You Will Evolve Too

Donald Pennington

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

29 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Donald Pennington11/18/2011

    Now that Sadie's gone, does anyone happen to have any other tricks they want to try? :D

  • Donald Pennington11/16/2011

    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.

  • Sadie Heilemann11/16/2011

    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.

  • Donald Pennington11/16/2011

    Oops. Sorry. I forgot. you don't have one.

  • Donald Pennington11/16/2011

    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.

  • Sadie Heilemann11/16/2011

    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.

  • Donald Pennington11/16/2011

    (And if you find the snark palpable here, you should read "Answering Pascal's Wager" or "I Am The Meat Computer." LOL!)

  • Donald Pennington11/16/2011

    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.

  • Sadie Heilemann11/15/2011

    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.

  • Donald Pennington11/15/2011

    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)

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.