The Concept of God

ponytd

 

RYME said:

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

Some people seem to think it's wrong to have beliefs. Do you believe in tomorrow? You don't really have any proofs tomorrow will come.

It isn't wrong to have beliefs, it is wrong to use those beliefs (which aren't supported by credible evidence) to influence the world and other people's lives.
If I believe tomorrow won't come, that's fine for me. 
But if I believe that and I go out convincing people to believe as I do, I can have intended or unintended consequences.  Maybe people with darkness in their hearts act out their sick desires, maybe people spend all their money, etc.
It works the same way if I go out and convince people that they will live forever in paradise.  Maybe they will take this fleeting life for granted and waste it.

If I believe an invisible man in the sky thinks a man can't love another man... whatever, that's weird, but whatever.
If I say so out loud, if I join an organisation which says so out loud, I am crossing a line which is not fucking cool.

Freedom of speech and religion is a basic right. I haven't tried to convince anyone anything, just sharing my beliefs and talking should be ok, why enter this thread otherwise.

It's ok, it's just on one side of a demarcating line of civilization that I hope that humanity will someday leave behind.
Then we can stop trying to determine right and wrong from ancient texts and start our determination with the existence of suffering and go from there.

The Bible condones, endorses, and codifies slavery as acceptable, why do you differ in opinion with your Holy Text?
You know that slavery is wrong and produces suffering is the answer.
If that standard were to be expanded fully, the Holy Texts will fall away as the silly, archaic, pieces of trash that they are.

Slavery in biblical times was not the same slavery as the last few hundred years. It was more of an economic status. To pay off debts, people became "enslaved" to someone else to work off their debt. Some people sold themselves as "slaves" so they could be taken care of because they were poor or had no skill they could make a living off of. Even in the New Testament, some higher class people were "slaves" to those of a higher class than them. And even then, the Bible says that after 6 years they are free and you must compensate them for their work. It wasn't race based like what the US did to black people. It wasn't a "you're beneath me and I'm going to make you my slave". Actually the Bible condemns slavery for how we know it and race based slavery and those who may steal someone and sell them, that they should be put to death (Exodus 21:6) and in the New Testament slave traders are considered ungodly and sinful.

This is precisely what was written in the article that I linked to above or right here

.https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Ha, I remember reading something along those lines a few years ago. may have been that site

rgambs

ponytd said:

 

RYME said:

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

Some people seem to think it's wrong to have beliefs. Do you believe in tomorrow? You don't really have any proofs tomorrow will come.

It isn't wrong to have beliefs, it is wrong to use those beliefs (which aren't supported by credible evidence) to influence the world and other people's lives.
If I believe tomorrow won't come, that's fine for me. 
But if I believe that and I go out convincing people to believe as I do, I can have intended or unintended consequences.  Maybe people with darkness in their hearts act out their sick desires, maybe people spend all their money, etc.
It works the same way if I go out and convince people that they will live forever in paradise.  Maybe they will take this fleeting life for granted and waste it.

If I believe an invisible man in the sky thinks a man can't love another man... whatever, that's weird, but whatever.
If I say so out loud, if I join an organisation which says so out loud, I am crossing a line which is not fucking cool.

Freedom of speech and religion is a basic right. I haven't tried to convince anyone anything, just sharing my beliefs and talking should be ok, why enter this thread otherwise.

It's ok, it's just on one side of a demarcating line of civilization that I hope that humanity will someday leave behind.
Then we can stop trying to determine right and wrong from ancient texts and start our determination with the existence of suffering and go from there.

The Bible condones, endorses, and codifies slavery as acceptable, why do you differ in opinion with your Holy Text?
You know that slavery is wrong and produces suffering is the answer.
If that standard were to be expanded fully, the Holy Texts will fall away as the silly, archaic, pieces of trash that they are.

Slavery in biblical times was not the same slavery as the last few hundred years. It was more of an economic status. To pay off debts, people became "enslaved" to someone else to work off their debt. Some people sold themselves as "slaves" so they could be taken care of because they were poor or had no skill they could make a living off of. Even in the New Testament, some higher class people were "slaves" to those of a higher class than them. And even then, the Bible says that after 6 years they are free and you must compensate them for their work. It wasn't race based like what the US did to black people. It wasn't a "you're beneath me and I'm going to make you my slave". Actually the Bible condemns slavery for how we know it and race based slavery and those who may steal someone and sell them, that they should be put to death (Exodus 21:6) and in the New Testament slave traders are considered ungodly and sinful.

This is precisely what was written in the article that I linked to above or right here

.https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html

Ha, I remember reading something along those lines a few years ago. may have been that site

I, personally, would be a little hesitant to employ the propaganda rhetoric that has been used to justify pretty much every culture of slavery that has ever existed.

ponytd

rgambs said:

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

Some people seem to think it's wrong to have beliefs. Do you believe in tomorrow? You don't really have any proofs tomorrow will come.

It isn't wrong to have beliefs, it is wrong to use those beliefs (which aren't supported by credible evidence) to influence the world and other people's lives.
If I believe tomorrow won't come, that's fine for me. 
But if I believe that and I go out convincing people to believe as I do, I can have intended or unintended consequences.  Maybe people with darkness in their hearts act out their sick desires, maybe people spend all their money, etc.
It works the same way if I go out and convince people that they will live forever in paradise.  Maybe they will take this fleeting life for granted and waste it.

If I believe an invisible man in the sky thinks a man can't love another man... whatever, that's weird, but whatever.
If I say so out loud, if I join an organisation which says so out loud, I am crossing a line which is not fucking cool.

Freedom of speech and religion is a basic right. I haven't tried to convince anyone anything, just sharing my beliefs and talking should be ok, why enter this thread otherwise.

It's ok, it's just on one side of a demarcating line of civilization that I hope that humanity will someday leave behind.
Then we can stop trying to determine right and wrong from ancient texts and start our determination with the existence of suffering and go from there.

The Bible condones, endorses, and codifies slavery as acceptable, why do you differ in opinion with your Holy Text?
You know that slavery is wrong and produces suffering is the answer.
If that standard were to be expanded fully, the Holy Texts will fall away as the silly, archaic, pieces of trash that they are.

Slavery in biblical times was not the same slavery as the last few hundred years. It was more of an economic status. To pay off debts, people became "enslaved" to someone else to work off their debt. Some people sold themselves as "slaves" so they could be taken care of because they were poor or had no skill they could make a living off of. Even in the New Testament, some higher class people were "slaves" to those of a higher class than them. And even then, the Bible says that after 6 years they are free and you must compensate them for their work. It wasn't race based like what the US did to black people. It wasn't a "you're beneath me and I'm going to make you my slave". Actually the Bible condemns slavery for how we know it and race based slavery and those who may steal someone and sell them, that they should be put to death (Exodus 21:6) and in the New Testament slave traders are considered ungodly and sinful.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.
It's not a coincidence that it's the same defense taken up by white supremacists about racial slavery in America.
"Some slaves had a decent life so slavery isn't so bad."
It doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny, and it sure as hell doesn't hold up within the Bible, where slavery and rape and murder is groovy, as long as it's the heathen others that are the victims.
You think the tens of thousands of little girls that were stolen by Moses' army (with God's consent) to be raped until dead or discarded felt like "economic slaves"? 
Exodus 21:20
If you beat a slave to death you will be punished, if he gets up after a few days it's ok because they are your property.
I'm sure those slaves were super keen on their "economic arrangement".

The girls stolen by Moses' army? They were slaves being held by the Egyptians and Moses was sent to free them.

Numbers 31
They were Midian, I believe, and they were taken as slaves, not liberated from slavery.

Ah, gotcha. Sorry, thought you were talking about the Israelite slaves. I went and reread that cause I had forgotten about that story. Heck, I've kinda forgotten about that book lol. Moses told them to "save for themselves all women who had never slept with a man". Can't say for certain that they were taken as slaves or what happened to them. I can imagine some were not treated well, but it doesn't really go into detail. So I'm kind of at a loss and can't say for certain on that.

rgambs

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

ponytd said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

rgambs said:

Annafalk said:

Some people seem to think it's wrong to have beliefs. Do you believe in tomorrow? You don't really have any proofs tomorrow will come.

It isn't wrong to have beliefs, it is wrong to use those beliefs (which aren't supported by credible evidence) to influence the world and other people's lives.
If I believe tomorrow won't come, that's fine for me. 
But if I believe that and I go out convincing people to believe as I do, I can have intended or unintended consequences.  Maybe people with darkness in their hearts act out their sick desires, maybe people spend all their money, etc.
It works the same way if I go out and convince people that they will live forever in paradise.  Maybe they will take this fleeting life for granted and waste it.

If I believe an invisible man in the sky thinks a man can't love another man... whatever, that's weird, but whatever.
If I say so out loud, if I join an organisation which says so out loud, I am crossing a line which is not fucking cool.

Freedom of speech and religion is a basic right. I haven't tried to convince anyone anything, just sharing my beliefs and talking should be ok, why enter this thread otherwise.

It's ok, it's just on one side of a demarcating line of civilization that I hope that humanity will someday leave behind.
Then we can stop trying to determine right and wrong from ancient texts and start our determination with the existence of suffering and go from there.

The Bible condones, endorses, and codifies slavery as acceptable, why do you differ in opinion with your Holy Text?
You know that slavery is wrong and produces suffering is the answer.
If that standard were to be expanded fully, the Holy Texts will fall away as the silly, archaic, pieces of trash that they are.

Slavery in biblical times was not the same slavery as the last few hundred years. It was more of an economic status. To pay off debts, people became "enslaved" to someone else to work off their debt. Some people sold themselves as "slaves" so they could be taken care of because they were poor or had no skill they could make a living off of. Even in the New Testament, some higher class people were "slaves" to those of a higher class than them. And even then, the Bible says that after 6 years they are free and you must compensate them for their work. It wasn't race based like what the US did to black people. It wasn't a "you're beneath me and I'm going to make you my slave". Actually the Bible condemns slavery for how we know it and race based slavery and those who may steal someone and sell them, that they should be put to death (Exodus 21:6) and in the New Testament slave traders are considered ungodly and sinful.

Sorry, but that's bullshit.
It's not a coincidence that it's the same defense taken up by white supremacists about racial slavery in America.
"Some slaves had a decent life so slavery isn't so bad."
It doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny, and it sure as hell doesn't hold up within the Bible, where slavery and rape and murder is groovy, as long as it's the heathen others that are the victims.
You think the tens of thousands of little girls that were stolen by Moses' army (with God's consent) to be raped until dead or discarded felt like "economic slaves"? 
Exodus 21:20
If you beat a slave to death you will be punished, if he gets up after a few days it's ok because they are your property.
I'm sure those slaves were super keen on their "economic arrangement".

The girls stolen by Moses' army? They were slaves being held by the Egyptians and Moses was sent to free them.

Numbers 31
They were Midian, I believe, and they were taken as slaves, not liberated from slavery.

Ah, gotcha. Sorry, thought you were talking about the Israelite slaves. I went and reread that cause I had forgotten about that story. Heck, I've kinda forgotten about that book lol. Moses told them to "save for themselves all women who had never slept with a man". Can't say for certain that they were taken as slaves or what happened to them. I can imagine some were not treated well, but it doesn't really go into detail. So I'm kind of at a loss and can't say for certain on that.

Historical perspective and common sense don't leave much room for uncertainty.
A conquering army on the march in hostile territory doesn't put all the males (children included) to death and then keep, transport, care for, and protect the virgin girls to treat them like daughters and marry them to their sons back home.
That's a silly notion, though it's the one that Bible defenders put forward shamelessly.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

PJ_Soul

ponytd said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FoxyRedLa said:

Your posts above come off angry. Before those no there weren't angry posts but hateful ones. And why can't an opinion just be that? Why always the negative bs? There is no longer a discussion going on in this thread.

I do not know which thread the full blown racist is in. And I don't feel anyone in this thread is racist. I'm just tired of reading post after post with intentions of bringing people down. There is a difference between fun humor and what I feel when I read some of these posts. But again it was an opinion. 

I can't keep up with all of the different threads. There are so many. I did not randomly pick this thread to say anything. I've been following this thread. 

My only point was I hate reading the bully type posts here on this site. I do understand it's all over the different places here. I see the closed threads. It is not possible for me to keep up with all on each differ section. 

i've been on the beach a while, so sorry for the late reply, but i agree with all of your posts completely. when i started this thread, i explicitly stated i hoped it didn't devolve into the type of garbage all other religion-based threads have gone. but it has. and it's too bad. 

we can all have opinions, but it's how we express them that defines us. 

Welcome back. There have been some comments here and there, but with any religious or political discussion, there is going to be emotions unfortunately. It's the nature of the beast. We're all adults here and hopefully can continue in the discussion in a rational manner.

This entire discussion has been totally rational, and I don't even think it's been particularly emotional. I still don't even really know what this "hatefulness" was supposed to be (and again, I haven't been even a tiny bit angry at any point). But anyway, thank GOD you rehashed this tidbit HFD! It's just what the thread needed!

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

Ain't that the truth.  Well said!

ponytd

 

PJ_Soul said:

ponytd said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

FoxyRedLa said:

Your posts above come off angry. Before those no there weren't angry posts but hateful ones. And why can't an opinion just be that? Why always the negative bs? There is no longer a discussion going on in this thread.

I do not know which thread the full blown racist is in. And I don't feel anyone in this thread is racist. I'm just tired of reading post after post with intentions of bringing people down. There is a difference between fun humor and what I feel when I read some of these posts. But again it was an opinion. 

I can't keep up with all of the different threads. There are so many. I did not randomly pick this thread to say anything. I've been following this thread. 

My only point was I hate reading the bully type posts here on this site. I do understand it's all over the different places here. I see the closed threads. It is not possible for me to keep up with all on each differ section. 

i've been on the beach a while, so sorry for the late reply, but i agree with all of your posts completely. when i started this thread, i explicitly stated i hoped it didn't devolve into the type of garbage all other religion-based threads have gone. but it has. and it's too bad. 

we can all have opinions, but it's how we express them that defines us. 

Welcome back. There have been some comments here and there, but with any religious or political discussion, there is going to be emotions unfortunately. It's the nature of the beast. We're all adults here and hopefully can continue in the discussion in a rational manner.

This entire discussion has been totally rational, and I don't even think it's been particularly emotional. I still don't even really know what this "hatefulness" was supposed to be (and again, I haven't been even a tiny bit angry at any point). But anyway, thank GOD you rehashed this tidbit HFD! It's just what the thread needed!

I agree. That's why I said hopefully it continues it in a rational matter.  I think there are have some emotional responses, but nothing over the top at all or what I've seen happen in other threads. I'd say we've all been pretty good.

But enough about that, let's leave that behind and move on

ponytd

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

That is very much the truth. I saw an article yesterday about how in 2100, the Earth's temperature will have raised like 3 degrees Celsius.And even if we stopped all fossil fuels today, it would still raise about 2 degrees. I can't remember if it was you or someone else that said we're basically parasites on this planet. It's pretty much true, we're just killing it little by little every day

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

An interesting take. The two components are intertwined. I agree with your take, but is that part of our evolution?

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

An interesting take. The two components are intertwined. I agree with your take, but is that part of our evolution?

I personally don't think so. It's part of our development as a civilization, but not evolution. I mean, we've pretty much put an end to natural selection, right? Natural selection is basically the end result of natural population control - survival of the fittest - and we've fucked with that enough to make it fairly useless in the evolutionary sense.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

An interesting take. The two components are intertwined. I agree with your take, but is that part of our evolution?

I personally don't think so. It's part of our development as a civilization, but not evolution. I mean, we've pretty much put an end to natural selection, right? Natural selection is basically the end result of natural population control - survival of the fittest - and we've fucked with that enough to make it fairly useless in the evolutionary sense.

I agree with what you are saying. In essence, we are fighting evolution.

cottagesteeze

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

An interesting take. The two components are intertwined. I agree with your take, but is that part of our evolution?

I personally don't think so. It's part of our development as a civilization, but not evolution. I mean, we've pretty much put an end to natural selection, right? Natural selection is basically the end result of natural population control - survival of the fittest - and we've fucked with that enough to make it fairly useless in the evolutionary sense.

I agree with what you are saying. In essence, we are fighting evolution.

We aren't fighting evolution necessarily, we've just stopped evolving. There is not much natural selection for humans anymore, so no single trait is going to be more likely to flourish. We may choose to reproduce with "better looking" or taller mates, which will drive an "evolution" somewhat, but there is not a natural reason for that change.

PJ_Soul

cottagesteeze said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

brianlux said:

FoxyRedLa said:

PJS and often - I do hear you and I do agree with you I do know I'm way out on a limb and do understand billions of years past before the most recent hundreds of thousands of years it took to the most recent what 6000 of what humans are now. I just was thinking with my imagination wondering why nothing else is changing so drastically. But I do get what you're all putting down in terms of evolution. 

Large life forms- i.e. most mammals- take a very long time t evolve.  You and I won't see large animals and few small animals change in our life times.  As pointed out earlier however, tiny organisms like viruses can and have changed quickly. 

But now with Climate change, even some smaller animals are changing quickly.  I've read about this in a few places but here's just one article that describes some of these changes. 

http://mentalfloss.com/article/64300/6-animals-are-rapidly-evolving

Adapting to the environment. An aspect of evolution.

Yes, and that is exactly why humans are not adapting anymore, for the most part. We are now essentially adapting our environment instead of adapting to it.

An interesting take. The two components are intertwined. I agree with your take, but is that part of our evolution?

I personally don't think so. It's part of our development as a civilization, but not evolution. I mean, we've pretty much put an end to natural selection, right? Natural selection is basically the end result of natural population control - survival of the fittest - and we've fucked with that enough to make it fairly useless in the evolutionary sense.

I agree with what you are saying. In essence, we are fighting evolution.

We aren't fighting evolution necessarily, we've just stopped evolving. There is not much natural selection for humans anymore, so no single trait is going to be more likely to flourish. We may choose to reproduce with "better looking" or taller mates, which will drive an "evolution" somewhat, but there is not a natural reason for that change.

I think he just meant that we're actively preventing further evolution by overriding natural selection...... That will be the case until that massive plague finally arrives to wipe half of us out (I see this as the only thing that might save humanity and preserve the Earth in the long run, so TBH I'm hoping for it to come sooner rather than later. Reboot).

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
I certainly hope I am not destined for that half.  What about you?

PJfanwillneverleave1

OP  With all due respect you started this thread with
"so basically the point of this thread is not to argue about faith, or try to convince someone else that you are right or they are wrong. just, what do you think god is, if you believe a god exists?

Now I'm not one to argue semantics but as a person who does not believe god exists suggests that anyone who thinks this way as well should not post in this thread.  I believe anything religious orientated will bring cross opines.  I understand the rules of respecting a thread but one can't interject every now and then like the hand of god to sway a conversation that was based on a pointed question.

rgambs

It's not that we have stopped evolving at all, we have evolved extremely rapidly for the last 40,000 years.
Our evolution by natural selection continues through sexual selection, and a large part of our rapid evolution is a product of artificial selection, which sexual selection also contributes to.
It's no longer survival of the fittest in the natural world, it's selection of the fittest in our kooky cultural world.  Doesn't necessarily bode well for us, but we won't be the first species to sexually select ourselves into genetic and physiological difficulties.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Females have an incredible power to decide the natural selection of the human race.  Let's face it males - the females choose who to procreate with as humans. (In a civilized society of course.)

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
I certainly hope I am not destined for that half.  What about you?

I don't really care either way TBH, and if I actually had the choice between it happening and me dying or it not happening and me living, I'd probably choose the first option, for the sake of the Earth (sorry everyone, lol). The world would be in complete and utter chaos if 50% of the world's population died in a short period of time anyway, not to mention the problem of 4 billion dead bodies laying around - maybe it would be much better to die of the disease so you don't have to live with the aftermath..... and honestly, 75% of the population would be better. Humans can turn 4 billion survivors back into 8 billion people in no time.

PJ_Soul

rgambs said:

It's not that we have stopped evolving at all, we have evolved extremely rapidly for the last 40,000 years.
Our evolution by natural selection continues through sexual selection, and a large part of our rapid evolution is a product of artificial selection, which sexual selection also contributes to.
It's no longer survival of the fittest in the natural world, it's selection of the fittest in our kooky cultural world.  Doesn't necessarily bode well for us, but we won't be the first species to sexually select ourselves into genetic and physiological difficulties.

Yes, I'm saying we have likely stopped evolving like in the past 100 years, simply because of the advancement of medicine combined with foreign aid and other interventions when it comes to natural population control. 
As for selection of the fittest in our cultural world.... outside of pretty narrow swaths of society in developed nations, I don't think this is really happening at all. Given your next comment, do you mean more like it's survival of the weakest?