What is the most ignorant thing a Christian has told you?

[trdsf]

you are correct, i cannot concieve of a universe where there is no differece betweeen people like Stalin and people like Ghandi or Nelson Mandhela

Yes, but these are all exceptional cases in one way or another; while you can't judge humanity by Stalin, you also unfortunately can't judge humanity by Gandhi or Mandela.  The vast billions of us fall somewhere in between, where we're all capable of small kindnesses and small cruelties within ten minutes of each other.

Biologically, there isn't any difference between Stalin, and Gandhi and Mandela.  That's just simple biochemistry.  Genetically, they're more similar to each other than they are to any other living thing.

Socially, sociologically, psychologically, behaviorally, that's where the difference lies.  Some of that is genetic.  Some of that is learned.  The line between the two is fuzzy.  I'm sure most of us would like to think that Stalin was not sane, due to some biochemical imbalance or gross physical defect of the brain -- I don't know, I haven't made a study of it, even cursorily.

That opens up the unusual possibility that if extreme 'evil' à la Stalin is the result of a biochemical or biophysical imbalance, extreme 'good' might be too.  And keep in mind, the authorities at the time certainly didn't consider Gandhi or Mandela to be exemplars of goodness -- Winston Churchill had a number of frankly racist things to say about Gandhi, and the apartheid government's view of Mandela is pretty obvious.

[Contemporary Protestant]

i think more people should strive to be good like Ghandi, instead of settling for mediocrity

leo, i have taken a world history course, i fail to see your point

[leo]

Maybe you don't want to see my point. You are a nice guy but talking to you is often  like talking to a wall.

[Contemporary Protestant]

i think you are referring to mormonism and scientology, and i dont think that is a valid point because it assumes that all religions have some dark cloud over them, such as scientology is rumored to be a big ponzi scheme

i disagree with the assumption because it assumes all religons are dogmatic and organized as well as deceitful. in addition to having an under current of power struggle

[leo]

Mormonism and scientology are examples . When you see how new religions are invented , you will get the picture how all religions are invented. When Christianity was invented mainly by Paul it was only one sect among many sects in the empire. Christianity exists as the largest religion in the world today  mainly , because the Roman empire  adopted Christianity as the main religion of the empire  in  the 4th century.

[Aletheia]

CP, if 1% of a country has the majority of the wealth, then that means that 1% is the most greedy. The rest of the population is living comfortably, living paycheck to paycheck, or are impoverished. From this segment of the population is where most the charity comes from. This means that plenty of people are charitable. The problem isn't a lack of empathy - it's a lack of money due to the 1% who do not participate in charities.

Furthermore, a truly empathetic person with no instinct for self-preservation would die quite easily due to saving someone from harm, starving so another can eat, dying from lack of medical attention, etc. Evolution cultivates life through culling. Yes, such a purely "good" person would be impressive to see, but it's not sustainable. A population of such people would give too much and none of them would be willing to receive anything for themselves. That's why human beings are not purely good.

The same is true if human beings were truly self-centered, short-sighted, and enjoyed death and destruction. Each person in such a population would steal from others and be stolen from as well, thus nobody would ever have enough sustenance to sustain themselves for long. The desire for bloodshed would mean each person who cannot fend off an adversary would die for the amusement of his brethren. Mating would be accomplished via rape, and the would-be mother could be killed if she's too weak in her pregnant state. Her children would die due to her lack of maternal instinct. A population of such people would not be sustainable.

Human beings are  the result of a balancing act between behaviours that maintain self-preservation (at least long enough for viable offspring) and group cooperation where everyone sacrifices something to maintain the group. We are no different than any other creature striving to survive. There isn't a single entity in existence that is purely good or purely bad. Both extremes result in destruction of the individual.

Your belief that man is inherently evil and must be "guided" to do good things is unnecessary for a creature that naturally a balance of good and bad features. Furthermore, if you profess to be a Christian who believes in freewill, then no matter how gentle the nudge, any manipulation of a person's nature is in violation of freewill.

Yes, it is sad that human beings have so many flaws and the world isn't perfect even though we obviously have the intellect to design more harmonious societies. However, human beings are a mix of good and evil qualities naturally. There are also segments of the population that are genetically altered - psychopaths who lack empathy whose exploitation of group cohesion ultimately leads to the group failing and altruists in the extreme who burn out quickly. Then one has to take into account that some people are smarter than others, some are prone to accepting emotional reasoning over intellectual reasoning and vice versa, and that trauma can alter a person on an epigenetic level and cause their offspring to inherit these changes from birth.

A psychology course is not going to teach you everything about human nature. It is merely a single facet of an obviously multi-faceted creature.

[Brian37]

The same thing all people who claim a god or gods "I have evidence".

[Contemporary Protestant]

what about religions without founders or philisophical roots such as buddhism or hinduism

yes christianity was influenced mainly by paul, but what about its jewish roots

i also think your premise of looking at roots assumes that all religions are false and that all supernatural beliefs are religion based

alethia-overall i think what you are saying is very sound but i disagree when you say that a purely good person would not receive and would only give, i disagree, i think that people would accept gifts/charity
i disagree because it assumes the giving individual wouldnt accept help, if misunderstood, please enlighten me

[leo]

if toothfairysm were adopted as the main religion of the roman empire , tooth fairysm would be the largest religion of the world today. The same apply with any religion adopted by the roman empire instead of christianity. By the way in a very dark scenario in the future most nations of the world would be Islamic if this assholes  ended conquering the world or most of the world. I hope this will never happens.  This thought scare the shit out of me.

[leo]

I don't assume all religions are false with only studying their origins. I'm a atheist because when you study the doctrine of all religions, you will realize is all BULLSHIT.  Buddhism as practiced by most Theravada and Mahayana  sects is bullshit too. By studying the NIKAYAS text you will have a clear picture of the original Buddha teachings.

[Contemporary Protestant]

yeah but tooth fairyism didnt catch

and i do agree sharia law is scary

but i still disagree, i dont think a political engine is enough to truly spread religion, yeah maybe people get scared and say whatever, so i retain my stance that focusing on the history of religion is insufficient

why are those sects not valid

[MagetheEntertainer]

if toothfairysm were adopted as the main religion of the roman empire , tooth fairysm would be the largest religion of the world today. The same apply with any religion adopted by the roman empire instead of christianity. By the way in a very dark scenario in the future most nations of the world would be Islamic if this assholes  ended conquering the world or most of the world. I hope this will never happens.  This thought scare the shit out of me.

I'm down with tooth fairysm if one of its teachings is to brush your teeth, some people have rotten fucking breath.

[leo]

CP honestly I feel that I'm playing the last person to post wins game with you  in this thread. You simply don't want to listen. You are ignoring my replies and the other members replies. I can play this circular game  with you for a while, I don't mind.

[Aletheia]

alethia-overall i think what you are saying is very sound but i disagree when you say that a purely good person would not receive and would only give, i disagree, i think that people would accept gifts/charity
i disagree because it assumes the giving individual wouldnt accept help, if misunderstood, please enlighten me

A self-less person does not think of his/her needs. Even if they were capable of accepting charity, their self-lessness would compel them to give these gifts to someone else. Self-interest is required to accept gifts - which according to you is a less desirable trait for a person to have. 

[Contemporary Protestant]

alethia, i getcha, and correct putting self first is an undesirable triat

leo, how have i not addressed you, if anything you are  not addressing me, and youre statements are too vauge, like how am i supposed to respond to "religion is bullshit" with anything other than a question