lol 1 week after I arrived the volcano stopped, and as for banks, our currency actually has recovered a bit since I got here and food costs even went down for the 1st time since the collapse.
The information is accurate but I am saying you can bring up any list of any powerful culture, society, state, or religion in human history and come up with a similar litanty of attrocities that we in the modern world would view as morally reprehensible. You are assigning complete blame to Christianity for something that I believe to be a trait of human nature. If the world were without religion, mankind would find some other ignorance or superstition to kill each other over until the point where we realize that killing each other becomes so devastating that it's better to hold back (mutually assured destruction).
Nowhere have I laid the blame ENTIRELY on Christianity or religion. I am suggesting that it holds a great deal of blame, and I also suggest we would likely have been better off without it. Yes there have been atrocities eleswhere, but that is not part of this discussion. Create a separate thread for those discussions, Im all for it.
Again, what may have happened without is a guess, but I'll bet we would be better off in regards to science and likely the advancement of women and people of different color. Speculation of course.
As I have ALWAYS said, I think man is inherently good, we are taught to be otherwise, with the exception of those who have the misfortune of bad genetics or familial exposure.
Man is also born atheist, we are simply taught the religious flavor of the day dependent on where we are raised.
I always believe in compassion, empathy, and tolerance and don't deny the existence of things I will never have knowledge of. I am in the camp of "I don't care anymore if certain religions or people are dead wrong" and I will go out of my way to accomodate them because I am a humanist and whatever makes you happy will float my boat. Almost all my close family and friends are religious in some way whether it is Christian, Muslim, Buddist, Hindu, Mormon (no Scientologists thank Xenu!) and I cannot deny the benefit of faith in their lives. Honestly, I wish all atheist vs. religious debates were instead between the apostates and the religious trying to convert them back. That'd be much more entertaining and intellectually stimulating to me. You need to have common ground to have any gripping discussion or any good argument that will keep my interest otherwise it's just cat fighting.
I think we all would...but Im sure you are well aware that when the argument, or discussion as you would have it, comes down to "FAITH" or "He Did It", it quickly falls apart from there. When your education on something is based simply on a book of fiction then you simply cannot have that type of discussion. Thats why everyone loves Textcritic, including myself, he can argue religion based on the history of it, knowing the foibles of current thinking.
The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history. There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood, genetic evidence that supports adam and eve etc...just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..interesting stuff...Scientists are now turning to some biblical accounts and native american folklore as not just fictional stories, but as evidence that backs up some scientific theories.
I'll bet we would be better off in regards to science and likely the advancement of women and people of different color. Speculation of course.
As I have ALWAYS said, I think man is inherently good, we are taught to be otherwise, with the exception of those who have the misfortune of bad genetics or familial exposure.
Man is also born atheist, we are simply taught the religious flavor of the day dependent on where we are raised.
This happens to be completely and utterly opposite of everything I believe about human nature but to each his own.
I believe we all have a bit of inherent misogeny, racism, selfishness, and great capacity for great good or evil depending on what your social construct of the day is. We all also possess deep yearning for understanding of the universe and a bigger in life purpose for our existence within us which often leads people to seek it out through religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheese
I think we all would...but Im sure you are well aware that when the argument, or discussion as you would have it, comes down to "FAITH" or "He Did It", it quickly falls apart from there. When your education on something is based simply on a book of fiction then you simply cannot have that type of discussion. Thats why everyone loves Textcritic, including myself, he can argue religion based on the history of it, knowing the foibles of current thinking.
You are just selling the religious short. There are many more accomplished biblical scholars who are religious than otherwise. Likewise, even without the credentials, there are many religious people who have deeply examined their faith in the context of theology and history and science and have managed to reconcile them. I'd like to hear those points of views. There's no need for this condescending attitude. It is what always spoils these discussions.
"Survival of the fittest" is for animals, we're people, we think and consider our actions and circumstances and make decisions beyond immediate survival. Things change, society changes, at some point humanity may grow out of religion. Or it might not, the roots of belief are very deep.
I disagree that evolution stops when people developed the ability to think. The same concepts still prevail. Those traits and belief systems which cause the greatest amount of genetic material to passed on the ones that will continue. Now the Social Darwinism aspect may be a stretch that beliefs are passed down in a darwinistic manner but at some point if religion has no benefit it should disappear on its own.
To me the historical death toll is irrelevant, its all about today and how religion affects the world's discourse.
I still can't get over calling atheists religious, its ludicrous.
I don't use the word evagelical to imply that it is religion.
e·van·gel·i·cal (vn-jl-kl, vn-) also e·van·gel·ic (-jlk)adj.1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament. 2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel. 3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life. 4. Evangelicala. Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland. b. Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith. 6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.
n.Evangelical A member of an evangelical church or party.
I am impplying definition 6 of evangelical. The Zealous, Ardent, and Crusading aspects of the word. Not the religiosity of the word. It is the method used to spread their tennants which becomes similar.
This happens to be completely and utterly opposite of everything I believe about human nature but to each his own.
I believe we all have a bit of inherent misogeny, racism, selfishness, and great capacity for great good or evil depending on what your social construct of the day is. We all also possess deep yearning for understanding of the universe and a bigger in life purpose for our existence within us which often leads people to seek it out through religion.
You are just selling the religious short. There are many more accomplished biblical scholars who are religious than otherwise. Likewise, even without the credentials, there are many religious people who have deeply examined their faith in the context of theology and history and science and have managed to reconcile them. I'd like to hear those points of views. There's no need for this condescending attitude. It is what always spoils these discussions.
condescending? cmon....nice try, my points are no more condescending than Thor's or anyone elses.
If you dont like my "opinion" put me on ignore.
I would think that based on the comments I respond to from many of the religious on this board, education of their particular choice is based solely on the bible or the word of their pastor, the historicity of their choice is largely unknown.
You are entitled to believe what you want, your choice, just as with the religious.
condescending? cmon....nice try, my points are no more condescending than Thor's or anyone elses.
If you dont like my "opinion" put me on ignore.
I would think that based on the comments I respond to from many of the religious on this board, education of their particular choice is based solely on the bible or the word of their pastor, the historicity of their choice is largely unknown.
You are entitled to believe what you want, your choice, just as with the religious.
I think we have some decently smart people in this thread and you aren't giving them any credit and the condescension is not condusive to any useful discourse. Your opinions seem chosen for shock value. They don't bother me but they turn these threads into the usual thing.
As I have ALWAYS said, I think man is inherently good, we are taught to be otherwise, with the exception of those who have the misfortune of bad genetics or familial exposure. Man is also born atheist, we are simply taught the religious flavor of the day dependent on where we are raised.
I disageen I think with both of these tennats. Man is born inherantly self-serving caring only about his own survival and the survival of his genetic code. The evolutionary instinct is too strong. Our whole society is set up on doing what is best for yourself. Instances of Commune style living fail once group is large enough so that all indviduals don`t know eachother. Concepts like altruism are taught.
Man is also born with a great propensity for belief and a longing to belong. These traits lend people to some form of belief. We are naturally pre-disposed to belief.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I think that you missed the alpha dog part of your theory though.
That at some point in commune living, people will look to someone with the most charisma to take the mantle of leadership and the person who's willing to make the decisions. And once that person is followed, the rest of the commune is willing to follow him without argument or complaint straight to hell.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I think that you missed the alpha dog part of your theory though.
That at some point in commune living, people will look to someone with the most charisma to take the mantle of leadership and the person who's willing to make the decisions. And once that person is followed, the rest of the commune is willing to follow him without argument or complaint straight to hell.
No, there will always be challengers to the top dog, but if he's strong enough, he can beat them down. M******d must have been one badass hardcore gansta mofo. He defintely got da bitches. 11 hos.
No, there will always be challengers to the top dog, but if he's strong enough, he can beat them down. M******d must have been one badass hardcore gansta mofo. He defintely got da bitches. 11 hos.
Its funny though, you look at the alpha dog theories and some of the largest despots of their time, and for the most part it reads of a who's who of either natural deaths, suicides or destruction by outside sources.
Its rare that they're taken down by their own commune.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Its funny though, you look at the alpha dog theories and some of the largest despots of their time, and for the most part it reads of a who's who of either natural deaths, suicides or destruction by outside sources.
Its rare that they're taken down by their own commune.
Except for pretty much every Roman Emperor but they were too civilized and learned to fall for the ol' commune and cult of personality trick. They don't like their Emperor, they stabbed and poisoned him by committee even if he named is Julius Caesar.
Oh and that other guy who's name starts with a J got sold out by his own man too.
Except for pretty much every Roman Emperor but they were too civilized and learned to fall for the ol' commune and cult of personality trick. They don't like their Emperor, they stabbed and poisoned him by committee even if he named is Julius Caesar.
Oh and that other guy who's name starts with a J got sold out by his own man too.
Except the Roman Emperors always allowed too much power to their underlings, supported a system of government that distributed power, and allowed for too much education to the masses.
In terms of communal living with a strong leadership cult head, the best example would still probably be North Korea and its allowance of dynastic succession.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Except the Roman Emperors always allowed too much power to their underlings, supported a system of government that distributed power, and allowed for too much education to the masses.
In terms of communal living with a strong leadership cult head, the best example would still probably be North Korea and its allowance of dynastic succession.
Iran too with Grand Ayatollah Khamenei grooming his son to be the next supreme ruler too. Every top dog tries to get his son in there.
as far as dawkins goes, i agree with him, i like him, but he really does come across as a baffoon and maybe even a hypocrite when he gets into his child like rants and name calling. He talks about religion eliminating the need for understanding, well so does name calling as your conclusion.
Is this an actual opinion of Dawkins, or of people's perception of Dawkins? Because these rants and name calling are mostly mythical, on the contrary I've seen Dawkins respond to people ranting and calling religious people names with rational and balanced responses.
Unless you have some actual examples of this behaviour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
The bible may be full of a lot of exaggeration, but it is one of the earliest forms of scientific observationtional evidence of major events in human/earths history.
Simple observation isn't science, and the Bible is no different in its observation of events.. some it gets right, some it gets wrong, some it makes up out of whole cloth, each depending on the author's goal when they wrote whatever book they did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
There is archaeological evidence that supports noah's flood
A global flood? No there isn't, and there's tons against it. The whole account is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
genetic evidence that supports adam and eve
Genetic evidence supports evolution completely not adam and eve. Unless you're talking about Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, but those are just names, those two people didn't live at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
etc...
Etc like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MelBridgeman
just it's a bit more sophiscated then how it is presented in the bible. In fact one theory states that a noahs flood actually started in Canada..
I think you mean made up idea with no support, not theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I disagree that evolution stops when people developed the ability to think.
I never said it did. I was responding to your comment that "now shouldn't survival of the fitest be aloud to prevail". My point was that the basic survival of the fittest is the only factor in animal survival, in humans we minds and society, so while evolution still occurs, we make choices beyond the simple dictates of evolutionary pressures.
(Evolution is not survival of the fittest by the way, it's change of frequency of alleles in a population.. descent with modification through natural selection)
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
The same concepts still prevail. Those traits and belief systems which cause the greatest amount of genetic material to passed on the ones that will continue. Now the Social Darwinism aspect may be a stretch that beliefs are passed down in a darwinistic manner but at some point if religion has no benefit it should disappear on its own.
But just because a concept or social trait or whatever has benefit doesn't mean it should be allowed to propagate. Or sometimes a change should be actively pursued rather than just allow it to change slowly. Or even a change forced onto the majority against their will because it is the right thing to do. Slavery, women's rights, equality of races, etc.
I'm not saying that religion is that case; while I think some religions are harmful I also think limiting the freedom to have a religion is more harmful. Religion might disappear on its own, it certainly does the more stable and prosperous a society becomes.
I'm just saying that our society is (and should me) far more than just a simple survival of the fittest social construct.
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin incidentally.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
v
n-j
l
-k
l, 
