Darwin, the Destroyer

[AVG-JOE]

Gee, I was kinda hoping that someone would see the reason for the examples in item #5...

...whether there is a societal benefit to those behaviors.


And compared same to behavior suggested by biblical values.

Like I said, reality is subjective, not truth. What's real to you is a joke to me and my reality makes me a loon in your eyes.

The good news is that it simply doesn't matter. We can even meet in the middle on the internet and communicate and stuff 'cause we both bleed red.

Life being chemical and not miraculous doesn't make it any less amazing.

"....my reality makes me a loon in your eyes."

I never said that, nor do I believe it.


I'm not shy, Joe....I'd say it if I believed it.

Just a turn of phrase indicating that you and I don't always see eye-to-eye on stuff. I don't really see your belief set as a 'joke' either, just not my style any more - life's too short.

 

[AVG-JOE]

wha?

i no longer comment on your "OP"s.

you should know that.

i am merely interested in your well being.

and i want to dissect your brain, for scientific reasons.

I find that kind of creepy.... and I'm a little sociopathic

seems to be a personal problem.

for scientific reasons i would like to take a closer look at your brain, too.

Give me $100,000 now, and I'll let you have my brain when I'm done with it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Another thoughtful thread by PoliticalChic.

Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."

^^This has worked well for me. The Golden Rule, if you will.

Also: "Develop a profound belief in the universal law of cause and effect---the empowering belief that we all ultimately direct our own lives." And I do.

Also I am mindful of this wisdom: Cultivation of tolerance for other faiths will impart to us a truer understanding of our own.

"...the empowering belief that we all ultimately direct our own lives."

And that reinforces the point of the OP....that materialism, Darwinism, the idea that we are no more than the combination of biological systems, is false.

Thank you for that.

You're welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to offer other viewpoints.

I do not affirm or deny the existence of a god. Until scientific evidence is in, I won't be changing my mind.

Science does not apply.



There is no place for science in a discussion of origins and afterlife. One is forced to choose a story without proof because our origins can't be repeated.

Science can only be used to validate the physical evidence used to support or dispute any given story. In that respect, Evolution certainly carries a lot of weight compared to the worlds competing religions - sans the image of Jesus on the grilled cheese sammie, I never heard of any physical evidence of God.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It is a 'bad thing,' Joe.

There is no morality to science. Just who has imposed on the suffering
human race poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, the formula for Zyklon B, heavy artillery,
pseudo-scientific justifications for mass murder, cluster bombs,
attack submarines, napalm, inter continental ballistic missiles,
military space platforms, and nuclear weapons?


You might also like to consider why the French Revolution turned a nation into an abattoir,
while the American Revolution, led by religious folks, gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

"The French Revolution is the godless antithesis of the founding of America.
Unlike the American version, the French Revolution was a revolt by the mob, and was the primogenitor of the Bolshevik Revolution, Hitler’s Nazi Party, Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot’s killing fields, and the dirty waifs smashing Starbucks’ windows whenever bankers come town."
Coulter, "Demonic."

Science doesn't need morality. Mankind comes with a certain developing morality that is his responsibility to bring to the table when using the tool of Science.

It's also his responsibility to bring whatever morality is reflected back on society by the tool of Religion.

Has the clergy, the human face of Religion, been perfect with their responsibility to bring morality to their profession? Should we hold the men of God to a higher standard? These are valid questions.

There have been at LEAST as many dangerously immoral preachers as there have been 'mad scientists' in history....

Really?

See post #44.

So war is a reflection of immorality creeping in through science? O.k. I'll buy that.... sort of. I think greed is a far more common basis for war and morality is always the first casualty of war.

Doesn't make Father Nelson any safer to have working in the 'youth' program.

Reality remains subjective and nobody's story is supported by anything stronger than the faith of those who believe it.

 

[percysunshine]

you are moving into retard country.

i can play this all night.

Not answering can go on forever.

Well....maybe a few billion years.

let's recap.

you made the bold statement about scientists and liberals.

Cause....Effect....

A scientist understands the relationship. A liberal does not.

you can back off anytime.

or you can double-down on dumb.

So answer the questions.


.

 

[Photonic]

"...the empowering belief that we all ultimately direct our own lives."

And that reinforces the point of the OP....that materialism, Darwinism, the idea that we are no more than the combination of biological systems, is false.

Thank you for that.

You're welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to offer other viewpoints.

I do not affirm or deny the existence of a god. Until scientific evidence is in, I won't be changing my mind.

Science does not apply.



There is no place for science in a discussion of origins and afterlife. One is forced to choose a story without proof because our origins can't be repeated.

Science can only be used to validate the physical evidence used to support or dispute any given story. In that respect, Evolution certainly carries a lot of weight compared to the worlds competing religions - sans the image of Jesus on the grilled cheese sammie, I never heard of any physical evidence of God.

Well, we could eventually discern how life came about on planet Earth. I'm sure plenty of people would deny it even if it was found. Just as they deny absolute facts present in the Theory of Evolution. I'm surprised they don't jump off buildings believing they will float.

 

[there4eyeM]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

 

[Hollie]

You're welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to offer other viewpoints.

I do not affirm or deny the existence of a god. Until scientific evidence is in, I won't be changing my mind.

Science does not apply.



There is no place for science in a discussion of origins and afterlife. One is forced to choose a story without proof because our origins can't be repeated.

Science can only be used to validate the physical evidence used to support or dispute any given story. In that respect, Evolution certainly carries a lot of weight compared to the worlds competing religions - sans the image of Jesus on the grilled cheese sammie, I never heard of any physical evidence of God.

Well, we could eventually discern how life came about on planet Earth. I'm sure plenty of people would deny it even if it was found. Just as they deny absolute facts present in the Theory of Evolution. I'm surprised they don't jump off buildings believing they will float.

The fun doesn't stop there. Sometimes they commit suicide thinking they will take a ride on a comet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...the empowering belief that we all ultimately direct our own lives."

And that reinforces the point of the OP....that materialism, Darwinism, the idea that we are no more than the combination of biological systems, is false.

Thank you for that.

You're welcome. Thank you for the opportunity to offer other viewpoints.

I do not affirm or deny the existence of a god. Until scientific evidence is in, I won't be changing my mind.

Science does not apply.



There is no place for science in a discussion of origins and afterlife. One is forced to choose a story without proof because our origins can't be repeated.

Science can only be used to validate the physical evidence used to support or dispute any given story. In that respect, Evolution certainly carries a lot of weight compared to the worlds competing religions - sans the image of Jesus on the grilled cheese sammie, I never heard of any physical evidence of God.

They can overlap. Where did the material that became the universe come from prior to the 'Big Bang'?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Science does not apply.



There is no place for science in a discussion of origins and afterlife. One is forced to choose a story without proof because our origins can't be repeated.

Science can only be used to validate the physical evidence used to support or dispute any given story. In that respect, Evolution certainly carries a lot of weight compared to the worlds competing religions - sans the image of Jesus on the grilled cheese sammie, I never heard of any physical evidence of God.

Well, we could eventually discern how life came about on planet Earth. I'm sure plenty of people would deny it even if it was found. Just as they deny absolute facts present in the Theory of Evolution. I'm surprised they don't jump off buildings believing they will float.

The fun doesn't stop there. Sometimes they commit suicide thinking they will take a ride on a comet.

Sad but true... even bullshit as a perceived reality can have a powerful hold on the mind.

 

[Hollie]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

I would modify "belief is a choice" to "belief can be a choice.

The entire god question is a pretty important one I'd say. For me, it's not something to just roll over and believe because if you truly dig deep into what allows you to believe, you will find there is no clear reason to believe as you do-- the differing paradigms out there do not make a single case that rises above the others. In other words, there is no reason to believe Christianity over Islam over Buddhism over Judaism over Hinduism.

People typically accept their theistic beliefs for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a Hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select. And of course, I'll even include the possibility (but not probability) that one selects a belief because they actually do hear directly from the Supreme Being.

Religious beliefs are overwhelmingly a function of family / social circumstances.

 

[AVG-JOE]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle.

That's why political compromise and agreement, along with equitable enforcement of civil law, is so essential to a Sentient society.

In a land of many competing Religions, Government ROCKS!!

 

[there4eyeM]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

I would modify "belief is a choice" to "belief can be a choice.

The entire god question is a pretty important one I'd say. For me, it's not something to just roll over and believe because if you truly dig deep into what allows you to believe, you will find there is no clear reason to believe as you do-- the differing paradigms out there do not make a single case that rises above the others. In other words, there is no reason to believe Christianity over Islam over Buddhism over Judaism over Hinduism.

People typically accept their theistic beliefs for many reasons, but rarely do they apply very hard standards to those reasons. They tend to be cultural (i.e., you grew up in a social environment that preferred one belief over another), or anecdotal (you believe in certain events that for you define a specific belief, like a Hindu may have examples of "reincarnation" whereas a Catholic will "see visions of Mary", etc.), or there is simply a resonance in the belief system you select. And of course, I'll even include the possibility (but not probability) that one selects a belief because they actually do hear directly from the Supreme Being.

Religious beliefs are overwhelmingly a function of family / social circumstances.

The choice may not be noticed as one, yet existentially it most certainly is.

 

[AVG-JOE]

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!"
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpCASVFyQoE]Rush - Freewill ( Exit Stage Left ) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle.

That's why political compromise and agreement, along with equitable enforcement of civil law, is so essential to a Sentient society.

In a land of many competing Religions, Government ROCKS!!

"One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle."

So....who are the folks who find the Ten Commandments immoral?

 

[there4eyeM]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle.

That's why political compromise and agreement, along with equitable enforcement of civil law, is so essential to a Sentient society.

In an land of many competing Religions, Government ROCKS!!

"One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle."

So....who are the folks who find the Ten Commandments immoral?

Not to always dig him up, but there are people who think as Hitler did. For such 'thinking', the humanity expressed in the ideas of the commandments is weak and against their 'faith'.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

What the OP seems to suggest is that science and reason, outgrowths not just of the Enlightenment, but of the Renaissance, are what destroyed the Western World, that perhaps we should simply have continued the era of despotism that defined Medieval Europe.

Yes, it is true that the Enlightenment got a bit overzealous, but like it or not, it is part of what the United States that our founders envisioned came from, and yes, Christianity. It is a dichotomy that has defined us from the beginning. So, in that too we are faced with the prospect of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, an appropriate idiom you used in a later post.

I don't have any fundamental problems with the premises offered in the OP. However, the disintegration of Christianity's hold on the Western world is far more complex than that. You have to add some other factors, such as the difficulty of reconciling the miraculous claims of the Bible with most aspects of the observed Universe, as if God deliberately created it to be confusing and contradictory. It's not Darwin's fault that YE creationists claim that the Heavens and Earth are no more than 10,000 years old, yet the observable Universe shows us objects that are far, far older than that. I think some Christians give Darwin far too much credit, as if he were Satan incarnate, complete with cloven hooves and a pointed tail.

There is also the plain fact that religion in general tends to thrive best in environments of need. Why is it that Islam is doing so well? I happen to put a good deal of stock in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. It is by no means absolute, but in the perspective of the Western World of individualism, where the Abrahamic religions hold sway, versus the more collective Eastern world, it is a pretty good model. And where Abrahamic religions are concerned, Christianity is by far the more "me" religion, with Judaism and Islam a bit more focused on the "we." With so much time of so many of the needs on Maslow's hierarchy fulfilled, and given the individualistic nature of the Western world, the priority of religion tends to suffer.

The OP went on to use a very appropriate idiom later in this thread, "the baby with the bathwater." The U.S. is a dichotomy with a unique identity: a nation built both on the faith of Protestant Christianity AND the spirit of the Enlightenment. Theists and atheists tend to focus on one or the other in our founders depending on their agenda, but the reality is that they were both powerful influences on what we would become. Considering how divided and polarized a nation we have become, there is a lot of trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater going on. Fuck all that. I say it's time we start getting united again. It's not as if we haven't before.

 

[Moonglow]

The violence directed at the monarchs and the clergy was from the centuries of abuse at the hands of the government and the religion which were both in collusion to control the masses.

Interesting.


Too bad your knowledge of history, and of the English language, prevents you from being able to formulate a distinction between the clergy, and religion.

That is, in fact, the crux of the issue that contemporary culture faces. Morality and religion are the baby, and the clergy was the bathwater.

To prevent you from misunderstanding the reference, this is the idiom toward which I was driving: 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
It means not to to get rid of the good parts as well as the bad parts of something when you are trying to improve it.


And doing just that is the danger of Liberalism.
In fact, the French Revolution, during which religion was mistakenly thrown out, is the provenance of Liberalism.


Coincidence, eh?

No. absolutely not. Any governement that has existed has used and abused it's citizens through religion and/or elitist rule. You don't need a state established religion to talk to or praise a God. Fortunately the peer pressure of religion, even in this nation was thrown off, by libs? I doubt it since every liberal president has not tried to destroy any religion.

 

[Moonglow]

To repeat, belief is a choice.
Proof is another thing.

The only way to know anything is by way of our perceptions.
Perceptions are one hundred percent subjective.

Good and bad are human terms and do not oblige the universe to conform.

One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle.

That's why political compromise and agreement, along with equitable enforcement of civil law, is so essential to a Sentient society.

In an land of many competing Religions, Government ROCKS!!

"One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle."

So....who are the folks who find the Ten Commandments immoral?

The Ten Commandments are fine, but hardly do we need them carved in stone on every building. Even the devoutly religious have broken a commandment at one time in their lives. Thus the ticket to Heaven through Jesus by forgivness and repenting.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle.

That's why political compromise and agreement, along with equitable enforcement of civil law, is so essential to a Sentient society.

In an land of many competing Religions, Government ROCKS!!

"One man's immorality is another man's lifestyle."

So....who are the folks who find the Ten Commandments immoral?

The Ten Commandments are fine, but hardly do we need them carved in stone on every building. Even the devoutly religious have broken a commandment at one time in their lives. Thus the ticket to Heaven through Jesus by forgivness and repenting.

I actually have major problems with them. Only a small handful of them are useful moral guides for daily life, while the rest are all essentially repetitions on the theme: "love Me, worship Me, and don't you dare even look at anybody else or I will smite not only you but your children's children's children." Given that such a set of rules are impossible for us freewill-burdened humans to observe on any consistent basis, they are broken all the time. I do keep three of them, however, because I don't kill, steal, or cheat on my wife. I can't say I've never lied, but I do pretty well in keeping that one as well.