Why do the God-haters persist?

[Boss]

As long as you admit that you can't prove the connection, that's good enough for me.

Good for you, but what you originally said was a lie.

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.

It has been shown. Proven? ...Nothing is ever proven.
If you believe something is "proven" you have what is called "FAITH."

That's good enough for me.

 

[Montrovant]

Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.

In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded.

No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.

Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.

Very important word is underlined for you here.

Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".

What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.

If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental? That would make it important.

Persecution is certainly an action. What I have tried to point out to you is that when you describe natural selection as removing detrimental attributes (yes, you said unimportant attributes, but then described them as being detrimental over time) and then immediately describe religious persecution as detrimental, you are connecting the two statements. Perhaps it was unintentional, but there we are.

Belief is action. This is true of spiritual belief or religious belief. Now I realize you think there is an inherent spiritual nature in humans, but believing is as much an action as persecution. So again we come to the question of just what, exactly, you are saying human spiritual nature actually is. If it is an attribute, not an action, then you are not saying it is belief in something greater than one's self unless you are trying to claim that believing something is not an action.

Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly : if an animal with a particular instinct, say to attack other members of the same species that intrude on it's territory, were less able to survive and reproduce than others of the same species that didn't have that instinct, that instinct could be weeded out, leading to that action no longer occurring.

It is not the same with humans, however, as we have found many ways around things which would likely be weeded out of other species; and, of course, we rely very little on instinct, which leads to more unpredictability.

 

[MrMax]

As long as you admit that you can't prove the connection, that's good enough for me.

Good for you, but what you originally said was a lie.

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.

It has been shown. Proven? ...Nothing is ever proven.
If you believe something is "proven" you have what is called "FAITH."

That's good enough for me.

You admit that you haven't shown the connection with anything provable. Which PROVES that you're a fucking BIGTIME noob.
See? Some things can be proven.

 

[mamooth]

BAM! ...Refuted!Next?

So showing the peacock's tail is a handicap, and thus confirming my point, is a refutation? The handicap theory doesn't save you, since there are far more efficient ways to telegraph health status than incredibly ornate sexual characteristics.

Anyways, you certainly are a legend in your own mind. Too bad everyone is just laughing.

Again, evolution does not say that only things beneficial to a species get passed down, or that it always moves towards what benefits a species. If that was the case, every species would be moving towards a 10% male and 90% female balance, being that such a balance would be far more beneficial to the species.

Evolution is mainly gene-centered, as opposed to individual or species centered. Genes that get passed on are the ones that optimize the survival of that gene. Genes have no problem reducing survival probabilities of an organism or species, so long as the odds of the gene surviving increase. A 50% male ratio gene is detrimental to the species, but it's beneficial to the gene itself, so the gene survives.

And in the same way, the meme of spirituality could survive even if it was detrimental to the species, so long as it was beneficial to itself.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....

Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.

If human spirituality is so important and necessary for the continuation of the human species, and you are the self proclaimed exemplar of this phenomenon that has personally connected with this spirit that you call god for lack of a better word, why are you so arrogant, angry, defensive and childishly crude? Are these the traits that will extend the human family, or the very things that will hasten its demise?
What positive attributes has your spirituality encouraged in you that you choose to keep such a secret?

 

[Boss]

Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.

In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded.

No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.

Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.

Very important word is underlined for you here.

Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".

What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.

If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental? That would make it important.

Persecution is certainly an action. What I have tried to point out to you is that when you describe natural selection as removing detrimental attributes (yes, you said unimportant attributes, but then described them as being detrimental over time) and then immediately describe religious persecution as detrimental, you are connecting the two statements. Perhaps it was unintentional, but there we are.

Belief is action. This is true of spiritual belief or religious belief. Now I realize you think there is an inherent spiritual nature in humans, but believing is as much an action as persecution. So again we come to the question of just what, exactly, you are saying human spiritual nature actually is. If it is an attribute, not an action, then you are not saying it is belief in something greater than one's self unless you are trying to claim that believing something is not an action.

Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly : if an animal with a particular instinct, say to attack other members of the same species that intrude on it's territory, were less able to survive and reproduce than others of the same species that didn't have that instinct, that instinct could be weeded out, leading to that action no longer occurring.

It is not the same with humans, however, as we have found many ways around things which would likely be weeded out of other species; and, of course, we rely very little on instinct, which leads to more unpredictability.

Okay, now you are again trying to play "Word Salad" and I've told you I don't play that game. I realize you think this is a clever way to argue, but it's simply a dishonest way to pump your own ego.

If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?

Because one has nothing to do with the other, unless you wish to twist and distort context and make that be the case so you can show people what an ass clown you are. Attributes can most certainly be unimportant to a species and detrimental to survival at the same time. It's the opposite of being important to a species and conducive with survival.

Belief is action.

Nope. Belief does not require any action. It's also not an attribute. It is faith. Spirituality is an attribute. It appears you are profoundly dumb, if you can't discern the differences in these things.

Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly...

I never claimed they couldn't. Actions are often the result of an attribute. More "Word Salad" from the ass clown.

of course, we rely very little on instinct...

Because of our attribute of spirituality.

 

[Boss]

BAM! ...Refuted!Next?

So showing the peacock's tail is a handicap, and thus confirming my point, is a refutation? The handicap theory doesn't save you, since there are far more efficient ways to telegraph health status than incredibly ornate sexual characteristics.

Anyways, you certainly are a legend in your own mind. Too bad everyone is just laughing.

Again, evolution does not say that only things beneficial to a species get passed down, or that it always moves towards what benefits a species. If that was the case, every species would be moving towards a 10% male and 90% female balance, being that such a balance would be far more beneficial to the species.

Evolution is mainly gene-centered, as opposed to individual or species centered. Genes that get passed on are the ones that optimize the survival of that gene. Genes have no problem reducing survival probabilities of an organism or species, so long as the odds of the gene surviving increase. A 50% male ratio gene is detrimental to the species, but it's beneficial to the gene itself, so the gene survives.

And in the same way, the meme of spirituality could survive even if it was detrimental to the species, so long as it was beneficial to itself.

So showing the peacock's tail is a handicap, and thus confirming my point, is a refutation?

Sorry, but that isn't what the link I posted shows. That was your claim, but the evidence from those who have studied it find you to be wrong. The tail might be detrimental, but it is also important for reproduction. Only a moron would think reproduction is not important to survival of a species.

Again, evolution does not say that only things beneficial to a species get passed down, or that it always moves towards what benefits a species.

Again, I did not say this and it's not my argument. Darwin says that things unimportant to a species and detrimental to survival of the species, are discarded over time. Anyone who has read Origin of the Species should understand this, it's the cornerstone of natural selection.

And in the same way, the meme of spirituality could survive even if it was detrimental to the species, so long as it was beneficial to itself.

So now you are applying the characteristics of a gene to something you define as a "meme." That's pretty fucking bold. Spirituality is a behavioral attribute, and although it has historically been detrimental to the species in many ways (religious persecution) it remains an important fundamental part of who we are, therefore it is retained. If it were unimportant and served no value (a meme) then it would have been discarded, according to Darwin's theory.

 

[Boss]

If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....

Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.

If human spirituality is so important and necessary for the continuation of the human species, and you are the self proclaimed exemplar of this phenomenon that has personally connected with this spirit that you call god for lack of a better word, why are you so arrogant, angry, defensive and childishly crude? Are these the traits that will extend the human family, or the very things that will hasten its demise?
What positive attributes has your spirituality encouraged in you that you choose to keep such a secret?

You know nothing about me other than what is posted here. I respond to people in this forum with a reciprocation of what they give. If you are respectful and courteous to me, you will get the same in return. If you are hostile and crude, that's what you're going to get as well. You've decided to be a royal jerk to me, so I've decided to be one right back to you. That's how that works.

Now I've always been fascinated by this little "guilt trip" game people like you want to play with those of faith. It's as if you believe you can be as nasty and crude as you please, and we're just supposed to "do as Jesus" and turn the other cheek. But the thing about me is, I don't subscribe to Christianity, so there is no "guilt" in me being just as nasty and crude as you. My God doesn't punish me for that or care that I am that way toward you on the Internet.

On the other hand, if I were to run across you in real life out on the street, and you were in distress and need of help, I would do whatever I could to help you. Even if I knew who you were. I would put my own safety at risk to save you, and never give a thought to how you've treated me here. But I am willing to bet that you would never do the same for me.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.

Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.

Very important word is underlined for you here.

Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".

What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.

If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental? That would make it important.

Persecution is certainly an action. What I have tried to point out to you is that when you describe natural selection as removing detrimental attributes (yes, you said unimportant attributes, but then described them as being detrimental over time) and then immediately describe religious persecution as detrimental, you are connecting the two statements. Perhaps it was unintentional, but there we are.

Belief is action. This is true of spiritual belief or religious belief. Now I realize you think there is an inherent spiritual nature in humans, but believing is as much an action as persecution. So again we come to the question of just what, exactly, you are saying human spiritual nature actually is. If it is an attribute, not an action, then you are not saying it is belief in something greater than one's self unless you are trying to claim that believing something is not an action.

Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly : if an animal with a particular instinct, say to attack other members of the same species that intrude on it's territory, were less able to survive and reproduce than others of the same species that didn't have that instinct, that instinct could be weeded out, leading to that action no longer occurring.

It is not the same with humans, however, as we have found many ways around things which would likely be weeded out of other species; and, of course, we rely very little on instinct, which leads to more unpredictability.

Okay, now you are again trying to play "Word Salad" and I've told you I don't play that game. I realize you think this is a clever way to argue, but it's simply a dishonest way to pump your own ego.

If an attribute is unimportant, how can it be detrimental?

Because one has nothing to do with the other, unless you wish to twist and distort context and make that be the case so you can show people what an ass clown you are. Attributes can most certainly be unimportant to a species and detrimental to survival at the same time. It's the opposite of being important to a species and conducive with survival.

Belief is action.

Nope. Belief does not require any action. It's also not an attribute. It is faith. Spirituality is an attribute. It appears you are profoundly dumb, if you can't discern the differences in these things.

Oh, and natural selection certainly could result in actions being discarded, if indirectly...

I never claimed they couldn't. Actions are often the result of an attribute. More "Word Salad" from the ass clown.

of course, we rely very little on instinct...

Because of our attribute of spirituality.

Sorry, 'word salad' is your forte.

Important does not mean good or positive. You are the one who seems to be making that distinction. If an attribute is detrimental to the survival of a species, it is not unimportant. To give an individual analogy, if someone were to threaten you with a gun to your head, that could be detrimental to your survival. Would you say it is unimportant? I think perhaps you would be better served saying unnecessary.

To believe is an action. It is something you do. It is a verb, generally denoting action. The belief itself is not an action, but believing in something is.

You said this, "To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed.". According to that, actions are not discarded because then there wouldn't be any natural selection needed. That's what I was commenting on.

And once again, back to the non-physical, not objectively observable, ill-defined spirituality responsible for everything that makes humans unique from other animals. Yet you try to use Darwin to provide evidence of spirituality's necessity. I wonder, was Origin of Species based heavily on metaphysics?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do the God-haters persist?

The Ruler of the Universe wields the scepter of judgment over you, Boss.

This is the Lenten Season. Read the Gospels again, humble yourself, and repent before your God.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.

If human spirituality is so important and necessary for the continuation of the human species, and you are the self proclaimed exemplar of this phenomenon that has personally connected with this spirit that you call god for lack of a better word, why are you so arrogant, angry, defensive and childishly crude? Are these the traits that will extend the human family, or the very things that will hasten its demise?
What positive attributes has your spirituality encouraged in you that you choose to keep such a secret?

You know nothing about me other than what is posted here. I respond to people in this forum with a reciprocation of what they give. If you are respectful and courteous to me, you will get the same in return. If you are hostile and crude, that's what you're going to get as well. You've decided to be a royal jerk to me, so I've decided to be one right back to you. That's how that works.

Now I've always been fascinated by this little "guilt trip" game people like you want to play with those of faith. It's as if you believe you can be as nasty and crude as you please, and we're just supposed to "do as Jesus" and turn the other cheek. But the thing about me is, I don't subscribe to Christianity, so there is no "guilt" in me being just as nasty and crude as you. My God doesn't punish me for that or care that I am that way toward you on the Internet.

On the other hand, if I were to run across you in real life out on the street, and you were in distress and need of help, I would do whatever I could to help you. Even if I knew who you were. I would put my own safety at risk to save you, and never give a thought to how you've treated me here. But I am willing to bet that you would never do the same for me.

You're right. All I have to go on is your online persona. It's atrocious.
You are not returning "in kind". Find a post of mine where I have addressed you in the humiliating way you choose to address others.
I'll wait.
Assumptions of how others might be in the real world and grandiose statements about your magnanimity out there are more of the same self-aggrandizement people have come to expect from you.

 

[MaryL]

Vapid post aside...Why do GOD Lovers persist? My last posts on this thread were in jest. But now I am serious. Why does anyone take religion seriously ? Religions are artificial concepts without a shred of proof. It is blind unprovable reckless FAITH. Like gambling, I think there is a corollary here. To keep your head, whilst those among you are losing theirs… Gambling with you lives and future with nothing more than intuition….or whatever faith is. Einstein said that god doesn’t gamble. Certainty. Unambiguous truths. Yet, the universe is rife with contradictions. Waves or particles. Two places at once. Duality , Spooky actions at a distance…weird stuff. It’s easier to believe in god’s will, and pretend there is rhyme and reason to all this.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MaryL, simply serve your fellow man every day in every way and you will find true "religion".

 

[BreezeWood]

Why do the God-haters persist?

The Ruler of the Universe wields the scepter of judgment over you, Boss.

This is the Lenten Season. Read the Gospels again, humble yourself, and repent before your God.

Read the Gospels again ...


what would there be to repent if one is sinless, reading gospels is not required ... turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.


... the scepter of judgment

 

[Boss]

turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.

The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.

 

[Boss]

Vapid post aside...Why do GOD Lovers persist? My last posts on this thread were in jest. But now I am serious. Why does anyone take religion seriously ? Religions are artificial concepts without a shred of proof. It is blind unprovable reckless FAITH. Like gambling, I think there is a corollary here. To keep your head, whilst those among you are losing theirs… Gambling with you lives and future with nothing more than intuition….or whatever faith is. Einstein said that god doesn’t gamble. Yet, the universe is rife with contradictions. Waves or particles. Two places at once. Duality , Spooky actions at a distance…weird stuff. It’s easier to believe in god’s will, and pretend there is rhyme and reason to all this.

Those who are spiritual have always persisted. This is why I find it interesting that in our modern times, there seem to be this contingent of people who actually think they can destroy spirituality. I mean, that can be their only logical intent, correct? Let's shame people and ridicule them so much that they abandon this silliness and move on... that's the idea, right?

Yet man has been around for what? 100k~200k years? We've always been spiritual creatures, always worshiping something greater than self. Many have come and gone who tried their damndest to stomp spirituality out of the hearts of man but failed. They've killed and persecuted millions of people in their efforts, but human spirituality is as strong as ever. I hardly think a handful of punks on a message board are going to make a difference.

I don't know whether the God-haters have convinced themselves that spirituality is some kind of pop culture fad that hasn't been around that long, and they can "out-cool" it by continuing to "thank" each other's posts on a forum, or keep beating their drums of protest, or if they actually believe they can accomplish what has never been done before. It's intriguing to me.

I can totally relate to your sentiments on religion. I see the evidence that a good deal of religion is misguided and detrimental to mankind. The Islamic religion, for example. Where women are castigated and treated like shit, homosexuals are stoned to death, racism and hate rule the day in a culture of death... none of it good for mankind. Even in some sects of Christianity, the Westboro Baptists, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate... we see religion perverted and distorted for all kinds of self-serving interests. But religion and spiritual connection are not necessarily the same thing, and it's a grave error in personal judgement to assume they are. Spiritual nature is real and humans connect to it, always have, always will.

 

[BreezeWood]

turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.

The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.

it is interpretive who is the God "hater" ...


I think my point has been proven in spades.

liest they who judge themselves - the Orchid will have its say.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why do the God-haters persist?

The Ruler of the Universe wields the scepter of judgment over you, Boss.

This is the Lenten Season. Read the Gospels again, humble yourself, and repent before your God.

Read the Gospels again ...
what would there be to repent if one is sinless, reading gospels is not required ... turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap. ... the scepter of judgment

No one is sinless. Reading the Gospels will lead Boss to reconsider his judgment on others during this Lenten Season and remind others of the purpose of this season.

 

[JakeStarkey]

turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.

The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.

The obvious point is that you have no right to judge others or to decide who is a God hater.

That is above your pay grade.

 

[Boss]

turning the "book" on who is the God hater though is a feather in your cap.

The thread is nearly 800 posts long now, and well over half are from people who hate God. I think my point has been proven in spades. You pretending I am a God-hater is amusing, much like a monkey doing tricks is amusing.

The obvious point is that you have no right to judge others or to decide who is a God hater.

That is above your pay grade.

Wow, you sound offended, Starsky.

I judge you to be a fucktard, and for Lent... maybe I will give up commenting to morons?