Unconventional Religion

[genkaus]

I agree. What we consider right and wrong is not independent of our nature. When we DO do things wrong, it is therefore a perversion of the natural order, a derailment from perfection. Perfectly consistent with the Bible, which is just a different way of saying what we already know.

Except for the fact that it is in human nature to go above and beyond the natural order - to subvert and at times pervert it. Which becomes especially obvious and desirable when we see that the natural order is far from perfect. As for your Bible, it is neither consistent with the natural order nor the human nature.

The essence of evolutionary altruism is that we all work together. Rape does not produce a productive environment for raising a human child.

And why should I choose to follow evolutionary altruism over evolutionary predatism, evolutionary territorialism or evolutionary rapism. Especially since the latter does produce a productive environment for conceiving a human child.

I don't remember saying that. I can value something more than another and still enjoy both.

Your bible said it. It also says that you don't get to enjoy both - you must give up one for the other.

The love of it is "the root of all evil". Nobody said that liking money was inherently evil. It depends on what you do with it. Simple truth.

Your 'interpretation'. What it says actually is "Money is evil and therefore, so is the love for it".

I do share my possessions with the poor. Of course, I will never have enough to give everybody. The early Christian church gave the poor anything they needed, so all of them were equally satisfied. No one said that everyone owned the same stuff.

If you claim to follow the early Christian church, then you should be giving until your satisfaction level drops to the level of the poor. Only then you'll be "equally" satisfied. It doesn't matter is you don't have enough for everybody, you should give away what you have until you have no more than they do.

Restating what you said earlier without any further mention of my argument because you really, really, want it to say that, so you get to tell me how much better you are.

In absence of any actual argument, a restatement should suffice. You said that it was a misquotation and then proceeded to give your biased subjective interpretation - I corrected you - there is no misquotation and its not what I want your Bible to say, its what it really, actually says.

So you only loved your parents while they were in the position to take care of you.

No - but if they hadn't taken care of me, I wouldn't have loved them. And what was the relevance of this argument?

"Life" is the state of being alive. "Survival" is the practice of staying alive. I'm not seeing how this is relevant to your claim.

You don't see it because you fail to realize that for a rational human being, life means more than the state of being alive.

So your parents only loved you while you didn't hinder their financial ambitions.

Read it again.

Do the parents of the mentally challenged not love their children?

I wouldn't know. Why don't you ask your parents?

Materialism. Selfishness. Greed.

Those aren't consequences - they are the motives for straying from your biological roots.

[Edwardo Piet]

Christ is a problem if only because he is a confusion of claims about no one we know about who if existed (and he probably didn't) we don't know who we are talking about anyway and Christians argue over this.

Christians are a problem because... of their beliefs and how they are a danger to themselves and others (see above), depending on what exactly they are and how they carry them out based on their motivation based on aforementioned beliefs.

Also Christians are a problem because they are people, and people are problems (although they are also solutions).

So, both, I think.

[Consilius]

And why should I choose to follow evolutionary altruism over evolutionary predatism, evolutionary territorialism or evolutionary rapism. Especially since the latter does produce a productive environment for conceiving a human child.

This is the part where you give me evidence. A fatherless child will not recieve adequate parental support. Rape also is an offense to the woman.

Your bible said it. It also says that you don't get to enjoy both - you must give up one for the other.

This is the part where you give me evidence. The regulations you impose in your own Christianity are completely yours.

Your 'interpretation'. What it says actually is "Money is evil and therefore, so is the love for it".

You aren't very creative. You're supposed to disprove my argument, not give me your opinion. Again.

If you claim to follow the early Christian church, then you should be giving until your satisfaction level drops to the level of the poor.

You don't tell me what to do. Besides, you're not making sense. If we make all make ourselves poor, we can't help anybody else. Didn't I quote where the Bible specifically says NOT to do something as stupid as follow the doctrine you are preaching? Because it is YOURS. I think I might know a little more about the religion I follow than someone who doesn't.

You said that it was a misquotation and then proceeded to give your biased subjective interpretation - I corrected you - there is no misquotation and its not what I want your Bible to say, its what it really, actually says.

Well, we can't all own the Bible version you picked out. Shall I explain what I had considered a misquotation?
"If you want to be perfect…"
"If" makes the sentence conditional. It only need be followed in the case that…
"YOU." Earning salvation was the rich man's idea entirely. He was looking for an easy way through life.
"want to be perfect." No one can make anything perfect but God. The rich man couldn't find it in him to do what the apostles were doing simply because the apostles hadn't been recruited in this "all you gotta do" sort of manner. God calls people to be evangelists, he doesn't give out the position as the easy way out.

No - but if they hadn't taken care of me, I wouldn't have loved them.

Even if they had been unable to?

You don't see it because you fail to realize that for a rational human being, life means more than the state of being alive.

Educate me, then, Mr. Rational.

So your parents only loved you while you didn't hinder their financial ambitions.

Read it again.

Your parents raised you so they could earn profit.

I wouldn't know. Why don't you ask your parents?

Insults only tell me how insecure your position is.

[Whateverist]

I think a formal understanding of morals is no more necessary to moral activity than a formal understanding of grammar is to being an expert speaker of a language.

I agree. What we consider right and wrong is not independent of our nature. When we DO do things wrong, it is therefore a perversion of the natural order, a derailment from perfection. Perfectly consistent with the Bible, which is just a different way of saying what we already know.

I'm not sure I follow what you have in mind by the part I've bolded. What do you think is the proper place of the bible for a Christian? Do you think of it as the result of divine dictation or as the work of inspired men (as can be found in many other books as well)? I'd very much like to know your views on the bible.

[Bad Wolf]

This is the part where you give me evidence. A fatherless child will not recieve adequate parental support. Rape also is an offense to the woman.

Rape is an evolutionary throw back that was useful before we lived in societies. It was a very effective method for weak and/or unattractive males to spread their genes. Considering the least possible amount of parental investment a male can make (a few minutes of intercourse) this means that the male could impregnant hundreds of women in his life time. It is therfore irrelevent that his offspring would not recieve adequate parental support because of the amount of children a male could have, some of them are going to survive.
It is also irrelevant that rape is offensive, animals do not get offended or get their feelings hurt.

[Consilius]

I'm not sure I follow what you have in mind by the part I've bolded. What do you think is the proper place of the bible for a Christian? Do you think of it as the result of divine dictation or as the work of inspired men (as can be found in many other books as well)? I'd very much like to know your views on the bible.

A religious text will tell you that some things are good and some things are bad. When we do bad things, bad things happen…NATURALLY. It's not just karma, it's the way society is. Societal evils detoriate our way of life as people and as a society, which is why we don't allow them to be practiced. The way religion brings God into this is that He is the ultimate standard of perfection. Imperfection is contradictory to Him, and cannot exist with Him. To refuse good things like morals is to refuse God and lack His prescence.
To say that God possessed people to write holy words into a dark and sinful world is to give Him less credit than He should have. Punishment for wrong is more than divine hurricanes. It is what human society is engineered to provide. This world isn't a place for evil, which is why it cannot coexist with society. As a Christian, I'd say God is more present than it seems.
To specify, I don't think the Bible writers were divinely possessed in any miraculous way. They simply had the right idea about their religion, about our world, and were authorized to write about it.

---

Rape is an evolutionary throw back that was useful before we lived in societies.

We still didn't need a divine voice to tell us rape was wrong. Isn't rape still evolutionarily beneficial now?
While on the topic, do atheists besides genekaus here believe in altruism?

[Bad Wolf]

Isn't rape still evolutionarily beneficial now?

No it isn't because if someone rapes someone else they go to jail for a long time thus decreasing their likelihood of reproducing, also the woman is likely to get an abortion. If we were living in a Darwinian style society, then rape would be more beneficial even though abortions would still be an option. Bearing in mind a darwinian style society would kill the weak or diseased or at the very least, would prohibit them from breeding. Its indeed lucky that we don't live in a Darwinian society

[genkaus]

This is the part where you give me evidence. A fatherless child will not recieve adequate parental support. Rape also is an offense to the woman.

Evidence for what? The only point of evolutionary instinct is to ensure passing on your genes. Providing adequate parental support or not offending women is unnecessary for "evolutionary morals".

This is the part where you give me evidence. The regulations you impose in your own Christianity are completely yours.

I've already given the evidence - those verses that literally say you have to give up your money in order to be good.

You aren't very creative. You're supposed to disprove my argument, not give me your opinion. Again.

No need to disprove what has never been proven. All you've given me is your opinion of what the bible means, without any actual evidence to support that claim.

You don't tell me what to do.

No, the bible does. I'm simply pointing out that you are not doing as you've been told.

Besides, you're not making sense. If we make all make ourselves poor, we can't help anybody else.

That's what the bible tells you - not me. And you are right, it doesn't make any sense. But then you are the one claiming to follow it, not me.

Didn't I quote where the Bible specifically says NOT to do something as stupid as follow the doctrine you are preaching? Because it is YOURS.

I don't think so - but that's interesting nonetheless. So, the bible specifically tells you not to practice what you preach, huh? How's that for hypocrisy.

I think I might know a little more about the religion I follow than someone who doesn't.

Knowledge does not equal understanding, obviously.

Well, we can't all own the Bible version you picked out. Shall I explain what I had considered a misquotation?
"If you want to be perfect…"
"If" makes the sentence conditional. It only need be followed in the case that…
"YOU." Earning salvation was the rich man's idea entirely. He was looking for an easy way through life.
"want to be perfect." No one can make anything perfect but God. The rich man couldn't find it in him to do what the apostles were doing simply because the apostles hadn't been recruited in this "all you gotta do" sort of manner. God calls people to be evangelists, he doesn't give out the position as the easy way out.

First, your 'interpretation' of the verse does not make the original verse a misquote.
Second, nowhere does it state that salvation = easy way through life. So, there is no reason to assume that the rich guy was looking for an easy way through life, though he was looking for salvation.
Third, your 'interpretation' of "want to be perfect" is way, way off the mark. The statement was pretty clear on that regard - of he gave up his wealth and followed Jesus, he'd be perfect. Sorry, but your rationalization here doesn't work.

Even if they had been unable to?

Yes.

Educate me, then, Mr. Rational.

Being a thinking human being entails a bunch of psychological needs, the fulfillment which is necessary for having a life beyond mere survival.

Your parents raised you so they could earn profit.

Yes.

Insults only tell me how insecure your position is.

What they should tell you is how idiotic your question was.

[Whateverist]

I'm not sure I follow what you have in mind by the part I've bolded. What do you think is the proper place of the bible for a Christian? Do you think of it as the result of divine dictation or as the work of inspired men (as can be found in many other books as well)? I'd very much like to know your views on the bible.

A religious text will tell you that some things are good and some things are bad. When we do bad things, bad things happen…NATURALLY. It's not just karma, it's the way society is. Societal evils detoriate our way of life as people and as a society, which is why we don't allow them to be practiced. The way religion brings God into this is that He is the ultimate standard of perfection. Imperfection is contradictory to Him, and cannot exist with Him. To refuse good things like morals is to refuse God and lack His prescence.
To say that God possessed people to write holy words into a dark and sinful world is to give Him less credit than He should have. Punishment for wrong is more than divine hurricanes. It is what human society is engineered to provide. This world isn't a place for evil, which is why it cannot coexist with society. As a Christian, I'd say God is more present than it seems.
To specify, I don't think the Bible writers were divinely possessed in any miraculous way. They simply had the right idea about their religion, about our world, and were authorized to write about it.

Well thanks for trying. I'm afraid most of what you say went over my head. I'm not sure if you're saying:

Interpretation #1: "We, by way of religion, have given the ultimate standard of perfection for human behavior a name. We call it God. When in our own behavior we get near the ultimate standard, what we are overlaps with His presence."

Interpretation #2: "Metaphysically there is a being, God, which embodies all that is good and proper for human beings. When we align ourselves with God, we necessarily become good.

Ack! I know I am not doing justice to the second interpretation. I just can't cobble together a coherent phrasing for god understood as a being in itself. This is probably why I am having a hard time understanding what you've written.

[Consilius]

Well thanks for trying. I'm afraid most of what you say went over my head. I'm not sure if you're saying:

Interpretation #1: "We, by way of religion, have given the ultimate standard of perfection for human behavior a name. We call it God. When in our own behavior we get near the ultimate standard, what we are overlaps with His presence."

Interpretation #2: "Metaphysically there is a being, God, which embodies all that is good and proper for human beings. When we align ourselves with God, we necessarily become good.

Ack! I know I am not doing justice to the second interpretation. I just can't cobble together a coherent phrasing for god understood as a being in itself. This is probably why I am having a hard time understanding what you've written.

You've done great, interpreting my spiel.
I'd go with interpretation 2. The standard for ultimate perfection exists outside humanity. We give it a name and strive to it.

---

No it isn't because if someone rapes someone else they go to jail for a long time thus decreasing their likelihood of reproducing, also the woman is likely to get an abortion.

It seems that the line between rape and no rape is formed by a enitrely human institutions. Why would we send someone to jail for simply trying to perpetuate his genetic code?

---

The only point of evolutionary instinct is to ensure passing on your genes.

Then why are humans altruistic? Surely we didn't need a Jesus to know when to defend a child being beaten up in an alley. The progression of humanity has always been about taking care of the rest of the herd.

I've already given the evidence - those verses that literally say you have to give up your money in order to be good.

Jesus didn't tell me to give up my money—he told a rich young man to. A rich young man who asked for him for heaven's free pass. Jesus was never a fan of making religion a one-stop shop, which is why he criticized the Judaism of his day.

You don't tell me what to do.

No, the bible does.

Oh, does it now? Another Christian stereotype.

So, the bible specifically tells you not to practice what you preach, huh?

It tells me not to practice what YOU preach.

Second, nowhere does it state that salvation = easy way through life. So, there is no reason to assume that the rich guy was looking for an easy way through life, though he was looking for salvation.
Third, your 'interpretation' of "want to be perfect" is way, way off the mark. The statement was pretty clear on that regard - of he gave up his wealth and followed Jesus, he'd be perfect.

Salvation cannot be earned. Earning salvation IS the easy way out.
Nobody is perfect, and nobody can achieve perfection. Only God is perfect. This isn't a very hidden concept of Christian theology, and this discrepancy is Jesus' answer to the rich man should tell you that he wasn't laying out a road map to heaven.

The rest of this reply I will not comment on. You may be a materialist if you like. I draw the line when you refuse to tolerate people who don't want to be materialists.
What I find funny is that the website administrators are soliciting donations at the top of this page. Are they not "rational" enough for you?