Christianity and Evolution

I removed it for other reasons.  Arguing would be pointless.

Not true.
He made a fine point.
He simply meant: if there was no religion he wouldn't mind that one grandma would die without the happiness that religion brings to her, rather than the numerous people that have died at religions' hands.

You may of questioned his point because many more than just 1 person have died feeling happy due to religion, but, how many have died at the hands of religious wars? I'd sacrifice all those deaths of happiness for any amount of unneeded deaths.

Btw, don't you consider debating and arguing two different things? I know I do. You don't need to argue to debate in a civilized manner.

Quote from: Marlow on May 15, 2007, 03:44:39 AM

I removed it for other reasons.  Arguing would be pointless.

Not true.

That statement is an argument, not a debate.  I removed it for other reasons, exactly as I said. 

Quote from: Jesus Reborn on May 15, 2007, 03:57:43 AM

Quote from: Marlow on May 15, 2007, 03:44:39 AM

I removed it for other reasons.  Arguing would be pointless.

Not true.

That statement is an argument, not a debate.  I removed it for other reasons, exactly as I said. 

Never true would be an argumentative statement.
It is "Not true" right now, but may be "True" in other instances. 

If that was arguing, then this board is an argumentative forum, rather than a debate forum. 


edit: Loki: I just like to fuck with the clergy, man. I just love it. I just love to keep those guys on their toes.

To discuss the original intention of the thread (sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, only most of the first page) and to answer some others; you don't have to believe in every word the Bible tells us, for one simple fact: Man wrote it. God did not write it. And Man has passed it down through the ages.
Corruption of Man and 'his' imperfection have skewed many parts, and have added other parts to suit 'his' need (not His).
You may retaliate with: "If God is perfect, why is his inspiration not?" A simple answer, he tests. If it's one thing you learn as a Christian it's: God loves to test Man... whether it be a test of Man's loyalty, his truthfulness, his compassion, etc...

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">This is my rebuttal to your idea on God testing man.

You may retaliate with: "If God is perfect, why is his inspiration not?" A simple answer, he tests. If it's one thing you learn as a Christian it's: God loves to test Man... whether it be a test of Man's loyalty, his truthfulness, his compassion, etc...

Are dinosaur bones a test of faith as well?

No, fundamentalists argue that they lived at the same time as all the animals before 'the flood' which killed em off and left their bones buried in the silt

NO. stop right there I will not be accused of supporting child abusers! I support the free choice to follow and worship whatever god/goddess you feel and the personal search for a higher power.

I don't care what you pledge to support. Practically, you support RELIGION. And religion is the foremost tool and motivation for child abuse. Period!

I do not/have not and will not stand by those who abuse religion to excuse abusing children, making war etc.

And yet you don't care enough to do anything about it.

and no, for your information, the slave classes don't always sit up snug with their religion and let everyone walk over them. In China I believe (or russia, one of the two)there is a system to try and remove christianity and there is a massive underground motion to oppose this system and declare their right to religion

Do you realize how stupid that last paragraph was?

You say the slave classes don't always approve of religion, and then you give me an example of a slave class ACTIVELY promoting some religions against others!

As if choosing one master over another is a form of freedom!

The Catholic Church in Poland was instrumental in bringing about the revolutions of 1989, hardly keeping the oppressed content to their fate...

Quote

You may retaliate with: "If God is perfect, why is his inspiration not?" A simple answer, he tests. If it's one thing you learn as a Christian it's: God loves to test Man... whether it be a test of Man's loyalty, his truthfulness, his compassion, etc...

Are dinosaur bones a test of faith as well?

they very well could have been "placed" where they are found.

Quote

You may retaliate with: "If God is perfect, why is his inspiration not?" A simple answer, he tests. If it's one thing you learn as a Christian it's: God loves to test Man... whether it be a test of Man's loyalty, his truthfulness, his compassion, etc...

Are dinosaur bones a test of faith as well?

Like I said, I'm not a Bible thumper, but, I don't think dinosaur bones are mentioned in the Bible. Considering, I was talking about the Bible and taking it literally word for word or not, I see no reason to interject with mention of dinosaurs.
But, if you must: they very well could be a test. For someone, like myself, who believes in evolution, I don't think they are.

The Catholic Church in Poland was instrumental in bringing about the revolutions of 1989, hardly keeping the oppressed content to their fate...

The Catholic Church is against Communism, because it is a competing religion. Don't pretend to tell us that switching one religion to another is freedom. As I said before, it's not.

I don't recall the Church then oppressing the people it helped free afterwards. But alright then, I'll try and think of another example.

Yea, the Catholic Church is not oppressive at all. 

I meant they didn't force the whole of Poland to attend Church and that. But I do see your point Francy so I'll try and think of another example, just not tonight cos I'm tired.

Quote from: GeneralGayhand on May 15, 2007, 02:11:17 PM

The Catholic Church in Poland was instrumental in bringing about the revolutions of 1989, hardly keeping the oppressed content to their fate...

The Catholic Church is against Communism, because it is a competing religion. Don't pretend to tell us that switching one religion to another is freedom. As I said before, it's not.

Communism is a political idealology (sp?) not a religion. On paper it's a good idealology as well, shame it can't be brought into practical use effectively.

Surely having the option to choose and switch religions is a freedom of sorts?

I remember now what I was trying to say with that example. The Catholic Church helped free Poland from Communism. But that doesn't imply switching from one 'religion' to another, because the people the Church freed were under no obligation then to switch to that religion, they were just freed from the 'religion' of Communism.

On paper it's a good idealology as well

Wow. Not only are you religious, but you also consider a total takeover of society by the ruling class, and the melding of business and politics, to be a "good idealology." (sic)

Why aren't you living in a commune already?

Quote from: Chrissetti on May 16, 2007, 01:06:16 AM

On paper it's a good idealology as well

Wow. Not only are you religious, but you also consider a total takeover of society by the ruling class, and the melding of business and politics, to be a "good idealology." (sic)

Why aren't you living in a commune already?

Do you know how to read? I don't think so; if you did you wouldn't spew out random garbage that makes no sense. Maybe you should look back on what ther people have posted before you post your bullshit. The problem with communist governments is that the tend to be a little totalitarian, and falls away from the Marxist and socialist ideals that were originally intended for the socialist movement. Yes it is good in theory, but theory and practice are two seperate things.

The problem with communism is that it is a fable that can never work on a wide scale in the real world.  Just like anarchy.

Yes, because everyone except for the 1% high up in the government make the same amount of money. The guy who works 60 hours a week as a medical researcher makes the same as the stock boy at the local grocery store. Not the best thing in the world.

Quote from: Franc T., Planar on May 15, 2007, 03:06:59 PM

Quote from: GeneralGayhand on May 15, 2007, 02:11:17 PM

The Catholic Church in Poland was instrumental in bringing about the revolutions of 1989, hardly keeping the oppressed content to their fate...

The Catholic Church is against Communism, because it is a competing religion. Don't pretend to tell us that switching one religion to another is freedom. As I said before, it's not.

Communism is a political idealology (sp?) not a religion. On paper it's a good idealology as well, shame it can't be brought into practical use effectively.

Surely having the option to choose and switch religions is a freedom of sorts?

It's only a good idea on paper if ur failing econ 101. It's based on false economic principals not to mention based on a man's "good will" which doesn't exist. We're programmed to be selfish as to survive.

We're programmed to be selfish as to survive.

Source?

I'm not a communist or a communist sympathiser, but I do think there is a growing amount of evidence that actually co-operative humans are more likely to survive than non- co-operative humans.  I think the work of people like Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker really push this idea forward.

Quote

We're programmed to be selfish as to survive.

Source?

I'm not a communist or a communist sympathiser, but I do think there is a growing amount of evidence that actually co-operative humans are more likely to survive than non- co-operative humans.  I think the work of people like Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker really push this idea forward.

Hamilton's Rule and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma prove you wrong.

Quote

We're programmed to be selfish as to survive.

Source?

I'm not a communist or a communist sympathiser, but I do think there is a growing amount of evidence that actually co-operative humans are more likely to survive than non- co-operative humans.  I think the work of people like Marc Hauser and Steven Pinker really push this idea forward.

...he is kind of saying: "READ THE SELFISH GENE."

"The selfish gene" doesn't have anything to do with how people behave.  It's about how some genes in our body help ensure that they get passed on and continue.

Hamilton's rule does not prove me wrong at all.  It shows that being too co-operative is a bad thing, but it clearly actually shows that some co-operation is a good thing.  Not only that, but Hamilton did his research in the 60s, while has Hauser and Pinker are doing their research now!  Much has changed in evolutionary psychology over the last 40 years.

The prisoner's game is a hypothetical philosophical question.  It's not science, so it can't prove anything wrong.  It doesn't show that people are more or less likely to be co-operative in real life.

"The selfish gene" doesn't have anything to do with how people behave.  It's about how some genes in our body help ensure that they get passed on and continue.

Hamilton's rule does not prove me wrong at all.  It shows that being too co-operative is a bad thing, but it clearly actually shows that some co-operation is a good thing.  Not only that, but Hamilton did his research in the 60s, while has Hauser and Pinker are doing their research now!  Much has changed in evolutionary psychology over the last 40 years.

The prisoner's game is a hypothetical philosophical question.  It's not science, so it can't prove anything wrong.  It doesn't show that people are more or less likely to be co-operative in real life.

Yeah, I watched a program on that. Tit-for-tat was the winning program if I recall correctly. I suppose he was trying to say that we have selfish genetics, but he didn't grasp the fact that we do need some cooperation or we will die.

"The selfish gene" doesn't have anything to do with how people behave.  It's about how some genes in our body help ensure that they get passed on and continue.

Ever heard of EVO PSY?

Hamilton's rule does not prove me wrong at all.

If you're just going to deny the scientific evidence, fine with me.

It shows that being too co-operative is a bad thing, but it clearly actually shows that some co-operation is a good thing.

Fine, you don't even know what Hamilton's Rule is. What a gyp.

The prisoner's game is a hypothetical philosophical question.

No. It's not hypothetical nor is it philosophical. Once again, you don't know what the fuck I'm talking about.

Cooperation and altruism are programmed into us because our genes are selfish. It sounds contradictory, but it's true. Looking at natural selection on the level of the individual simply can't explain altruism. Individual selection is a useful abstraction much of the time, but it it breaks down when you go too deep. It's a bit like how Newton's theory of gravity works quite well until you hit certain specific conditions, whereas relativity works in a much wider range of conditions but is too difficult to use most of the time.

If you look at selection from the point of view of genes and groups of genes, you see that altruism would arise. For example, consider the fact that any sibling of yours will share half of your genes. Your genes will 'want' him to survive almost as much as they want you to survive; genes that cause you to help a sibling will be favored- to a point, anyway. Selection would never favor genes that caused you to sacrifice your life for you brother, at least not directly. But what if sacrificing yourself could save three siblings? Between them, there would be a 150% chance of them sharing any given gene with you. From your genes' point of view, it is preferable that those three live, even at the cost of your life. Similarly, it would make good genetic sense to sacrifice yourself for three of your offspring, or six of your sibling's offspring. And sacrifices need not require your death; while it wouldn't be favorable for you to sacrifice your life for one sibling's, it might be favorable for you to spend a little time gathering extra food for him.
Now, through much of our species' history we have lived in relatively small groups. In these groups, there is a high chance that any given individual will share a fair number of genes with you. Perhaps your genes wouldn't want you to sacrifice your life for a cousin or nephew, but small acts of altruism would be favorable. In the present, of course, we live in cities, often surrounded by masses of people not remotely related to us, but as far as our genes are concerned everyone around us is likely to be a relative, so it is worth it to act altruistically towards them.

Frank that's not a rebuttal at all.  That's just you saying "I'm right and you're wrong."  I would suggest that actually you don't know what you're talking about, and you noticeably don't know how to construct an argument.

I agree wholeheartedly with what Dysfunction said.  Here is a good article that talks about the subject.

A History of Violence by Steven Pinker
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html

A third theory, championed by Robert Wright, invokes the logic of non-zero-sum games: scenarios in which two agents can each come out ahead if they cooperate, such as trading goods, dividing up labor, or sharing the peace dividend that comes from laying down their arms. As people acquire know-how that they can share cheaply with others and develop technologies that allow them to spread their goods and ideas over larger territories at lower cost, their incentive to cooperate steadily increases, because other people become more valuable alive than dead.

Then there is the scenario sketched by philosopher Peter Singer. Evolution, he suggests, bequeathed people a small kernel of empathy, which by default they apply only within a narrow circle of friends and relations. Over the millennia, people's moral circles have expanded to encompass larger and larger polities: the clan, the tribe, the nation, both sexes, other races, and even animals. The circle may have been pushed outward by expanding networks of reciprocity, à la Wright, but it might also be inflated by the inexorable logic of the golden rule: The more one knows and thinks about other living things, the harder it is to privilege one's own interests over theirs. The empathy escalator may also be powered by cosmopolitanism, in which journalism, memoir, and realistic fiction make the inner lives of other people, and the contingent nature of one's own station, more palpable—the feeling that "there but for fortune go I".

Are you cheesy or what. You answer to my two arguments with bullshit, and then tell me I'm the one who does not know what he's talking about. HR is not about cooperation being "good or bad," and IPD is neither "hypothetical" nor "philosophical." I'm sorry that you don't understand them, but don't turn around and act as if you know what they're about.