Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-11-2012, 12:15 PM
RE: Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolut
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Evolution is quite obviously not a moral system. Quite to the contrary, it is an incredibly cruel and, by popular moral standard, an immoral way of dictating the winner and loser in life. Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute. How is it, by the accepted definition of benevolence, justify the countless numbers of organisms that needlessly die by evolution, assuming that God could have conceived of a much more peaceful system of life?

Oh, and if you interpret that shit literally? Fuck off, bitch. Drinking Beverage
Yes, and while we're on the subject of the Christian God's lack of concern for his own creations, animals supposedly don't go to heaven (at least according to Catholicism). When they die, they cease to exist. So, according to that way of thinking, I love my dog more than God because, if it was in my power, my dog would go to heaven too.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 12:15 PM
Analysis: Why Christianity (Liberal and Fundamental) is incompatible with evolution.
(07-11-2012 12:12 PM)Humakt Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 04:31 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Actually, the Tree wasn't at fault. It was that damn woman who brought destruction down upon us all. Weeping
Actually, given the fruit of that tree is the knowledge of good and evil, that damned woman is judged unfairly. She is not mentally competent, when she eats the apple, having no conception of the consequences of her actions. It is only by eating the apple that she is capable of making such a determination. Thus, her punishment is unjust.

I see what you're saying. Maybe the key is, before she bit into the fruit she had no knowledge so should not be judged, but the second she swallowed instead of spitting it out, she became a dirty whore?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 12:21 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2012 01:33 PM by Humakt.)
RE: Analysis
(06-11-2012 04:43 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(06-11-2012 03:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Christian dogma, both literal and liberal, has given God omnibenevolence as an attribute.

*citation needed*

Most denominations do not accept omnibenevolence as an attribute of God. Omnibenevolence isn't displayed or taught in the Bible. In fact, quite the opposite is displayed and taught. God's benevolence is entirely subjective - He chooses when, to whom, and how much benevolence He wishes to bestow.

Moreover, the 3 attributes of God that are almost universally accepted by all denominations is omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.

Your argument is a false dilemma. You are applying a scarce belief among a minute amount of Christians.

If you are going to argue against one of God's attributes, it needs to be one of the three aforementioned; not omnibenevolence.
Isn't God love? You know by definition. Not to mention just, truth, jealous, vengeful, etc. Not one of those is one of three you list, how many christians would deny these attributes of God. Your argument is a trifle, I don't know, needlessly limiting. Maybe Im reading it wrong.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 12:23 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 10:38 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Your argument resembles that of C.S Lewis', in that evil is a necessity to said plan. Again, before I continue, this your position is not that of other Christians. Free will is the primary defense, which in itself presents an entirely different issue that I will not delve into. But I digress, it being part of God's plan does not morally justify it.
Lewis would give one pause, perhaps, but it fails in the general case. He may have a point, and in fact does make a correct observation that suffering creates change. However it can, and does lead to bitterness. He just had too small a "data base" as he generalized, using his own case.

He forgot about senseless suffering, and the suffering of innocent children. Suffering teaches an infant nothing, and it's not limited to infants. I will never forget the 7 year old pushing his IV pole down the hall in his mouse costume with a grey tail dragging on the floor, with chemo running in the IV, in the hospital in San Diego, on Halloween, with Leukemia. What the fuck is suffering "teaching" him ? Nothing. In the face of that, I DARE anyone to tell me there is a god.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 12:31 PM
RE: Analysis
(07-11-2012 12:15 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 12:12 PM)Humakt Wrote:  Actually, given the fruit of that tree is the knowledge of good and evil, that damned woman is judged unfairly. She is not mentally competent, when she eats the apple, having no conception of the consequences of her actions. It is only by eating the apple that she is capable of making such a determination. Thus, her punishment is unjust.

I see what you're saying. Maybe the key is, before she bit into the fruit she had no knowledge so should not be judged, but the second she swallowed instead of spitting it out, she became a dirty whore?
Smile, its wrong to waste food. But, I suppose it depends how you define eating of. Is biting enough, or does it not include digestion and what not. Perhaps, if you move a little further on and deal with encourging Adam to eat thereof. There you got a case, there she has the conception of good and evil and is thus responsible for her actions.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 02:08 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 12:01 PM)Humakt Wrote:  If your gonna say its not moral, I can buy that, having no motivation an all, but to then go on and declare it cruel and immoral seems well a little confused. Evolution is neither cruel or immoral, nor is the mechanism capable of this, any more than gravity is harsh.

However, if we're your gonna anthropomorphize, my sympathy would lie closer to moral than immoral, the system is for all its "faults" fair.

Also, Im a little confused by what you mean, by die needlessly.

(07-11-2012 10:38 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Precisely. Evolution is not immoral or moral until God is thrown into the equation. That is why the title is, "Why Christianity is incompatible with evolution," and not, "Evolution? Try evilution!".

(07-11-2012 12:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lewis would give one pause, perhaps, but it fails in the general case. He may have a point, and in fact does make a correct observation that suffering creates change. However it can, and does lead to bitterness. He just had too small a "data base" as he generalized, using his own case.

He forgot about senseless suffering, and the suffering of innocent children. Suffering teaches an infant nothing, and it's not limited to infants. I will never forget the 7 year old pushing his IV pole down the hall in his mouse costume with a grey tail dragging on the floor, with chemo running in the IV, in the hospital in San Diego, on Halloween, with Leukemia. What the fuck is suffering "teaching" him ? Nothing. In the face of that, I DARE anyone to tell me there is a god.

Genetic disorders occur because of genetic glitches that occur due to unfortunate gene pools. Viral and bacterial sicknesses occur because of a living organism's necessity to survive. These are just as substantiated as the immorality of a God-designed evolution.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 02:47 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 02:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 12:01 PM)Humakt Wrote:  If your gonna say its not moral, I can buy that, having no motivation an all, but to then go on and declare it cruel and immoral seems well a little confused. Evolution is neither cruel or immoral, nor is the mechanism capable of this, any more than gravity is harsh.

However, if we're your gonna anthropomorphize, my sympathy would lie closer to moral than immoral, the system is for all its "faults" fair.

Also, Im a little confused by what you mean, by die needlessly.

(07-11-2012 10:38 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Precisely. Evolution is not immoral or moral until God is thrown into the equation. That is why the title is, "Why Christianity is incompatible with evolution," and not, "Evolution? Try evilution!".

(07-11-2012 12:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lewis would give one pause, perhaps, but it fails in the general case. He may have a point, and in fact does make a correct observation that suffering creates change. However it can, and does lead to bitterness. He just had too small a "data base" as he generalized, using his own case.

He forgot about senseless suffering, and the suffering of innocent children. Suffering teaches an infant nothing, and it's not limited to infants. I will never forget the 7 year old pushing his IV pole down the hall in his mouse costume with a grey tail dragging on the floor, with chemo running in the IV, in the hospital in San Diego, on Halloween, with Leukemia. What the fuck is suffering "teaching" him ? Nothing. In the face of that, I DARE anyone to tell me there is a god.

Genetic disorders occur because of genetic glitches that occur due to unfortunate gene pools. Viral and bacterial sicknesses occur because of a living organism's necessity to survive. These are just as substantiated as the immorality of a God-designed evolution.
Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 04:36 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 02:08 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Genetic disorders occur because of genetic glitches that occur due to unfortunate gene pools. Viral and bacterial sicknesses occur because of a living organism's necessity to survive. These are just as substantiated as the immorality of a God-designed evolution.
Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.
Bucky pretty much says it here, however "Viral and bacterial sicknesses occur because of a living organism's necessity to survive." if by that you mean the virus and bacterias necessity to survive then yes, I agree. As to "These are just as substantiated as the immorality of a God-designed evolution." how can you infer that a god designed evolution is immoral, for that matter how can you claim something you believe does not exist is sustantiated.

I missed you contradicticting your self in that later post, I was answering your OP were you state evolution is immoral, I accept you later say that it cant be immoral without a God, so Im left more confused by your clarification.

Anyways Im sure you know what you mean.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 04:46 PM
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.

No, there is no 'supposed to'. There are errors in copying, there are changes during chemical reactions.

Quote:Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.

Again, there is no 'should' and there is no group selection. Individual organisms survive and reproduce based on their winnings genetic lottery. And that's what it is, a probabilistic sieving of survival. Genes that are advantageous to individuals are passed on.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-11-2012, 09:47 PM (This post was last modified: 07-11-2012 09:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Subject too long
(07-11-2012 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(07-11-2012 02:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Genetic disorders occur because the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working just the way it is supposed to.

No, there is no 'supposed to'. There are errors in copying, there are changes during chemical reactions.

Quote:Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but we need mutations to happen, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works just the way it should. It promotes and enhances survival optimization of the GROUP, not the individual.

Again, there is no 'should' and there is no group selection. Individual organisms survive and reproduce based on their winnings genetic lottery. And that's what it is, a probabilistic sieving of survival. Genes that are advantageous to individuals are passed on.
Agree. It's POV of "our" outcome. It needs to be phrased in probabilistic terms. It *can* be seen as "advantageous" to *us*, because we are biased, as WE are here to talk about it.

Instead of "group, one could say the "collective", (as in the Borg), or the "hive" (as in bees). If things are advantageous for the collective, it promotes survival of the collective. For example, even slime-mold, and beehives could be said to be "intelligent", if one looks at them as a collective. This actually influences "morality", or anthropomorphic views of "optimal", (ie "evil"), as Neuro-science knows that a decision is not a one dimensional process, but involves "cross-inhibition". It's positive, AND negative.

So rephrased I should have said :
Genetic disorders occur, however the mutation mechanism in Evolution is working to the advantage of the collective, not the individual.
Again if you dump the "individual" as important, one's view of this changes.
In the individual case, it IS tragedy, but when mutations happen, it is advantageous, and without that mechanism we would not be here.
Genetics works to advantage the collective. If the collective is seen as the unit to be maximized, then things work to that unit's advantage.
Evolution promotes and enhances long term survival optimization of the collective.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: