gemfyre | It's evolution bay-bee

I don't get all these religious types who believe that God negates evolution.

I just watched yet another show on evolution and crikey, it just makes me believe in a God even more. All that utter brilliance and chance and simplicity and complexity and adaptation and everything all rolled into one. I mean, how could you look at all that and NOT believe in a God??

*smiles to herself*

Current Mood: enthralled

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

morninglord.livejournal.com

I don't often argue stuff to this degree.
I usually don't care.
I didn't really in this case, I was just bored.
So I set myself a challenge.
Write as many inflammatory and argumentative posts as I can and see what the responses are.
So far I'm very pleased with you all. Your responses have been wonderful, thought provoking and putting me in my place right where I deserved it, since I don't really know wtf I'm talking about.
But, I'd just like to mention, that much of what I've said tonight was very tongue in cheek. As all my close friends will know, I'm a very very tolerant person who doesn't much mind what anybody believes in, as long as it doesn't involve hurting others or themselves.
The term of Virus was actually something I picked up from a New Scientist magazine which talked about religion as being a virus. Loverly an inflammatory.
I don't REALLY think like that. Promise. :)

And yes, I'm very much a dumbass. But in my defence, I'm REALLY REALLY good at being one, and that kind of skill has to count for something, right?

Nearly 40 something posts!
I'm flabbergasted. We'll have to do this again sometime. :)

From: (Anonymous)

*takes out sticker, writes something on it*
Hey, morninglord!
*wacks large sticker with the word TROLL written on it in large, unfriendly letters*

Congratulations. You have just admitted to being the lowest form of online life, both on usenet and the web. You are now labeled, now and forever more, as a TROLL.

Please enjoy your stay at the bottom of the food chain.

- Früchlè

From: (Anonymous)

ps. a few things to cover again:
* nothing is provable, science or otherwise. That does not make science god-like, or remove plausability of god.
* the only thing you can discount from Judeo-Christian religion is human error. Error in recording, error in emotions (greed, fear and self-centeredness in the authors). Do NOT use human falicy as prove something exists or not. Only use it to measure the human condition.
* Judeo-Christianity is NOT the largest religion out there. Nor is it nessisarily the best.
* There is a MASSIVE difference between "church" (organized religion) and religion (the tenants that it teaches). If you are religious, that does NOT automatically make you a boy-raping irish catholic, anti-prodistant missionary preacher. Nor does being the above preacher make you religious. Can you honestly say that members of the church who break their vows are religious? (take crusades, inquisition, and the christian brothers for example).
* Many people have been "burned" by the church, and cannot tell where the lines seperate between church and it's teachings. Pity THOSE people, for they are like those who go to high school, memorise text books on mathimatics and history, but never understand WHY or HOW X can represent something else, only that it does. (memorization vs. extrapolation)
* Gemfyre made a good point. "There is beauty in the world" was what she was saying. That is true. No matter how much science or religion is tossed into the mix, appreciation is there. Is it wrong to appreciate something if it's creation was "random"? We appreciate non-random beauty (ie. classical art) and semi-random beauty (abstract art). Why not natural/random beauty? Does it's nature make it less than it is? What if God DID exist and create this beauty? Does that discount our appreciation? (well, we can't say it's good, because it HAS to be good, after all, God created it, and he's perfect, so it must be perfect.) I'm going to wander away from this one for a moment, and bring up:
* Greek mythology. Now THERE were some dieties! Whoring, torturing, rampaging. They were like big children (well, big children who demanded sacrifices, but anyway). My point here: religion is varied and deep, not all of it is as restrictive as Christian Scientists in it's application to the 'real' world. Like Sassifrass mentioned, there are religions which PUSH the idea of focusing on the inward (as opposed to the mind numbing TROLL spoke of earlier). They support the idea of thinking for yourself, and relying on inner strength, not external forces or rewards. Then you can discount the whole concept of the afterlife and heaven, and just go straight to reincarnation in Hindu.
* Oh, oh! And let's not forget the poor pagans! (sorry about the title, pagan of course being the term the Christian Church(s) used to lump a wide variety of earlier Europeans beliefs into). Life, rebirth, people working together, lots of good stuff. (Sure, some sacrifices, and weird rituals, but have you ever seen yourself get ready to drive? Why do you pat your right pocket to check for the keys you just got a minute ago? Or before you put it in drive, you check your seatbelt, without even noticing? Some things we do because of repition. Others by being taught. Without wide spread literacy, there was a massive "chinese whispers effect" in the pre-printing press world. Do not judge rituals and methods prematurely. There is often a reason behind things. And the reason for confusion in the passing down of these teachings? Human error again.

From: (Anonymous)

* Now, I realize this list is getting long, but for those of you still with us, an unrelated point. "Relgion, Politics and Sex". Three areas that you WILL approach carefully if you wish to have any sort of success in dealing with people from a western society. Dangerous topics, because so many people feel so strongly about them. People like feeling comfortable. Understanding stuff makes us comfortable with our surroundings. We tend to hang around people we can relate to, objects that we can use and understand and travel as little as possible. (before we get to a "what? travel is bad? this Frü fellow is INSANE" type discussion, read the message behind my words: "we like to feel comfortable". I am not saying we don't like other things, merely that comfort is important, generally speaking, to everyone. Do not begrudge another's want for a soft cushion. (that was a metaphor for, well, everything). Yes, relgion CAN be the "opium of the masses". But is it so very wrong to want to feel safe and happy? The problem (I'm not going to say only, but it is a major problem) with this is that some people are selfish, fearfull people, who want to put others below them. It's a power thing. As a secondary thing, when people are comfortable they do not attempt to strive as hard for greater comfort. (we're here, this is good enough - mentality).
The Three Big Topics [tm] are dangerous waters to tread. People don't like being proved wrong, or being forced into a position of 'wrongness'.
This causes (big word now) Cognitive Dissodence. (spelling around me is somewhat optional). That weird, uncomfortable feeling you get when something is wrong? The confusion, fear, or laughter caused by something out of the ordinary? Our body's/mind's reaction to something that breaks it's belief in the way things are meant to be (there is a word which annoyingly eludes me at the moment).
Some people only feel 'comfortable', when hurting others, or breaking down belief systems. The Skeptic Society is an interesting case in this matter. In some ways, they are doing a good thing, uncovering frauds (those who would use their beliefs to disadvanage others, or unfairly advantage themselves). On the other hand, side effects from a society that doesn't believe in anything anymore are equally disasterous. (But.. but.. what if my accellerator is suddenly my brake today?? I can't trust anything anymore!)
* On the same vein of 'dangerous conversation topics' (at least, those that should be entered into cautiously), politeness goes a long way on the internet.
* "as long as it doesn't involve hurting others", except that you DID hurt others. You broke their belief that you were a decent and rational person, and changed their opinions of you. You changed the mood of the conversation into a dark and angry path. You made people feel hostile. (I'm not saying to the degrees of which the above were obtained, just that it happened, and you were responsible). Which brings me to taking responsibility. Do it. Everyone. Church, government, TROLLS. We each are partially (majorly) responsible for our actions (I will concede that radiation, head trauma, chemical imbalences and general insanity can cause uncontrolable actions). People, like this TROLL made a choice to anger others. This was a wrong choice. How wrong? Well, the post did make us think about the choices we had made, but for the VAST majority, merely strengthened our resolve, the exact opposite effect that such a rebutal should have had.
* Gemfyre posted an opinion. I think it's already been covered that you saying that your reply wasn't an argument is untrue. You can say it wasn't INTENDED to be an arguement, but then the post should have been prefixed with lines such as "I believe" and "some think", as opposed to "this is". This is recovering the "be polite" point. It's FINE to disagree. It's fine to say "While I agree with viewpoint presented X, people B say Y." The TROLL posted the reply as if the thoughts were his own, and left no room for us to belive otherwise. Those of you going to university, this may sound familiar as "reference your work, and don't plagerise". It is. It's rude to steal. It's also rude to be a TROLL.

So, until next time, be good to yourselves.. and each other.

From:

morninglord.livejournal.com

What you say is true, and several others have already told me the same thing.
Im a new user to things like livejournal, and especially posting on anything like a forum. Ive never posted in a forum in my life before getting a livejournal.
I find it hard to get angry at someone elses words, written down on paper. Without the emotional force of the person speaking them, they just dont seem anything worth getting bothered over. To my grave error, I keep thinking others think about things like this in the same way. That they dont have the same sense of detachment towards things like this as I do.
I suppose I should pay more attention to things like this, but to me, who I am on the net isnt really ME at all, but some weird other person who I occasionally let out to play and like to keep in his box in real life. Ill admit Im not the best when it comes to thinking through things, and often I say and do things without thinking of the consequences. Im impulsive.
Personally, I thought most of what I wrote was very much tongue in cheek in the style that I wrote it. It appeared to be to me. As cotton said, she was laughing as she read it. That was what I intended. I never expected anyone who knew me to think otherwise, and personally, they were the only ones I really meant it for. I keep forgetting that more people than just the little group I know would read gems livejournal. That this is in fact a "public" thing, as far as strangers I dont know reading it goes.
I never wrote the words with the intention to anger. I used the term inflammatory in the sense of getting people to reply lots to it, but not neccessarily because they were angry about it. I wanted to be controversial, but I hoped people would see from the silliness in it that I wasnt really trying to be taken seriously.
Well I guess I learned my lesson as an "Ev1l n00b" to this method of communication. I realise now that its just as valid as a real conversation, and not some great game with words as I so often think of it. Ill never do anything like it again.
At least, not outside my circle of friends.
...
Yours Faithfully
The Purple Troll