Criticizing Christianity is a lost cause

[john.livingstone@lr]

The best thing about Christianity is that even though it attempts to explain certain events and the beginning of the world, the good book does not attempt to disprove others and their beliefs. The Christian religion is a big group of loving friends, we support God and his message and in the end we are all looking to better our lives through Christ. It makes very little sense to me as to why folks seem to get a kick out of trying to discredit Christianity. The Church is about self improvement, positive self-reflection and love of one another. And with a message this positive, why would an individual attempt to discredit the Bible on the basis of the creation or Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve. These are merely stories with the intent of explaining the progression of man and the Earth. The purpose of Christianity is to improve a person's life through God, not to explain the wonders of the world. And all of the people out there spewing hate about Christianity simply because they heard about why Christianity is unbelievable or how evolution better explains the origins of the world are simply wasting their time because Christians don't care what you have to say if the message isn't positive.

[East of Eden]

I've also seen many, many Afrikaners support their racist ideologies through use of the bible. The dominant Christian church during apartheid even used the bible to justify their hatred of other races.

And Hitler used Darwin to justify genocide.
So what? You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse.

[Wyvern]

I've also seen many, many Afrikaners support their racist ideologies through use of the bible. The dominant Christian church during apartheid even used the bible to justify their hatred of other races.

And Hitler used Darwin to justify genocide.
So what? You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse.

The book you reference says no such thing. The author is obviously trying to make that very connection between Darwin and Hitler but nowhere is it said that Hitler referred to Darwin to justify genocide. Since you made the claim can you show a quote by Hitler where he states what you claim he stated?

[Abraxas]

This leads into the second problem, the refusal of Christianity to stay out of public policy.

Exactly what some wanted ML King to do.

I don't recall MLK trying to make Christian doctrine the law. Oh wait, you are equivocating religion in politics and religious people in politics, a fallacy.

Legislating things like not allowing Gays to marry the ones they love,

The gay marriage referendum lost by 52% in CA. There aren't enough evangelical Christians there to do that.

Who said anything about envangelicals? More than just they are voting against it for religious reasons and the fact is California is predominantly Christian. A red strawherring.

refusal to elect different religious opinions,

Are you also opposed to the grief Bush and Palin got for expressing their religious opinions?

No, because they linked their religious opinions to policy decisions, ala the above two problems.

or trying to put literal interpretations of Genesis into classrooms to promote ignorance that holds us back as a species.

Discussing Intelligent Design is not 'putting literal interpretations of Genesis into classrooms'. There are a number of non-Christians who believe the scientific evidence supports design. Here is one: http://www.davidberlinski.org/

Yes, a number. The number happens to be roughly the same as can be stuffed in a clown car, but a number there is.

Many times have I heard a self-proclaimed Christian say "the Bible says the poor will always be with us" and do so to mean we should do nothing about poverty or hunger.

The poor WILL always be with us, but I don't know of any Christians who say to do nothing about it. Non-Christians will always be with us, but it doesn't negate the Great Commission either. Christians do more than any other group, bar none, to alleviate the condition of the poor. Just one Christian aid group, World Vision www.worldvision.org serves 100,000,000 needy people in 100 countries, regardless of creed. What similar atheist groups are there?

I can name a number of non-religious organizations that do a lot more than that. Keep in mind, again, the distinction between not mixing religion and policy and not mixing religious people and policy.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've also seen many, many Afrikaners support their racist ideologies through use of the bible. The dominant Christian church during apartheid even used the bible to justify their hatred of other races.

And Hitler used Darwin to justify genocide.
So what? You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse.

I'm both for and against East of Eden here...

Looking at the slave trade, evolutionary principles show that "master races" can be achieved, even while we condemn the means of gaining these advantages. If I accept Hitler used the ToE in support of his efforts, I can still reject those efforts on moral principles.

Then I compare it to the Christian philosophy that relies on faith for its underpinnings. No doubt there are some fine Christians, many even, but for me the entire philosophy is still based on claims that don't comport with reality.

I'd rather accept a philosophy built on what can be shown to be true than one that relies on that which can't. Now don't go to thinking this means I accept the Nazi ideal, that's an issue of morality. Could we create a "master race" by applying evolutionary principles? Absolutely. Should we? I think not.

Humans, from the greatest to the 'leastest', deserve an honest shot at life.

[FinalEnigma]

I've also seen many, many Afrikaners support their racist ideologies through use of the bible. The dominant Christian church during apartheid even used the bible to justify their hatred of other races.

And Hitler used Darwin to justify genocide.
So what? You don't judge a philosophy by its misuse.

I'm both for and against East of Eden here...

Looking at the slave trade, evolutionary principles show that "master races" can be achieved, even while we condemn the means of gaining these advantages. If I accept Hitler used the ToE in support of his efforts, I can still reject those efforts on moral principles.

Then I compare it to the Christian philosophy that relies on faith for its underpinnings. No doubt there are some fine Christians, many even, but for me the entire philosophy is still based on claims that don't comport with reality.

I'd rather accept a philosophy built on what can be shown to be true than one that relies on that which can't. Now don't go to thinking this means I accept the Nazi ideal, that's an issue of morality. Could we create a "master race" by applying evolutionary principles? Absolutely. Should we? I think not.

Humans, from the greatest to the 'leastest', deserve an honest shot at life.

I'm not certain I agree that we could create a master race through guided evolution. what is a master race? people who are smarter, faster, stronger?

[Kral]

I'm not certain I agree that we could create a master race through guided evolution. what is a master race? people who are smarter, faster, stronger?

Yes. Smarter, faster, stronger, naturally more disciplined... the list could go on and on.

Why do you disagree that one could pick the traits for a "master race" and not if given for the sake of discussion unlimited control of the actions of the breeding population create this race over a long period through guided evolution from selective breeding?

[FinalEnigma]

I'm not certain I agree that we could create a master race through guided evolution. what is a master race? people who are smarter, faster, stronger?

Yes. Smarter, faster, stronger, naturally more disciplined... the list could go on and on.

Why do you disagree that one could pick the traits for a "master race" and not if given for the sake of discussion unlimited control of the actions of the breeding population create this race over a long period through guided evolution from selective breeding?

I said I'm not sure I agree. The problem with breeding a master race is that breeding people to be smarter, faster, and stronger just makes people who excel at what we have - it doesn't really lead us anywhere.

Think of it this way, if a congress of gorillas* get together and decide to breed a super-gorilla, how could they ever choose to disregard the development of greater muscles, larger size, etc, to choose to develop the intelligence in a new way to create something like a human, which would eventually dominate the planet like we have?

it wouldn't happen. they would choose to breed bigger gorillas with stronger muscles, and generally greater physical ability. Then this new gorilla - it would have been better, in a way, but would it really have been a master race of gorilla? bigger, stronger - its just more gorilla.

if you want a master race, you first have to figure out what better is.




*I know we aren't descended from gorillas, I used the word for rhetorical purposes.

[Scotracer]

I'm not certain I agree that we could create a master race through guided evolution. what is a master race? people who are smarter, faster, stronger?

Yes. Smarter, faster, stronger, naturally more disciplined... the list could go on and on.

Why do you disagree that one could pick the traits for a "master race" and not if given for the sake of discussion unlimited control of the actions of the breeding population create this race over a long period through guided evolution from selective breeding?

I said I'm not sure I agree. The problem with breeding a master race is that breeding people to be smarter, faster, and stronger just makes people who excel at what we have - it doesn't really lead us anywhere.

Think of it this way, if a congress of gorillas* get together and decide to breed a super-gorilla, how could they ever choose to disregard the development of greater muscles, larger size, etc, to choose to develop the intelligence in a new way to create something like a human, which would eventually dominate the planet like we have?

it wouldn't happen. they would choose to breed bigger gorillas with stronger muscles, and generally greater physical ability. Then this new gorilla - it would have been better, in a way, but would it really have been a master race of gorilla? bigger, stronger - its just more gorilla.

if you want a master race, you first have to figure out what better is.




*I know we aren't descended from gorillas, I used the word for rhetorical purposes.

A great place to start would be a race/breed that doesn't hiccup.

I hate hiccups.

I think the most important thing would be intelligence. Given that the human gene pool has varied by virtually nothing over the last 150 years yet our knowledge and technology has improved 100-fold shows the power it has over biological changes.

[FinalEnigma]

I'm not certain I agree that we could create a master race through guided evolution. what is a master race? people who are smarter, faster, stronger?

Yes. Smarter, faster, stronger, naturally more disciplined... the list could go on and on.

Why do you disagree that one could pick the traits for a "master race" and not if given for the sake of discussion unlimited control of the actions of the breeding population create this race over a long period through guided evolution from selective breeding?

I said I'm not sure I agree. The problem with breeding a master race is that breeding people to be smarter, faster, and stronger just makes people who excel at what we have - it doesn't really lead us anywhere.

Think of it this way, if a congress of gorillas* get together and decide to breed a super-gorilla, how could they ever choose to disregard the development of greater muscles, larger size, etc, to choose to develop the intelligence in a new way to create something like a human, which would eventually dominate the planet like we have?

it wouldn't happen. they would choose to breed bigger gorillas with stronger muscles, and generally greater physical ability. Then this new gorilla - it would have been better, in a way, but would it really have been a master race of gorilla? bigger, stronger - its just more gorilla.

if you want a master race, you first have to figure out what better is.




*I know we aren't descended from gorillas, I used the word for rhetorical purposes.

A great place to start would be a race/breed that doesn't hiccup.

I hate hiccups.

I think the most important thing would be intelligence. Given that the human gene pool has varied by virtually nothing over the last 150 years yet our knowledge and technology has improved 100-fold shows the power it has over biological changes.

okay, but again, that's just more gorilla.

You're not even concerned with strength and speed, so say you start breeding us for higher intelligence - what if some new trait comes along that we cannot currently conceive, in the same way that gorillas couldn't conceive of the type and use of intelligence we have now?
so we're breeding higher I.Q.s, and someone comes along with this new trait, but, since we are selecting for intelligence, this trait is ignored and gets wiped out before we even have time to recognize its potential.

Further, breeding for higher IQs could be a serious mistake - raw intelligence is not necessarily a good thing. Have you noticed the extremely high percentage of abnormally intelligent people with depressive disorders? What if we breed a bunch of super intelligent suicidal people? would that help us?
and further again, pure intelligence is not a measure of success in the world. Sure it helps, but there are plenty of intelligent people that get irrelevant dead end jobs and don't really contribute anything.

as well, I don't think we have enough of an understanding of intelligence and the way the brain works to select properly - there are different kinds of intelligence. Which one do you want? pure logical ability? great, we're now a race of mathematicians and programmers - if it works out. How about wisdom? okay, now we're a race of writers, anthropologists, and sociologists - again, if we're lucky. and how about this? who's smarter, Mark Twain, Isaac Asimov, or Einstein? or maybe Shakespeare? which one do we breed for?

[Kral]

Naturally the gorillas would be interested in breeding a Super Gorilla not a human. Thus those traits outside of their scope of understanding would be ignored and wouldn't matter for the Super Gorilla master race unless they determined that those traits were necessary for survival.

As humans however we have the intelligence and perception to notice a trait that forms as an unintended result of creating a "master race" as long as it is within the scope of what we can understand. If we can identify a trait that is beneficial we can begin breeding for that trait as well as greater intelligence thus not necessarily losing said trait forever.

As for your second and third paragraphs I don't think they make a reasonable argument or point. Except maybe at the very end when you ask which individual do we breed to emulate? Well the preference would be for all of them. Just because you are breeding for selective traits doesn't mean all traits will be equal in all individuals. For example, humans currently, and have for a long time, attempt to breed for aesthetic appeal as defined within their culture, thus we have more and more aesthetically appealing people than we did in prior times. You can really notice this if you look at photographs of people from back when the technology to create them was first invented as compared to people now. This does not mean however that all people will be aesthetically appealing nor does it mean that this is the only reason or traits that are selected to be bred.

Please understand that I am not arguing for the practice of eugenics, just that it is feasible.