I remember a shorter version of this poem that inspired me so deeply when I was in high school.
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
It is like saying Jesus died for all of our sins. Yeah really! I wasn't even around; so how could he? Same with me, I am sacrificing my life to find the truth so that all may share the truth I discover.
I could have gone to wiki myself if I wanted the mathematical answer, But I asked you personally what you thought was meant by normal, in a human context.
No agreed, some of us are actually not edging on lunacy. Belief in god/gods is delusion as it matches the medical definition exactly, yet it gets a free pass and is considered normal! Go figure. Religious faith can never be considered rational.Robittybob1 said:
Yeah, strangely enough there is this boundary, this neutral zone between religion and atheism, that has to be defended. I can defend the neutral zone, but I can't make in-roads. The faithful and their beliefs are worth defending; they are like merchants carrying spiritual treasure to others of faith.I deleted all that.
Oh well.
Religious freedom is a good thing, I agree. I don't think anyone here wants to take religious freedom away from anyone. It is when religion oversteps its boundaries, that becomes the problem.
No, they're not. They are just showing support ...and even those who disagree with my views, they too have shown support and encouragement. I've seen the sentiments in a different light over the past few days, and I'm overwhelmed by the generosity of people here. I really am. Isn't it interesting how atheists AND religious/spiritual people are both equally generous in knowledge and advice? What does this show you?
At the end of the day, I think you worry over where many of us may be spending eternity, should we not follow what you do. But, I don't believe in that, anymore. So, just let it go...ok?
Just let it go.
Robbitybob, Get your head straightened out. This is a religious-atheist discussion.
I was surprised when they diagnosed me as being "normal"? I said, "are you sure?" "Yes, you are within the Standard deviation". I feel different but not abnormal. I doubt if there are many who have a story to tell like mine.
See how words trap you. "You" means everyone and also you as a singular person.
"religious-atheist discussion" = Christian verses atheist = Rob verses nemesis! still applies
Allow the prophecy to come true, and I will.No, they're not. They are just showing support ...and even those who disagree with my views, they too have shown support and encouragement. I've seen the sentiments in a different light over the past few days, and I'm overwhelmed by the generosity of people here. I really am. Isn't it interesting how atheists AND religious/spiritual people are both equally generous in knowledge and advice? What does this show you?
At the end of the day, I think you worry over where many of us may be spending eternity, should we not follow what you do. But, I don't believe in that, anymore. So, just let it go...ok?
Just let it go.
We all have personal tales of fantasy to tell. If your tales have some factual basis or can be proven, then and only then can they be considered. Else they remain just stories.
And in the sea of confusion, is this gem of a post about activism, and fundamentalism.
This is a great post, and I hadn't viewed things quite like this. I think that there's much work to be done, and both sides can learn from another. Our (U.S.) educational system used to be mainly centered around teaching objective truths, and not about pandering to political correctness and special interest groups. How'd we get here? :shrug:Yes, elte... I suppose we all come to our own reconciliation with what we were taught as kids and what we now know and accept as 'truth'.
I was not "poking at Jan" only making an observation, even Jan probably agrees with. I.e. I said in post 1038:
"I see you have no interest in learning more about how the brain may work as well as about the strong EVIDENCE supporting evolution."
I might now add there are fields of knowledge, with strong supporting evidence, I have no interest in.
On evolution we have evidence that a mammal can evolve into a new smaller species (can not breed with original it evolved from) in only 8000 years! But that requires extreme selection pressure conditions for all the 8000 years. - Mainly at least half of all born dying by starvations as not as well adapted to their new environment as slightly smaller and slightly differently formed, (mostly more and longer facial hair / whisker sensors, to run thru space between rocks in the dark while searching for the rare eatable grass.) brothers and sisters. Here is old post (from 2009) found at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...evolution-II&p=2205207&viewfull=1#post2205207
-------
There are approximately 40 little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto.
About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it.
These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)
They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. Head and back fur is brown and belly fur is whitish grey.
Until they were discovered it was not thought by experts that a population of only 40 animals max could survive for thousands of years. They have, no doubt, lived all that time on the edge of extinction and practiced incestual mating with no ill effects, at least for the last 6000 or 7000 years. They are all now genetic identical. The ill effected off springs of inbreeding were selected out long ago as all live hungry on the edge of extinction at least in the mild winters. (Perhaps, like bears, they store fat during the summers - just my guess, not mentioned in the paper.)
Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct.
There is a photo of one being held, belly up, easily in the palm of a hand on page A14 of the Folio de Paulo of 18 March 2009. It longer uploads, Here are some from a Google search:
This guy at left is obviously not on the edge of starvation now, but as I hoped in next 2009 paragraph: well feed and protected in captivity.
Note the relatively powerful hid legs and "air born" "running." Those strong legs evolved for hoping / jumping over the rocks on 90+% of their tiny island.
These preá are sooo cute, with their little quasi-human quasi-monkey faces* peering out from great spread of surrounding facial hair. I bet they would make great pets. For protection of the species I hope some of the researchers think so also and steal a few for breading on the mainland and eventual sale as pets, before some fisherman's cat eats them all in less than a month.
-----------Note added in Sept 2013: Footnote below was based on the March 2009 newspaper photo. Perhaps some the flat hairless face was more due to lack of food for development than genes.
*The mostly hair free face is about the size of a lady's thumb nail, with no "snout." The eyes are slightly slanted, like an oriental's. If the nose has two opening, they are very close together. In photo the nearly flat nose and mouth look like an inverted T in a pink skin completely hairless area. I cannot be sure from the photo, but they appear to have only three strong toes. They are at the end of a a relatively long foot in the hind legs. - sort of like a rabbit's foot. I bet they do a lot of leaping hops over the rocks more than walking. The forelimbs are only half as large. They must have ears, but they are lost in the facial hair which makes their tiny heads appear to be almost as wide as their bodies. - No neck is visible.
Some of the above is also at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...volution-III&p=2672082&viewfull=1#post2672082 with posts at least to 581 discussions with earlier "anti-evolutionists" worth reading.
**bump**
If anyone missed this, it's pretty interesting. Thanks, Billy.
That humans have a deep need to be needed and that most men just want in your pants.
You're silly, chica!I posted a south park vid clip in the jokes thread the other day. I thought to myself...Trooper would so love this.
How many times do I have to say it - they are 100% true.
Her poems are no joke.
I posted a south park vid clip in the jokes thread the other day. I thought to myself...Trooper would so love this.
And who says that South Park isn't educational. My son said that the "Atheist War" clip was a must see for me. He was right. It was funny.