Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307857379' post='2252695']
He will... when you don't convert he will see it as you're arrogant pride... or something like that. You will lose honor and the kilingon empire will destroy the federation.... bla bla bla...
[/quote]

Now we wouldn't want that to happen now would we?

One of the creators of Star Trek is a humanist, just a bit of trivia I thought I'd throw in.

Just when I feel like watching a sci-fi movie...

Edited June 12, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

Here's a TEDTalk done by a respected neurologist on mirror neurons, which are associated with the human capacity to feel empathy:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pwKzTRG5E[/media]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307559959' post='2251358']
I can't do that without sounding like a whiny persecuted self made victim (which I don't like). Some of religious ideals go against my ideals and are in the public sphere, meaning that they influence political decision that in turn influence every private individual or at risk of doing do. The interference of religious doctrine (even if not yours specifically, but still Christian) in education which is a step backwards. The interference in scientific research too. Though ethics is necessary, sometimes they just don't seem right. The treatment of homosexuals and denying them rights which I feel do not infringe on the rights of others. It makes no moral sense, unless intrinsically wrong, which I and many others don't feel to be the case though the Church disagrees (I see it as mere opinion). I think that in a few years those rights will be achieved, though and society will change to accommodate them.

I take the consequentialist approach to this. In the context of banning condom use, Christianity is not making things any better in Africa. In fact, it may be responsible for future colapse.
[/quote]

Universities and higher education are a result of the church.
Scientific research started with the church.
Homosexuals are not denied any "rights" by the church, marriage is NOT a right.
The only success story in Africa with regards to AIDS are the countries who don't push condoms, since they are a fail to stop AIDS.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307838215' post='2252538']
I must say, I'm slightly surprised that you could be so naive.

And I don't have to be telepathic to know that both you and Knight of Christ don't have the slightest clue about atheistic thinking. It is a foundation to destroy the old ways and implement the new, it's not a goal, because how can atheism be a goal?! It's not an ideology, it's just a descrition of philosophies that don't contain a belief in god.

*cough*vaccinationagainstreligion*cough*[/quote]
No need to be so humble about your truly incredible supernatural psychic skills.

Let me ask you this: does atheism (or lack of belief in God, religion, and immortal souls) play absolutely no role in your own thought? Would belief in God and the soul make absolutely no change in your moral thinking?

*cough*vaccinationnotagainstmyreligion*cough*

[quote]It seems that in religious thinking, it's the soul which people believe exists that takes precedence over people, including their lives. In the case of the AIDS crisis for instance, the suffering is being justified by the church because it claims that it's a sin. In the case of euthanasia, people are forced to suffer because others try and keep them from ending their own lives justifying that with what they believe offends god.

If an atheist were to chose to commit suicide under those circumstances, then what right do other people have to keep them from doing so? Sorry, but that's not compassion. It's cruelty. [/quote]
Once again, you show that you have not the slightest clue about Catholic moral thought.

As Christians, we believe that human life is a gift from God, and is morally always a higher priority than comfort or convenience.
It seems that most atheists believe human life has no intrinsic value itself, and that it can be overridden by subjective priorities such as comfort or convenience (as illustrated by the cases of abortion and euthanasia.)
It's utterly nonsensical to claim that the Christians believe the soul (which is the life principle) "takes precedence over people, including their lives," when you argue in favor of ending those very lives. You're not arguing for life there, but for death.

The Church's opposition to condoms and other forms of artificial contraception has nothing to do with a cruel desire to see people suffer, but rather is because it is against actively obstructing the creative aspect of the marital act.
The Church preaches chastity, which is 100% effective against the transmission of STDs and the suffering resulting therefrom. Again, no one has been known to die from chastity.

If you're really interested in looking at the reasoning behind the Church's teachings on sexual ethics, as opposed to mindless and false caricatures, I suggest you read up on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.
But, I know it's much easier to just caricature Christians as being cruel and sadistic.



[quote]Well, if that's what you need to keep yourself from killing others and causing harm, then by all means, continue in your beliefs...


And once again:

[i]Pod Znamenem Marksizma,[/i] which sets out to be an organ of [size="6"][color="#FF0000"][flashingneonlights][b]militant materialism[/b][/flashingneonlights][/color][/size], should devote much of its space to [size="6"][color="#FF0000"][flashingneonlights][b]atheist propaganda[/b][/flashingneonlights][/color][/size], to reviews of the literature on the subject and to correcting the immense shortcomings of our governmental work in this field. It is particularly important to utilise books and pamphlets which contain many concrete facts and comparisons showing how the class interests and class organisations of the modern bourgeoisie are connected with the organisations of religious institutions and religious propaganda. -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]
Fixed your flashing lights.

Claiming that militant materialism (materialism = belief that the material universe is all that exists, which includes most modern atheism) has nothing to do with materialism or atheism is equivalent to saying that militant Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Islam (we'll ignore for the moments debates about whether "true Islam" is actually violent or not).

While you may dismiss it all as just false Commie propaganda, I personally have no reason to presume that Lenin was any less sincere about his atheism than you are about yours. But then I lack your psychic powers.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307857073' post='2252692']
Many of their ideals are indirect opposition to mine, but Christians have political leverage.[/quote]
And many of your ideals are in direct opposition to mine.

And it's Christians that have to help pay for abortion and such against our wishes, so I wouldn't whine about "political leverage."

[quote]All forms of education as a remedy. [/quote]
Does that include Catholic education? ;-)


[quote]To the actual to the Church institution, in the case of catholics. Though the real brunt of it was carried out by protestants.

Here from wiki:

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Opposition_to_abolitionism"]Opposition to abolitionism[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery#Christian_abolitionism"]Christian abolitionism[/url].[/quote]
I saw quite a bit in those wiki articles about Catholic opposition to slavery, including the teaching of Popes.

And I've seen nothing to show that Catholic abolitionists were opposed by the Church.

It must be remembered also that in the mid-19th century, slavery was only being continued in a large scale in the West in the US, which was predominantly Protestant. Slavery had already been ended in Catholic countries, and for the most part without bloody wars.

I can't even tell what your point is supposed to be anymore. Looks like you're now just looking for any angle you can to bash the Church.



[quote]Darwin's views on slavery were in opposition to the prevailing notions of his time. [/quote]
I actually have no idea what Darwin's ideas about slavery were. I wasn't trying to make a point about atheism and slavery, just pointing out that influential atheists were in fact around at that time in history.



[quote]Objective? What about mirror neurons and empathy?[/quote]
Yes, I'm sure that if we just spend enough time studying neurons and other cells, we will have sure knowledge of what behavior is objectively morally right and wrong . . .

("We know this alleged case of fraud is in fact actually moral, because if you observe the firing of synapses in neuron X . . .")


[quote]I've added a page discussing secularism with regards to those, so now let's stick to the actual numbers than just throw around opinions and anecdotal evidence.[/quote]
Not sure what numbers you are referring to, but in any case, rattling off a list of numerical statistics of AIDS deaths or such does nothing to prove your accusations that the Church is responsible for those deaths.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Socrates

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307987004' post='2253224']
No need to be so humble about your truly incredible supernatural psychic skills.

Let me ask you this: does atheism (or lack of belief in God, religion, and immortal souls) play absolutely no role in your own thought? Would belief in God and the soul make absolutely no change in your moral thinking?[/quote]

Yes, but I don't see my morality as worse because I don't claim it to be objective. I take the worldly results into higher consideration than any argument trying to justify what I see as wrong in favour of souls.

Though I can't really speculate much on this, because rigid moral systems claiming to be objective feel so wrong to me on so many levels. I simply can't accurately see myself thinking as a religious person who puts quality of life on a scale of lesser importance.

In the article comparing pro-evolution secular first world countries to anti-evolution more religious first world countries it showed that the first have actually achieved higher cultures of life, which I think is a good goal for societies. Religion just doesn't get there...

For instance, you might say that they've achieved better societal health in part because of their approval of contraceptives and that religion doesn't approve of that, but that's where I see a major flaw within religious morality. Saying that the justification for that is based on the supernatural is meaningless to me as an atheist.

[quote]Once again, you show that you have not the slightest clue about Catholic moral thought.

As Christians, we believe that human life is a gift from God, and is morally always a higher priority than comfort or convenience.
It seems that most atheists believe human life has no intrinsic value itself, and that it can be overridden by subjective priorities such as comfort or convenience (as illustrated by the cases of abortion and euthanasia.)
It's utterly nonsensical to claim that the Christians believe the soul (which is the life principle) "takes precedence over people, including their lives," when you argue in favor of ending those very lives. You're not arguing for life there, but for death.

The Church's opposition to condoms and other forms of artificial contraception has nothing to do with a cruel desire to see people suffer, but rather is because it is against actively obstructing the creative aspect of the marital act.
The Church preaches chastity, which is 100% effective against the transmission of STDs and the suffering resulting therefrom. Again, no one has been known to die from chastity.

If you're really interested in looking at the reasoning behind the Church's teachings on sexual ethics, as opposed to mindless and false caricatures, I suggest you read up on Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.[/quote]


I have a good idea about absolute "objective" morality, I just don't agree with it.

[quote]But, I know it's much easier to just caricature Christians as being cruel and sadistic.[/quote]

I wouldn't say cruel and sadistic (those would imply the intent to be cruel and sadistic). I just see them and you as wrong.

[quote]*cough*vaccinationnotagainstmyreligion*cough*[/quote]


[quote]Fixed your flashing lights.

Claiming that militant materialism (materialism = belief that the material universe is all that exists, which includes most modern atheism) has nothing to do with materialism or atheism is equivalent to saying that militant Islam has absolutely nothing to do with Islam (we'll ignore for the moments debates about whether "true Islam" is actually violent or not).

While you may dismiss it all as just false Commie propaganda, I personally have no reason to presume that Lenin was any less sincere about his atheism than you are about yours. But then I lack your psychic powers.
[/quote]

Hold on a sec, let me find by crystal ball...

*goes into a trance*

Hmm...I think I see it now...I see what's obstructing the connection from one dot to another...why you're not connecting them and seeing the forest for the trees...sure explains things...

Let's straighten this out. They were atheists, but communism does not logically follow from atheism just as murder does not, so looking at it from that perspective is necessary, otherwise it's all just nonsensical.

This is how I connect the dots, if you have a problem with any other them, criticise them, not me, because that doesn't make your POV any stronger. (Don't make me take out my crystal ball again to see why and when you resort to ad hominems...bitter much?)


Russia was a feudal society, with it's rigid structure which placed nobility and clergy at the top. The clergy validated the nobility and in turn the nobility protected and maintained the clergy. Both controlled the population which in turn supported this whole system.

The population of believers were brought up as a part of this established culture which in turn imprisoned him and kept him nice, docile and in a apathetic stupor, even though I doubt the sincere believer saw it as such. They saw their religion to be true and so overlooked the authoritarian control coming from the top segments of society through both the nobility and the clergy.

They were trying to implement a revolution which would get rid of class struggles (Marx)

Lenin and the others thought: hey, Marx was onto something. He wanted to end class struggles and to do that in Russia he had to destroy feudalism at its roots. And guess what...religion is an integral part of feudalism.

The way I see it they had two choices: either destroy religion altogether and vaccinate the entire population so that no religion could threatened to throw the country back into class struggles again or they could try and just remove the authoritative institutions (Pope and Patriarch) but leave people with a belief in god.

Here:

[quote]Engels long ago advised the contemporary leaders of the proletariat to translate the militant atheist literature of the late eighteenth century for mass distribution among the people. [color="#FF0000"]We have not done this up to the present, to our shame be it said (this is one of the numerous proofs that it is much easier to seize power in a revolutionary epoch than to know how to use this power properly). Our apathy, inactivity and incompetence are sometimes excused on all sorts of "lofty" grounds, as, for example, that the old atheist literature of the eighteenth century is antiquated, unscientific, naive, etc. There is nothing worse than such pseudo-scientific sophistry, which serves as a screen either for pedantry or for a complete misunderstanding of Marxism. [u][b]There is, of course, much that is unscientific and naive in the atheist writings of the eighteenth-century revolutionaries.[/b][/u][/color] But nobody prevents the publishers of these writings from abridging them and providing them with brief postscripts pointing out the progress made by mankind in the scientific criticism of religions since the end of the eighteenth century, mentioning the latest writings on the subject, and so forth. It would be the biggest and most grievous mistake a Marxist could make to think that the millions of the people (especially the peasants and artisans), who have been condemned by all modern society to darkness, ignorance and superstitions — can extricate themselves from this darkness only along the straight line of a purely Marxist education. These masses should be supplied with the most varied [b]atheist propaganda material, they should be made familiar with facts from the most diverse spheres of life, they should be approached in every possible way, so as to interest them, rouse them from their religious torpor, stir them front the most varied angles and by the most varied methods, and so forth.[/b]

[b]The keen, vivacious and talented writings of the old eighteenth-century atheists wittily and openly attacked the prevailing clericalism and will very often prove a thousand times more suitable for arousing people from their religious torpor than the dull and dry paraphrases of Marxism[/b], almost completely unillustrated by skillfully selected facts, which predominate in our literature and which (it is no use hiding the fact) frequently distort Marxism. We have translations of all the major works of Marx and Engels. [b]There are absolutely no grounds for fearing that the old atheism and old materialism will remain un-supplemented by the corrections introduced by Marx and Engels.[/b] The most important thing — and it is this that is most frequently overlooked by those of our Communists who are supposedly Marxists, but who in fact mutilate Marxism — [b]is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions.[/b] -- V. I. Lenin, [url="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/12.htm"]On the Significance of Militant Materialism[/url][/quote]

Is he talking about the French Revolution there? If so, then there are many parallels between the two situations and if so then it would be interesting to see why Lenin and the others thought the French Revolution failed.

Back to Russia:

They killed the Czar and his heir, so that part was easy. (were there also royalists and uprisings for that class segment of society as well? Were they killed or brutally oppressed?)

Religion is more difficult, because people care about their religious views. It gives them security and they see it as true. In general, it can be individually beneficial and in many cases, it's all people have known. The religious would offer more resistance because of their numbers and these factors in comparison with the resistance offered by the nobility and its supporters.

Religions also have a sort of governmental structure of their own, with hierarchy and a "monarch" such as the Pope or Patriarch. It is competition and the perpetuation of class struggle.

Lenin also mentions the bourgeoisie, which like in the French Revolution took the place of the nobility. The part that I keep highlighting for you shows that they were in league with religion. In order to cut what they saw as evil from it's roots, they had to vaccinate both the population and the country from religious influence.

They whole idea behind it is [u][b]class struggle[/b][/u] (coming from a feudal existence), not atheism. Atheism was a means to an end, not the end or goal in itself. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that they did it [i]for [/i]atheism.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307988199' post='2253240']
And many of your ideals are in direct opposition to mine.

And it's Christians that have to help pay for abortion and such against our wishes, so I wouldn't whine about "political leverage."[/quote]

Well then they could stop whining about contraceptives.


[quote]Does that include Catholic education? ;-) [/quote]

I went to a Catholic school, but did not have Catholic education.

Depends on what people try to educate others with, but that's just my personal opinion.

[quote]I saw quite a bit in those wiki articles about Catholic opposition to slavery, including the teaching of Popes.

And I've seen nothing to show that Catholic abolitionists were opposed by the Church.

It must be remembered also that in the mid-19th century, slavery was only being continued in a large scale in the West in the US, which was predominantly Protestant. Slavery had already been ended in Catholic countries, and for the most part without bloody wars.

I can't even tell what your point is supposed to be anymore. Looks like you're now just looking for any angle you can to bash the Church.[/quote]


I was trying to tie it with internal pressure which causes the Church to change (parallel discussion with MagiDragon). I think that whatever the future holds for the condom issue will be interesting especially since what's happening in Africa is alarming.

[quote]I actually have no idea what Darwin's ideas about slavery were. I wasn't trying to make a point about atheism and slavery, just pointing out that influential atheists were in fact around at that time in history.[/quote]

I just remembered that he saw no evolutionary justification for slavery, and was against it.

[quote]Yes, I'm sure that if we just spend enough time studying neurons and other cells, we will have sure knowledge of what behavior is objectively morally right and wrong . . .

("We know this alleged case of fraud is in fact actually moral, because if you observe the firing of synapses in neuron X . . .")[/quote]

It's not about right and wrong, it's a biological explanation supporting the non aggression principal and ideas such as the golden rule. For psycholoigcally normal people (psychopaths don't have empathy) it's not 'everything goes'.


[quote]Not sure what numbers you are referring to, but in any case, rattling off a list of numerical statistics of AIDS deaths or such does nothing to prove your accusations that the Church is responsible for those deaths.[/quote]

I think the Chruch in a way is responsible, even if it's not them who are injecting people with the virus itself. If they maintain people in ignorance (such as saying that people should not use condoms and denying them the sex education which would teach them to lessen the odds of infection greatly).

I'm aware that Africa has way more problems than just what the Church (and even other Christian missionaries who promote the non use of condoms in favour of chastity which people are not obeying anyway) is indirectly causing. And in my view that morality is a societal construct for societal health, the condom/no sex education issue in particular is causing way more harm than good which instead of adding real foundational stability is undermining it when the result is about 30% of the population infected in some countries.

I'm trying to clean up this discussion a bit, which is why I added the article comparing secular versus religious societies. Instead of throwing unfounded assumptions and biased opinions let's try and stick to facts when talking about atheist versus religious morality. When you say that life is worthless to an atheist or that atheism leads to killing others for convenience, back it up. Find something that refutes the article.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1307967987' post='2253103']
Universities and higher education are a result of the church.
Scientific research started with the church.
Homosexuals are not denied any "rights" by the church, marriage is NOT a right.
The only success story in Africa with regards to AIDS are the countries who don't push condoms, since they are a fail to stop AIDS.
[/quote]

What do you think about homosexuals living together and having or adopting children?

[KnightofChrist]

Silver still in doubt that Atheism was the cause of 20 million deaths I see. That's sad. Atheism is responsible for millions of deaths committed by the Communist much like how you can support murder of the unborn. You deny the soul because you deny God so you don't see persons as persons and thus it is ok in your mind for them to be killed because they are just a mass of cells. Well Atheists in Communist Russia had a very similar idea towards other unwanted groups lacking in their opinion souls and the intelligence to be persons.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307997608' post='2253290']
Silver still in doubt that Atheism was the cause of 20 million deaths I see. That's sad. Atheism is responsible for millions of deaths committed by the Communist much like how you can support murder of the unborn. You deny the soul because you deny God so you don't see persons as persons and thus it is ok in your mind for them to be killed because they are just a mass of cells. Well Atheists in Communist Russia had a very similar idea towards other unwanted groups lacking in their opinion souls and the intelligence to be persons.
[/quote]

I'm just not going to keep replying to this anymore.

[Mr.Cat]

Word salad?

[xSilverPhinx]

Déjà vu.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307998144' post='2253299']
I'm just not going to keep replying to this anymore.
[/quote]

Cool. Doesn't change what I said though. Your [i]atheism [/i]is the cause of your denial of the soul, and your denial of the soul is a great part of your denial the unborn as persons, and why it's ok to kill them. The Atheists in the USSR simply extended this deinal of person-hood to more than just the unborn.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308004663' post='2253351']
Cool. Doesn't change what I said though. Your [i]atheism [/i]is the cause of your denial of the soul, and your denial of the soul is a great part of your denial the unborn as persons, and why it's ok to kill them. The Atheists in the USSR simply extended this deinal of person-hood to more than just the unborn.
[/quote]

Okay, let's leave it at that. You have your opinions.

If contraceptives were allowed along with sex education, then less abortions would occur and we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion.

[HopefulBride]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308005037' post='2253352']
Okay, let's leave it at that. You have your opinions.

If contraceptives were allowed along with sex education, then less abortions would occur and we wouldn't even need to be having this discussion.
[/quote]

I beg to differ.