Page 1a - Frank B. Finite (a "true" atheist)
Page 1b - Amazing Transitional Fossils
Page 1c - Andy Akers (ag-nostic)
Page 1d - Alternate Resurrection Theory of the Month
Page 1f - Your Evological Horrorscope
Page 1k - The Evolutionary Classifieds
Page 1kk - Letters to the Editor
Frank B. Finite
A "True" Atheist
Lay off of the crusades for goodness sake! (Part 1)
It rattles my cage when I see young whipper-snapper atheistic apologists bring up the crusades, inquisition, witch burnings, etc. in their debates with fundies.
There is a very serious logical flaw in this tactic. It assumes the existence of a universal right and wrong - or justice, which does NOT exist.
The ONLY standard by which we have to govern our behavior is nature itself. And in nature anything goes!
We know that the only law which governs animal behavior (which we humans merely are) is "natural selection," or better known as "survival of the fittest".
Preying on the weak is very natural and nature's way of clearing out the gene pool.
So when a stronger human animal preys on a weaker human animal, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, it is very good and useful.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you can go out right now and make some child animal or little old lady animal the target of your dominant natural tendencies in any way shape or form!
The reason for this is simple - it is against the law of our society. You will be caught and punished if you do such a thing.
So if you want to help insure your survival, don't do anything that is illegal (unless you live in a society in which illegal acts are legally permissible).
But just because some societies make certain acts illegal does not mean that they are universally wrong. But making such laws are not wrong either, because it is merely the strong enacting a survival of the fittest tactic.
Think about it, who makes societal laws? It is those who are in power. Again, natural selection is once more proven to be the way things are.
The powerful in society making laws to control others is merely natural selection at its highest evolutionary level.
And if you decide to break said laws, those who are in control will hunt you down and bring you to THEIR justice (unless if you have more power than they do, in which case you would take over and make up your own rules. Or you may be quicker and uncatchable; in which case you would continue to live under your own rules too.)
There is no real reason for their rules to be any better than yours which may differ.
In fact, any rules that go against natural selection is unnatural, and disrupts nature's design for how things should run (if such rules suppress dominant natural tendencies). And this causes all sorts of problems and mayhem.
You may say that we have learned that certain rules help society and help insure individual survival as well. And you may also point out that there are examples of societal rules in nature helping insure group and individual survival, such as elephants.
First of all, I don't totally disagree with this assessment. Yes, group cooperation may help insure group survival, and sometimes individual survival - but not all of the time!
Let me ask this - if another society attacks yours, who gets sent out to do the fighting? It is the young strong men. It is those who spent countless hours conditioning their bodies and minds, yet it is they who are sent to the slaughter.
And by whom? By the MORE powerful who are in charge of the waring societies. They, and the weaker humans are far away from the fields of battle.
Now...societal rules aren't helping insure the survival of these young strong men, now are they? I think not!
And fighting for some mythical noble cause, like helping society or helping insure the survival of younger ones is a "pie-in-the-sky" fairy tail.
Who cares what happens after we die?!? And why?
Now, although there are many instances in nature where a female animal may "instinctually" fight to defend a cub, it is rare that the young strong male will do so (especially to the death).
In fact, a male lion taking over a pride will kill the cubs which were not of his seed.
(It should be noted that said male lion does this instinctually, and is not "thinking out" that doing this will pass on his genes. It is merely a reaction. And he same could be said for the female animal, listed above, defending a cub)
Also, if the society suddenly decides to hamper your individual survival for whatever reason, you would probably detach yourself from being a member of said society and would do everything possible to fight off these other individuals in order to survive yourself - now wouldn't you?!
I will go along with societal rules only when they benefit me. But if they start to encroach on my personal survival, I take an, "every man for himself" approach.
And I would bet that you would probably do the same too.
As for the elephants, aren't they are on the brink of distinction?
Also, there are many animalia who take the dog-eat-dog approach, and animals of BOTH tactics are still around today. So the "herd instinct" isn't necessarily better.
So, what does all this mean for the topic at hand?
There was absolutely nothing wrong with what the Christians did in all their violent campaigns. It was merely the law of natural selection playing itself out.
Who cares if they did it in the name of God, or love, or the Easter Bunny?!? It doesn't matter under what pretense they acted upon.
Your objection to what they did has been conditioned by the society you have been raised in. And it is a bad error in judgment to transfer one culture's values to another.
And in that culture the Christians were in charge and they made the rules. Therefore, by definition, they didn't break any rules and did nothing wrong.
It is very simple.
