^ there have been recent studies that indicate it might be human nature.

In any case, there is ample evidence of morality being independent of a person’s religion. This doesn’t really doesn’t mean that god does or doesn’t exist, or even that morality doesn’t come from god, it just means that you don’t have to be a Christian/Muslims/Jew/Buddhist/whatever to be moral.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 11:06 AM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 11:06:26 AM

Quote :

"It is not human nature; it is only nuture (sic). Protecting the weak goes against the natural order."

Protecting the weak also goes against some conservative ideas of morality.

I don't think there's any question that some of the basic fundamentals of human morality are the result of evolution. Empathy, or sympathy, for example, are naturally occurring emotions (as far as I'm aware), and are the basis for much of our morality.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 11:25 AM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 11:25:20 AM

Quote :

"Take Zeus for example. You don't believe in him, but why? Why is your God special but everything else that everyone else believes in not? Be honest here. From where did you derive your faith in the (presumably) Christian God?"

i don't believe in zeus because i don't believe in zeus, my faith comes from a lot of thinking and meditating and i felt the holy spirit speak to me. i recognize that it is based on faith and if i met someone who believed in zeus i wouldn't criticize them or tell them they were wrong. my faith makes me believe that they are wrong, but i can't know and if their faith is different thats up to them.

5/15/2010 12:06:03 PM

But why do you have faith? Why should I have faith? Where did you learn to have faith? What told you that you should have faith?

From whence did your faith arrive?

Lumex, please don't confuse Natural Selection with Evolution. Natural selection is simply the mechanism driving evolution in the wild. Since humanity is no longer in the wild it is no longer the mechanism. We continue to evolve as a species and our social nature reflects and drives this.

Quote :

"Protecting the weak goes against the natural order."

You're absolutely right about that. If we were lions in the Serengeti. but we're humanity in the 21st century and in order to thrive this is what we must do. "Weak" is meaningless as I've pointed out before as the ability to successfully breed is there in spite of traits that would make it difficult to do so in the wild.

5/15/2010 12:11:51 PM

Quote :

"But why do you have faith? Why should I have faith? Where did you learn to have faith? What told you that you should have faith?"

faith came from a calling inside me. i'm not telling you that you should have faith and i don't really care either way, if you dont you dont.

5/15/2010 12:17:03 PM

Quote :

"my faith makes me believe that they are wrong, but i can't know and if their faith is different thats up to them."

What other religions does your faith tell you are wrong, out of curiosity?

5/15/2010 12:20:19 PM

why would that matter at all?

5/15/2010 12:22:48 PM

just curious...

I promise it to never reference it in this thread or any other, if you are worried about that. I'm just wondering.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 12:23:35 PM

Is it your contention that if you were born on an island and never encountered the Bible or another Christian, you'd have the same faith?

5/15/2010 12:28:49 PM

i think i would feel an absence of something and still recognize there was a higher power. i would not now how to describe that though, how would i? so no, i was lucky i found something to help me understand this feeling.

5/15/2010 12:31:35 PM

Quote :

"i would not now how to describe that though, how would i?"

The same way every non-Christian culture throughout history did? By making up their own religions perhaps...?

5/15/2010 12:36:37 PM

exactly

5/15/2010 12:40:41 PM

^
so if every non-Christian religion might have equally valid beginnings, then what reason is there for people to believe the the Bible is the unique source of truth, morality, etc (and in some cases science...)?

5/15/2010 12:44:06 PM

Quote :

"Since humanity is no longer in the wild it is no longer the mechanism. We continue to evolve as a species and our social nature reflects and drives this."

Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, even today. There is no distinction between human civilization and "the wild". The traits that are selected for have changed as we have changed our environment. We haven't inherited one shred of morality beyond instinctual desire to form a social structure and nurture younglings. All other morality is conditioning.

5/15/2010 12:47:10 PM

^ why do you believe that?

Because that's not the prevailing theory among scientists who study the issue.

That's not even thought to be the case among some animals...

the most recent example in the news of this: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/05/ravens-show-that-consoling-one-another-is-also-for-the-birds.ars

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

5/15/2010 12:48:05 PM

That's just the logical conclusion I came to. If I saw some credible evidence to the contrary, then I would probably change my mind.

^ I don't see anything in there that goes against what I said.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2010 12:50:11 PM

Quote :

"Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, even today. There is no distinction between human civilization and "the wild". The traits that are selected for have changed as we have changed our environment. We haven't inherited one shred of morality beyond instinctual desire to form a social structure and nurture younglings. All other morality is conditioning."

We're going in circles. It's called "the wild" because the traits that are desirable for successful breeding (and hence continuation of the species) are ones you would traditionally think: smarter, faster, stronger, more ability to get food and provide for children, etc. We are not in the wild because these traditional traits are no longer required to have babies.

I would argue that we have broken the chain of Natural Selection. Maybe you can still call it Natural Selection, but I can't discern exactly what traits makes a human most likely to successfully breed since all traits appear to be valid now. I think we're just talking about semantics at this point.

5/15/2010 12:55:37 PM

Quote :

" We haven't inherited one shred of morality beyond instinctual desire to form a social structure and nurture younglings. All other morality is conditioning. "

I guess maybe my misunderstanding is in what you mean by "form a social structure" because the majority of things people view as moral can fall under that umbrella, which means most morality could possibly be attributed to evolution.

5/15/2010 12:57:25 PM

Quote :

"so if every non-Christian religion might have equally valid beginnings, then what reason is there for people to believe the the Bible is the unique source of truth, morality, etc (and in some cases science...)?"

if this was court and i was testifying the other lawyer would object to this question, how the hell do i know why other people think what they do? i don't even think the bible is the unique source of morality and science (and truth, depending on whatever that means). the bible is important, but even i don't think it is the source of morality so i can't really speak for anyone who thinks otherwise.

but i would be careful about the equally valid beginnings part, im not sure what you mean but you may be putting words into my mouth that i am not saying. to clarify, in the island situation proposed its no surprise that they found ways to worship and define something that they feel is there but haven't been exposed to an explanation about.

Quote :

"Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution, even today."

i don't think that's the consensus of anyone today actually, i think thats a pretty dated explanation of evoution. its still taught today because it simplifies to a 3rd grade science curriculum easily, but i don't think your statement is true

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2010 1:01:12 PM

Quote :

"if this was court and i was testifying the other lawyer would object to this question, how the hell do i know why other people think what they do? i don't even think the bible is the unique source of morality and science (and truth, depending on whatever that means). the bible is important, but even i don't think it is the source of morality so i can't really speak for anyone who thinks otherwise. but i would be careful about the equally valid beginnings part, im not sure what you mean but you may be putting words into my mouth that i am not saying. to clarify, in the island situation proposed its no surprise that they found ways to worship and define something that they feel is there but haven't been exposed to an explanation about. "

Maybe i am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that the only explanation to people feeling a sense of mysticism for all of human history is Jesus. And isn't the Bible the "explanation" for these feelings?

Why would someone who realizes that the Bible isn't entirely divinely protected believe this? To me, the only thing that would explain this cognitive dissonance is humanity's innate desire to "fit it" with the people around them.

5/15/2010 1:09:57 PM

Quote :

"Maybe i am misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying that the only explanation to people feeling a sense of mysticism for all of human history is Jesus."

well, God

Quote :

"And isn't the Bible the "explanation" for these feelings?"

no, God is. he was around a long time before the bible ever even existed.

Quote :

" Why would someone who realizes that the Bible isn't entirely divinely protected believe this? To me, the only thing that would explain this cognitive dissonance is humanity's innate desire to "fit it" with the people around them."

i don't understand the dissonance, not everyone has this feeling and this argument wouldn't account for people who have the feeling and seek out the church without anyone else having the same feeling around them

5/15/2010 2:24:54 PM

Quote :

"my faith comes from a lot of thinking and meditating and i felt the holy spirit speak to me."

At what point, and on what basis, did you decide that this feeling, or thought, was the Holy Spirit, and not just your own imagination?

5/15/2010 2:47:32 PM

He doesn't want to admit that his faith is derived from the words in the Bible, but it's obvious.

Answer me this then. Do the people that feel the same amount of faith in the Koran as you have it wrong? Why?

5/15/2010 2:50:27 PM

Quote :

"Golovko: I'm not claiming "morality" is a supernatural entity capable of manipulating reality. It's a social construct, an abstract. If you're claiming that your god is an abstract, then it's good to see you've come around."

Believe what you want but you still haven't explained to us how the holocaust is evidence that God does not exist.

5/15/2010 2:54:22 PM

He let that shit happen to his favorite people.
If he is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, like the Bible says, then what the hell is he doing letting mass murderers do this?

Surely I don't have to explain the Problem of Evil to you...

5/15/2010 2:57:03 PM

You're grasping for straws here. Evil yes proof God doesn't exist...no. Not even close. It does prove evil exists though. But what is evil? Can science prove a force called 'evil' exists? How is it not just accelerated evolution? I mean that is your belief right?

Also, were the Jews completely wiped out in WWII? Were they not returned to the promise land to establish the state of Israel once again? Are they not there still?

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2010 3:50:27 PM

Quote :

"He doesn't want to admit that his faith is derived from the words in the Bible, but it's obvious."

i hadn't even read the bible at the time, i'm not sure what your hangup is on this point or why it matters. in fact, most christians (especially by the loose definition thats been thrown around) never read the bible.

Quote :

" Answer me this then. Do the people that feel the same amount of faith in the Koran as you have it wrong? Why?"

asked and answered, its on this page even.

Quote :

"If he is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, like the Bible says, then what the hell is he doing letting mass murderers do this?"

well if you want to keep with your hangup of basing everything on the bible, he lets bad stuff happen in the bible too

5/15/2010 5:27:59 PM

Quote :

"If he is all powerful, all good, and all knowing, like the Bible says, then what the hell is he doing letting mass murderers do this?"

God has a plan, lol!

5/15/2010 6:32:45 PM

Quote :

"You're grasping for straws here. Evil yes proof God doesn't exist...no. Not even close. It does prove evil exists though. But what is evil? Can science prove a force called 'evil' exists? How is it not just accelerated evolution? I mean that is your belief right?"

Apparently I do need to explain the problem of evil to you. Perhaps it'll make more sense if I call it "The problem of needless suffering". The Bible and pretty much every Christian claims that God has 3 characteristics: He is Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent, and Omniscient. We'll call the combination of the three Omnimax. He can control everything, he knows everything, and he is 100% good.

There is needless suffering in our world. Children get cancer. Innocent people are murdered by the thousands. Innocent people are destroyed in natural disasters. So many children never get a chance to grow up.

If God is omnipotent, then he has the power to stop this, but chooses not to. That conflicts with his Omnibenevolent nature. If god is Omnibenevolent, then he must stop it. If he cannot, then he doesn't have the power to and that conflicts with his Omnipotent nature. If God just doesn't see it coming and didn't stop it in time then that conflicts with his omniscient nature. There is absolutely no way that needless suffering can exist in a world with an Omnimax God running the show.

Let me go on the record and say that if I die, appear before the Pearly Gates and God appears and I learn he had the power to stop the Holocaust but did not, cure childhood cancer but did not, stop murderers, genocide, rapists, but did not...I will tell him that he can go fuck himself.

If god is either not all powerful or all knowing then he is not worthy of worship. So even if there is a God, unless he really is all 3, he's not worthy of worship. He's either a sadistic fuck, or a powerless wimp.

Quote :

"Also, were the Jews completely wiped out in WWII? Were they not returned to the promise land to establish the state of Israel once again? Are they not there still?"

Tell that to the women, men, elderly, and children that were gassed, burned, shot, and experimented on. Fuck you and your god for sacrificing innocent people to make a country if that was his plan.

Quote :

"i hadn't even read the bible at the time, i'm not sure what your hangup is on this point or why it matters. in fact, most christians (especially by the loose definition thats been thrown around) never read the bible."

So where are they getting their information about their religion from? Pastors and other Christians. Where are they getting their information from? The Bible. Are you actually disputing that the Bible is the foundation of Christianity?

Quote :

"asked and answered, its on this page even."

You haven't answered anything. I don't buy the claim that you were divinely inspired to a religion and it just happened to align perfectly with what is written in the Christian Bible or what is taught at Christian churches. And I think that you're avoiding saying it because I'll call you out for the circular logic of it all.

Quote :

"well if you want to keep with your hangup of basing everything on the bible, he lets bad stuff happen in the bible too"

Maybe the fact that there is so much internal and external inconsistency is why I don't buy that that shit was written by God or inspired by a god in the first place.

[Edited on May 15, 2010 at 8:20 PM. Reason : .]

5/15/2010 8:13:21 PM

Texas schools board rewrites US history with lessons promoting God and guns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/16/texas-schools-rewrites-us-history

Quote :

"Among the advisers the board brought in to help rewrite the curriculum is David Barton, the leader of WallBuilders which seeks to promote religion in history. Barton has campaigned against the separation of church and state. "

I’m sure though that well educated students aren’t in the interests of the country, it’s not like the US is starting to fall behind in science or anything...

[Edited on May 16, 2010 at 12:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2010 12:30:10 PM

Oh, but we should just leave Christians alone. They don't affect us in any way.

5/16/2010 2:07:31 PM

disco, I think the point that I was trying to paint, and Golovko was also getting at was how to define evil. The way I see it, I can call what Hitler did evil because it violates God's law which we can oversimplify and call absolute morality here. Naturalism has a problem in that evil doesn't really have a concrete definition.

Now this isn't a problem to say that naturalism isn't true. But what it does do is make one ask the question, if evolution got us here and is red in tooth and claw, where in the world did we come up with the concept of evil? How did the mechanism of evolution evolve from "the wild" into what you claim it is today? Why would evolution with so much success suddenly create a group of people that desire to help the weak and needy? Where does selflessness come in? What part in evolution ever created even the idea of altruism?

5/16/2010 9:36:05 PM

5/16/2010 11:56:29 PM

Quote :

"But what it does do is make one ask the question, if evolution got us here and is red in tooth and claw, where in the world did we come up with the concept of evil? How did the mechanism of evolution evolve from "the wild" into what you claim it is today? Why would evolution with so much success suddenly create a group of people that desire to help the weak and needy? Where does selflessness come in? What part in evolution ever created even the idea of altruism?"

Do you mean those to be rhetorical?

Because there are plausible answers to those that research exists for.

Of course, evolution isn't literally "red in tooth and claw," that's a mischaracterization if you are actually trying to answer those questions.

And in any case, the answer of "it was solely the Christian God of the Bible" is clearly not the answer, because morality predates Christianity, and exists as fervently in non-Christian cultures.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 12:15 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2010 12:14:09 AM

Quote :

"disco, I think the point that I was trying to paint, and Golovko was also getting at was how to define evil. The way I see it, I can call what Hitler did evil because it violates God's law which we can oversimplify and call absolute morality here. Naturalism has a problem in that evil doesn't really have a concrete definition. Now this isn't a problem to say that naturalism isn't true. But what it does do is make one ask the question, if evolution got us here and is red in tooth and claw, where in the world did we come up with the concept of evil? How did the mechanism of evolution evolve from "the wild" into what you claim it is today? Why would evolution with so much success suddenly create a group of people that desire to help the weak and needy? Where does selflessness come in? What part in evolution ever created even the idea of altruism?"

So address needless suffering for me. Is childhood cancer part of God's law? Quit skirting this issue.

How many times do I have to go over this? We are animals. But we are also something more. Our social systems are vastly more complex than any other animal and industry and agriculture have totally changed the mechanisms for evolution. It is advantageous to our species as a whole in this environment to help other people. Hell on a much more microscopic level, altruism and helping others improves your image and makes other people like you. This is personally beneficial.

See Hammurabi's code. People decided it was best to not kill other people long before the Bible came around.

Lumex, why is that wrong? If in our society you can provide for the young with computer skills more effectively than spear skills, wouldn't that make it a more desirable trait. Naturalism doesn't mean "humans are unnatural". We, our computers, our industries, our cars, our oil spills are all part of nature and exist in an entirely natural world.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 7:45 AM. Reason : stuff]

5/17/2010 7:44:46 AM

I'm not really making an argument. I just wanted to add brevity.

I will say this though: I don't see any logical reason why our species as a whole would benefit from protecting the weak/stupid. You may state flatly that it does, but only due to our own relatively recent constructs; not by any natural reason. Evolution implies improvement, and our species is not seeing improvement, not even according to our own environment. Smart people are not having children; stupid people are having lots.

Quote :

"See Hammurabi's code. People decided it was best to not kill other people long before the Bible came around."

Hammurabi's claim to authority was divine right, and the code contains many references to his gods.

5/17/2010 9:06:19 AM

Quote :

"I will say this though: I don't see any logical reason why our species as a whole would benefit from protecting the weak/stupid. You may state flatly that it does, but only due to our own relatively recent constructs; not by any natural reason. Evolution implies improvement, and our species is not seeing improvement, not even according to our own environment. Smart people are not having children; stupid people are having lots. "

Define smart and define stupid. And "our species is not seeing improvement?" Dear Flying Spaghetti Monster man! What the hell metric are you using? In almost every way our species is better off now than 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000, 2000 years ago.

Quote :

"Hammurabi's claim to authority was divine right, and the code contains many references to his gods."

I'm sorry, the point was the time that it occurred, not what was used to convince everyone it was authoritarian. Are you saying that Hammurabi's gods must be real?

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 9:13 AM. Reason : almost]

5/17/2010 9:12:42 AM

Quote :

"I don't see any logical reason why our species as a whole would benefit from protecting the weak/stupid."

But you do see a logical reason why billions of people will burn in a lake of fire for eternity because they don’t acknowledge a particular individual as the savior of humanity for all humans before and since this individual’s birth?

5/17/2010 9:24:56 AM

Quote :

"I don't see any logical reason why our species as a whole would benefit from protecting the weak/stupid."

What's illogical about it?

At any rate, I think charity is something Homo sapiens took up rather recently, and is probably a by-product of other naturally evolved traits, like empathy and self-preservation (via the Golden Rule).

We see someone who is poor or stupid, we might feel sorry for them (empathy), and we might also think that by being kind to them, we can earn some points with society (self-preservation).

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2010 9:28:49 AM

Quote :

"Define smart and define stupid. And "our species is not seeing improvement?" Dear Flying Spaghetti Monster man! What the hell metric are you using? In almost every way our species is better off now than 10, 20, 50, 100, 1000, 2000 years ago. "

Evolution is my metric; we're talking about improvement via evolution. True, we are better off now because we have modified our environment and increased our common knowledge, but that is not evolution. Humanity has not improved biologically since we became obsessed with altruism. We've actually become physically weaker and more succeptible to pathogens.

Quote :

"But you do see a logical reason why billions of people will burn in a lake of fire for eternity because they don’t acknowledge a particular individual as the savior of humanity for all humans before and since this individual’s birth?"

I've already pointed out that I'm an agnostic.

Quote :

"At any rate, I think charity is something Homo sapiens took up rather recently, and is probably a by-product of other naturally evolved traits, like empathy and self-preservation (via the Golden Rule). "

I agree that this is a possibility: an un-intended consequence of instinctual cohabitation, parenthood and lawful society.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 9:40:09 AM

Quote :

"Humanity has not improved biologically since we became obsessed with altruism. We've actually become physically weaker and more succeptible to pathogens."

[citation needed] Pysically weaker? More succeptible to pathogens? Where are you getting this from?

Futhermore, being phyiscally weak or strong is no longer a trait related to successful breeding. You seem to be hung up on this idea that because we're no longer living in caves and hunting mammoths we're somehow less human.

Quote :

"I agree that this is a possibility: an un-intended consequence of instinctual cohabitation, parenthood and lawful society."

Or a new mechanism to replace Natural Selection perhaps?

5/17/2010 9:59:17 AM

This is going into semantics again. I'm not saying what we have now is bad and should be changed. I'm just saying there's no reason to think altruism is instinctual to humans.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 10:20:10 AM

I think what you're saying is that the current state of humanity is inconsistent with Evolution.

I disagree. It may be inconsistent with traditional Natural Selection, but Evolution does not mean changes to a species over time that necessarily coincide with Natural Selection as the mechanism for driving Evolution; it just means changes to a species over time.

5/17/2010 10:42:10 AM

Quote :

"So address needless suffering for me. Is childhood cancer part of God's law? Quit skirting this issue."

Why are you deliberately being so obtuse? Are you basing your whole argument on why you think God doesn't exist because we don't live in a perfect world and we all have free will? Stop asking stupid questions, this is why they get ignored.

5/17/2010 12:39:35 PM

The problem of Evil is obtuse? It's obviously not my whole argument, but philosophically it's a pretty big one. If you call the problem of evil a stupid question, then it's obvious that you've done absolutely no critical introspection of your beliefs.

I don't think God exists because there is absolutely no evidence for it and a colossal amount of evidence against it. The problem of evil is an additional philosophical reason why it couldn't possibly be the way that most monotheists say it is.

Unless you want to explain it to me instead of continuing with the ad hominem.

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 12:47:04 PM

You think God doesn't exist because evil exists.

5/17/2010 1:20:23 PM

I do not think God exists because there is absolutely no evidence that he does and a colossal amount of evidence that suggest that he does not.

The problem of evil is an additional reason why I do not think God exists. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?

5/17/2010 1:24:05 PM

So because there is evil there is no God?










Wow...so what is evil? Is it like luck? Some invisible force that drives man to do bad? Is there evidence to prove evil exists?

[Edited on May 17, 2010 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

5/17/2010 1:27:00 PM

Do you even know how to read?

5/17/2010 1:28:30 PM

Do you?

5/17/2010 1:30:00 PM