These threads are quite interesting from the perspective of finding out another's point of view; and as such, I intend to bring forward one of the main issues of which I feel is a problem within the populace today. In this country we are lucky to have schools that teach evolution as part of the main curriculum, but in America (in particular) there are several "educational" establishments that seem to be based upon "belief" rather than "fact".

I believe strongly in evolution as the way in which life on this planet came about. The majority of creationists believe one of two major theories, either:

* The universe is 6000 years old, and a "god" created all life.
* Evolution works, but "god" fills in the gaps in the scientific records.

It is true that if something could be proved to not have been created by a "series of gradual changes" the theory of evolution would fall flat on its back; However, creationists use this as a type of scientific carte blanche.

Darwin proposed that life as we knew it originated via a series of minute gradual accumulating changes that improved survival rate; NOT as creationists would have you believe (ie. bacteria, monkey, human). The changes are in fact so gradual that you would not be able to notice them for centuries! However, a bird with 51% wingspan could fall from a greater height and survive than an equivalent bird with a 49% wingspan. This is the theory of natural selection, and as of yet, has not been proven to be unfairly represented.

Creationism on the other hand has two major problems with each proposal. If god created everything (because a high intelligence is required to create complex life) then an even greater intelligence would be required to create god, and the one before that, ad infinitum.

The other problem is that of "god" stepping in to help evolution along the way. This is just a way of saying "we don't know an answer and instead of looking for one we'll say.... god did it". Agreeing a theory is sound and then using god's name to fill in the gaps (hence the term god of the gaps) is not only intellectually inferior, but cowardly.

Teaching creationism in schools strikes me as a form of religious indoctrination; and as a result, in my eyes, a form of child abuse. Any thoughts from either side? I've ranted for too long.

Discuss here. 

Comments (11) | Add as favourites (0) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 832 | Read more...

All too often I see people using swear words for the sheer sake of it; and while in itself there is no great problem with this, it does seem to destroy the purposes of these so-called "curse" words. As language has developed; it has become common for insults to develop (from the classical "scoundrel" right through to the current popular swear words) however, once used enough, these words lose their impact! Scoundrel was used so frequently in the past, that now it has become socially acceptable; and as a result, has been consigned to the trash.

Usually people use profanity as a means to take their frustrations (due to an inability to communicate sufficiently enough) out on people who are more capable than themselves; however, some people use profanity as a habitual thing, established in their youth and kept to adulthood.

My problem with this frequential use of profanity is not in the words themselves (Hell, I'd be a hypocrite If i claimed that!) but rather that continual use of the words softens their impact on conversation.  For this reason alone i rarely use swear words unless they add something to conversation; and will maintain this philosophy until my dying day.

 Love You All
Kurtis Thorne
<3
xxx

Comments (11) | Add as favourites (0) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 907 | Read more...

emotions
It is never worth dwelling over things that affect your emotions. You feel sad so that happiness feels good, you cant have one without the other. Deal with it.

false depression
Depression isn't cool. I've been there and it wasn't a fun place to be. Pretending to be there is simply idiotic.

contraception
Stupid people procreate more. Intelligent people "plan" pregnancies. Most "talk shows" realize this and makes a show about chavs, the common precept being they "didn't think" to use contraception. Contraception should be used unless you can look after your kids. Kids don't asked to be created, and making them suffer after birth isn't fair. Forcing idiocy and religious beliefs upon them is a non-physical form of abuse. In the same way, abortion is a tad unfair, the kid didn't ask to be conceived, and murder after conception is due to ignorance (and lack of planning) on behalf of the parents.

cliques
I hate people that feel they need to fit in, then treat people that aren't in their clique as outcasts. You are no superior to anyone else, and the protection your gang offers you is purely on a superficial basis. Once you label yourself you remove everything that gives your life purpose and are reduced to a stereotype, opposed to being a unique individual. I would much rather think for myself that list off the spiel that gives you your personality.

individuality
Nobody is born with an identity. People are reactionary in nature, and behavior patterns emerge and develop in a similar way as genetic code develops. Just let your personality / identity develop along with your personal experiences.

herd conformity
However, we as a species develop from those rare few individuals who break the norm and do exceptional things. If Einstein had taken the typical blueprint and gotten a normal day-job, we would be less evolved intellectually than we are. It only takes one person to change the world, make your time on this earth count.

love
Sorry to break it to you people, but I do not believe in the idea of "love" (in it's noun form):

1. If you should claim that love is caring for someone, I suggest that caring for someone is good, but it is not love, it is caring.

2. Suggesting that love is an infatuation, then it is not love, it is an infatuation. Infatuations are bad.

3. Saying that love is a combination of attributes such as liking, caring, being interested, loyal, and enjoying somebody's company, then as great as it may be, it is not love, it is a combination of positive attributes, not a feeling that exists by itself.

4. Saying that love is a number of chemical changes that make you attached to someone, makes infatuation (unreasoning enthusiasm) a more accurate description.
   Don't confuse the VERB "love" ("I love you") with the NOUN "love" ("Love is wonderful"). These are different. I am talking about the noun, not the verb.

5. I see nothing wrong with the verb as in "I love you", it is basically a convenient and non-tedious way of saying "I like and care about you, and enjoy your company, and am loyal to you, and…" etc. It is the noun that does not exist (after all, saying a verb does not exist would be strange, like saying running does not exist).

Love comes from a genetic need to look after those that are potential mates / family in order to better facilitate genetic evolution. This is inbuilt into all of our genetic code, and our language serves to makethis seem more difficult than it actually is. Take one look at the animal kingdom and you will notice the exact same rituals that we seem to undertake in the name of "love". The only difference is, we have a NAME for it! 

Comments (11) | Add as favourites (0) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 799 | Read more...

evil
No-one can understand darkness without experiencing light, therefore everyone claiming to be on the side of good must also have been evil (EG. God). I do not denounce or worship either side, and as a result consider myself to be balanced. Am I a contradiction? Yes! But that is not a bad thing. One man's evil is another man's good; it all depends upon your tastes.

primordial soup
Mankind ARE animals, our race are just another species. So why do people from different nations wage war with each other? Surely destroying every other species must be enough? But no, we must destroy our own as well. Face facts, we are the most destructive creatures on the planet. Created in the image of God....

straw man fallacy
A straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent (take it out of context / alter) someone else's viewpoint in order to attack it more easily, knock down the viewpoint, then conclude that the original viewpoint has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the original arguments that were made. e.g.

• To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible

This doesn't take into consideration the fact that neither has the christian! Also, they have no evidence that other entities such as zeus, baal, santa claus, the flying spaghetti monster, etc, do not exist. Logically, their argument is false.

christianity and birth-rate
The one simple method to allow a religion to succeed is to have more members than the others, and what better way than to cause its brainwashed members to procreate than to write it into the doctrine itself. Hence not being allowed to use contraception, Banning abortion, Enforcing marriage (and banning sex before you are OFFICIALLY part of the church - IE, officially a member blessed by god). There are several other examples made up by church leaders in order to cause the membership to expand. Now take a look at the fact rednecks are usually brain-dead, Christian, and with large families living in abject poverty. A coincidence? Or is the brainwashing of the church involved somewhat.

thou shalt not
Kill.....Unless they believe in a different invisible man than yourself.

god's plan
If everything in the world is part of "god's plan" it raises several interesting points:

1. Freedom of choice is removed, we may as well just give up on the legal system, healthcare and all similar ideas, as all life is pre-planned and we already have our lives planned out!

2. Due to this, where the bible claims abortion and the like are sins, and not to be performed, god has complete control. Therefore, all the negative things in the world MUST also be a part of god's plan.

3. Hitler was a part of god's plan.

4. Also, Hitler was BLAMELESS, if we are to believe god has a plan.

old vs. new testament
If god is all-knowing, then how can people claim he changed his own beliefs between the old and new testament. Also, how can people selectively ignore the advocation of mass genocide, slavery, sexism and rape contained within the NEW testament? Putting words into god's mouth is a bit presumptuous really isn't it?

intentional destruction
An unpopular belief is that of the concept of armageddon. The time in which jesus will return to save christians from the "seven bowls of the wrath of God" that is poured upon the earth. Not only does this indicate that god causes armageddon, but many fundamentalist christians ACTIVELY are trying to cause the destruction of the planet. Many even have their fingers on the button in america!

selective denial
If you have no evidence to prove that your own choice of deity exists, how can you disprove the thousands of others that other people hold dear? Heaven therefore, is a small place, filled with the same fundamentalist christians that are trying to destroy the planet.

prayer
If you claim that 0.01% is a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers, you may as well pray to me, you would probably get more results!
Also, JESUS says in the bible:

• "Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

If EVERYONE who asks recieves, then surely a 0.01% success rate is a little different from the expected 100% promised in the bible. Jesus lied!

pascal's wager
Several christians have suggested to me that I "should believe for the sake of it, as there is nothing to lose then". This has several flaws.

1. Trying to fool myself into accepting an illogical dogma is not belief, it is claiming to be something I KNOW I am not.

2. Furthermore, this is purely an idea on behalf of the religious right (with everything to gain) in order to have a larger group of people to back them up. Indoctrination?

3. If I were to select christianity as my chosen faith, What if God were the wrong invisible man to follow blindly? Surely I would be going to hell according to all other faiths?

twat
God? Isn't he supposed to be irrelevant in governmental issues? If he had a say, he'd be ruling the world! Clinton was a damn sight a better president than bush ever was, and I am well aware of that despite being in the United Kingdom. Locale is totally irrelevant... The message is way more useful. Shouldn't every nation try to find a way to live under the "banner" of the same "species"? Surely that would solve more problems than bombing everyone who hasn't sent you a postcard?

the flood
What did the carnivores eat after the great flood? Did they turn vegetarian overnight? And what happened to all the drowned vegetation (apart from that olive branch)?

dinosaurs
Where actually were they in the bible?

aids
If god created AIDS to punish homosexuals, then by the same logic he also created E. Coli to punish those who eat meat.

Comments (21) | Add as favourites (0) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 822 | Read more...