John Kerry thinks atheists are “spiritual.”

Now this is interesting. A New Zealand website called Deep Fried devoted to wind surfing caught up with Presidential hopeful John Kerry to discuss with him his passion for the sport. During the course of the interview Kerry talks about spirituality in relation to wind surfing and describes how he’s a Catholic himself and how he’s fascinated with learning more about how people of other religions and cultures view their spirituality when he springs the following comment out of left field:

I find that even – even atheists and agnostics wind up with some kind of spirituality, maybe begrudgingly acknowledging it here and there, but it’s there. I think it’s really intriguing.

Kerry then goes on to talk about China and how they don’t have a “theory of Creationism” (which isn’t entirely true in as much as Creationism isn’t a theory, but a myth) and he never really explains why it is he seems to think that atheists and agnostics would end up grudgingly acknowledging some form of spirituality. For that matter, it’s difficult to say just what he means by the word “spirituality,” though the interview seems to imply he’s suggesting some form of higher power.

The word “spiritual” often means different things to different people, but the common usage relates it to matters of the spirit or soul foremost as well as to the concept of gods and the supernatural. In a strictly definitive sense then I don’t know of any atheists, myself included, who could be considered spiritual or who acknowledge spirituality in the way that Kerry suggests.

If, however, you consider spirituality to be that sense of awe and reverence for some event or situation such as witnessing the awesome power of Niagara Falls or marveling over the birth of a child then atheists and agnostics are probably as spiritual as anyone else you know. The power of nature is amazing. The mind-bogglingly immense size of the universe is overwhelming. We’re as capable of appreciating these amazing things as the next person. The key difference being that we don’t think there’s some ultimate being working behind the curtains orchestrating everything.

I’m quite capable of getting wrapped up in all the emotion that can come from contemplating the wonders of reality. I’ve expressed such giddiness here and there on this blog often when talking about some cool new scientific discovery related to Cosmology, but even something as mundane as a good thunderstorm can get me going on occasion. I’ve been told by one of my friends who is very much a believer in a higher power that I was one of the most spiritual people she knows despite the fact that I’m an atheist.

So what should we make of Kerry’s comment? Not much in the long run as it’s just another example of a believer who has a hard time coming to grips with the idea of someone not believing in a supreme being. If I had a dime for every time someone tried to tell me that I know deep down in my heart that god really exists and that I just don’t want to admit it, well, I’d be a very wealthy man by now. I’ve gotten to the point where I pretty much expect that any more.

57 thoughts on “John Kerry thinks atheists are “spiritual.”

  1. Nicely said, Les.  Remember that article in Time or Newsweek way back when researchers said they could identify specific areas of the brain that showed activity when people had “religious” or “spiritual” experiences?  I know just what they were talking about; I can trigger that “feeling of awe and oneness with the universe” at will.  I think we’re all biologically capable of feeling it; you don’t need a particular belief system for it.

    Spiritual?  Yeah, that’s a slippery word.  I’ve been known to hug a tree or two in my time.  Doesn’t mean I think it’s about to talk to me, though.

  2. Well put, Les.  I’ve always thought of myself as a deeply spiritual person, despite being an atheist.

    I think I’m going to start telling theists that I know that deep down inside, they really don’t believe in God.  We’ll see how they like it.

  3. One comment to your post, Les. I think I’d have to say that while the “Theory of Creation” is based on a mythological story, it is ALSO a perfectly legitimate theory. It’s an explanation to explain a phenomena.

    Certainly it’s a theory that is based on faith, rather than hard fact. It’s also a theory that many people do not accept. And of course, it’s a theory that different people believe to different extents (or maybe it’s a name for a group of related theories.) But it does offer an explanation to the question of why we’re all here, and some people accept it as the right answer.

    (Personally, I’ve never seen any conflict between it and evolutionary theory. Something went *pop* and things moved around, and eventually the gasses became creatures who could debate their origins. Why not God as the catalyst for the process?)

    As for the comment on spiritual atheists, I think your final comment is spot on…that his comment doesn’t mean much. If he is saying that atheists believe in things greater than themselves, then it’s an obvious comment not worth much dicussion. If he means that atheists all believe in God secretly, then he’s wrong and his comment isn’t worth much discussion. Either way…

  4. Les,
    As a poet with some license on discourse, I have addressed the dichotomy of spirituality within those seemingly not willing to acknowledge it. Among some verse are these shorter homilies:

    Our brain is not who we are.
    It’s function is to enjoin us
    To a journey that points us
    To our spirit.

    There are never endings, only altered beginnings.
    Neither problems, but solutions yet unfound.
    Bitterness is the absence of understanding.
    Move forward … live life profound.

    One must constantly
    Be reanimated
    To prevent evil
    From taking lodging.

    My heart chooses
    My eventual path,
    Not my mind.

    All the best, my friend, throughout your search.

  5. Yes, out of one’s ass…or bible or whatever. Or more specifically out of the ass of whoever dreamt that story up in the first place. Maybe Moses, maybe various writers, or a compilation. There’s nothing in the content OR the origin of the creation story that gives it an ounce of credence. Nothing.

    Someone pulled it out of their ass long, long ago. And then it was probably mangled, morphed, and merged with other bullshit legends to eventually appear as it is in the Bible.

    No one knows for sure. And it couldn’t matter any less.

  6. I agree Brandi,
    In my (modest) opinion there is nothing legitimate about the Theory of Creation.
    Ok I must admit I have not really read the bible in depth or did alot of research abouth faith, but I seem to realize that the more things in life we discover and understand the harder it is for people who believe in a godlike power or a theory of creation.
    I really don’t understand how some faiths can sustain many of their views when mothern science proves it wrong…..

    P.S. Les my compliments on this site I just recently found it and I really enjoy reading the articles… a very nice balance between humor and serious discussion…

    Greeting,
    Menno (from Holland)

  7. J1 is right that it’s a legitimate theory in the most generous definition of the word. I should have clarified my statement to say that it’s not a scientific theory, which it isn’t. From a science standpoint Creationism could be considered a hypothesis, but not a theory based on the lack of evidence outside of the Bible to support it.

    That said, I agree with J1 in that I’ve never really understood why Christians have a problem with either the Big Bang theory or the theory of Evolution.

  8. Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the day that “God” supposedly created plants come before the sun and the moon were both established as astral bodies (I think it was the third and fourth day, I’m not quite sure)?  Even if people were to consider god as the starter of the “big bang”, and that the days of creation were to be stretched out into more of an abstraction of ages rather than the rising and setting of the sun, plants could never come before the creation of the sun - photosynthesis, duh.

    And if you consider the first bacteria on earth to be plants, who were fueled by chemical reactions rather than photosynthesis, they were from the Kingdom Monera, and were not plants.

    Creation is a story written before science, so that people could find an explanation of why we were here.  So if that’s not true, how can one even believe the REST of the stuff the Bible says?  Jeez, Lord of the Rings had less plot flaws than the Old and New Testaments.  Maybe the Bible should have gone with a single author instead.

  9. joshman3D

    i may be reading your post about creation wrong, but i think you are saying that plants could not have been created before the sun.  the light at the time was provided by God Himself.  He is light.  According to the bible, He is the only light in Heaven also.  (i know you may believe its all a myth, and thats fine.  i am not trying to prove creation to you or the existance of God, just saying your sun/plant theory can not refute creation.) ( nor am i saying mine proves it)

  10. i am sure some of you are aware of it, but there are some very interesting facts about creation/origin of our planet by a guy name Dr. Carl Baugh.

    His stuff is actually much too scientific for me, but he kinda lays out the model of creation on his web-site.  http://www.creationevidence.org

    I also have a set of his videos that i would loan out to a select FEW of you if you were interested. (not in an attempt to convert, but just providing info)

  11. God is made up of photons? Who woulda thunk it? Here’s a question, can God travel faster than himself? And if he can, does he experience the time dilation effect? Maybe God is a lot younger than the universe? Truly mind boggling!

    i am sure some of you are aware of it, but there are some very interesting facts about creation/origin of our planet by a guy name Dr. Carl Baugh.

    I’ve read some of his stuff. It’s almost as funny as some of “Dr.” Kent Hovind’s work. Almost.

    His stuff is actually much too scientific for me, but he kinda lays out the model of creation on his web-site.

    That comment actually made me laugh. Randall, give yourself some credit, man. Even I think you’re more than intelligent enough to at least understand this guy’s claims. Why you’d buy into them is another issue altogether.

  12. i am sure some of you are aware of it, but there are some very interesting facts about creation/origin of our planet by a guy name Dr. Carl Baugh.

    Dr. Baugh is the dinosaur guy. Here is a blurb from Who Are The Creations “Scientists”? at Creation “Science” Debunked.

    [list]Another small organization which gets some press occasionally is the Creation Evidences Museum near Glen Rose, Texas. The Museum is run by the Rev Carl Baugh, who has a PhD in anthropology from the College of Advanced Education, an unaccredited Bible college on the grounds of the Sherwood Park Baptist Church. The primary attractions of the Museum are the so-called “man tracks” from nearby Dinosaur Valley State Park, along the Paluxy River. According to the creationists, the state park contains dinosaur tracks alongside those of modern humans, proving that the two lived together. Baugh has also claimed to have found a fossil human tooth buried among the dinosaur bones. Ever since his major claims (including the footprints and the “human tooth”) have been debunked, Baugh is viewed as somewhat of an oddball by the major creationist groups.[/list]

  13. God is a wave AND a particle.
    The Holy Duality?  I thought it was supposed to be a Trinity… hmmm, maybe we’re still missing a piece?

  14. to the gang…
    thanks for commenting on carl baugh.  there are some creation christian types that dont believe him, but they wont really come out and bust him.  you cant really get anything from him either or those close to him.  i figured as much that you guys that have you game on would have come across him.  i think he is protected by the fact that he has a program on tbn and that he has done a series with the great kenneth copeland.

    les i have not bought into them,  i just think that some of his stuff is interesting.  i guess i am more interested in how if he is a nut job and a lot of his ideas are in error how he gets away with it.

  15. Hi All…
    Nice website Les!! Found it today…enjoyably entertaining. Funny how Kerry’s statement sparked a creational/evolutional debate on this forum.  Anyhow, I just wanted to add, with total sincerity, that it is extremely tragic that we as humans often confuse cynicism with having an open mind. Its so easy to ‘debunk’ any theology/philosophy by amplifying doubt and ignorance.  A ‘true’ open mind requires an acceptance of ALL options, followed by earnest effort to educate oneself about the issue/view/philosophy/etc.
      Cynicism and ‘Open-Mindness” are in direct conflict, but so many of us do not know the difference;  i.e. Brandi and The Clown(sorry guys..just trying to help). This attitude is dangerous because it breeds ingorance, intolerance, amd misinformation.  Most importantly, it robs the individual of opportunities for higher understanding and self improvement;  things which all of us should strive for regardless of ‘spiritual beliefs’.
      Having an ‘open mind’ is not easy.  It can be very painful and requires EFFORT.  That is why I believe so many of us are proffesional cynics…its the easy way out.  All you have to do is cast a shadow of doubt on something and then you dont have to actually THINK FOR YOURSELF. 
        As an Environmental Scientist/Geolgist I can tell you that “Scientific Intellectualism” and the Bible jive quite well together depending on your interpretation.  The version we read(English)can differ significantly from the original texts in meaning due to transaltion and semantics.  For example, the name ADAM in Genesis is taken directly from the Hebrew word for MAN…meaning not one man, but ALL men.  The Hebrew word for day(yom) does not specifically denote a 24-hour solar period, but just some indetermined period of time.  Genesis also refers to other dimensions(at least 19)interacting with our own 4(space-time).  Also, keep in mind that ‘Science’ is just the accumulation of observable processes that we notice and have studied.  ‘Science’ was not aware of things such as gamma,x,uv-rays until recently(respectively), does that mean they did not exist 400 years ago?  Did we not have things(phenomena) outside of the visible light spectrum during the Revolutionary War?  Based on some people’s ‘intellectual’ reliance on science…I’m afraid to hear their answer.  Basically, what I’m saying is the science cannot and never will be able to disprove the existence of a intelligent designer or ‘religous’ documents.  So quit using “Science” as an excuse for a lazy or ill-equipped brain.  You have confused cynicism for an open mind.
        Sorry to rant…this wasn’t directed at you Les.  I was just urked by some people making definitive claims without research or serious thought.

  16. I’ll own up to my fair share of cynicism, but is that the same as being closed minded? I don’t think so. I’m willing to consider any claim you want to put forth, but if you can’t back that claim up with much beyond anecdotes then I’m going to let my cynicism kick in. In short, give me good reason to believe your claim and I’ll probably believe it.

    There’s a common misconception that having an open mind = believing everything that has even the flimsiest of evidence. That’s not an open mind, that’s unending gullibility. Contrary to your assertion, being cynical isn’t merely an act of casting a shadow of a doubt and then writing off the subject nor is it equivalent to not thinking for yourself. I’m cynical because I do think for myself and end up being chastised repeatedly for coming to the conclusion of not accepting every ridiculous claim that’s presented to me.

    With regards to your examples of Biblical interpretation all I can say is I’ve probably heard several hundred different ways of interpreting the Bible some of which are compatible with a scientific viewpoint and many that aren’t. The fact that it can be interpreted in a way that is more or less compatible with science isn’t really an argument in support of believing any of it as true. In fact, I would argue that all the different ways of interpreting the Bible is more of an argument against it than for it.

    Yes, there are many things that science didn’t know about for hundreds of years. That are, as you say, relatively recent discoveries. That doesn’t mean we should blindly accept every claim presented before us without good reason to do so.

    I agree that science will never be able to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer, but then most definitions of an intelligent designer make him/her/it to be super-natural and thusly beyond science’s concern in the first place. By it’s very definition it is an unfalsifiable claim and science doesn’t deal in unfalsifiable claims. Again, however, that doesn’t mean we should believe in an intelligent designer without good reason to do so.

    As for using science as an excuse for a lazy or ill-equipped brain… funny, I’ve said the same thing about religion.

  17. Sorry fellas…

    I didn’t mean to offend or get in a pissing match with anyone.  My comment was directed to those whose use the broad explanation of ‘science’ as a shield to refute anything beyond their own existence.  ‘Religion’ is used the same way by many as well.  Both promote ignorance, intolerance and discourage free thought and progression of truth.

    I didn’t intend to equate cynicism with a close mind, and the only real claim I made was that some people are so cynical, they will not even make an effort to consider an opposing view. Some act as if as long as they have a counterpoint, no further thought or investigation of the topic is necessary.

    I agree you should not blindly ‘accept any ridiculuos claim presented’ to you, but the processes of elimination must begin somewhere.  And if you honestly come to a conclusion based on research and what you perceive truth to be..then you are open minded, and not by definition a’cynic’.

    I also know about being chastised, especially after posting here(just kidding).  Unfortunately it happens almost anywhere you express yourself in the presence of an opposing majority view. Its one of the shittier aspects of human nature.

     

     

  18. Now, that’s what I consider to be a much more reasonable follow up reply. Thanks. And I really mean that too.

    I don’t disagree that science can be just as easily used to avoid consideration of new ideas as religion can be. Hell, some folks don’t bother to use either and just refuse to consider new ideas outright.

    I think your concept of what it means to be cynical might be a little off, though. As I understand the word it’s usually used in reference to an attitude that tends to assume motivations are usually selfish or any particularly situation is more negative than positive. Someone who rejects ideas without further thought or investigation is just closed minded, but not necessarily cynical. Certainly it’s possible to be both.

    It would be cynically closed minded to say, for example, that all religions are nonsense simply because all clergymen are just trying exert a different kind of power over the masses and the threat of an imaginary God is a means to that end. That is both closed minded and cynical.

    I agree you should not blindly

  19. Also remember, Les, it’s not really as if you haven’t considered the opposite viewpoint.  Hell, you read the freakin’ Bible, didn’t you?

  20. I guess Les, that I may have misused ‘cynicism’ in the context of my previous statements.  I was using it in the excessively faultfinding captious sense, and not merely meaning skepticism or suspicion.  Maybe I should have refined my meaning, or replaced cynical with ‘overly critical to a fault’.  Still, I think I have a valid point…and thought it might be useful for SOME to consider. Its obvious that you, Les, are not in this category, and this website is proof that lazy and ill-equipped does not apply to you.

    As for others…You can read the freakin’ Bible, Koran, Torah, Sagan, Hawking, Ram Dass, Copernicus, or whatever;  but if you don’t try to understand and/or challenge them, they will probably be as useful and meaningful as the list of preservatives on your TV dinner.

  21. Les,
    Leaving the Bible or any other tome concerning intelligent design on the shelf, I am curious about your astutely scientific atheisism.  How do you react to reports of paranormal events or supernatural phenomenom?  Is it all dismissable, as it would seem to me it must be in order to be concurrent with a pannatural view?
      Additionally, how do you rationalize
    the fact that energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, is released in enormous abundance whenever a human being dies (scientifically proven through measurements.)  I am making no assertions, but asking you; is this energy independent of the host body?

    I appreciate your thoughtful logic and your devotion to the maintainence of this site, which oddly I found through a search engine steer after seeking information about and typing in the words
    “primordal dwarfism,” about which I was doing a study.

  22. Why don’t you start reading here?

    Additionally, how do you rationalize
    the fact that energy, which can neither be created nor destroyed, is released in enormous abundance whenever a human being dies (scientifically proven through measurements.)

    Huh? The kind of energy that requires ESP to detect?

  23. Les,

    You say in regards to creationism: “It is not a perfectly legitimate theory, since it defies most of the laws of nature, and is in direct contradiction to things we know to be true with a good level of scientific certainty.” 

    But, if something, a source if you will, made up the laws of nature, wouldn’t it be possible that our understanding of the laws is limited?  I mean what if there’s a side door, where what is actually happening does not smash against the wall of reason (“what we know to be true”), but side steps it to another open room?  BTW: I think creation is worthless as theory.

  24. Nicely said, Les. Remember that article in Time or Newsweek way back when researchers said they could identify specific areas of the brain that showed activity when people had

  25. all of you are wrong and dumb ,i think that
    god is out there doinng good. im’ a christen and i’m poud of it, God is not bad at all. its the humen is the beam for war because humen can not be peaceful

    p.s
    God exist.Only mormen are the tread becuse they think they can goto heaven if they sleep with a 13 old girl

  26. VernR said, “Nicely said, Les. Remember that article in Time or Newsweek way back when researchers said they could identify specific areas of the brain that showed activity when people had

  27. I find it very interesting that no one has mentioned (as far as I saw) The ICR - The Institue for Creation Research. - If no one thinks there is SCIENTIFIC evidence for creation check out icr’s site.  Here’s a link to some information…

    http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

    I’m saying there is any scientific PROOF but that there is no scientific proof for evolution OR creationism - THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THEY ARE BOTH THEORIES!  If there were proof for either then it would no longer be a theory because there would be proof.  A theory is something that has yet to be proven.  Both are theories…

  28. From the icr.org link above…
    “One example of the scientific evidence for creation is the sudden appearance of complex fossilized life in the fossil record, and the systematic gaps between fossilized kinds in that record. The most rational inference from this evidence seemingly is that life was created and did not evolve.”

    Ah yes!  When you don’t know how something happened, it’s proof of god!

    Lack of evidence proves nothing.

    Uh-oh, left brain thought…
    Does OJ getting away with murder prove that God exists?

  29. Arrival, I must say your interpretation of what constitutes a theory is… interesting. Wrong, but interesting. And we’re more than familiar with the folks at the ICR. I often read it when I need a good laugh or two.

    Evolution is indeed a theory, but not because it doesn’t have any scientific evidence in support of it. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, shouldn’t even be called a theory as it doesn’t qualify as one. At best, it’s a hypothesis and at worst it’s conjecture. Let’s take a moment to look at just what a scientific theory is. We’ll use the Wikipedia.org entry for this as it’s more than adequate:

    Sciences

    In sciences, a theory is a model or framework for understanding. In physics, the term theory generally is taken to mean mathematical framework derived from a small set of basic principles capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. An example would be “electromagnetic theory”, which is usually taken to be synonymous with classical electromagnetism, the specific results of which can be derived from Maxwell’s equations.

    The term theoretical to describe certain phenomena often indicates that a particular result has been predicted by theory but has not yet been observed. For example, until recently, black holes were considered theoretical. It is not uncommon in the history of physics for theory to produce such predictions that are later confirmed by experiment.

    For a given body of theory to be considered part of established knowledge, it is usually necessary for the theory to produce a critical experiment, that is, an experimental result which cannot be predicted by any established theory.

    The word

  30. Arrival.
    2 problems with that

    1. ALL the so called evidence on ANY Creationism website is pure BULLSHIT made up to give ignorant little Christians something to point to and say “See here’s PROOF” its hogwash, of ZERO scientific value, ZERO Falsifiable/verifiable evidence. Most if not ALL these so called “Creationist Scientist” Duane Gish being one of the biggest culprits have all been discredited so many times in so many ways by so many REAL scientist that they have become laughing stocks of the Scientific community.
    Duane Gish will not even enter real debates anymore.
    He & his creationist brethren have been proven countless times to be nothing but either liars or bullshit artist.

    2. Evolution in and of itself IS FACT it happens, its real, its Falsifiable, its verifiable, there are mountains of empirical evidence to support it from ALL the various fields or research and they ALL collaborate one another.
    In over 150 years not ONE SINGLE scientist has EVER proven Evolution wrong in anyway, thus each and every one of those 1000s of scientist & no doubt millions of experiments over those 150 years have done nothing but added more solid evidence toward the FACT of evolution.
    Evolution is both FACT & Theory.

    The FACT of Evolution is that it IS the method of how & why we are here, PERIOD. It all fits, all the predictions are being found exactly where they are supposed to be etc.
    The theory of evolution is simply because evolution is not 100% complete and probably never will be since that is the very nature of evolution it evolves, it has something to do with every thing on this planet in one way or another. They have yet to prove every single aspect, same goes for Gravity, last time I checked Gravity IS FACT, yet still theory.
    The probability of evolution NOT being fact is so infinitesimally small that its not worthy of discussion 0.00001%.

    Creationism is not Falsifiable its based entirely on religious MYTHOLOGY.
    To believe in creationism you may as well also believe in Zeus & flying Unicorns as they all have the same root of origin & same “evidence” to support them. The possibility of Creationism being fact is exactly the same as Evolution NOT being, virtually nil.

    Here is your origin of the Jesus MYTH, read this site start to finish, realize as you read that this information can be verified and cross referenced, its archeological fact, the text and the artifacts can be researched cross referenced and verified to be real. In some cases the “absence” of data or fact is just as telling.

    THIS is your origin of Creationism a bogus plagiarized religion that can without any doubt be proven to be utter BULLSHIT with tangible empirical evidence.

    http://www.jesusmyth.homestead.com/index.html

    The ONLY reason Evolution is even up for any debate at all and not 100% accepted by everyone on the planet is simply because of the Millions of complete idiots worldwide brainwashed into believing in fairytales told by ancient people around campsites 1000s of years ago. Even in this day & age of human evolution we are very technically advanced which comes mainly from the scientist which have socially evolved past the stone age.
    Meanwhile the vast majority of humans on this planet socially & culturally haven’t even reached the dark ages yet.

    http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html

    I used to be convinced that Gish was a conscious liar, because so many of the things he says are demonstrably false, and he is neither stupid nor uneducated. In the last few years, I have changed my mind. I now think that Gish is so severely deluded that he can no longer distinguish what he wants to believe from reality, at least on a conscious level.”
    William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey (1991) state:

    “We…were convinced at first that he must be a deliberate liar, but now we have concluded that he is not. …Gish says only what supports his belief. In his mind, that cannot possibly be a lie. … We also think that sometimes he says what he wishes were true. If he wishes he hadn’t said something, then he didn’t say it.” [italics in original]

    David Milne (1991) states:

    “[Gish] says things that are false, now, but I suspect that he no longer even realizes it, or cares. … He may have known, at one time, that there was something shaky or even devious about his claims, but he’s made them so long now, that they have taken on a truth of their own for him.”

    A lack of integrity, whether deliberate or not, usually damages one’s reputation, but instead, Gish’s tactics have helped enhance the credibility of the Institute for Creation Research, and probably that of the entire creationist movement. Teachers and scientists struggling with the threat of creationism need to be fully aware of the exact methods used by one of the most popular advocates of creationism. A campaign based on errors and distortions does not require respect, or the time and effort spent in fighting it. If tactics such as Gish’s become common knowledge, we can perhaps begin to close the creationist chapter and get back to the work of real science.

     

    Yet Christians will continually believe lying sacks of shit like Duane Gish spewing Creationist lies over hard tangible empirical evidence for Evolution.

    The small mind of the religious “believer” is nothing short of a embarrassment to humanity.

  31. Regarding the 4/16 statement of Nunyabiz -
    “The ONLY reason Evolution is even up for any debate at all and not 100% accepted by everyone on the planet is simply because of the Millions of complete idiots worldwide brainwashed into believing in fairytales told by ancient people around campsites 1000s of years ago.”

    Considering >80% of the adults in this country believe there is a supernatural Creator, you must hold 8 out of every 10 of your countrymen in very low regard (“complete idiots.”) It seems amazing that a nation could survive, let alone grow with an idiocy rate of 80%!  Within my own observations, I have found the condescending rhetoric and lack of consideration of the intelligence (whether formally groomed or stimulated through lifetime experiences) demonstrated toward those in opposition to the notion that we are all just an act of random atomic activity, as a hallmark of the atheist; who, denying justification for existance beyond chance, constructs his own purposeful righteousness to which no one else can possibly aspire unless they believe closely as he does.  Hmmm, almost sounds like a religion doesn’t it?
    (I thought it interesting that Nunyabiz chose to capitalize evolution in his/her thoughtful statement.)

    Yep… a religion with absolutely no payoff.  We’re born, we live, we die.  For the atheist, how can anyone have any more value than that… any more purpose than that?  (With the possible exception of the purpose of debunking spiritual acknowledgement by others.) A son, A daughter were not “given” to the atheist.  The atheist, through his/her own finely tuned creative ability (science hasn’t been able to quite crack THAT nut yet), “gave” life to their own progeny for no more purpose than to sustain the whole irrational program for yet another generation.  Gosh!  Why can’t “100% ..(of)everyone on the planet” buy into that?  Perhaps it lacks something science can never approach.  Perhaps it is just too grim a concept.  Perhaps there is some spark within homo sapien that sets one apart from the blade of grass that is birthed, lives, then dies.

    Love of a Creator (as opposed to love of any theory) is essential for peace within the human heart.  Without an author, no theme.  Without theme, no purpose.  Without purpose, no use.  Without usefulness, no rhythm.  Without rhythm….. there is only decay within chaos.

    Are you familiar with the Theory of Random Chaos?  That left unguided, all things gravitate toward chaos.  I know an atheist who says, “Well, look around you… we MUST be unguided because chaos is abounding.”  But people have offered this same sad notion since before Socrates noted it.  If in fact we were ruled by chaos, civilization would have exhausted thousands of years ago as the strong dominate, plunder and annihilate the weak.  If evolution is our binding force, there should be no reason to not follow that recipe, we are here only as another form of animal. Taking what territory or possessions we can with no regard to such abstact ideas as “feelings” or “rights.”  Charity would not only be an abnormality, but would be counter-productive to self-actualization.  In practice, this was the mindset of >80% of the world’s population until a man named Jesus said, “I have a theory of evolution. Would you like to hear it?”

  32. Love of a Creator (as opposed to love of any theory) is essential for peace within the human heart.

    Says who?

    “Love of a Creator” certainly doesn’t make the WORLD more peaceful now, does it?  Last I looked we’ve got thousands of dead people who got that way because of some religious nuts’ love of their Creator.  The world would be a whole lot better off if people would keep their love of their Creator to themselves and quit trying to strong-arm everyone else into their fucking delusions.

  33. Oh my. Ron’s comment qualifies as “condescending rhetoric and lack of consideration of the intelligence demonstrated toward those in opposition to the notion that” the Christian dogma offers a valid explanation of the origin of species.

  34. Geekmom,
    How ironic you chose the words “lack of imagination” to desribe my comments.  Imagination is that process within the mind that guides the creation process from nonexistence into being.  I am not sure that that has been proven to be an evolved trait.  But, it is a fact that no other species has developed a life-expanding imagination to the level of the latest species to have evolved on earth.  In fact, Geekmom, I am very much aware of mankind’s desire to be good and noble.  My point was, that fact goes against the forces of the natural world, and points to an unknown imprint.  A variable that sticks like a chicken bone in the throat of evolution’s apologies.

    To elwedriddsche and OB,
    As far as “strong-arming” or a “condescending” attitude…. if you knew me personally, you would find that I live this philosophy: I am more when you are more to me.  I have the requirement to listen and learn from any source and respect the character traits that helped another to develop their opinions.  If you reread my post to which you refer, I offered nothing derogatory nor demeaning.  It is not my nature.  This goes to show that truth can be shrouded and truth can be subjective.  (I will admit to a sarcastic streak, but it is never aimed at another human being, unless they are my best friends. lol)

    I found this site by a fluke and stayed to read and ponder due in large part to the intelligent, wit and ..yes.. sarcasm demonstrated by many of the posts.  The tone is set by Les and I enjoy it.  Attacking others merely points to the accuracy of my statements 4 posts ago that we have, by some means beyond evolution, the capacity to supercede lives given over to merely allowing might to make right.  Our horror that someone can, in the name of God, subjugate other human beings is in itself the mark of an enlightened conciousness, not an instinctual, “nature-as-my-guide” vestige of our climb down from the trees into a clearing where we joined hands.  I don’t question the evidences of construction over a very long period of time.  I just question the ability of one to bend down before one’s child and say eye-to-eye, “All we are is dust in the wind.”

  35. I just question the ability of one to bend down before one’s child and say eye-to-eye, “All we are is dust in the wind.”

    While I’ve sung that line on a Las Vegas stage, I’ve never used it to explain anything to my 12-year-old.  In fact, on Good Friday it went like this:

    Mom: (holding out a basket full of chocolate treats) I’ve got something to tell you, honey.  The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and God… none of them are real.

    Princess:   Uh, Mom, I already knew that.  Do you think I’m retarded?

    So, question no more, Ron.  Parents (and apparently children) are quite able to “bend down” and speak the truth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.