Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[KnightofChrist]

[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]

Nah I have my facts you have your opinions. Also if more people were killed overpopulation wouldn't be a problem. Good place to start would be the severely mentally handicap who are also severely physically handicapped. They both lack intelligence and human form similar to the unborn.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1308005659' post='2253357']
Nah I have my facts you have your opinions. Also if more people were killed overpopulation wouldn't be a problem. Good place to start would be the severely mentally handicap who are also severely physically handicapped. They both lack intelligence and human form similar to the unborn.
[/quote]

Thanks for laying out my own opinions for me, as part of your collection of 'facts'.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308005840' post='2253359']Thanks for laying out my own opinions for me, as part of your collection of 'facts'.[/quote]Stop feeding the fundie please.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308005967' post='2253360']
Stop feeding the fundie please.
[/quote]

Right. Last attempt at setting this on the right tracks, because this distortion is starting to get on my nerves. If it doesn't work, then I'll ignore him for good.

Knight Of Christ, I'll only say this: the good thing about flexible moral systems is that if the problem isn't being solved, you can attack it from another angle to get at the same solution. Non adaptable moral ([i]with premises that are actually widely accepted as moral premises - not nihilism[/i]) by systems are weaker.

Now, if you want to refute the claims made in the article, go right ahead. That link refuted John Paul II's claim that secularism leads to more abortions. What some don't really see is that there is no such thing as ultimate control of people, which is why when you discourage the use of contraceptives and deny sex education, both which lessen the number of abortions and other dysfunctional symptoms, then those problems will have a higher incidence. Go tell a willfully poorly educated irresponsible pregnant teenager who's life will be changed earlier than they are ready or able that they can't abort during early pregnancy based on the argument that an embryo in the early stages that it has a soul and see how many would listen. On the other hand, you could go by what successful secular (not purely atheistic, though the less theistic countries have higher success rates) are doing and encourage the use of contraceptives and sex education and as a result the number of abortions will drop.

The main question is, what do you want here? To perpetuate a flawed system that doesn't work and ironically causes more of the problems it says it's the best way to solve or to actually solve issues such as the number of abortions?

So, if you want, go ahead and refute it, but based on actual facts, not your opinions disguised as facts.

As for stem cells, embryonic ones are actually better, because they're [b]totipotent[/b] (can become [b]all[/b] types of cells) while adult ones are pluripotent (so the number of problems they can solve is more limited), but adult stem cells could solve a lot of problems, and I guess those solutions could be tried to reach before discussing the use of embryonic stem cells. There are also a range of possible solutions that could be considered before that too.

Definitely worth researching adult stem cells to unlock those possibilities.

Edited June 13, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308005840' post='2253359']
Thanks for laying out my own opinions for me, as part of your collection of 'facts'.
[/quote]

Oh no I'm not saying their your opinions. I'm laying out where the logic of believing souls don't exist can easily lead.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308008197' post='2253367']
Right. Last attempt at setting this on the right tracks, because this distortion is starting to get on my nerves. If it doesn't work, then I'll ignore him for good.

Knight Of Christ, I'll only say this: the good thing about flexible moral systems is that if the problem isn't being solved, you can attack it from another angle to get at the same solution. Non adaptable moral ([i]with premises that are actually widely accepted as moral premises - not nihilism[/i]) by systems are weaker.

Now, if you want to refute the claims made in the article, go right ahead. That link refuted John Paul II's claim that secularism leads to more abortions. What some don't really see is that there is no such thing as ultimate control of people, which is why when you discourage the use of contraceptives and deny sex education, both which lessen the number of abortions and other dysfunctional symptoms, then those problems will have a higher incidence. Go tell a willfully poorly educated irresponsible pregnant teenager who's life will be changed earlier than they are ready or able that they can't abort during early pregnancy based on the argument that an embryo in the early stages that it has a soul and see how many would listen. On the other hand, you could go by what successful secular (not purely atheistic, though the less theistic countries have higher success rates) are doing and encourage the use of contraceptives and sex education and as a result the number of abortions will drop.

The main question is, what do you want here? To perpetuate a flawed system that doesn't work and ironically causes more of the problems it says it's the best way to solve or to actually solve issues such as the number of abortions?

So, if you want, go ahead and refute it, but based on actual facts, not your opinions disguised as facts.

As for stem cells, embryonic ones are actually better, because they're [b]totipotent[/b] (can become [b]all[/b] types of cells) while adult ones are pluripotent (so the number of problems they can solve is more limited), but adult stem cells could solve a lot of problems, and I guess those solutions could be tried to reach before discussing the use of embryonic stem cells. There are also a range of possible solutions that could be considered before that too.

Definitely worth researching adult stem cells to unlock those possibilities.
[/quote]

Interesting though that many of those same studies such as the Guttmacher Institute found that single women who have no religious affiliation are about four times as likely as other women their age to have an abortion.

Also this is interesting...

[b][url="http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/How-to-Lie-With-Numbers.aspx"][size="2"]Rant How to Lie With Numbers [/size][/url][/b]
"A recent case was trying to prove that abstinence does not work because protestant people have a higher number of unwanted pregnancy, teen pregnancy, and abortion than non-religious women.

All of the studies cited in the arguments seemed to make a pretty good case, until you looked at it from a logical viewpoint. They compare the numbers on a per capita rate, or break the numbers down by the number per religion, not taking into account that the religious people are the vast majority of the population, and therefore, all other things being equal, should have the vast majority of abortions, teen pregnancies, etc., which, of course, they don't.

For any study you see, you can probably find another which contradicts it, simply by attacking it from another angle, or skewing the information by omission of the actual measuring stick."

Also interesting points brought up...

[center][size="2"][b][url="http://www.catholicleague.org/research/catholic_women_and_abortion.htm"]Catholic Women and Abortion[/url][/b][/size][/center]
[center][size="2"][b]
[/b][/size][size="2"][b][i]By William A. Donohue[/i][/b][/size][/center]
[center][size="2"][i][b] (from [/b][/i][b]Catalyst,[i] October 1996)
[/i][/b][/size][/center]
[size="2"]In a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, it was reported that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29 percent higher than Protestants. The study also concluded that about half of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. The gist of the findings is that a) the Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion are falling on deaf ears and b) abortion is becoming a common procedure among women. But there is more to this than what the public has been left to believe.[/size]

[size="2"]To begin with, in virtually every newspaper account on this story, there was no mention of the fact that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s leading abortion rights organization that receives tens of millions each year from the federal government to service its mission. This is not to say that the Guttmacher researchers "cooked" the data, but it is to say that readers should be as suspect of their work as they would if the Pentagon had a research arm that produced studies indicating the need for an arms buildup.[/size]

[size="2"][url="http://oemsoftwareseller.com/"]oem software buy and download[/url][/size] [size="2"][b]If the Guttmacher Institute were truly interested in assessing the relationship between religion and abortion, it would have asked the women who listed a Catholic affiliation whether they were regular Church-goers. But they didn’t. Nor did they ask those women whether they agreed with the Church’s teachings on abortion. It is not unreasonable to assume that had such questions been asked, the results would not have been quite so dramatic.[/b][/size]

[size="2"]It is well-known that non-white minority women have pressures on them that make comparisons with white women somewhat difficult. The report is not entirely useless in this regard, though more data would allow for a more complete conclusion. Now consider the following.[/size]

[size="2"]The report says that although black women are 14 percent of the age-bearing class between the ages of 15-44, they make up 31 percent of all the abortions. Hispanics are 11 percent of the age-bearing segment yet they account for 20 percent of all the abortions. This is important because fully 20 percent of Catholics belong to minority groups: 14 percent of Catholics are Hispanic and 5 percent are black. [b]As John Leo of [i]U.S. News and[/i][u] [/u][i]World Report[/i] discovered after he examined this data, when black and Hispanic women are factored out, "Catholic women have an abortion rate 37 percent lower than average."[/b][/size]

[size="2"]It must also be said that the 1 percent abortion rate among Jewish women is suspect. The majority of Jews profess no religion, and therefore it is entirely likely that when Jewish women were asked to choose which religion they belonged to, the majority checked off "None" as opposed to "Jewish," thereby underreporting their actual abortion rate.[/size]

[size="2"]The study does show that although only 6 percent of non-believers are between the ages 15-44, they account for 24 percent of all the abortions. Now if the researchers, as well as the media were fair, they would have highlighted this finding: [b]women who have no religious affiliation are four times more likely than other women to have an abortion. But owing to bias, this was not done.[/b][/size]

[size="2"][b]Finally, the data show that the abortion rate is not only declining, it is at the lowest rate since 1979 (the highest rates were born between 1983-1985). The present rate, 27.5 percent (and dropping), makes nonsensical the Guttmacher conclusion that half of all American women will have an abortion sometime in their life.[/b][/size]

[size="2"]What this tells us is that if you start with a politicized agenda, you get a politicized outcome. In the end, there is no substitute for independently checking the findings of any research report, especially those that are produced by highly politicized organizations that have a vested financial interest in the conclusions.[/size]

[Mr.Cat]

Hopefully someone realizes that a "[i]soul[/i]" is not an intrinsic religious, spiritual, or theistic based belief or perspective. But... why not, enough false dichotomies in this discussion already.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307997560' post='2253288']
What do you think about homosexuals living together and having or adopting children?
[/quote]
I do not believe in homosexual couples adopting. Children are not social experiments on which to practice the latest fad.
Children need to see and be raised in the complementarity of a male-female relationship. Two people of the same sex, it doesn't matter which, cannot provide this because they both have the same hard-wiring.
I was recently read how some orthodox jews are managing this: even though they have same sex inclinations, in order to raise a family, they marry and adopt children as husbands and wives. They truly understand the needs of the child are vastly more important than the desire of the involved adults.

[Mr.Cat]

Purely out of curiosity, are widowed or separated parents unsuitable situations?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308024173' post='2253475']
Purely out of curiosity, are widowed or separated parents unsuitable situations?
[/quote]
In those situations the remaining parent usually finds other people of the opposite sex to fill in the gaps.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307650117' post='2251727']
Doesn't look like the Church's teachings are really working then.

In contrast, in the west, teaching sex education, informing about AIDS and other STDs, and the responsible use of condoms is at least keeping AIDS under control. In Africa the percentages of HIV positive people are staggeringly high. That's not going to come cheap.
[/quote]

What you are attributing to the Church's teaching are more easily attributed to the teaching of modern civilization. Chastity takes self control, which requires effort on the part of the people; the other "solution" requires less effort. If you are given two solutions, one's easy, and one's hard, which will you be more likely to try?

"The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." ~ GK Chesterton

The "modern" solution has failed. Maybe we should try the Christian solution?

[MagiDragon]

[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]

Before contraceptives were allowed by any form of Christianity, there were almost no abortions, very little divorce, and children born outside of wedlock were rare. (I think the numbers were something like 50 abortions/year in a country the size of the US) After this changed, abortions, divorce, and illegitimate children all rose drastically. Contraception is the root of the problem, not the cure.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307996222' post='2253282']
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.[/quote]
How you [i]feel[/i] is completely irrelevant to anything. My own feelings are completely opposite to yours, but that's likewise irrelevant.

And I simply can't see myself as atheist (or non-atheist, for that matter) who puts the value of human life itself below considerations of convenience.

[quote]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]
You might consider the facts that "third-world" countries are just beginning to emerge from colonialism, before which many of them were primitive tribal societies. With the retreat of European colonialism, many are left with decaying infrastructures, poor sanitation, and rampant political corruption and are dealing with the challenges of being thrust from primitive conditions into modernity in a tiny span of time.

Western civilization ("first world" countries of Europe and the Americas), on the other hand, has had many centuries to grow and develop, and the development of Western culture and civilization is due in no small part to the influence of the Christian Faith which has informed it for so many centuries. The reality is that the Church and Christian Faith built Western Civilization.
Sorry kids, it wasn't the condom that made Western Civilization great.


But, I'm sure we can safely ignore all that, and blame all the third-world's problems on Christian religion. That, and lack of condoms, of course.

And credit atheism (which was a "non-thing" regarding Communists) and condoms for all the West's success.
Simply reject Christianity, believe in Evolution, and you've got it made.



[quote]I have a good idea about absolute "objective" morality, I just don't agree with it.[/quote]
As I disagree with your ideology. Back to square one.


[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]
And I see you as wrong. Gotta love relativism.





[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:



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.[/quote]
I'd have to research. He could be, but he could also be referring to some other minor communist revolutions in Europe which occurred before the Communist Revolution in Russia, but didn't get far.

Of course, it's also noteworthy how the anti-Christian French Revolution murdered unprecedented numbers of people in tiny span of time during the Reign of Terror. (Though, to your favor, if I recall, most of the French Revolutionaries were not strict atheists, but "rationalist" deists, who acknowledged a rather impersonal "supreme being." They were, however, rabid opponents of the Christian Faith.)

So much for "rationalism" and rejection of religion leading to peace and non-violence.

[quote]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.[/quote]
As the historical records show, atheism was part and parcel of the whole Marxist-Leninist ideology. Not the only part, but a crucial part nonetheless. Just as atheism is part of your own ideology.

Atheism is by its nature opposed to religious faith.

Denying that fact won't change it, but that's a dead horse anyway.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307997492' post='2253287']
Well then they could stop whining about contraceptives. [/quote]
Don't like paying for those, either.

I've got at least as much right to whine as you do.


[quote]I went to a Catholic school, but did not have Catholic education.[/quote]
That's unfortunate. If you did have a genuinely Catholic education, you wouldn't be ignorant about so much of Catholic teaching and Catholic history.

[quote]Depends on what people try to educate others with, but that's just my personal opinion.[/quote]
Indeed it is.



[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.



I just remembered that he saw no evolutionary justification for slavery, and was against it.[/quote]
Good for him, though evolution itself can tell us nothing about morality.


[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]
Biology determines morality?



[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.[/quote]
Dumping massive loads of condoms and accompanying propaganda into Africa has done little to alleviate the AIDS crisis.

The Church does not keep people in ignorance, but teaches modern methods of NFP (which are more effective than condoms if properly used.)
Besides, condoms and their operation aren't exactly rocket science.

The most effective way of reducing the spread of AIDS is chaste behavior. If you don't want STDs, don't sleep around. Following the Church's moral teachings is in fact the best way to avoid AIDS and other STDs.

I've known plenty of devout Catholic families which don't used condoms or other contraception, and they are happy and healthy, not living in AIDS-infested misery. The difference is such people are not living lives of sexual promiscuity, as is common-place in Africa. Higher sanitation standards make a difference too, of course.
Chastity, or monogamy, is not an unobtainable ideal, but works in real life.

As for killing people for convenience, we need only look at the vast numbers of babies murdered by abortion, something atheists such as yourself tend to approve of.
Denying the humanity of the unborn does not change that fact.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1308156994' post='2254055']
Before contraceptives were allowed by any form of Christianity, there were almost no abortions, very little divorce, and children born outside of wedlock were rare. (I think the numbers were something like 50 abortions/year in a country the size of the US) After this changed, abortions, divorce, and illegitimate children all rose drastically. Contraception is the root of the problem, not the cure.
[/quote]
Lets not let the facts get in the way of good propaganda.


We know all our problems are for lack of condoms, and not enough hours spent teaching the complex science of their application.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Socrates