Why are religious people more disgustingly stupid, barbaric, and evil?

[Sunstone]

The only part of it that is inconsitent with evolution is intentionality vs chance. Hitler just sped up the process by introduceing directed intellect into the mix instead of blind chance. Eugenics is only one small part of what Hitler was up to. I wasn't even thinking of it when I was discussing Hitler's use of evolutionary principles to justify his actions.

Please explain how evolution is more than superficially consistent with eugenics. opcorn:

 

[Tristesse]

The only part of it that is inconsitent with evolution is intentionality vs chance. Hitler just sped up the process by introduceing directed intellect into the mix instead of blind chance. Eugenics is only one small part of what Hitler was up to. I wasn't even thinking of it when I was discussing Hitler's use of evolutionary principles to justify his actions.

Hitler didn't let nature guide the process. He determined which race was superior by his own biggoted, racist mentality. What hitler did had nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

 

[1robin]

What a phenomenal cop-out. Sorry, 1robin, if you can't be bothered to summarise your own arguments, I'm certainly not going to crawl over the thread in search of them.

Well I ain't going to post that stuff for a third time. For something so obvious and well known it shouldn't have been necessary the first time.

Yes, the bible does; but just imagine history had turned out differently, and we had preserved and sacralised the Canaanites' scriptures. Who do you think would come out looking depraved then? We have in the OT a record - much of it probably wishful thinking - of wars between barbarian tribes. Since we have only the winners' account, it's hardly surprising the losers are depicted as irredeemably evil and ripe for extermination.

What Canaanite scripture? I mentioned a secular tv show that backed up the bibles claims. What do you got? It is not that simple, we also have the most embarassing stories of failure and sin recorded in the same book which renders your point atleast unlikely. You accuse me of not provideing something that I already have twice, then you refuse to it the first time. Where are the scriptures that prove these groups were wiped out for thier race alone?

Even if (and it's a big if) the Canaanites & co. were as evil as the OT paints them, slaughtering their children seems a strange way to save them from being sacrificed.

Even if and it's a big if they were slaughtered to prevent them from being sacrificed think of all the children born over the hundreds of years that were prevented from suffering that same sacrifice. However that wasn't the reason, these children would have been raised by this completely evil society and would have become as evil or worse and would have infected Israel with it (and Israel needed no help being disobedient) which actually happend in similar cases where the Israelites didn't wipe out who God commanded them to. God spent much time trying to get the Canaanites to repent, they refused. One time they were almost completely destroyed by the fact and that they disobeyed God and kept a pregnant queen alive. That would have drastically lessened the effect of Christs life and have resulted in millions fewer people that were saved over the years.

 

[1robin]

Hitler didn't let nature guide the process. He determined which race was superior by his own biggoted, racist mentality. What hitler did had nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

Hitler just sped up the process but maintained the principle. Actually thats not accurate, what he did is just as "natural" as any animal killing another. Some animals kill way more than needed for food. He was just more intelligent and better at it. Your position is flat wrong.

 

[1robin]

Please explain how evolution is more than superficially consistent with eugenics. opcorn:

I am too lazy to spend time hair splitting, when the over all point is unaffected by any discussion of this subject.

 

[Tristesse]

Hitler just sped up the process but maintained the principle. Actually thats not accurate, what he did is just as "natural" as any animal killing another. Some animals kill way more than needed for food. He was just more intelligent and better at it. Your position is flat wrong.

Sped up what process? Are you saying that nature would have selected the same individuals for survival as hitler? We're not talking about other animals we're talking about humans.

 

[1robin]

Sped up what process? Are you saying that nature would have selected the same individuals for survival as hitler? We're not talking about other animals we're talking about humans.

How is Hitler in a seperate category than nature. If you rely on materialistc philosophy there isn't anything outside of nature. I love how evolution can do anything, like defy thermodynamics, creat mind from non mind, life from non life etc...... but it can't possibly do anything actually bad.

 

[Me Myself]

I happen to have a limited history with drugs. The problem is they do make you happy. I don't think they are such a problem because they make you sad. Something might eventually make you miserable but that is another case of where the ineptitude of happyness as the prime mover for morals is evident.

I don't do drugs because I KNOW they will make me miserable.

I know they will feel very very very extremely good at the start, but that is momentary joy, not lasting happiness. Anyone with a drugaddict family member knows that drugs dont make your life happier, they just make you happier for some limited time and then you need more drugs for the same amount of happiness until you cant afford them and when you realised you destroyed all other important things in your life that brought you happiness and you don't even have a job to support your drugaddiction, so not even the happiness of the drug is there for you anymore.

Besides, most people I know (maybe it is an idiomatic thing?) associate Happiness with something that lasts, not some Ephemeral state that doesnt even last a full day.

So no, heroin is a bad investment if you plan to be happy. Not to say that the morals I am talking about not only speak for your happiness, but your fellow humans around ya, and an even greater morality would be for animal well being too (reason I am a vegetarian)

Porn is probably the most prevelant sin commited by men atleast. I don't think their risking their family on something that makes them sad. And you know exactly what I am talking about. It's hard to discuss things with someone who can't even agree on the common ground of some of the most obvious things in life.

If you know there is no common ground, then don't even bring it here. I am still not sure how porn can make a family miserable or anything. I've watched tons of porn when I was a teenager. I didn't see any adverse effect in my family that had anything to do with it.

But yeah, this is to peripherical, so better leave it out of the discussion. If you are to make a new thread about how porn destroy someone's life, by all means do and I'll be there.

BTW, add pictures (I kid I kid)

The concept of beauty is objective. Whether that means ugly or good is subjective. The fact that everyone looks at a waterfall and thinks of a term associated with beauty is evidence.

It's really not objective at all. Different people find different things beautiful. I can use myself as an example:

I am indiferent to most music. You have no idea how many times peope have said "this part is beautiful" and I couldn't care less or be moved by the instruments.

I do like some clasical, but again, not all, even though all classical is supposed to be the most perfect in music, I remember a classical that people say bring tears to their eyes because of it's beauty and I find it dull and boring. (processing to cathedral I think it is called, and I think is of Wagner)

Well atleast a religion can make a justifiable case to support the reality of good and evil. Non religous people can't. The terms have no absolute meaning. I will admit that religous people including Christians have a dark side. However in Christianity their action were not consistent with the religion and therefore have no bearing on it.

Were not consistent to your interpretation of christianity. I might as well drop it right here: I consider myself a Christian (and a bunch of other things you would find completely uncompatible with christianism)

They can and have justified with the fact that they feel x action is not okay. It is as valid as your feel that christianity is the true religion.

 

[Tristesse]

How is Hitler in a seperate category than nature. If you rely on materialistc philosophy there isn't anything outside of nature. I love how evolution can do anything, like defy thermodynamics, creat mind from non mind, life from non life etc...... but it can't possibly do anything actually bad.

HAHAHA! Evolution is a process, not an entity. It can't do anything "wrong." People can do wrong, an unguided process can do nothing wrong. Thats like saying gravity can do wrong because it failed to keep people suspended in air when they fall off of buildings or mountains etc...

As far as the thermodynamics claim, it's just false. Evolution doesn't violate any law of thermodynamics, thats just a misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics. If you really want to understand evolution, I suggest you actually study what evolution is and what it says, instead of arguing against a strawman of evolution. This would save us both a lot of time.

 

[1robin]

I don't do drugs because I KNOW they will make me miserable.

I know they will feel very very very extremely good at the start, but that is momentary joy, not lasting happiness. Anyone with a drugaddict family member knows that drugs dont make your life happier, they just make you happier for some limited time and then you need more drugs for the same amount of happiness until you cant afford them and when you realised you destroyed all other important things in your life that brought you happiness and you don't even have a job to support your drugaddiction, so not even the happiness of the drug is there for you anymore.

Besides, most people I know (maybe it is an idiomatic thing?) associate Happiness with something that lasts, not some Ephemeral state that doesnt even last a full day.

So no, heroin is a bad investment if you plan to be happy. Not to say that the morals I am talking about not only speak for your happiness, but your fellow humans around ya, and an even greater morality would be for animal well being too (reason I am a vegetarian)

I wil simplify this. Someone considering the use of drugs unfamiliar with their ultimate effects and basing morality on happyness would consider doing them as morally correct. Say anyone prior to 1800, or children, etc.... I am not sure a meaningful discussion can be had with someone on morals that considers "happyness" a good basis for them. Cannibles probably consider eating people as happyness. What do you do when one persons happiness veries inversely with another persons without an ultimate standard.

If you know there is no common ground, then don't even bring it here. I am still not sure how porn can make a family miserable or anything. I've watched tons of porn when I was a teenager. I didn't see any adverse effect in my family that had anything to do with it.

But yeah, this is to peripherical, so better leave it out of the discussion. If you are to make a new thread about how porn destroy someone's life, by all means do and I'll be there.

BTW, add pictures (I kid I kid)

I didn't even feel comfortable even typing the word.
I didn't say I knew there was no common ground. A persons ability to complecate the obvious and trivialise the momentous is always a suprise.

Pornography began being researched in 1984 and 1988 by Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant, and their research continues to be referenced. They discovered that the effects of repeated exposure to standard, non-violent, commonly available pornography includes: increased callousness toward women; distorted perceptions about sexuality; devaluation of the importance of monogamy; decreased satisfaction with partner’s sexual performance, affection, and appearance; doubts about the value of marriage; and decreased desire to have children. Later research studies further confirm their findings.
Simple Marriage | How Pornography Impacts Marriage and Family Life That and about every daytime show ever made has made the issue virtually universally known.

It's really not objective at all. Different people find different things beautiful. I can use myself as an example:

I am indiferent to most music. You have no idea how many times peope have said "this part is beautiful" and I couldn't care less or be moved by the instruments.

I do like some clasical, but again, not all, even though all classical is supposed to be the most perfect in music, I remember a classical that people say bring tears to their eyes because of it's beauty and I find it dull and boring. (processing to cathedral I think it is called, and I think is of Vagner)

The objective concept of astetic worth is required before pretty and ugly have any meaning.

Were not consistent to your interpretation of christianity. I might as well drop it right here: I consider myself a Christian (and a bunch of other things you would find completely uncompatible with christianism)

They can and have justified with the fact that they feel x action is not okay. It is as valid as your feel that christianity is the true religion.

No it most certainly is not in any way, shape, or form. If I was your professor and I told you 2 + 2 = 4 a hundred times and explained it a hundred ways, and I never was inconsistent with that. If you went out and said Professor 1Robin said 2 + 2 = 756 That has nothing whatsoever to do with me. The bible says do not commit adultry, and you go out and do it, that has nothing to do with the bible. As far as your being a true Christian. My opinion is irrelevant. However Christs isn't, either you belong to him through a born again experience and your name is written in the lambs book of life and he has known you from that moment of spritual rebirth or not. Judgeing from your comments alone I thought you were an atheist. But my opinions don't matter.

 

[Me Myself]

I wil simplify this. Someone considering the use of drugs unfamiliar with their ultimate effects and basing morality on happyness would consider doing them as morally correct. Say anyone prior to 1800, or children, etc....

Yes, but that comes because of ignorance. Happiness in sentience beings should be the aim for morality. Now, arriving to the aim takes knowledge and inteligence.

If they are ignorant, the problem doesn't come from morality, but from simple ignorance. Being christian won't help you to not try heroin if you ignore the passage in the bible where heroin is forbidd... wait... hum....

What was your point again? because I am not sure how this helps your side of the discussion at all. Catholicism sees drugs as moraly bad because of the harm hey cause to the self and to others. They say this is christian because we shouldn't damage our loved ones nore ourselves, that would be unchristian. Screwing your life is not a proper way to love your family, nor a proper way to love yourself, and God loves you! so stop making yourself miserable. (and that is the catholic stance)

The stance of morality based on happiness is around the same. Love yourself, try to be happy, love others, try to make them happy and avoid making them miserable because of making yourself miserable, etc.

What do you do when one persons happiness veries inversely with another persons without an ultimate standard.

It depends. The fact that there needs to be negotiation and comppromises means this is a good way to manage a society

Much better than my way is good and you are definetely wrong because God says so. Now I'll keep doing suicide attacks onr you family until you get the **** out of my land.

No, I don't care that this makes us both miserable. God said it. Get the **** out now.

I didn't even feel comfortable even typing the word.
I didn't say I knew there was no common ground. A persons ability to complecate the obvious and trivialise the momentous is always a suprise.

Pornography began being researched in 1984 and 1988 by Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant, and their research continues to be referenced. They discovered that the effects of repeated exposure to standard, non-violent, commonly available pornography includes: increased callousness toward women; distorted perceptions about sexuality; devaluation of the importance of monogamy; decreased satisfaction with partner’s sexual performance, affection, and appearance; doubts about the value of marriage; and decreased desire to have children. Later research studies further confirm their findings.
Simple Marriage | How Pornography Impacts Marriage and Family Life That and about every daytime show ever made has made the issue virtually universally known.

By all means make a new thread, and I'll happily discuss it

The objective concept of astetic worth is required before pretty and ugly have any meaning.

If you want to think they don't have any meaning, be welcome to. I gave argumentation as to why beautifulness is obviously subjective. I'll be looking forward if you at any point try to debate that it is objective, as for now, you seem to have thrown the towel.

The bible says do not commit adultry, and you go out and do it, that has nothing to do with the bible.

It also says that the punishment for adultery is stoning the woman to death.

It also says that eating pork is moraly wrong. It also gives you rules on how you can sell your daugther as a slave.

Jesus never said any of these things though. I agree with Jesus's words, not the whole bible.

There is no reason to even believe Jesus met Paul, or that Paul didn't confuse his message.

My opinion is irrelevant. However Christs isn't, either you belong to him through a born again experience and your name is written in the lambs book of life and he has known you from that moment of spritual rebirth or not. Judgeing from your comments alone I thought you were an atheist. But my opinions don't matter.

Of course you thought I am an atheist! I didn't expect more from you.

 

[Me Myself]

Cannibles probably consider eating people as happyness. What do you do when one persons happiness veries inversely with another persons without an ultimate standard.

almost leave this behind.

Well, as I told you, the basis of morality is people being happy. Given that the ones being eaten won't be happy because of it, makes it against the moral system.

 

[1robin]

almost leave this behind.

Well, as I told you, the basis of morality is people being happy. Given that the ones being eaten won't be happy because of it, makes it against the moral system.

Actually no it doesn't. One persons happiness one went down (maybe). How do we decide. Actually there have been people who have wanted to be eaten for some strange reason or another.

 

[Me Myself]

Actually no it doesn't. One persons happiness one went down (maybe). How do we decide. Actually there have been people who have wanted to be eaten for some strange reason or another.

this is the only subject you have a response to or should I wait for the other ones?

 

[1robin]

this is the only subject you have a response to or should I wait for the other ones?

Well the other one was long and I am heading out the door soon. I was planning on dealing with the rest tomorrow. Unless you don't feel you can get along without my guidence until then. Ha Ha. Actually I screwed up that last one. It should have said one persons went down the others went up.

 

[Me Myself]

Well the other one was long and I am deading out the door soon. I was planning on dealing with the rest tomorrow. Unless you don't feel you can get along without my guidence until then. Ha Ha.

I can hardly go without canibalising random strangers without your guidance

I'll wait for ya.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Please don't cannibalise people... a possible god possibly cares about what you do and will possibly do something about it... but probably not in this life.

 

[Me Myself]

Please don't cannibalise people... a possible god possibly cares about what you do and will possibly do something about it... but probably not in this life.

My god will eat that god at breakfast!

Maybe he'll even give me some :drool:

 

[Tristesse]

Actually no it doesn't. One persons happiness one went down (maybe). How do we decide. Actually there have been people who have wanted to be eaten for some strange reason or another.

You understand that when we're discussing evolution we're talking about populations and not individuals, right? Survival is about whats best for the population and not whats best for an individual. Together as a species we typically want whats best for our survival, and we can say that if we permitted others to kill and eat us, that our survival rate would drop substantially.

 

[1robin]

I can hardly go without canibalising random strangers without your guidance

I'll wait for ya.

I'm am glad to hear it. You are a product of western civilization that is based in large part in Christianity. You have Godly ideas that a small southern pacific islander might not. In an actual Godless vacume (and that is not where you live) things like voo doo, cannabalism, zombies (yes they are real just different and rare) ritual sacrifice, etc... were rampant not to many years ago. Things as stupid as mass suicide, and the rape of Nanking commited by Japanese soldiers who were raised seperated from western (Christian) society happened not too long ago.