Of course we are. The church has already accepted the BB and Evolution, and the need for any deity is continuing to be pushed back further and further.
Yourself, with your fanatical "think for myself" attitude, your beliefs in fairies, goblins, giants, UFO's, and your fanatical belief in a long defunct unsupportable Plasma/Electric theory. [Which you are doing your damndest to raise in science for some air of respectability.]
Theory and really , factually speaking , The Plasma theory of the Universe is the Best theory there is so far , by Humanity. , that explains the Universe , Period .
No insult intended...just a statement of fact. Considering you are the same poster who accepts UFO's of Alien origin, giants, fairies, goblins and defunct hypothesis that never ever made it to theory stage, I see the delusional comment as well deserved.
Fascinating feedback, I'm writing a piece on this and you've all given me much insight. Thank you to everyone who contributed/or is continuing to contribute.
No, you accept what will be apparently controversial, and to give the illusion you are thinking for yourself.
Question as much as you like. But those questions have been asked before and answered. The trick is not flashing your "I think for myself card" just for the sake of it, and refuse to accept explanations that are reasonable and logical. Not for example promote Plasma over gravity, just to be vindictive and controversial and to oppose for oppositions sake.
Can anyone define "evil" and "good" in terms all can accept? I doubt that can be done, so lets try to classify a interesting new advance of science: Not only has the human genome been sequenced and some functions of some parts are known, but now out of China, come news that genes of embryos have been "edited." Object being how to avoid serious genetic defects (that sounds "good" to many) but process can change other genes too (that sounds "evil"). Read more on it: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2015-04/24/content_20536118.htm Then tell: (1) is this research "good" or "evil" (2) how (and who) should control it? For first time in man's history he now or soon will have the power to alter the human gene pool, by non-natural means.
Let me try to explain good and evil with an example. Say, I was able to convince someone to drink a glass of fruit juice that was laced with poison. I don't tell them there is poison in the juice. I tell them that it was fresh squeezed and tastes real good; juice is good. After drinking the juice, they get sick and drop dead to the ground. Now the juice is evil. Notice the juice was both good and evil. In this example, I originally subjectivity define evil; poison juice, as good, by leaving out some crucial data that could have altered the value judgement. With this half truth, the person accepted the juice as good. After they drop dead, all the subjectivity is eliminated, and what remains is an objectivity that will not change. At this objective level, the juice was always evil due to extrapolated cause and effect from hard data. The ancients were not trying to define subjective laws of good and evil by leaving out data. The ancient were more interested in seeing what happens in reality, to help form a long term objective standard of good and evil. Gluttony was called a sin, which later science shows can cause long term health problems. This was known before science proved it. It was not about the short term of eating to much. This can appear relative, because over eating once, does not mean automatic health problems. Like the juice both can appear to be good in the short term but not over time at steady state. Say we go back to the juice example. After the person drinks the flavorful juice, I tell them the drink was poison. Before their symptoms appear, I give them the antidote. The evil of the poison drink is watered down, because nothing serious happens. In some abstract way, the poison drink becomes less evil, because the antidote shielded them from the evil of pain and death. In fact, all this pain this not part of their hard data. They only remember the good quality juice The rest about the poison and antidote may have been a joke, since there is no real objective long term data, that shows any conclusive evil. In modern culture, the evil of sin often has an antidote, such as medicines for STD's. Like the gluttony example, nothing may happen in the short term; once, and if it does in the longer term, an antidote is supplied before the poison kicks in. The evil becomes somewhat of an illusion that is relative, since taking a pill is not so bad or evil. In the relative evil equation, evil = poison plus antidote. Even if a poison is always evil, in the relative equation, it subjectivity adds differently. The ancients did not have most of the modern antidotes for objective poisons, but rather had to observe and find a system of behavior that was self standing, requires no antidote. They found an objective standard of good and evil. This standard would be more obvious if there was no science antidote to water down the poison of evil so it appears as a wash. In the example of giving someone poison, antidote or not, this act alone is evil. Just because I also supplied the antidote, does not make poisoning any less evil. This changing of value of the original act of poisoning, is a subjective magic trick, that levitates via the hidden wires of the antidote. If the husband beats the wife, but then plays the role of her doctor, who patches her up, this is not a morally neutral if she gets better. The beating is always evil no matter the antidote. Religion adds the equation differently than atheism. Religion will use two equations for poison and antidote, instead of one composite equation for poison plus antidote. In religion, poison = evil and antidote = good. But in atheism, relative good/evil =poison + antidote. Both work in their own ways, with atheism more subjective and relative to the state of science and manufacturing costs of the antidote. Cigarettes are relative evil because there are no real antidotes yet to make this relative; poison minus antidote > neutral. If people ate properly and maintained good weight due to the evil of gluttony, many obesity related industries would go bankrupt. They benefit by relative evil that makes use of costly antidotes, to pay forward and reinforce the illusion of neutral. This is the two POV's in a nut shell.
Just stop smoking would do it. There are other ways like patches you can wear to stop the craving for smoking them as well.
