Good, Jack. Although I obviously disagree with you at least I now know where you stand. You are now my enemy. 
Good, Jack. Although I obviously disagree with you at least I now know where you stand. You are now my enemy.Aha! As I am now your enemy then I get the choice of weapons. I choose extreme sarcasm and unctuous invective at ten paces. ;-P Cap't Jack
Oh geez. Jack. How do you rate? Think of the many members here who would be proud to have George declare them his enemy! :lol:
Occam
Sounds fair. We are at war! :-)Good, Jack. Although I obviously disagree with you at least I now know where you stand. You are now my enemy.Aha! As I am now your enemy then I get the choice of weapons. I choose extreme sarcasm and unctuous invective at ten paces. ;-P Cap't Jack
And one more thing that drives me just crazy: we all agree that the religious are wrong when they say our sense of morality is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian values and we quickly offer the, yes, biological explanation showing how we have evolved to become species with a sophisticated moral sense. When, however, the topic changes from virtues to vices, like bombing abortion clinics, we welcome the Judeo-Christian values with open arms and not even dare to bring biology into the equation. So which one is it? Are Christians good people because of their religion or because they have evolved to feel compassion for those in need? And are they bombing abortion clinics because of their religion or because they have evolved to fear change? Which one is it? And if your answer is evolution (biology) and religion (environment), respectively, then I want to know why.
And one more thing that drives me just crazy: we all agree that the religious are wrong when they say our sense of morality is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian values and we quickly offer the, yes, biological explanation showing how we have evolved to become species with a sophisticated moral sense. When, however, the topic changes from virtues to vices, like bombing abortion clinics, we welcome the Judeo-Christian values with open arms and not even dare to bring biology into the equation. So which one is it? Are Christians good people because of their religion of because they have evolved to feel comparison for those in need? And are they bombing abortion clinics because of their religion of because they have evolved to fear change? Which one is it? And if your answer is evolution (biology) and religion (environment), respectively, then I want to know why.Although I'm probably not supposed to, I agree with your first statement but who here is "switching over" by declaring natural, factual causes for morals and ethics e.g. Biological and societal causes for what we term moral behavior as Originating from Judeo-xtian values? Case in point, their surrounding neighbors posessed those same values and they weren't members of the "chosen few". There were even a few instances where the xtians were labeled atheists by the Roman pagans. Anyway, I also agree that there is a biological cause for bombing (or terrorist murder or whatever you want to label it) as I mentioned several times in previous posts. As to xtians being good people, several factors come into play: biological hardwiring of the brain to enable group cooperation, societal pressures to ensure group loyalty, including a common language, religion and history so the biological and societal causes for a behavior are certainly linked and IMO inseparable, which is why when a xtian bombs an abortion clinic, or kills an abortion doctor all of those conditions come into play, biological and environmental. It's not change they fear; there's is a "holy" cause. They are sacrificing themselves, as Jesus did BTW to promote their religious agenda, at least that's the catalyst. When in reality it's sociopathic behavior. You don't kill someone because they disagree with your belief system. My neighbors, fundamentalist Baptists, haven't shot me for being an atheist. And that is not to say that religious belief is behind every act of murder or mayhem. We all know that and I have never made that contention but it can become a focal point for certain capital crimes if all the tumblers click into place. Cap't Jack
Oh geez. Jack. How do you rate? Think of the many members here who would be proud to have George declare them his enemy! OccamHey Occam, I know I'm way down the row on George's enemy's list but at least I'm on it! I'm actually flattered as long as he doesn't tell me to have intimate relations with a waterfowl. Cap't Jack
So long as you don't accuse me of racism like some of our local leftoids here, I promise to behave. ;-) And I'll have to respond to your post tomorrow.Oh geez. Jack. How do you rate? Think of the many members here who would be proud to have George declare them his enemy! OccamHey Occam, I know I'm way down the row on George's enemy's list but at least I'm on it! I'm actually flattered as long as he doesn't tell me to have intimate relations with a waterfowl. Cap't Jack
If religions are responsible for distorting the facts at a basic level then how do we even quantify how much damage they’re doing.
for instance this belief that many religious people seem to have that God created the Earth for our needs and therefore we don’t need to exercise any restraint in how we use the environment around us. I think this also comes back to a lot of resistance towards evolution, if we accept that humans are very small part of a very complex biological system and if we knock it out of whack then we’re in fact harming ourselves. This demands taking a level of responsibility that in the past has been turned over to a supernatural power and many people still claim that humans are incapable of affecting the natural world despite the evidence.
I think this also applies to procreation, where for mostly material purposes some mainstream religions are opposed to any sort of birth control because it will eventually impact on the number of new followers coming into the world. If the imperative is on maintaining the power of the religion at the expense of all other considerations then the possibility of great damage being done becomes much more likely.
So at a time when as a species we need to be taking a very close look at how many of us there are on the planet and how much of an impact we’re having on the overall biosphere, we have to deal with religious dogma that questions our very place in the natural order and our possible impact. And the damage could be cataclysmic when you look at some of the possible consequences of taking out major portions of the biosphere as we try to adhere to a very outdated model of viewing the world and our place in it.
What we don’t know as a species could possibly wipe us out and to a degree religions can keep us from even asking the necessary questions if they threaten the established power structures.
Are Christians good people because of their religion?No. Most Christians are good people in spite of their religion rather than because of it. To the extent that Christianity relies on the Bible for its basic philosophy, extremism, cruelty and vindictiveness are almost inevitable. See Deuteronomy, Ch.20, Vs. 10-17, where God commands -commands, not advises - the Israelites to commit what we today would call genocide, and just about the entire OT after that; a chronicle of the destruction of an entire civilization and the slaughter and enslavement of its people. TFS
Our check out the Book of Job where God wipes out everyone close to Job to find out how faithful he is.
And one more thing that drives me just crazy: we all agree that the religious are wrong when they say our sense of morality is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian values and we quickly offer the, yes, biological explanation showing how we have evolved to become species with a sophisticated moral sense. When, however, the topic changes from virtues to vices, like bombing abortion clinics, we welcome the Judeo-Christian values with open arms and not even dare to bring biology into the equation. So which one is it? Are Christians good people because of their religion or because they have evolved to feel compassion for those in need? And are they bombing abortion clinics because of their religion or because they have evolved to fear change? Which one is it? And if your answer is evolution (biology) and religion (environment), respectively, then I want to know why.If they're good, it's often in spite of their religion. Who said we ever welcome Judeo-Christian values when it comes to bombing abortion clinics? Who do you know who has ever done that? "They" are bombing abortion clinics because of many factors, religion may be one of those factors. The vast majority of religious people don't bomb anything, so it can't be religion alone that is the driving force. And it's so rare that there has to be a lot of factors motivating them that have nothing to do with religion. I think religion is a weak force, but it is a handy scapegoat. It's been a weak force in Islam, too, though probably stronger than Christianity at this point. The vast majority of Muslims don't set off bombs or become suicide bombers, not even most highly indoctrinated ones. There has to be more to it than religion. It's religion plus a lot of other factors that have nothing to do with religion. Let's not get carried away. Lois
I wish people, especially, those not caught in the jaws of a religion, would stop using the word “procreate,” which, IMO, has too many biblical associations. What’s wrong with “reproduce” ? A perfectly good word, also used by scientists, without religious connotations? Who has ever heard a biologist talk about procreation? We have reproductive technology, not procreative technology. I wish the word “procreate” would be obliterated from everyone’s vocabulary. Leave it in the churches.
Lois
Fuzzy,
You got a point.
for instance this belief that many religious people seem to have that God created the Earth for our needs and therefore we don't need to exercise any restraint in how we use the environment around us.In a way I believe God (the old religious system) did evolve earth to meet mankind's needs. But I think we do need restraints on our environment today. Earth was not made for mankind as much as it was made for cows or birds. Man is a virus that lives on protein. Almost all protein consumed by mankind today except fish, was most likely domesticated in a time of highly evolved religion. There are technological advances. The ones that has help mankind the most are technological advances in the area of protein production. Walk into the supper market and try and find a product other than fish that has not been domesticated. This means all vegetables, nuts, fruit, meats and grain products. And the same applies to cotton, wool, sugar cane, you name it. Then realize that domestication of some items in past sometimes took as long as 20,000 years for domestication. Those are mankind’s real technological advances. Not how fast man can travel or television. The next time you pick up an apple or orange ask yourself, “How did this apple become just the idea fruit for mankind?" The Genesis stories talks about God’s garden and God's knowledge in the fruit of the tree. In the timeline of mankind, this Domestication Period of earth plants and animals must of been part of the religion of God. Older religions must have been based upon knowledge and technology because we would not be here today if it was not for theses pass technological advances. It seem by the time of Sumer that most of mankind’s domestication had been done and much of the knowledge base and history had been lost, like some sort of natural disaster or plague had wiped out the area of advanced knowledge and Sumer was starting over but never was able to reestablish the old system. Go back to the cradle of civilization in Iraq and you will not find the footprints of domestication like you do in Mexico with corn. Just try following the Chicken and Olive and you will see they made major changes to mankind. And it was not just the items themselves, it was also technology of grafting and incubation that made these item change the lifestyle of all mankind. The Olive had already been domesticated to the point of grafting the branches. It could not be grown from seeds. Yet, history cannot tell us today the reason for the passing or giving of the olive branch. And yet it seems so obvious that it is almost funny. Thank god for DNA. Even an Atheist should give god what is do to god. And God (the knowledge in the prehistory religious system) did create earth for mankind as we know it today. A side note of interest. The potato came out of South America, but in Europe the historians were in a big debate that the potato may have came from South America but it had to have gone by way of India to be domesticated. Because in Old Europe it was understood that all domestication came from India. The oldest religious maps have the Garden of Eden in India. A couple months ago, a DNA test showed that the potato was most likely domesticated in South America and not India but it was not 100% sure and left open a door for the potato also getting to India from the East long before it got to Europe from the West. Mike
So long as you don't accuse me of racism like some of our local leftoids here...Ideology before logic George. There's no alternative. Ever. Save the altruistic rebuttals about reason. You know how the watch is built.
So long as you don’t accuse me of racism like some of our local leftoids here, I promise to behave. And I’ll have to respond to your post tomorrow.Done, as long as you don't consistently hammer on cousin marriage and incredibly intelligent people of the Jewish faith. :) BTW I've never accused you of racism. Cap't Jack
If/when the hat fits…
Jewish race, not faith. Only the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews are smart. The rest is not.So long as you don’t accuse me of racism like some of our local leftoids here, I promise to behave. And I’ll have to respond to your post tomorrow.Done, as long as you don't consistently hammer on cousin marriage and incredibly intelligent people of the Jewish faith. :) BTW I've never accused you of racism. Cap't Jack
And, Jack, I was going to respond to your post from last evening, but now I am not sure what else to say…
Jewish race, not faith. Only the Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews are smart. The rest is not.You mean I can't become Jewish even if I wanted to George? I think we're talking apples and oranges here. Anyone may convert to Judiasm, it's been done literally for centuries. I was using it in that context. Cap't Jack