Hammer meet nail...

[Israel]

Jesus addressed this rather pointedly.
And you may see how he upset more than a few apple carts.

You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.…

That's just a relatively well known example.
But consider, if you can, or will, how he taught, and taught those raised on Moses.
Here he comes, and in this, and many other places, he appears to be saying something (at least further), if not at first glance, contradictory, to what they "knew".
He hasn't stopped.
Yes, man is prone to justify anything "of himself", for himself, and it is not unusual for the believer to discover "he" has even used the notion of service to God to justify...unkindness....even to the extreme of cruelty.
You may say religion is the fault, and I could not disagree.
But self justification is not limited to the "god" conscious...it is endemic to man.
When our desires (or fears, if you prefer) exceed our integrity , well, I don't think you are unfamiliar with the consequences.
Yes, it can be hypocrisy to the extreme, no doubt, when the name of Jesus is invoked to usurp by power of lies, deceit, or bullets...but where you may see the hopelessness of those so entangled, I see in Jesus the only hope for any of us.
I know this because I see grace, to one who very much needs it.

Grace is the one wonderful thing that has let me see some of myself, without despair, but hope.
He has come for the sick.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

Not asking anyone turn a blind eye, asking you to open both eyes. The problem is universal. To believe the opposite one has to totally disregard the entirety of human history.

I could say you can't judge a philosophy by it's abuse, but that misses the point too.

My point is that this "evil", "bad behavior", whatever you want to call it is universal.

And again what causes it?

Yes, humanity causes it. However, I ask again, how many people are killed over the zealotry caused by smartphones, or muscle cars, or hunting/fishing?

It's when you combine that zealotry with a book, written by a deity, that things get really bloody really quickly.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Yes, humanity causes it. However, I ask again, how many people are killed over the zealotry caused by smartphones, or muscle cars, or hunting/fishing?

It's when you combine that zealotry with a book, written by a deity, that things get really bloody really quickly.

Again, is a philosophy to be judged by it's abuse?

Heck, just forget I asked that.

Tell me this, if there's no God, only naturalism red in tooth and claw, where only the strongest survive to carry on the species, how do you even justify the presumption that any wrong is being committed. It's just an example of ideological evolution. May the strongest survive, and I must say, I don't think in that arena Mr. Neil Tyson has much of a chance to blow someone's mind before he loses his head.

 

[bullethead]

Again, is a philosophy to be judged by it's abuse?

Heck, just forget I asked that.

Tell me this, if there's no God, only naturalism red in tooth and claw, where only the strongest survive to carry on the species, how do you even justify the presumption that any wrong is being committed. It's just an example of ideological evolution. May the strongest survive, and I must say, I don't think in that arena Mr. Neil Tyson has much of a chance to blow someone's mind before he loses his head.

This has been discussed a thousand times on here already.
History has shown how morals, society, hierarchy, empathy and everything you ask about has evolved over time. It is not unique to just humans as it is seen in many areas of mammals and it continues to happen today.

Now if you are telling us some God has control over us humans and we are killing each other over the differences in beliefs of this SAME god.......then tell us how much of a god he really is.

 

[660griz]

Most wars have nothing to do with religion. WW I and WW II just to name two.

You gotta do better than that. Here you go. Somebody made a chart for you.
"Nothing can further exemplify the deep roots of a Christian need to force others to accept Jesus Christ as savior than the gory, bloody rampage of the Crusades, which over years left countless "infidels" slain. Or one can look at the inquisition where non-believers in Christ were tortured and executed."

 

[StriperrHunterr]

Again, is a philosophy to be judged by it's abuse?

Heck, just forget I asked that.

Tell me this, if there's no God, only naturalism red in tooth and claw, where only the strongest survive to carry on the species, how do you even justify the presumption that any wrong is being committed. It's just an example of ideological evolution. May the strongest survive, and I must say, I don't think in that arena Mr. Neil Tyson has much of a chance to blow someone's mind before he loses his head.

Is abuse to be ignored in favor of some of the good that it does do? So because religion is net positive, right now, we should overlook the thousands of years of lopsided ROIs and the current atrocities being performed in the name of a religion?

Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Islamic Jihad
The Crusades v1-v7.
The persecution and imprisonment of scientists because they dared oppose the church and the Bible.

And another thing, my philosophy doesn't boil down to sound bytes so explaining it takes time and an open mind to an alternative viewpoint. Whenever that's tried, usually, we get argued with that our premise is invalid because it's not derived from God, specifically your chosen God. You'd find just as much fault with the Ancient Greeks because theirs was derived from other, lesser, Gods than yours. So if you want to discuss my philosophy, or its foundations, you'd have to honestly step outside of your own perspective. If you can handle that, honestly and completely, then we may be able to have that discussion, but I seriously doubt it. As others have stated, you can dismiss mine because it's not based on a deity or a book, and probably will as soon as you hear it, but I could be wrong.

Your last segment is characteristic of a flawed understanding of evolution. It's not "survival of the fittest or strongest;" it's "survival of the best adapted."

We evolved higher, more complex emotions than other animals, and as a result our society flourished and those genes were passed on. Those feelings make us generally be nice to people and cooperate/empathize with members of our species in order to propagate. It's more beneficial to our society, with our long gestational periods and relatively weak bodies, to group together, divide labor and work as one. There are outliers, but the universe exists on a bell curve.

Wolves learned to pack hunt and have some sets of morality, like kowtowing to the leader, in order to benefit themselves. That struggle is the crucible of the strong and best adapted to be able to pass their genes down. Those who are both best adapted themselves to be leaders AND can work with the pack, survive to reproduce. Others, not so much.

Once you open your eyes to the notion that morality and philosophy are products of the survival instinct then you begin to see them everywhere. That is unless God imbued wolves with an inherent sense of right and wrong.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Is abuse to be ignored in favor of some of the good that it does do? So because religion is net positive, right now, we should overlook the thousands of years of lopsided ROIs and the current atrocities being performed in the name of a religion?

Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Islamic Jihad
The Crusades v1-v7.
The persecution and imprisonment of scientists because they dared oppose the church and the Bible.

And another thing, my philosophy doesn't boil down to sound bytes so explaining it takes time and an open mind to an alternative viewpoint. Whenever that's tried, usually, we get argued with that our premise is invalid because it's not derived from God, specifically your chosen God. You'd find just as much fault with the Ancient Greeks because theirs was derived from other, lesser, Gods than yours. So if you want to discuss my philosophy, or its foundations, you'd have to honestly step outside of your own perspective. If you can handle that, honestly and completely, then we may be able to have that discussion, but I seriously doubt it. As others have stated, you can dismiss mine because it's not based on a deity or a book, and probably will as soon as you hear it, but I could be wrong.

Your last segment is characteristic of a flawed understanding of evolution. It's not "survival of the fittest or strongest;" it's "survival of the best adapted."

We evolved higher, more complex emotions than other animals, and as a result our society flourished and those genes were passed on. Those feelings make us generally be nice to people and cooperate/empathize with members of our species in order to propagate. It's more beneficial to our society, with our long gestational periods and relatively weak bodies, to group together, divide labor and work as one. There are outliers, but the universe exists on a bell curve.

Wolves learned to pack hunt and have some sets of morality, like kowtowing to the leader, in order to benefit themselves. That struggle is the crucible of the strong and best adapted to be able to pass their genes down. Those who are both best adapted themselves to be leaders AND can work with the pack, survive to reproduce. Others, not so much.

Once you open your eyes to the notion that morality and philosophy are products of the survival instinct then you begin to see them everywhere. That is unless God imbued wolves with an inherent sense of right and wrong.

Is abuse to be ignored in favor of some of the good that it does do?

You're dodging the question. Is a philosophy to be judged based on it's abuse. You're attempt to paint all religion as bad. You know we could go down this path and throw stones at each other's world views, because let's face it, science isn't any more morally pristine than religion. (Eugenics ring a bell? Only 12 million dead under that interpretation of Darwinism), but what's point would that serve. I'm not interested in that type of discussion and if you are only interested in pushing a meme, then go ahead, but any educated person is gonna see it for exactly what it is.

So because religion is net positive, right now, we should overlook the thousands of years of lopsided ROIs and the current atrocities being performed in the name of a religion?

Spanish Inquisition
Salem Witch Trials
Islamic Jihad
The Crusades v1-v7.
The persecution and imprisonment of scientists because they dared oppose the church and the Bible.

Not to demean these deaths in any way, because each life is precious (which is not a logical deduction one can make from naturalism) but they are merely a drop in the bucket compared to the lives that have been spilled by those of Atheistic worldview.( Stalin alone killed 50 million of his own), so again, to paint religion as the bain of human existence isn't being quiet honest.

And another thing, my philosophy doesn't boil down to sound bytes so explaining it takes time and an open mind to an alternative viewpoint.

I'm not the one trying to argue a one sided argument. I readily admit the crimes done under the name of all religions. You my friend, are the one that seems to be having trouble admitting it cuts both ways, as you continue to point to religion as the culprit. My point is that not only is religion not the culprit, nor is science, nor government, but something much more universal.

Whenever that's tried, usually, we get argued with that our premise is invalid because it's not derived from God, specifically your chosen God. You'd find just as much fault with the Ancient Greeks because theirs was derived from other, lesser, Gods than yours. So if you want to discuss my philosophy, or its foundations, you'd have to honestly step outside of your own perspective. If you can handle that, honestly and completely, then we may be able to have that discussion, but I seriously doubt it. As others have stated, you can dismiss mine because it's not based on a deity or a book, and probably will as soon as you hear it, but I could be wrong.

My view of your premise is not based on a book. I find fault with naturalism (if that indeed is your premise) based on the fact it's illogical. You may find this hard to believe, but THERE ARE skeptics out there that doubt the foundations of naturalism just as much as those of religion and can provide very sound reasons for thinking as they do.

Your last segment is characteristic of a flawed understanding of evolution. It's not "survival of the fittest or strongest;" it's "survival of the best adapted."

OK I'll grant that may be the case, but let Mohammed bring his boys and Neil Tyson bring his. When all is said and done we don't have to guess who is the "best adapted."

We evolved higher, more complex emotions than other animals, and as a result our society flourished and those genes were passed on. Those feelings make us generally be nice to people and cooperate/empathize with members of our species in order to propagate. It's more beneficial to our society, with our long gestational periods and relatively weak bodies, to group together, divide labor and work as one. There are outliers, but the universe exists on a bell curve.

That's a nice theory of social evolution with absolutely ZERO hard evidence.

Wolves learned to pack hunt and have some sets of morality, like kowtowing to the leader,

.

(because he's the best adapted? )

in order to benefit themselves. That struggle is the crucible of the strong and best adapted to be able to pass their genes down. Those who are both best adapted themselves to be leaders AND can work with the pack, survive to reproduce. Others, not so much.

So it is survival of the fittest, ......unless it's not.

Once you open your eyes to the notion that morality and philosophy are products of the survival instinct then you begin to see them everywhere. That is unless God imbued wolves with an inherent sense of right and wrong.

Absolutely nothing but conjecture. Pure speculative conjecture.

In my opinion, this requires much more faith than that required to believe in God.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

You're dodging the question. Is a philosophy to be judged based on it's abuse. You're attempt to paint all religion as bad. You know we could go down this path and throw stones at each other's world views, because let's face it, science isn't any more morally pristine than religion. (Eugenics ring a bell? Only 12 million dead under that interpretation of Darwinism), but what's point would that serve. I'm not interested in that type of discussion and if you are only interested in pushing a meme, then go ahead, but any educated person is gonna see it for exactly what it is.




Not to demean these deaths in any way, because each life is precious (which is not a logical deduction one can make from naturalism) but they are merely a drop in the bucket compared to the lives that have been spilled by those of Atheistic worldview.( Stalin alone killed 50 million of his own), so again, to paint religion as the bain of human existence isn't being quiet honest.



I'm not the one trying to argue a one sided argument. I readily admit the crimes done under the name of all religions. You my friend, are the one that seems to be having trouble admitting it cuts both ways, as you continue to point to religion as the culprit. My point is that not only is religion not the culprit, nor is science, nor government, but something much more universal.




My view of your premise is not based on a book. I find fault with naturalism (if that indeed is your premise) based on the fact it's illogical. You may find this hard to believe, but THERE ARE skeptics out there that doubt the foundations of naturalism just as much as those of religion and can provide very sound reasons for thinking as they do.



OK I'll grant that may be the case, but let Mohammed bring his boys and Neil Tyson bring his. When all is said and done we don't have to guess who is the "best adapted."




That's a nice theory of social evolution with absolutely ZERO hard evidence.

.

(because he's the best adapted? )



So it is survival of the fittest, ......unless it's not.



Absolutely nothing but conjecture. Pure speculative conjecture.

In my opinion, this requires much more faith than that required to believe in God.

A) No, I'm not interested in a meme. This is my thread, you refute the OP where zealotry about religion is a bad thing. I take it a little wider than that, and I do acknowledge that even science has been abused by zealots and all around whack jobs. As you put it earlier, yes, part of the problem is humanity, the other problem is the unverifiable promises that religion offers. Eternal salvation and the existence of a deity chief amongst them. People will do crazier things here if they think it will benefit them in the long run. ISIS, and the Crusaders, COULD, could, have been just as crazy about something else, but we'll never know because they latched on to religion.

The statement about science being no more "pristine" than religion, well that's just poppycock. There's a record going back thousands of years, including today even, where religion is being used to maim, injure, and kill people in pursuit of the ethereal.

Sure, you got one on eugenics by the likes of Hitler, but that issue is closed. Religion is still committing atrocities today. Murders, forced circumcisions of women, the torture of infidels, and the list goes on. Science's HANDS may be bloody, but religion is swimming in an Olympic sized swimming pool of it.

B) How is every life being precious not being a conclusion a naturalist can reach? You're getting specious on us again. Back that claim up, in your own words, please.

Stalin killed 50 million. Okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

AND

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

Both disagree with you. You've only overinflated by around 250%. Stalin, according to one source only killed 20. In the other it could be 3, or it could be 61. That's only a 2000% margin of error. Hardly reliable, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile, in just this one page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

We are at least at 7.2 million, double the lowball estimates of Stalin, and those don't even include all religious wars.

You can keep trying to tell yourself that science is just as dirty as religion, but the facts are stubborn things. Religion was killing people back before the scientific method was even conceived, let alone held ramifications on matters of genetics.

C) I can't say that I'm a naturalist. I'm me. I haven't found one all inclusive bubble that holds my beliefs. I do acknowledge that the blade cuts both ways. However science is a relative papercut compared to the chainsaw religion has taken to the appendages of humanity. The simple fact of the matter is that you're just trying to spread the blame around, which is fine in order to solve the whole problem, but you seem to be doing it to try to sweep the largest one under the rug. I may have said that religion was "the" culprit, in the heat of a discussion but that's not my view. It is A culprit, and a very large one at that. Like I said early on, zealotry is the problem, but if zealots didn't have divine resources to argue from, we could recognize them for what they are from the onset. And by we I mean humanity as a whole. If someone tried cutting your head off, or screamed at you to convert, if you didn't like an iPhone you'd laugh at them and be about your way. They'd also be a flash in the pan and done in about as long. Add in Allah, or God, or other deities, and suddenly you start opening up the probability of converts based on their interpretations of Holy Scripture and a desire to not burn in Hades, or have 72 virgins, upon their deaths.

D)When I invited you to discuss my philosophy and its foundations, I meant that you would literally have to discuss them with me as I've not seen them annotated anywhere in the exact way I feel about them.

E) So with regards to religion and secularism, might makes right?

F) Then your eyes are closed. Apes have similar social structure, as early man did, and for the exact same reasons. Long gestational periods, feeble children, and the benefits that this cooperation brings all. I can say this to you all I can, but if you refuse to see it then there's nothing I can do, nor want to do. I don't even want to continue the discussion with you if you refuse to look at what's all around you and see it for what it could really be, if you simply step outside of the God perspective.

G) Yeah, pretty much. And?

H) No, it's survival of the best adapted. The lesser of the pack isn't the best adapted to hunt the animal on their own. The leader wouldn't even be as successful. So in return for an increase in kills for all, they learned how to cooperate, and cohabitate, with a strict set of hierarchy as to who is the first one to eat. Feeding the weak at the expense of the strong, either entirely or on a share basis, does nothing to keep the pack healthy enough to kill tomorrow.

I) The Bible is nothing but conjecture, unless you can prove God and everything else exists without relying on the medium of Jesus. But, oh wait, he's the only one, according to the Bible, who can tell you such things. Circular logic at its finest.

My assertions about the evolution of philosophy and morality are backed.

Moral Outcomes (Behavioral Genetics)

• Cooperation and helping behavior are simple evolutionary puzzles.
Evolution provides an important context for interpreting moral behavior, interpreted solely in terms of outcomes — regardless of motive or intent. Some behaviors or dispositions — not all — are partly hereditary (innate or instinct). To the degree that they are, they are subject to natural selection. Such behaviors will thus tend to promote an individual's relative fitness. Moral behavior seems an exception. Cooperation or helping may enhance the fitness of another organism. Any behavior that involves a cost (or decreased fitness) to the individual seems ruled out by evolutionary principles. Biologists have solved this puzzle in various ways, as described below.

• Organisms may cooperate when each benefits.
Behavior that benefits other organisms may sometimes also benefit the individual. In such cases, no conflict arises. For example, mutualisms are common in nature: insect pollination of flowers; animal dispersal of seeds; the ant-acacia symbiosis; and various endosymbionts (bacteria/termites, algae/nudibranchs; mitochondria; chloroplasts). Such interactions between species illustrate how organisms may adapt through mutually beneficial behavior, even where the exchange is not conscious. The same principle applies for interactions within species. Even if organisms compete for the same resources, they may also establish mutually beneficial relationships. For example, predators (such as wolves, hyenas or whales) may enhance the chances of capturing prey by acting together. Prey, likewise, may enhance their individual chances of avoiding predation by banding together. Information about food may also be shared when it becomes available in periodic, plentiful batches — as observed among osprey, cliff swallows, weaver birds, crows, honeybees, ants, termites and others (Allchin 1992). Ultimately, cooperation may enhance fitness, not necessarily diminish it. Benefitting others need not involve individual cost.

• Some cases of "costly" helping are apparent only.
Helping that seems to involve cost, therefore, may justify further analysis. Some cases of costly helping are indeed apparent only. Costs that are observed in the short-term may be balanced by benefits in the long-term. For instance, when Florida scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) reach reproductive age, they do not always "leave home" and begin their own families. Rather, they help raise their younger siblings: an apparent cost when compared with their own reproductive potential. But the context of reproduction is complex. Outcomes change with a broader perspective. A male scrub jay must have his own territory for foraging and nesting, and territory is limited. Males who stay with their father can help gradually expand the father's territory, which is eventually split between father and son. This way the son is better able to secure good territory. Females, by contrast, compete for males with the best territories. A female who can wait for opportunity is able to select a better mate. In each case, the scrub jay actually benefits reproductively in the long-term by staying at home and helping their parents reproduce in the short-term (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978, 1984). Such reproductive helpers are found widely — in black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas), cichlid fish of Lake Tanganyika (Lamprologus brichardi), grey-crowned babblers of Australia (Pomatostomus temporalis), carrion crows in northern Spain (Corvis corone corone) and many other species (Krebs and Davies 1993, pp.299-302; Clutton-Brock 2002; Baglione et al 2003). In all cases, as with observed cooperation, benefits are partly shared and ultimately outweigh any costs.

Misleading apparences of costly helping are also vividly exemplified by colony defense in meerkats (Suricata suricatta) (Clutton-Brock et al 1999). Meerkats, a type of mongoose found in arid southern Africa, typically live and forage in groups. Some individuals serve as sentinels, watching for predators and sounding a general alarm if one is spotted. By vocalizing loudly, however, the sentinel seems to alert any nearby predator and put herself at more risk: an apparent costly act. Sustained and careful observation, however, reveals that meerkats guard from safe vantage points, where they can readily escape into a burrow. In addition, sentinels are usually the first to detect the predator and they hide sooner than most others. Vigilance limits foraging time, however. Meerkats tend to adopt a guard role only when they are well fed. Sentinel behavior can thus benefit the individual meerkat while also benefitting others. The same pattern of sentinel volunteering has been observed in the bird, the Arabian babbler (****oides squamiceps) (Wright et al 2001), and others. The behavior, evolutionarily speaking, seems costly but is indirectly beneficial.

• Some cases of costly helping are explained by genetic relatedness.
Considering larger contexts can inform analysis of other cases of costly helping, as well. For example, honeybees, and many wasps and ants, along with the burrowing naked mole rats from eastern Africa include individuals that do not reproduce. Rather, they contribute to the reproduction of a single individual in a social setting. The failure to perpetuate one's own lineage seems to contradict the principle of natural selection. Yet it is the evolutionary context that also proves significant here. In a broader scope, lineages include collateral relatives and their descendents, who share on average certain percentages of one's heritable traits. Under appropriate circumstances, contributions to their survival and reproduction may well outweigh the individual's. In such cases, costly behavior towards relatives may develop. Natural selection is indirect. The helping traits are preserved and proliferate through relatives, not direct offspring: kin selection. For long-term evolution, a proper measure is thus not individual fitness, but inclusive fitness, the total representation of one's traits in future generations (Hamilton 1964).

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Like I said, the answers are out there for you to find, I'll even show them to you if you wish, but they are not found in the Bible and if that bugs you, then this is over before it begins.

 

[Israel]

It seems, all things considered, it would take a power, perhaps...a great power, to bring a man to be content.
It might take just as much power to even have a man believe he could be.
The "what comes later?" is kinda taken care of by that same power.
In a way, contentment makes that, to some, moot.

 

[bullethead]

It seems that some men need to think so.

 

[Israel]

It seems that some men need to think so.

yes.
Contentment is peculiar is it not? To know the pain of its absence seems a spinning thing, a grasping thing, to an even furious thing.
Contentment has in it a salve for many bruises, and often, a prevention of additional ones.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

A) No, I'm not interested in a meme. This is my thread, you refute the OP where zealotry about religion is a bad thing. I take it a little wider than that, and I do acknowledge that even science has been abused by zealots and all around whack jobs. As you put it earlier, yes, part of the problem is humanity, the other problem is the unverifiable promises that religion offers. Eternal salvation and the existence of a deity chief amongst them. People will do crazier things here if they think it will benefit them in the long run. ISIS, and the Crusaders, COULD, could, have been just as crazy about something else, but we'll never know because they latched on to religion.

The statement about science being no more "pristine" than religion, well that's just poppycock. There's a record going back thousands of years, including today even, where religion is being used to maim, injure, and kill people in pursuit of the ethereal.

Sure, you got one on eugenics by the likes of Hitler, but that issue is closed. Religion is still committing atrocities today. Murders, forced circumcisions of women, the torture of infidels, and the list goes on. Science's HANDS may be bloody, but religion is swimming in an Olympic sized swimming pool of it.

B) How is every life being precious not being a conclusion a naturalist can reach? You're getting specious on us again. Back that claim up, in your own words, please.

Stalin killed 50 million. Okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

AND

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm

Both disagree with you. You've only overinflated by around 250%. Stalin, according to one source only killed 20. In the other it could be 3, or it could be 61. That's only a 2000% margin of error. Hardly reliable, wouldn't you say?

Meanwhile, in just this one page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

We are at least at 7.2 million, double the lowball estimates of Stalin, and those don't even include all religious wars.

You can keep trying to tell yourself that science is just as dirty as religion, but the facts are stubborn things. Religion was killing people back before the scientific method was even conceived, let alone held ramifications on matters of genetics.

C) I can't say that I'm a naturalist. I'm me. I haven't found one all inclusive bubble that holds my beliefs. I do acknowledge that the blade cuts both ways. However science is a relative papercut compared to the chainsaw religion has taken to the appendages of humanity. The simple fact of the matter is that you're just trying to spread the blame around, which is fine in order to solve the whole problem, but you seem to be doing it to try to sweep the largest one under the rug. I may have said that religion was "the" culprit, in the heat of a discussion but that's not my view. It is A culprit, and a very large one at that. Like I said early on, zealotry is the problem, but if zealots didn't have divine resources to argue from, we could recognize them for what they are from the onset. And by we I mean humanity as a whole. If someone tried cutting your head off, or screamed at you to convert, if you didn't like an iPhone you'd laugh at them and be about your way. They'd also be a flash in the pan and done in about as long. Add in Allah, or God, or other deities, and suddenly you start opening up the probability of converts based on their interpretations of Holy Scripture and a desire to not burn in Hades, or have 72 virgins, upon their deaths.

D)When I invited you to discuss my philosophy and its foundations, I meant that you would literally have to discuss them with me as I've not seen them annotated anywhere in the exact way I feel about them.

E) So with regards to religion and secularism, might makes right?

F) Then your eyes are closed. Apes have similar social structure, as early man did, and for the exact same reasons. Long gestational periods, feeble children, and the benefits that this cooperation brings all. I can say this to you all I can, but if you refuse to see it then there's nothing I can do, nor want to do. I don't even want to continue the discussion with you if you refuse to look at what's all around you and see it for what it could really be, if you simply step outside of the God perspective.

G) Yeah, pretty much. And?

H) No, it's survival of the best adapted. The lesser of the pack isn't the best adapted to hunt the animal on their own. The leader wouldn't even be as successful. So in return for an increase in kills for all, they learned how to cooperate, and cohabitate, with a strict set of hierarchy as to who is the first one to eat. Feeding the weak at the expense of the strong, either entirely or on a share basis, does nothing to keep the pack healthy enough to kill tomorrow.

I) The Bible is nothing but conjecture, unless you can prove God and everything else exists without relying on the medium of Jesus. But, oh wait, he's the only one, according to the Bible, who can tell you such things. Circular logic at its finest.

My assertions about the evolution of philosophy and morality are backed.



http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/text.htm

Like I said, the answers are out there for you to find, I'll even show them to you if you wish, but they are not found in the Bible and if that bugs you, then this is over before it begins.

Stripe I'm well aware of all of the "claims of naturalism" to include this rubbish

Moral Outcomes (Behavioral Genetics)

• Cooperation and helping behavior are simple evolutionary puzzles.
Evolution provides an important context for interpreting moral behavior, interpreted solely in terms of outcomes — regardless of motive or intent. Some behaviors or dispositions — not all — are partly hereditary (innate or instinct). To the degree that they are, they are subject to natural selection. Such behaviors will thus tend to promote an individual's relative fitness. Moral behavior seems an exception. Cooperation or helping may enhance the fitness of another organism. Any behavior that involves a cost (or decreased fitness) to the individual seems ruled out by evolutionary principles. Biologists have solved this puzzle in various ways, as described below.

• Organisms may cooperate when each benefits.
Behavior that benefits other organisms may sometimes also benefit the individual. In such cases, no conflict arises. For example, mutualisms are common in nature: insect pollination of flowers; animal dispersal of seeds; the ant-acacia symbiosis; and various endosymbionts (bacteria/termites, algae/nudibranchs; mitochondria; chloroplasts). Such interactions between species illustrate how organisms may adapt through mutually beneficial behavior, even where the exchange is not conscious. The same principle applies for interactions within species. Even if organisms compete for the same resources, they may also establish mutually beneficial relationships. For example, predators (such as wolves, hyenas or whales) may enhance the chances of capturing prey by acting together. Prey, likewise, may enhance their individual chances of avoiding predation by banding together. Information about food may also be shared when it becomes available in periodic, plentiful batches — as observed among osprey, cliff swallows, weaver birds, crows, honeybees, ants, termites and others (Allchin 1992). Ultimately, cooperation may enhance fitness, not necessarily diminish it. Benefitting others need not involve individual cost.

• Some cases of "costly" helping are apparent only.
Helping that seems to involve cost, therefore, may justify further analysis. Some cases of costly helping are indeed apparent only. Costs that are observed in the short-term may be balanced by benefits in the long-term. For instance, when Florida scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) reach reproductive age, they do not always "leave home" and begin their own families. Rather, they help raise their younger siblings: an apparent cost when compared with their own reproductive potential. But the context of reproduction is complex. Outcomes change with a broader perspective. A male scrub jay must have his own territory for foraging and nesting, and territory is limited. Males who stay with their father can help gradually expand the father's territory, which is eventually split between father and son. This way the son is better able to secure good territory. Females, by contrast, compete for males with the best territories. A female who can wait for opportunity is able to select a better mate. In each case, the scrub jay actually benefits reproductively in the long-term by staying at home and helping their parents reproduce in the short-term (Woolfenden and Fitzpatrick 1978, 1984). Such reproductive helpers are found widely — in black-backed jackals (Canis mesomelas), cichlid fish of Lake Tanganyika (Lamprologus brichardi), grey-crowned babblers of Australia (Pomatostomus temporalis), carrion crows in northern Spain (Corvis corone corone) and many other species (Krebs and Davies 1993, pp.299-302; Clutton-Brock 2002; Baglione et al 2003). In all cases, as with observed cooperation, benefits are partly shared and ultimately outweigh any costs.

Misleading apparences of costly helping are also vividly exemplified by colony defense in meerkats (Suricata suricatta) (Clutton-Brock et al 1999). Meerkats, a type of mongoose found in arid southern Africa, typically live and forage in groups. Some individuals serve as sentinels, watching for predators and sounding a general alarm if one is spotted. By vocalizing loudly, however, the sentinel seems to alert any nearby predator and put herself at more risk: an apparent costly act. Sustained and careful observation, however, reveals that meerkats guard from safe vantage points, where they can readily escape into a burrow. In addition, sentinels are usually the first to detect the predator and they hide sooner than most others. Vigilance limits foraging time, however. Meerkats tend to adopt a guard role only when they are well fed. Sentinel behavior can thus benefit the individual meerkat while also benefitting others. The same pattern of sentinel volunteering has been observed in the bird, the Arabian babbler (****oides squamiceps) (Wright et al 2001), and others. The behavior, evolutionarily speaking, seems costly but is indirectly beneficial.

• Some cases of costly helping are explained by genetic relatedness.
Considering larger contexts can inform analysis of other cases of costly helping, as well. For example, honeybees, and many wasps and ants, along with the burrowing naked mole rats from eastern Africa include individuals that do not reproduce. Rather, they contribute to the reproduction of a single individual in a social setting. The failure to perpetuate one's own lineage seems to contradict the principle of natural selection. Yet it is the evolutionary context that also proves significant here. In a broader scope, lineages include collateral relatives and their descendents, who share on average certain percentages of one's heritable traits. Under appropriate circumstances, contributions to their survival and reproduction may well outweigh the individual's. In such cases, costly behavior towards relatives may develop. Natural selection is indirect. The helping traits are preserved and proliferate through relatives, not direct offspring: kin selection. For long-term evolution, a proper measure is thus not individual fitness, but inclusive fitness, the total representation of one's traits in future generations (Hamilton 1964).

I'm not the one who needs to drop my presuppositions and step outside the box. I already have, and I have to tell you that even if I didn't believe in God I sure as heck couldn't buy into such strained line of reasoning as what is quoted above. A true skeptic would say its comedic credulity at its worst. Hint. There's more "mays" in that article than any other word. That's not an accident. Now why exactly is that? It's because there's not one bit of empirically verifiable data presented. It's all theory, a best guess, a presumption, a wish, a hope. In other words it's someone's opinion of an observation. AN OPINION...like most every other tenet of Darwinism. And because the person giving it has a bunch of initials behind their name it's somehow viewed as more credible. I've got a ton of initials behind my name too, but you know something? Nary a one of them degrees, accreditations, and credentials have ever so much as tied my shoes. Initials don't confer wisdom, just recognize a benchmark.

You ask me to think outside the box. I already have. I plowed that mule you're tending some time back. It's a dead end road that's apt to leave you as empty and unfulfilled as before you picked up those reigns, maybe even more so, and here's why. For all the firepower that science supposedly wields, and for all the self conferred accolades that scientist heap on themselves from their institutional ivory towers they can't even begin to address the most basic questions of a child: Daddy why are we here? Where did we come from? What's our purpose? What happens after we die? How am I supposed to interact with others? Where does love, beauty, mercy, forgiveness come from? How do I know what's good and right? How does justice work?

Again I hope you take this to heart when you consider "the box", and I apologize for taking this thread further off topic than you may have cared for.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

Stripe I'm well aware of all of the "claims of naturalism" to include this rubbish



I'm not the one who needs to drop my presuppositions and step outside the box. I already have, and I have to tell you that even if I didn't believe in God I sure as heck couldn't buy into such strained line of reasoning as what is quoted above. A true skeptic would say its comedic credulity at its worst. Hint. There's more "mays" in that article than any other word. That's not an accident. Now why exactly is that? It's because there's not one bit of empirically verifiable data presented. It's all theory, a best guess, a presumption, a wish, a hope. In other words it's someone's opinion of an observation. AN OPINION...like most every other tenet of Darwinism. And because the person giving it has a bunch of initials behind their name it's somehow viewed as more credible. I've got a ton of initials behind my name too, but you know something? Nary a one of them degrees, accreditations, and credentials have ever so much as tied my shoes. Initials don't confer wisdom, just recognize a benchmark.

You ask me to think outside the box. I already have. I plowed that mule you're tending some time back. It's a dead end road that's apt to leave you as empty and unfulfilled as before you picked up those reigns, maybe even more so, and here's why. For all the firepower that science supposedly wields, and for all the self conferred accolades that scientist heap on themselves from their institutional ivory towers they can't even begin to address the most basic questions of a child: Daddy why are we here? Where did we come from? What's our purpose? What happens after we die? How am I supposed to interact with others? Where does love, beauty, mercy, forgiveness come from? How do I know what's good and right? How does justice work?

Again I hope you take this to heart when you consider "the box", and I apologize for taking this thread further off topic than you may have cared for.

I was going to write a longer response, but I recognize that we are two dogs going in endless circles chasing each others tails. You're not going to convince me that there IS a God, and I'm not going to convince you that science has explained, accurately, way more of nature than religion ever has.

So why don't we just and say, "Have a nice day."

Because your tone with calling me stripe and talking about the mules I'm tending, while supposing that I've not stepped far enough outside of my own box, is reading a lot like patronization and condescension, and I really don't want to think that's the case.

So, please, have a nice afternoon and I'll see you on the next topic.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I was going to write a longer response, but I recognize that we are two dogs going in endless circles chasing each others tails. You're not going to convince me that there IS a God, and I'm not going to convince you that science has explained, accurately, way more of nature than religion ever has.

I'm not sure of the intention(if any) behind this last bit, but I assure you that it's not an accurate assessment of my position.

So why don't we just and say, "Have a nice day."

Because your tone with calling me stripe and talking about the mules I'm tending, while supposing that I've not stepped far enough outside of my own box, is reading a lot like patronization and condescension, and I really don't want to think that's the case.

So, please, have a nice afternoon and I'll see you on the next topic.

That's fine. I meant no offense in calling you Stripe. It's just quicker to type on a pad without a keyboard. Also no offense meant with "stepping outside the box" comment any more than you meant to be patronizing and condescending when you challenged me to do the same.

Sensitivities run high here and it's understandable to a degree....I guess. Anyway have a good day and good luck with your hunting and fishing.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

I'm not sure of the intention(if any) behind this last bit, but I assure you that it's not an accurate assessment of my position.



That's fine. I meant no offense in calling you Stripe. It's just quicker to type on a pad without a keyboard. Also no offense meant with "stepping outside the box" comment any more than you meant to be patronizing and condescending when you challenged me to do the same.

Sensitivities run high here and it's understandable to a degree....I guess. Anyway have a good day and good luck with your hunting and fishing.

Same to you.

 

[atlashunter]

Religious extremism is a scourge on an otherwise decent earth we live on.

It's not just the extremists that are the problem. Religion is like a cancer of the mind. Some cases are more malignant than others but it's bad for you regardless.