C’mon, man! The bible an koran are FILLED with examples of “god” telling people to kill… And they’ve recorded it in their “holy book”. When “god” tells Moses to kill all male children every woman who has slept with a man, what do you call that? I don’t think that’s any wild stretch of the imagination to call that RELIGION compelling an individual to kill…
[/quote]
So it’s religion that “compels” people to do what they do? Then I guess people aren’t responsible for their own actions then. Religion made them do it. It’s interesting that Jews and Christians don’t seem to be anywhere near as susceptible to this compulsion.
[/quote]Let’s take a step back. “Religion” is a codified set of rules, expectations, taboos, rewards and punishments. Those “ideas” are administrated and taught by REPRESENTATIVES of that religion. The actions of those individuals represent THE RELIGION. In the case of catholic priests molesting little boys, the subsequent cover up and lack of punishment illustrates that THE RELIGION is fine with that behavior. In fact if none of the victims of that abuse ever spoke up, they would have kept their dirty little secret buried for eternity. [quote]
[quote]
Also, look at the modern day terrorists! Why are they killing westerners? Is it because they are so secular? Not so much…[/quote]
It’s because they are evil. Man is essentially evil. If you don’t believe this then I suggest you look more closely at the historical record.[/quote]
SOME men are “evil”. But all in all, MOST men are just gullible or cowards. The great evils have always been thought up by a few and then the masses have been manipulated into carrying it out. Religion (among other things) has been a very effective vehicle for manipulating the masses.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
If man is just an animal there is no such thing as evil.[/quote]
That’s why I put evil in quotes. There are certainly things that benefit the few and are horrible for the many, but again, it’s a matter of perspective. “Evil” is a very quick and easy word to use to describe it. But it’s too simplistic because ultimately it uses religion as it’s basis. That’s fine by me as long as we understand that. And if I use the term, it is out of convenience of language rather than an endorsement of religious belief.
People do fucked up shit. So do animals. So does the weather. Stars sometimes explode. SHIT HAPPENS. We do what we can to protect us and ours. If we are feeling charitable or altruistic, we can be motivated to protect “others”. But that really doesn’t make us “good”, does it? Because the next week we could turn around and kill someone for a loaf of bread to feed our children if we found ourselves in that situation. We are motivated, FUNDAMENTALLY, by survival and replication. When we have those bases covered our next motive is STATUS.
I agree. It reflects badly on certain religious institutions and their dogma.
The priests’ behaviour reflects badly on the church but they(the priests) are ultimately responsible and the church as an institution is responsible. If you blame the concept of religion itself then you are missing the point and you’re also absolving individuals of their responsibility for their actions.
If the masses are subject to manipulation then that reflects their innate moral failings. You can’t absolve the masses either. Everyone who is not utterly insane or severely retarded is responsible for their own actions.
The evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal. I’m sure some evolutionists would argue man evolved beyond animals and that he is unique.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal. I’m sure some evolutionists would argue man evolved beyond animals and that he is unique.[/quote]
If you’re going to claim this you must explain why.
Of course, there are theistic evolutionists. And they bring a truckload of problems with their explanations. Huge truckload.[/quote]
Why? Because it is self evident that man is unique: language; abstract thought; culture etc. If man evolved from animals he has certainly surpassed them and civilised man has transcended his animalistic nature.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal. I’m sure some evolutionists would argue man evolved beyond animals and that he is unique.[/quote]
If you’re going to claim this you must explain why.
Of course, there are theistic evolutionists. And they bring a truckload of problems with their explanations. Huge truckload.[/quote]
Why? Because it is self evident that man is unique: language; abstract thought; culture etc. If man evolved from animals he has certainly surpassed them and civilised man has transcended his animalistic nature.
[/quote]
Exactly my point.
Now explain why and how “the evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal.”[/quote]
Why would it? Man could have evolved into something beyond a mere animal.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal. I’m sure some evolutionists would argue man evolved beyond animals and that he is unique.[/quote]
If you’re going to claim this you must explain why.
Of course, there are theistic evolutionists. And they bring a truckload of problems with their explanations. Huge truckload.[/quote]
Why? Because it is self evident that man is unique: language; abstract thought; culture etc. If man evolved from animals he has certainly surpassed them and civilised man has transcended his animalistic nature.
[/quote]
Exactly my point.
Now explain why and how “the evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal.”[/quote]
Why would it? Man could have evolved into something beyond a mere animal.[/quote]
Good grief, you’re struggling here, man.
Explain HOW and WHY this could/did happen.[/quote]
Um…man “evolved?” Why did man evolve? I don’t know.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal. I’m sure some evolutionists would argue man evolved beyond animals and that he is unique.[/quote]
If you’re going to claim this you must explain why.
Of course, there are theistic evolutionists. And they bring a truckload of problems with their explanations. Huge truckload.[/quote]
Why? Because it is self evident that man is unique: language; abstract thought; culture etc. If man evolved from animals he has certainly surpassed them and civilised man has transcended his animalistic nature.
[/quote]
Exactly my point.
Now explain why and how “the evolutionary model doesn’t require that man is reduced to an animal.”[/quote]
Why would it? Man could have evolved into something beyond a mere animal.[/quote]
Good grief, you’re struggling here, man.
Explain HOW and WHY this could/did happen.[/quote]
In order
-bipedalism as a uniquely derived trait of the genus Homo
-development of stone tools
-brain expansion
-development of the larynx
-development of language
^^ I don’t know what you expect me to say. “Why” did man evolve? That depends on your theology or lack thereof. However it isn’t necessary that one knows the reason why man is what he is. Just as it isn’t necessary to be religious to believe that man evolved into something unique from other organisms. This is self evident. You ask why it isn’t necessary; a better question is why is it necessary?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
C’mon man, you made the statement, " Because it is self evident that man is unique: language; abstract thought; culture etc."
[/quote]
But one doesn’t need to know why man evolved into something unique to recognise that he did. I don’t know why earthworms didn’t evolve into a more advanced state but I can recognise that they didn’t immediately when I try to talk to them. It’s self evident.
Dolphins’ language is infinitely more primitive than mans’ language.
It isn’t necessary to know how they did to recognise that they did. Honestly, this is a nonsense argument like Nick Viar saying evolutionists want to enslave other men or whatever.
I don’t know how and why and don’t need to know how and why in order to recognise that they did. You tell me why one needs to know the hows and the whys to recognise that man is unique.
I don’t need to. I said man is unique. It does not follow from that statement that I need to show how he came to be unique and the purpose of him becoming unique.
Actually, my argument was evolution and mans’ uniqueness are not mutually exclusive positions.
That’s not all he has. And mans’ language is vastly more advanced than animals’ language. It isn’t necessary to show why to recognise this fact.
Or he is a unique being who evolved far beyond any other lifeform.
[quote]
You can’t have it both ways. You will run squarely into an intellectual brick wall. Now you and the Bistro want to defend evolution? I’m giving you the chance to get after it – right here and right now. Ready. Set. Go.
I’ll wait.[/quote]
I merely pointed out your position is illogical. It is not necessary to show how man became unique and why he became unique in order to recognise that he is unique. Why would it be?
Example: If I come across a UFO, I don’t need to know how it was built or why it was built to recognise that it is an advanced technology and unique in relation to other aircraft.