(February 8, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Lek Wrote: Let me simplify what I was trying to say.  Since I believe that so many of our tax contributions are wasted and wrongly spent, that, if I was an atheist, I would try to hide as much income as I could so as not to pay so much in taxes.  As a christian I am directed to pay my taxes.

So Christians aren't taxed differently. Thanks for clearing that up.

Also, as an atheist, I'm directed to pay my taxes too. And I do so. Two very good reasons: 1) it keeps my ass out of jail, and 2) as much as our government makes mistakes in my view, it is better than anarchy.

You might be comfortable with letting your god handle things, but I prefer to support real solutions -- just as I prefer the bus driver to keep his hands on the wheel, rather than let go and let god steer it.

(February 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 12, 2016 at 4:40 am)robvalue Wrote: Wait, did I read this right...

Lek gave up following the Catholic Church because it was... too hard? Too many rules?

That doesn't sound like someone who seriously thinks their immortal soul is in the balance.

Good point Rob.  The rules and laws did stress me out, but I wouldn't have left the catholic church if I didn't see that the rules weren't biblical.  I never stopped being a christian in the process.  I just grew in my faith and followed what the scriptures taught me.  Christianity isn't some rigid set of beliefs that we grit our teeth and accept, but rather a relationship with Christ that continues to develop throughout our lives.  I assume you're an evolutionist, but I'm sure you don't agree with every evolutionist as to how every detail of the process occurred.  Christians follow Christ, but have disagreements on certain meanings of scripture.  Nobody has perfect understanding of scripture on the day they die, but we all rely on Christ for our salvation.

So...

It was a coincidence that you discovered all the rules you didn't want to follow anymore happened to be unbiblical at the same time as getting fed up following them? If that's the case, what relevance is it how difficult they are to follow? If however you'd already stopped because they were hard, then clearly that was the motivating factor and you later justified it to yourself.

Sure, I'm an "evolutionist" (I doubt that's a real word) but I don't base my opinions about reality on how difficult things are to do, nor does my study of evolution have any impact on how I live my life.

Please, please don't try to tell me I base my morality on evolution. I'll give you enough credit to assume that wasn't the implication.

(February 13, 2016 at 3:28 am)robvalue Wrote: So...

It was a coincidence that you discovered all the rules you didn't want to follow anymore happened to be unbiblical at the same time as getting fed up following them? If that's the case, what relevance is it how difficult they are to follow? If however you'd already stopped because they were hard, then clearly that was the motivating factor and you later justified it to yourself.

Sure, I'm an "evolutionist" (I doubt that's a real word) but I don't base my opinions about reality on how difficult things are to do, nor does my study of evolution have any impact on how I live my life.

Please, please don't try to tell me I base my morality on evolution. I'll give you enough credit to assume that wasn't the implication.

Actually, you have it backwards Rob. I suffered under the church laws for most of my life during which time I studied the catechism a lot, but didn't read the bible much. It wasn't until after I began studying scripture that I became aware that we didn't get out from under one set of laws just to fall under another. Don't get me wrong. I believe that catholics can also be christians, but they must carry around a lot of extra baggage. That doesn't mean that they are not fellow christians.

My analogy abut evolutionists was to show that you can be one and have different ideas about specifically how it came about than other evolutionists. You can also be a christian and have different interpretations of scripture than other christians. I don't think that belief in evolution has any bearing on morality. I have come to accept an evolutionary process, but I believe God is the creator of the universe.

(February 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Lek Wrote: I don't think that belief in evolution has any bearing on morality.

How very gracious of you. So, people following science rather than 3000 year old fiction aren't automatically immoral. Nice to hear.

(February 13, 2016 at 3:15 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Lek Wrote: I don't think that belief in evolution has any bearing on morality.

How very gracious of you. So, people following science rather than 3000 year old fiction aren't automatically immoral. Nice to hear.

Rob said he hoped I didn't equate belief in evolution with immorality and I clarified my position. I wasn't insinuating anything else. I'm sure that you're a great and wonderful person, and I won't hold it against you if you're an evolutionist.

(February 13, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 3:15 pm)abaris Wrote: How very gracious of you. So, people following science rather than 3000 year old fiction aren't automatically immoral. Nice to hear.

Rob said he hoped I didn't equate belief in evolution with immorality and I clarified my position.  I wasn't insinuating anything else.  I'm sure that you're a great and wonderful person, and I won't hold it against you if you're an evolutionist.

Lek, what's an "evolutionist"?

(February 13, 2016 at 3:30 pm)The_Empress Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Lek Wrote: Rob said he hoped I didn't equate belief in evolution with immorality and I clarified my position.  I wasn't insinuating anything else.  I'm sure that you're a great and wonderful person, and I won't hold it against you if you're an evolutionist.

Lek, what's an "evolutionist"?

My definition is "one who accepts the scientific theory of evolution, through natural selection, as the way life developed".

(February 13, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 3:15 pm)abaris Wrote: How very gracious of you. So, people following science rather than 3000 year old fiction aren't automatically immoral. Nice to hear.

Rob said he hoped I didn't equate belief in evolution with immorality and I clarified my position.  I wasn't insinuating anything else.  I'm sure that you're a great and wonderful person, and I won't hold it against you if you're an evolutionist.

There's no such thing as an evolutionist, so you can stop bandying that word around now. Evolution is simply a general word for a forward process, not necessarily related to scientific ideas, and one of those ideas which has been proven through observation of empirical data within the bounds of the Scientific Method is natural selection. The Scientific Method is itself no doctrine, it has more than proven itself basic to the nature of human intelligence by proving to be reliable since at least the time of Aristotle as the best method for evaluating, re-evaluating, correcting, and perfecting ideas as they evolve. Other explanations for natural selection are exclusively used by theists, and they twist and abuse the Scientific Method, therefore they are insidious garbage.

(February 13, 2016 at 3:51 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 3:29 pm)Lek Wrote: Rob said he hoped I didn't equate belief in evolution with immorality and I clarified my position.  I wasn't insinuating anything else.  I'm sure that you're a great and wonderful person, and I won't hold it against you if you're an evolutionist.

There's no such thing as an evolutionist, so you can stop bandying that word around now. Evolution is simply a general word for a forward process, not necessarily related to scientific ideas, and one of those ideas which has been proven through observation of empirical data within the bounds of the Scientific Method is natural selection. The Scientific Method is itself no doctrine, it has more than proven itself basic to the nature of human intelligence by proving to be reliable since at least the time of Aristotle as the best method for evaluating, re-evaluating, correcting, and perfecting ideas as they evolve. Other explanations for natural selection are exclusively used by theists, and they twist and abuse the Scientific Method, therefore they are insidious garbage.

My definition comes from the dictionary; and I agree that it is not a doctrine. Since life has never been created from inanimate matter in a controlled environment, it remains a theory. If someone wants to accept it as fact, go ahead, but don't belittle those who don't accept it. If it's proven maybe they will.

(February 13, 2016 at 4:08 pm)Lek Wrote:

(February 13, 2016 at 3:51 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: There's no such thing as an evolutionist, so you can stop bandying that word around now. Evolution is simply a general word for a forward process, not necessarily related to scientific ideas, and one of those ideas which has been proven through observation of empirical data within the bounds of the Scientific Method is natural selection. The Scientific Method is itself no doctrine, it has more than proven itself basic to the nature of human intelligence by proving to be reliable since at least the time of Aristotle as the best method for evaluating, re-evaluating, correcting, and perfecting ideas as they evolve. Other explanations for natural selection are exclusively used by theists, and they twist and abuse the Scientific Method, therefore they are insidious garbage.

My definition comes from the dictionary; and I agree that it is not a doctrine.  Since life has never been created from inanimate matter in a controlled environment, it remains a theory.  If someone wants to accept it as fact, go ahead, but don't belittle those who don't accept it.  If it's proven maybe they will.

It's a "scientific theory" not a "theory" you should learn the difference.