Atheist!

[sr71plt]

I didn't mean to omit anyone. I use the terms Catholicism and Protestantism pretty much synonymously.

I'll bet that pleases the Catholics to no end.

 

[wmrs2]

This country was founded by Christians, but this is largely the result of the Christian having killed anybody who wasn't, so it's really not much to brag about.

It was in fact, Jefferson I believe, who argued that the separation of Church and state was not to preserve politics from the corruption of religion, but to preserve religion from the corruption of politics.

In any case, more accurately, after reading Antonia Fraser's biography, I believe the roots of the American secular states probably had it's origins in the levellers of the English Civil Wars of the Seventeenth century; the context was one of great strife over complex issues of both religious and secular governance. Oliver Cromwell prevailed through a combination of military prowess and a providentialist populism.

The levellers, who promulgated the concepts of expanded suffrage, rule by popular mandate, rule of law, and religious freedom and tolerance (freedom of conscience) did not prevail at the time, but they did inspire a new wave of political theory over the next hundred years based on those precepts: Locke, Hume, even Adam Smith, which eventually influenced the framers of the Constitution, who created the foundations of a government based on those precepts.

I for one, stand by the record: all fucking theocrats do is fight over scraps and fuck everything up - religion and politics don't mix, and if you think the world was a better place under theocratic rule, you're fooling yourself - the Puritans, including Cromwell targeted things like Crucifixes and Icons, they fought over the pettiest shit you can imagine, and it was a bloody fucking mess.

With all due respect, you lost my attention with your first statement. You also suggested to me with this statement that your opinion should not be taken quite as seriously as it is presented. There might be a little venting here which probably does not belong on this forum. At least that is what I have been told.

This country was founded by Christians, but this is largely the result of the Christian having killed anybody who wasn't, so it's really not much to brag about.

Agreed, there was some killing but to imply that all Christians killed anybody who disagreed with them is just a little bit over the top. Unless your intention was to piss off the establishment from the get go, your opening statement probably hindered the message you were trying to convey. Especially this would be true of the Quakers.

Before reading the rest of your post, we Christians have already been insulted and will see this message as simply another attack of a liberal on a conservative point of view. That is not fair to you or us since no matter what you say, whether it be good or bad, we have already made our minds up that it is a bad post.

With all due respect, your post has some very good merit to it but I will probably reject everything you say because my poor feelings are hurt In fact, I stayed up all night worrying about this post. The fact is that another person who had the same complaint about me PM-ed me about this. By following his advice, I have already received recognition as being a great intellectual and a friendly person. Welcome to the new tone of the forum and for helping to change the pejorative feeling that people have for atheists.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm just here to stalk Stella.

I'll try to catch up. But mostly I'm here to stalk Stella. Pardon my ignorance of all things non-Stella.

I'm not promising anything except inappopriate intrusive worship of that person.

Sorry in advance.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hi honey!

 

[Recidiva]

Hi honey!

Hi sweetheart!

Imma sit near you and pretend I know what people are saying.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm thinking I don't want to talk about religion today...

Got a better topic for us? We'll scram this thread!

 

[Recidiva]

I'm thinking I don't want to talk about religion today...

Got a better topic for us? We'll scram this thread!

What are you in the mood for? We can talk about that. I'm watching cooking shows and playing Final Fantasy XI and avoiding doing any chores.

And I'm wearing a Snuggie, baby.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What are you in the mood for? We can talk about that. I'm watching cooking shows and playing Final Fantasy XI and avoiding doing any chores.

And I'm wearing a Snuggie, baby.

We could talk about cheesy fiction tropes that we just can't resist!
I stayed up a little bit late reading crap fiction online. It was Buffy fanfic featuring Xander and Spike, and it was hurt/comfort, hurt/comfort all the way. It got to where I'd start laughing-- "oh, here it comes again!" There were whole chapters that were nothing but- and make up sex, lots of it.

But it suddenly evolved an interesting plot and actually had a satisfying ending-- surprised the hell out of me!

 

[xssve]

In my opinion, I think that we all appreciate and champion the meaning of you closing statement: It oughta be enough to have your freedom, it's enough for me.

There are many in this world that think that man should not be free and their governments and lifestyles.What premise or reason would you base the fact that you should even have any freedom whatever? I am not asking this question to disagree with you but I am really interested in the reasoning process that led you to believe the way you do.

It's a bit involved, and you may end up being sorry you asked, this could get long, there isn't any way to reduce it to a sound byte or a simplistic algorithm, but it's based on examination of evolutionary principle among other things, my own personal study of "human nature" - in order to make it a bit less confusing, some background is necessary.

All religion is based on the premise of duality, IMO. In genesis, Adam and Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, the knowledge of good and evil - strictly speaking, this is an acknowledgment of the phenomena of moral or ethical dilemma.

For the sake of defining my terms, I consider "morality" to be a personal philosophy, unique to the individual, "ethics" refers to empirical effects of social behavior, i.e., how the actions of a given individual affect others for better or worse.

To return to the garden, perhaps the most significant difference between humans and the rest of the flora and fauna, is our capacity for abstract modeling - i.e, most animals deal with whatever is in front of them: if they're hungry, they eat, tired, they sleep, horny, they get busy, etc.

We evolved this capacity for abstract modeling as a survival mechanism, under stressors that included extremely unstable environmental conditions: for much of the period of hominid development, the weather was very unstable - a given region might cycle from forest to Savannah or grassland in a very short period of time, maybe less than a decade.

Hunter/Gatherers (HG) depend on being able to find edible vegetation, the bulk of the diet, as well as being able to find game, which is mobile. Under unstable environmental conditions, edible vegetation and other comestible foodstuffs are in essence, all mobile - vegetation patterns shift rapidly,and with them the herds of edible fauna that also rely on them.

The resulting biological adaptations evolved relatively rapidly under these conditions of environmental stress - thus while retaining a largely simian brain and set of behavioral patterns, fairly dramatic morphological changes began to be selected for as protohumans evolved from and arboreal environment to a terrestrial one: bipedal locomotion is much more efficient, and increases sight range, the ability to better regulate body temperature - apes, like most mammals have very limited sweat glands, they do not possess subcutaneous sweat glands all over their bodies like humans, and also exhibit minimal ratios of subcutaneous fat, which in humans aids in both temperature regulation and helps to slightly extend our tolerance to famine.

What this reflects, of course, is the requirement for a much higher degree of mobility: the ability to cover a lot of ground relatively quickly, to run for days - man is the premier runner on the planet, we can run down any animal on earth.

While early hominids, presumably males, were being selected for these hunting adaptations, females were under slightly different selection pressures. They were primarily the gatherers, and furnished the bulk of the diet - under these environmental conditions, abstract modeling becomes useful: ability to predict weather patterns, seasonal changes, types of vegetation and their uses, i.e, where to find certain types of vegetation at certain times of the year, and what they can be used for, and equally useful is the ability to remember these things and transmit them culturally to ones offspring and/or other members of the group, hence, new types of memory and cognitive function: syntactic and lexical memory, added to and interacting with, the already present episodic, mimetic, eidetic, olfactory, etc., memory channels.

Thus it is, that contrary to evolutionary theory of the Sixties that males evolved language in order to coordinate hunting tactics, the "Hunting Hypothesis" appears to have been incorrect - it seems that what we consider our higher cognitive functions, abstract modeling and linguistic ability were most likely female adaptations, and indeed, female DNA suppresses the male DNA when it comes to cerebral development - you get your brain almost exclusively from your mother.

This process led to enlargement of the cerebral cortex, though it been hypothesized that the brain also serves as a temperature regulation organ - you radiate more heat from your head than any other part of your body, and neural complexity correlates more closely with the corrugation of the surface of the cerebral cortex which increases it's surface area than in simple mass - but in any case, neither hypothesis is mutually exclusive, they may have worked synergystically - what is established is that the hominid brain started increasing in size and complexity.

We have to backpedal here again, because several other dramatic changes are occuring at the roughly same time as bipedalism: social cooperation and the loss of female estrus - you might say that metaphorically this roughly about the time that Adam and Eve bit the Fig.

First, a bit more background, a little cut and paste from another thread:

Technically, primates, particularly the apes, are acentric/centripetal, acentric meaning without center, i.e., independent action, "self actualization", centripetal is "arranged about a center, organized, hierarchical.

What this means is, that your average primate is primarily motivated by self interest: they hunt and gather more or less independently, food sharing is largely confined to infant care and occasionally, courting.

Underlying this is a centripetal social organization, the alpha hierarchy, which is transparent under ordinary conditions: the strongest or cleverest males who are at the top of the hierarchy benefit from it for the most part by stealing food from the others. It's real purpose only becomes apparent when an external threat to the troop manifests, a leopard for example, whereupon, the centripetal alpha hierarchy instantiates, the males, led by the alpha male, distract the leopard by putting on displays throwing things and confusing it, allowing the females, younger and older troop members a chance to break for shelter. After the threat has subsided, the troop resumes it's acentric behaviors.

Baboons are centripetal/acentric, and are more or less in a constant state of alert, and exhibit and altogether more martial social order: the live for the most part on the open Savannah where there may not be as much cover, trees etc., and the alpha males form a, circle of sorts, a defensive screen. In order for this to be effective however, the more vulnerable members of the troop have to be kept in a relatively tight bunch, they can't wander off in every direction in search of food as the arboreal Apes do, and the Alpha and his lieutenants will basically herd the troop from one watering hole or feeding ground to the next, circling, biting or cuffing any who stray too far from the group.

Of course, it's fairly easy to draw the parallels from this to human political constructs.

The mechanism here is the oral transmission of cultural information, including behavioral algorithms - i.e., religion is set of cultural adaptations many of which probably date back to the loss of female estrus: most animals react to pheromones released during female estrus - they may mount each other for various reasons at other times, but when the female goes into estrus she cannot control herself, she presents and is mounted by either available males, probably according to either speed or strength (alpha status) or perhaps by one her choosing - there is a certain amount of courting behavior even among primates, which include grooming and food sharing.

Once the females were no longer driven by the compulsion of estrus, one suspects a certain amount of confusion resulted - the reasons for selecting out estrus are not entirely clear, one surmises it may have had to do with the need to refrain from reproductive activity (birth control) for prolonged periods during say a long migration, may have had to do with changes in pelvic structure selected for due to bipedal adaptation, increasing cranial size of infants, an increased need to bond through sexual intercourse in order to elicit social cooperation, or all of the above - again, what is apparent is that estrus was largely selected out, and this inherently raises moral/ethical issues that simply do not exist for less cerebrally complicated organisms.

Finally, to answer your question, the solution to this moral/ethical dilemma, who to fuck, when and how, is resolved the same way nature resolves all such situations: diversity.

Hence, the huge range of human behavior, social and sexual, ranging from rape to extended courtship. Most mammals are K strategists in terms of reproductive strategy, i.e., under optimal conditions they tend to have fewer offspring and devote more time and resources, bot social and physical, to raising them, and K strategy is associated with neoteny, the prolongation of the developmental stage: during this stage, the learning curve is vastly accelerated, enabling the organism to absorb and apply information at astonishing rates - cultural information, largely transmitted in humans through linguistics and kinesthetics (body language) is absorbed and applied, primarily through play - acting out on hypothetical scenarios, modeling - and this vastly broadens the catalog of behavioral adaptations available to the the child.

Ultimately, what freedom preserves, is the propensity to continue innovating behavioral adaptations to cope with changing situations - religion is an oral tradition that preserves a cultural record of past successful behavioral adaptations, in an abstract, algorithmic form, but if history teaches us anything, it's that nothing lasts forever.

We evolved as generalists, i.e., we adapt to changing conditions not by slow morphological selection, but by altering our behaviors: technology, philosophy, art, music, literature - these all extend our senses, and the range of cultural information available to us - religion, typically also represents an institution, comprised of self interested individuals, and freedom also allows us to make distinctions between our self interest and theirs, which do not always strictly speaking, coincide.

By eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we left the garden of instinctual behavior, and entered a world of choices, often complex and confusing how to balance our individual needs with the needs of others - the group serves as a selection vehicle: we can survive on our own, but it's finite thing, we need others to reproduce, to defend ourselves, to thrive, optimizing our own survival and our reproductive potential.

This is often mistaken as "moral relativism" certain things here are in fact, fundamental: K strategies and social cooperation - we may not be able to preserve our present pleasant state of environmental stability and we will require both social and technological innovation to adapt.

Nature, if she had a voice, would say: "don't put all your eggs in one basket".

Judeo-Christian morality and ethical theory does cover the bases, albeit from a distinctly androcentric slant: paternity assurances reduce potential genetic diversity on the female side by castigating promiscuous socio/sexiual behavior on the part of females, which reaches it's most hysterical pitch in Augustinian/Calvinist erotophobia, while providing a bit more leeway for the males, etc., the extended family covers most of your economic and childrearing concerns, but there are associated costs to this which will require a whole new chapter, suffice it to say that it includes genetic diversity, inflicted damage on the gene pool, and female orgasm.

In short, freedom is diversity, and Judeo-Christian "family values" (actually borrowed form the Italians), are just the most statistically significant strategy, there are many, many other successful strategies and even Christianity provided for those who chose to opt out of the reproductive game but still contribute to group fitness through cultural contributions - kind of ironic, given their opposition to homosexuality.

In terms of this discussion, even the term "Christian" is kind of misleading - there are thousands, possibly millions of variations and flavors of Christianity, many wildly divergent - diversity - go figure.

 

[Recidiva]

We could talk about cheesy fiction tropes that we just can't resist!
I stayed up a little bit late reading crap fiction online. It was Buffy fanfic featuring Xander and Spike, and it was hurt/comfort, hurt/comfort all the way. It got to where I'd start laughing-- "oh, here it comes again!" There were whole chapters that were nothing but- and make up sex, lots of it.

But it suddenly evolved an interesting plot and actually had a satisfying ending-- surprised the hell out of me!

Fantastic. I also just started a thread in the board theme and possibly with fun potential.

I'm going to try Nonargumentative Writing Styles.

I don't know how, but I can attempt it.

I had a friend give me links to the Buffy fic. She loved Xander/Spike.

I am much more interested in Spike/Willow...but that's because I'm an incurable romantic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Fantastic. I also just started a thread in the board theme and possibly with fun potential.

I'm going to try Nonargumentative Writing Styles.

I don't know how, but I can attempt it.

I had a friend give me links to the Buffy fic. She loved Xander/Spike.

I am much more interested in Spike/Willow...but that's because I'm an incurable romantic.

I'll take Spike in just about any combination. He's like Jack Sparrow-- polymorphously perverse...

 

[Recidiva]

I'll take Spike in just about any combination. He's like Jack Sparrow-- polymorphously perverse...

He's my absolute favorite.

"I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

 

[Stella_Omega]

He's my absolute favorite.

"I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

And I have a weakness for bleach blonds...

 

[NoJo]

All of you fuck off and leave my thread alone. All of you

 

[Stella_Omega]

All of you fuck off and leave my thread alone. All of you

I've been waiting for you to come back and say that!

 

[xssve]

I'll bet that pleases the Catholics to no end.

See my post towards the end:

In short, freedom is diversity, and Judeo-Christian "family values" (actually borrowed from the Italians), are just the most statistically significant strategy, there are many, many other successful strategies and even Christianity provided for those who chose to opt out of the reproductive game but still contribute to group fitness through cultural contributions - kind of ironic, given their opposition to homosexuality.

And, I might have added, their predilection for little boys - the signal difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is in that Protestants distanced themselves further from Manichean dualism, i.e., celibacy, the attempted negation of physical realm through cessation of reproductive activity - which I'm sure you knew - while they still retained the underlying Augustinian distaste for the messy business of sex itself, which even Augustine had mixed feelings about.

Protestants advocate celibacy largely as a temporary measure for preserving male paternity assurances, i.e., extramarital celibacy.

 

[sr71plt]

See my post towards the end: And, I might have added, their predilection for little boys - the signal difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is in that Protestants distanced themselves further from Manichean dualism, i.e., celibacy, the attempted negation of physical realm through cessation of reproductive activity - which I'm sure you knew - while they still retained the underlying Augustinian distaste for the messy business of sex itself, which even Augustine had mixed feelings about.

Protestants advocate celibacy largely as a temporary measure for preserving male paternity assurances, i.e., extramarital celibacy.

To be fair, I don't think Catholicism doctrine itself has a predilection for little boys--but that the institutional setup of the Catholic priesthood lends itself to attracting men who already have a predilection for little boys.

 

[xssve]

To be fair, I don't think Catholicism doctrine itself has a predilection for little boys--but that the institutional setup of the Catholic priesthood lends itself to attracting men who already have a predilection for little boys.

A fair guess I'd say.

 

[xssve]

Protestants are no more free from it, I happen also to think human sexuality is harder to repress than is admitted to, and it tends to get twisted when it is repressed - reports of child molestation tripled in Texas day care centers after they shifted to faith based funding of same.

 

[amicus]

xssve..your humongous sermon in post 1084 is certainly entertaining, about as much as a recital of Genesis or Revelations in defense of Christianity, much as yours is in defense of social darwinism and its' half brother, liberal fascism.

As is the equal certainty of your proclamations to theologians, the only way to fly, eh?

Oh, and let us not be remiss in noticing your feminazi ascertation of female superiority, coffee spewed at that one.

I give you cleverness, however, and wile, both female attributes, along with obfuscation, deception, unnecessary complexity and complications, the entire feminine mystique to befuddle the rationale male who simply does not care to invest the time to untangle your twisted logic.

Sound and fury signifying nothing...very familiar.

Amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Ami, you do realize that Xssve is a guy, right?

 

[xssve]

I don't expect you to keep up ami, and I've got better things to do than keep you updated on the current state of scientific knowledge, even if I thought you gave a fuck what the truth is.

 

[amicus]

Ami, you do realize that Xssve is a guy, right?[/QUOTE]


~~~

Cloudy...I neither know nor care concerning the gender of any poster, I am gender blind in that sense....however, when they bitch and whine and throw hissy fits, the gender appropriate assignation is automatic.





ami

 

[slyc_willie]

No?

Damn.

'Cause, yannow, you'd probably have a few followers.

Oh, come on, tell the truth . . . you'd only be in it for the nude sermons.

 

[sr71plt]

Ami, you do realize that Xssve is a guy, right?[/QUOTE]


~~~

Cloudy...I neither know nor care concerning the gender of any poster, I am gender blind in that sense....however, when they bitch and whine and throw hissy fits, the gender appropriate assignation is automatic.





ami

Gender blind? Well, half right, I guess.