Extinction or Joy?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Are you referring to actual biological evolution - the process of change and mutation in species - or are you referring to changes in our social attitudes, behaviour and modes of thinking? The two are mostly distinct, although there's some evolutionary developmental biology evidence of linkages.

If you want to know about the behavioural changes, I recommend 'The Better Angles of Our Nature' for a study on how the various forces and processes of civilisation and collectivisation have attenuated and reduced our general propensity for violence.

If you want to know about actual genetic evolution, then you could look at this National Geographic article as a starting point, and then read some of the papers they link in the body.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't have cash to buy any new books at this stage but I'll certainly have a look at the National Geographic article.

There are certainly global entities who recycle this sort of futuristic optimism, but I think that unless we win the biological battle against dangerous diseases -- we as a species will not evolve, we will eventually cease to exist.

You probably understand the basic laws of Physics, with regard to how our planet will eventually become so cold that we as a species will simply die out. Of course there is the distinct possibility that our planet will be struck by a shower of fatal space debris and we break up, or are hurtled into space -- finally being ripped apart by the forces of our Universe.

[...]

That isn't really a scientific question since no theory makes predictions about extinctions in the future.

What we can know is that the human lineage will continue to evolve until it goes extinct, and we will continue to diverge from our primate cousins, as well as all other life. The only way to counteract this is if we directly engineer our own genomes and completely stop the accumulation of random mutations.

Who knows what sort of tampering our species might get up to. Not everything is controlled by the United States of America.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

If you want to know about the behavioural changes, I recommend 'The Better Angles of Our Nature' for a study on how the various forces and processes of civilisation and collectivisation have attenuated and reduced our general propensity for violence.

Have you read: James C. Scott's ~ Two Cheers For Anarchism?

Here's a sample:

'....Over the past two centuries, vernacular practices have been extinguished at such a rate that one can, with little exaggeration, think of the process as one of mass extinction akin to the accelerated disappearance of species. And the cause is also analogous : the loss of habitat. Many vernacular practices have made their final exit, and others are endangered. The principal agent behind their extinction is none other than the anarchists' sworn enemy, the state, and in particular the modern nation-state. ....'

Additional Thinking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNkkEU7EoOk

The Art Of Not Being Governed by Prof. Jim Scott
​

 

[Loudmouth]

Not eating pork was a requirement for the Israelites only to keep them
separate from their heathen neighbors.

In the Jewish and Muslim faiths, eating pork is still a sin. If you think that you are not beholden to a religion you do not belong to, then perhaps you should apply the same logic to atheists.

That commandment has no bearing to the modern gentile Christian.

Why does christianity apply to atheists?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In the Jewish and Muslim faiths, eating pork is still a sin. If you think that you are not beholden to a religion you do not belong to, then perhaps you should apply the same logic to atheists.

Jews don't eat pork -- well in the 60s they didn't. How do I know that, because they gave me all their bacon.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Why does christianity apply to atheists?

As far as I understand it, there is only one primary definition of God that is for all peoples, everywhere. In that sense the one's who are carrying that message are those who teach what Christ taught.

 

[Loudmouth]

As far as I understand it, there is only one primary definition of God that is for all peoples, everywhere.

People of the Hindu faith would be interested to hear that. Jews and Muslims would also be surprised that they must use the Christian definition.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

People of the Hindu faith would be interested to hear that. Jews and Muslims would also be surprised that they must use the Christian definition.

Ha, you don't know what it is. (here) < stay on that thread, so we can complete our chat.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ha, you don't know what it is.

Ha, yes I do.

 

[[serious]]

As far as I understand it, there is only one primary definition of God that is for all peoples, everywhere. In that sense the one's who are carrying that message are those who teach what Christ taught.

In the other thread, you mention "the primary definition of God, according to the Bible"

If we are talking about a single definition of God "for all peoples, everywhere" we would need to establish the supremacy of the Bible as a source of such a definition. Even if we are just talking about God within the Abrahamic religions, we would still need to establish the supremacy of the Bible over books like the Talmud, Quran, and Book of Mormon.

 

[Davian]

It's not. It has been defined by God.

In Abrahamic contexts, sin is the act of violating God's will.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#cite_note-2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin#cite_note-4 Sin can also be viewed as anything that violates the ideal relationship between an individual and God; or as any diversion from the ideal order for human living. To sin has been defined as "to miss the mark".

That is as useful as telling someone that does not own or fly a magic carpet to be aware of Ali Baba Flying Carpet Company product recalls.

 

[EternalDragon]

In the Jewish and Muslim faiths, eating pork is still a sin. If you think that you are not beholden to a religion you do not belong to, then perhaps you should apply the same logic to atheists.

Why does christianity apply to atheists?

Jews are not gentiles.

I am not understanding your second comment. What are Christians
applying to atheists? That they should not eat pork?

 

[crjmurray]

Jews are not gentiles.

I am not understanding your second comment. What are Christians
applying to atheists? That they should not eat pork?

You're being silly. You expect an atheist to follow your religions rules but you don't feel the need to follow another religions rules. Quit acting ignorant.

 

[EternalDragon]

You're being silly. You expect an atheist to follow your religions rules but you don't feel the need to follow another religions rules. Quit acting ignorant.

What rules am I expecting others to follow? Anyone is free to do as they
please but actions do have consequences.

 

[bhsmte]

What rules am I expecting others to follow? Anyone is free to do as they
please but actions do have consequences.

What actions have what consequences?

 

[Strathos]

Not if "sin" is a concept fabricated by religionists for the purposes of religion.

I am without religion.

You can't just ignore definitions whenever you don't like them. That's no better than AV claiming he's not a Homo Sapien.

 

[crjmurray]

You can't just ignore definitions whenever you don't like them. That's no better than AV claiming he's not a Homo Sapien.

If sin is defined by rejecting a belief system then yes you can ignore sin.

 

[Strathos]

If sin is defined by rejecting a belief system then yes you can ignore sin.

Sin is defined by imperfection in the eyes of God, which includes acts that most nonbelievers object to as well.

 

[crjmurray]

Sin is defined by imperfection in the eyes of God, which includes acts that most nonbelievers object to as well.

Fortunately in my profession those acts have a much less ambiguous label. They're called crimes.

 

[EternalDragon]

Fortunately in my profession those acts have a much less ambiguous label. They're called crimes.

You can label it as evil or a crime or whatever. It's still sin.

By the way, I don't practice a religion.

 

[lasthero]

You can label it as evil or a crime or whatever. It's still sin.

By the way, I don't practice a religion.

re·li·gion
r&#601;&#712;lij&#601;n/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

So that doesn't apply to you?