15
   

The meek or the ruthless: who prevails in the end?

 
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 03:31 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:

Darwin wasn't the only game in town.

I'm aware of other theories.
Quote:
For reference, I'm a Lamarckian and a Catastrophist.

Maybe. Or you just find that those theories appeal to you. I doubt you've done anything more than read popularized accounts of the theories. Which is fine but it's not as if you're a scientist who's come to these theories through rigorous independent research. These alternatives to Darwin (and personal attacks on the man) are very popular in some circles, often among the political right and within conservative Christianity and Islam.
Quote:
But only Darwin demanded that people, plants, animals, etc compete with each other for survival.

That's ridiculous. He doesn't "demand" anything. He describes a process which he took the trouble to observe in detail.
Quote:
He's a snob who wants to put down the sick, the poor, and the handicapped.

No, he merely mentioned the effect that human society has on the process of natural selection. I alluded to this yesterday when I said, "The strongest human can be felled by a weakling — whether armed with a gun or armed with a lawsuit."

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 03:39 am
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:

Darwin wasn't the only game in town.

I'm aware of other theories.
Quote:
For reference, I'm a Lamarckian and a Catastrophist.

Maybe. Or you just find that those theories appeal to you. I doubt you've done anything more than read popularized accounts of the theories. Which is fine but it's not as if you're a scientist who's come to these theories through rigorous independent research. These alternatives to Darwin (and personal attacks on the man) are very popular in some circles, often among the political right and within conservative Christianity and Islam.
Quote:
But only Darwin demanded that people, plants, animals, etc compete with each other for survival.

That's ridiculous. He doesn't "demand" anything. He describes a process which he took the trouble to observe in detail.
Quote:
He's a snob who wants to put down the sick, the poor, and the handicapped.

No, he merely mentioned the effect that human society has on the process of natural selection. I alluded to this yesterday when I said, "The strongest human can be felled by a weakling — whether armed with a gun or armed with a lawsuit."

Darwin wrote:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment.


Um, this isn't a secret, nor is it necessary to place a value judgment on it — it describes what we observe in the long process of human civilization. It's neither good nor bad.

izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Wed 10 Mar, 2021 06:58 am
@hightor,
I’ve noticed the most vocal about their “Christianity,” tend to espouse the exact opposite of what Christ preached.

Atheists merely aren’t convinced, right wing “Christians” do their level best to distort and pervert genuine Christianity.

If there’s a special place in Hell for anyone at all it’s for those buggers.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2021 07:51 am
@izzythepush,
Or maybe the problem is you?

Maybe you conflate Christianity with a sort of altruism.

If missionaries came to America because all the lands overseas had finally all been converted but the US had gotten lost, this is what they would find.
Scores of people who when asked if they accept Jesus, talk about how they help the poor or work to prevent climate change.

Yes, but that is not following Jesus.

Jesus tells a man to pick up his pallet and walk. He tells people that the poor will always be with them but you won't always have me. He confronts those who demand easy miracles, often requiring people to defend their faith (such as the Canaanite woman who he told "it is not right to take the people's bread and throw it to the dogs." I've probably misquoted this, but the point is, she had to basically tell Jesus that she deserved mercy to, before he finally was like "nah I was just trolling you there.") or turning his back on those who thought themselves already righteous. You'll find plenty of supposed Christians claiming simplistic notions about how Christianity is all about helping people. Yet this sort of thing is nothing secular humanism can't do. Nor Judaism. Yet Jesus clearly had a problem with the help offered by Judaism, which is why he spent the better part of his life trying to reform it.

Did Jesus die because self-sacrifice is moral good? Then I guess you would demand that all Christians basically martyr themselves. Yeah, ummm no more Christianity. And in fact, when you cross from helping others into becoming a social justice warrior, this is basically what happens, you become divorced from God. Jesus died to redeem others. If it was only to sacrifice, then why was Isaac not killed?

God says that he desires that we have life and have it more abundantly. God says we are made in his image. God says what I have made clean do not declare unclean. But Jesus had to condemn the Jews because their focus was on Sabbath, and clean hands and washing pots, and sacrifice not mercy. "I desire mercy not sacrifice," God says in Hosea.

Most Christians think that Ayn Rand was a godless selfish asshole. But she actually admired Christianity and its idea of intrinsic worth. She just didn't admire many so-called Christians. And she was probably more on target than most of them, despite being non-religious. Who is Jesus? Well for Ayn Rand, he is John Galt.

http://www.seanedwards.com/christian-objectivism/

The poor will always be with you, but you will not always have me.
It's not about being righteous. It's about living your life fully.
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2021 08:18 am
Me no talk to monkey.
0 Replies
 
davidsheep88
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2021 09:26 am
@Tuna,
The meek will rule !
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2021 09:44 am
@davidsheep88,
If it’s alright with everyone else.
Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2021 04:25 pm
@izzythepush,
...hahaha!
If they cry a lot they might rule us by despair.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2021 04:38 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
The bible is full of errors, omissions and contradictions. Where do you want me to start?
bulmabriefs144
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2021 09:01 am
@cicerone imposter,
The Bible is written by humans.

Humans are an intentionally imperfect creation.

You should start by asking yourself why a (supposedly) perfect God would create an imperfect creation.

And no, "perhaps God doesn't exist" is a theological copout. We're here, so something/someone put us here. Made us. So back to question one: if God is perfect, either this proves God isn't perfect or....

Or this is exactly how things are supposed to be.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 06:19:39