Edwin
And the amazing thing is that a lot of people still refuse to believe
it.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
Edwin Hurwitz
Pepe Papon <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:39:16 -0700, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com>
> wrote:
>
> >SSIA.
> >
> >Edwin
>
> And the amazing thing is that a lot of people still refuse to believe
> it.
Well, it's just a theory, after all.
Lfh
> > And the amazing thing is that a lot of people still refuse to believe
> > it.
>
> Well, it's just a theory, after all.
And a brilliant theory it is, truly. Some of the extracurricular uses
it's been put to, however, well, not so brilliant.
Fred
Joker
What extracurricular activities would that be? What did I miss?
Edwin Hurwitz
<aff702d2-f2bc-48e6...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Joker <joke...@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps he refers to the Darwin Awards?
Lfh
> > > > And the amazing thing is that a lot of people still refuse to believe
> > > > it.
>
> > > Well, it's just a theory, after all.
>
> > And a brilliant theory it is, truly. Some of the extracurricular uses
> > it's been put to, however, well, not so brilliant.
>
> > Fred
>
> What extracurricular activities would that be? What did I miss?
Oh, just the using of it as a hymnal for the atheist faith.
Fred
Edwin Hurwitz
<d32f586b-a732-4891...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Lfh <onetas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Atheist faith. Isn't that an oxymoron?
Lfh
> In article
> <d32f586b-a732-4891-974e-7c9d695ad...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Lfh <onetaste2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 10:03 am, Joker <joker4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > And the amazing thing is that a lot of people still refuse to believe
> > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > Well, it's just a theory, after all.
>
> > > > And a brilliant theory it is, truly. Some of the extracurricular uses
> > > > it's been put to, however, well, not so brilliant.
>
> > > > Fred
>
> > > What extracurricular activities would that be? What did I miss?
>
> > Oh, just the using of it as a hymnal for the atheist faith.
>
> > Fred
>
> Atheist faith. Isn't that an oxymoron?
Not at all.
Fred
3jane.
Reality TV?
Edwin Hurwitz
<1de13f89-d21c-4eec...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Lfh <onetas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
How so? Most atheists I know go on the basis of empirical evidence.
Certainly there is a level of belief that is involved, but it isn't
belief that flies in the face of evidence, ie. belief that people's
souls are somehow not related to their bodies or that a soul exists in
the first place, that Jesus will return and that there's some big weird
pissed off old white man who judges us all according to an arcane and
subjective criteria that still allows us to rip each other off and wreck
his other creations and that Jesus would prefer that we not frontally
hug each other. Most atheists are willing to change those beliefs as new
evidence comes to light. Not so with those who base their beliefs on
faith. They stick to their guns to the bitter end. I don't think you
should confuse beliefs with faith.
It's kind of like playing music with people who listen and those who
don't. Some people are convinced they are right so even if they get off
and their beat 1 is everyone else's 3, they'll continue to blast away,
confident and proud of the fact that they think they're playing the
music in a way that is beneficial to all listeners and musicians,
ignorant of the fact that everyone else is wondering what the hell is up
and why it all sounds like ass. The atheists in the band will listen and
then compensate for the mistake, not caring who made it or why, but just
wanting the truth of the music to speak.
Lfh
> > > Atheist faith. Isn't that an oxymoron?
>
> > Not at all.
>
> How so? Most atheists I know go on the basis of empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence of what, exactly? That the myths are myths? What
else do you have empirical evidence of?
> Certainly there is a level of belief that is involved, but it isn't
> belief that flies in the face of evidence, ie. belief that people's
> souls are somehow not related to their bodies or that a soul exists in
> the first place, that Jesus will return and that there's some big weird
> pissed off old white man who judges us all according to an arcane and
> subjective criteria that still allows us to rip each other off and wreck
> his other creations and that Jesus would prefer that we not frontally
> hug each other.
Beyond the bit about the soul, this stuff merely deals with the mythic
aspects of religion. So, you have evidence that the myths are just
that, myths. That’s all, though.
> Most atheists are willing to change those beliefs as new
> evidence comes to light.
You think so? As much as I’d like this to be true, I see no evidence
of it based on the atheist stuff I’ve read. There’s so much available
evidence that is extant and has been for centuries, none of it of the
mythic variety, and yet, except for the final chapter in Sam Harris’
The End of Faith, I haven’t seen any extended engagement from the
atheist wing dealing with any of it. If you know of any, I’d love to
see it. All I see is endless trashing of the myths, which gets old
really fast, or blithe dismissal and endless hair-splitting about
terminology and definitions.
That’s what I was getting at with the original statement re the theory
of evolution and the uses its been put to. Yeah, it killed the mythic
wing of religion as literal truth, but it does nothing but support
other, deeper elements of religion, the mystic systems and the idea of
the evolution of consciousness, and I don’t see any atheistic
engagement on these levels. It would be a welcome addition to the
discussion, but, apparently, shooting fundie fish in a mythic barrel
is more fun and lucrative for Dawkins and Hitchens and the choir they
preach to, which is why I find the priesthood of the atheist faith
disingenuous at best.
> Not so with those who base their beliefs on
> faith. They stick to their guns to the bitter end. I don't think you
> should confuse beliefs with faith.
I don’t see any difference between the two camps on this score. The
atheists I’ve encountered, whether through writings or in person, are
just as likely to cling to their guns as any fundie.
> It's kind of like playing music with people who listen and those who
> don't. Some people are convinced they are right so even if they get off
> and their beat 1 is everyone else's 3, they'll continue to blast away,
> confident and proud of the fact that they think they're playing the
> music in a way that is beneficial to all listeners and musicians,
> ignorant of the fact that everyone else is wondering what the hell is up
> and why it all sounds like ass. The atheists in the band will listen and
> then compensate for the mistake, not caring who made it or why, but just
> wanting the truth of the music to speak.
A lovely metaphor, but the only truth I am hearing is that the whole
band, the fundies and the atheists alike, is just blasting away, and
neither is displaying any desire to do the heavy lifting of
ascertaining the truth as far as I can see.
Fred
Edwin Hurwitz
<d36c0c1b-6d8f-47e2...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Lfh <onetas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hm, it appears I need more time and research for this discussion. I'd
love to have it when I do, though!
The evidence is largely that of evolution, of course. And the lack of
any for the "supernatural" items that form the basis of the myths of the
religious beliefs. Also, there is the unwillingness of Christians to
come to terms with actually wanting to discover the closest truths they
can get to understanding the message of their hero, Jesus. In my view,
we would need to get as close to the original writings as possible and
texts like the Essene Gospel of Peace would be a good start. What it
describes is the gospel, as in the new testament, but from the
perspective of unifying body and spirit instead of mortifying the body
in service of the spirit. After the Council of Nicea, it was stood on
its head, and now we have a world full of Christians who are espousing
exactly the opposite of what Jesus seemed to have been saying, which was
that we have paradise on earth and our body is our spiritual vessel that
can lead us to fulfillment through clean living and a true relationship
with the earth.
On the other side, I do see scientific progress in a relatively more
healthy way. Our notions of evolution themselves have evolved as well as
our notions subatomic reality. Aside from the representation of
scientists who accept global warming as part of a conspiracy for a
non-scientific agenda, I don't see too much of the kind of political
action that religion involves itself with, which why you don't seem to
experience much activism by atheists in the nature of religious people.
Basically, they all have better things to do than argue the existence of
Santa Claus.
Anyway, I'm late and it's tired and I fear for my comprehensibility, so
until next time.
Lfh
Evolution is evidence of evolution. That you somehow came to be an
atheist based on some myths being wrong is what it is--a huge leap of
faith.
> And the lack of
> any for the "supernatural" items that form the basis of the myths of the
> religious beliefs.
There's no evidence for the myths being true, ergo there is no God?
Does this sound like a sound argument to you, counselor?
> Also, there is the unwillingness of Christians to
> come to terms with actually wanting to discover the closest truths they
> can get to understanding the message of their hero, Jesus.
You are an atheist because of the unwillingness of Christians to
discover close truths? This isn't faith, but it isn't reason, either,
and it isn't to the point at all.
> In my view,
> we would need to get as close to the original writings as possible and
> texts like the Essene Gospel of Peace would be a good start. What it
> describes is the gospel, as in the new testament, but from the
> perspective of unifying body and spirit instead of mortifying the body
> in service of the spirit. After the Council of Nicea, it was stood on
> its head, and now we have a world full of Christians who are espousing
> exactly the opposite of what Jesus seemed to have been saying, which was
> that we have paradise on earth and our body is our spiritual vessel that
> can lead us to fulfillment through clean living and a true relationship
> with the earth.
Uh, this is a quite different take than the little bit I know of the
Essenes, and that last bit about the body being our spiritual vessel
is in direct opposition to the asceticism commonly ascribed to them.
Do you have an alternative source you can share?
This doesn’t much touch on the original points, though it is quite
interesting.
Fred