Atheism

I take their beliefs and come up with logical conclusions. It is the two faced nature of being an atheist that you are referring to.

Logical fallacies, I'd say...

Of course I do. Plenty others too.

I read the books though rather than spending my life on two or three lines of one which somebody told me about and going on and on about them forever and ever or at least until somebody tells you to put a sock in it.

The God of the Old Testament looks to be the God of the evolutionists to me.

The New Testament represents the Christian way of life which is counter to every principle of evolution and obviously so. It is the foundation stone of modern science which flowered under Christian guidance however imperfect that was and which was dealing with all the circumstances existing at the time rather than with a few lines in a magazine which offer no evidence for the assertions and never will be able to do.

Your belief in the Bible is astonishing.

Pure ignorance Francis. I'm surprised at you.

It is not a temptation of mine to refer to sexual behaviour. The subject provides the motive for anti-Christian viewpoints.

What do you think you know about sexual behaviour that I don't? Your assertion is too easy to make. Put some flesh on it and we'll get the discussion going onto the real track.

What do you know about my sexual behaviour that I don't know?

In addition, I'm not anti-christian, I'm against proselytizing and the associated hypocrisy..

Now, putting some flesh on the subject was really a good pun, I'm surprised of such wit.

Not so of you pretending that others are ignorant. Oh well...

I didn't say others are ignorant. I said this was ignorant.



And so it was. Ignorant is about the sweetest thing one might say about it. I could have said less sweeter things about it but I know you are writing in a second language so I assume it can't be helped.

Your sexual behaviour is neither here nor there.

It is necessary to proselytise the Christian religion to keep it alive. The Devil has all the best tunes they say. Not musically though. Carnally. On the animal side and not the social or aesthetic side. Do you wish the Christian religion and its way of life to die away. If not you haven't a leg to stand on and if you do how fast?



I presume that wit at any higher levels is beyond your appreciation. And you have failed to put any flesh on the subject. Which is no surprise to me.

If it can't be helped, how can you expect me putting some flesh on it?

You'll keep the advantage forever..

Maybe I cannot invent something to replace religion, which I do well without but I can't see your justification for the fall of the civilisation without religion..

I didn't say the fall of civilisation. A new type of civilisation is what I mean.

Which side are you on in relation to whether men or women are the sexual predators?

I recommend you stick to French sites Francis. Your posts are more or less incomprehensible to me.

I venture to say that if you were the translator for our respective leaders we might very well be at war within a week.

I don't see the human relationship in terms of predation but an association to make the living better.

Devious behaviours are marginal to the core of this issue..

However, to maintain a balanced relatinship is quite a struggle as neither man nor woman have the same views of what a relationship based on equality is..

I witnessed many cases in which one of the partners was assertive that he/she wanted a 50/50 relationship.

It ended with one of the partners occupying 95% of ambit of the relationship.

But it seems to me that your view of this subject, against what you usually pretend, is the survival of the fittest...

Sorry to disappoint you Spendi but I'm going to stick to this site, which is the only one I attend.

Don't read my posts..

No chance of that. I read every post on threads I am interested in.

Even ones with sneaky suggestions in them as your's have.

Where you got this impression is beyond me, Spendi..

Some meaning added in translation, instead of lost in it?

Weren't you, Spendius, one of those who resented the suggestion that you leave this thread?

1 - The place is huge and I don´t really remember in which topic was in...I will keep trying nevertheless to get the link...

2 - The point so far I can remember was to explain why the vast majority of Humans tends to believe in the supernatural from an evolutionary point of view...what was the advantage at the time ? ...and of course what I´ve posted above is less then a summary on it...

2.1 - From what I did get is not that religion emerged with the idea of a God...probably just excessive awareness even to take in consideration non rational impressions upon the surroundings...the willing to believe that something was happening even when we were not certain of it, or what it was...I don´t know if it is the case, that rational people tend to suppress more easily their primal instincts or gut feelings, neuroscientists probably could present a more complete approach on that concern...but if such hypothesis it is more or less true, the case could be made...the video was interesting and the best it can be said is that indeed we need a rational evolutionary explanation on why so much people tend to believe without the need for proof...

...again, that said I appreciate your honest interest and I will keep trying to get the link.

Post Scriptum - it could be made the case that just the rational delay to assert if the danger was real could prove fatal...in there seams to be a more correct approach.

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

Religions were created to control the masses.

That much granted...but before that, you would still need a genetic "aptness" for it...
The video is very much about why we believe the things we believe without proof...Religion is a side corner in the matter...

The "aptness" is self-explanatory; that's the reason why all cultures created gods. They started with the sun god, then it progressed from there to "everything" else.

There guys I finally get the damn video !

I am pretty good at self-deception Fil. I don't need any enlightenment on that score. I regulary deceive myself that I'm not an eating and shitting machine of no use nor ornament and that the infinitessimality of my significance can be glossed over with some well chosen words I have learned off my betters.

I find it easier to deceive myself about these things in proportion to the number of pints of John Smith's Extra Smooth (Silk in a glass) I have put down and my observation tells me that I'm not in the least abnormal in this reaction.