Posted on 10/28/2006 8:46:36 PM PDT by Jacob Kell
"No, I understand that you believe that. But the larger world does not agree with that understanding."
IF that is true, then the larger world doesn't "get" it.
"Or, at least, they don't think that is the only, exclusive understanding."
There are some who have a way of making something so simple much more difficult than it need be.
"It's an attack on those people who both 1) claim to be Christian and 2) believe that God gave nature and the world to us to do whatever we want with it. It is an attack (to the extent it even IS an attack) on no one else but those people."
They may claim to be Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are Christian.
I believe that was hosepipe's point when he said, "Not all christians are christians..... some are merely actors."
"Certainly not all Christians."
Thank you for clarifying...
Well, the world is just coming up with a definition, not some theological purity test.
They may claim to be Christian, but that doesn't mean that they are Christian.
Since there is no objective, universally accepted definition of "Christian," then your opinion as to what makes one a Christian is not superior than anyone else's. My view is that if someone claims it, that's fine with me if it is at all reasonable. It doesn't mean anything about their beliefs or anyone else's, it just tells me what label to apply.
The Communist thought (and some still do) that Communism was a truth. They had plenty of scientific theories and human observations to support their truth. Millions of people were killed for this mistaken belief. Communist also saw/see religion as evil. Anyone who sees religion as inherently evil, fails to grasp the nature of man or the nature of evolution. For example, we fought for thousands of years before Christ or Mohammad even appeared. Yet the world is full of fools who claim that all our wars were started because of religion.
There weren't literally millions of data points supporting communism. There are millions of such data points supporting the Theory of Evolution.
Anyone who sees religion as inherently evil, fails to grasp the nature of man or the nature of evolution.
One can believe religion is evil and still understand human nature. There is nothing that says human nature cannot be evil. (Oh, and the "or the nature of evolution" is a total non-sequitur.)
For example, we fought for thousands of years before Christ or Mohammad even appeared. Yet the world is full of fools who claim that all our wars were started because of religion.
Not all of them. But it also foolish to argue that religion is some kind of unmitigated good, especially given the fact that countless millions have suffered and died on account of it and continue to do so to this day.
Gotta read that, will add it to my list of books I need to acquire.
And he died making love to the blond German wife he took. Popped a blood vessel in his brain supposedly. Now that must have been some woman.
There is the underlying problem and why the thread was started. You believe that 'religion is evil'. Do you think the Dali Lama is evil ? Do you think Mother Terresa was evil ? Are the numerous religious societies in the Southwestern US who donate their time and money to travel to Mexico to build homes for the poor, evil ? What the heck is evil about your typical Sunday church service ?
Not all of them. But it also foolish to argue that religion is some kind of unmitigated good, especially given the fact that countless millions have suffered and died on account of it and continue to do so to this day.
That is due to the nature of man, not due to the nature of religion. Atheists can kill just as easy as the Pagan Genghis Khan killed.
Thank you. That makes my case for me - Dawkins, et. al., have a definition of how a species should behave for its benefit, but no definition of why *I* should follow that behavior.
What benefits a species does not necessarily do me any good; e.g., if I see a lion attacking my children, it's to the benefit of my species if I die to save them, but I personally get the short end of the stick. Why not say "too bad," and go make some more kids? For that matter, why have kids at all - they use up resources I could spend on myself. No animal ever thought "I'd better do X for the good of my species" - it was following its instinctive urges, which is another way to say "I do whatever pops into my head." If what pops into my head is to have a cold one and watch the show, should that mean "Tough luck, Junior?"
So far as I can tell, Dawkins and his fellows are saying one of two things:
1) "Instinct is good, and should be followed." In that case, any urge I may have - to steal, murder rape, you name it - is good, and should be followed. It must be there for a reason, or I wouldn't have it.
2) "Survival of the species and/or my genes is good." In that case, the behavior Dawkins finds abhorant - homophobia, racism, infantcide, genocide, etc - are quite acceptable if they allow my genes to be propagated. E.g., why not wipe out the tribe/city/nation in the next valley? More land for me and my family!
Without endorsing evolution or creationism, Dawkins' argument seems logically contradictory.
Bingo. Please also see my post #189.
He wouldn't survive a week in a truly Darwinian society.
He is the weakest link.
I once worked with an artist who was an 'Earth Firster'. He was arguing with me about how I liked to take these long range fishing trips back then. He actually made some comments about how it would be great to get back to nature. Get back to evolution. He obviously had never seen evolution up close and personal. I have while on the back of a long range fishing boat. We were chumming live mackerel for bait to bring a school of large yellow-fin tuna up to the boat. There simply is no more of an incredible site or actually no more of an horrific site then seeing Tuna over 100 lbs churning up on some running for their life's mackerel. Believe me, we do not want to go back there. To nature and evolution that is.
LOLOL! Thanks for the ping!
Thank you so much for the ping! LOL
No, I don't. I believe that religion is irrational and that religion has been used for evil ends, and that some religious beliefs and dogmas are evil, but I don't believe that religion itself, universally, is evil.
That is due to the nature of man, not due to the nature of religion. Atheists can kill just as easy as the Pagan Genghis Khan killed.
No doubt atheists can kill. But atheists don't kill because their atheism tells them to. When some religious people kill, on the other hand, they do so because they believe that their god or their religion requires them to. That is the difference. And that religion-inspired killing and torture is evil.
And I don't blame all Catholics or all Christians for Hitler. Nor do artists deny the fact that Hitler was an artist because they dislike what he did.
Excellent theory, I'd say you have a better case for it than Darwin does for his.
The thing about atheist scientists is, why do they feel their views represent a beneficial direction in the evolution of the species? Perhaps they should consider that belief in God is a natural step in evolution of homo sapiens, and in fact, belief or at least awareness of God is what separates us from other species. It could be the scientists themselves are guilty of holding us back from our evolutionary destiny! Consider the dilemma of the quantum physicist; observation of the phenomenon changes the phenomenon. Is the world of the anthropologist any different?
Or better yet, perhaps the scientists might want to consider this:
So I think we can agree however that some religions such as Islam that condone and require nonbelievers to be persecuted, is flat out wrong. We should not however say that ALL religion is bad because Islam needs to be reformed. The problem with Islam was with its creator (a human who took guidance from an angel in a cave).
You do realize of course that a populist atheist could put forth a plan to rid the world of religion. He could get other atheists so enthralled that they become more concerned with the ends (no more religion) then they are concerned with the means (many religious followers would have to be killed). Now would that make the atheism itself evil ?
I would agree that some religions are more likely than others to manifest their irrationality in ways which cause harm to people who don't subscribe to that faith. I'd also agree that a segment of Islam is currently experiencing this effect. However, it is ludicrous to assert that this is a problem unique to Islam. One would have to be laughingly oblivious to the history of Christianity -- with its pogroms, Inquisitions, Holocaust and crusades -- to suggest that this a problem solely of Islam.
Further, even if Islam is more prone to experiencing these problems, there is nothing about Islam that prevents a Muslim from living a peaceable life, as the many hundreds of millions, if not billions, of Muslim who are not terrorists attests.
What it does share with every religion, however, is a basic irrationality, which causes religious adherents to accept irrational propositions and, as a consequence, to take irrational actions. And sometimes those actions are not only irrational, but evil. (And no, neither Christians nor Christianity is excepted from this...)
You do realize of course that a populist atheist could put forth a plan to rid the world of religion. He could get other atheists so enthralled that they become more concerned with the ends (no more religion) then they are concerned with the means (many religious followers would have to be killed). Now would that make the atheism itself evil ?
Well, no, if such a thing were to occur, then the actions taken in the name of atheism would be evil, but atheism itself would not.
But, moreover, the possibility of this actually occurring is so vanishingly small as to be nearly indistinguishable from zero. The hallmark of atheism is a reliance on rationality over irrationality. There would be nothing rational in killing religious followers in the manner you describe. It could come about by another irrational event, idea or ideology hijacking atheism, as was the case with the communists, but not through atheism itself. Such a thing would be stupendously irrational. (And, in fact, the group psychosis you describe -- whereby people are so enthralled with an end that they fail to examine the ethics of the means to bring about that end -- is just such an irrational event.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.