# Hammer meet nail...



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 12, 2014)

This is taken from Terminal Lance, and I can't post a link or the unedited source text because it trips the language filters, but you should be able to find it pretty easily if you search it up. 

THIS is the real enemy, that the author is talking about.



> Religious extremism is a scourge on an otherwise decent earth we live on.
> 
> I have a theory (backed up by nothing but pure and largely comical speculation) that if we got all the idiot terrorists in the world to just stop killing each other for like a few hours and sit them down and have Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk about the universe and stuff, they would eventually reach the conclusion that murdering people for no apparent reason is fairly petty in contrast to the massive scale of the galaxy and everything beyond it. I know that whenever I feel like going on a murderous religious rampage and forcing weird and archaic laws on people against their will, all I have to do is look up at the night sky and remember that I’m one dude sitting on one relatively small (and extremely lucky) rock revolving around a relatively small star in a galaxy filled with about 300,000,000,000 other stars.
> 
> ...



There's really no refutation to his points. Any of them.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This is taken from Terminal Lance, and I can't post a link or the unedited source text because it trips the language filters, but you should be able to find it pretty easily if you search it up.
> 
> THIS is the real enemy, that the author is talking about.
> 
> ...



It's like we're still cavemen throwing rocks.  

I'm certain almost all military forces pray before unleashing death.  Maybe not the Swiss.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It's like we're still cavemen throwing rocks.
> 
> I'm certain almost all military forces pray before unleashing death.  Maybe not the Swiss.



That's a brush too wide. Are there chaplains who pray on behalf of the military, sure, but that's way different than the soldiers praying. 

When I went over in 2003 I carried a set of Rosary beads thinking that this would be the moment in life I found my faith. I prayed, I read the Bible, I attended services and it was no more meaningful to me, even while being shot at, than it was before. In fact, all that did was highlight the randomness to the universe, unless God is just unimaginably cruel. I've seen bombed out chapels, during service, where I, the professed non-believer, have mortars literally skittering over my feet without going off and coming home unscathed. 

Some would rationalize that to me as God having purpose for me, or giving the other believers more of a test because he knew they could handle it, but all I saw was unflinching chance and really bad luck.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's a brush too wide. Are there chaplains who pray on behalf of the military, sure, but that's way different than the soldiers praying.
> 
> When I went over in 2003 I carried a set of Rosary beads thinking that this would be the moment in life I found my faith. I prayed, I read the Bible, I attended services and it was no more meaningful to me, even while being shot at, than it was before. In fact, all that did was highlight the randomness to the universe, unless God is just unimaginably cruel. I've seen bombed out chapels, during service, where I, the professed non-believer, have mortars literally skittering over my feet without going off and coming home unscathed.
> 
> Some would rationalize that to me as God having purpose for me, or giving the other believers more of a test because he knew they could handle it, but all I saw was unflinching chance and really bad luck.




That's an important word.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> That's an important word.



Agreed, that's why I used it. In my, not so, humble opinion, one could replace the word religion with ritualized rationalization and not change the outcome.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Agreed, that's why I used it. In my, not so, humble opinion, one could replace the word religion with ritualized rationalization and not change the outcome.




So how does your observation that 'poop' happens (randomness) affect how you go about your daily life?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> So how does your observation that 'poop' happens (randomness) affect how you go about your daily life?



Poop happening to me is random, how I react to it is up to me. Whether or not I poop on other people is also up to me, and based on how I want them to look at me and treat me. 

More generally, it shows me that life is fleeting and every moment precious. Live now, while you're alive, because you won't always be.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Poop happening to me is random, how I react to it is up to me. Whether or not I poop on other people is also up to me, and based on how I want them to look at me and treat me.
> 
> More generally, it shows me that life is fleeting and every moment precious. Live now, while you're alive, because you won't always be.




Amen.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 12, 2014)

That was the same lesson I took away from cancer. Random luck gave it to me, how I experienced it was up to me, and how I lived afterward was a reflection of that randomness and the awareness that life is all too fragile.


----------



## Israel (Sep 13, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That was the same lesson I took away from cancer. Random luck gave it to me, how I experienced it was up to me, and how I lived afterward was a reflection of that randomness and the awareness that life is all too fragile.




Truly said he, unless you change

This soul of frailty sewn, 
and sown in earth
of rock hard clay 
but for waters sent
breathes soft air and lives.

But even air when pressed 
by many toils heated
looses softness in the lungs
and all then is torrid labor 
from other labors born.

What then of this birthing
in the trying pressing forth 
to be again as babies
sucking softness as of softness formed
of milk and dew?

You let the water slip in aging
like an old and crackéd cask,
Return return in rest 
to first breast suckling form
before even forming first firmed.

And drink both softer milk unaging
and sweeter air of light
Where dark and hard unknown
in word and sight
are not even spoke of in myth.

You are not made for toil 
or struggles once embraced
to be a something special
in your eyes you give the world
but being in an eye unmade unblinking
as he gives and pulls you strongly, softly
of his bosom.

To him, you're all that is.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> Truly said he, unless you change
> 
> This soul of frailty sewn,
> and sown in earth
> ...



Beautifully composed, but can I get the Cliff's Notes version? I'm not very good at deciphering poetry to meaning. 

I'm more of a prose guy.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> This is taken from Terminal Lance, and I can't post a link or the unedited source text because it trips the language filters, but you should be able to find it pretty easily if you search it up.
> 
> THIS is the real enemy, that the author is talking about.
> 
> ...



In short,  "The only problem with humanity is humanity. " 

The question is "Why is that the case?"

Until you can answer that, you can't even begin to hope to reach a feasible solution.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In short,  "The only problem with humanity is humanity. "
> 
> The question is "Why is that the case?"



Religion.

From past wars, flying planes into buildings, etc.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> In short,  "The only problem with humanity is humanity. "
> 
> The question is "Why is that the case?"
> 
> Until you can answer that, you can't even begin to hope to reach a feasible solution.



What solution do you propose or think I am proposing?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 15, 2014)

660griz said:


> Religion.
> 
> From past wars, flying planes into buildings, etc.



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


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What solution do you propose or think I am proposing?



I don't think you can propose a solution until you identify why we are our own worst enemy.  You have to answer why something is broke, before you can truly fix it.  Not patch it but fix it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I don't think you can propose a solution until you identify why we are our own worst enemy.  You have to answer why something is broke, before you can truly fix it.  Not patch it but fix it.



Zealotry and blind adherence to a religion's commandments. 

Now what do you propose we do about it?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Zealotry and blind adherence to a religion's commandments.
> 
> Now what do you propose we do about it?



Aw come on Stripe.  Give me a break.  Is it really just a problem among the religious or is it a bit more encompassing to include everyone in one form or another?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 15, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Aw come on Stripe.  Give me a break.  Is it really just a problem among the religious or is it a bit more encompassing to include everyone in one form or another?



It's more broad than just religion, but do you seriously expect me to turn a blind eye to the likes of Westboro and ISIS because YOU'RE a good Christian? 

It's all zealotry, which is why I posted that, but so far the green, reduce-your-carbon-footprint, climate change goofs aren't killing anyone on par with those who have been killed and harmed in the name of God (whatever the particular religion calls them).


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Sep 15, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's more broad than just religion, but do you seriously expect me to turn a blind eye to the likes of Westboro and ISIS because YOU'RE a good Christian?
> 
> It's all zealotry, which is why I posted that, but so far the green, reduce-your-carbon-footprint, climate change goofs aren't killing anyone on par with those who have been killed and harmed in the name of God (whatever the particular religion calls them).



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?


----------



## Israel (Sep 15, 2014)

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 (Sep 16, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Sep 16, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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 (Sep 17, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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
> ...





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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
> ...



 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.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.  




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.  



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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."




StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.  



StripeRR HunteRR said:


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


.

   (because he's the best adapted?  ) 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.  



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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 (Sep 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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.
> ...



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 (Sep 17, 2014)

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 (Sep 17, 2014)

It seems that some men need to think so.


----------



## Israel (Sep 18, 2014)

bullethead said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.
> ...



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 (Sep 18, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


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



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 (Sep 19, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 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 (Sep 19, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Same to you.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2014)

> 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.


----------

