I agree that radicals, fanatics and zealots of both sides cause anger, hurt, division and ultimately polarization. But I think it is incumbent upon us, who profess to be religious, to hold ourselves to the standards set by our faith. In Christianity the second greatest commandment is to love ones neighbour as one loves oneself = doing to others what we would want them to do to us. My belief is that if we are truly convinced about what we believe, then nothing can possibly shake that conviction. Therefore we don't need to "protest too much" or even defend what we believe. I always think that it's those who stand on shaky ground that need to scream, jump up and down and demand that others be...

I agree that radicals, fanatics and zealots of both sides cause anger, hurt, division and ultimately polarization. But I think it is incumbent upon us, who profess to be religious, to hold ourselves to the standards set by our faith. In Christianity the second greatest commandment is to love ones neighbour as one loves oneself = doing to others what we would want them to do to us. My belief is that if we are truly convinced about what we believe, then nothing can possibly shake that conviction. Therefore we don't need to "protest too much" or even defend what we believe. I always think that it's those who stand on shaky ground that need to scream, jump up and down and demand that others believe what they believe. It's as if they need others to agree with them in order to convince themselves. The firmer the conviction, the less need to impose ones belief and rather to live it than preach about it. In an increasingly brutal and selfish world, it behooves us to exercise tolerance, patience and kindness. There's no law against these! And both sides can contribute. Let's live and let live!

(Old Chinese proverb: she who thinks by the inch and talks by the mile, ought to be kicked by the foot). So, I'm shutting up now.

using fairy tales posing as divine scripture to justify their lust for power.

I've been saying this (or similar) forever..

Now, I have no issue with people beliving in a magical dude/dudess in teh sky. go for it, good for you, I think your mildly insane, but its your right. However I have ahuge issue with you pushing your belifes on everyone else, lobbying government to make laws that follow your belifes, targeting children & brainwashing them at a young age, before they have the ability or the tools to learn fo rthemselves.

Now, if you are one of michellezm's Christians who loves their neighbor & lives in peace and such, great.. if you are one of the radical right.. well...

using fairy tales posing as divine scripture to justify their lust for power.

I've been saying this (or similar) forever..

Now, I have no issue with people beliving in a magical dude/dudess in teh sky. go for it, good for you, I think your mildly insane, but its your right. However I have ahuge issue with you pushing your belifes on everyone else, lobbying government to make laws that follow your belifes, targeting children & brainwashing them at a young age, before they have the ability or the tools to learn fo rthemselves.

Now, if you are one of michellezm's Christians who loves their neighbor & lives in peace and such, great.. if you are one of the radical right.. well, you & I will just not get along.

If the radical right didn't exist, no body would listen to Dawkins & Crew... why? because they'd have little to bitch about...

I am alos of the belief that radial religious groups are destroying the world.

MomLes said:

Which particular god don't you believe in?

Uh... none of them? that question is a little silly to ask an atheist... but it's great to ask a Christian... There were plenty of other gods around before yours.. and there are others around now that have a larger following... so what makes yours right? Nothing.. they are all make believe.

No, no, state that there is no God, by all means. It's just a matter of how it's done. And no one on this clip is forcing anything down your throat. You opened this clip. That was your choice. But please, please, stop the insults. We are mildly insane etc. Is that really necessary? You've made your point. I know, acknowledge and accept that you don't believe in God. That's your choice. But do you see me spewing venom and invective at your or comment on your anti-Christian clips? Do you? And there aren't many Christians that do. Is it too much to expect from you some courtesy, some civility, some humanity? You've made your point clear. There's no need for you to mark every Chr...

No, no, state that there is no God, by all means. It's just a matter of how it's done. And no one on this clip is forcing anything down your throat. You opened this clip. That was your choice. But please, please, stop the insults. We are mildly insane etc. Is that really necessary? You've made your point. I know, acknowledge and accept that you don't believe in God. That's your choice. But do you see me spewing venom and invective at your or comment on your anti-Christian clips? Do you? And there aren't many Christians that do. Is it too much to expect from you some courtesy, some civility, some humanity? You've made your point clear. There's no need for you to mark every Christian clip with your negativity. You've made it almost impossible for Christians to clip freely. I am not the only person on Clipmarks that feels the inhibition and ponders whether it's worth running the gauntlet of nastiness. If you have nothing reasonable to say, nothing good, keep quiet. It's simple. Keep quiet. But honestly out of all the atheist, you have been the most relentlessly negative and it's wearying. Why don't you avoid the Christian clips altogether. In that way we won't be a thorn in your side. It's as simple as that. At least have the emotional integrity and maturity to do that.

TheCatWhisperer:

I suppose as atheist you believe in discoveries of science: so I suppose, too, you believe in evolution (or development, growth, progress, advance…) as scientific fact. Ok, if you do – please, answer this simple question: what is the ultimate degree of evolution anywhere in cosmos?
You don’t know, of course. In fact nobody knows; mission impossible… You know neither what the ultimate degree of evolution is nor what kind of energies and dimension can embrace some creature on this presupposed extra high level of evolution.
You don’t know and whatever else you can say is simply guessing - speculation or dogma.

Now, tell me what are the possible consequences of this unpleasant...

TheCatWhisperer:

I suppose as atheist you believe in discoveries of science: so I suppose, too, you believe in evolution (or development, growth, progress, advance…) as scientific fact. Ok, if you do – please, answer this simple question: what is the ultimate degree of evolution anywhere in cosmos?
You don’t know, of course. In fact nobody knows; mission impossible… You know neither what the ultimate degree of evolution is nor what kind of energies and dimension can embrace some creature on this presupposed extra high level of evolution.
You don’t know and whatever else you can say is simply guessing - speculation or dogma.

Now, tell me what are the possible consequences of this unpleasant fact?

Before you start to make your answer, consider that I don’t ask for any kind of materialistic dogma (I know this dogmas already too good and I am polite if I say they are “not as bright as many hope they are”).

Of course this is tricky question. If as atheist you allow possibility that some extremely highly developed creature (as outcome of evolution) in cosmos actually can exist, your atheistic view can be threatened; yes, it is possible to anticipate that maybe even some kind of Supreme Being (oh no: GOD!) can exist!

So to keep your atheistic tail high you must to stay firmly on (in fact: to stick on) materialistic ground. But if you are bright enough, there is solution: some atheists actually permit possibility that some kind of Logos exist…

I find them smarter: generally they are not so eager to fight religious people. They simply know: religious people anticipate intuitively possible (in fact very probable) existence of highly developed being (Logos). Anticipation of those people is logically correct, only their presumptions about how this highly developed being looks like and what are his intentions can be questionable.

Duvelic,
I realise that this comment wasn't directed at me but I feel the need to offer an answer to your apparent misconception concerning the evolutionary process. You seem to be under the impression that evolution has some end product of direction that it is moving towards. This is incorrect, evolution has no pre-defined path as it is an entirely reactive process, responding to the environmental pressures that a species is subjected to. A more evolved species is not necessarily the most intelligent, fastest, powerful etc. but the one which is best adapted to it's environment.

To partly answer your question as to what the "ultimate degree of evolution" is. While I can't comment on ...

Duvelic,
I realise that this comment wasn't directed at me but I feel the need to offer an answer to your apparent misconception concerning the evolutionary process. You seem to be under the impression that evolution has some end product of direction that it is moving towards. This is incorrect, evolution has no pre-defined path as it is an entirely reactive process, responding to the environmental pressures that a species is subjected to. A more evolved species is not necessarily the most intelligent, fastest, powerful etc. but the one which is best adapted to it's environment.

To partly answer your question as to what the "ultimate degree of evolution" is. While I can't comment on the whole cosmos on earth at least Sharks are commonly considered to be the most well adapted to their environment, and therefore the best evolved.

Hi, Lembit! What is this - some kind of cats invasion or what… 

From answers.com:
mech•a•nis•tic
adj.
1. Mechanically determined.
2. Philosophy. Of or relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
3. Automatic and impersonal; mechanical.

This is origin of your claim that “evolution has no pre-defined path as it is an entirely reactive process, responding to the environmental pressures that a species is subjected to”.
This is simply your preconception (which is probably so strong part of your mentality that you can’t see it this way). And yes, of course you can prove your statement scientifically, s...

Hi, Lembit! What is this - some kind of cats invasion or what… 

From answers.com:
mech•a•nis•tic
adj.
1. Mechanically determined.
2. Philosophy. Of or relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
3. Automatic and impersonal; mechanical.

This is origin of your claim that “evolution has no pre-defined path as it is an entirely reactive process, responding to the environmental pressures that a species is subjected to”.
This is simply your preconception (which is probably so strong part of your mentality that you can’t see it this way). And yes, of course you can prove your statement scientifically, simply because mechanistic science has implanted strong “filters” (preconceptions) which strictly keep away any different possibilities.

My question for you is simple: are you able to allow that some possibilities exist for wider “informational background” behind this mechanistically determined understanding of evolution?
Or you are absolutely sure that mechanistically determined informational relationships in nature are simply alpha and omega of all existancy…?

Oh, now it is time for bed for me. See you later, you… cats lovers!

My last comment was for michellezm at first place.

I apologize, skwirlinator!
Wow, you passed 3000 comments! Congratulation and POP!

I agree with your comment 100 %. And yet, you know how extremely difficult is that kind of attitude; in fact impossible for most people.
Everybody needs some ideological background, and the question is than how to stay properly unattached/unburdened with this background.
I found my own solution, which I named: “scale of possibilities”. Instead of living from black and white (yes/now, write/wrong etc) positions I build “scale of possibilities” for different topics. I build it by learning, logical contemplation and intuition. For example: for me esoteric expla...

My last comment was for michellezm at first place.

I apologize, skwirlinator!
Wow, you passed 3000 comments! Congratulation and POP!

I agree with your comment 100 %. And yet, you know how extremely difficult is that kind of attitude; in fact impossible for most people.
Everybody needs some ideological background, and the question is than how to stay properly unattached/unburdened with this background.
I found my own solution, which I named: “scale of possibilities”. Instead of living from black and white (yes/now, write/wrong etc) positions I build “scale of possibilities” for different topics. I build it by learning, logical contemplation and intuition. For example: for me esoteric explanation of reincarnation is higher on scale of possibilities than Christian’s faith in after-life because there are some comprehensive logical explanations related to reincarnation, and in the meantime Christian’s afterlife is mater of pure (and sweet, I believe) faith at first place.
By the same type of comprehensive observation and logical thinking I find out reincarnation (as nonlinear continuation of individual, integrated information) much more possible than mechanistic time-linear comprehension of existence (which is frequent starting-point for atheists).

And now religious ones and atheists hate me together, I am afraid (joking)… I need to stay unattached... I still love them all (not joking).

We are strange animals. Your beliefs are yours and you may share them with me anytime you want. I will still have my own beliefs.
I believe (no, I won't go all the way in) that the universe is very much older than 14 billion years, The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and we as a species are like infants to particle physics.
I believe a presence (God) created all of existence and that part of it was manifest on our planet as his son.
I believe what I want about the details and tho I have faith in science I don't believe we are any closer to figuring out the universe than a baby can build a starship. We are young. We are stupid and limited. To believe that the universe is 14 billion years old...

We are strange animals. Your beliefs are yours and you may share them with me anytime you want. I will still have my own beliefs.
I believe (no, I won't go all the way in) that the universe is very much older than 14 billion years, The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and we as a species are like infants to particle physics.
I believe a presence (God) created all of existence and that part of it was manifest on our planet as his son.
I believe what I want about the details and tho I have faith in science I don't believe we are any closer to figuring out the universe than a baby can build a starship. We are young. We are stupid and limited. To believe that the universe is 14 billion years old just because that is as far as we can fathom is utter nonsense.
The core values of the people of Earth are good ones but the people are confused, self-absorbed, frightened little kids.
Most of the conflicts of our society are caused from the pettiest of circumstances.
By-the-way, My God is interdimentional and multiversal. He doesn't care about me personally and doubt he ever will. When I die my presence will be transfered to the cosmic radiation. My body will turn to dust and there will be no more me. My essence will be reformed into another living being somewhen else.
If my essence is bound by the Earth it is possible part of me will reemerge in a future human being. I may or may not remember me. I will have different beliefs as well.
To cut it short. I have theories and examples and signs and facts but its my belief and if someone doesn't like it they can go suck a toad.
If you believe you will come back as a stapler its your right. Just don't expect me to buy staples.

Too much! No, I don't believe I will come back as a stapler (or anything like that; or plant or animal…) because I prefer esoteric view (which is based on progressive development of consciousness) than Hindus religious view where you can put your stapler.

It is you business if you are not interested on topic of reincarnation. But if you decide to make step out on an unfamiliar topic, is it too much if I expect at least basic knowledge of this topic?
On net it will take you not more than hour to get basic information about esoteric teachings.
Not interested? Than please only keep your imputations for yourself. It is like if I would say to you: If you believe God is in fact big computer, com...

Too much! No, I don't believe I will come back as a stapler (or anything like that; or plant or animal…) because I prefer esoteric view (which is based on progressive development of consciousness) than Hindus religious view where you can put your stapler.

It is you business if you are not interested on topic of reincarnation. But if you decide to make step out on an unfamiliar topic, is it too much if I expect at least basic knowledge of this topic?
On net it will take you not more than hour to get basic information about esoteric teachings.
Not interested? Than please only keep your imputations for yourself. It is like if I would say to you: If you believe God is in fact big computer, coming from future (and you are a little program inside of this computer), it is your right. Just don't expect me to buy this computer.