Welcome to the World

Lamarckism is the biggest load of bullshit that ever was. Rationalism has caught a splattering, and no matter how much rationalists wash, they can't get that spot out. Richard Dawkins has only just woken up on this. He is knee-deep in the muck. Now if we can only stop him gaping into space? To think that the universe is anthropocentric is the greatest insult known to man. It goes against everything that evolution tells us. Dawkins' 'God Delusion' is a basketcase of errors. It should be scrapped. His memes though are neat, succinct. But generally he's a flake.

Man can't be compared to an ant. The Bible is riddled with this shit. As Slipknot says, "People = shit."

The concept of original sin oppresses. I have nothing against self-interest, cleverness, or its match, derring-do.

(Revised)

Carusmm I'm sure that you get a big kick out of using all those big words and dropping big names, but what about the rest of us?

Well it doesn't take much imagination to realise the situation whereby religion was run by crafty carpet-baggers whose first interest was in keeping their bums firmly on the gravy train of the Temple, Synagogue, Church, or Mosque, so they had to make their congregations feel that they needed the religion of the day to be saved from the imagined horrors of failed crops; disease; being attacked by aliens; or death. So no good telling yourself that you were OK Oh no your were born in sin and that sin would stay with you all the days of your life.

But not so much different from the advertising we see every day on TV and radio where fear has become the only driving force. Will your family have enough money for your funeral; what will happen if you lose your job with the big mortgage you have to pay; better get checked for prostate, bowel or every other form of cancer (for fee of course); better have life insurance because 1 in 3 people suffer some kind accident.

But, in a world where all our initiatives have been hived off to places like China, fear is the only salable product that has been left to us'. What do you think?

I think that there is no excuse for fooling yourself that God is great and also petty if he exists, though deities are no more than allies to the stupid.

A lot of us were brought up on this "born in sin" theme. I still know a lot of people who take their kids to be baptized so the sin will be washed away and they are people who don't bother much with religion most of the time.

I think they just aren't listening to the words the priest says or they would be insulted to have that sort of thing said about their own kid.

As the proud parent of three (now grown) children, I remember when each of them were born and none of them possessed any sin, evil, hatred or any other such negative traits. They were clean slates with enormous potential and I loved them then and love them now.

They have not grown up and matured according to my expectations. They are fulfilling their own destinies and taking responsibilities for their own lives and I am so very proud of them.

When my grandchildren eventually come along I will slap down any mindless, pathetic SOB that tries to assert they are born evil.

A most despicable lie that should never, ever have been unleashed upon this world.

To be honest, carusmm, I have no idea what you are on about in your first post and really can't relate it to my original. OK, I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed but you will need to clarify it for me so I can see the relationship.

If you believe that man has a nature, it is natural to wonder whether it be good or evil. Sin is par for the course, therefore most in the past saw man as a convict.

On my first post, Peter Cartledge, an understanding of Lamarckism is necessary. If you had read the necessary texts, you would know of its infamy and its exactness. I am sorry that you haven't.

@ carusmm, I understand what Lamarckism is, but I still cannot relate it to the original post.

Lamarckism refers to genetically inheritable traits.

You also talk about memes (and there is no doubt that the concept of original sin is a meme) which have been used as analogous to genetic traits (of course, I think the analogy has been taken too far and not quite accurate).

As stated, the religious concept of original sin is a meme, but I see no to bring up the spectre of Lamarckism.

When an explanation is asked for the response is not usually shorter than the original text. I can sort of ascertain where you are going with this, but not really sure it's applicable.

It seems you have simply used this as a vehile to introduce some sort of diatribe against Richard Dawkins (who is not the most inspiring author, I'll admit).

By the way, as sin is a concept that comes out of religion as opposed to bad, naughty, etc, I don't recognise sin as a valid concept. It applies to religious principles to which I do not adhere.

Is original sin not supposed to be inherited, Peter Cartledge? Also memes make a balance possible between body and soul. I think them very useful.

Original sin is not genetically inherited and I do not believe in the existence of souls. Souls are as non-existent as the god they are attributed to.

Peter Cartledge, when Richard Dawkins says that knowledge of good and evil is natural to us, i.e., it is hard-wired within us, he goes too far and lands knee-deep in the muck of Lamarckism; and all for ideology. He is safe with his memes though. And, Peter Cartledge, don't be so literal on the existence of a soul, it is solely created by memes. Also, the consensus between theists and rationalists at the very least seems to be the idea that accrued wisdom can shift through a bloodline.

"Lamarckism (or Lamarckian inheritance) is the idea that an organism can pass on characteristics that it acquired during its lifetime to its offspring"

I pinched this quote from Wikipedia.

I think carusmm is right in using the idea to point out that people acquire cultural ideas, (memes) during their lifetimes and pass them on though I don't think that is the main theme of the original idea. It was more to do with physical inheritance originally.

The main issue is the insulting madness of declaring a newborn baby to be possessed of an inherent sinfulness; some disposition to wickedness which can be cured by a priest wetting the child's head and mumbling ridiculous words.
It is a technique to take possession of that child for the benefit of a church and its clergy.

The video makes the point very well. Let us make a note of this link and use it to say something to anyone who thinks they have a child who needs baptizing.

Memes cannot cross over from genes. Rationalists and theists simply wish to impose a nature on man whatever it may be for whatever reason. And it is an imposition.

Of course they can`t, not from real physical genes. My statement above only applies to the notion of a cultural gene acquired during life.

I think we are getting distracted from the point Peter was trying to make when he put up this post.
Here is something that could be used to show believers how rotton and silly their beliefs are and maybe get some of them to stop the insulting practice of baptizing children

Where is the insult to those who believe?

Surely sin can only be the result of not loving. You just think about it

@ Holywaterman, I don't understand what you are on about. Sin is a meaningless concept that has been created by the monotheistic religions as a means of instilling guilt where no guilt is required.

The discussion is about "original sin" which is a deceitful and underhanded way of gaining control over gullible people.

There is no need to "just think about it". It certainly has nothing to do with not loving, as there are so many accusations of sin against people who were obviously loving people.

Perhaps you should "just think about it."

And I do not understand what you are on about either, although it is doubtful that anyone will have the courage to agree with me, knowing the Humanist gang mentality. You have latched on to the notion of original sin because it sounds clever, but if tested I bet you don't have a clue what is meant by it.

Whether we sin or not is something we develope in our lives and it matters not about the fancy words you bandy around with carusmm. Sin being the result of not loving, or the absence of love can be explained by looking at situations. The burglar has no love for the people he steals from. The rapist has no love for the person he rapes. The murderer has no love for the person he murders. The white-collar con man has no love for those he robs of their life's savings.

You the editor and carusmm need to understand that the realities of life are not about mincing around with the meaning of words you have come across, but about real situations you pompas ass.

@ Holywaterman, there was no need for you to be abusive. When I said I do not understand you, I was merely making a statement of fact.

You just outlined crimes, which do not necessarily relate to sin. They are different concepts and you seem not to understand that.

You also err if you believe that people do not transgress against people they love.

Every single day we see people commit crimes against people they purport to love (and most likely do, in their own minds). Men rape their wives and girlfriends. Children steal from their parents.

People murder their relatives in fits of rage and anger.

Priests molest children left in their loving care.

You lack understanding about the realities of the world, in your arrogant black and white view of the world.

Reason, intelligence, research and more have taught us about mental illnesses, brain injuries, depression and other diseases of the mind and body. There are so many shades of grey and so many ways to approach issues that affect people in the real world.

You want blunt truth? You want us not to "mince words". Your words indicate a petulant child seeking to blame others for their failures and no understanding, capacity or desire to help. You would prefer to just label a person as a sinner. You would condemn those who don't meet your own pathetic little ideals.

I would suggest that you open your mind to a wide world of possibilities and understanding but your mind is closed to anything but religious dogma.

You are a sham as a caring human being. How is that for not mincing words? How is that for looking at the realities?

Behave yourself and act civilised. I DO NOT turn the other cheek. You attack me and I will hit you back in return. To not understand that is your failing, not mine. Now grow up and stop crying.

You hang yourself by your own petard "supposed to love" is different from actually loving/as in having compassion for. They are not interchangerble to suit your point scoring.

And please enlighten us as to what original sin means, I confess that even though it suits you to call me a slave to religious dogma I just don't understand what it means in real life terms, but no doubt you do and will explain it to us.

Holywaterman wrote: "You hang yourself by your own petard "supposed to love" is different from actually loving/as in having compassion for. They are not interchangerble to suit your point scoring."

Typically you, as a theist, prove to be dishonest. I did not use the term "supposed to love", I used the term "purport to love" which means profess to love. That has a greatly different meaning from what you chose to interpret me as saying.

"Supposed to love" implies me interpreting someone's feelings whereas "purport to love" is that person's declaration.

Whether they actually do have such feelings or not is not for me to interpret.

"And please enlighten us as to what original sin means, I confess that even though it suits you to call me a slave to religious dogma I just don't understand what it means in real life terms, but no doubt you do and will explain it to us."

As said, I don't believe in the concept of original sin. The way I read it in the bible, is the alleged "first humans" transgressed against the will of your god and for that he has condemned all subsequent generations. That is clearly written in the bible to which you adhere.

Now, I think that is a load of crap used by clergy to exercise control over others.

Peter Cartledge wrote "You just outlined crimes, which do not necessarily relate to sin. They are different concepts and you seem not to understand that". I'm sure that most reasonably stable people would readily categorise crime as being a sin.

You then go on to say (now challenged) that you have no understanding of sin yet you accuse me of confusing crime with sin. I think you are a bit mixed up in what you are talking about.

I agree with Holywaterman, the lack of love is a standard of disease. However, I don't see how this relates to infants.

Original sin can only be true if you associate all sex as lust and you are ignorant. The funny thing is that viewing sex as something separate from love is entirely healthy.

Without lust there would be nobdy on the planet. Nature designed it to be so, so how can it be called a sin? It is the driving force creation of life.

Shit, I don't know, mate. Sex is a mess is all I know.

There you go, you learn something every day.

I can see how sex could be viewed as something low, but how could a baby be viewed in the same light? It beats desciption.

Sex is overrated, Holywaterman, as far as I am concerned, the pleasure that it brings doesn't outweigh the pain that it brings; the future is always a long way off, all the same.

They say that the way to happiness is through the mind. I hope not, for my mind is rather messy.

Happiness is up to you

The kingdom of heaven is within you

The idea that only by God's grace can we hope to do good is a load of crap for sure. Baptism promises so much and delivers so little. Baptism is a superstition like any other, groundless. Holywaterman, you don't seem superstitious? But with a name like Holywaterman, who's to know? Perhaps you are just inviting me to join you, Holywaterman? I am afraid there's no hope of that.

"The kingdom of heaven is within you" is one of the most profound and starkest truths you will ever hear in your life and it is nothing to do with god in the conventional sense.

I am afraid that it has been made doctrine, Holywaterman.

The world is the Devil's playground, Holywaterman.

There is a contradiction between the Kingdom of God comes from within and God give us grace.

Forgive them for their understanding is so little

Who is there to forgive us, William?

The conversation between carusmm and Holywaterman shows you to be two of the most confused men in Australia.

Peter Cartledge, why bother to try to explain anything to Holywaterman. He is just on about the kingdom of god and other silliness. The kingdom of god is not within anyone.

Jenny I wouldn't be as insulting to you as others on this blog by saying that you wouldn't be able to understand if it were explained to you, but I doubt if you would really want to understand.

It is fairly ignorant to treat sin like it was syphilis, Jenny, inheritable. Ezekiel repudiates this.

There is good and bad in all, Jenny.

The doctrine of original sin is a subtler doctrine than is thought. It denotes a separation between God and man, and nothing more. The Hebrews are not all that bad.

carrusmm you are like a dog that cannot let go of a bone even though there is no meat left on it.

I like to get to the marrow of a subject, Justin.

Children are evil only because they are far from good, I can accept this. I can accept being a child in comparison to God. I cannot accept there being a God though.

I think you must have a dark past, tell us about it.

No, thanks. I will only accept the conception of original sin. I am not agreeing on it being sane necessarily.