Abusive Theology 101

[John V]

@fff: I'd prefer you'd continue with the discussion as is. Here you go:

Who told the gorillas doing the condemning that they should do so?

No one. For purposes of this part of the discussion, we’re both assuming these behaviors developed through evolutionary processes.

And yet he responded as any atheist would have.

Yes, that’s why I referred to him as representing atheists. You muddied up the parable by saying it was based on a real-life Christian, then having him behave as any atheist would have.

Oh really? I hadn’t noticed. Oh lookie, I’m popular….. BIG DEAL.

Are you judging the people for whom popularity is a big deal? If so, on what basis? Isn’t the desire for popularity a result of evolutionary processes to you? Why do you fault people for being natural?

Evidence please.

The same evidence that you have that our secular rules developed through evolutionary processes.

---

Can you explain this further? What exactly is social evolution, and why don't you consider actions "based on peer observations" to be learned?

It's essentially the difference between a child that learns not to touch a hot stove for fear of the physical repercussion and a child that sits in a classroom to learn the rules of math and English grammar.

No, learning not to touch a hot stove for fear of the physical repercussions is not the same as learning based on peer observations. Can you try again?

I'm not going to spell it out for you...I thought my reply was already clear enough.

OK. I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt and asking clarifying questions. If you're not going to spell it out, I'll say outright that you're forcing a distinction between two apparently learned behaviors without support for the distinction.

Are you arguing for the sake of arguing at this point? If so, then this discussion between us will end very shortly.

Again, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing you to explain the distinction - something which you now seem unwilling or unable to do.