There's still a lot of discussion on the topic of evolution. While most reasonable people - even those who call themselves religious - have finally accepted that evidence doesn't lie, there are still a good number of others who hold onto the creation myths with every fiber of their being. To those who worry for superstitious people I want to say there's no need to fear, they'll evolve too. I have no doubt of this.
Not one of those who truly believe that any religious book is truly the infallible "Word of God®" will continue in holding onto those beliefs. Eventually, the facts will get through to them. I'd like to believe even Fred Phelps and company might one day catch on to just how wrong they really are. There's no guarantee of this, but I hope just the same. (Should he die before coming to the truth, let's all simply express our condolences to his family and nothing more, as a demonstration of how unlike him the rest of humanity really is.)
What could possibly give me such hope? Believe it or not, it's the Christian church and their 33,000 plus variations that have existed thus far. Looking at their history compared to what's in their own holy writs, leads me to conclude they themselves have adapted over the years in order to survive. Adaptation and survival is what living things do, after all. In fact, the Bible we have today is nothing more than the result of centuries of evolution of various deities.
Most church's modern-day policies, which prove to be more accepting to lifestyles which were at one time a guaranteed death sentence according to the Bible, show that no thinking human can now agree that the scriptural rules themselves make sense in light of reality.
Who is that would actually sentence a rebellious son to death by stoning these days? What kind of people would actually rely on prayer and the laying on of hands as in Acts 5:16, rather than seeking real medical attention? Okay, these people might, but that's the point. Here in the real world, we know the Bible is basically irrelevant. Even the faithful (in general) no longer recognize the Bible as infallible these days. They've evolved too.
Eventually, mankind (in general) will come to clearly see the gods for what they were - humanity's best guess at the mysteries surrounding us in this most fascinating world, at the time. Once science began exploring this world, questions arose which challenged dogma and in fear of losing large portions of the finances from the flock, religious leaders attacked out of a sense of self-preservation.
Those of us who have refused to hold our world back for the sake of myths eventually got through though - sometimes paying the ultimate price for the sake of future generations - and even religious leaders can no longer deny the evidence, as much as they might still squirm.
Some day, even the more primitive and sometimes violent religions, such as Islam will come along as well. Headway is beginning to be seen now, even as I write this. Women are being treated more fairly in access to education and less of them are being killed for the sake of imaginary "honor," although sadly, stonings and other murders are still too frequent. Still, these people too will someday evolve.
Those who continue to insist on their particular understanding of "God®" in the face of our new understanding of our place in this world - that we're not the center of all things after all - must come to accept the truth, or risk the loss of whatever mind they may now have. You will evolve too, or you risk the only version of true hell - insanity.
Sources:
Embedded
Personal experience
Published by Donald Pennington - Featured Contributor in Politics
Donald contributes on a wide variety of topics. Among his favorites are movie reviews, political commentary, divorce, and crime commentary. See something you like? Share it on Twitter! View profile
- Polio Campaign in Somalia Gets Support of Religious LeadersPolio has re-emerged in Somalia, but workshops presented to disspell misconceptions and myths about polio immunization and vaccine have been positively received by influential Sheikhs who will lead the cause to immuni...
Ignorant Quotes by Religious LeadersQuotes from Pope Benedict XVI, Pat Robertson, Rev Dr. Peter Mullen and Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi that are ignorant and meant to breed hate, incite fear and cause intolerance.- Religious Leaders Support Salman Taseer's Murderer, Malik Mumta Hussain QadriToday, many clerics in Pakistan are expressing support for Qadri, calling the assassin a hero.
- Nancy Pelosi Calls for Catholic Church Leaders to Work with Government on the Amne...Pelosi is influencing religious leaders. She is suggesting that religious leaders "work together" with government leaders. This is a violation of our constitution's first amendment.
- Religious Belief in America Exhibits More Diversity and Less DogmatismReligious belief in America has changed in recent years. While still strong, religion has taken on more diversity and less dogmatism.
- Religious Leaders Fight Budget Cuts with Hunger Strike, Ask 'What Would Jesus Cut?'
- Missouri Religious Leaders Battle for Stimulus Funds
- How Religious Leaders View Condom Use
- Nation's Religious Leaders to Begin 40 Day Fast for Third World Debt Relief
- Are Religious Leaders Given Too Much Credit for Their Knowledge on God
- Burning the Quran - Is This the Way We Want Our Religious Leaders to Act?
- Religious Leaders Put Pressure on Bush and Congress Over Global Warming




29 Comments
Post a CommentNow that Sadie's gone, does anyone happen to have any other tricks they want to try? :D
For some topics, an antagonistic flavor is part of the overall work. And being offended is all-too-often the starting point of personal growth.
I wasn't trying to disagree with your factual points, Don, only the antagonistic flavor of the method used to get them across. You seem to think that there's only one way to take apart an argument. Facts don't matter if you can't get your audience to consider them fairly because they're too busy being offended by the tone.
Oops. Sorry. I forgot. you don't have one.
Sadie, you have absolutely zero valid points in disagreement to what was said either in this piece, or in the other one. I suppose this is where you'll be turning as vicious as you accuse others of? LOL! Have at it, then. Just because you resent something said, that doesn't make it "trolling." That just means you're trying (weakly I might add) to negatively label whatever you disagree with. How about a factual argument instead? You'll get farther.
Went to the Pascal's Wager article, Don. That's not snark; it is bitterness. I commented on it too, but the comments may not be showing up on that one. In effect, your snark has the same effect as a mild form of trolling. It perpetuated divisiveness and gets us nowhere. BTW, I find The Thinking Atheist's youtube podcasts fascinating. Seth is a thoughtful fellow, and he really draws me in, especially when he goes in depth. That has a much better taste than the short, snarky flashy stuff.
(And if you find the snark palpable here, you should read "Answering Pascal's Wager" or "I Am The Meat Computer." LOL!)
Ever hear how religious leaders speak about atheists, Sadie? After years of being bashed over the head with crosses we're finally speaking up and NOW everybody makes a plea for us to "show some respect?"
I very much like most religious people I know. But they can't hear me saying that through their psychological filters.
I think the condescending attitude of the article is certainly palpable, and perhaps this is because of a misunderstanding of the human need for a spiritual, mythical framework as well as a rational one. Myths are not completely useless; they provide an ethical framework and they can inspire people to better themselves and to treat others fairly and live in civilized community. Many atheists forget how to live and let live, so zealous are they to destroy illusions. I do draw the line when the teaching of religion seeks to represent itself as science, though. I can understand why so many find the tone of the article off-putting, since it seems to tie ability for rational thought to the rejection of a personal God. For the record, I'm agnostic, not atheist, and I value the spiritual for its ability to enrich lives.
Rita, let me tell you that I absolutely adore your work, and you're probably an excellent person. I'm going to miss your feedback.
Han, you're still welcome to sit on a tack.
(Hey! That's kinda musical. LOL)