I think you're absolutely right abou this. All of our theories about language evolving (there's that word again) from proto-language over a period of millenia just doesn't make any sense. The idea that things come from other things is simply a heap of rubbish.
We're clearly ignoring the possibility that Adam was created, fully formed, and went about naming the animals, using language for the first time.
When will we learn?
2006-06-12 06:12:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by wrathpuppet 6
·
4⤊
4⤋
Morals are just rules for the dumb masses, or for circumstances we don't fully understand yet. Like eating pig meat - it used to be a bad idea in the desert, because pigs were competing for food with humans, and they are genetically so close that deseases jump from pigs to humans easily. So it used to be that eating pigs would give you an economical disadvantage. Now, how do you explain that to the masses, you don't. You just say "god doesn't want you to eat pigs", and your people live happily everafter. Or rather, probably there weren't even any rules, perhaps people just noticed that people eating pig meat got ill frequently, so they made up the rule not to eat pigs (that's a muslim moral, but I am sure there many similiar examples for christian morals).
Now what I can't stand is if people are unable to question those morals, once scientific knowledge of the real issue is adequate, and perhaps the real reasons for the moral rule don't even exist anymore. I don't think those people are really humans - they are just machines following rules they don't understand.
Also, we don't understand the consequences of all kinds of actions yet, therefore I can also accept moral rules, withouth getting a full scientific explanation for their usefulness every time.
What makes you think Atheists have no morals, they are not the same thing as Anarchists. I can easily see the usefulness of the rule "don't kill anybody", I don't need the bible for that.
2006-06-11 12:27:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tichy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Language evolution? The ability of abstract ideas to change over time is completely unrelated to biological change. Even then, were it biological, it would be considered microevolution, which, being observable, is accepted by most Catholics and other Christians. Also, since the scattering at Babel language can change, that does not mean atheists deny the bible.
It's funny that most people didn't read the question and are not aware of Gen. 11...
(Craig, the stupid part is that god was afraid people could make a tower to heaven o.O)
2006-06-11 12:20:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by Sara 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
People who claim atheists don't have morals are simply hateful bigots. Statistics show atheists have low divorce rates and very rarely commit crimes. Personally I am an atheist, who has never had a drop of alcohol, doesn't smoke has been faithfully married, gives to charity, and is extremely responsible. I am an atheist because the idea of a god is irrational. I could just as easily say the reason you are immoral is because you don't believe in genies, It is just as ridiculous.
2006-06-11 12:27:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Athiests have morals and are responsable. Just coz they don't believe in God it doesn't mean they don't want to have morals and be responsable. They just don't believe in God. There is lots of evidence of evolution. But evolution doesn't prove there isn't a God.
2006-06-11 12:36:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by xoɟ ʍous 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Who said atheists don't want to be moral people? I'm not one myself, but frankly, most of the atheists I know try much harder to be moral people than all the Christians I've ever met, as every Christian I've ever met seems to feel entitled to be a crappy person based on the fact that God loves them better.
2006-06-11 12:20:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by AndiGravity 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes you are correct. All atheists are amoral, irresponsible citizens. And all people who deny Genesis 11 are amoral, irresponsible citizens.
So that means that all people in prison are atheists, right? And that everyone in Japan, Tibet, Greenland, as well as the majority of people in India, China, etc... are amoral and irresponsible.
Thank goodness it's so easy to pin down who is righteous in the world! Phew! Too hard to use my brain otherwise...
2006-06-11 12:53:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I truly do not know how athiests explain this or why they believe as they do. You are generalizing however because not all athiests are without morals or not without a sense of good and responsibility. I see you did not pluralize the word athiest so I am wondering if you mean all athiests or just the character with the screen name athiest thats been out here. You did say "they" a few times so I assume you mean athiests (plural), if not, please forgive my assumption regarding your question.
2006-06-11 12:23:17
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think atheist believe in too much of anything, yet alone even consider language evolution as anything other than communication among the masses.
2006-06-11 12:21:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just because some people are atheist doesn't mean they don't have morals. There are some really nice atheists out there that are good people they just lack religious beliefs.
2006-06-11 12:19:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by thewonderer 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is that the tower of Babel? It seems stupid that God would create different languages to punish people for working together. You'd think he'd want to reward such behaviour.
2006-06-11 12:22:12
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋