The joy of religion - part xxxxxxxxx

[Retro Rob]

"Realistically a product of evolution"?

The fuck?

Rape is the product of humans, the majority being male, treating women as nothing more as an outlet for sexual gratification.

Something that the Abrahamic texts promote quite fervently.


The believers think that their deity, the one they worship and live by, does exist. Not only that, they think that the deity is omnipotent and omniscient, what with the texts alluding to such.

A few of us in this thread recognize this, and are left with a bad taste in our mouths, over the worship of such a heinous character; real or otherwise. But there are others that deny the claims of Yahweh being evil, which prompts discussion.

Alas, the believers are hell-bent on presenting straw-man after straw-man, dismissing arguments and ignoring direct quotations from the texts.

Rape is a product of humanity, and humanity is a product of evolution.

So if we never evolved, then there would have never been rape.

I love when the tables are turned and small-brained atheists try to accept evolution while ignoring the uncomfortable FACTS that come with it.

 

[buckshot24]

Accusations against God? Baseless ramblings? I just presented a Bible passage showing Yahweh command sex slavery of children. Never mind the previous verses showing that Yahweh is the one who directly causes these acts.

Not that I agree with that interpretation but you believe you are a meat machine. Your opinions aren't important to anybody but yourself.

Why do you participate in threads, when you are so hell-bent on just repeating the same nonsense and fallacies over and over, dismissing anything that goes against your un-substantiated opinions of Yahweh?

Name the fallacies meat machine.

 

[sandorski]

Rape is a product of humanity, and humanity is a product of evolution.

So if we never evolved, then there would have never been rape.

I love when the tables are turned and small-brained atheists try to accept evolution while ignoring the uncomfortable FACTS that come with it.

You seem to be thinking you have made some kind of drop the mic point here. You are mistaken. Just insert "God" where you put "Evolution" and see how absurd it sounds.

We don't claim Evolution to be Perfect, Omniscient, Omnipotent. We just claim it to be what produced us. How could a god produce such failure to start with? How could a god allow such failure amongst the people who honestly and earnestly seek its' truth and aid?

Regarding Rape: We consider Rape wrong because it is a violation of the Personhood of a Woman(mostly, it also occurs for Men). The Bible considers Rape wrong because it decreases the Monetary Value of a Woman. Which seems more Just or Moral to you?

 

[Retro Rob]

You seem to be thinking you have made some kind of drop the mic point here. You are mistaken. Just insert "God" where you put "Evolution" and see how absurd it sounds.

We don't claim Evolution to be Perfect, Omniscient, Omnipotent. We just claim it to be what produced us. How could a god produce such failure to start with? How could a god allow such failure amongst the people who honestly and earnestly seek its' truth and aid?

Regarding Rape: We consider Rape wrong because it is a violation of the Personhood of a Woman(mostly, it also occurs for Men). The Bible considers Rape wrong because it decreases the Monetary Value of a Woman. Which seems more Just or Moral to you?

I recall watching this one YouTube video on Richard Dawkins Facebook page, and the persons explaining evolution just simply said war and murder is a product of our evolution.

They didn't attempt all these mental gymnastics that you guys are doing.

Accept it, deal with it...move on.

 

[soulcougher73]

Rape is a product of humanity, and humanity is a product of evolution.

So if we never evolved, then there would have never been rape.

I love when the tables are turned and small-brained atheists try to accept evolution while ignoring the uncomfortable FACTS that come with it.

We don't care if rape came from evolving. Not even sure how you jumped to that conclusion based on what we're talking about.

Unfortunately evolution is not an all powerful loving God. Not much we can do about it.

 

[shira]

Rape is a product of humanity, and humanity is a product of evolution.

So if we never evolved, then there would have never been rape.

I love when the tables are turned and small-brained atheists try to accept evolution while ignoring the uncomfortable FACTS that come with it.

I consider myself a big-brained atheist, and I do in fact understand that rape is probably an evolved (in the sense of being a product of evolution, not as being "superior") behavioral characteristic of humans (and many other species). From the point of view of "increasing the odds that one's genetic material will survive," which is the entire focus of natural selection, rape is clearly a behavioral strategy that natural selection would favor, all other things being equal.

Which is not the same thing as saying that "rape is good" from a moral perspective. Which brings us to the point that most big-headed atheists are also able to understand that morality - including laws against rape - is also a product of natural selection. So if we never evolved, there would never have been laws against rape.

I just love it when the tables are turned and small-brained true believers who insist on seeing the amorality of evolution in a Godless universe aren't able to recognize just how naturally morality was able to evolve, too.

 

[Moonbeam]

shira: I think you and I have a different conception of "heaven."

It seems to me that you consider the state of feeling "I've won and I know I won't ever fall again" to be transcendently good. So good that you want to help others to get to their own version of that same place. Well, that sounds to me like the pursuit of "heaven." The conception of what "heaven" is is obviously different for different people and different faiths, but the idea of wanting to arrive at some blissful state is the common feature. But for those who don't feel the need for being in a "blissful state," the pursuit isn't meaningful. Hence, "Heaven is for those who need heaven."

I've won and know I won't ever fall again isn't a feeling, it is a statement about the knowledge produced by the collapse of the state of duality giving way to the experience of oneness. It's a one way ticket. One can't undo the experience. One knows something very different and positive has happened, that it has happened to others and is a secret that permeates human existence, the root of religion myth, psychology and other things. I can't help knowing its value any more than you can help not seeing it.

s: The projection I was referring to was your statement "I know that you can't help the I'm saved your not scenario," which I interpreted to mean that you think I'm the one continually claiming "I'm saved, but you're not." My follow-on to that was to point out that I certainly don't consider myself to be "saved" in any way; I only reiterated that my life is pretty good, but that I know I'm not immune to bad things happening, as a way of helping you to understand just how "not saved" I consider myself to be.

M: We do not see 'saved' in the same way either. For you it has religious connotations, for me it means transcendence of the delusion of duality.

s: If you can't recognize that you, not I, make the ("I'm saved, you're not") claim all the time, then I really don't know what to say other than to advise you to read back over your posts and see just how often you do say it. Yet your statement is that I'm the one who "can't help" making that boast. In other words, you interpret my statement that "My life is pretty good" as equivalent to "I'm saved, you're not." That's "projection."



And, Moonbeam, you do this sort of things in many different contexts. I read your responses to others' posts, and I try to objectively evaluate where you and others are coming from. You'd be surprised just how often I see you stating that others are playing some particular intellectual game when in fact it's you, not them, who have been doing that game-playing. It's so bad sometimes that I find myself wondering if you have a some sort of mental illness that makes it too painful for you to look at yourself.

This aversion to introspection which I see in you becomes worse and worse the more the focus of the interaction moves onto your own mental state and behavior. Which, is why, unfortunately, I can almost guarantee that your response to this post is going to twist and turn statements on their heads - anything to remove the real focus from yourself.

I sincerely apologize for making you feel uncomfortable.


I think I've described why I get irritated. But when I meditate on it awhile, my irritation fades and gets replaced with a sense of compassion for you.

Peace.

 

[MajinCry]

Rape is a product of humanity, and humanity is a product of evolution.

So if we never evolved, then there would have never been rape.

I love when the tables are turned and small-brained atheists try to accept evolution while ignoring the uncomfortable FACTS that come with it.

...What? Rape is a form of sexual violence perpetrated by a sentient being. Evolution is the changing of organisms over vast periods of time.

Evolution plays no part in rape; rape isn't an organism.


You turned the tables around? All you did was grip and weakly shake a table that's bolted to the floor. And facts? You didn't present any.

 

[Moonbeam]

I just love it when the tables are turned and small-brained true believers who insist on seeing the amorality of evolution in a Godless universe aren't able to recognize just how naturally morality was able to evolve, too.

Why would a universe in which morality arose naturally be godless?

 

[Retro Rob]

I consider myself a big-brained atheist, and I do in fact understand that rape is probably an evolved (in the sense of being a product of evolution, not as being "superior") behavioral characteristic of humans (and many other species). From the point of view of "increasing the odds that one's genetic material will survive," which is the entire focus of natural selection, rape is clearly a behavioral strategy that natural selection would favor, all other things being equal.

Which is not the same thing as saying that "rape is good" from a moral perspective. Which brings us to the point that most big-headed atheists are also able to understand that morality - including laws against rape - is also a product of natural selection. So if we never evolved, there would never have been laws against rape.

I just love it when the tables are turned and small-brained true believers who insist on seeing the amorality of evolution in a Godless universe aren't able to recognize just how naturally morality was able to evolve, too.

Who said that it means "rape is good"?

It more means "rape is necessary" as it's a favored behavioral strategy.

It begs the question; why did morality (which causes us to make laws against rape) evolve which would eventually counter a favored behavior like rape?

Is natural selection working against itself?

 

[soulcougher73]

Who said that it means "rape is good"?

It more means "rape is necessary" as it's a favored behavioral strategy.

It begs the question; why did morality (which causes us to make laws against rape) evolve which would eventually counter a favored behavior like rape?

Is natural selection working against itself?

Since rape is a very small percentage occurrence I'd beg to differ that it's a favorable behavioral trait.

 

[Retro Rob]

Since rape is a very small percentage occurrence I'd beg to differ that it's a favorable natural selection trait.

Tell that to Shira...

 

[soulcougher73]

Tell that to Shira...

I think Shira gets it. He's on the correct side already.

Do you even evolution bro?

 

[sandorski]

I recall watching this one YouTube video on Richard Dawkins Facebook page, and the persons explaining evolution just simply said war and murder is a product of our evolution.

They didn't attempt all these mental gymnastics that you guys are doing.

Accept it, deal with it...move on.

Accept what? You seem to be denigrating Evolution in order to bolster your "god". Sorry, we have not claimed Evolution to be a god or even equivalent to a god. That is your shtick, not ours.

We accept certain things as wrong, not because of what Evolution says, for it says nothing, but because we have chosen to evaluate the results of certain actions.

OTOH, you make the claim of some supreme Creator and giver of Morality. A Creator that deems certain things as wrong and immoral, yet those things exist. This alleged god of yours was a failure from the start and certainly doesn't live up to the claims attributed to it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I think Shira gets it. He's on the correct side already.

You mean your perceived to be correct side....

 

[Retro Rob]

Since rape is a very small percentage occurrence I'd beg to differ that it's a favorable behavioral trait.

I think you've made my point. You were just earlier railing against rape because God allegedly "chose" pedophile priests, yet, when I agree that its simply part of our evolutionary history, its a "very small percentage occurrence".

Why wasn't it a "very small percentage occurrence" when God was on trail?

I think its very clear that atheists simply are double standard holding bigots.

This is an excellent way to critically analyze them. Force them to answer questions.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Why would a universe in which morality arose naturally be godless?

You should hear the idiot atheists on Youtube. Foaming at the mouth with hearts of evil.

 

[Victorian Gray]

You should hear the idiot atheists on Youtube. Foaming at the mouth with hearts of evil.

Bunker time?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Bunker time?

Stop.

Hammer time.

 

[Retro Rob]

You should hear the idiot atheists on Youtube. Foaming at the mouth with hearts of evil.

....and foaming at the mouth over a being they don't even believe exists, at that.

 

[shira]

Who said that it means "rape is good"?

No one. I just wanted to make sure no one interpreted the statement that "rape is clearly a behavioral strategy that natural selection would favor, all other things being equal" as meaning "rape is good." Because people continually make the erroneous inference that natural selection is a process that leads toward "the good."

It more means "rape is necessary" as it's a favored behavioral strategy.

Sorry, no. It means that the (to oversimplify) if the "rape gene" is selected for, it provides a reproductive advantage to an individual of the species compared with an otherwise genetically-identical individual that lacks that gene. It doesn't mean that "rape is necessary" because there are obviously vast numbers of species (most species, in fact) which don't practice rape, yet which have evolved and survive "rapeless" just fine.

It begs the question; why did morality (which causes us to make laws against rape) evolve which would eventually counter a favored behavior like rape?

Is natural selection working against itself?

This isn't "natural selection working against itself." It's "natural selection working."

You seem to think that natural selection occurs one characteristic at a time and in only one dimension. In fact, it occurs for all characteristics and in all dimensions simultaneously. Thus, the behavioral tendency to rape, may provide both reproductive advantages and disadvantages. Advantageous for obvious reasons. But disadvantageous because (for example) the tendency to rape may reduce the odds of the rapists being able to pair-bond, and pair-bonding may provide higher odds of reproducing than rape.

Similarly, if a high incidence of rape proves destructive to the cohesiveness of the tribe to which rapists belong, the tribe overall may be less successful at competing with other tribes in which rape is less prevalent, leading to reduced reproductive success (and a dying off) of tribes with a high incidence of the rape gene. And anti-rape "morality" may "evolve" as a means of controlling the tendency to rape, thus increasing the reproductive success of the tribe.

Thus, it's quite possible that the "rape gene" may simultaneously be selected both for and against. And a "natural" outcome may be that the prevalence of the rape gene is naturally controlled (too high or too low a prevalence and the gene leads to lower reproductive success than at the "optimal" prevalence level).

 

[Omar F1]

"Realistically a product of evolution"?

The fuck?

Rape is the product of humans, the majority being male, treating women as nothing more as an outlet for sexual gratification.

Something that the Abrahamic texts promote quite fervently.


The believers think that their deity, the one they worship and live by, does exist. Not only that, they think that the deity is omnipotent and omniscient, what with the texts alluding to such.

A few of us in this thread recognize this, and are left with a bad taste in our mouths, over the worship of such a heinous character; real or otherwise. But there are others that deny the claims of Yahweh being evil, which prompts discussion.

Alas, the believers are hell-bent on presenting straw-man after straw-man, dismissing arguments and ignoring direct quotations from the texts.

But I noticed such an issue in which we hold those ancient times to the same exact living standards we're in these days.
Do you think that is fair? does it make much sense to you?

Btw, I didn't see any direct order to rape those girls in that verse, even though I agree the eventual outcome was well known by God.
Blaming all evil solely on God is non-sense, considered the fact that we truly do have a free-will to a great extent.
The evil in is the humans, not the atoms.


But it seems to you that slavery was all about evil, inside out. Here I'd also urge you to rethink it a bit, at least for those ancient times.
Imagine an extremely poor, homeless and illiterate guy wandering the streets, compare him to a slave which is living well with basic needs and ordered to do some normal workloads. Which one would you think be in better conditions, the free home-less one or the slave.
Hell, haven't you ever heard about criminal that would like to return back into cell; to get a place to sleep along some food and company.

I mean, slavery isn't always about hard-labored camps with worst conditions you could ever imagine. We - humans - have created those conditions for those slaves, not God.


Btw, we've many reported stories about slaves that were treated fair and well, at least in early Islamic history.
We should really not take whole religious matters in a black/white-only way.

 

[Blanky]

At least atheists can't fall back on fairy-god-mother justifications to justify their atrocities to themselves. Which makes it ever-so-slightly-more-difficult for them to look at themselves in the mirror if they do commit atrocities. Which may actually lead to them committing fewer atrocities, "per-atheist-capita."

That is some truly shit "logic".

Atheists are better than believers because when they commit an atrocity they have to answer to themselves and cannot use their deity as a proxy for what they did, so having to own up to what they did on a more personal level will make it harder on them and thus less likely to commit additional atrocities.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Translation: "I have no solution because I'd rather bitch about there not being one".

ROFL!!!! How pathetic.


I have a freaking solution, it's for your puny little powerless god to act like a god for once in his miserable existence and use some of those godlike powers your delusions claim he has. You're the one who thinks he's omnipotent, you're the one who thinks he omniscient, I'm the one who thinks he's imaginary.

Let's spell this out so even a person with the brainpower of a wannabeliever (i.e. almost none at all) can understand it:

1) If god is truly omnipotent as you believe god himself would have the power to stop his pedophile priests from molesting kids. You're not disputing that, right? Your big scary magical man would have the power to stop it immediately if he wanted it stopped, right?

2) If god is truly omniscient as you believe god himself would know who's a pedophile and would not allow one into the priesthood. You're not disputing that, right? You great cosmic muffin would know EVERYTHING and that includes knowing who the pedophiles are. So he would know it before he hired one, right?

3) If god is truly imaginary as I believe, god would not be able to do anything and his priesthood would not be any different from any random selection of the population and the children of his followers would not enjoy any special protection from the pedophile priests who claim to be gods handpicked reps on earth.

We know #1 can't be right, your god definitely doesn't do anything to stop predator priests. So you can't be right on your god being omnipotent.

We know #2 can't be right, your god definitely can't tell a pedophile from a normal non-pervert before hiring one. So you can't be right on your god being omniscient.

What's left? #3 is sounding awfully good. His priesthood is not above or better than any random sampling of the population. He's not weeding out the pervs or protecting the kids in any way at all. Almost like he wasn't there. Because if he is there and is allowing this to happen, you apparently hold him in lower regard than I do. I think he's fictional, you think he's a criminal that gets off on watching his priests molest the kids of his followers. The god I think doesn't exist is 1000 times better than the one you claim does exist, yours is committing atrocities towards his very own followers.

Your god, if he exists, is impotent, kind of like the rage you're feeling now about being unable to explain why he doesn't keep any of his promises or do any of the things a real god would be able to accomplish easily.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is some truly shit "logic".

Atheists are better than believers because when they commit an atrocity they have to answer to themselves and cannot use their deity as a proxy for what they did, so having to own up to what they did on a more personal level will make it harder on them and thus less likely to commit additional atrocities.

Believers are better than atheists because they know that God is all seeing and they can't lie their way to him out of their transgression. This makes them far more honest naturally since there is nobody important they can deceive. Clearly you never learned to reason.