Thread: Perhaps Prayer Isn't the Best Medicine

If God didn't want us to eat meat, he wouldn't have made it so tasty!

Dude is a moron who probably still thinks he did the "right" thing. The saddest part is of course that his daughter paid the ultimate price. At least the ruling came through justly.

Glen; Darwin's theory isn't applicable to social situations. Since it was a bad meme and not a bad gene which lead to the death of his progeny technically we can't use Darwin here. ... But I know what you mean.

Originally Posted by xman

Dude is a moron who probably still thinks he did the "right" thing. The saddest part is of course that his daughter paid the ultimate price. At least the ruling came through justly.

Glen; Darwin's theory isn't applicable to social situations. Since it was a bad meme and not a bad gene which lead to the death of his progeny technically we can't use Darwin here. ... But I know what you mean.

I believe that is incorrect. According to Darwin's theory, since this man apparently didn't have a certain way of thinking, that lead to the death of his progeny, thus eliminating the man's genetic makeup from continuing on, which leads to removing his way of thinking from the gene pool.

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

If God didn't want us to eat meat, he wouldn't have made it so tasty!

By using that logic you could excuse huge ammounts of things, for instance you could say god wants you to smoke opium.

Or god wants you to become a serial killer and paint your house with the blood of your neighbours, If that particular type of decor suits your TASTE.

I dont think that god is in favour of heroin addicition, or any other tasty posions.

Originally Posted by GregJDS

By using that logic you could excuse huge ammounts of things, for instance you could say god wants you to smoke opium.

Or god wants you to become a serial killer and paint your house with the blood of your neighbours, If that particular type of decor suits your TASTE.

I dont think that god is in favour of heroin addicition, or any other tasty posions.

If God is a vegetarian, then that's even more of a reason for me to believe there is no god.

And who's to say the natives are wrong, using peoti (sp?) or the Rastas using ganja for religious purposes? Opium is classified similarly to those "enlighteners", I believe.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

If God is a vegetarian, then that's even more of a reason for me to believe there is no god.

And who's to say the natives are wrong, using peoti (sp?) or the Rastas using ganja for religious purposes? Opium is classified similarly to those "enlighteners", I believe.

Why would someone being a vegitarian make you doubt the existance of that person. Do you doubt the existance of any person who is a vegitarian?

I never said anyone is wrong for using things, I dont think god would say they are wrong either. Its peoples choice what people do. However healthy and wrong are different. IMHO god wouldnt see the NECESSITY for the use of these plants when there are other ways to raise consciousness. I agree they are usefull in certain context, but that usefullness is realtive like everything else in this world.
IMO I think that they are not necessary to gain enlightenment or higher consciousness and that they themselves are unhealthy. However to say it is wrong/immoral to exeriment on yourself is not true, and I dont think god would say that its wrong or immoral to experiment with drugs, or be a heroin addict etc.
However if god knew the end result of the experiment then he may not WANT you to waste your time. In the same way a parent who has seen the effects of heroin addiction may not want their child to try that particular experiment. Not wanting someone to do something that you know from experience will damage them out of caring for them isnt the same as thinking they are wrong/immoral for doing it.

Your kinda assuming because god might not want someone to do something that then automaticlaly means he's gonna get bible bashing angry and start saying its morraly wrong because its against his wishes.
That would be against the nature of god, as that would be morally wrong because god would be forcing a viewpoint and opinion. No different to if your friend started using heroin, it would be fine for you to want him to stop for his own good, but morally wrong for you to chase after him trying to force it out of his hands.

That make sense?

Best Regards,
Greg

2 things:

1. I was being kind of sarcastic about the vegetarian thing - along the lines of Quick's post. Basically saying that I like to eat meat.

2. Your argument is based entirely on the fact that there is a god, which I don't believe to be true. So, for me, the argument is moot. My point was that I think it takes a certain level of arrogance for one religion (I'm not saying any one person in here is representative of a religion and I'm not singling anybody out) to tell another religion that what they're doing is wrong. It's all the more reason to do away with religion and just let people do what they want (just so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's way of life).

V/R,

Ogie

Originally Posted by GregJDS

Why would someone being a vegitarian make you doubt the existance of that person. Do you doubt the existance of any person who is a vegitarian?

I never said anyone is wrong for using things, I dont think god would say they are wrong either. Its peoples choice what people do. However healthy and wrong are different. IMHO god wouldnt see the NECESSITY for the use of these plants when there are other ways to raise consciousness. I agree they are usefull in certain context, but that usefullness is realtive like everything else in this world.
IMO I think that they are not necessary to gain enlightenment or higher consciousness and that they themselves are unhealthy. However to say it is wrong/immoral to exeriment on yourself is not true, and I dont think god would say that its wrong or immoral to experiment with drugs, or be a heroin addict etc.
However if god knew the end result of the experiment then he may not WANT you to waste your time. In the same way a parent who has seen the effects of heroin addiction may not want their child to try that particular experiment. Not wanting someone to do something that you know from experience will damage them out of caring for them isnt the same as thinking they are wrong/immoral for doing it.

Your kinda assuming because god might not want someone to do something that then automaticlaly means he's gonna get bible bashing angry and start saying its morraly wrong because its against his wishes.
That would be against the nature of god, as that would be morally wrong because god would be forcing a viewpoint and opinion. No different to if your friend started using heroin, it would be fine for you to want him to stop for his own good, but morally wrong for you to chase after him trying to force it out of his hands.

That make sense?

Best Regards,
Greg

Originally Posted by Seraphim

I believe that is incorrect. According to Darwin's theory, since this man apparently didn't have a certain way of thinking, that lead to the death of his progeny, thus eliminating the man's genetic makeup from continuing on, which leads to removing his way of thinking from the gene pool.

Darwin's theory says nothing about what plants or animals think being more or less beneficial to passing on their DNA, only that differences in genetic makeup through speciation allow natural selection to weed out the weak DNA. We can loosely see it as Darwinian because we see the outcome as similar to that of natural selection, but it's not the same thing. We could argue that humans are prone to such delusions and likely to die off as a species because of that, but it is equally likely that such delusions arise from defensive or coping mechanisms which have actually helped us as a species to propagate. The individual delusion and this man's actions because of that delusion are psychological, not evolutionary. That's why the Darwin Awards are a joke, literally.

In short, his way of thinking is indifferent to his DNA the latter of which which is virtually identical to yours or mine. His thinking was given to him by his community, not natural selection.

The same thing just happened in Oregon, but the jury failed to convict the parents who happily let their daughter die for the "glory" of their god. Personally, I'd like to lock them up for a month without provisions and let then pray for food and water. If they didn't get it, well, it was god's will.

Originally Posted by xman

Darwin's theory says nothing about what plants or animals think being more or less beneficial to passing on their DNA, only that differences in genetic makeup through speciation allow natural selection to weed out the weak DNA. We can loosely see it as Darwinian because we see the outcome as similar to that of natural selection, but it's not the same thing. We could argue that humans are prone to such delusions and likely to die off as a species because of that, but it is equally likely that such delusions arise from defensive or coping mechanisms which have actually helped us as a species to propagate. The individual delusion and this man's actions because of that delusion are psychological, not evolutionary. That's why the Darwin Awards are a joke, literally.

In short, his way of thinking is indifferent to his DNA the latter of which which is virtually identical to yours or mine. His thinking was given to him by his community, not natural selection.

I present to you, the Dodo:

Dodo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As with many animals that have evolved in isolation from significant predators, the dodo was entirely fearless of people, and this, in combination with its flightlessness, made it easy prey for humans.<sup>[


The Dodo went exting based on it's behavior, not any natural flaw in it's DNA, right?

I liken that to the example of this man's behavior.

A weak behavior pattern should be weeded out by natural selection just as much as a weak genetic pattern, no?</sup>