Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/31/11 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/31/11 06:19 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Do not confuse natural selection and evolution.

It seems that you are actually the one confusing them, because you can't have evolution without natural selection, or else it would be merely a mutation or defect and not an evolution.

No yes I know both are required, sorry my previous argument was poorly worded.

If it weren't for our belief in God hell wouldn't just be a mystery. The Lord holds me back from many things and teaches me life and that everything happens for a reason.

There are a number of good ideals that are present in all religions.
Treating one another decently, respecting family & the rights of others.
The real problems with all these religions is they preach , love & understanding etc. ..... but if you happen to worship a different all powerful , invisible deity than they do, your fair game for war , murder, rape, you name it.

How !?!? a group of otherwise 'good' ,god fearing people, can look at another group of god fearing people, with many of the same, if not exactly the same morals etc. & see no problems killing them to the last man , woman & child ! ! ! !
Is Insanity.
I can think of no other way to describe them.

So in this way I see 'God' as holding us as a species back.
Perhaps if the entire planet can worship one deity, the problem would be solved...but we only need to look at the different groups of christians to se how well that might work !

Well I believe religion ,in general, holds people back. It doesn't hold me back since I don't put much stock in it but since alot of people do il state my reasons why i believe it holds people back. It stops many people from doing what they wish and it also interferes with man kinds technological advances.People believed Earth was the center of the Universe of hundreds of years until a scientist brought facts proving we aren't the center.He even got attacked because of his beliefs and was shunned by many. If it wasnt for religion I would say we would be way more advanced than we are now. WQho knows, we might have hover boards in 2015.

I think religion of all kinds holds humanity back very much. That is, I think every single established religion in all of human history is detrimental to our progress at least at the very slightest, if not greatly so. Certainly, the Abrahamic religions have constantly been a hamper on the betterment of humankind for a few thousand years.

I sometimes think the world would be better off if religion would suddenly disappear completely, but then, I think about those who would be so asinine as to ask "how can you be good without god?" or "how else can you have a good sense of morals?" and what would happen to them. I would be concerned about how they would suddenly change without their superstitions holding them back. That's a scary thought. If that's all that's keeping them from doing horrible things, then maybe religion is just as useful as it is disturbing, like a leash on a rabid doberman.

However, having a vague, flexible idea of the concept of "god" or "the afterlife" or "the other side" or the like, and believing in such a thing, whether or not it is necessary, isn't always so bad. As long as it doesn't affect your ability to be a rational, critically thinking, genuinely reasonable person, it can be okay. But, as if it weren't already obvious, I sincerely do not think it is necessary to have any such beliefs anymore, and it does make you less likely to be rational and reasonable. Maybe it served as a means of civilizing the human population and establishing an idea of being well behaved (though only in order to avoid divine consequences, which is not the right reason to be good), which would have helped people live in peace...in the stone ages. I think of it as a coping mechanism to deal with the fear of dying, or the grief of having loved ones pass (several people who I loved very much have died). You can never know, though. Look at Patton Oswalt's "sky cake" routine. This is relevant, and just very funny.

So, being a mortal human being, I think you're better off having a shred of humility and just thinking of "the big question" this way.

I
Don't
Know

And stop worrying about it so much. Because, according to a lot of these stories, you're going to suffer for eternity in a variety of horrifying, sickening ways for picking the wrong series, and there are just so very many from which to choose. So, fuck it. Praise be to Gandalf. Thou must reject Sauron.

It's a fool's gamble. Odds are, even if there is a completely true religion that was actually established by humankind (a "right" religion), you are very very very likely to be wrong, considering the high number of that sort of thing. That's just the odds. Are you going to tell me that you "just know" that your religion is correct? In that case, I have a very good bet. 100% says you follow some sort of...religion that was founded by...some person at...some time within, say...the entire span of time that the human race has existed. Try to argue with someone of another religion with the same claim of gnosticism. It won't end until you pass out, or you realize that you're not so different in your reasoning as to why you so vehemently believe in your specific deity as the other red-faced person across from the table. And I will just continue to shake my head at the things in which you believe, especially if it comes with a book full of stories with characters with specific names. "God told me so!" Did he/she/them? Well, Join the club. You're not special. If you claim to have been personally spoken to by Jesus, what do you say to the fellow that claims to have been personally spoken to by Allah or Brahma or even Odin? Would you call them crazy? misguided? tricked by some mischievous force? They can say the same of you with exactly the same credibility....which is none whatsoever.

Even if there is nothing after death, then at least you won't be capable of caring. It may sound bleak, but, as I said, you will be incapable of caring. It doesn't sound so bad if you think about it, but yes, an eternal life of bliss, or even just an eternal cycle of birth and rebirth based on your own good or bad deeds, does sound better in my head, as I'm sure it sounds it most people's heads. But do you really, truly believe in it? Well, alright, but don't get offended if somebody finds it to be archaic and kind of silly. I don't entirely think that way, though. I like the idea of a perpetual existence in some way, even if I'm not convinced. I just think, as I said, "I don't know".

That said, I find pretty much every kind of mythology to be compelling and interesting.

Here is a good question for some people: is it possible to be a good person if the only reason you don't do bad things is out of fear of punishment?

At 8/1/11 12:02 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 7/31/11 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/31/11 06:19 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Do not confuse natural selection and evolution.

It seems that you are actually the one confusing them, because you can't have evolution without natural selection, or else it would be merely a mutation or defect and not an evolution.

No yes I know both are required, sorry my previous argument was poorly worded.

If you're still wanting to make a point, then rephrase it and try again. But I don't see what the problem is, I was merely illistrating the difference between artificial selection and natural selection in my reply to djack as he was trying to show that german scientists used evolution in their attempts at genocide.

At 8/20/11 02:53 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 8/1/11 12:02 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 7/31/11 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/31/11 06:19 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Do not confuse natural selection and evolution.

It seems that you are actually the one confusing them, because you can't have evolution without natural selection, or else it would be merely a mutation or defect and not an evolution.

No yes I know both are required, sorry my previous argument was poorly worded.

If you're still wanting to make a point, then rephrase it and try again. But I don't see what the problem is, I was merely illistrating the difference between artificial selection and natural selection in my reply to djack as he was trying to show that german scientists used evolution in their attempts at genocide.

Heh well, natural selection...... you guys do know that natural selection is simply a process to keep a species strong right? And these mythical random mutations are just the things natural selection would weed out, I mean you have albino animals for heaven sake, and most of them wouldn't be able to survive anywhere in the wild without mankind's hand in it, but also there is the misconception that these "mutations" are always beneficial when they're more like defects of the design brought on by natural or unnatural/manmade causes

Dogs on the other hand which venom might have explained are cleat examples of just how weak an animal can become when it's genetics are messed with, put any breed of dog and have it meet an actual wolf and see what happens, the dog would most likely be killed in seconds which goes to show how great our own intelligent selection is (sarcasm) but of course survivability isn't really our goal....... not anymore I guess which it wouldn't matter if it were still.

Anyway.....

The point of believing in God isn't to have a "level playing field." In modern times there are two main reasons people believe in God (as applies to Christianity): One, hope for an afterlife. Two, spirituality. I believe in God for a mixture of both reasons, primarily the former. I think that having faith, loyalty, hope, and believing in helping people for the sake of kindness are good attributes. Religion teaches that, and very few people actually believe the creationist stories and etc. Yes religion will be abused, but so will science. In religion you have hell-fire preachers and corrupt Popes, in science you have people pushing political agendas and false statistics. Neither is more common than the other. Believing wholly in God or science would be a mistake, one for moral reasons, one for intellectual reasons.

At 8/20/11 02:53 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 8/1/11 12:02 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 7/31/11 07:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/31/11 06:19 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Do not confuse natural selection and evolution.

It seems that you are actually the one confusing them, because you can't have evolution without natural selection, or else it would be merely a mutation or defect and not an evolution.

No yes I know both are required, sorry my previous argument was poorly worded.

If you're still wanting to make a point, then rephrase it and try again. But I don't see what the problem is, I was merely illistrating the difference between artificial selection and natural selection in my reply to djack as he was trying to show that german scientists used evolution in their attempts at genocide.

1)I didn't say evolution was the reason for the genocide I just said it was used as a justification. It was part of the German propaganda to convince the people of Germany that the holocaust was a good thing. That was the discussion I was originally having, other posters had claimed that religion is bad because people use it as a justification and my point was that people will always find a way to justify their actions even without religion.
2)I was arguing with Smartass who had claimed E1EE7 "raped" me in the FSM thread and he had posted a link that used the artificial selection that created dog breeds as evidence of natural selection which to him is equivalent to macro-evolution. He made similar posts numerous times, anyone with a brain could see why I would leave that thread.

Venom was correct that natural selection and evolution are two different things and while natural selection is a required part of evolution it is not the same thing (don't try to argue semantics everyone in this thread knows exactly what I'm referring to when I write evolution).

At 8/23/11 10:49 AM, djack wrote:

1)I didn't say evolution was the reason for the genocide I just said it was used as a justification. It was part of the German propaganda to convince the people of Germany that the holocaust was a good thing. That was the discussion I was originally having, other posters had claimed that religion is bad because people use it as a justification and my point was that people will always find a way to justify their actions even without religion.

There is a major difference to be considered here however. Maybe Hitler did use "evolution" as an excuse, in this case it was artificial selection, but nobody ever killed in the name of evolution. That is an important difference. I could argue that even without the theory of evolution Hitler would probably have still killed the jews, and given other reasons, as "evolution" was not his motivation. He tought Jews were a plague to be eliminated, leeches ruining the german economy. He went then to describe them as an "inferior race" which is not accurate in terms or evolution or biology.

As opposed of someone who will commit murders IN THE NAME OF god. "God told us to kill those motherfuckers, you wouldn't want to go against GOD now would you?"

At 8/23/11 02:35 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: but also there is the misconception that these "mutations" are always beneficial when they're more like defects of the design brought on by natural or unnatural/manmade causes

i'm not sure how many people have this misconceptions, but lets not forget defects sometimes have their own benefits, i.e. sickle-cell anemia; its a pretty shitty genetic disease, but on the bright side you get to screw malaria over.

...put any breed of dog and have it meet an actual wolf and see what happens...

so since humans can't fight apes mano a mano, it makes us inferior?

At 8/23/11 12:16 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 8/23/11 10:49 AM, djack wrote:

1)I didn't say evolution was the reason for the genocide I just said it was used as a justification. It was part of the German propaganda to convince the people of Germany that the holocaust was a good thing. That was the discussion I was originally having, other posters had claimed that religion is bad because people use it as a justification and my point was that people will always find a way to justify their actions even without religion.

There is a major difference to be considered here however. Maybe Hitler did use "evolution" as an excuse, in this case it was artificial selection, but nobody ever killed in the name of evolution. That is an important difference. I could argue that even without the theory of evolution Hitler would probably have still killed the jews, and given other reasons, as "evolution" was not his motivation. He tought Jews were a plague to be eliminated, leeches ruining the german economy. He went then to describe them as an "inferior race" which is not accurate in terms or evolution or biology.

As opposed of someone who will commit murders IN THE NAME OF god. "God told us to kill those motherfuckers, you wouldn't want to go against GOD now would you?"

Like I said, it wasn't the reason it was a justification. People will always find a way to justify their actions, it doesn't require religion or evolution or even logic. People don't kill in the name of anything, people kill because A) a person in power told them to (this is generally the case with "religious" killings where a person in power wanted something and had other people do the killing so that they could get what they wanted) B) they feel that they have been pushed into a scenario where they have no choice but to kill or C) they get some form of pleasure from the act of killing. None of those require a religious belief.

At 8/23/11 01:14 PM, djack wrote:

Like I said, it wasn't the reason it was a justification. People will always find a way to justify their actions, it doesn't require religion or evolution or even logic. People don't kill in the name of anything, people kill because A) a person in power told them to (this is generally the case with "religious" killings where a person in power wanted something and had other people do the killing so that they could get what they wanted)

The problem with religion is it encourages people to not use critical judgement and just seek approval of an authority figure, like "god" for an example. "Authority and no critical thinking is just oil and sparks waiting to burst out.

See, it took me a while to think about a counterargument and I had to rewrite this reply several times, but then I went on to do some jogging and I got it.

The reason I first couldn't find anything to come back with was because when you say religion isnt the only justification for evil to happen you are entirely right. Anyone with authority can make people do bad things.

HOWEVER, and this is important, religion adds something that is not originally there and I will come back to you on that in a second I just need to explain some other stuff so the difference is clear.

Also let's include all reprehensible things that can be done by people not only murder.

Let's first take an example of a secular environment where people do reprehensible actions and where there is a big deal of authority involved. Take Wall Street, it is full of ultra-rich people sucking away all the money of the middle class and supported by lot's of politicians because they get their share of the motherload (in that case money). Basically abusing the system to steal from us and getting tax cuts while the middle man struggles to keep his social programs which he is entitled to because he paid in all his life.

Now, why would the average very rich person do such things?

Two possibilities come to mind:
1. They know they are doing reprehensible things but they do not care because of the gains they are making.

2. They are so secluded in their world that they just are unaware of the bad things they are doing.

Now to go back to my point with religion, religion is still able to do both examples I just pointed out but the thing it has that the other doesn't is make bad things seem acceptable.

Take for example the story of Pastor Keenan Roberts, he is known for being the creator of "Hell Houses" A place where children are brought by their parents or sunday school to be scared shitless about what might happen to them after they die, if they don't basically live "good christian lives". Pastor Keenan said himself when interviewed that the optimal age for a child to visit a Hell House is 12 (which does not change the fact younger children are brought to this place. Now I don't know about you but to me this is child abuse. Plain and simple, scaring children for no reason so they do what you want.

But do I think this priest is a bad person? Do I think he laughs in his beard at all the poor children he scares? No, it's definitely not the case, see, from his point of view he is doing a good thing, THE RIGHT THING. Because if you believe an omnipotent being is watching you and wants you to live in a certain way and that if you do not, YOU LITERALLY GO IN HELL TO SUFFER FOREVER, wouldn't you want your fellow men not to suffer in hell forever? What is a little scare next to an eternity of suffering?

Like I said, religion makes things that are unacceptable and they make them seem like good things.

Do you think the 9/11 hijackers would have blown themselves up and killed any innocents just to be mean? No, they too tought they were doing the right thing. THey tought it was the morale thing to do based on their world view.

World view which is here because they were brought by their parents and community and taught that god or allah or whatever IS REAL AND HE COMMANDS THIS AND ITS GOOD!

Now can this apply to a secular system? To take back the example of wall street, could someone think that hoarding all the money and destroying social programs for the middle class be a good thing?

But maybe this is a bad example, if you can think of a good example to disprove my point, feel free to do so.

At 8/23/11 07:41 PM, VenomKing666 wrote: Do you think the 9/11 hijackers would have blown themselves up and killed any innocents just to be mean? No, they too tought they were doing the right thing. They thought it was the morale thing to do based on their world view.

If they were just trying to be mean they probably would have found a way to survive but I don't doubt that some people will do terrible things because they want to do terrible things and I don't doubt that people could be convinced that they are doing the right thing even without religious influence.

World view which is here because they were brought by their parents and community and taught that god or allah or whatever IS REAL AND HE COMMANDS THIS AND ITS GOOD!

"brought up by their parents and community" is the key term here. Religious teachings are, more often than not, about obeying the law and doing the right thing. If you brainwash someone at an early age to believe the things you want them to and obey the things you tell them to do it doesn't matter if you use religion to do so or not they will always believe that what you tell them is right and they will blindly follow. Blaming religion for the actions of the parents and community is a lot like blaming video games for violent behavior, it is pointing the finger in the wrong direction and requires ignoring the difference between causation and correlation.

Now can this apply to a secular system? To take back the example of wall street, could someone think that hoarding all the money and destroying social programs for the middle class be a good thing?

But maybe this is a bad example, if you can think of a good example to disprove my point, feel free to do so.

The U.S. Revolution for one. These days we consider a good thing because we can see what the U.S. has become but that wasn't guaranteed to happen when the Revolution started and if you look at it at that time it was an act of betrayal and extremism. The taxes that we're taught pushed colonists to revolt barely increased the cost of goods (in fact the Tea tax wasn't a tax it was a tariff that actually decreased the cost of tea) but got blown out of proportion enough that people were willing to go to war because of it. The Boston Massacre was something else that got blown way out of proportion but it became a common piece of wartime propaganda to convince people that war was the right thing to do. There are plenty of examples where something from that time was used to encourage the people to turn traitor to a nation they were loyal to only a couple months before often leading to fights between people who were at one time neighbors, friends, or even family and they thought they were doing the right thing.

Going back to your example of a different kind of evil (corporate leaders getting more money than some would consider fair given how difficult it is for the lower classes) slavery was nothing more than a necessary economic evil until after the invention of the cotton gin made slavery profitable. The founding fathers actually outlawed the international slave trade because they thought that the current slave population would be sufficient until technology advanced enough that it wouldn't be necessary at all. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and plantation owners needed to be able to continue using slaves to maximize profits without having to deal with the guilt of owning human beings and forcing them to work. They may have used religion but do you really think they wouldn't have found some other excuse if there were no religion? They wanted to make as much money as possible and slavery was the only way to do that at the time, nothing was going to stop them from using slaves and as long as they used slaves they needed to appease their conscience.

Well, I would say now, it doesn't hold us back. Simply because it seems most people in the world need a bribery of eternal happiness to do the right thing. Maybe in time, people will accept this is the one life they get to live, live it to the fullest, and help those less fortunate so they themselves can live a decent life.

Could be wrong though.

At 8/23/11 08:21 PM, djack wrote:

"brought up by their parents and community" is the key term here. Religious teachings are, more often than not, about obeying the law and doing the right thing. If you brainwash someone at an early age to believe the things you want them to and obey the things you tell them to do it doesn't matter if you use religion to do so or not they will always believe that what you tell them is right and they will blindly follow. Blaming religion for the actions of the parents and community is a lot like blaming video games for violent behavior, it is pointing the finger in the wrong direction and requires ignoring the difference between causation and correlation.

Oh boy, now you just got me started, these things are entirely different matters, as for religion, the only reason the parents endoctrinate their children is because they were most likelt endoctrinated during their childhood too, you know, when they were vulnerable and gullible. Blaming religion here is perfectly reasonable here because the community endoctrinates BECAUSE of religion, religion is the water making the wheel turn. As opposed to video games supposeadly turning people violent where there is just no link to be found, exept the fact psychopaths are attracted to violent videogames for an obvious reason but different from the reasons normal people play it and of course it does not turn anybody in a rabid killer but you know that. Still, it's not the same than with religion.

The U.S. Revolution for one. These days we consider a good thing because we can see what the U.S. has become but that wasn't guaranteed to happen when the Revolution started and if you look at it at that time it was an act of betrayal and extremism. The taxes that we're taught pushed colonists to revolt barely increased the cost of goods (in fact the Tea tax wasn't a tax it was a tariff that actually decreased the cost of tea) but got blown out of proportion enough that people were willing to go to war because of it. The Boston Massacre was something else that got blown way out of proportion but it became a common piece of wartime propaganda to convince people that war was the right thing to do. There are plenty of examples where something from that time was used to encourage the people to turn traitor to a nation they were loyal to only a couple months before often leading to fights between people who were at one time neighbors, friends, or even family and they thought they were doing the right thing.

Yes, you make a good point, however, there is a difference between picking a side when fighting for your country and scaring children with hell stories so they don't end up going there. One of them deals with irrationnal fears, fake stuff. And no religion probably doesnt have that exclusive but it has to come with it and makes it incredibaly easier, when god is on your side you have all the authority you would ever need.

Going back to your example of a different kind of evil (corporate leaders getting more money than some would consider fair given how difficult it is for the lower classes) slavery was nothing more than a necessary economic evil until after the invention of the cotton gin made slavery profitable. The founding fathers actually outlawed the international slave trade because they thought that the current slave population would be sufficient until technology advanced enough that it wouldn't be necessary at all. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and plantation owners needed to be able to continue using slaves to maximize profits without having to deal with the guilt of owning human beings and forcing them to work. They may have used religion but do you really think they wouldn't have found some other excuse if there were no religion? They wanted to make as much money as possible and slavery was the only way to do that at the time, nothing was going to stop them from using slaves and as long as they used slaves they needed to appease their conscience.

Well, to be honest I don't know the details and I think I explained it in the previous section, I'll just point out that the founding fathers were slave owners themselves.

At 8/24/11 02:23 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 8/23/11 08:21 PM, djack wrote:

"brought up by their parents and community" is the key term here. Religious teachings are, more often than not, about obeying the law and doing the right thing. If you brainwash someone at an early age to believe the things you want them to and obey the things you tell them to do it doesn't matter if you use religion to do so or not they will always believe that what you tell them is right and they will blindly follow. Blaming religion for the actions of the parents and community is a lot like blaming video games for violent behavior, it is pointing the finger in the wrong direction and requires ignoring the difference between causation and correlation.

Oh boy, now you just got me started, these things are entirely different matters, as for religion, the only reason the parents endoctrinate their children is because they were most likelt endoctrinated during their childhood too, you know, when they were vulnerable and gullible. Blaming religion here is perfectly reasonable here because the community endoctrinates BECAUSE of religion, religion is the water making the wheel turn. As opposed to video games supposeadly turning people violent where there is just no link to be found, exept the fact psychopaths are attracted to violent videogames for an obvious reason but different from the reasons normal people play it and of course it does not turn anybody in a rabid killer but you know that. Still, it's not the same than with religion.

The community indoctrinates because indoctrination imposes conformity. Communities require that everyone conform to what they consider to be normal. Once again, that is not something exclusive to religion. That can be seen in every community and pushes societal norms on the people who don't fit in with everything else. Human nature is the water making the wheel turn here not religion.

Yes, you make a good point, however, there is a difference between picking a side when fighting for your country and scaring children with hell stories so they don't end up going there. One of them deals with irrationnal fears, fake stuff. And no religion probably doesnt have that exclusive but it has to come with it and makes it incredibaly easier, when god is on your side you have all the authority you would ever need.

Irrational fears like the fear that because of a few miniscule sales taxes Britain is going to impose unreasonably high taxes even though there was no indication that that would happen? Or fake stuff like a massacre that never happened?

Well, to be honest I don't know the details and I think I explained it in the previous section, I'll just point out that the founding fathers were slave owners themselves.

All rich white people back then were slave owners but that doesn't mean that they were happy about it. It was a necessary evil that they planned on ending until it became too profitable to eliminate. It wasn't right or good until people needed it to be right and good.

At 8/24/11 12:24 PM, djack wrote: All rich white people back then were slave owners but that doesn't mean that they were happy about it. It was a necessary evil that they planned on ending until it became too profitable to eliminate. It wasn't right or good until people needed it to be right and good.

meh, we may be getting a little apologetic about things; we can't forget that people often don't have problems doing terrible things to people if you can demonstrate that those other people are in some way not like you.

religion, race, taste in music, etc...

At 8/24/11 12:24 PM, djack wrote:

The community indoctrinates because indoctrination imposes conformity. Communities require that everyone conform to what they consider to be normal.

Not always true, lots of communities promote multiculturalism, freedom of religion and freedom of sexual orientation and all.

Once again, that is not something exclusive to religion.

But religion promotes it and cannot be without it, and it also encourages it. your points is like saying: OTHER PEOPLE DO IT SO ITS FINE!

That can be seen in every community and pushes societal norms on the people who don't fit in with everything else. Human nature is the water making the wheel turn here not religion.

Not "EVERY" community no. And there is a difference between what is considered acceptable in society and endoctrinating children at a young age.

Irrational fears like the fear that because of a few miniscule sales taxes Britain is going to impose unreasonably high taxes even though there was no indication that that would happen? Or fake stuff like a massacre that never happened?

Okay, propaganda exists, it does not excuse religion however.

All rich white people back then were slave owners but that doesn't mean that they were happy about it.

Well if they were against it, let me tell you they wouldnt have had fucking slaves.

At 8/24/11 08:51 PM, VenomKing666 wrote:

At 8/24/11 12:24 PM, djack wrote:

The community indoctrinates because indoctrination imposes conformity. Communities require that everyone conform to what they consider to be normal.

Not always true, lots of communities promote multiculturalism, freedom of religion and freedom of sexual orientation and all.

Because it's the modern norm to appear as if you are accepting of all religions and cultures and even then there is still a set behavioral standard that you have to live by in those communities otherwise you are an outsider and people will try to get you to conform.

Once again, that is not something exclusive to religion.

But religion promotes it and cannot be without it, and it also encourages it. your points is like saying: OTHER PEOPLE DO IT SO ITS FINE!

First, my argument is nothing like "other people do it so it's fine". My argument is that religion is not the cause of this behavior and that blaming religion for that behavior ignores the true cause of the problem. Second, all group activities cannot exist without conformity. Human society as a whole cannot exist without conformity which is why everything we do promotes and encourages indoctrinating others to force conformity, religion is just very common example so it's easy for people to blame religion for that behavior.

That can be seen in every community and pushes societal norms on the people who don't fit in with everything else. Human nature is the water making the wheel turn here not religion.

Not "EVERY" community no. And there is a difference between what is considered acceptable in society and endoctrinating children at a young age.

Yes every community. There is no community that does not force its members to conform, not even anti conformist communities. People have always indoctrinated children to obey societal norms. School is used just as much to indoctrinate children as it is to teach them.

Irrational fears like the fear that because of a few miniscule sales taxes Britain is going to impose unreasonably high taxes even though there was no indication that that would happen? Or fake stuff like a massacre that never happened?

Okay, propaganda exists, it does not excuse religion however.

Religion doesn't need an excuse. IT IS NOT THE CAUSE OF EVIL. I don't get why you're having so much trouble with that concept, at this point you're simply ignoring everything I've said so far in order to attack religion.

All rich white people back then were slave owners but that doesn't mean that they were happy about it.

Well if they were against it, let me tell you they wouldn't have had fucking slaves.

Right, no one in the history of the world has ever done anything they thought was wrong in order to make money. That scenario is completely unheard of. Before you post again I suggest you actually do some research into the American slave trade.

I had forgot completely about this thread. Reading through what I've missed, I've reached the conclusion that there's no arguing with some people. They'll just use made up facts and straight up ignore any arguments they can't construct a rebuttal for.

I'm out.

At 8/23/11 10:49 AM, djack wrote: 1)I didn't say evolution was the reason for the genocide I just said it was used as a justification. It was part of the German propaganda to convince the people of Germany that the holocaust was a good thing. That was the discussion I was originally having, other posters had claimed that religion is bad because people use it as a justification and my point was that people will always find a way to justify their actions even without religion.

And I'm saying (and not even going to bother being sceptical of your claim in the first place) it couldn't have been, the primary reason is that it wasn't natural selection or evolution, so they were either relying on the ignorance of the public or they were ignorant of it themselves. 200 years of heavy duty public criticism has shown that someone's going to call bullshit. It's like saying that gravity influenced you to push someone off a cliff.

Venom was correct that natural selection and evolution are two different things and while natural selection is a required part of evolution it is not the same thing (don't try to argue semantics everyone in this thread knows exactly what I'm referring to when I write evolution).

An engine is different to a car as natural selection is different to evolution. Either way, you've still got a skoda. All you're doing here is focusing on the different aspects of a process as you would the different components of a car.

I'm sorry shaggy, I completely missed out your reply in my last post.

At 8/23/11 02:35 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Heh well, natural selection...... you guys do know that natural selection is simply a process to keep a species strong right?

In an abstract sense, yes.

And these mythical random mutations are just the things natural selection would weed out,

What do you mean mythical?

I mean you have albino animals for heaven sake, and most of them wouldn't be able to survive anywhere in the wild without mankind's hand in it,

Are we talking about artificial selection again?

but also there is the misconception that these "mutations" are always beneficial when they're more like defects of the design brought on by natural or unnatural/manmade causes

Nobody said all mutations are beneficial. Actually, I do recall several people on many occasions telling you that the majority of mutations are neutral.

Some are beneficial, some are detrimental but the majority of the time they don't do squat.

Dogs on the other hand which venom might have explained are cleat examples of just how weak an animal can become when it's genetics are messed with, put any breed of dog and have it meet an actual wolf and see what happens,

You can't base an animals survivability by putting it in a straight fight with another animal. You might as well say the bunny rabbit is done for simply because it can't take on a cougar.

There are plenty breeds of dog that can happily live with little or no human contact.

the dog would most likely be killed in seconds which goes to show how great our own intelligent selection is (sarcasm) but of course survivability isn't really our goal....... not anymore I guess which it wouldn't matter if it were still.

So would the bunny rabbit. The selection of dogs was brought about by catching wolves and using them to hunt. When farming and more adequate hunting methods developed we used them for working purposes. 10,000 years later (give or take) and there are plenty of people who still use them for working and hunting to this day. Of course, if I put my dog out in the jungle it would probably die within a few days. But if you introduced them more gradually back into an environment over several generations, they'd probably survive.

At 8/26/11 01:13 PM, The-universe wrote: And I'm saying (and not even going to bother being sceptical of your claim in the first place) it couldn't have been, the primary reason is that it wasn't natural selection or evolution, so they were either relying on the ignorance of the public or they were ignorant of it themselves. 200 years of heavy duty public criticism has shown that someone's going to call bullshit. It's like saying that gravity influenced you to push someone off a cliff.

For clarification are you saying that it couldn't have been the reason or the justification? If your saying the reason then I'm not arguing with you. I am not, nor have I been, saying that evolution caused the holocaust. I said that it was used as a justification and as propaganda to convince people that what was being done was a good thing with my overall point being that religion is not the cause of the bad things that happen in our world it is just used to justify it and even without religion people would still find ways to justify their actions.

An engine is different to a car as natural selection is different to evolution. Either way, you've still got a skoda. All you're doing here is focusing on the different aspects of a process as you would the different components of a car.

All venom said was that natural selection and evolution are not the same thing which is correct in the same way that an engine is not a car. I don't get why your posting about that.

At 8/26/11 01:37 PM, djack wrote: For clarification are you saying that it couldn't have been the reason or the justification? If your saying the reason then I'm not arguing with you. I am not, nor have I been, saying that evolution caused the holocaust. I said that it was used as a justification and as propaganda to convince people that what was being done was a good thing with my overall point being that religion is not the cause of the bad things that happen in our world it is just used to justify it and even without religion people would still find ways to justify their actions.

It's an act of scepticism of your claim basing it on the history of public criticism and claims of evolution.

All venom said was that natural selection and evolution are not the same thing which is correct in the same way that an engine is not a car. I don't get why your posting about that.

It's just pointlessly fucking around with words.

At 8/26/11 01:37 PM, djack wrote: For clarification are you saying that it couldn't have been the reason or the justification? If your saying the reason then I'm not arguing with you. I am not, nor have I been, saying that evolution caused the holocaust. I said that it was used as a justification and as propaganda to convince people that what was being done was a good thing with my overall point being that religion is not the cause of the bad things that happen in our world it is just used to justify it and even without religion people would still find ways to justify their actions.

But they didn't use evolution as a justification, read up on the matter. And I have to stop returning to this thread. Very bat.

God does not hold us back.
We do.

At 8/26/11 03:24 PM, CcZero wrote:

At 8/26/11 01:37 PM, djack wrote: For clarification are you saying that it couldn't have been the reason or the justification? If your saying the reason then I'm not arguing with you. I am not, nor have I been, saying that evolution caused the holocaust. I said that it was used as a justification and as propaganda to convince people that what was being done was a good thing with my overall point being that religion is not the cause of the bad things that happen in our world it is just used to justify it and even without religion people would still find ways to justify their actions.

But they didn't use evolution as a justification, read up on the matter. And I have to stop returning to this thread. Very bat.

The research of August Hirt at Strasbourg University also intended to establish "Jewish racial inferiority."

Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazi racial ideology used it to describe "inferior people", especially "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, Poles along with other Slavic people like the Russians, Serbs, Belarussians and Ukrainians.

In the early 1930s, the Nazis used racialized scientific rhetoric based on social Darwinism to push its restrictive and discriminatory social policies.

During the Nazi regime psychiatry supported compulsory sterilization and euthanasia of physically and mentally ill and subsequently the killing of "inferior" races by borrowing scientifically invalid conclusions from evolutionary biology.

Not to mention the literally dozens of books on the matter that are only opposed by Darwinists who don't like the way their beliefs are portrayed in the books as being part of Nazism. I have read up on the subject, clearly either you haven't or you simply ignore anything that negatively portrays evolution.

At 8/26/11 07:52 PM, djack wrote: Text

That's social Darwinism. Did you even read the texts you linked? Do you even understand the concept of evolution?

At 7/26/11 12:59 AM, ImaSmartass2 wrote: I don't need to repeat what I already said. Social Darwinism. Is. Not. Evolution. Has nothing to do with Evolution.