What is a Real Christian?

[Yazata]

It looks to me like Sciforums has acquired a new troll.

 

[James R]

If this life is all there is, if there is no God who would have humanist sensitivities, no karma, no rebirth, then all that matters is getting the upper hand.

Matters to whom? Individual human beings? How does an individual human being's cares matter to "evolution"? Or am I misunderstanding your point? Are you perhaps claiming that all individuals care about is their ability to pass on their own genes?

Take a simple example: Even though elements of aggressive driving are illegal (depending on the jurisdiction) and potentially fatal, many people nevertheless admire aggressive drivers and drive aggressively whenever they can.

Participating in potentially fatal activities doesn't seem to me to be conducive to success at passing on one's genes. Not obviously so, anyway.

Many people simply prefer a Trump over a Hillary.

People prefer Trump or Hillary either because they think they personally will be better off with Trump or Hillary, or that the collective in which they live will be better off with Trump or Hillary. Their beliefs might be true, or they might be mistaken.

As for Christians: they strive for positions of social and economic power, they multiply in large numbers. What does that tell you about them in terms of evolutionary success and survival?

You're generalising about Christians. Some of them might strive for positions of social and/or economic power, but that's not unique to Christians and also not true of every Christian.

I think it's hard to draw any sweeping conclusions about the evolutionary benefits of being Christian vs not being Christian, but perhaps you can make a case.

The French Revolution is a good example: once it crushed the old regime, it soon became just like the old regime.

You think the French revolution had no lasting effects?

As long as the non-elite still (at least implicitly) approves of the goals and values of the elite, any opposition of the non-elite to the elite is bound to be ineffective. Which is what has been happening in the world.

There are countless examples of those in power being brought low by the "non-elite". And if, on the other hand, the non-elite approve of the goals and values of the elite, then is there a problem? My apologies. I feel like I'm missing some non-obvious point you're trying to make.

As an individual, it is in your interest to introduce into your life(style) as many advantages as possible; so yes, in this sense, evolution works on an individual level, if we start with the premise that humans are rational beings seeking their advantage, which includes learning useful lessons from whatever source (including science books).

I'm still not getting it. What is it that you think evolution is "working on", exactly? Making people act more selfishly over time, perhaps? Can you explain?

Even a 1984 scenario is still all about one group trying to survive; "totalitarian control and burying the truth" are simply means of survival for that group.

So are we to conclude that being a totalitarian dictator is an evolutionarily successful strategy?

If so, why isn't the world full of totalitarian dictators by now?

 

[Kristoffer]

I can think of one long lasting effect of the French revolution.

The metric system.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not clear how this is the case, given that normal, healthy people have ego defense mechanisms that always make the person feel good about themselves, no matter what happens to them, and especially no matter what they themselves do.

Sure, you may have adopted an ideology that doesn't include the well being of society as a whole. But it's not irrational or dysfunctional or against evolutionary principles to have a humanist position. Or to take a clue from nature, which, although superficially competitive, also includes many cases of intimate cooperation. So intimate that we may overlook them. For instance, almost every living thing except for the very smallest have other living things living inside them, contributing in some way to the survival of the system. Bees and flowers have a cooperative relationship, as well as fruits and mammals, the examples are endless.

 

[spidergoat]

It's also not possible to choose what matters, at least not as long as you aren't the one also creating the laws of Nature/Reality.

I disagree, what matters to people is only limited by their creativity. We can choose to emphasize an ecological utopia, or technological achievements, or pleasure, or personal mental development, or leaving the planet entirely.

 

[mtf]

Matters to whom? Individual human beings?

Of course.

Are you perhaps claiming that all individuals care about is their ability to pass on their own genes?

Even though some scientific theories would have us believe so, it's not clear that all people actually care that much about reproducing.

Participating in potentially fatal activities doesn't seem to me to be conducive to success at passing on one's genes. Not obviously so, anyway.

Of course it isn't. Despite scientific theories, people are probably after something else in life than what some scientists think they are or should be.

You're generalising about Christians. Some of them might strive for positions of social and/or economic power, but that's not unique to Christians and also not true of every Christian.

This thread is about Christians.

I think it's hard to draw any sweeping conclusions about the evolutionary benefits of being Christian vs not being Christian, but perhaps you can make a case.

If you happen to live in a society that is dominantly Christian (as is the case in some European countries and in some countries in Middle and South America), and you are part of a minority that isn't Christian, you'd quickly see the evolutionary benefits of being Christian. I've lived in such a country and I see the benefits.

You think the French revolution had no lasting effects?

Of course it had; but maybe if the old regime had remained in place, it might have eventually brought about the same changes.

There are countless examples of those in power being brought low by the "non-elite".

Could you list three examples?

And if, on the other hand, the non-elite approve of the goals and values of the elite, then is there a problem?

If such a non-elite fights against the elite, then even if they overthow the elite, the non-elite just becomes the new elite, given that they had the same goals and values all along.
My response was to Yazata saying that he's against elitism, and I pointed out a phenomenon that sometimes occurs with those opposing the elite.

I'm still not getting it. What is it that you think evolution is "working on", exactly? Making people act more selfishly over time, perhaps? Can you explain?

I'll leave it to the scientists to figure out what evolution is supposedly working on.
I'm interested in the everyman and how he can potentially benefit from the insights offered by scientific theories.

So are we to conclude that being a totalitarian dictator is an evolutionarily successful strategy?
If so, why isn't the world full of totalitarian dictators by now?

Clearly, there can be only one totalitarian dictator per geopolitical region at any given time.
Surely a totalitarian dictator is better off as his or her underlings. Of course, nobody is spared by death, so in that sense, all men are equal. Still, a totalitarian dictator enjoys advantages that his underlings don't.

 

[mtf]

Sure, you may have adopted an ideology that doesn't include the well being of society as a whole. But it's not irrational or dysfunctional or against evolutionary principles to have a humanist position. Or to take a clue from nature, which, although superficially competitive, also includes many cases of intimate cooperation. So intimate that we may overlook them. For instance, almost every living thing except for the very smallest have other living things living inside them, contributing in some way to the survival of the system. Bees and flowers have a cooperative relationship, as well as fruits and mammals, the examples are endless.

I haven't adopted anything yet, I'm just not an optimist. Just the other day I saw a feature about people in Borneo abusing a female orangutan as a prostitute. Wonderful humanses, right?

But it's not irrational or dysfunctional or against evolutionary principles to have a humanist position.

Can you say more about this?

Especially how people from underprivileged demographics can meaningfully -- and without detriment to themselves! -- adopt a humanist position?

 

[spidergoat]

Especially how people from underprivileged demographics can meaningfully -- and without detriment to themselves! -- adopt a humanist position?

Take the good things from religion and leave the bad. Not always possible in some places, but it's a work in progress.

 

[Tiassa]

Don't ever forget that Jesus brought the sword, not peace.

I never did understand why mortals might presume Divine prerogative belongs to them.

Such usurpation indicates an absence of faith.

 

[wegs]

Probably the greatest ''virtue'' is to simply follow Jesus, even when it gets hard. Don't like labels, faith and all that it involves can mean so many things for so many people.

 

[Seattle]

Probably the greatest ''virtue'' is to simply follow Jesus, even when it gets hard. Don't like labels, faith and all that it involves can mean so many things for so many people.

I don't like labels either. I would wonder why the label Jesus is even needed or why one would need to "follow".

We all know what it means to be a better person. It's subjective but so is anything involving any kind of religion.

Rather than, possibly, have conflicted thoughts about religion why don't just eliminate the baggage and just try to be a better person? That what most of us are doing all the time anyway, religious or not.

It seems to be that often too much emotional energy is used up trying to justify religion rather than just cutting to the chase and trying to be a better person without all the voodoo.

 

[wegs]

I don't like labels either. I would wonder why the label Jesus is even needed or why one would need to "follow".

This is true. It's said that the first ''Christians'' were very different than the idea of Christianity now, so it's hard to say. But, if you believe that Jesus came to the world with a different message of hope and love as many Christians believe, then that is what is meant by following Jesus.

We all know what it means to be a better person.

Do most people know?

It's subjective but so is anything involving any kind of religion.

True

Rather than, possibly, have conflicted thoughts about religion why don't just eliminate the baggage and just try to be a better person?

If a person believes that a higher power exists, it doesn't mean they're ''religious.'' Religion is the causer of many problems in the world, not just mere belief in a god.

That what most of us are doing all the time anyway, religious or not.

Okay.

It seems to be that often too much emotional energy is used up trying to justify religion rather than just cutting to the chase and trying to be a better person without all the voodoo.

That's the problem with many theists, they feel the need to bend over backwards promoting their faith to others, or trying to convert others. There's never any energy wasted in just believing, and living your life accordingly. I think that the loss of energy comes in when you try to get others to change their worldview to your own.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's the problem with many theists, they feel the need to bend over backwards promoting their faith to others, or trying to convert others. There's never any energy wasted in just believing, and living your life accordingly. I think that the loss of energy comes in when you try to get others to change their worldview to your own.

Even worse, they try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us with laws. People are all worried about Sharia law. But the real threat has been extremist people falsely claiming to be Christians who use religion as an excuse to be control freaks. And we see that in how quickly the evangelicals ditched all morality for Trump's message of hate.

 

[Seattle]

This is true. It's said that the first ''Christians'' were very different than the idea of Christianity now, so it's hard to say. But, if you believe that Jesus came to the world with a different message of hope and love as many Christians believe, then that is what is meant by following Jesus.

Do most people know?

True

If a person believes that a higher power exists, it doesn't mean they're ''religious.'' Religion is the causer of many problems in the world, not just mere belief in a god.

Okay.



That's the problem with many theists, they feel the need to bend over backwards promoting their faith to others, or trying to convert others. There's never any energy wasted in just believing, and living your life accordingly. I think that the loss of energy comes in when you try to get others to change their worldview to your own.

There can be a loss of energy when conflicts come up between reality and believing something for which there is no evidence.

To the earlier question, yes, of course most people on this earth are trying to be better people. Do you really think it's just those who believe in spirits?

 

[wegs]

There can be a loss of energy when conflicts come up between reality and believing something for which there is no evidence.

To the earlier question, yes, of course most people on this earth are trying to be better people. Do you really think it's just those who believe in spirits?

Why are you putting words in my mouth that I never said?

Whatever.

 

[Seattle]

Why are you putting words in my mouth that I never said?

Whatever.

?

Seattle...We all know what it means to be a better person.

Wegs...Do most people know?

 

[wegs]

?

You're insinuating that I'm insinuating that only people who hold spiritual beliefs, or are religious, etc...can work towards being ''better'' people, and I never said that. Nor do I remotely think that.

 

[wegs]

Even worse, they try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us with laws. People are all worried about Sharia law. But the real threat has been extremist people falsely claiming to be Christians who use religion as an excuse to be control freaks. And we see that in how quickly the evangelicals ditched all morality for Trump's message of hate.

But, Trump claims that his favorite book is the Bible, no?

Hopefully, religion in the United States will never intersect with government law making, even though there have been shades of it here and there. Separation of church and state, what many religious people don't realize is that by keeping the two separate, it actually protects them, too.

 

[sculptor]

...of course most people on this earth are trying to be better people. ...

Why do you think that?

..........................................
Have wee defined "better"?

 

[Seattle]

Why do you think that?

..........................................
Have wee defined "better"?

Don't you find most people to be nice people or do you think you are the only special person?