No-one is assuming anything, LEGO.

>>To start of with, I am an atheist, so that is another assumption which you got wrong.<<

Of course you are. And I haven't suggested to the contrary.

You do however have a habit of trotting out exactly the same specious arguments that "born again" Christians do, when it comes to their idea of comparative religion.

So my position stands. Whatever your personal religion might be, your argument falls at the first fence:

"Christians" who hate the way you do - as well as those who make war, shoot each other in the kneecaps etc. - are by your definition, not Christian.

"Muslims", who choose to live their lives peaceably and in harmony with their fellow human beings, are by your definition not Muslims.

This is the part that doesn't fit a typical atheist profile:

>>Muslims are different... they are doing either exactly what their Prophet instructed them to do, or they are following His example.<<

To support this, you select, very carefully and deliberately, those sentences from their scriptures that reflect your view. You skip over the bits about love and charity and care and compassion, and focus only on those that meet your personal selection criteria: do they look bad - ok, they must be the important bits.

You fail - as do those hard-line Christians - to see how self-defeating that is. And as an atheist, you should see that more clearly than most.

Do you also reject the idea that the Bible holds similarly barbaric passages? "They aren't meant to be taken literally", is what I usually hear.

>>The majority of Muslims in most Muslim countries could be termed “fundamentalist” who believe every hatred promoting and misogynist endorsing instruction in the Koran<<

I think that is where your argument falls down. Do you have evidence? Or is it just the way you feel?

Rebecca6,

I don't know if you believe in evolution, or if you are one of those who believes the world was created 6 thousand years ago replete with all current species intact as they exist today - which of course denies the validity of carbon dating and of the fossils of so many extinct species.

Anyhow, natural selection doesn't mean dog-eat-dog, it means who is fittest to survive and pass on their individual genes. In mankind's case it was and remains brain power. It often also means which male is the best leader, provider, and kindest and most caring of females and young and/or best protector. Ditto for the females.

What happens to rapists, abusers, murderers and antisocial males is they usually end up dead or incarcerated, with limited opportunity to pass on their defective genes.

As for religion generally, whether bible or kor'an or whatever, these have firstly been written by man (whether by divine inspiration or not), and have been translated perhaps many times over a long period of time from ancient languages. The translations are done by man. Were they also inspired? Stuff has been changed, whether to deceive or to correct is questionable. What is not questionable is that these writings have been translated differently by different scholars, and have been "updated". I am satisfied that those who take such writings "literally" are misguided. All should be looking for consistency of message and intent. I am also satisfied that the majority of the contained "messages" are, as Rebecca6 has pointed out, "love thy neighbour as thyself" or "do unto others...". Though some "followers" may dislike the limitations of interpretation this demands, it is nonetheless the only "truthful" way to employ such texts. Any contrary interpretations are therefore necessarily "bogus" and biased.

All need to read the consistent message, and not go placing their own "interpretations" on bits here and there for their own misguided purposes.

"natural selection doesn't mean dog-eat-dog, it means who is fittest to survive and pass on their individual genes."

Saltpetre, Sunday, 1 May 2011 7:43:47 PM

It means which *groups* are fittest to survive best in a niche and procreate the most.

..............

"In mankind's case it [natural selection] was and remains brain power. It often also means which male is the best leader, provider, and kindest and most caring of females and young and/or best protector. Ditto for the females."

That is far too adamant and narrow. It might have applied to small groups or tribes millenia ago, but probably has little relevance in the last 5,000 years.

McReal,

You are right, much has turned Topsy Turvy in the last 5 thou years or so. The intention of my post was to offer a more accurate idea of natural selection to Rebecca6, and to make a few other observations about the ill use some have made, and continue to make, in my humble opinion, of various religious texts - in response to various earlier postings relating more directly to the subject of the article.

As you and I seem, perhaps, to agree, evolution is a long and perhaps hit-and-miss process, with any significant progression dependent on many factors and generally within a large population group over a very long period of time. I don't think evolution has progressed much in homo sapiens in recent history (maybe 5 Thou years or so, as you mention, and maybe much longer), and perhaps some regression may have occurred per the influence of modern medicine, war, epidemics, etc. Only another million years or so will provide an answer - for those who believe in the real time-frame which has been operating - as I do. But then again, the occasional Copernicus, Da Vinci, Newton or Einstein may indicate something has been happening, but then the lottery of passing on any beneficial genes, and whether any of these or other "promising" individuals even had offspring, I don't know, and again only time will tell of any continuing developments.

On the subject of the article, I feel it is well past time that some real "evolution" was made in religion generally. For a relatively informed society it is truly troubling that some intelligent sectors of our global society seem to be staying doggedly "in the dark ages" regarding the interpretation and application of "religious" messages. My hope would be that it will be "enlightenment" rather than conflict which will bring about this evolution.

Saltpetre,
Thankyou for your reply, I appreciate your views. On further reading to McReal, you mentioned it would be good if 'there was some real "evolution" in religion generally'. Let me address Christianity as I do not have authority to comment on other religions(though I do feel you mean all religions in general), and I am going to ask you to elaborate on what you mean by 'evolve' for the Christians.
The God described in the Christian Bible says "I am the Lord, I do not change", ( Malachi 3:6) and Hebrews 13:8 He is the same yesterday, today and forever.. His commandments are about love and acceptance, about serving and giving, about not thinking too highly of your self (Romans 12:3), not judging others lest you be judged and treating children and women with respect, about loving the stranger and not loving money etc.
I simply can't understand why these attributes are a threat to society. I do not understand why you think they should evolve. Thousands of years ago people could not live by them and still today people struggle to live by them.
Perhaps a Christians view on same sex relationships is an issue for some but evolution there would be Hypocritical yet again in mans eyes and disobedient in Gods so a no win situation.
TO evolve to think like whom? As I see it, the evolution on those who are out of the 'dark ages' (atheists), seem to be heading towards depravity.. selfishness is on the rise, none of us are unaffected by affairs born out of lust born out of lack of self control; stealing goes further than just items now-it is your identity, your reputation; people are hurt at every turn by a selfish person. I do not understand why you would call this living the 'dark-ages', what was appropriate then in the human race is still very much appropriate.In fact,Jesus liberated people.
And by the way, I do not believe we evolved, I believe in intelligent design..Creation.
Thank you, and I look forward to your conversation and appreciate your thoughtful answers. Rebecca6

@ Saltpetre, Mon, 2 May, 1:59am

Thanks for your elaborate discussion of the short retort I fired off this am.

It is easy to try to describe evolution in individual terms, but as you say it happens over a long, long time.

@Rebecca6 - the Bible is a narrative written by men that contains lots of violence toward children and women. Religion treats women poorly.
There is nothing intelligent about the theory of UD