ExRx.net

I second that motion.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

"If I were to just come out and say I just plainly don't believe any religion and live life by own moral values and "belief system", I would deeply offend them (even though they are aware of this). It would basically be World War 3." - KPj

I don't see anything offensive about it. Nor do I expect everyone to share my beliefs.

It's just getting interesting Ken.

_________________
What if the Hokey Cokey really IS what it's all about?

Yea, that's the double standard I see. I have a thick skin and can go with the flow though (you have to, to be openly atheist in America). I don't get offended per say, but if someone uses it to make an assertion of truth, I make a counter argument. Some of the more extreme stuff offends me, but I don't let it get to me. However I think if I just lost a loved one and I was told some really inane religious platitude, particularly about god's plan or something, I would utterly lose it. Other than that, it's nearly always just a counter argument.



That's exactly right. For a lot of religious people it's about faith, so the whole thing is completely pointless to them. Some of them look at apologists as heretics, as if attempting to prove god devalues faith. You can argue against the rationality of faith, but one argument and it's over, because they don't care.

Jebus
That's true of some of them. It's true of the vast majority to a small extent too. You have to keep in mind though they do face a lot of persecution in certain countries like the US, and even in some parts of the UK. So there is a lot of oversensitivity, but they face real discrimination in some places. The same goes for Christians in Muslim majority countries. Really religious minorities in general face some adversity like that.


Ken, I understand where you're coming from. You did enter into that conversation of your own free will. Again, I am sorry you got your feelings hurt. That wasn't how I wanted that to go. I've tried to make up, but this is a two way street here.


Matt Z
That's a nice sentiment, I appreciate that.

Your paraphrasing of me are all things that are in some cases a little harsher, and in other cases MUCH harsher than anything I would say....well about religion anyway. So I think this shows how sensitive you are, and that you are seeing implications that aren't there, and taking comments much worse than face value, or how they were intended. At least now I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, and why this is coming out in this way.


I never assert, unless I think I am saying something that is pretty well established. If you notice, I usually provide a logical argument, for WHY it is true, and/or empirical evidence. It's not an opinion, if it's an objective fact that can be proven with logic or evidence. If you don't agree you can offer a rebuttal, or if it's something I thought was not in question by anyone, and you don't agree, you can always ask for an explanation.


In this instance you would have to rely on logical fallacies to make it look like that. Statistics can lie when applied in deceptive ways. I have actually debated people who tried to assert that sort of thing. Their arguments are full of holes and easily defeated. Believing something is the truth, and having a basis for knowing it's true are two different things.


It's not. I actually have a basis in logical deduction and/or empirical evidence. Unless of course it's a subjective thing. If I'm not sure, or I'm speculating, I usually say so. I can make a mistake, but I don't believe anything without reason. It's part of being a skeptic/rationalist. I know most people don't do things that way, so it's hard to understand.

Evolution/natural selection is as rock solid as science gets. There is even more evidence for it than gravity. I know you may have learned differently, but I can assure you it's not actually true. Evolution is a proven thing. There are transitional fossils and even better cellular evidence. Epigenetics in particular is very strong conclusive evidence. Now that I understand where you are coming from, I want to try to communicate this in the nicest way possible.


You mean Jebus? All 1 of them. That's the only other outspoken atheist here. He was pretty hardline at one time. He seems to avoid the topic lately though, unless someone else is already talking about it.

Yes, it's this, really. So I also come from an emotionally biased position. However, when I hear things about God looking out for someone literally going through hell, deep down it offends me because I can't help but consider the logic (not even the evidence, just the logic) and, to be frank, become infuriated by it. In my case I do appreciate the sentiment and I try and bare in mind that i'm probably being overly sensitive because i'm emotionally involved, which is why I tend not to say anything out loud.

It never used to bother me at all before. I'm an Atheist, btw. However, as mentioned I was never forced to be religious and was left to make up my own mind. Religion just never moved me. A lot of "outspoken" atheists were forced into religion then converted so they tend to be quite bitter about it. I didn't go through that which is probably why I tend to never get involved in religious discussions - it's not something I was ever passionate about.

It's worth mentioning that people of faith become infuriated by the logic behind religion, too. In fact, i sometimes feel sorry for the priest that deals with my grandmother every week, as she desperately tries to find "answers". She would never, even for a second, question her faith but, she (and i'm sure many others) question the logic, particularly when times are hard.

KPj

_________________
Thanks TimD

I was raised to be religious. So I do have some baggage about that. I find certain things like the infinite punishment of hell for a finite "crime" to be morally depraved. I really can't think of anything more vile and unfair. It's not that people discussing it offends me, so much as I find the idea utterly despicable. Prayer and the violation of gods causality in light of his omniscience, the way no matter whether a prayer is answered or not, it's still attributed to god, but nothing bad is blamed on him, the strange barbaric ideas of morality that mirror the times they were written in, the way god has to become Jesus and sacrafice himself to himself to forgive people, instead of just forgiving them, particularly in light of the "sin" having to do with a crime committed by a distant ancestor prior to them knowing right from wrong, in a precarious situation god left them in, and stuff like the ark.... it just makes no sense. So the lack of logic bothers me as well.

When I was a kid I just figured it would make sense when I got older, and carried on believing anyway. It never made sense. The more I thought about it, and the more I read the bible, the more I realized that. Now the platitudes common in speech here in the US, just make me roll my eyes.

@ Ironman - I can understand why you would be irritated with Steffan for inserting religion into a factual discussion about science, not to mension his condescending tone, or the fact that he states his beliefs as fact. However, when you attack religion you also come off as condescending. That rubs a lot of people the wrong way (myself included). Meanwhile, some of us expect more from you.

Getting back to the original topic, I once compared my hand to the life-sized hand print of a gorilla. Surprizingly, the fingers were no longer than my own (which are fairly short). However, the gorillas actual hand was MUCH longer. This presumedly has some advantage for the gorilla ... possibly allowing greater grip strength. Meanwhile, I've often wondered if there might be some inverse relationship between strength and dexterity/fine-motor skills ... at least with regards to bone structure.

I've always thought that might be the case too. Neanderthals supposedly had a lot of grip strength. I remember seeing an article about that a couple years ago.

In my head I always pictured Neanderthals living in an open steppe or tundra type environment, but in fact they lived largely in wooded valleys. That might parly explain why they aren't known to have developed projectile weapons ... in dense forest a thrown spear would be very likely to deflect off branches and miss its intended target.