Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on May 10, 2007, 05:46:40 PM
-
This was sent to me. I thought of Seagoon when I got it. I thought it was pretty funny. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24
-
Love that.
-
Good post rip.
-
Some of those monkeys still think digital watches are a keen idea.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Love that.
FOCLMGBO! :rofl :rofl
Here's another good one Squirrel Saves World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ8knlKqClc)
-
LOL, good stuff Odie:)
Although it wasn't as close to my own philosophical viewpoints as the monkey vid.
:aok
-
Hi Rip,
Well, what can I say? Thank you for thinking of me. Amusing presentation, and who cares that hominids are actually supposed to be apes and not monkeys (you can check this out by confirming you and your loved ones don't have tails). Interesting how most of these videos fail to run the system to its unfunny final conclusions and end with pure Nihilism.
I gotta admit though that watching that kind of stuff still produces a shame reaction in me, simply because its a painful reminder of what I once believed and promoted, but thats for me to deal with, and youth is after all, a time for making mistakes and more importantly as a little Scottish lady once told me as I was in the process of horribly mocking her and God, "Oh Child, even this can be forgiven in Christ" or as Jesus asked during the actual event I was making fun of: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
If you have time to watch a slightly longer and better done, but less amusing videos on why regardless of what we really are, we definitely are not what Mr. Lindgren thinks we are, you might want to try:
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/the_privileged_planet.ram
or
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/unlocking_the_mystery_of_life.ram
or
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/berlinski.ram
(ok actually this one is quite amusing)
or
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/6289FocOriOnDarw.rm
Got some more, but I don't want to overload the BB with material bound to irritate, unless someone wants more.
- SEAGOON
-
Denying the existence of a Christan God was not the mistake, as much as horribly mocking a little Scottish lady and her beliefs.
The video's were interesting, but my research on the Discovery Institute and their "scientists" was even more amusing.:aok
-
We may not have tails, but my in-law broke her tail bone:D
-
Hi Dadano,
Originally posted by Dadano
Denying the existence of a Christan God was not the mistake, as much as horribly mocking a little Scottish lady and her beliefs.
The video's were interesting, but my research on the Discovery Institute and it's "scientists" was even more amusing.:aok
You got through about four hours of video in under two hours? ;) I'm not that surprised about the quotation marks around scientists though, anyone who dissents from Neo-Darwinian fundamentalism is almost instantly excommunicated from the Priesthood and accused of being a "fundamentalist" even if one is a Jewish Agnostic like Berlinski.
But I'll bite, if the God Mrs. Ross serves doesn't exist, why is mocking her wrong or a mistake? Surely in that case, she "deserves" to be mocked, at least as much as the ID promoting scientists if not more. Also, assuming that God doesn't exist what is wrong anyway? My mocking her at one point in my life was no better or worse than say the marriage counseling I do each week. Good and Evil become entirely subjective values that we invent, comforting illusions we craft in the midst of chaos and meaninglessness. Certainly nothing in naturalism can establish that there is anything wrong with mocking old ladies, in fact at most studying "nature" to learn our morals would simply teach us to cull her from the herd.
-
..even if one is a Jewish Agnostic like Berlinski.
Explain Jewish Agnostic.... Is that just a confused Jew?;)
I got through about 50 minutes of the piece on Earth and a good 9 minutes into the Berlinski's piece before getting a call that interrupted the experience.
As far as I can discern the problem with Berlinski is, he simply isn't a scientist, he is a pundit. He works for The Discovery Institute here in Seattle which is known for it's famous "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. How many evolutionary biologists have their name attached to that?
if the God Mrs. Ross serves doesn't exist, why is mocking her wrong or a mistake?
You are saying we need a God and his word for moral guidance?
-
Seagoon PLEASE clean out your mailbox!!!
Mac
-
Hi Mac,
Sorry, I keep my mailbox as cluttered as my desk. Cleared some messages.
Dadano,
you wrote:
Originally posted by Dadano
Explain Jewish Agnostic.... Is that just a confused Jew?;)
[/b]
Unlike most religions, "Jewish" can refer not only to a system of beliefs but also to a race. Most Jews are descendents of Jewish forebears going all the way back to the original 12 tribes descended from Jacob. Berlinski is Jewish when it comes to race, but not religion. He is what is sometimes called "a non-observant Jew." Berlinski has stated publicly again and again that he doesn't know or care much if there is a God.
As far as I can discern the problem with Berlinski is, he simply isn't a scientist, he is a pundit. He works for The Discovery Institute here in Seattle which is known for it's famous "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" list. How many evolutionary biologists have their name attached to that?
This is reminiscent of the situation at the Reformation. You may have been a minister in good standing, a doctor of divinity, and a graduate of any number of schools, but when you embraced the Solas and denied the authority of the Pope you became nothing but a heretic and a charlatan. The same is true in the modern scientific community, deny Darwin's theory and point out it no longer works as a paradigm to explain the evidence and even the most profane or credentialed scientist becomes a "religious fanatic" and no true scientist. As a general rule, speaking against Neodarwinianism is like touching the third rail, and no scientist who wants to keep his career or his place in the academy will do it.
Here is Berlinski's CV:
"David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, as well as three novels. He has also taught philosophy, mathematics and English at such universities as Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Universite de Paris. In addition, he has held research fellowships at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques (IHES) in France. Recent articles by Dr. Berlinski have been featured in Commentary, Forbes ASAP, and the Boston Review. He is author of numerous books, including A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon 1996), The Advent of the Algorithm (2000, Harcourt Brace),.Newton's Gift (The Free Press 2000). Forthcoming are his books: The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (Harcourt, October 2003), A Short History of Mathematics for the Modern Library series at Random House (2004), and Einstein & Goedel: Friendship between Equals (Simon & Schuster 2004). He is currently working on a book analyzing genetic algorithm
As for how many evolutionary biologists, several (and in particular molecular biologists where the theory really breaks down) former evolutionary biologists have signed but like Kenyon and Minnich, the moment you sign your name becomes mud and you cease to be respected. In fact, from that moment on you become the subject of nothing but Ad Homs. If the only arguments I could muster around here were to attack the members of the board personally, how much respect would I merit? None at all.
You are saying we need a God and his word for moral guidance?
Dadano, if there is no God, then there are no ethical absolutes nor any means of finding them out. As Dostoyevsky put it, "If there is no God then all things are permissible." The modern existentialist, postmodern, and nihilist philosophers like Sartre, Nietzche, Focault, Derrida, etc. have all realized that and that while we may try to create morals, they have no real link to reality. Quark, protons, and the matter of the Universe have no interest in "Good" or "Evil" nor do they teach us anything about them, they are supremely irrelevant, and when we consider that the universe is, according to the materialists, slowly winding down to an eventual heat death and oblivion, morals become absurd. In any event, regardless of whether one person says or 51% of a group of people raise our hands that does not really make something right or wrong.
To use the premise of the original link, how can a few slightly more evolved animals, a bunch of monkeys know what is "good?" As Stephen Pinker points out, our brains are "evolved" to help us stay alive long enough to procreate, that is all and supposedly inclined to behavior that helps us to do that.
But let me ask you simply, you tell me without reference to God or the bible why mocking Mrs. Ross (the little old lady in question) and her belief in what you consider to be a delusion was really wrong?
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon time most certainly did not begin and end with the death of christ, so moral guidance must be derived from some point in time. Before christ mankind had a sense of right and wrong, where did it come from? Granted there were other religions with other gods but moral guidance, or the idea of right and wrong, has to have a birthplace. Do you think man had to create god to create morality? And im not referring to your god, just a god. Apart from the creation of god and the idea of right and wrong, where would society go if it suddenly decided that there is no god? Would the death of god also be the death of "moral guidance" or could we continue on as we are with the realization that our ultimate goal should be to better ourselves through one another rather than through god?
I know you weren't asking me but it seems like an open ended question that i'll tackle. Why was mocking Mrs. Ross and what we believe to be her delusion wrong? Simply because the only thing as people we have to rely on is the comfort we find in our own mind and imagination.
-
Thank you for the clarification regarding Berlinski's interesting ethnic vs. religious convictions.
Let us agree to disagree on the credibility of the Discovery Institute, its contributors and ID.
But let me ask you simply, you tell me without reference to God or the bible why mocking Mrs. Ross (the little old lady in question) and her belief in what you consider to be a delusion was really wrong?
I think mocking old women, or anyone for that matter, regardless of the subject, is wrong because it makes me feel negatively about myself. Very simple.
-
Hi Cody,
Please feel free to jump in, I have to apologize in advance though that the close we get to Sunday, the less time I have to respond.
Originally posted by -CodyC
Seagoon time most certainly did not begin and end with the death of christ, so moral guidance must be derived from some point in time. Before christ mankind had a sense of right and wrong, where did it come from? Granted there were other religions with other gods but moral guidance, or the idea of right and wrong, has to have a birthplace. Do you think man had to create god to create morality? And im not referring to your god, just a god. Apart from the creation of god and the idea of right and wrong, where would society go if it suddenly decided that there is no god? Would the death of god also be the death of "moral guidance" or could we continue on as we are with the realization that our ultimate goal should be to better ourselves through one another rather than through god?
The problem from my point of view with your questions is that the presuppositions are essentially flawed. Your questions presume that nothing created everything, and then that undirected inert matter plus time, and chance created life, and that instead of following the general trend from more complex to less complex and order to disorder, that life was molded without direction or a designer into greater and greater complexity with new information constantly being generated and added to the DNA helix, and that eventually man was the result, and that man then created religions of increasing complexity (following the history of religions hypothesis).
I on the other hand believe the biblical record that a personal and knowable God always existed, that He created man in his own image with a reasonable soul and that he wrote his moral laws on the hearts of men but that man broke those laws and rebelled against His creator and since that time has been inclined towards rebellion, making up his own substitute gods and rules as he goes along. Properly understood, Christianity did not start with the birth of Christ, it started with the Creation of the World and Christ came into the world to save people from their rebellious and fallen condition. What Christ taught was not brand-new, and although He freed it from the unwarranted additions and subtractions of the Pharisees, you find the same system of ethics and method of salvation in both the Old and the New Testaments (you'll even find prophecies of His coming and vicarious death for the sins of others in places like Isaiah 53 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2053&version=50)) Therefore I believe that there are objective ethics found in the Law of God and that evil is the transgression of or want of conformity to those immutable laws, while good is conformity to them. I also believe that it was our inability to keep this law that made it necessary for Christ to pay the penalty for the violation of it.
So in summary answer to your questions, the laws always existed, they are objective and transcendent, they were originally known because they were written on the "heart" of man, since the fall of man, the knowledge of them is obscured but we still feel the weight of them in our conscience and they can be known through revelation. The fact that we still have that vestige of the image of God and a muted but still present conscience explains why most societies even when they come up with replacement theologies still have great similarities in their ethical systems. The death of God movement however, and the rejection of revelation has brought us into a state of increasing moral relativism. "Everyone does what it right in his own eyes" and iincreasingly everyone is a law unto themselves, hence the the tendency toward increasing balkanization, isolation, rebellion and lawlessness in our own society. We are in danger of ceasing to be the ethical and moral people the Constitution was written for, and when that happens our freedoms will disappear to be replaced by rule by the bayonet.
I'm assuming then that you believe that there was no consciousness prior to the self-awareness of human beings and that values are not therefore "brute facts" but constructs created by humans. That prior to us there was no right and wrong in the universe, no natural law in the Cosmos. Therefore in a real sense they are not "true" or "false" and have no ontological implications. Would that be correct?
Therefore, I would ask you, when it comes to the morals themselves are they:
A) A subjective expression of emotions? (i.e. Theft is wrong, really means "Ugh, Theft" as opposed to "Hurrah for theft!")
B) A subjective expression of the psychological state of the speaker? (i.e. Theft is wrong really means "I dislike theft")
C) Cultural Relativism (i.e. Morals are actually sociological statements about the current state of likes and dislikes in our society "We in our culture mostly dislike theft")
Also, I'm confused about "bettering ourselves through one another" what does this mean in application, and why does it convey the ethical force of "ought"? As in "we ought to better ourselves through one another"?
I know you weren't asking me but it seems like an open ended question that i'll tackle. Why was mocking Mrs. Ross and what we believe to be her delusion wrong? Simply because the only thing as people we have to rely on is the comfort we find in our own mind and imagination. [/B]
Again, "is" does not imply "ought." Let us say that Mrs. Ross does rely on the comfort she finds in her "delusion" how does this affect me or compel me to do anything? At the time I mocked her beliefs I found great comfort in mocking theists, why should her comfort be more important than mine?
Additionally, at the time, my mocking of her made many of my friends exceedingly happy, and her beliefs made me and my friends angry, surely if comfort and happiness are our goals the greater comfort and happiness was achieved - we all had a good laugh then and later at the pub and for days afterwards. Surely therefore the greatest comfort of the greatest number of people was achieved by mocking and therefore in that situation it was "good"?
-
Hi Dano,
Originally posted by Dadano
Thank you for the clarification regarding Berlinski's interesting ethnic vs. religious convictions.
Let us agree to disagree on the credibility of the Discovery Institute, its contributors and ID.
Alright, as long as you don't have a problem with me doubting the credibility of scientists who dismiss the possibility of design.
I think mocking old women, or anyone for that matter, regardless of the subject, is wrong because it makes me feel negatively about myself. Very simple.
Then Dano, ethics is in the end solipsism. What makes you feel negatively about yourself is bad, and what presumably what makes you feel good about yourself is good.
Let us say that you find via experimentation that robbing banks makes you feel good about yourself, does that make robbing banks good?
Also, to repeat what I said to Cody in my closing questions above (with a some slight modifications) at the time I mocked Mrs. Ross, mocking theists made me feel positively about myself regardless of whether they were young students or little old ladies. Doesn't that mean that when I did it, it was good?
- SEAGOON
-
BTW - A good video of a speech discussing the whole issue of truth, character, and the results of moral relativism by Os Guiness (a British Philosopher) speaking at UCLA. Even if you don't agree at points, I think you'll find Guinness to be a challenging, entertaining, and erudite speaker. He's one of those guys I'd like to be when I grow up (It's also a good vid if you are a fan of Churchill anecdotes).
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/7332.rm
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Also, to repeat what I said to Cody in my closing questions above (with a some slight modifications) at the time I mocked Mrs. Ross, mocking theists made me feel positively about myself regardless of whether they were young students or little old ladies. Doesn't that mean that when I did it, it was good?- SEAGOON
Yes. It was good.
To you, it was good.
It isn't good anymore is it?
Of course not. You have grown, evolved and matured. In this case, I have simply grown, evolved and matured at a faster rate than you did. I would guess about age 12 or 13 I would have seen this as a bad thing, as something I would not do myself.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Therefore, I would ask you, when it comes to the morals themselves are they:
A) A subjective expression of emotions? (i.e. Theft is wrong, really means "Ugh, Theft" as opposed to "Hurrah for theft!")
B) A subjective expression of the psychological state of the speaker? (i.e. Theft is wrong really means "I dislike theft")
C) Cultural Relativism (i.e. Morals are actually sociological statements about the current state of likes and dislikes in our society "We in our culture mostly dislike theft")
Also, I'm confused about "bettering ourselves through one another" what does this mean in application, and why does it convey the ethical force of "ought"? As in "we ought to better ourselves through one another"?
It's quite simple really, me saying that we should better ourselves through one another is also the answer to your question in regards to what morals are.
We all know what is essentially right and wrong. There are variations of course(i.e. those that argue for and against abortion), these variations are triggered by our culture. But behind what might be relative to our culture at the time are what anyone would consider to be basic principles of life. In an ideal society these principles would keep us from killing and robbing one another. Mankind would strive to better itself. I don't know what could be confusing about the idea of mankind bettering itself, but essentially if I dedicated my entire life to find a cure for cancer or you dedicate your life to passing on the knowledge that you have accumulated in your lifetime to younger people. A student betters himself through his professor and equally so a professor betters himself through his student because the professor is contributing to the ideal goal of doing what he can to better mankind. Most of us already do this and just maybe you can argue that by spreading the word of god you are filling people with joy. I don't know what the joy is personally, maybe the joy that there is something better out there, something pure and untouched where there is no pain or suffering. Does this allow us to be more comfortable with the fact that no matter what we do in life, we always have a better place to look forward to? In my opinion this distracts some from what should be a basic idea of looking at those around you and thinking that i want to do something in my life that makes someone elses life a little bit better and in doing so i will gain that much more self-respect. If i do that, if i make someones life better by something i do in my life then i have not only bettered them, but i have bettered myself, i have contributed.
I can enjoy my life just as well as you can and i don't need god to do so. The idea that there is nothing after death does not depress me, no, it only encourages me to live my life to its fullest.
None of this probably makes any sense, after a week filled with finals and work im exhausted, mentally drained. Maybe i can explain myself a little better tomorrow.
Oh and the reason you mocked Mrs. Ross, IMHO, was that you were lacking something inside which was filled by the positive response you got from yourself and those around you. Now you've filled the void with god i can only assume. My girl, my dogs, my knowledge, and everything that i have worked hard for fill my void. Then again i could be, and most likely am, wrong.
-
as a christian and untill now silent observer i dont understand why people pick small parts of Seagoons post to dissect when each and every time they have a question seagoon answers in full. it makes me wonder if those dont believe in God see the big picture. i am not nearly as articulate or researched as Seagoon but i believe anyhow because i know there are things in this universe that i cannot understand.
the reason that it is wrong to mock Ms. Ross is because we hold ourselves to a standard of living, and a standard must have an example, and for me that example is Christ
back into my hole i go
wtg Seagoon :aok
-
I am not at all religious, I do not believe in God.
Yet i find Seagoon's posts fascinating, and when i used to to see him in game i would always PM him asking questions on his beliefs and his different views on things.
Having Seagoon in AH really is an asset to it.
-
Hey Seagoon:
"The same is true in the modern scientific community, deny Darwin's theory and point out it no longer works as a paradigm to explain the evidence and even the most profane or credentialed scientist becomes a "religious fanatic" and no true scientist. As a general rule, speaking against Neodarwinianism is like touching the third rail, and no scientist who wants to keep his career or his place in the academy will do it."
Darwin's theory works excellently with breeding.
You'd be stunned how much can be done in only 10 or 20 generations...
-
Originally posted by Dadano
...You are saying we need a God and his word for moral guidance?
Maybe and Yes.
I say "yes" to moral guidance. That's what is wrong in the country today. Libs took away much of the shame factor used to raise kids so they think beofre they act, and when the act they do so in a respectful manner.
-
Maybe and Yes.
I say "yes" to moral guidance. That's what is wrong in the country today. Libs took away much of the shame factor used to raise kids so they think before they act, and when the act they do so in a respectful manner.
I think we shouldn't blame others for our shortcomings as parents.
-
Interesting conversation.
Dano talks about his thought process evolving over time. I guess I'm in the same boat.
Nothing like having two of my kids die to change my thoughts on God and God's place in all of this.
I'm stuck. I believe there is something bigger then all of this, as I have to believe and do believe I'll see my kids again some day.
But I don't believe God is an active player in all this. To believe that, means I'd have to believe God had something to do with killing my kids.
So I'm stuck with the fact that stuff happens and that I'm responsible for me and the choices that I make. I know right from wrong and I'm responsible for everything I do.
The devil didn't make me do it anymore then God made me do it.
I sit in church on occasion and i shake my head as it doesn't make sense anymore. The talk of miracles or God did this or Jesus did that, don't make sense. If God has all this control and power, why would he leave us in such a mess?
I'm not sure how many more 'lessons" I can take having lost my Dad young and now two of my kids. Am I being punished for something? What am i supposed to learn? I've spent my life working with and helping kids. I've tried to be the best person I can be. What else am I supposed to do if this is all part of me learning something?
The whole notion of the bible as God's word also makes little sense. What books went in and what got left out, was decided 400 years or so after Christ's time by a bunch of infighting Christians with different beliefs.
All the goofy things that organized religion throws on top of a very simple message "Love thy neighbor as thyself", shows the stamp of greedy and power hungry man all over it.
So its still on me to choose the way I live my life, how I raised my kids, what kind of husband, father, son, friend etc I am. and I like it that way cause the responsibility is on me.
As my uncle the minister said at the time of the funeral 20 months ago. In his mind, God had the right to be all loving or all controlling. The choice was all loving, which means stuff happens and the world is ours to make what we want.
-
Well, Dan, it's said that god works in mysterious ways.
That one done, I agree with you, I don't think he's got his merciful hands much around our ways at all.
Kind of like a parent with too many kids.
But that breaks the "allmighty" theory, which then conflicts with the "all good" part.
So, IMHO, we're loose in the park, god is not babysitting, and the rest is up for speculation.
(Sidenote, - I saw your post about your boys, and the feel for them. Know something similar, first hand. Got me scared out of my boots the first time (visual), but then it felt very good. But there is bad stuff as well :(....)
-
Seagoon,
You asked, "tell me without reference to God or the bible why mocking Mrs. Ross (the little old lady in question) and her belief in what you consider to be a delusion was really wrong? "
I say, "What I do not wish upon myself, I do not extend to others."
In regard to Guiness...
His fundamental idea is, "truth is who god is."(22:46), and if you do not have God, you do not have truth.
I disagree.
I believe if you have God, you do not have truth. I cannot rationally prove that there is a god, nor can you. I cannot disprove that god exsists, true. But you cannot disprove that unicorns exist.
Dadano, if there is no God, then there are no ethical absolutes nor any means of finding them out.
What of the billions of people who live on the earth that do not believe in a Judeo-Christian God? What of their societies? How did the Chinese come to their ethical absolutes? (I paraphrased Confucius above-500 B.C.)
jHook,
I agree, Seagoon is articulate and that is exactly the reason I am conversing with him.
Dan, I am sorry for your losses. We all lose. Nobody knows why. You are not alone.
-
If Seagoon needs a god to avoid harassing old ladies, well, then, I'm glad he's got one.
-
Danodano.....as you age the experience of life should teach you many things. So yes I agree thoughts and beliefs do evolve. I'll type a quote from Shakespear. "With age comes wisdom, with wisdom comes sorrow." Reflecting on what might have been as you grow wiser with age can bring that sorrow. Let us hope we all get wiser with age.....with logical reflection on our life, and the lives around us. What happened then, and what is happening now.
Being sorrowful for what is past can be unproductive if it leads to depression, we all must live our life as today is the starting point, and we'll try to do better realizing that we all made and will make mistakes in the future....let's just hope the future mistakes are very little ones :aok
Another popular quote of today is "**** happens". Er.....**** always happens for a reason. Something caused it to happen! :rofl
-
Hello Dano
Sorry about the lateness of this reply. Sunday is the busiest day of the week for me, and Monday is my recovery/family day (and online flying day - trying to master the KI-61 is proving to be an interesting challenge this tour). I'll try to get to some of the other posts tonight, they are all fascinating in their own way.
Originally posted by Dadano
Yes. It was good.
To you, it was good.
It isn't good anymore is it?
Of course not. You have grown, evolved and matured. In this case, I have simply grown, evolved and matured at a faster rate than you did. I would guess about age 12 or 13 I would have seen this as a bad thing, as something I would not do myself.
Dano, I'm sure you realize this, but if this was good, but now isn't, then ultimately there is no such thing as good and evil, at least not in the real ontological sense. At best all they are, are descriptions for the way we feel about certain actions at a given moment in time. Therefore helping an old lady or mocking her, famine relief or genocide are neither moral nor immoral, the just are.
Saying that my position on what was good evolved or matured would actually imply some sort of development or advance, but from what to what? According to evolutionary biologists, evolution has to do with survival of individual organisms and the maximizing of our ability to reproduce (hence Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene") and certainly my point of view regarding Theism and Theists has not helped my chance of survival - quite the opposite actually, if I were a Salmon I've gone from swimming with the stream to swimming against it. Also the social Darwinists have shown us that evolutionary thought doesn't make us nicer to the elderly, gnerally it makes us more likely to get rid of them to make room for the fit and productive.
In any event, my position did not evolve, it changed radically and that fairly quickly. I went from hating God and his followers to Loving Him and Loving them as well. I went from desiring to get even with my enemies, to desiring good for them and praying for them and trying hard to love them. I moved from darkness to light, and from living according to what was good in my own rebellious eyes, to living according to an absolute set of rules laid down by a transcendent God (albeit imperfectly).
The funny thing is, when the scales fell from my eyes (read Acts 9 if you want to know what I'm talking about, my experience is similar to that of Paul) I realized that for my whole life I had been living in opposition to what I knew to be true and like Stalin on his death bed, shaking my fist in the face of God, and spitting on his law, his people, and his mercy. My psychological make-up during that time was described fairly well by Paul in Romans 1:18-32.
I'll bet that at heart you realize that there really are absolutes out there as well, that you instinctively know, even if you deny the possibility, that there really is Good and Evil and that they don't change according to our whims. I'll even bet that when you do certain things, your conscience challenges you, and although you may suppress or ignore the alarm at times, a small voice (no, not the well-dressed Cricket) tells you, this is wrong or you should do this.
That conscience that speaks to us is the remnant of the image of God in man, we don't discover it by observing the universe, it just is. That image may have been obscured by the fall, but its still there none-the-less and we cause ourselves nothing but psychological trauma and emotional pain when we go against it. Our dependence on Therapy and Prozac and the scores of similar meds we run to are part of the high national price of everyone doing what seems good to them, and kidding themselves that good and evil don't exist.
- SEAGOON