Scientology influence in U.S "justice" system

[treg50]

Keith Henson, Dire Straits



Awaiting extradition to California from the Prescott, Arizona jail, Keith Henson is being denied visitation rights, contact with his lawyer, and medication he needs to control heart and blood pressure problems.

Keith Henson is an engineer, scientist, and Scientology critic. In 2000, he was moved to picket Scientology's armed compound at Gilman Hot Springs, just north of Hemet, California. A young woman returning from Bible class with her sister hit a skiploader sticking out on highway 79. The crew was working for the Scientology organization, left their vehicle sticking out on the dark highway, and Ashlee Shaner was decapitated in the resultant collision.

Mr. Henson wished to call attention to that incident, and did so by launching a series of legal pickets on that public highway that bisects the cult's compound.

What followed was an utter travesty of justice.

Mr. Henson has a history of teaching pyrotechnic safety. In a book published in the '70s, 'The Great Mambo Chicken and the Transhuman Condition,' he described how he and friends would go out into the desert and "blow things up" for fun. And finally, the most absurd, he responded to a post on the Usenet group alt.religion.scientology that joked about sending in "Tom Cruise Missiles" with the cult compound as Ground Zero. Responded. The post did not originate from Keith. But this is the fodder Scientology lawyers had to work with.

In 2001, Mr. Henson was arrested and charged with numerous counts; terrorist threats, stalking, harassing Scientologists at the compound. In reality, all he did was walk on the highway shoulder carrying a sign with words on it.

This is pretty sick especially since it's in North America and the fact that the "Church of Scientology" cult has publicly infested a government system, a 'justice system' that is just a few hours away from here.

Click here for complete story (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/16/11581/2673).

[lint]

but it's ok for the bible to have an influence on the legal system?

[Super_Geo]

I smile every time I hear a Scientologist has died. Natural causes or otherwise. This goes for women/children as well.

[arian_ma]

Originally posted by Super_Geo
I smile every time I hear a Scientologist has died. Natural causes or otherwise. This goes for women/children as well.

:rofl: :rofl:
Probably the most heartless post on beyond to date, yet so funny!

[LilDrunkenSmurf]

Originally posted by Super_Geo
I smile every time I hear a Scientologist has died. Natural causes or otherwise. This goes for women/children as well.

:werd: +1

[KenP]

I smile every time I hear a Scientologist has died. Natural causes or otherwise. This goes for women/children as well.

/agree

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by lint
but it's ok for the bible to have an influence on the legal system?

Or the Quarm..

[treg50]

Originally posted by lint
but it's ok for the bible to have an influence on the legal system?

No one said anything about that but of course the answer is 'no.'

bible/koran/torah should 'ideally' not influence it BUT this is a slightly more unique situation featuring the "church/cult of choice" of so many big-name, highly paid, celebrities (public figures). You can rest assured if it were a case of the bible/Christianity biasing a legal case it would blaring front page news.

[Toms-SC]

All of religion is a cult.

[yellowsnow]

i'm not wanting to create a huge debate... but you guys do know that north american laws/rules/etc are based on biblical principles...

[lint]

Originally posted by yellowsnow
i'm not wanting to create a huge debate... but you guys do know that north american laws/rules/etc are based on biblical principles...

Glad you said it first. Absolutely correct though, that's where we get moral policing and punishments for victimless crimes.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow
i'm not wanting to create a huge debate... but you guys do know that north american laws/rules/etc are based on biblical principles...

And biblical principles are based on what exaclty?

If you really don't want a debate here, I suggest you refrain from making assertions of fact based on circular logic.

To start, biblical principles can only be accredited to the bible if they've been derived from the bible itself. Since they're not exclusive, nor original to, the bible, they can't be regarded as being "biblical" in origin. Furthermore, since there are other texts that predate the bible by thousands of years, it's more likely that the bible was influenced by these earlier works, than it is that these earlier works were influenced by a book that wouldn't be written for thousands of years. The horse goes in front of the cart.

The fact that many other civilizations, religions, and societies through time have had very similar laws to those found in the bible discredits both the idea that law is based on the bible, as well as the theory that these principles are biblical.

People like to claim the U.S. was founded on religion, but it wasn't. It was founded by secular humanists, atheists, deists and theists alike.

You say you don't want a debate.
Fine.
Quit trying to pass off your poorly thought out, easily discredited assertions as "fact".

Kris

P.S. You guys criticizing Scientology are all going to get yout Thetans all fucked up when Xenu gets here.

EDIT:
I should add: Our legal system owes a much, much, much greater debt to the likes of William Blackstone than to the god of Abraham.

[KenP]

What exactly is a "Xenu"? Is that some form of delicious crab people coming to earth for us to soak in a garlic butter sauce and enjoy?

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by KenP
What exactly is a "Xenu"? Is that some form of delicious crab people coming to earth for us to soak in a garlic butter sauce and enjoy?

I think its xenu.net lol

just watch the southpark episode.... haha or en.wikipedia.org it

fuck its funny

[dericer]

Them being scientologists have little to do with it. Them being rich however does.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS

Furthermore, since there are other texts that predate the bible by thousands of years, it's more likely that the bible was influenced by these earlier works

Well you seem very knowledgeable on matters that try to disprove the bible. maybe you can give me names of these texts. how is it that the bible is still so well known today and still the most printed book in history? while these other texts are relatively unknown. Even if your texts have ideas similiar to the bible, what does that matter?


Originally posted by TKRIS

The fact that many other civilizations, religions, and societies through time have had very similar laws to those found in the bible discredits both the idea that law is based on the bible, as well as the theory that these principles are biblical.

I think now you're trying to affirm that morals/laws are not based on the bible, but based human's own genetically imbued sense of morals? so why do people have these morals? where do they come from? society? parents?


you took my one sentence way out of proportion. Why do we swear on the bible in the court of law and not those other texts you speak of? i'll apologize if i've offended you in some way... i really had no intent to.

[Crymson]

Societal morals are in fact genetic, we evolved and succeeded because of our abillity to act in an organized manner within our social groups, this points to the reason why feel good when you help someone, and feel bad when you hurt them (most of us do anyway), because that emotional re-inforcement is in our genes.

However, this same gene leads us towards genocide and mass murder much more easily than it would be to strangle someone, because our genetic procilivity towards societal kindness evolved in small group with a very exclusionary nature, it was just as easy to be atrocious to those not in our group as it was to be kind to those in our group.

bible has nothing to do with morality, it merely restates what we already know. Or rather, re-states what we know 2,000-5000 years ago. In fact, modern humanism has moved us to conciously acknowledge the barbarity of our genes and take steps that are perphaps counter evolutionary. Things like the abolshment of slavery, and the condemnation of genocide. Both of these are accepted and praised in the bible, and are no longer accepted in an enlightened society.

[01RedDX]

.

[yellowsnow]

argg, i'm not trying to say the bible is the origin of all morals. :rolleyes:

I think your ideas that the bible DIDN'T influence our society is ludicrous.

[Crymson]

Oh, unfortunately, we cannot seem to get past that fucking book. 90% of political debate is now the emotional backwash that comes from biblical idiocy.

I totally agree that the bible has ruined our legal system and our laws, but at least we're not QUITE as bad as the christian theocracy to our south.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Crymson
Societal morals are in fact genetic, we evolved and succeeded because of our abillity to act in an organized manner within our social groups, this points to the reason why feel good when you help someone, and feel bad when you hurt them (most of us do anyway), because that emotional re-inforcement is in our genes.


so do you care to tell me which gene influences morality? you're saying that our genes/our dna dictate how we act and how we think. From what I recall in high school biology, it's impossible to change your DNA. But what you're saying is morality is interconnected to genetics, and therefore you're saying we have the ability to change alter our DNA because we are enlightened?

i'm sorry but i just find that pretty ridiculous.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Crymson
Oh, unfortunately, we cannot seem to get past that fucking book.

good :)

[01RedDX]

.

[yellowsnow]

evolution is something that takes millions of years. you cannot change your own genetics in your own lifetime.

yes i believe in evolution.

[yellowsnow]

i know it's human nature, but you guys focus on the negatives and base your arguments entirely on that part alone. the positives in the bible FAR outweigh the negatives.

yes slavery was not outlawed in the bible. it does however give guidelines on how slaves should be treated. And back in those days, slavery was completely different. Slaves weren't based on the colour of a person's skin or their social status like today. I agree that slavery in modern days were racist and prejudice, but in biblical times that was not the case, and it was a way of life.

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by yellowsnow
i know it's human nature, but you guys focus on the negatives and base your arguments entirely on that part alone. the positives in the bible FAR outweigh the negatives.

:banghead:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


Well you seem very knowledgeable on matters that try to disprove the bible.

The bible does an adaquate job of disproving itself.

But, I don't think it's any secret that I'm an atheist.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
maybe you can give me names of these texts. how is it that the bible is still so well known today and still the most printed book in history?

The Bible was written between *Moses's time (likely around 1400 B.C.E.) and around 100 C.E.
That a hell of a long time, and it's been revised a pissload of times by a shitload of "authors" along the way.

The Pyramid text was written (in it's entirety) by around 2400 B.C.E. Some of the texts contain therein date back well past the 3000 B.C.E. mark.
Hindu texts date back to well before Moses's time (~1800 B.C.E.)

Using "The most printed" argument is dishonest.
By the time people learned to read, and by the time we began printing books, Christianity had taken a strong foothold in the industrialized world. The religion on the ancient Egyptians had all but been forgotten.

We've only been printing books for the last 500 years.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
while these other texts are relatively unknown. Even if your texts have ideas similiar to the bible, what does that matter?

They're "unknown" to you and I maybe, but that doesn't make them unknown. I'm betting that the billion or so Hindu's don't consider the Vedas to be some terribly obscure text.

The point (that you seem to have missed) was that if these principles can be shown to have existed long before the bible, and in bible-free societies, then it's illogical to call them "biblical principles".

I believe that the earth orbits the sun. However, I can not claim this theory as my own, because Copernicus and Galileo came up with it hundreds of years before I was even around.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
I think now you're trying to affirm that morals/laws are not based on the bible, but based human's own genetically imbued sense of morals? so why do people have these morals? where do they come from? society? parents?

We can debate the origins of marality if you wish (I'm more than willing to do so), but I suggest that that is better left to a seperate thread (we're going far enough off topic here as it is).

I will say this: morality is not biblical in it's origins. To argue otherwise is either intentionally dishonest or numbingly ignorant.

Furthermore, if you've ever read the bible (and I confess it's been at lest 3 year since my last read), you'd see what a shockingly poor moral guide it truely is (unless, of course, you're the type that cherry picks which lessons he'll take literally, and which ones are purely illustrative, in which case, refer to my signature).



Originally posted by yellowsnow
you took my one sentence way out of proportion.

I don;t think so. You claimed our legal system was based on biblical principles. I demonstrated that not only is it not based on the bible, but those principles are not even biblical.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
Why do we swear on the bible in the court of law and not those other texts you speak of?

Because our society was, by and large, a Christian one in it's inception, not Hindu or Egyptian. It's no secret that NA has a Christian background. If you're going to scare someone into telling the truth (read: Control...the only thing religion is consistently good at), you might as well use the same unvisible pink unicorn the majority of the population worships.
That said, one of the specifications the founders of this continent laid out, was meant to specifically keep religion out of issues like these.
FWIW: I don't swear on a bible in court, because doing so would be meaningless. I don't need the threat of a boogeyman in the sky, just waiting to smite me for my disobedience, in order to be honest.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
i'll apologize if i've offended you in some way... i really had no intent to.

You haven't offended me personally.

Listening to the unfounded, ill-conceived, and poorly thought out propaganda regurgitated time and time again by theists** is intellectually insulting, but it's an offence I'm more than willing to endure to demonstrate the fatal flaws in that type of logic.

Kris

*There is no evidence outside of the bible to indicate that Moses ever existed.

**I didn't mean you in particular, and not this post in particular. I was speaking, in the more general sense, of the type of utterly rediculous bullshit that theists try to pass off as fact.
You seem like nice enough guy.

[Crymson]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


so do you care to tell me which gene influences morality? you're saying that our genes/our dna dictate how we act and how we think. From what I recall in high school biology, it's impossible to change your DNA. But what you're saying is morality is interconnected to genetics, and therefore you're saying we have the ability to change alter our DNA because we are enlightened?

i'm sorry but i just find that pretty ridiculous.

What i'm saying is that we, as a species, have a genetic pre-disposition towards morality, because it' helps us function as large social groups. Everything is related to genetics and evolution, i'm not saying you dont' have free will, but i'm saying that your brain works the way it does, because millions of years of successfull evolution has programmed it so.

However, in the last 20,000 years we have gone from living in very small groups, to living in very large groups, but our gene's haven't adapted yet. Hopefully in a few hundred thousand years, those of us who can't shed their tendencies to think like they live in very small groups will be bred out of our society, and our genes will begin to migrate towards those that favour people who participate well in our global communities.

[lint]

Here's and article on morality that was published in last months Discover Magazine (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/the-discover-interview-marc-hauser)



Is Morality Innate and Universal?
Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser's new theory says evolution hardwired us to know right from wrong. But here’s the confusing part: It also gave us a lot of wiggle room.
by Josie Glausiusz Photograph by Doron Gild

A healthy man walks into a hospital where five patients are awaiting organ transplants. Is it morally acceptable to kill the man in order to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others? If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe. But how did you reach this conclusion? Was it a rational decision learned in childhood, or was it—as Harvard evolutionary biologist and cognitive neuroscientist Marc Hauser claims—based on instincts encoded in our brains by evolution? In his recent book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (HarperCollins), Hauser argues that millions of years of natural selection have molded a universal moral grammar within our brains that enables us to make rapid decisions about ethical dilemmas.

Since the article is long, here are some select quotes pertaining to morality and religion


Are there moral principles that hold true across all societies?
People want to say things like “do unto others [as you would have done unto you].” You see it everywhere. So there’s some notion of reciprocity, and that includes both the good and bad. If I have been harmed, there is some notion of revenge which certainly seems to be part of the human psychology. Some level of, “If somebody does something nice for me, I should do something nice back to them” also seems part of the psychology. It may be evolutionarily ancient. Work that we’ve done on animals suggests some kind of reciprocity, some ancient level of cooperation. So is there a generic rule that says “don’t kill others”? No, there’s not, because that rule is always adjoined to a caveat, which says, “Well, we kill some people, but not everybody.” It’s always an in-group, out-group distinction.

What impact does religion have on moral behavior?
I think that for many who come from a religious background, religion is synonymous with morality. Some people think that if you’re an atheist, you simply have no morals. That is just wrong. There are an awful lot of people who are atheists who do very, very wonderful things. As an objective question, do people who have religious backgrounds show different patterns of moral judgments than people who are atheists? So far, the answer is a resounding no.

Do you mean that people give the same answers to objective tests of moral reasoning regardless of religious background?
One hundred percent. So far, exactly the same. Here’s an example that comes from MIT philosopher Judy Thomson. She was interested in a question of whether the fetus has an obligatory right to the mother’s body. So she gives an incredibly apocryphal, crazy example: A woman is lying in bed one morning, and she wakes up to find a man lying in bed unconscious next to her. Another gentleman walks up to her and says: “I’m terribly sorry, but this man right next to you is a world-famous violinist, and he’s unconscious and in terrible health. He’s in kidney failure, and I hope you don’t mind, but we’ve plugged him into your kidney. And if he stays plugged in for the next nine months, you will save him.”

You ask people, “Is that morally permissible?” They’re like: “No, it’s insane. Of course not.” Well, that makes [Thomson’s] point exquisitely. It would be nice if she said, “Sure, I love this guy’s playing; plug him in.” But she’s not obligated to do so. Now let me make it like the abortion case. She says, “Yes, I love this guy’s violin playing!” Two months into it, she goes: “You know what? This really is a drag,” and she unplugs. Now people all of a sudden have a sense that’s less permissible than the first case. But here, people who are pro-choice or pro-life do not differ. So the point is, if you take people away from the familiar and you capture some of the critical underlying psychological issues that play into the real-world cases, then you find that the religious effects are minimal.

Do other species have any form of moral faculty?
Certainly sympathy, caretaking, cooperation; those things are there in some animals. The crucial questions are, “Do animals have any sense of what they ought to do?” and “To what extent will animals judge transgressions of others as being wrong in some way?” How we’d ever understand that, I don’t know.


A very interesting article. Draw you own conclusions.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS


The bible does an adaquate job of disproving itself.

But, I don't think it's any secret that I'm an atheist.

The Bible was written between *Moses's time (likely around 1400 B.C.E.) and around 100 C.E.
That a hell of a long time, and it's been revised a pissload of times by a shitload of "authors" along the way.

The Pyramid text was written (in it's entirety) by around 2400 B.C.E. Some of the texts contain therein date back well past the 3000 B.C.E. mark.
Hindu texts date back to well before Moses's time (~1800 B.C.E.)


I can't even begin to to mention all the flaws in what you mentioned. You obviously harbour some resentment towards "Christianity", as is evidences by your past posts. Here's a fact..... People have been saying for the past few hundred years that the Bible has been "revised" by countless people along the way. Now most recently (within the last 20 years), we've found the oldest copies of the Bible ever..... and guess what; It's almost identical to what we have now.

So if you're trying to say the Bible has been altered, you're merely flat out wrong.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later; including the concept of "original" and "inherent" morality.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010


I can't even begin to to mention all the flaws in what you mentioned. You obviously harbour some resentment towards "Christianity", as is evidences by your past posts. Here's a fact..... People have been saying for the past few hundred years that the Bible has been "revised" by countless people along the way. Now most recently (within the last 20 years), we've found the oldest copies of the Bible ever..... and guess what; It's almost identical to what we have now.

So if you're trying to say the Bible has been altered, you're merely flat out wrong.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later; including the concept of "original" and "inherent" morality.

Just quickly, here's a quote from the translators of the King James Version of the bible:

ahem...


"If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."

They freely admit they made revisions to emphasize what they considered the true word to be. Or, for that matter, if the literary flow is lacking, they'll change the words around a bit to make it sound better.

Furthermore, the bible is a highly edited series of text. The included texts were chosen by a committee of men. Many of the texts originally associated with the bible were omitted because they conflict with either each other, or the message the church at the time wished to convey. The bible is a case-study of revisions, edits, omissions, manipulation, and, most of all, contradiction.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Crymson


What i'm saying is that we, as a species, have a genetic pre-disposition towards morality, because it' helps us function as large social groups. Everything is related to genetics and evolution, i'm not saying you dont' have free will, but i'm saying that your brain works the way it does, because millions of years of successfull evolution has programmed it so.

However, in the last 20,000 years we have gone from living in very small groups, to living in very large groups, but our gene's haven't adapted yet. Hopefully in a few hundred thousand years, those of us who can't shed their tendencies to think like they live in very small groups will be bred out of our society, and our genes will begin to migrate towards those that favour people who participate well in our global communities.

sorry but where are you getting your sources from? how can u firmly say this is facts? it's just a scientific theory. i could also say that it's our spirits that gives us morality. that's a religious theory. can you dispute one over the other? now that opens a whole new can of whoop ass.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Just quickly, here's a quote from the translators of the King James Version of the bible:

ahem...


"If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."

They freely admit they made revisions to emphasize what they considered the true word to be. Or, for that matter, if the literary flow is lacking, they'll change the words around a bit to make it sound better.

Furthermore, the bible is a highly edited series of text. The included texts were chosen by a committee of men. Many of the texts originally associated with the bible were omitted because they conflict with either each other, or the message the church at the time wished to convey. The bible is a case-study of revisions, edits, omissions, manipulation, and, most of all, contradiction.

Today there are countless numbers of translations, it's getting pretty ridiculous. The dead sea scrolls are the oldest known copies of the bible known to man. when they compared those texts to current translations, they said there was only a 1% discrepency in their translations, but essentially the same message is portrayed.

this gives us pretty good confidence that the original bible text is very similiar to today's bible text. although yes some things were probably lost in translation. But I don't believe the main points were lost.


man this is getting waaaayy off topic...

[Crymson]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


sorry but where are you getting your sources from? how can u firmly say this is facts? it's just a scientific theory. i could also say that it's our spirits that gives us morality. that's a religious theory. can you dispute one over the other? now that opens a whole new can of whoop ass.

Seriously?

I guess you are seriously

here's a place you can start if you car to enlighten yourself,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

however, i suspect you are one of those people that says "Theory" of evolution, with a sneer and bunny-ears.

[Toms-SC]

yellowsnow what proof do you have that god exists?

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
yellowsnow what proof do you have that god exists?

ya know, i get asked this question a lot. and if there was 'proof' then well there would be no question everyone must believe in God. There would be no free choice then. Do I wish there was proof? of course. Do i have any? no, not solid scientific proof.

i don't wanna be a preacher or anything, so feel free to pm me if you're seriously interested in why i choose to believe. :)


Originally posted by Crymson
Seriously?

I guess you are seriously

here's a place you can start if you car to enlighten yourself,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

however, i suspect you are one of those people that says "Theory" of evolution, with a sneer and bunny-ears.

umm... i don't see anywhere where it states that these are proven scientific facts. in fact the very FIRST sentence states it as a theoretical approach. hmm.... so it's actually a theory according to your own website.

Now you choose to have faith in this right? you choose to believe this 'theory'. Why do you choose to believe? Is there NO doubt in your mind?

Flip flop that, I have faith in the bible as being truthful. I choose to believe.

You choose to believe in your theory of evolutionary pyschology. i choose to believe in a bible that gives me peace in life and afterlife. simple as that.

[st184]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
what proof do you have that god exists?
Nice argument, you really have me convinced! There must not be a god because i cant proove that one exists... jesus you really cleared things up for me. Im glad a dumbass like you came along to show me the truth.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
i choose to believe in a bible that gives me peace in life and afterlife. simple as that.
+1

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by st184

Nice argument, you really have me convinced! There must not be a god because i cant proove that one exists... jesus you really cleared things up for me. Im glad a dumbass like you came along to show me the truth.


+1

I sleep well knowing that I am not going to be going to a sky fairy in a mystic place when I die. How do you sleep when your profound and hard faith is in the after life? I cannot wait until the sky fairy comes down to earth and questions me. :clap: When do you think he will show up?

Religion, pathetic. :thumbsdow

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


ya know, i get asked this question a lot. and if there was 'proof' then well there would be no question everyone must believe in God. There would be no free choice then. Do I wish there was proof? of course. Do i have any? no, not solid scientific proof.


Not only do you not have any "solid, scientific proof", you don't have any flimsy, suggestive evidence.

One of my pet peeves is when people assert that, because one cannot disprove god, that there must be a reasonable likelyhood that he exists.

It's the "Celestial Teapot" ideology.

Just because I can't disprove, with absolute certainty, that there's a teapot orbiting the earth doesn't mean that there's a 50% chance that there's a teapot orbiting the earth.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
Now you choose to have faith in this right? you choose to believe this 'theory'. Why do you choose to believe? Is there NO doubt in your mind?

Don't pervert the word faith. I've had this discussion on this board before, and I've demonstrated how drastically different the belief in science is from the belief in god.
For the sake of clarity, let's refer to "faith" by it's most common usage: believing in something either despite a lack of evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary.



Originally posted by yellowsnow
Flip flop that, I have faith in the bible as being truthful. I choose to believe.

OK, you have faith in a book. You believe that book is infaillable and the "word of god" simply because the book says it is.
All evidence (outside of the book) indicates that the book is simply a story. None of the relevant events can be corroborated anywhere outside of said book (despite occuring in a recent enough time that we should be finding massive amounts of verification).

This is a vastly different breed of belief than one founded in the scientific theory.

Reviewing the length of this post, I've decided to not get into all the reasons why it is infinitly more improbable that god does not exist. I am more than willing to have that discussion, but I suspect it'll require some lengthy posts on both our parts. If you're interested in having that discussion, either PM me or start a new thread. I'll leave the choice, as to whether you want to pursue this or drop it, up to you. Hell, I'll even try to be civil ;)


Originally posted by yellowsnow
You choose to believe in your theory of evolutionary pyschology. i choose to believe in a bible that gives me peace in life and afterlife. simple as that.

OK, I'm not going to try to demonstrate why your god doesn't exist (not in this post anyway).
All I was trying to demonstrate, before I was willingly pulled into this off-the-tracks debate, was that your initial post was incorrect. Since noone has refuted the points I made, I'll assume that demonstration was a success (not that I'm expecting any christians to conceed anything).


Ultimatly, the point I was initially trying to make was best presented by a guy named Stephen Roberts who said:

Originally posted by Stephen F. Roberts
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Kris

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Toms-SC


I sleep well knowing that I am not going to be going to a sky fairy in a mystic place when I die. How do you sleep when your profound and hard faith is in the after life? I cannot wait until the sky fairy comes down to earth and questions me. :clap: When do you think he will show up?

Religion, pathetic. :thumbsdow

Did you know that a good majority of philosphers believe that Jesus was real in the bible. They now only question whether he was God or not.

just cuz you can't see it, does that make it unreal? I don't focus on the afterlife, like most people I work 5 days a week, 8-5, go home and have some fun. the only difference between me and you is i believe there is something far greater than just myself in the world, and i try to focus a part of my life on other people instead.

i'm not saying aetheists are immoral or bad people, i know quite a few very outstanding people who don't want anything to do with the bible, and spend way more time helping others than myself. so don't try to hang me for saying that lol.

[yellowsnow]

bahaha TKRIS, i know for sure i don't have the depth of knowledge as you when it comes to aetheism vs bible. wish i did tho ;) i've only really studied the bible for a year, gimme some time and i'll come back with a new thread for you.

[KenP]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000078V34.01-A3K8MJJG7C5G9B.PT03.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
:werd:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


Did you know that a good majority of philosphers believe that Jesus was real in the bible. They now only question whether he was God or not.

First, let's discuss what you're right about:
Among respected scholars, it is commonly accepted that there was a "messiah" named Jesus aound that time

Now to clear up the part where you get a little subversive...
Jesus wasn't the only cowboy on the range. There were hundreds of "messiah's" around at that time.
The "Jesus" of the bible is an emalgamation of many of these messiahs.
Apollonius of Tyana, as an example...



Originally posted by yellowsnow

just cuz you can't see it, does that make it unreal? I don't focus on the afterlife, like most people I work 5 days a week, 8-5, go home and have some fun. the only difference between me and you is i believe there is something far greater than just myself in the world, and i try to focus a part of my life on other people instead.

i'm not saying aetheists are immoral or bad people, i know quite a few very outstanding people who don't want anything to do with the bible, and spend way more time helping others than myself. so don't try to hang me for saying that lol.

Many of the modern world's greatest philanthropists have been, and continue to be, atheists.

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by TKRIS





Many of the modern world's greatest philanthropists have been, and continue to be, atheists.

Add scientists to that too.

[Toms-SC]

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/Dekkrboy/sciencevsfaith.jpg

Thread complete

[yellowsnow]

i really don't understand the animosity people harbour for the bible. do you just focus on the negatives? the MAIN POINT in the bible is to (not to sound cheesy) love others and love god. i respect people like TKRIS who have a thirst for the truth, but others who just attack the bible just cuz they don't like it, i don't understand.

honestly if the whole world adopted the teachings of Jesus, I believe the world would be a whole lot better.

Matthew 22:34-40
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

This is what Jesus essentially wanted to teach us. Why the animosity towards a teaching that only promotes helping others, putting others ahead of yourself, and loving a God that loves us in return.

I will respect those of you who reject the bible simply because you are on a campaign for truth in the world. but to people who reject it simply because they think it's pathetic, :thumbsdow

[yellowsnow]

your chart is pointless. since it's completely biased.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS

Now to clear up the part where you get a little subversive...
Jesus wasn't the only cowboy on the range. There were hundreds of "messiah's" around at that time.
The "Jesus" of the bible is an emalgamation of many of these messiahs.
Apollonius of Tyana, as an example...

can you tell me where i can find evidence to support this claim? i honestly want to find out.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow

Matthew 22:34-40
One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."





Originally posted by Deuteronomy 13:13-19:

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases…you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God.

Point is, everybody cherrypicks based on their own opinions.
Please refer to my signature.

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by yellowsnow
your chart is pointless. since it's completely biased.

What should it be?

[arian_ma]

Toms-SC, even though I am an atheist and do not believe in religion or the bible, I have no doubt in my mind that your IQ is below that of a chimpanzee's, maybe even below George Bush's if you keep on talking.

Yellowsnow, even though I think some of the ideas of the bible are idiotic and should be banished, I still do believe that the MAIN points of the bible are pretty much based on morality, ie. don't steel, don't cheat, don't lie, etc.
These are not bad points, and if this was the Christianity that was influencing our judicial system then fine, that works for me. What pisses me (and probably other people in this thread) off the most, is when these political leaders start to make decisions for the entire population based on one line in the bible, even with mass amounts of criticism and rejection.
The most recent: Gay marriage, honestly? Does it make your life any different if some guy married another guy? Really? Because some book "Jesus" wrote over 2000 years ago said so?
:guns: :guns: :guns:

[yellowsnow]

i don't think it's that black and white. when deuteronomy was written by moses, what kind of world do you think it was? the god in the old testament seems so brutal compared to the new testament, and i always wondered why. the time when moses was around, different tribes were everywhere, and i'm sure they were very violent and brutal. they would have been slaughtered and wiped off the earth.

if the earlier christians didn't do what god had commanded them, then jesus couldn't have come, and christianity would be non-existant.

You're asking the question. How can a good God allow all these things happen? How can a good God allow pain, violence, brutality, murder in the world?

I'll ask you these question first.
Is there such a thing as heat?
Is there such a thing as cold?

Is there such a thing as darkness?

Is there such a thing as evil?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


can you tell me where i can find evidence to support this claim? i honestly want to find out.

I suggest you start with these links before we go any further:

http://www.biblegateway.com/

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Here's couple good references:

http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/evolutionlinks.html

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

Quick bio of Apollonius:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_tyana

Historical Jesus?
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1212&splash=yes


Hope that helps.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow
i don't think it's that black and white. when deuteronomy was written by moses, what kind of world do you think it was? the god in the old testament seems so brutal compared to the new testament, and i always wondered why. the time when moses was around, different tribes were everywhere, and i'm sure they were very violent and brutal. they would have been slaughtered and wiped off the earth.

if the earlier christians didn't do what god had commanded them, then jesus couldn't have come, and christianity would be non-existant.

You're asking the question. How can a good God allow all these things happen? How can a good God allow pain, violence, brutality, murder in the world?

I'll ask you these question first.
Is there such a thing as heat?
Is there such a thing as cold?

Is there such a thing as darkness?

Is there such a thing as evil?

If you're claiming the bible is the complete, and infaillable word of god, then it is black and white.
It's either the complete and infaillable word of god and we should follow it, or it's not.


What you're arguing is that, because times have changed, some parts of the bible and some principles in the bible, some commandments made in the bible, etc. no longer apply.

Fine.

So now we're left with a book that is partially relevant, and we only have to follow the rules and laws that we deem condusive to your current sociological climate.

Please refer to my signature.

[Toms-SC]

Originally posted by arian_ma

Bla Bla


Weak. Now I recall why your on my ignore list :thumbsup: I'm glad you believe in evolution! :D Gay marriage? come on, dig a little deeper.

You need to bring up something good like
-Woman's Rights
-Birth Control
-Abortion
-Capital Punishment

And best of all
-Dinosaurs

Any religious text is a double edged sword. It can be used for good and evil. People who take it to the extreme tend to bread hate and intolerance while those who take it more lightly use it as a guide line for living life.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by arian_ma
Toms-SC, even though I am an atheist and do not believe in religion or the bible, I have no doubt in my mind that your IQ is below that of a chimpanzee's, maybe even below George Bush's if you keep on talking.

Yellowsnow, even though I think some of the ideas of the bible are idiotic and should be banished, I still do believe that the MAIN points of the bible are pretty much based on morality, ie. don't steel, don't cheat, don't lie, etc.
These are not bad points, and if this was the Christianity that was influencing our judicial system then fine, that works for me. What pisses me (and probably other people in this thread) off the most, is when these political leaders start to make decisions for the entire population based on one line in the bible, even with mass amounts of criticism and rejection.
The most recent: Gay marriage, honestly? Does it make your life any different if some guy married another guy? Really? Because some book "Jesus" wrote over 2000 years ago said so?
:guns: :guns: :guns:

Jesus did not come to reform society, his purpose was to take away people's sins. ALL sins, and to be a living example of what God wants in his people. I agree, the bible has been taken OUT of context many times. The crusades, salem witch hunt, the holocaust, but that was because of people's misunderstanding of the teaching of Christ. The fact is, that wasn't God's teaching. Like TKRIS's sig, "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means."-George Bernard Shaw". People take words and skew them to their OWN liking.

Yes, being gay is a sin according the bible, but so is lying, stealing, adultery, etc. Jesus still loves them regardless. Prostitutes, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, gays, he never rejected them.

[arian_ma]

^^ Exactly, take it with a grain of salt ffs.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow

Yes, being gay is a sin according the bible, but so is lying, stealing, adultery, etc. Jesus still loves them regardless. Prostitutes, thieves, murderers, tax collectors, gays, he never rejected them.

Maybe Jesus does still love them, but god clearly commands you to kill them.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS


If you're claiming the bible is the complete, and infaillable word of god, then it is black and white.
It's either the complete and infaillable word of god and we should follow it, or it's not.


What you're arguing is that, because times have changed, some parts of the bible and some principles in the bible, some commandments made in the bible, etc. no longer apply.

Fine.

So now we're left with a book that is partially relevant, and we only have to follow the rules and laws that we deem condusive to your current sociological climate.

Please refer to my signature.

i haven't had time to read your links yet, as i'm at work right now... i'll try to read some tonight.

but yes there are many teachings that are now irrelevant. society is constantly changing, so it would be ludacrous to be sacrificing animals, or building altars to God now. These things were done to appease God before the time of Jesus.

Now that Jesus has come, and has taken away these sins, there's no more need to sacrifice animals or build altars, cuz God's anger towards us, all our sins, was all placed on Jesus. And God was appeased.

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by Crymson
Societal morals are in fact genetic, we evolved and succeeded because of our abillity to act in an organized manner within our social groups, this points to the reason why feel good when you help someone, and feel bad when you hurt them (most of us do anyway), because that emotional re-inforcement is in our genes.

However, this same gene leads us towards genocide and mass murder much more easily than it would be to strangle someone, because our genetic procilivity towards societal kindness evolved in small group with a very exclusionary nature, it was just as easy to be atrocious to those not in our group as it was to be kind to those in our group.

bible has nothing to do with morality, it merely restates what we already know. Or rather, re-states what we know 2,000-5000 years ago. In fact, modern humanism has moved us to conciously acknowledge the barbarity of our genes and take steps that are perphaps counter evolutionary. Things like the abolshment of slavery, and the condemnation of genocide. Both of these are accepted and praised in the bible, and are no longer accepted in an enlightened society.

TKris, were we not involved in a huge debate about this a few months ago on here too?? something to do with that website that disproves pretty much every religious argument

Also Crymson, I have never heard it explained that eloquently, good job on you..... he is right you all know :clap:

[The Cosworth]

also

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5519239193881956619&q=comedy+ten+commandments&hl=en

or find Pen and Tellers Bullshit episode regarding the bible

I will tell you know that it is biased but gives you a good perspective

Also there is 0 proof of existence of moses outside the bible

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


Now that Jesus has come, and has taken away these sins, there's no more need to sacrifice animals or build altars, cuz God's anger towards us, all our sins, was all placed on Jesus. And God was appeased.

They change the definition of Original Sin since the last time I went to Sunday School?

If we're allowed to disregard the teachings of the bible as they become irrelevant, why don't we just toss the whole thing?
It's been shown to be an incredibly poor guide to morality.
It's explanations of the natural world have been demonstrated as being laughably jeuvenile and erroneous.
Even it's most adament supporters disregard massive portions of it based on their own world view.

The only relevant influence religion maintains on our lives is one of oppression. It stops people from being curious, rewards intellectual laziness, and does it's best to prohibit the raising of one's consciousness.
The world is a much more wonderful place when viewed with the understanding we now have than it could ever be through the pages of this fairy tale.

I hope that you'll come to understand this one day.

[Toms-SC]

Mad props to YellowSnow, I do respect you although you are a Christian :angel:

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS


They change the definition of Original Sin since the last time I went to Sunday School?

If we're allowed to disregard the teachings of the bible as they become irrelevant, why don't we just toss the whole thing?
It's been shown to be an incredibly poor guide to morality.
It's explanations of the natural world have been demonstrated as being laughably jeuvenile and erroneous.
Even it's most adament supporters disregard massive portions of it based on their own world view.

The only relevant influence religion maintains on our lives is one of oppression. It stops people from being curious, rewards intellectual laziness, and does it's best to prohibit the raising of one's consciousness.
The world is a much more wonderful place when viewed with the understanding we now have than it could ever be through the pages of this fairy tale.

I hope that you'll come to understand this one day.

original sin? you mean adam and eve? i'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

If you see the bible as a story as you say, then like in any story, the conclusion is the finality of the book. in the beginning, adam and eve sinned, and god cast them away. God cannot be near sin since he is holy. i know this sounds non-chalant, but skip to the end, jesus saves the world, people can now be reuinited with God.

that's why some parts of the bible are irrelevant. i believe.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Toms-SC
Mad props to YellowSnow, I do respect you although you are a Christian :angel:

thanks :)

[The Cosworth]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


original sin? you mean adam and eve? i'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

If you see the bible as a story as you say, then like in any story, the conclusion is the finality of the book. in the beginning, adam and eve sinned, and god cast them away. God cannot be near sin since he is holy. i know this sounds non-chalant, but skip to the end, jesus saves the world, people can now be reuinited with God.

that's why some parts of the bible are irrelevant. i believe.

did adam come first then eve was created out of his rib? or were they both created at the same time

if you read genesis, they say both happens

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by brendankharris


did adam come first then eve was created out of his rib? or were they both created at the same time

if you read genesis, they say both happens

from what i remember adam came first then eve was created from one of his ribs.

forgive me, but i don't remember which part in genesis you're referring to about them being created at the same time.

i'll be the first to admit, i don't remember every detail in the bible

[01RedDX]

.

[eb0i]

Ribs :drool:

http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio105/ribs.htm

[01RedDX]

.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


original sin? you mean adam and eve? i'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

Jesus didn't remove sin. We're all born with original sin. We're all sinners before we even have the chance to sin for ourselves.


Originally posted by yellowsnow
If you see the bible as a story as you say, then like in any story, the conclusion is the finality of the book. in the beginning, adam and eve sinned, and god cast them away. God cannot be near sin since he is holy. i know this sounds non-chalant, but skip to the end, jesus saves the world, people can now be reuinited with God.

that's why some parts of the bible are irrelevant. i believe.

Excellent. Some progress.

It's been shown how the aforementioned "biblical principles" are not biblical in origin, so we can discard that.
It's been shown how many of the laws and rules setforth in the bible are immoral and unethical, so we can set aside the "moral guide" argument.
It's been shown that the vast majority of the bible is no longer applicable.

All we're left with is, like you say, as story.
Now, why is this story more plausible than that of Zeus, Allah, Buddah, Annubis, or any of the thousands of god that you're an atheist towards?
There's no evidence to support any of them.
All of them are equally improbable.
All of them require massive amounts of faith, as well as either turning a blind eye to modern knowledge, or an ignorance of it.

As previously stated: As soon as you truely understand why you're an atheist to all the other god's societies have believed in, you'll understand why I'm an atheist to your god.

Douglas Adams said something to the effect of "Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it as well?"

I'm not asking you to turn away from your god, I'm challenging you to examine your reasons. You seem like an very intelligent guy, and I'm quite certain you're a very good person. I'm not saying this to be a kiss ass or anything. I'm simply stating that I believe you have the intellectual capacity to be a free thinking person, able to make his own decisions free of antiquated religious doctrines. All you have to do is allow your consciousness to be raised, and release your irrational superstitions.

Kris

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS


Jesus didn't remove sin. We're all born with original sin. We're all sinners before we even have the chance to sin for ourselves.



Excellent. Some progress.

It's been shown how the aforementioned "biblical principles" are not biblical in origin, so we can discard that.
yes but the question of whether or not morality comes from evolution or from God remains in question.


Originally posted by TKRIS

It's been shown how many of the laws and rules setforth in the bible are immoral and unethical, so we can set aside the "moral guide" argument.
It's been shown that the vast majority of the bible is no longer applicable.

yes, and i have been trying to say that the new testament was not a law book or rule book for the world, but a historical book on a man named Jesus, and what he has done and tried to show us. The most applicable, and most important part is in the new testament, the conclusion.


Originally posted by TKRIS

All we're left with is, like you say, as story.
Now, why is this story more plausible than that of Zeus, Allah, Buddah, Annubis, or any of the thousands of god that you're an atheist towards?
There's no evidence to support any of them.
All of them are equally improbable.
All of them require massive amounts of faith, as well as either turning a blind eye to modern knowledge, or an ignorance of it.


No i haven't researched extensively the religions of allah, annubis or many other gods. but chrisitianity, from what i have read, is the only religion that has a 'living' god, and has died, and risen from the dead. (To me this was the hardest part to believe, pm me if you wanna know why i chose to believe). and it's the only religion in which God died for us, and suffered for us.


Originally posted by TKRIS

I'm not asking you to turn away from your god, I'm challenging you to examine your reasons. You seem like an very intelligent guy, and I'm quite certain you're a very good person. I'm not saying this to be a kiss ass or anything. I'm simply stating that I believe you have the intellectual capacity to be a free thinking person, able to make his own decisions free of antiquated religious doctrines. All you have to do is allow your consciousness to be raised, and release your irrational superstitions.

Kris

I am being constantly challenged in my faith... it's not easy for sure. I am a free thinking person... i take people's arguments, and try to see if there's a reasonable explaination.

I know this debate will never be solved. You'll always have believers and unbelievers. We each choose our sides and put our faith in it. It's not something that is easily acceptable, and not something easily dismissed.

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by yellowsnow

yes but the question of whether or not morality comes from evolution or from God remains in question.

Are you kidding me? I thought this had been addressed already... to think that without religion people would have no morales is one of the most ignorant statements that holy rollers make... and trust me, they make a lot.

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by yellowsnow
but chrisitianity, from what i have read, is the only religion that has a 'living' god, and has died, and risen from the dead. (To me this was the hardest part to believe, pm me if you wanna know why i chose to believe). and it's the only religion in which God died for us, and suffered for us.

Oh that's why the chuches needs to tax their subjects, so they can 'repay' god for his services.... or was it so they could amass power to wage political/social/idealogical wars against their neighbors (see: well, almost all of organized religion's history)? I can understand why the serfs back in the day would follow religion so blindly. For that to be happening in this day and age when we have come so far in understanding and self-awareness is... depressing.


I guess people always want easy answers.
- "You're here because God put you here"
- "When you die you go to Heaven or Hell"
Awesome thanks, that's about as deep as my questions on my existance goes. Q.E.D.

[403Gemini]

This thread only proves one thing:

Some atheists are like nissan fan boys :thumbsup:

[calgarygts]

You guys are in so much trouble with our real lord, the flying spaghetti monster.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS
Just quickly, here's a quote from the translators of the King James Version of the bible:

ahem...


"If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place."

They freely admit they made revisions to emphasize what they considered the true word to be. Or, for that matter, if the literary flow is lacking, they'll change the words around a bit to make it sound better.

Not at all. First off.... the KVJ Bible is the least accurate and one of the oldest translations. There is a good reason very few people actually use that translation. Like in any translation, it takes some interpretation, and that's just inherent when you're translating to a language as "simple" as the English Language. By that I mean simply that that the English language is very 'basic" when compared to Greek for example.

Currently the NASB translation is basically word for word, and NIV translates in "readable phrases". Nothing is "changed" it is merely translated.

Use an online translater to translate something from german to english for example and see if it is at all readable. It's horrible... and that's the reason for translating in phrases.



Furthermore, the bible is a highly edited series of text. The included texts were chosen by a committee of men. Many of the texts originally associated with the bible were omitted because they conflict with either each other, or the message the church at the time wished to convey. The bible is a case-study of revisions, edits, omissions, manipulation, and, most of all, contradiction.

Really? If you actually take a look at the history of it, that's not correct. Certain books were left out because the time and date that they were written was obviously nothing but a forgery. Like with anything, people will always try to add their own spin on it... and the books that were written that are not included were written at entirely different times, and definitely heavily influenced by the Gnosticism at that time.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS


If you're claiming the bible is the complete, and infaillable word of god, then it is black and white.
It's either the complete and infaillable word of god and we should follow it, or it's not.

What you're arguing is that, because times have changed, some parts of the bible and some principles in the bible, some commandments made in the bible, etc. no longer apply.

Fine.

So now we're left with a book that is partially relevant, and we only have to follow the rules and laws that we deem condusive to your current sociological climate.

Please refer to my signature.
I'm kind of jumping into this part midstream, and I hope you don't mind me doing so.

I think what Yellow was trying to say, is merely an argument that people use to try and show the analogy of what Evil truly is (correct me if I'm wrong yellow). Saying there is evil is one thing... just like people say their is darkness. But darkness is not something, it is in essence the total absence of something.... light. Darkness is a lack of light, and similarly, evil is essentially a lack of good.

Like the saying goes (don't remember where I heard it or from who)... all we need for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

I keep responding here at work, but hopefully this weekend I can respond in more detail.

[TKRIS]

I'll respond next week. I'm gone for a few days.

Have a good weekend.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by Super_Geo


Are you kidding me? I thought this had been addressed already... to think that without religion people would have no morales is one of the most ignorant statements that holy rollers make... and trust me, they make a lot.

If you bothered reading the entire thread, you'll notice I wrote I did not imply that. I know plenty of aethist people who are much better people that I am. So before making further comments, and if you want to partake in this discussion, reread the whole thread.

I'll repeat it again for your sake. I was saying I do not agree the aforementioned Theory of Evolutionary Psychology which was brought up by Chrymson. I do not agree morals are correlated with evolution, instead I believe morals are from God. And no, you do not need to believe in God to be born with morals. His wikipedia article strictly states his so called "fact" is nothing more than a scientific theory, a series of hypothesis' to say the least.


Originally posted by Super_Geo

Oh that's why the chuches needs to tax their subjects, so they can 'repay' god for his services.... or was it so they could amass power to wage political/social/idealogical wars against their neighbors (see: well, almost all of organized religion's history)? I can understand why the serfs back in the day would follow religion so blindly. For that to be happening in this day and age when we have come so far in understanding and self-awareness is... depressing.


I guess people always want easy answers.
- "You're here because God put you here"
- "When you die you go to Heaven or Hell"
Awesome thanks, that's about as deep as my questions on my existance goes. Q.E.D.

Once again, I mentioned rebutles for these accusations in a previous comment. Re-read the entire thread before trying to intervene. Then we can have a good debate.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by liquid1010

I'm kind of jumping into this part midstream, and I hope you don't mind me doing so.

I think what Yellow was trying to say, is merely an argument that people use to try and show the analogy of what Evil truly is (correct me if I'm wrong yellow). Saying there is evil is one thing... just like people say their is darkness. But darkness is not something, it is in essence the total absence of something.... light. Darkness is a lack of light, and similarly, evil is essentially a lack of good.

Like the saying goes (don't remember where I heard it or from who)... all we need for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing.

I keep responding here at work, but hopefully this weekend I can respond in more detail.

yes liquid that's a point i was leading to, it's a very good point.

wouldn't mind picking this up after the long weekend :D have a good one!

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Super_Geo

Are you kidding me? I thought this had been addressed already... to think that without religion people would have no morales is one of the most ignorant statements that holy rollers make... and trust me, they make a lot.

Before you go off... please realize that your "opinion" is not factual. In actuality, there is no "one" answer that has been 100% proven without a doubt correct on this topic.

CS Lewis brought his fundamental thoughts on this topic. Essentially, I'll try to super paraphrase just the tip of his thoughts, and I will no doubt not do them justice.

Essentially, it is impossible to impose the idea of a moral law without imposing the concept of a moral law giver. How can you reconcile the concept of having a good and bad without first having a foundation in what is defined as right and wrong? You ultimately cannot. In this situation, "wrong" is anything that is a social "more". Not merely taking a pregnant womans seat on the bus... but lets say slaying a young child. That is "wrong", and you will be hard pressed for someone to say that it it "not wrong" without having some serious gaps in practical application.

Now with that built, where did we come up with overarching concept of right an wrong? Is it original tribal instinct initiated during our early evolution? If that is the case, then evidence of this primitive moral law would be seen in animals today.

Going to the next step, what is fundamental to all living animals/humans? What is that most basic instinct right at our core that drives us all (Human and Animal)? If you said "self preservation" you would be correct. At the core of every animal is an instinct to survive; and that is the same for humanity as well. At our true core, we are striving to survive at all cost. Now that we have defined that, what is a MAJOR moral fundamental in humanity that opposes this? "Giving you life for your neighbour or friend". When a soldier dies to help us maintain our way of life, it is considered noble. Does that not contradict self preservation? Then the concept of moral law being a tribal and genetic development does not hold.

[Super_Geo]

Ah forgot about this thread.

liquid1010: Human behavior is more advanced, intricate, complex (call it what you want) than any other animal that we know of on the planet. Looking at our evolutionary history this has happened sometime 'recently,' in the last hundred thousand years or so as newer generations had increasingly larger brains, from the early homo erectus to modern day homo sapiens.

Morality is something that evolved from increasingly complex social structures, and requires a hefty bit of help from the biological side as well.

Human empathy is probably the best example. We have the capacity to experience 'emotional resonance' like no other species on earth: that's what makes watching sports and porn so exciting.

They did an interesting experiment on this. So say you score a goal in hockey... nerves go off, rewards channel in your brain gets triggered, and you're happy. They studied what happened when people would see it on TV and found that when someone saw another person scoring a goal the same nerve channels were triggered (albeit not as strongly). I think that's empathy in a nutshell: the reaction your brain has to you experiencing something is the same as when you view someone else experience the same thing.

So say you see a child being beaten, most people would react on the basic premise that they would if it were their child. This has great evolutionary significance. A stable, cooperative society depends on stabe, cooperative people... and that means you can't be killing your neighbors and eating their babies, as it's often done in nature.

If you look at the earliest stages of hunter/gatherer society (back when we were homo erectus) 'morality' as we know it today would be basically non-existent, a disparity which meshes quite well with the difference in social complexity between then and now.

So to address the issue of the 'moral law giver,' I believe it's pretty clear that it's an evolved trait... a prerequisite for a more complex society. The further we go back in our genetic lineage the less pronounced it is. There wasn't a day when, BAM, suddenly people started giving a shit about their neighbors.

What's interesting is looking at people who were deemed 'immoral' by society in this light: mass murderers and people who can kill in cold blood and think nothing of it have been shown to have little or no 'emotional resonance.' So there's no feedback loop between their actions and the suffering it causes their victims. We can see them as 'evil' people who have no morals, but really it's the result of lacking the same piece of biology that the rest of the people in a productive society have. And its effects on the rest of society is devastating with just one person: Cho, Pickton, Manson... goes to show how much modern society would go to shit if their traits were more prevelent, and why societies, in a combination of genetic and memetic evolutionary forces, would be best suited with progressively more 'moral' people.

I don't see it as an act of God... I think of it more as probablity taking its course.

[01RedDX]

.

[vadeit]

Originally posted by calgarygts
You guys are in so much trouble with our real lord, the flying spaghetti monster.

I too understand His greatness, plus I was once touched by His Noodly Appendage. That touch is what made me believe.

[403Gemini]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Wow, you guys really have a spirited debate going on here. On one hand, it's tough to argue with Super_Geo's cold logic. On the other hand, living your life according to core Christian values is not a bad thing at all.

I'm an agnostic, and as such, I believe theological debates are pointless. Whether you believe in the scientific, or spiritual explanation for the origin of life, the fact is it's a miracle we are here to debate it at all.

If we all treat each other with respect and try to contribute something good to the world, we may gain a small insight into what it really means to be here. I think that's something we can all agree on.


Well said

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010


Before you go off... please realize that your "opinion" is not factual. In actuality, there is no "one" answer that has been 100% proven without a doubt correct on this topic.

Perhaps not.
However, billions of people's lives disprove the theory that baby jebus makes you moral.
Billions of people who've never heard of baby jebus didn't kill kids.

You seem to be arguing a moral god by proxy. There are a couple fatal problems with this type of circular logic:
-As I've previously said, just because you can't completely disprove something does not make it probable. Let me clarify (using Christianity as an example for simplification):
You've failed to present any evidence that morality is biblical in nature. Additionally, because much the same morals exist in both other religions, and secular societies, to attribute them to the bible is a vicious stretch of imagination. That is not to say that it's 100% proven fact and known for certain that moraility doesn't have biblical origins. All anyone is saying is that there is no evidence to support the claim that morality has anything to do with religion. Just because we can't completely disprove an argument doesn't mean that that argument is plausible. Refer to the Celestial Teapot example.




Originally posted by liquid1010
CS Lewis brought his fundamental thoughts on this topic. Essentially, I'll try to super paraphrase just the tip of his thoughts, and I will no doubt not do them justice.

Essentially, it is impossible to impose the idea of a moral law without imposing the concept of a moral law giver. How can you reconcile the concept of having a good and bad without first having a foundation in what is defined as right and wrong? You ultimately cannot.

Without consequences, there's no way to guage our actions. I agree with you there.
How does that have anything to do with god?
We know that natural selection is a powerful enough to have shaped these types of responses because we can see it in lesser animals, it can be used toexplain why we feel the way we do, and we can see why these traits would have originated and what purpose they've served. In short, natural selection does a comendable job explaining both human, and animal, behavior.

God, on the other hand, introduces far more questions than he answers, in addition to making the question infinitly more complex. Celestial Teapot.


Originally posted by liquid1010
In this situation, "wrong" is anything that is a social "more". Not merely taking a pregnant womans seat on the bus... but lets say slaying a young child. That is "wrong", and you will be hard pressed for someone to say that it it "not wrong" without having some serious gaps in practical application.

Now with that built, where did we come up with overarching concept of right an wrong? Is it original tribal instinct initiated during our early evolution? If that is the case, then evidence of this primitive moral law would be seen in animals today.

It is. Did you see the video in the "General" section that showed the pack of water buffalos ganging up on the lions to protect one of their young?

Are you really arguing that morality doesn't exist in the animal kingdom? If so, you're sincerely mistaken.

Different species have different priorities.
A solitairy species will tend to value their own life over than of their kind, while a tribal species will tend to want to protect future generations at their own peril.

So that said, a tribal species will tend to be more "moral", in the conventional meaning, than a solitairy one, only because they place more importance on the whole than on the individual. That makes it a diffeence of priority and evolution than one of ultimate morality. In any case, god doesn't play into either type of behavior.


Originally posted by liquid1010
Going to the next step, what is fundamental to all living animals/humans? What is that most basic instinct right at our core that drives us all (Human and Animal)? If you said "self preservation" you would be correct.

False.
Reproduction.
Many species only retain their insticts of self preservation long enough to reproduce.
Many species die in the act of reproduction.
Many species place their lives in exteme peril in order to have a chance to reproduce.

While I agree that "self-preservation" is a very powerful force in our lives, it is not at the core of our beings. Generally speaking, self preservation only becomes inportant in the more evolved species.
The goal of every biological organism is reproduction. Full stop.


Originally posted by liquid1010
At the core of every animal is an instinct to survive; and that is the same for humanity as well. At our true core, we are striving to survive at all cost. Now that we have defined that, what is a MAJOR moral fundamental in humanity that opposes this?

I've shown this reasoning erroneous.
Because the premise you base your entire understanding of biology on is fatally flawed, it's not surprising that your arguments are incorrect as well.



Originally posted by liquid1010
"Giving you life for your neighbour or friend". When a soldier dies to help us maintain our way of life, it is considered noble. Does that not contradict self preservation? Then the concept of moral law being a tribal and genetic development does not hold.

It does contradict self-preservation. The problem with you're arguments (aside from placing far too much emphasis on self preservation) is that you're ignoring many of the fundamental principles that have allowed us, as a species, to survive and conquer as well as we have.

There are evolutionary reasons why self sacrifice would be of great benifit to the tribe, even at the sacrifice of the individual.
Comraderie, morale, unity, protection, altruism, etc. These are not human-specific traits.
We see similar actions in nature. If we take your view, then we're left not only with the conundrum of "god" (who poses far larger and more complicated problems than he resolves), but also with the questions as to why he'd introduce certain benificial traits in certain species, but not in others. This is a far less satisfying, less elegant, and less coherant an explanation than that of natural selection. In conclusion, there is absolutely no need for god in these arguments, there is no indication of a god in these arguments, and to introduce him here compounds the question and creates unneccessary problems. God does not serve as an explanation for anything.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by Super_Geo
[B]Ah forgot about this thread.

liquid1010: Human behavior is more advanced, intricate, complex (call it what you want) than any other animal that we know of on the planet. Looking at our evolutionary history this has happened sometime 'recently,' in the last hundred thousand years or so as newer generations had increasingly larger brains, from the early homo erectus to modern day homo sapiens.

Morality is something that evolved from increasingly complex social structures, and requires a hefty bit of help from the biological side as well.

Of course it's more advanced that either of us could imagine. That's what makes topics like this so tough to fully understand. I don't understand how I said otherwise :dunno:

One thing I think your confusing is the idea of a larger brain, and the sudden influx of a moral "understanding". The two do not neccesarily go hand in hand. You're seemingly tying in intelligence and morality, and those DEFINITELY do not go hand in hand. Hitler was an intelligent man... but was far from living up to moral standards.

Your also linking social complexity with morality. Once again this doesn't really hold any water. We live in a socially complex world, that's without a doubt..... but how does that build a framework for morality. Unless of course you're saying that morality is essentially just a way of governing that we don't "hurt each other"; which we both know is not correct.




So say you see a child being beaten, most people would react on the basic premise that they would if it were their child. This has great evolutionary significance. A stable, cooperative society depends on stabe, cooperative people... and that means you can't be killing your neighbors and eating their babies, as it's often done in nature.

If you look at the earliest stages of hunter/gatherer society (back when we were homo erectus) 'morality' as we know it today would be basically non-existent, a disparity which meshes quite well with the difference in social complexity between then and now.

So your first statement above shows that you do in fact believe morality is basically a "law to not hurt each other". I believe morality goes much deeper than that.



So to address the issue of the 'moral law giver,' I believe it's pretty clear that it's an evolved trait... a prerequisite for a more complex society. The further we go back in our genetic lineage the less pronounced it is. There wasn't a day when, BAM, suddenly people started giving a shit about their neighbors.

What's interesting is looking at people who were deemed 'immoral' by society in this light: mass murderers and people who can kill in cold blood and think nothing of it have been shown to have little or no 'emotional resonance.' So there's no feedback loop between their actions and the suffering it causes their victims. We can see them as 'evil' people who have no morals, but really it's the result of lacking the same piece of biology that the rest of the people in a productive society have. And its effects on the rest of society is devastating with just one person: Cho, Pickton, Manson... goes to show how much modern society would go to shit if their traits were more prevelent, and why societies, in a combination of genetic and memetic evolutionary forces, would be best suited with progressively more 'moral' people.

Ok, I follow you here... and you're argument seems to work. However let me ask you one question that this argument (heard it before) has always struggled with. Social Darwinism. The same argument you are using above, is what Hitler used as the foundation to his "movement". It's the same concept that often precedes genocide. The idea that I'm more evolved than you, and therefore have a higher understanding than you. Therefore, logic should hold that I'm better than you.

You see, if evolution caused morality (which has other problems I'll get into when I'm not at work), when can you turn it off? You can't. That's a fundamental problem that has existed with this concept from the get go. If morality has "evolved" then who is more "morally evolved"?

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS
[B]

Perhaps not.
However, billions of people's lives disprove the theory that baby jebus makes you moral.
Billions of people who've never heard of baby jebus didn't kill kids.

You seem to be arguing a moral god by proxy. There are a couple fatal problems with this type of circular logic:
-As I've previously said, just because you can't completely disprove something does not make it probable. Let me clarify (using Christianity as an example for simplification):
You've failed to present any evidence that morality is biblical in nature. Additionally, because much the same morals exist in both other religions, and secular societies, to attribute them to the bible is a vicious stretch of imagination. That is not to say that it's 100% proven fact and known for certain that moraility doesn't have biblical origins. All anyone is saying is that there is no evidence to support the claim that morality has anything to do with religion. Just because we can't completely disprove an argument doesn't mean that that argument is plausible. Refer to the Celestial Teapot example.

TKRIS - I'll get to your post later... but I needed to say one thing prior to doing so.

Where did I bring in the concept of the Bible as moral law? Before we start this debate, please don't put words into my mouth, as that just makes this debate that much more difficult. I understand your preconceived notions in regards to Christianity are strong... but take that out of it for now.

Right now, this debate at it's fundamental point is about whether or not morality is built on the framework of a moral law giver or an evolutionary process. I didn't attribute morality to the Bible as you said..... and saying I did is merely once again you putting words in my mouth. I am merely stating that moral law, has a foundational point in a "law giver". Regardless of who your think "God" is..... that is a point we have not reached yet.

Therefore when you make the statement: "You've failed to present any evidence that morality is biblical in nature. Additionally, because much the same morals exist in both other religions, and secular societies, to attribute them to the bible is a vicious stretch of imagination. That is not to say that it's 100% proven fact and known for certain that moraility doesn't have biblical origins. All anyone is saying is that there is no evidence to support the claim that morality has anything to do with religion. Just because we can't completely disprove an argument doesn't mean that that argument is plausible. Refer to the Celestial Teapot example

You have put more words in my mouth than I care to mention. My whole argument agrees with much of your above statement. Part of the reason I am stating that there is a moral law giver is BECAUSE of what you have said above; that the vast majority of societies have a similar moral compass.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010


Ok, I follow you here... and you're argument seems to work. However let me ask you one question that this argument (heard it before) has always struggled with. Social Darwinism. The same argument you are using above, is what Hitler used as the foundation to his "movement". It's the same concept that often precedes genocide. The idea that I'm more evolved than you, and therefore have a higher understanding than you. Therefore, logic should hold that I'm better than you.

You see, if evolution caused morality (which has other problems I'll get into when I'm not at work), when can you turn it off? You can't. That's a fundamental problem that has existed with this concept from the get go. If morality has "evolved" then who is more "morally evolved"?

You're doing the same thing here that you did last time we had this conversation.
I explained how Social Darwinism does not, de facto, lead to genocide and prejudice. You had no response then, and I suspect you have none now. I won't reiterate my points, I'll simply direct you to the last thread in which this was discussed.

Using Hitler as an example of the terrors of atheism and evolution is ludicrous.
a) Hitler wasn't an atheist.
b) You're trying to turn the exception into the rule.

I've stated why your understanding of evolution, social darwinism, and biology are tenous at best. The least you could do is address the massive problems in your arguments instead on simply trying to shift the conversation into the abstract.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010


TKRIS - I'll get to your post later... but I needed to say one thing prior to doing so.

Where did I bring in the concept of the Bible as moral law?

That's what this entire conversation has stemed from. Yellowsnow's assertion that our laws are based on biblical morals.


Originally posted by liquid1010
Before we start this debate, please don't put words into my mouth, as that just makes this debate that much more difficult. I understand your preconceived notions in regards to Christianity are strong... but take that out of it for now.

Please demonstrate anywhere that I have based any of my arguments of a "preconceived notion" of Christianity. Please show me where I've based any of my arguments on anything other than reason as oppose to faith.

And yes, when I say "faith", I mean the conventional meaning of the word faith...not the convoluted manipulated stretch of linguistic definition that you like to adhere to in order to attempt to weigh logic down with superstition by tieing religion to science.
;)


Originally posted by liquid1010
Right now, this debate at it's fundamental point is about whether or not morality is built on the framework of a moral law giver or an evolutionary process.

My entire post demonstrated why your version of a moral law giver (ie: god, whatever) is illogical. Not only is there no indication that he exists, but all evidence suggests that he doesn't. Additionally, as I've illustrated, evolutionary process does a very elegant job of answering these questions, and a "moral law giver" (ie: god) not only does a pisspoor job by way of explanation, but compounds the problem immensely.




Originally posted by liquid1010
I didn't attribute morality to the Bible as you said..... and saying I did is merely once again you putting words in my mouth. I am merely stating that moral law, has a foundational point in a "law giver". Regardless of who your think "God" is..... that is a point we have not reached yet.

Therefore when you make the statement: "You've failed to present any evidence that morality is biblical in nature. Additionally, because much the same morals exist in both other religions, and secular societies, to attribute them to the bible is a vicious stretch of imagination. That is not to say that it's 100% proven fact and known for certain that moraility doesn't have biblical origins. All anyone is saying is that there is no evidence to support the claim that morality has anything to do with religion. Just because we can't completely disprove an argument doesn't mean that that argument is plausible. Refer to the Celestial Teapot example

You have put more words in my mouth than I care to mention. My whole argument agrees with much of your above statement. Part of the reason I am stating that there is a moral law giver is BECAUSE of what you have said above; that the vast majority of societies have a similar moral compass.

Did you miss the part where, right above that comment, I wrote:


Originally posted by TKRIS
Let me clarify (using Christianity as an example for simplification):
???

Not sure how I could have made that any clearer...


EDIT: I apologize if I seem crass. I'm beginning to lose my patience. It's frustrating to argue when the other person continues to attempt to move the goalposts. If you wish to continue, I'm more than happy to do so and will do my damndest to maintain an acceptable level of civility, but please address the topic at hand, instead of trying to drag this off into obscurity by constantly extrapolatin the issue and changing the subject. You either defend your arguments or you allow them to fall.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS


You're doing the same thing here that you did last time we had this conversation.
I explained how Social Darwinism does not, de facto, lead to genocide and prejudice. You had no response then, and I suspect you have none now. I won't reiterate my points, I'll simply direct you to the last thread in which this was discussed.

Using Hitler as an example of the terrors of atheism and evolution is ludicrous.
a) Hitler wasn't an atheist.
b) You're trying to turn the exception into the rule.

I've stated why your understanding of evolution, social darwinism, and biology are tenous at best. The least you could do is address the massive problems in your arguments instead on simply trying to shift the conversation into the abstract.

Just because your not willing to look at it doesn't make it abstract.

As for making the exception, the rule. Why bother. An exception points out flaws to riules that exist, or seemingly exist.

I'm not willing to go back a discussion we had previously...... and while my understanding of biology is limited, my understanding of philosophy including social darwinism, and evolution are just fine... thanks ;)

What does Hitler being an atheist or not have anything to do with our conversation. I merely stated him as an example of an intelligent man with little moral understanding. If you care to disagree with that point, be my guest and provide a counterpoint.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS


That's what this entire conversation has stemed from. Yellowsnow's assertion that our laws are based on biblical morals.


Key word here is "I". Since you're speaking with me now... lets focus on what I brought forward. I never mentioned the Bible as moral law.... as first we have to prove the existance of A moral law giver... rather than on WHO that is.



Please demonstrate anywhere that I have based any of my arguments of a "preconceived notion" of Christianity. Please show me where I've based any of my arguments on anything other than reason as oppose to faith.

And yes, when I say "faith", I mean the conventional meaning of the word faith...not the convoluted manipulated stretch of linguistic definition that you like to adhere to in order to attempt to weigh logic down with superstition by tieing religion to science.
;)


Ah yes.... nothing like childlike arogance to throw into a debate. Faith is not as simple as the "websters Dictionary" reference. If you think that, then it tells me all I need to know. That's why there are people in every relgion around the world.... that focus years of the their life to understand this. If you want to use the websters definition.... run with it.


EDIT: I apologize if I seem crass. I'm beginning to lose my patience. It's frustrating to argue when the other person continues to attempt to move the goalposts. If you wish to continue, I'm more than happy to do so and will do my damndest to maintain an acceptable level of civility, but please address the topic at hand, instead of trying to drag this off into obscurity. [/B]

I have no idea how I'm moving the goalposts. As soon as someone brings up a topic that you don't "like", they're moving the goalposts. As long as you control the topics... then you're happy where the posts are. Here's a theory... if you move out of your comfort zone.... THAT's when you learn things. P.S... I learned more about biology with our previous discussion. By understanding the validity of others arguments, you yourself learn.

I'm done here for now. I have to get some work done..... but I will give one final post on this topic perhaps tommorow when I have some time. I'll use references so if you want to follow-up with the topic you can.

The problem with debates like this is that everyone thinks they're an expert in their field. You say this topic of a moral law-giver holds no water.... then why is it still being hotly debated by multitudes of people in academic literature? Not Christian litertaure as you might think... but academic literature. You see.... not everything is as cut and dried as you like to think it is. Just like faith requires more than a five word definition... so to morality requires more than a couple squabling posts.

This topic came up in my senior level Philosophy course at University, and even my doctorate prof mentioned the validity of both sides... and how current limitations in science are trying to be extrapolated through the use of philosophy. Everything has limitations... even science ;) Despite your ridiculous claim that social darwinism is "nothing of substance".... a large portion (I would go as far as to say a majority) of academia disagrees with you. In fact, there are multiple books written on this topic, as well as the topic of the need for an intrinsic moral value within humanity.

This may sound harsh, however it is not intended as such. It is evident in your posts that you're jaded towards specific ideas, thoughts, and topics... and since I do not know your background... that may be warranted. With that said, the first thing you learn about debate is that you have to leave all your "history" at the door. The whole point of a debate is that both people need to learn something new. By not digging beyond the surface.... you'll never learn anything new. I've learned a lot of new information.... and although I disagree with it..... It has allowed me to reevaluate things.

Cheers.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010


Just because your not willing to look at it doesn't make it abstract.

As for making the exception, the rule. Why bother. An exception points out flaws to riules that exist, or seemingly exist.

I'm not willing to go back a discussion we had previously

Ah yes. Intellectual laziness FTW eh?

You asked me about Social Darwinism before. I demonstrated how our social behavior is dictated by a complex interweaving combination of aspects ranging from philosophy to biology (all of which we can trace back to evolution). Since you didn't bother to refute that, I could only presume that you had no argument.




Originally posted by liquid1010
...... and while my understanding of biology is limited, my understanding of philosophy including social darwinism, and evolution are just fine... thanks ;)

I wouldn't be so certain.
Still claim the "irriducibly complex" theories of Behe are evidence against evolution?
Still claim there is a difference between macro and micro evolution?
Still hold onto fantasies of inaccurate "Carbon Dating"?
Still claim that the calculation of some Doctor at the University of Cardiff (who obviously does not understand what evolution is, how it works, the anthropic principle, or any other relevant topic at hand, not purely mathematically based)? *By the way, you never did forward the alleged studies.

Before we go any further, I have to again suggest you go back to the last time we had these arguments and reread it.
Fuck, I'll even hotlink it for you:

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163271


Originally posted by liquid1010
What does Hitler being an atheist or not have anything to do with our conversation. I merely stated him as an example of an intelligent man with little moral understanding. If you care to disagree with that point, be my guest and provide a counterpoint.

You present him as the obvious outcome of social darwinism without addressing any of the other pressures that have played a part in the evolution of our social interractions.

Hitler's morality was subverted by his priorities. He is not the poster boy for social darwinism, as you seem to think. Social Darwinism (as I've said before) has resulted in our compassion to our fellow man, empathy, altruism, and generosity. Like I said, self-preservation plays a big part in our society, so it's completely logical to assume that we'd try to regulate intertribe conflict, as it may well result in our deaths, the death of our children, and our inability to continue as a species.

You like to bring up Social Darwinism, but you refuse to look at any of our evolved and complex social pressures to understand why we behave the way we do. Instead, you claim there are "holes" where they aren't any, and assert that a magical man in the sky, who's origin, intent, motive, and existance in completely unknown is a better explanation.

[liquid1010]

Originally posted by TKRIS
[B]

Ah yes. Intellectual laziness FTW eh?

You asked me about Social Darwinism before. I demonstrated how our social behavior is dictated by a complex interweaving combination of aspects ranging from philosophy to biology (all of which we can trace back to evolution). Since you didn't bother to refute that, I could only presume that you had no argument.


LOL... I keep saying I'm done... but this great. Intellectual Laziness? Really? This is from the individual who refuses to discuss the meaning of Faith, or go beyond any five word definition he has in his head.



I wouldn't be so certain.
Still claim the "irriducibly complex" theories of Behe are evidence against evolution?
Still claim there is a difference between macro and micro evolution?
Still hold onto fantasies of inaccurate "Carbon Dating"?
Still claim that the calculation of some Doctor at the University of Cardiff (who obviously does not understand what evolution is, how it works, the anthropic principle, or any other relevant topic at hand, not purely mathematically based)? *By the way, you never did forward the alleged studies.

Before we go any further, I have to again suggest you go back to the last time we had these arguments and reread it.
Fuck, I'll even hotlink it for you:

http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread.php?s=&threadid=163271


Not a problem. When I have time I'll look into it. Actually I read some more info on Behe... and guess what, you're right! Almost anyway. See.... that's what debate is about... learning. Not just stating your point and walking away; unless you take your debating que from Rosie ODonnel.

As for the Math Prof, (Dr. Vickramasingher if I remember correctly) I can still forward you that info, I just need to look through my books at home. As for Micro and Macro biology, they are not identical... and I hold to that. I have done more reading on it, and that has not changed that one bit.

As for your points about Social Darwinism... you're obviously missing the point. Like I said... I'll have one final post... then I'm done. Hopefully :dunno:

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010


Key word here is "I". Since you're speaking with me now... lets focus on what I brought forward. I never mentioned the Bible as moral law.... as first we have to prove the existance of A moral law giver... rather than on WHO that is.

Yeah, you claim some "moral law giver" is who we get our morals from. I demonstrated that:
a) There is no evidence of said "moral law giver" (which you've yet to refute)
b) Natural selection does a slepndid job of explaining morality and behavior (which you've yet to refute)
c) A "moral law giver" would not only not give an explanation to the question at hand, but would require massive amounts of explanations (none of which are even slightly probably) to justify his own existance. (which you've yet to refute)



Originally posted by liquid1010
Ah yes.... nothing like childlike arogance to throw into a debate. Faith is not as simple as the "websters Dictionary" reference. If you think that, then it tells me all I need to know. That's why there are people in every relgion around the world.... that focus years of the their life to understand this. If you want to use the websters definition.... run with it.

I will.

I won't however, give you a free pass to manipulate a common word so that it serves your purpose. I won't idly sit and let you subvertly and dishonestly drag reason into the realm of superstition based on careful leaps of linguistic defilement.



Originally posted by liquid1010

I have no idea how I'm moving the goalposts. As soon as someone brings up a topic that you don't "like", they're moving the goalposts.

You make an argument. That argument is challenged to be incorrect, and based on a poor understanding of the subject matter.
Instead of demonstrating why that argument is not subject to the pitfalls previously illustrated, you go skipping along your merry little way onto the next topic...


Originally posted by liquid1010

As long as you control the topics... then you're happy where the posts are.

Don't be so obtuse.
I ask only that you support your arguments. Particularily when their validity is severely challenged, and the basis upon which they are built is demonstratably erroneous.


Originally posted by liquid1010
Here's a theory... if you move out of your comfort zone.... THAT's when you learn things. P.S... I learned more about biology with our previous discussion. By understanding the validity of others arguments, you yourself learn.

You say you learned, but I'm skeptical.

I demonstrated why your arguments were wrong, how your understanding on evolution was incorrect, and provided examples of every type of evolution that you claimed couldn't exist. Not only that, but I provided links and references.

You read said links and references (I assume) that refute your points, then (I presume, given the current topic and our views on it) you continued along your merry way believing all the same crap you believed before I showed you how wrong it all was.

That's not learning. That's not giving a shit what the actual evidence suggest and, instead, stubbornly sticking to a position despite the fact that it's riddled with errors and inadaquacies.

EDIT: If you contend that those references are incorrect, or that there is better science out there saying something else, or that the experiments were flawed, etc. then that's one thing. If you'd have made those arguments, then we'd have had somethign to discuss, but you didn't.
I can only assume that, because you didn't refute those points, that you'd changed your tune and conceeded that your initial stance was flawed. I see now that that is not the case. Instead, you just choose to ignore the evidence I've provided. You claim you've looked into the subject and your stance remains the same, yet you provide no rational or evidence to support it...



Originally posted by liquid1010
I'm done here for now. I have to get some work done..... but I will give one final post on this topic perhaps tommorow when I have some time. I'll use references so if you want to follow-up with the topic you can.

I'll be looking forward to references.


Originally posted by liquid1010

The problem with debates like this is that everyone thinks they're an expert in their field. You say this topic of a moral law-giver holds no water.... then why is it still being hotly debated by multitudes of people in academic literature? Not Christian litertaure as you might think... but academic literature.

If by academic literature you mean scientific, testable, quantifiable literature, I'd welcome the references.

If you're talking about abstract, unverifiable, philosophic speculation...well...I suspect you should know me well enough to know that ain't going to pass the sniff test.
See the Celestial Teapot for why that type of reasoning is irrelevant to the current conversation.

You're either arguing that there is a teapot, or you're arguing that it's perfectly acceptable to regard the existance of the teapot as reasonable probable, I'm not sure which. Either way, it's ludicrous.


Originally posted by liquid1010

You see.... not everything is as cut and dried as you like to think it is. Just like faith requires more than a five word definition... so to morality requires more than a couple squabling posts.

FAITH:
A belief that is not based on evidence.


See, that's eight words...

I know that the sun will rise tomorrow.

My mom has faith that there exists an invisible man in the sky.

These are two very different beliefs, based on very different foundations.


Originally posted by liquid1010
This topic came up in my senior level Philosophy course at University, and even my doctorate prof mentioned the validity of both sides... and how current limitations in science are trying to be extrapolated through the use of philosophy. Everything has limitations... even science ;) Despite your ridiculous claim that social darwinism is "nothing of substance".... a large portion (I would go as far as to say a majority) of academia disagrees with you. In fact, there are multiple books written on this topic, as well as the topic of the need for an intrinsic moral value within humanity.

This may sound harsh, however it is not intended as such. It is evident in your posts that you're jaded towards specific ideas, thoughts, and topics... and since I do not know your background... that may be warranted. With that said, the first thing you learn about debate is that you have to leave all your "history" at the door. The whole point of a debate is that both people need to learn something new. By not digging beyond the surface.... you'll never learn anything new. I've learned a lot of new information.... and although I disagree with it..... It has allowed me to reevaluate things.

Cheers.

And this may sound harsh:
When I make an argument, I make damned sure I can back it up.

Why? Because I don't want to look like an idiot if my argument is easily refuted.
How many times have we gone back and forth since my initial rebuttle to your point that you made in response to Super_Geo's post?

I've been trying not to get pulled into an indepth conversation aside from the initial subject in hopes that you'd return to it and substantiate your initial claims. I see now that that hope is futile and you feel no obligation to back up any of your arguments.

Let me summarize:
a) Just because we can't disprove something with absolute certainty doesn't mean it's reasonably plausible.
b) Natural selection is a completely satisfying and rational explanation for human behavior, and morality.
c) God (or "moral law giver"...if you like) requires more explanation than he gives, and since there is no evidence that suggests that he exists, it's irrational to look to him as the source of morality.
d) Morality exists outside of our species. Natural selection provides an elegant explanation for why this is so, religion mucks it up in the same was as in point c).
e) The fundamental goal of all lifeforms is reproduction, not self-preservation. The two are obviously related, but not equal.
f) The fact that reproduction is our primary goal does not dictate that everything we do must result in it. We've evolved into complex organisms with intricate social structures that often times require actions oppose to our primary goal of reproduction. This is not a human specific trait. See point d).

[liquid1010]

Ok, lets start this whole thing all over again. Lets keep our responses short, sweet, and to a very specific point. Work for you? Maybe a longwinded post would be too much info, and we'll be dragged in all sorts of differenct directions. I agree with you there. So lets keep our posts minimal, and to the point, discussing one specific point at a time. Agreed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep saying you've provided evidence to refute my statement about where morality comes from. To date, I've stated this:

1) Morality cannot exist outside a realm of a "law-giver"

* Why? - because it is all encompassing, and various cultures all around the world (prior to our modern society), who had never had contact with one another, carried a basic morality. If you do not agree, give me a very specific concept of where morality came from. You mentioned Natural Selection as a process for morality. Please go into more detail and be more specific. If evolution caused it, please provide evidence as such and show how you link evolution with morality. Was morality a function of our social evolution? Is it hardwired? You also have to go beyond proving yours right... please prove mine wrong. How can you prove a "Being" didn't create a moral law? The burden off proof is on us both.

Once this is done, I'll get into how "reproduction" being our first primary insitinct is totally off-base. But in keeping with our new "short to the point posts" I'll refrain for now.

[yellowsnow]

Originally posted by TKRIS

That's what this entire conversation has stemed from. Yellowsnow's assertion that our laws are based on biblical morals.


no... that's not correct. My first post may have sounded like that, but further on I am stating I do not agree moral codes stem from evolutionary psychology. I am saying morals come from God.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by liquid1010
Ok, lets start this whole thing all over again. Lets keep our responses short, sweet, and to a very specific point. Work for you? Maybe a longwinded post would be too much info, and we'll be dragged in all sorts of differenct directions. I agree with you there. So lets keep our posts minimal, and to the point, discussing one specific point at a time. Agreed?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You keep saying you've provided evidence to refute my statement about where morality comes from. To date, I've stated this:

1) Morality cannot exist outside a realm of a "law-giver"

* Why? - because it is all encompassing, and various cultures all around the world (prior to our modern society), who had never had contact with one another, carried a basic morality. If you do not agree, give me a very specific concept of where morality came from. You mentioned Natural Selection as a process for morality. Please go into more detail and be more specific. If evolution caused it, please provide evidence as such and show how you link evolution with morality. Was morality a function of our social evolution? Is it hardwired? You also have to go beyond proving yours right... please prove mine wrong. How can you prove a "Being" didn't create a moral law? The burden off proof is on us both.

Once this is done, I'll get into how "reproduction" being our first primary insitinct is totally off-base. But in keeping with our new "short to the point posts" I'll refrain for now.

Not murdering your neighbor is in the best interests of the "herd". Since we're a tribal species, whatever is in the best interests of the "herd" is generally the moral thing.
I'm not going to go through a list of every moral action and explain why it's benificial to society as a whole, that's fucking rediculous. I'm not going to do all your thinking for you.
For the most part, morality is nothing more than survival instinct. As I've previously stated, depending on the type of animal, priorities on what type of survival vary, but it's basically simple survival.
We don't abuse kids because it has majorly adverse effects on the people they become. As a communal species, we've a vested interest in protecting our young (as do most of our closest animal relatives), as such, a sense to protect them from all harm is natural.

It's extremely evident that morality is benificial to our society and to us, as such, it follows that it would be propagated through natural selection.

Morality is clearly hardwired*. That said, our morality is far from being the only retraint or pressure on behavior.
In other words, for the same reasons you're believing that having evolved morality will ultimately lead to genocide was wrong, you're theory that if morality is hardwired we'd all be moral is wrong**.
Simply put, we've evolved past being slaves to one function of our genetic code.

The problem with having this argument is that in order to understand why it's incredibly probable that our morality is evolved through natural selection, you first must understand how natural selection works. Through discussions I've had on this board in the past (several people, not just yourself), it's clear that it's far less understood than some here think. That is, a lot of people on here talk about how they understand evolution and natural selection, but still think it's based on random chance or some other such nonsense.

The burden of proof is not on me regarding your "moral law giving being".
As I've said a thousand times (and you haven't refuted), there is no indication that such a being exists.
If you're actually proposing that morality comes from some "being", you must answer the bigger question of the origins of said being.
It's the same massive flaw that "Intelligent Design" has. Example: ID proponents claim that complex being cannot come from simpler life forms. If that is the case, then how does one justify using an inexplicably complex mechanism as the "first mover". It's entirely illogical and unfathomably improbable.

Using a "being" to explain the origins of morality has the same trappings as using god to explain complex life. Neither are worthy of serious inquiry for three reasons:
1.) There is no evidence of a "moral giving being"
2.) To use a "being" as an explanation does a very poor job indeed at answering the question, as it's existance requires far more explanation, and far more complicated questions, that it answers.
3.) We already have a theory that fits all available data and does a very nice, elegant, satisfying job of answering the question of morality (and complex organisms, for that matter).

The only serious problem that the theory of Natural Selection has is that it doesn't agree with religious dogma. Full stop.

Yeah, I relaize this post was a bit long. However, because of the way your argument was worded, this was the best I could do.

*We can go into "hardwired morality" further, if you wish, but I didn't think that's where you were really going with that, so let's just take it as a given since we can see in in various stages in evolved species, since we can often times physically link immoral behavior with brain damage, and since the only proven link between all people is not (as you say) some mystical, inexplicable, invisible, moral "being"; but natural selection itself.

**I presume that you're next argument was going to be allong the lines of "Well, if morality is hardwired, why aren't we all moral. Why did Hitler blah blah blah..." or some other such nonsense.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by yellowsnow


no... that's not correct. My first post may have sounded like that, but further on I am stating I do not agree moral codes stem from evolutionary psychology. I am saying morals come from God.

Neatly skipping over the problems that arise from saying anything came from god, or that there is a god.

If you believe because you believe, then that's your business. Just don't drop into actual discussions that are concerned with proofs, evidence and logic.

Your type of belief lives outside of, and in spite of, actual evidence and reason.