Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't believe there is room for such an interpretation of his post. It seemed fairly clear to me what he meant and it was and remains rubbish.
[b]and even then, when he does say that only jesus came up with this concept and only through jesus does one accomplish such feat, i still don't believe his opinion merits the adjective "rubbish". otherwise, y lict usually arises from inequality not from a general absence of resources.
please see "evolutionists goof again" thread and robbies posts in particular for a more accurate definition of rubbish.
like you said, we should strive to be polite in debates. always. but when someone posts something that is so ignorant, so idiotic, so whatever adjective describes the instant lowering of ones iq simply by reading that, then you can call that rubbish. and as such i believe you do badwater a great injustice by calling his post also rubbish. an injustice similar to calling the death of a kitten equal to killing hitler.
'we as a race'.
by what we do as a race or a group i am referring to general actions, actions that the majority perform. othello is the work of shakespeare but literature is the work of humanity. we as a race like art, even if some individuals don't. an example of what is caracteristic of the human race is pornography, some like it but not enough people to make it a worldwide trend
"
yes, as a race we are never to love our enemy. not in our nature.
I don't believe you and I think counter examples more or less proves you wrong."
let me give you examples and you can come up with counter examples.
WE as a race:
-go to war
some people disagree and protest against that
-damage the ecosystem to drill for oil
some people protest against that too, not enough to make it to stop
-kill animals in unspeakable gruesome ways to get meat, fur etc
some people choose to not eat meat, wear fur, etc. not enough. most people(including myself) still choose not to give up meat because i am not decent enough(though i won't ever wear fur)
-destroy forests
some people plant trees, not enough.
each of these examples illustrates how most of the human race indulges in some destructive activities and how only some oppose or do something against that.
these examples support my decision that we as a race are jerks. your turn.
in the beginning (homo erectus, stone age), and much throughout history, if someone took your piece of meat, you most likely would have beaten him senselessly. or if you would have been the weaker dood, go hungry. the retarded or the weak were left behind whenever the tribe moved. when the tribe ate the meat brought by hunters, the hunters ate first(the strongest first) while the women fought among themselves for a piece of the leftovers. the weakest, the old and the children ate last. this increased survivability and that the strongest genes are passed. and it was very "jerkish". which is the number 1 caracteristic of evolution.
now, we have a sh|tl0
@d(can't say s**t this is ridiculous) of food. and while even now, the strongest get to eat first, there generally still is enough food to eat. conflict is not really necessary. on a full stomach, you can care for granpa because you do love him, you don't kill or castrate the retarded. and when someone steals your meat, you don't really need to kill him. you might even give him your meat willingly as an act of decency. and you WILL survive and pass on your moral traits to your offsprings
this is what i mean that the theory of evolution no longer applies to humanity. at most we can admit that a form of it applies when deciding who gets to be rich and who gets to be poor(and even so it doesn't account for doodz inheriting a lot of money)
I still dispute that. I doubt that you can provide any solid evidence that all poor people are criminals or even that the majority of poor people are unloving. In my own experience there are just as many selfless poor people as rich people. Conflict usually arises from inequality not from a general absence of resources.
this argument cannot be presented as long as i can claim that the only reason poor people aren't criminals is that there are other, stronger individuals that prevent some to get the meat from others. remove the laws and the penalties and we will se what happens. do you believe people(most of them) will still remain loving?
sure there are some. sure there are budhist monks who will starve first rather than shaolin your behind for some food. but they exist because there IS food even for them. if most of the resources are gone, they might remain true to their convictions and i say bravo. but they will die first and the jerks that killed woman for some food will survive and pass on their morality. until resources abound again.
EDIT: for some reason it came all bold. having battled with the "rhp nanny that takes care of children that are on the internet and with access to donkey shows not hear the word that says what comes out of your tooshie when you poop" i gave up figuring what the'. sorry.
27 Oct '09 01:14
Atheism/evolution
Back to Top