God vs Science

[alex12345]

Deck Knight, answer this honestly: Would you kill and steal if you weren't scared of eternal damnation? If atheists finally gave into the false burden of proof put onto them by the religious and actually DID prove that god doesn't exist, would you suddenly give up your philosophy that killing is wrong and helping people is good? (yes i know ive posted this question before but he conveniently never answers the tough questions)

We do not kill or steal because we have a society that has looked down on it since our birth. Why we would we willingly commit an act agreed on by almsot everyone as "evil"? I would like to say that while I do not claim that every contributing person in history has belonged to a religion, most have. Our laws and charters were written at times when Christianity or other religions were prevalent. The writers of the laws were taught basic morals passed down by their parents reaching back to dawn of human civilization.

I believe that if the human race was extinguished and somehow came back into existence without the capability to come up with the idea of an omnipotent being, humans would most likely revert to a survival of the fittest mentality. The strong among this race would steal if they lacked something; they would kill if the became suficiently angry.

What I am trying to say is it is illogical to ask this question: "Would you kill or steal if you weren't scared of eternal damnation?" because we live in a society that is based on religion. Whether they believe or not the morals of this society has been ingrained in most peoples minds.

 

[The Plant]

I have always been rather up in the air about the existence of god. However I agree that the judeo-christian version makes absolutely no sense. I usually assume that either everyone eventually gets out of hell or that God is clearly not "all good". Maybe earth is an experiment of sorts in mankinds ability to choose to do good or not to.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I have always been rather up in the air about the existence of god. However I agree that the judeo-christian version makes absolutely no sense. I usually assume that either every eventually gets out of hell or that God is clearly not "all good". Maybe earth is an experiment of sorts in mankinds ability to choose to do good or not to.

Yeah this is actually similar to my thoughts on religion. If there IS a god, it definitely isn't a god that anybody on Earth can understand.

We do not kill or steal because we have a society that has looked down on it since our birth. Why we would we willingly commit an act agreed on by almsot everyone as "evil"?

We wouldn't, and people don't need religion to tell them that killing and stealing is evil. That was the whole point of my post, that these morals come from our own conscience. I don't believe in God, but I would never kill someone on purpose because that is a douchebag thing to do and I would hate if someone did that to me.

I would like to say that while I do not claim that every contributing person in history has belonged to a religion, most have. Our laws and charters were written at times when Christianity or other religions were prevalent. The writers of the laws were taught basic morals passed down by their parents reaching back to dawn of human civilization.

I was going to write something about how they were pretty much forced into being religious by a disgusting combination of indoctrination (through learning as children when they are too young to defend themselves with logic), force (through laws that punish dissenters...ever heard of Galileo?) and tradition (its pretty hard to go against something that literally everyone else is doing), but I'll just take the easy route and say that this is completely irrelevant. Who cares what religions existed in the old days, when you yourself admit that these morals were "passed down by their parents reaching back to dawn of human civilization". Last time I checked, the dawn of humanity predates the creation of religion by a longshot.

I could also use what you said and use it for the exact opposite argument: a huge percentage of people that have ever committed murder were religious. A huge percentage of people who have caused wars were religious. etc etc

What I am trying to say is it is illogical to ask this question: "Would you kill or steal if you weren't scared of eternal damnation?" because we live in a society that is based on religion. Whether they believe or not the morals of this society has been ingrained in most peoples minds.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

We don't live in a society that is based on religion. How can you be that ignorant (unless you don't live in America, in which case I apologize for calling you ignorant of the document that my country was founded upon)?

 

[mattj]

ummmm

If this thread really is about God VS Science, I'd just like to say that God and Science aren't at odds because God created the laws of the universe. If you don't think so that's your choice, but I know it's true because of what he's done for me personally.

That's all.

 

[ferron]

@alex- most modern systems of law are evolutions o the Code of Hammurabi, a text written 600 years before it was believed that the Torah was writen by Moses (by Torah, i mean the first 5 books, before anyone that hasn't studied how the Tanakh is divided steps in)

@mattj- did you even read through this thread?

 

[Ascalon]

If this thread really is about God VS Science, I'd just like to say that God and Science aren't at odds because God created the laws of the universe. If you don't think so that's your choice, but I know it's true because of what he's done for me personally.

That's all.

I feel that this is representative of many of the issues in this passage, so I'm going to use it to engage. Nothing personal.

Firstly, "I know it's true because of what he's done for me personally" is not a coherent logical argument. I know it sounnd harsh, but not only are there loads of people who haven't experienced God in this way (i.e. we are dealing with an inconsistant god here), it is really easy for the imagination to syntesise what is not actually there, especially bodily sensations and emotions. I'll take the risk of being a little personal here, and admit that I stongly believed in a world of alien figures regularly active on Earth, going so far as making myself believe that I was seeing them. I was younger, adimttedly but I only dismissed this altogether at around the age of 10 at which point nobody else was humouring me any longer. There are plenty of people who are willing to not only humour, but actually believe in god-derived sensations.

Orwell's "Doublethink" isn't just a horrifying tool in a far-fetched distopia, you see. Its fairly easy to make yourself believe that two plus two makes five, even without conciously making yourself. I believe that my tendancy to be highly analytical and critical of all situations stems in no small part from the experiences discribed above.

The other issue here is your assertion that God does not conflict with Science. While you can attempt to twist theology and science around each other indefinately, this is not the real issue: where god and science come into conflict is when people are trying to decide how to go about planning a project, or on what basis they will accept a theory. In this instance they are irreconcilable, irrespective of how often they agree on the conclusion: science demands logic and empirical evidence, while religion demands adherance to edicts, ancient or instant (I would hold that they are imagined). And unless you can scientifically prove (or prove with pure rationality) the existance of your particular god, not a god in general, the two will always come into conflict.

Regards,

Ascalon

 

[Darkflagrance]

Anyone who watched the thunderf00t (lol) discussion with Ray Comfort saw the moment of pwnage for the "our morals come from God" argument. Ray kept trying to find the example that would put thunderf00t's "morality, whether intrinsic or learned, is based on the good of the society / race" argument. Pedophillia came up, and thunderf00t asked Ray Comfort if pedophillia would be ok if the bible said it was. He openly refused to answer the question, saying it was ridiculous... clearly Ray thinks pedophillia is wrong whether or not God tells him so (which hopefully all of us do).

If you're going to jump into this same discussion on youtube, I recommend Aron Ra's videos

The statement of whether or not condoning pedophilia discredits the bible is meaningless. A mature person will only accept Christianity if it can account for his or her experience, because that is what a religion claims to do. Therefore, if the bible did condone pedophilia, sure, all "Christians" would have to condone pedophilia as well, but there would not be any Christians to begin with.

Perhaps everyone can reach it but everyone cannot see it, what good is a rope if you are unaware of it, god could make a better system (one that saves more people) by making the rope more obvious (revealing his presence in an undeniable form to nonbelievers) or by teleporting everyone out of the water and not using a rope (saving everyone regardless of belief).

It is clear to see that god did not use the optimized system, and since he is god and can do anything we can conclude that god does not want everyone to go to heaven, and thus wants some people (billions of people) to go to hell. Therefore he is not all loving.


romans 1:20
For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]

The bible states that nonbelievers have no excuse for not believing.

It seems to me that the Christian god is one that prefers humans to be pure of sin in order to get into heaven, while at the same time preferring that humans have freedom.

Thus, he cannot "teleport people out of the water," or save everyone regardless of their own choice, so to speak, because they would not be pure, and it is their choice whether to be pure or not.

It could be he loves all humanity, but because some humans do not wish to purify themselves, they are beyond salvation.

Also, considering that according to the bible the Christian god did appear ~2000 years ago in the form of a man, and there is a strong historical tradition associated with that appearance that took written form only 30 years or so after the event, it is hard to disprove that something happened. The question is what you believe happened.

 

[Agape]

I'll just throw a quick opinion on God's omnipotency, because I hate arguing online:


God is omnipotent, but human imagination can imagine things over omnipotency.

I mean, that even from the Bible we see for example, that God cannot lie or break a covenant, which clearly makes God unable to do "everything" (in this case He cant lie, because it would be against His holy character)

But man can imagine, and even do things that God cannot. (God creating unliftable rocks, lying etc.)

However God created us, who can do things He cannot, therefore God outdid Himself in the creation creating beings, that can do things He Himself cannot!


So God is omnipotent, being able to create beings that can do stuff He can't (lying).


Sorry for not posting Bible passages, I'm too tired for that...

 

[alex12345]

We wouldn't, and people don't need religion to tell them that killing and stealing is evil. That was the whole point of my post, that these morals come from our own conscience. I don't believe in God, but I would never kill someone on purpose because that is a douchebag thing to do and I would hate if someone did that to me.



I was going to write something about how they were pretty much forced into being religious by a disgusting combination of indoctrination (through learning as children when they are too young to defend themselves with logic), force (through laws that punish dissenters...ever heard of Galileo?) and tradition (its pretty hard to go against something that literally everyone else is doing), but I'll just take the easy route and say that this is completely irrelevant. Who cares what religions existed in the old days, when you yourself admit that these morals were "passed down by their parents reaching back to dawn of human civilization". Last time I checked, the dawn of humanity predates the creation of religion by a longshot.

I could also use what you said and use it for the exact opposite argument: a huge percentage of people that have ever committed murder were religious. A huge percentage of people who have caused wars were religious. etc etc





We don't live in a society that is based on religion. How can you be that ignorant (unless you don't live in America, in which case I apologize for calling you ignorant of the document that my country was founded upon)?

You missed the entire point. I'm wondering now if I wasn't being clear enough. You don't feel the need to kill or steal because you have been taught that it is wrong for your whole life. People reaching back in history have always been taught that. How can you say that a million years ago humans didn't steal if they were hungry? Back then (or whenever the humans came into existence) I believe that primal instincts would have been more dominant. People would do what was easier to survive because ultimately survival was the final goal. As society developed I believe that it was religion that shaped and influenced people's consciences to where we are now.

And I'm not American.

 

[??????]

Debating here sucks more than Serebii

God does conflict with science.

The other issue here is your assertion that God does not conflict with Science. While you can attempt to twist theology and science around each other indefinately, this is not the real issue: where god and science come into conflict is when people are trying to decide how to go about planning a project, or on what basis they will accept a theory. In this instance they are irreconcilable, irrespective of how often they agree on the conclusion: science demands logic and empirical evidence, while religion demands adherance to edicts, ancient or instant (I would hold that they are imagined). And unless you can scientifically prove (or prove with pure rationality) the existance of your particular god, not a god in general, the two will always come into conflict.

The fact of conflict implies that a contradiction between the two. I have yet to ever see a contradiction, who is to say God can't be the force behind evolution and Abiogenesis? The fact that the 2 doctrines have a different force behind their reasoning does not mean thy cannot coexist.

 

[lati0s]

It seems to me that the Christian god is one that prefers humans to be pure of sin in order to get into heaven, while at the same time preferring that humans have freedom.

Thus, he cannot "teleport people out of the water," or save everyone regardless of their own choice, so to speak, because they would not be pure, and it is their choice whether to be pure or not.

It could be he loves all humanity, but because some humans do not wish to purify themselves, they are beyond salvation.

It's not that they don't want to be pure, it's that are unaware of the need of purity because they don't know that god exists, God could easily ask everyone right after they die if they wanted to be purified and then if they say yes he could forgive them and let them enter heaven. this system would save many many more people. and yet god does not use it. therefore he wants people to go to hell, therefore he is not all loving.

 

[Scoopapa]

The statement of whether or not condoning pedophilia discredits the bible is meaningless. A mature person will only accept Christianity if it can account for his or her experience, because that is what a religion claims to do. Therefore, if the bible did condone pedophilia, sure, all "Christians" would have to condone pedophilia as well, but there would not be any Christians to begin with.

You tell me what I say is meaningless and then make my point even better than I did. Nobody would be a Christian if it didn't already account for their experience. These people aren't getting their morals from religion, they are choosing their religion based on what their morals already are. They have a sense of what is right and wrong before God "talks to them" in the bible, because they admit that if God's word was different they wouldn't believe it. So they aren't even using that book to decide their morals, but rather to decide that their morals are divine and higher than everyone else's. This is why they claim that they follow divine morals and try to flaunt this as an advantage against atheists.

The fact that they choose the book by their morals and not vice versa is directly contradictory to their claim that their morals come from a higher source than those of atheists. It is not an attack on the bible (though I have plenty), nor was it ever claimed to be. I don't really see how it is a contradiction to the bible, since it's technically possible (in the same way most other religions claims are) that a religious book could condone pedophillia and still be written by the inerrant all-powerful creator. The only way I can see what I said being an attack on the bible is if you can't tell the difference between any attack on religion and an attack on a specific book.

 

[dayren]

aside from the nonsense about brains and evolution, pretty good read.

 

[Deck Knight]

You tell me what I say is meaningless and then make my point even better than I did. Nobody would be a Christian if it didn't already account for their experience. These people aren't getting their morals from religion, they are choosing their religion based on what their morals already are. They have a sense of what is right and wrong before God "talks to them" in the bible, because they admit that if God's word was different they wouldn't believe it. So they aren't even using that book to decide their morals, but rather to decide that their morals are divine and higher than everyone else's. This is why they claim that they follow divine morals and try to flaunt this as an advantage against atheists.

The fact that they choose the book by their morals and not vice versa is directly contradictory to their claim that their morals come from a higher source than those of atheists. It is not an attack on the bible (though I have plenty), nor was it ever claimed to be. I don't really see how it is a contradiction to the bible, since it's technically possible (in the same way most other religions claims are) that a religious book could condone pedophillia and still be written by the inerrant all-powerful creator. The only way I can see what I said being an attack on the bible is if you can't tell the difference between any attack on religion and an attack on a specific book.

Atheists as a category would have to have morals before individuals could decide that morality they made up based on how their "conscience" was feeling that day was right and proper.

If you believe in nothing you will fall for anything. The baseline "conscience" of a modern American atheist is founded in the principles established by Founders who were at the very least theistic, given direct references to inalienable rights coming from a Creator. Atheism is antithetical to this premise, and the atheist's freedom to live in ignorance, hedonism, and self-aggrandizement is secured only by better men.

The mere concept of a creator changed history, and has its own power and influence separate from any particular consequence of what a person interprets that creator to be. The mere belief in God has overwhelming power, strengthening the will of believers.

Atheism is at a disadvantage because it has no way of justifying why its proponents should have any rights at all. Mere Humanity? We're just another ape, and Darwinism is a bitch. Atheism is the ungrateful bastard child of society who, in its smugness, is always willing to put down the faithful as superstitious throwbacks. Its proponents put up strawmen just as flimsy and purposeless as Atheism's own fungible morality like The Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one is easier led than an atheist. Tell them anything that jives with their conscience that day (the earth is overpopulated, support euthanasia! Stem-cells are guaranteed to heal the sick, opposing funding for them is anti-science!) and they'll believe it without criticism. They have no backup for when their conscience is conflicted, and no rationale for moral behavior that isn't previously supplied by a theist. It is impossible for an atheist to say killing in agression, pedophillia, rape, assault, and arson are intrinsically wrong simply because of their conscience. A conscience needs to be formed before any statements of a moral nature can be made.

Maybe for someone who gets their morals from the cafeteria of moral teaching can subscribe to your notion, but for most people their religion is the morals they grew up with and were instructed in. Humanity is a blank slate from birth and must be educated to do right. A child without moral instruction eventually becomes a deviant and then a criminal because they do not know better. Now maybe some adults seeking a different religious institution find a church to suit their morals, but thankfully they've already been instructed with a baseline. A baseline that looks surprisingly similar to The Ten Commandments. Wonder how that happened.

God and Science are not opposed to each other, they simply cover different subject matter. Morality and Atheism, however, are opposed. The former mandates a system of behavioral instruction while the latter is the absence of such instruction. "Atheist Morality" is an oxymoron. They have no clue why they believe anything other than the voice in their head, and have the arrogance to believe that they are more intelligent and capable than the faithful.

It is possible for a conscience to be improperly formed e.g. somehow a moral system that condones pedophillia, but such a system eventually crumbles under its own weight. "Divinely sanctioned" child abuse does that. Atheism is weak because it does not temper the will nor invigorate the spirit. It is tolerated by a civilized people in spite of its uselessness.

this system would save many many more people. and yet god does not use it. therefore he wants people to go to hell, therefore he is not all loving.

It would also be a system which denies free will, therefore God would not be saving humans at all, but rather bipedal organic automatons. Nevermind your statement has no logical sense to it whatsoever. If you want to break up with your girlfriend adamantly, but she keeps stalking you and forcing you to let her in, does she therefore want you to break up with her for all eternity? Hell is separation from God chosen through free will based on decisions humans make in their lives. God doesn't want you in hell, you do. Therefore he is still all-loving, you are just self-loathing, and projecting it onto God.

 

[Thisaccountwashackedlol]

Consider the following scenarios. A teenage female elephant nursing an injured leg is knocked over by a rambunctious hormone-laden teenage male. An older female sees this happen, chases the male away, and goes back to the younger female and touches her sore leg with her trunk.

Eleven elephants rescue a group of captive antelope in KwaZula-Natal; the matriarch elephant undoes all of the latches on the gates of the enclosure with her trunk and lets the gate swing open so the antelope can escape.

A rat in a cage refuses to push a lever for food when it sees that another rat receives an electric shock as a result. A male Diana monkey who learned to insert a token into a slot to obtain food helps a female who can't get the hang of the trick, inserting the token for her and allowing her to eat the food reward.…

Animals are incredibly adept social actors: they form intricate networks of relationships and live by rules of conduct that maintain social balance, or what we call social homeostasis. Humans should be proud of their citizenship in the animal kingdom. We're not the sole occupants of the moral arena.

Although morality has always been viewed as a human trait that sets us apart from the animals, it now appears our closest ancestors share the same scruples.

Scientists have that discovered monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations.

Researchers say the findings may demonstrate morality developed through evolution, a view that is likely to antagonise the devoutly religious, who see it as God-given.

Professor Frans de Waal, who led the study at Emory University in Georgia, US, said: “I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals.”

In tests carried out by Prof de Waal, the primates were given a set of tasks to carry out and rewarded with food and affection.

But researchers discovered that the animals strongly objected if they perceived others were being rewarded more than themselves for the same task. Some even sulked or refused to take part any further.

A separate study found chimpanzees spontaneously helped both humans and each other during controlled tests.

Prof De Waal suggests the traits may have developed through natural selection. Some anthropologists believe a sense of morality developed during the last ice age when humans were forced to band together to survive in an increasingly hostile environment.

Other theories suggest communities were forced to develop social codes to stop alpha males hogging all the food supplies.

Christopher Boeham, director of the Jane Goodall Research Center, part of Southern California’s anthropology department argues that anyone not following the moral code would have been killed and their ‘amoral’ genes lost forever.

"Human morality was not formed from scratch, but grew out of our primate psychology. Primate psychology has ancient roots, and I agree that other animals show many of the same tendencies and have an intense sociality."

WOLVES

Wolves live in tight-knit social groups that are regulated by strict rules. If a pack grows too large, members are not able to bond closely enough and the pack disintegrates. Wolves also demonstrate fairness.
During play, dominant wolves will "handicap" themselves by engaging in roll reversal with lower ranking wolves, showing submission and allowing them to bite, provided it is not too hard.
Prof Bekoff argues that without a moral code governing their actions, this kind of behaviour would not be possible. If an animal bites too hard, it will initiate a "play bow" to ask forgiveness before play resumes.

COYOTES

In other members of the dog family, play is controlled by similar rules. Among coyotes, cubs which bite too hard are ostracised by the rest of the group and often end up having to leave entirely.
"We looked at the mortality of these young animals who disperse from the group and they have four to five times higher mortality," said Bekoff.
Experiments with domestic dogs, where one animal was given a treat and another denied, have shown that they posses a sense of fairness as they shared their treats.

ELEPHANTS

Elephants are intensely sociable and emotional animals. Research by Iain Douglas Hamilton, from the department of zoology at Oxford University, suggests elephants experience compassion and has found evidence of elephants helping injured or ill members of their herd.
In one case, a Matriarch known as Eleanor fell ill and a female in the herd gently tried to help Eleanor back to her feet, staying with her before she died.
In 2003, a herd of 11 elephants rescued antelope who were being held inside an enclosure in KwaZula-Natal, South Africa.
The matriarch unfastened all of the metal latches holding the gates closed and swung the entrance open allowing the antelope to escape.
This is thought to be a rare example of animals showing empathy for members of another species – a trait previously thought to be the exclusive preserve of mankind.

DIANA MONKEYS

A laboratory experiment trained Diana monkeys to insert a token into a slot to obtain food.
A male who had grown to be adept at the task was found to be helping the oldest female who had not been able to learn how to insert the token.
On three occasion the male monkey picked up tokens she dropped and inserted them into the slot and allowed her to have the food.
As there was no benefit for the male monkey, Prof Bekoff argues that this is a clear example of an animal's actions being driven by some internal moral compass.

CHIMPANZEES

Known to be among the most cognitively advanced of the great apes and our closest cousin, it is perhaps not surprising that scientists should suggest they live by moral codes.
A chimpanzee known as Knuckles – from the Centre for Great Apes in Florida – is the only known captive chimpanzee to suffer from cerebral palsy, which leaves him physically and mentally handicapped.
Scientists have found that other chimpanzees in his group treat him differently and he is rarely subjected to intimidating displays of aggression from older males.
Chimpanzees also demonstrate a sense of justice and those who deviate from the code of conduct of a group are set upon by other members as punishment.

RODENTS

Experiments with rats have shown that they will not take food if they know their actions will cause pain to another rat. In lab tests, rats were given food which then caused a second group of rats to receive an electric shock.
The rats with the food stopped eating rather than see another rat receive a shock. Similarly, mice react more strongly to pain when they have seen another mouse in pain.
Recent research from Switzerland also showed that rats will help a rat, to which it is not related, to obtain food if they themselves have benefited from the charity of others. This reciprocity was thought to be restricted to primates.

BATS

Vampire bats need to drink blood every night but it is common for some not to find any food. Those who are successful in foraging for blood will share their meal with bats who are not successful.
They are more likely to share with bats who had previously shared with them. Prof Bekoff believes this reciprocity is a result of a sense of affiliation that binds groups of animals together.
Some studies have shown that animals experience hormonal changes that lead them to "crave" social interaction.
Biologists have also observed a female Rodrigues fruit-eating bat in Gainesville, Florida, helping another female to give birth by showing the pregnant female the correct birthing position – with head up and feed down.

WHALES

Whales have been found to have spindle cells in their brains. These very large and specialised cells were thought to be restricted to humans and other great apes and appear to play a role in empathy and understanding the feelings of others.
Humpback whales, fin whales, killer whales and sperm whales have all been found to have spindle cells in the same areas of their brains.
They also have three times as many spindle cells compared to humans and are thought to be older in evolutionary terms.
This finding has suggested that complex emotional judgements such as empathy may have evolved considerably earlier in history than previously thought and could be widespread in the animal kingdom.

Animals seem to have developed basic moral systems without the help of the Bible, or fear of eternal damnation. Humans, as complex animals would also be able to do so. A purely Atheist society would be able to develop a moral system without any previous knowledge of our current society. I am sure that this proof is not sufficient for you Deck Knight. You will probably still cling to your opinion that Atheists would be immoral scum had they not been exposed to Judeo-Christian morality as children. However there is a substantial amount of proof that shows otherwise.

 

[lati0s]

It would also be a system which denies free will, therefore God would not be saving humans at all, but rather bipedal organic automatons. Nevermind your statement has no logical sense to it whatsoever. If you want to break up with your girlfriend adamantly, but she keeps stalking you and forcing you to let her in, does she therefore want you to break up with her for all eternity? Hell is separation from God chosen through free will based on decisions humans make in their lives. God doesn't want you in hell, you do. Therefore he is still all-loving, you are just self-loathing, and projecting it onto God.

This statement clearly shows the mistake that so many Christians make on this subject, they don't understand what belief is. Atheists (and other non-Christians) aren't rejecting God and pushing him out, they are simply unaware of his existence. They don't believe in him the same way you don't believe in unicorns.

Trust me, if God revealed himself to me he would not have to "stalk me and force me to let him in," as I would follow him willingly, and I'm pretty sure this sentiment extends to most other nonbelievers as well

 

[Agape]

In my opinion, human moral can be lower than animal "moral" - or it can be much higher than animal "moral".

Do animals help each other without receiving any profit from it at all - as humans do (like praying for someone - it has no material profit for the praying person, or giving money to charity)?


The major difference in human behavior compared to animals is that humans pray.


And - correct me - isn't the difference between atheism and agnosticism the fact, that while agnostics admit that "they don't know if God exists or not" atheists dogmatically state that "God doesn't exist".

I think that makes the majority of atheists agnostics instead, if that's correct.

 

[Oddish On Fire]

In my opinion, human moral can be lower than animal "moral" - or it can be much higher than animal "moral".

Do animals help each other without receiving any profit from it at all - as humans do (like praying for someone - it has no material profit for the praying person, or giving money to charity)?


The major difference in human behavior compared to animals is that humans pray.


And - correct me - isn't the difference between atheism and agnosticism the fact, that while agnostics admit that "they don't know if God exists or not" atheists dogmatically state that "God doesn't exist".

I think that makes the majority of atheists agnostics instead, if that's correct.

Well, since your post is much easier to pick on than DKs, and I'm short on time, I choose you, Agape!

Considering that the last time I prayed, I was asking God to give me the strength not to masturbate, I don't see how prayer differentiates us from animals. Since I was under the opinion that masturbating would send me to Hell, I prayed for myself. When you pray for your husband not to die from cancer (and he does), you're really praying for yourself. When you're praying that your alcoholic father doesn't beat you (and he does), you're really praying for yourself. Praying may not have a material benefit, but it sure as hell makes you feel better. It's just like going to a counselor, only no one speaks back to you.

So, I don't see how your analogy with animals plays out, since they too try to help out the community in order to preserve themselves.

Also, isn't agnosticism simply the belief in a higher power minus organized religion? Atheism is the belief that no higher power exists. That doesn't mean you can't be swayed by proof, just like a Christian can be swayed to Atheism. (I'm an example) So, by your definition, all Christian's are also agnostic. O.o

I forgot to add this; I'm an atheist and I donate money. So, if atheists are capable of the same compassion as Christians, then why must logic take a back seat to faith?

 

[Naxte]

Also, isn't agnosticism simply the belief in a higher power minus organized religion? Atheism is the belief that no higher power exists. That doesn't mean you can't be swayed by proof, just like a Christian can be swayed to Atheism. (I'm an example) So, by your definition, all Christian's are also agnostic. O.o

No. Agnosticism has to do with knowledge: agnostics believe that whether or not God exists can never be known, whereas gnostics believe that it can be known. What I believe your thinking of is deism, which is the belief in a supreme being without religion being involved.

Adding on to this, it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist: agnosticism has to do with knowledge, whereas theism has to do with belief. Thus, it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, one who doesn't believe that it's actually possible to conclusively know whether or not God exists, but personally doesn't believe in his existence, or the opposite, an agnostic theist, who believes that it's impossible to know whether God actually does exist or not, but personally does believe in him. The same also goes with gnostics, of course.

 

[Thisaccountwashackedlol]

Do animals help each other without receiving any profit from it at all - as humans do (like praying for someone - it has no material profit for the praying person, or giving money to charity)?

First of all, what are you trying to argue? Deck Knight clearly said that he believes that a purely Atheist society with no previous knowledge of our current one (or any knowledge of the Bible/similar texts) would undoubtedly be immoral. I posted evidence that showed that animals have managed to develop basic moral systems that resemble those of humans. Animals have done this without the help of a religious text. I am arguing that humans would therefore be capable of this. Humans do not need the Bible to be moral. Every social animal has managed to develop a moral code without the help of the Bible.

Whether or not animals pray is irrelevant. Besides praying for someone does benefit you. It makes you feel good, because it makes you feel like you are doing something nice for that person. The same can be said for something like donating to charity. You are gaining some kind of reward, however the reward is not a physical one, it is an emotional one.


Now to answer your question.

Yes, animals do help each other without getting anything in return.

DIANA MONKEYS

A laboratory experiment trained Diana monkeys to insert a token into a slot to obtain food.
A male who had grown to be adept at the task was found to be helping the oldest female who had not been able to learn how to insert the token.
On three occasion the male monkey picked up tokens she dropped and inserted them into the slot and allowed her to have the food.
As there was no benefit for the male monkey, Prof Bekoff argues that this is a clear example of an animal's actions being driven by some internal moral compass.

That is just one example. In fact, in some cases the animals refused a reward when they saw that it was hurting others. The rat refused food when it saw that eating the food shocked another rat. The elephants certainly did not gain a reward when they rescued that captured armadillo.

 

[??????]

No matter the origin of morals they can still be divinely inspired. Who is to say God didn't instill morals in the evolutionary process?

 

[Thisaccountwashackedlol]

No matter the origin of morals they can still be divinely inspired. Who is to say God didn't instill morals in the evolutionary process?

Either way, human beings would still have morals regardless of whether or not they had knowledge of the Bible. That is what I am arguing. Morals are not purely derived from the Bible as Deck Knight claims.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I'm sorry but someone has to call you out on this ignorant, propaganda-filled, pathetic excuse for a post. If you really feel this way, I pity you. You must live a sad, tragic life if you give up on your own personal strength and surrender yourself so easily instead of trying to find reality-based solutions to problems.

Atheists as a category would have to have morals before individuals could decide that morality they made up based on how their "conscience" was feeling that day was right and proper.

If you believe in nothing you will fall for anything. The baseline "conscience" of a modern American atheist is founded in the principles established by Founders who were at the very least theistic, given direct references to inalienable rights coming from a Creator. Atheism is antithetical to this premise, and the atheist's freedom to live in ignorance, hedonism, and self-aggrandizement is secured only by better men.

THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT GOD OR CHRISTIANITY. The part of your quote that I bolded is a complete lie. How can you be this ignorant? It doesn't matter if the founding fathers believed in god, because they specifically made this country to work just as well with or without the existence of god.

The baseline "conscience" of a modern American is founded in the principles established by Founders who were mostly slaveholders as well. What's your point? "everything that has been done in the past is good" is not a legitimate argument, especially when you are talking about American history (considering that our ancestors are guilty of some unfathomably cruel acts).

Where in the Constitution does it give any mention to God or any other god? It says "all men are created equal". I was created by sexual reproduction, just like you were. Notice that the word "Created" is not capitalized in the Constitution. There is no implication of divinity whatsoever.

If the founding fathers were so hell bent on instilling their Christian values into this country, why would they have specifically placed the Free Exercise clause in there?

[We are making] "a wall of separation between church and state."

Yeah, that sounds just like someone who is trying to inspire people to follow their Christian beliefs.

The mere concept of a creator changed history, and has its own power and influence separate from any particular consequence of what a person interprets that creator to be. The mere belief in God has overwhelming power, strengthening the will of believers.

I can't argue with this one. You hit the nail on the head here, the people who believe so firmly in things that have not even a scrap of evidence proving them to be correct are the hardest to convince of the fallacies they make. They believe so strongly in it that it is painful for them to think that they could potentially be wrong. This is a very dangerous trait and should not be aspired to.

The belief in God does strengthen the will of the believers, but that will only leads them towards further ignorance.

Atheism is at a disadvantage because it has no way of justifying why its proponents should have any rights at all.

Are you kidding me? Of course it does. "If I want to get treated nicely, I should probably treat others nicely" is something that doesn't take a Bible to understand.

Mere Humanity? We're just another ape, and Darwinism is a bitch. Atheism is the ungrateful bastard child of society who, in its smugness, is always willing to put down the faithful as superstitious throwbacks.

It is absolutely appalling to me that you would hold your belief that something like god, who is so complex that humans could never even hope to understand or see it, then maintain this belief so strongly despite having 0 evidence to prove it...yet you would refer to skeptics/atheists as the smug ones.

Completely fucking amazing.

Its proponents put up strawmen just as flimsy and purposeless as Atheism's own fungible morality like The Flying Spaghetti Monster. No one is easier led than an atheist. Tell them anything that jives with their conscience that day (the earth is overpopulated, support euthanasia! Stem-cells are guaranteed to heal the sick, opposing funding for them is anti-science!) and they'll believe it without criticism.

Um, no. An atheist is skeptical of God because there is no evidence for it. If someone told me to support euthanasia, what leads you to believe that I would automatically follow it? Oh right, your own fucking ignorance.

They have no backup for when their conscience is conflicted, and no rationale for moral behavior that isn't previously supplied by a theist. It is impossible for an atheist to say killing in agression, pedophillia, rape, assault, and arson are intrinsically wrong simply because of their conscience. A conscience needs to be formed before any statements of a moral nature can be made.

It is getting more and more obvious that you are either ironically misguided about atheism or you have just steeped even further into trolling.

How hard is it to understand "dont do something if you dont want it done back to you"? Even a fucking monkey can understand that. Here is my backup for when my conscience is conflicted: does <this thing> make sense or not? What is the evidence? What is the best choice given the situation?

Can you provide any evidence that would suggest that the bolded part of this is correct? I am an atheist and I always have been, and I am telling you point blank that all of the things you listed are intrinsically wrong.

Maybe for someone who gets their morals from the cafeteria of moral teaching can subscribe to your notion, but for most people their religion is the morals they grew up with and were instructed in. Humanity is a blank slate from birth and must be educated to do right. A child without moral instruction eventually becomes a deviant and then a criminal because they do not know better. Now maybe some adults seeking a different religious institution find a church to suit their morals, but thankfully they've already been instructed with a baseline. A baseline that looks surprisingly similar to The Ten Commandments. Wonder how that happened.

Ok, first things first, look at the huge list of things that LMPL posted and tell me how God commanded those "lesser animals" to do such good work.

Secondly, do you seriously want to bring the Ten Commandments into this? Ok, but remember that you were the one who brought it up:

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
Penalty for violating this: Death or worse for 3-4 generations of your descendents who had nothing to do with your problem.
- Well, after looking at the Bill of Rights for about 10 seconds its pretty clear that America still values this! Either you disagree that this is a worthy commandment or you disagree with the Constitution.

2. Do not worship false idols (graven images)
Penalty for violating this: Death or worse for 3-4 generations of your descendents who had nothing to do with your problem.
Deut. 5:9 Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.
- We should start enforcing this gem of a commandment too

3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
Penalty for violating this: Death
Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
- GOD DAMN IT. Are you going to come here and kill me or should I drive to the police station so they can do it?

4. Keep the Sabbath as a holy day
Penalty for violating this: Death
Ex. 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
- Do I really even need to make a comment here? Using the Ten Commandments as your moral compass means that you would support executing the entire NFL.

5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
Penalty for violating this: Death
Lev. 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death. (conveniently the same book that bans homosexuality)
- Ever ignored your parents? What teenager hasn't? Death for you.

Halfway through and your moral code is looking like a really shitty system to live by.

6. You shall not murder
Penalty for violating this: Death
- ok, you got me on this one. 1 out of 6 aint bad...

7. You shall not commit adultery
Penalty for violating this: Death...For both parties.
Lev. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
- Interesting to note that this is the only form of sex banned in your moral code.

8. You shall not steal.
Penalty for violating this: Death
Deut. 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die;
- Even if written laws against stealing had originated with religion (they didn't, killing someone for a theft is a pretty outrageous thing to do no matter how you look at it.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Penalty for violating this: Payback
Deut. 19:19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother:
- This actually seems legit, although written laws against lying also preceded religion by a long time.

10. You shall not covet
Penalty for violating this: None
Deut. 5:21 Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.
- Pretty strict moral code here, no penalty for something that is arguably not a crime in any way, shape or form.


Long story short, if people are using the Ten Commandments as a moral baseline, they are fucked up. There is almost nothing moral about the Ten Commandments, especially if you look at them from a Biblical point of view. You have yet to show how a religiously-based set of morals is superior to an atheistic set of morals, and actually much of the religion that you are referring to helps solidify the point that morals do NOT require a higher power. (Note: I got much of this info here, because I wasn't aware of the penalties)

God and Science are not opposed to each other, they simply cover different subject matter. Morality and Atheism, however, are opposed. The former mandates a system of behavioral instruction while the latter is the absence of such instruction. "Atheist Morality" is an oxymoron. They have no clue why they believe anything other than the voice in their head, and have the arrogance to believe that they are more intelligent and capable than the faithful.

Atheism does not contain the absense of moral instruction. Atheism, if anything, is more valuable to the learning process and morality because it emphasizes rules that are fair instead of demanding strict adherence to outdated principles in the face of eternal damnation.

I have plenty of clues that point to why I believe things: there is evidence.

It is possible for a conscience to be improperly formed e.g. somehow a moral system that condones pedophillia, but such a system eventually crumbles under its own weight. "Divinely sanctioned" child abuse does that. Atheism is weak because it does not temper the will nor invigorate the spirit. It is tolerated by a civilized people in spite of its uselessness.

Once again, how is atheism and skepticism useless?

you are just self-loathing, and projecting it onto God.

The irony found in this statement would have me rolling on the floor in laughter if it wasn't so scary to think that you actually believe this. You are the one saying "humanity can't do anything on its own, we need God or else we would collapse", yet for some reason the people who believe in humanity are the self-loathing ones?

And you still haven't answered this question, Deck (if you have and I missed it, please let me know): If somehow atheists gave into the false burden of proof put onto them by the religious and DID prove that god doesn't exist, would you still believe that killing and stealing is wrong? If you would, then it is quite obvious that there is another driving force in that decision not called god....

God damn (sorry that slipped, are you going to put me to death like your god would have you do?) this post took me 20 minutes to write. I hope someone likes it.

 

[Xia]

Even as a Catholic I liked your post jrrrrrr, even though I don't agree it's nice to see you using facts instead of beligerence to state your case.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Even as a Catholic I liked your post jrrrrrr, even though I don't agree it's nice to see you using facts instead of beligerence to state your case.

Can you explain why you disagree with things that you admit are facts?