Why Scutfargus is interesting?

[Khun_Sam]

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

Get a hold of yourself mate. You're a moderator, remember?

It's a good discussion. Please let's keep it civil.

[Khun_Sam]

Scut, you previously said that people who don't have faith in Jesus were just not meant to have faith in Jesus. That is why your god will not 'enlighten' them, and therefore they will not be 'saved'. Shouldn't the creator be fair and give everyone a fair chance to be saved?

The child who was born and raised in a muslim, hindu or Buddhist environment will inevitably have a lesser chance of being 'saved' than someone who grew up surrounded by 'born again' christians. The poor kid who is starving to death in Africa, and who's priority is food, not spiritual enlightment, will have near to zero chance of being converted to christianity.

If there were a God, he would have been fair to everyone of his children.

No, as a faily intelligent person, I cannot believe in the God that you are depicting. I have no problem with people who believe in God and can understand why they do. 90% of the people in my familyare devout christians. But your version of God does not make sense to me.

[zeusbheld]

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

Get a hold of yourself mate. You're a moderator, remember?

It's a good discussion. Please let's keep it civil.

the careful observer will note that i am not a moderator in this forum.

the careful observer will also note that it is not only possible but actually happens, that off-duty cops can get arrested.

if someone hits me with bullshit i will smoke the sucka wit logic AND kick them in the balls and step on their balls once they're down. really simple.

generally the tactic demonstrated by scutfargus et al is that of "i will out noise you."

**** alla y'all i can play that game too. bring it.

[zeusbheld]

For most of you, much of what you believe is tied to evolution...especially if you do not believe in God, you have to believe in something. //

First of all, that evolution was even questioned struck me as interesting, as I had no idea anyone could even question that theory. I thought it was like questioning the theory of relativity.

And, originally, I thought the arguments were going to be similar to those of the "Flat Earth people," who were around at that time--all rhetoric and no substance. However, without coercion, but after a great deal of reading, I finally went over to the other side, and stopped believing in evolution and I ended up believing that we were created in a very short period of time directly by God.

The End

most of this was good.

thjis part is kinda dodgy. i agree that there are some people for whom this holds true, as has been evident on the forums on tf. this does not, however, consttitute an argument against evolution. and evolution does not in any necessary way constitute an argument against the existence of god.

that evolution, or relativity, or newtonian mechanics for that manner, can be questioed, is a good, just and beautiful thing. however, when that questioning eschews all responsibility to the evidence provided by nature, in my opinion, it is obnoxious and immoral.

regardless of whether i believe in any kind of god, one thing that should be clear by now is that i do believe in the scientific method and that science can describe the world.

science tells us the mechanism by which the world operates and i believe it is fair to say that science does so accurately based on the fact that science has a predictive capacity.

this predictive capacity extends to the theory of evolution.

if i extrapolate from what has been tested by science, i can predict things about the world. this includes allegedly "controversial" topics like THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN and EVOLUTION. scud, if you want specifics, i can name some, but you have addresssed absolutely NONE of the points i've raised on any thread, so i would say you've got a lot of catching up to do before i owe you anything specifics-wise.

also it is worth nothing, science innately describes HOW THINGS WORK not WHAT THEY ARE. science can never disprove god. and god would have to intervene (miracles, documented ones) to disprove science.

may sound simplistic but the idea that the predictive capacity of science is epistemologically meaningful is tough to refute.

anyone want to try?

[scutfargus]

Robbie that was a very post. I wonder how long it took you to write.

I'm amazed that I managed to read the whole thing even without pictures of sexy babes in between the paragraphs. That's how good it was.

I have often asked myself the same questions.

There are several very religious persons in my family, all of them very highly educated and most of them very rational in their general thinking, except when it comes to their faith. And I have to admit that a few of them have a higher intellect than myself.

It seems that at some point in time they have been touched by some holy spirit or have seen the 'light' somehow. Otherwise it is hard to explain why some people have so much faith in their God and not others, who have had a similar upbringing to them. Sometimes I wished that I would also be touched by the holy spirit which could bring some sense to our being. But it just has not happened for me.

It is a choice, not necessarily a bolt of lightning which strikes you (I am being figurative, of course).

I have a cousin with whom I disagree, and we argue periodically, and he calls me a number of different names and believes sincerely that I am completely brainwashed and that whatever the conservative-Christian right says, I just go right along with the program. Periodically, he cuts off our communication because he gets so frustrated with me and our disagreements.

I have another friend, and he and I have known each other for over 30 years, and we disagree about everything under the sun, and argue about it as well. However, he knows me better than my cousin does, so he feels no need to ever insult me in our conversations or emails. He knows that I have put some thought into what I believe, and, even though he disagrees vehemently, he also knows that is was not a matter of being brainwashed.

It sounds to me like you have the same sort of relationship with your family members as I have with my old friend.

[scutfargus]

Think of what is at the core of the Scartfargus message. It is this. If you truely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God, was God, then you will have everlasting life.

This is very useful information Robbie. I was contemplating upgrading my medical insurance which would incompass a pay out in the unlikely event that I die... But this package Scartfargus is offering sounds so much better?

What do I have to do again? Go to church once a week, give a percentage of my salary to the local paster and spread the word like a pyramid scheme..

This is what puts me off religion. People view it as a bit of an insurance policy...just in case. The selfishness of man, our desire for personal gain above all else... has transcended todays spiritual journey.

In some ways, I agree with you. Finding a good church is nearly impossible in the US, a so-called "Christian nation" where there are churches to be found on every street corner. So, if you have come to be suspicious of churches for various reasons, I cannot fault you for that. At the same time, I am not saying that every church is completely screwed up and completely devoted to taking money from people. If you want to argue that most of them are, I would have to concede that argument, as I am of the same opinion.

Now, I have avoided mentioning any particular church in all of my posts, and there is a reason for that...salvation is obtained one time by faith in Christ and it lasts forever...whether you attend a church or not.

Of course, a church requires money to function. You cannot get around that. For that reason, I have no problem with an offering plate being sent around. My church meets 4 times a week, and passes the plate once. I have never heard an emotional sermon asking for money; the pastor has never from the pulpit or in some letter, "shared" with us a financial crisis, and asked us to give to meet that need. When I was associated with this church from a distance (they sent tapes at that time of Bible teaching; now it is CD's of MP3 files); they never once asked me for money. I had about 5 very lean years when I first became associated with this church. I don't recall if I sent them any money, but if I did, I know it wasn't very much, and it certainly was not regularly sent. However, that had no affect whatsoever on getting materials from them.

Now, the more skeptical of you will say, "Well, that's just a ruse; if you listen to them long enough, you will get hooked and eventually send them a lot of money." Again, they have never asked me for money; if I want to get a sermon on giving, there are a couple of them, but I would have to order them special. One thing I did find out a few years ago is, the pastor discovered that they were keeping records of who gave how much. He told them not to do this anymore (I think the records were shredded, but I forget). He did not want anyone being treated differently because someone at the office knew how much they did or did not give. Now, given that a church must have money to operate, doesn't this seem at least a reasonable approach?

I wandered off the topic, so let me wander back. You can be saved if you never ever darken the door of a church. You can be saved even if you never tell anyone about it. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone; if you need to think of it in terms of a free insurance policy, then that is a very reasonable analogy.

[melasinsh]

Having very strong beliefs in things we cant know about is stupid. Right?

... But if you said that you go off to church every week and worship the toothfairy I would think you were very stupid.

robbie

1) I somehow believe your points would have been more credible if you had not kept using the word stupid throughout. Anytime I see someone keep using the word stupid, I give less credence to their arguments.

There are very many intelligent people that will go to church every week and worship the God of their choice.

point #1 is fine...

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

It is good to know hypocrisy is alive and well throughout the world.

[melasinsh]

I am suprised to read here that doubt exists.

I do not doubt the existence of phenomena out in space. To explain the "observed" phenomena, a hypothesis has been constructed to cover all of the observations. This hypothesis has been named a blackhole.

Everytime there is a new or changed observation the description is modified or ammended to fit within the context of the observable.

There are still numerous problems in the hypothesized explanation.

All of you are missing the point by debating the existence of blackholes while ignoring r36's original posting and aqttempting to stay on topic.

His point is, if you believe strongly in something we cannot know, you are stupid. He claims to believe in extraterrestrial life, but not strongly, so he is not stupid.

Basically, if you have strong convictions about things we cannot be certain about, you are stupid. People with weak convictions are not???

[scutfargus]

Obviously, some of the things which are really being discussed in this thread are:

What is the nature of faith?

Is faith in a God you cannot see different from a faith in, say, a planet you cannot see or a scientific principle you cannot personally verify?

What is evidence? Do we require photographs? Do we require eyewitess accounts? Or is evidence the person who curses the most and talks the loudest?

Speaking of evidence, one person in this and other threads has continually pointed toward his own heart, his own thinking, as the answer. How valid is that? Are we a blank slate at age 21 and is our thinking really our own thinking? How much do we take for granted? I think I have only read one person © who actually admitted to a particular belief and said, in effect, "I really can't back this up, but I can't help it; this is how I feel." Not many people have been this honest.

And what about our own core beliefs? How many under the religion thread or the politics thread only read enough of a person's opinion in order to devise an opposing argument? How many, when they search the web, aren't really considering the evidence, but simply finding someone who can better state what they already believe and provide better evidence than they can themselves?

Speaking of which, when you disagree with someone so vehemently, should you curse him repeatedly? Many of the evolutionists would agree that they are more evolved than I am, for instance, as I believe in all of these myths and fables and fabrications. However, I have seen these same evolved people spent a third of many of their posts treating me with utter verbal disdain. If evolution is not positively correlated with being civilized, why would I want to be evolved?

I can think of 3 or 4 people in this general category of threads who are interesting, who think most of the time before they speak, who make good points (whether I agree with them or not), who would be interesting to sit down and have a drink with and discuss whatever. However, there are more people who post whose vituperation is so consistently vile as to negate the evolution of man that they so highly exalt. If they are the epitome of faith in science and in man, then I'd just as soon stay ignorant of such things, because they offer me nothing by way of example.

The term "brainwashing" is thrown about on this religious thread like so much confetti. However, it is always consistently applied to those who think differently than we do. Why is it those we disagree with are the ones who are brainwashed?

One thing that I did not mention earlier, but has occurred to me today...one of the reasons that I originally rejected Christianity (even before I knew much about it) was personality change. Some Christians that I encountered seemed like pod-people. Personally, that really put me off and I was suspicious of that kind of behavior before and even after becoming a believer in Jesus Christ. One church that my younger brother attended had women who sounded exactly like the pastor's wife--same vocal inflection, same vocabulary; it was not as much eerie as it was off-putting. Since then, I understand what is going on here, and why people do that. But that was a grave concern of mine at one time. No one has mentioned that before, so does anyone feel the same way?

[zeusbheld]

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

It is good to know hypocrisy is alive and well throughout the world.

riiight you are a shining example.

given that i've witnessed about 3 times when a thai girl disagreed with you about something, and you lecture her on her english...

by the way, i have never denied that i'm a condescending prick, it even said so on my profile for a while. you, on the other hand...

[bobbyboy112003]

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

Get a hold of yourself mate. You're a moderator, remember?

It's a good discussion. Please let's keep it civil.

I agree with Sam, please keep your comments civil as moderator or member.

Thank you,

Bobby

[johnno]

ah

[johnno]

Speaking of which, when you disagree with someone so vehemently, should you curse him repeatedly?

Yes, especially if he /she has said something really dumb

I can think of 3 or 4 people in this general category of threads who are interesting, who think most of the time before they speak, who make good points (whether I agree with them or not), who would be interesting to sit down and have a drink with and discuss whatever.

thanks for including me here, the beers are on you

[zeusbheld]

Obviously, some of the things which are really being discussed in this thread are:

What is the nature of faith?

an interesting topic, and related to the original question.

Is faith in a God you cannot see different from a faith in, say, a planet you cannot see or a scientific principle you cannot personally verify?

i think it is, scientific principles are essentially different in that they can be tested and predicted.

i think faith in a God is something that inherently not testable the way that acceleration of gravity is. obvioulsy science is my "religion" although i'm clearly not a scientist.

the people of faith i've been most impressed with have had some sort of mystical "experience" which counts as evidence for them, but they cannot transfer this experience to someone else readily. guess that is why they call it "faith".

i get deeply offended when ppl mix the two.

What is evidence? Do we require photographs? Do we require eyewitess accounts? Or is evidence the person who curses the most and talks the loudest?

loud talking and cursing neither reinforce nor undermine evidence, especially if things are testable, repeatable and can be used to make predictions.

sophistry and apparent (yet disingenuous) affability neither helps nor hurts evidence either, it's all just surface noise.

Speaking of evidence, one person in this and other threads has continually pointed toward his own heart, his own thinking, as the answer.

i think in most things there's not much choice, that's what one has to do. in all things, one's emotions will be engaged.

however, in things like physics, i might hate the idea of black holes, but if the math is testable, the experiments are repeatable, even *i* dont give a **** about my emotions when it comes to the evidence. my thinking and my feelings about black holes just arent worth much. personally i'd prefer it if the acceleration of gravity on earth was just a little less...

And what about our own core beliefs? How many under the religion thread or the politics thread only read enough of a person's opinion in order to devise an opposing argument? How many, when they search the web, aren't really considering the evidence, but simply finding someone who can better state what they already believe and provide better evidence than they can themselves?

i think if you are honest with yourself, you do exactly teh same thing. i do it too. in your evolution thread i'd have a lot more patience for what you have to say if you didnt ignore posts that challenge your assertions and had some sense of how the alleged "scientists" who do things like geology, paleontology, etc actually work before you claim to be able to debunk their fraud. THAT is what offends me, i see it as a moral issue.

Speaking of which, when you disagree with someone so vehemently, should you curse him repeatedly?

obviously i dont care about it, we can agree to disagree on this. to me your affability comes off as insincere and manipulative and that is why you piss me off.

is salemanship and gentlemanliness more honorable than abrasiveness?

you have to admit, hate me or really hate me, you are never in doubt about how i feel about something. cards are most definitely on the table.

Many of the evolutionists would agree that they are more evolved than I am, for instance, as I believe in all of these myths and fables and fabrications. However, I have seen these same evolved people spent a third of many of their posts treating me with utter verbal disdain. If evolution is not positively correlated with being civilized, why would I want to be evolved?

wanting to be evolved is utterly irrelevant to the theory of evolution. whether or not evolution is progressive (each organism getting better) is something that scientists dont evven agree on.

who is nicer or more civilized has zero to do with evolution.

abrasive disdain is apparently more morally offensive to you that smug condescending dismissive but polite disdain? fine. we'll agree to disagree on that. i heap verbal disdain on you because you try to manipulate me, ignore responses to your posts, twist what i say around, and i really dont feeel you are very honest. at best, you havent admitted how little homework you've done about the theory you claim to debunk. this is offends me. deeply.

However, there are more people who post whose vituperation is so consistently vile as to negate the evolution of man that they so highly exalt.

again, to equate the theory of evolution with good vs bad behavior is inaccurate and possibly dishonest.

If they are the epitome of faith in science and in man, then I'd just as soon stay ignorant of such things, because they offer me nothing by way of example.

faith in science has zero to do with faith in man. it's about epistemology not manners.

The term "brainwashing" is thrown about on this religious site

this isnt a religious site it's a dating site.

like so much confetti. However, it is always consistently applied to those who think differently than we do. Why is it those we disagree with are the ones who are brainwashed?

the careful observer will note that you, scudfargus, were the one who initiated talkingof brainwashing on your "evolutiion is a hoax" thread. this tactic is your tactic more than anyone else's.

One thing that I did not mention earlier, but has occurred to me today...one of the reasons that I originally rejected Christianity (even before I knew much about it) was personality change. Some Christians that I encountered seemed like pod-people. Personally, that really put me off and I was suspicious of that kind of behavior before and even after becoming a believer in Jesus Christ. One church that my younger brother attended had women who sounded exactly like the pastor's wife--same vocal inflection, same vocabulary; it was not as much eerie as it was off-putting. Since then, I understand what is going on here, and why people do that. But that was a grave concern of mine at one time. No one has mentioned that before, so does anyone feel the same way?

i dont care about that. if i were born again i'd still be an abrasive assholle. i dont think it's a matter of faith, or relative happiness.

[zeusbheld]

I am suprised to read here that doubt exists.

I do not doubt the existence of phenomena out in space. To explain the "observed" phenomena, a hypothesis has been constructed to cover all of the observations. This hypothesis has been named a blackhole.

Everytime there is a new or changed observation the description is modified or ammended to fit within the context of the observable.

There are still numerous problems in the hypothesized explanation.

but these changes arent huge, the black hole model has been tested enough where it will more or less still work. they are adjustments to the model, it is highly unlikely to be completely thrown out the window. newtonian mechanics was modified by relativity, not replaced.

All of you are missing the point by debating the existence of blackholes while ignoring r36's original posting and aqttempting to stay on topic.

a debate which you initiated by asserting they cannot be shown to exist.

His point is, if you believe strongly in something we cannot know, you are stupid. He claims to believe in extraterrestrial life, but not strongly, so he is not stupid.

Basically, if you have strong convictions about things we cannot be certain about, you are stupid. People with weak convictions are not???

i dont care if i'm stupid or not, so i dont have anything to add if that is indeed the point.

[zeusbheld]

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

Get a hold of yourself mate. You're a moderator, remember?

It's a good discussion. Please let's keep it civil.

I agree with Sam, please keep your comments civil as moderator or member.

Thank you,

Bobby

sorry boss...

********HISTORIC MOMENT ALERT *********

the careful observer will note that a moderator (that'd be me) just received an official warning from a moderator.

****END HISTORIC MOMENT ALERT*********

[WiCKeDBiRD]

Having very strong beliefs in things we cant know about is stupid. Right?

... But if you said that you go off to church every week and worship the toothfairy I would think you were very stupid.

robbie

1) I somehow believe your points would have been more credible if you had not kept using the word stupid throughout. Anytime I see someone keep using the word stupid, I give less credence to their arguments.

There are very many intelligent people that will go to church every week and worship the God of their choice.

point #1 is fine...

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

It is good to know hypocrisy is alive and well throughout the world.

Even if he kept saying the -Stupid- word for a Trillion of times on this Thread...

that will NOT ever change the Fact of R36's outstanding Wit, Intelligence & Intellect.

-WB-

PS. Ppl could possibly be STUPID whether they are a Genius or not.

PPS. GWB is obviously STUPID .. but he can NOT be a dumb as he is the president of the united states of Amarica

PPPS. Nothing is wrong with being -hypocrisy-... as long as you do know/realise about yourself. 8) :wink:

[bobbyboy112003]

it's not about whether i "think" i'm intelligent" you condescending prick.

Get a hold of yourself mate. You're a moderator, remember?

It's a good discussion. Please let's keep it civil.

I agree with Sam, please keep your comments civil as moderator or member.

Thank you,

Bobby

sorry boss...

********HISTORIC MOMENT ALERT *********

the careful observer will note that a moderator (that'd be me) just received an official warning from a moderator.

****END HISTORIC MOMENT ALERT*********

LOL...sorry bro, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

p.s. Mason's the boss, i'm just an underling

[Loburt]

What is the nature of faith?

Is faith in a God you cannot see different from a faith in, say, a planet you cannot see or a scientific principle you cannot personally verify?

Yes, absolutely.

How many under the religion thread or the politics thread only read enough of a person's opinion in order to devise an opposing argument? How many, when they search the web, aren't really considering the evidence, but simply finding someone who can better state what they already believe and provide better evidence than they can themselves?

Some do and some don't.

Nonetheless, Scutfargus, one of the people who have been most and consistently guilty of not reading other people's posts in their entirety or at all and then responding, and using information from the web, even from creationist or religious sites, to selectively reinforce some obvious untruths they are attempting to prosletyze here is:

YOU.

Your posts on the geological column speak volumes about your dishonesty.

Close the bible, turn off the computer and take a good long look in the mirror, buddy.

Many of the evolutionists would agree that they are more evolved than I am, for instance, as I believe in all of these myths and fables and fabrications. However, I have seen these same evolved people spent a third of many of their posts treating me with utter verbal disdain. If evolution is not positively correlated with being civilized, why would I want to be evolved?

This is the argument of an intellectually dishonest person. As we're all members of the same species, we are all evolved to roughly the same degree.

Disagreements over manners and civility have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

[scutfargus]

Scut, you previously said that people who don't have faith in Jesus were just not meant to have faith in Jesus. That is why your god will not 'enlighten' them, and therefore they will not be 'saved'. Shouldn't the creator be fair and give everyone a fair chance to be saved?

Not exactly; God knows who will believe in Jesus, and only has to provide the gospel for that person. However, there is a branch of Christianity, the ultra-Calvinists, who believe that God ultimately chooses whether we believe or not. Others believe that there is an intersection here of God's foreknowledge of man's freewill (which is what I believe).

The child who was born and raised in a muslim, hindu or Buddhist environment will inevitably have a lesser chance of being 'saved' than someone who grew up surrounded by 'born again' christians. The poor kid who is starving to death in Africa, and who's priority is food, not spiritual enlightment, will have near to zero chance of being converted to christianity.

True, to some degree. However, anyone who desires a relationship with God will be exposed to the gospel in one way or another. There are also mechanics involved--the gospel is made real to the person as he hears it. Some can hear the gospel many times, and not really get it.

When it comes to children before the age of God-consciousness (which, in a primitive society, can come late in their teens), if they die first, there is no issue of volition involved, so they are automatically saved (as their sins have been paid for).

There is Scripture suporting these points, but they are not central issues in Christianity.

If there were a God, he would have been fair to everyone of his children.

No, as a faily intelligent person, I cannot believe in the God that you are depicting. I have no problem with people who believe in God and can understand why they do. 90% of the people in my familyare devout christians. But your version of God does not make sense to me.

I am only depicting the God of the Bible. As Jesus said, "How narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves." Matt. 7:14-15). The latter half of this verse refers to religious leaders.

[scutfargus]

Obviously, some of the things which are really being discussed in this thread are:

What is the nature of faith?

an interesting topic, and related to the original question.

Is faith in a God you cannot see different from a faith in, say, a planet you cannot see or a scientific principle you cannot personally verify?

i think it is, scientific principles are essentially different in that they can be tested and predicted.

i think faith in a God is something that inherently not testable the way that acceleration of gravity is. obvioulsy science is my "religion" although i'm clearly not a scientist.

Some people test God in prayer all of the time. This does not mean that God always gives a "yes" answer to every person's prayer. But...well, let me give you an example:

In Dallas Theological Seminary, a few of the administrators and teachers were praying for funds. One of them prayed (this is not an exact quote): "God, we know that you own the cattle on a thousand hills. We need some of that wealth now in order to survive." He was quoting a Scripture which says that the cattle on a thousand hills belong to God.

Within a couple of days, a Texas rancher came into Dallas Theological Seminary and give them a substantial offering which he had gotten from selling some of the cattle on his ranch. God does listen to us.

My suggestion has been to a number of people is this, sit down with the book of John and test God. Tell Him, "I don't know if You are real or not; but if you are real, then speak to me through your Word." And then read. If you are willing to listen, God is willing to talk to you.

[scutfargus]

The term "brainwashing" is thrown about on this religious site

this isnt a religious site it's a dating site.

I misspoke; meant to say "religious threads"

[CiaranM]

LOL...sorry bro, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

is bobbyboy goosing ganders now ?? what's wrong no sheep in NY ??

[scutfargus]

Many of the evolutionists would agree that they are more evolved than I am, for instance, as I believe in all of these myths and fables and fabrications. However, I have seen these same evolved people spent a third of many of their posts treating me with utter verbal disdain. If evolution is not positively correlated with being civilized, why would I want to be evolved?

This is the argument of an intellectually dishonest person. As we're all members of the same species, we are all evolved to roughly the same degree.

Disagreements over manners and civility have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

It does; why should I believe as you or as others do if (how do I put this delicately?) the end result is not really a better me? I see such inconsistency of behavior with some at this thread and other threads. If humanism ends up making me a lot less human, why would I want to embrace it?

[zeusbheld]

Many of the evolutionists would agree that they are more evolved than I am, for instance, as I believe in all of these myths and fables and fabrications. However, I have seen these same evolved people spent a third of many of their posts treating me with utter verbal disdain. If evolution is not positively correlated with being civilized, why would I want to be evolved?

This is the argument of an intellectually dishonest person. As we're all members of the same species, we are all evolved to roughly the same degree.

Disagreements over manners and civility have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

It does; why should I believe as you or as others do if (how do I put this delicately?) the end result is not really a better me? I see such inconsistency of behavior with some at this thread and other threads. If humanism ends up making me a lot less human, why would I want to embrace it?

humanism and evolution ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

the theory of evolution doesnt claim to make you "better" it claims that species adapted to their niche are more likely to survive, not " be nice" or "better".

attacking humanism is one thing, but attacking evolution on these grounds is just bogus.

this line of reasoning is totally off base.