to whom do you attribute your moral compass?

My moral compass is attributed to my parents per Jewish tradition. You are given your name clean, free of sin, and it is your duty to pass it on to your children in the same condition you got it. The actions of one person can taint an entire bloodline for ever; see Hitler and what he did to not only the Hitler name, but also Adolf.

-the monkeys kept picking the prosocial option showing how much they care about each other's welfare.

More proof that monkeys are smarter than Rethugs.

"to whom do you attribute your moral compass?"

i found MY moral compass in a box of crackerjacks.

If you do good not because G-d says so, but because you fear punishment, are you really worshiping G-d, or appeasing him?

" why moral tendencies evolved in the human species (probably to promote cooperation),"

What seems to be unclear is to what extent morality is biological evolution as opposed to social/cultural evolution.

The word used throughout the OT by KJV translators is more like "respect", than "fear".

In Christianity, as in Abraham's time before the Law, "good works" done out of fear would be, "as filthy rags".

The basis of Christianity is, whether one credits it or not, that for our faith we receive a "deposit" of God's spirit in us, a downpayment on promises made, and that it is this spirit that works good through us and may or may not alter our behaviour during our lifetime.

I've always thought interesting studies that show that even given various cultures, backgrounds, education, religious beliefs, etc, that most people in most hypothetical situations will usually choose "the good" over the "evil", or not as good outcome.

The word used throughout the OT by KJV translators is more like "respect", than "fear".

In Christianity, as in Abraham's time before the Law, "good works" done out of fear would be, "as filthy rags".

Not talking about the Bible Corky, but the beliefs of the followers. Many here for example condemn those who do not believe as they do to Hell as if they are doing what they do simply to avoid Hell, not in love of G-d. I am asking a general question not pointing to any specific faith. Muslims do things to avoid Hell, Christians do things to avoid Hell, Jews who don't understand their faith do things to avoid Hell, but are they doing them to love G-d or avoid Hell?

Here is an example of what I mean- you are 14 and your parents tell you to be home by 10. If you are home by 10 because they told you to be, is that the same as if you are home at 10 to avoid being grounded?

Man, would't I like to be 14 again!

No, you are right, it's not the same. Fear in one case, respect in another.

I would hate to be a kid of any age in this day. I am so happy I got to live in the 70's and the 80's- the last time it was safe to be a kid in America. I remember riding my bike miles from home with all my mom saying was "be home by dark" and she wouldn't know where I was for hours and no panic or worry.

"Raping you neighbor is destructive to society...."

Indeed. So why is it the last one-hundred years we've had at least four of the worst mass-rapes in recorded history?

How does evolutionarily developed altruism, so-called, square with the more fundamental evolutionary idea that any strategy that spreads genes is an adaptive one?

So, as the Russians raped every German girl and woman they met above the age of eleven as they invaded in 1945---They were being exquistely moral and (better yet) suprememly adaptive from a Darwinin point of view.

None of the females raped were Russian, therefore Russian society was not damaged by the rapes. If German society was destroyed by rapine, well, too bad.

As a bonus, the DNA of scores of thousands of Russian soldiers was spread throughout eastern Germany.

And, just think, no need for child support.

So why is it the last one-hundred years we've had at least four of the worst mass-rapes in recorded history?

The rapes are not getting worse, the coverage is getting better. Before, when women were property, rape wasn't really a crime, and was during recorded history. All "recorded history" means is that we were paying more attention and taking notes.

#8

Kan:

I can't speak for anyone elses religion but I'll answer your question to the best of my ability regarding my own.

Do we fear God? Certainly. He is all powerful. But we also understand His love for us as well.

Just like a child has a fear of their earthly father, punishment when wrong has been done by that child.

However, not when it comes to salvation. We are assured through our belief in Jesus Christ, where our eternity will be. There is nothing we can do to get to Heaven, which is why Christ atoned for our sins.

That said, if we believe in Christ, then we should follow His teachings. And as Jesus has said...if you do not have good deeds when professing to be His follower, then He does not know us. God knows what's in our hearts.

That's a very short version...gotta get back to my crocheting!

Have a great day!

"but because you fear punishment, are you really worshiping G-d, or appeasing him?" - Kanrei

But could the fear turn into love? Stockholm syndrome, would that make the "appeasing" better?

Morals have a biological component, and cultural component. Incest is a good example, it more than likely, the taboo was a cultural extension of the Westermarck effect (Shepher, 1983).

Lisa,
You do what you do out of love, not fear. There are others who post here (not going to post names) that are clearly using their faith more as a mace against others rather than a way to better themselves. It appears they do what they do to avoid Hell, not to please G-d.

The fact of the matter is that even sociopaths cooperate and do good things for one another. It's not even uncommon.

That's "altruism" I guess, until the bill is paid by someone, almost always not them.

Bad monkeys can share apples with one another until the cows come home, but they remain bad monkeys for the evil in their primate hearts.

But could the fear turn into love? Stockholm syndrome, would that make the "appeasing" better?

I don't believe so personally.

Bad monkeys can share apples with one another until the cows come home, but they remain bad monkeys for the evil in their primate hearts.

#17 | Posted by Zed

Monkey Hater!!!

Speaking of rape, happy Christopher Columbus Day!

"Columbus and his men also used the Taino as sex slaves: it was a common reward for Columbus' men for him to present them with local women to rape. As he began exporting Taino as slaves to other parts of the world, the sex-slave trade became an important part of the business, as Columbus wrote to a friend in 1500: "A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand."

God enhanced my learned morals. do i fear Him? definitely.

"The rapes are not getting worse, the coverage is getting better..."

I've seen cleverer ways to excuse human beings from personal responsibility, but not recently, I admit.

I do not fear G-d in the slightest. I am the best ME that I can be and He cannot ask any more of me.

I have little doubt that anthropologists, sociologists, archaeologists, and historians can make a compelling case that morality within the human animal has nothing to do with religious notions, and that such notions only came long after "moral" behavior was hardwired into our socializing make-up. It almosts seems common sense.

Which has nothing to do with the argument over whether God exists, and if so, what His divine will may be.

"Rape wasn't really a crime..."

Rape is always a crime when invaders do it. What biological imperative were the Vikings and the Comanches obeying? Why didn't they stay peacefully at home, uh, sharing apples?

"Speaking of rape, happy Christopher Columbus Day!"

The NYPD was marching up 5th ave outside my office today in the Columbus Day parade.... in kilts and playing the Marine's Hymn on bagpipes. Very interesting.

-That's "altruism" I guess

Good point. The monkeys in the study could just as well choose the social option for selfish reasons, ie, they also get more food in the end.

-.... in kilts and playing

Raging kilt envy.

Raging kilt envy.

Not on a day like today.

It's chilly out.

And windy.

The blue boys... er, I mean the boys in blue can keep their kilts.

Lol, somehow I think it's in the 90's everywhere. I'll be glad for it to cool off a bit down here.

So why is it the last one-hundred years we've had at least four of the worst mass-rapes in recorded history?

What "mass rapes" are you talking about? Assuming that you're not just pulling that out of your ass, there's a relatively simple explanation for why the largest mass-anything has occurred in recent history. The human population has grown tremendously, and recordkeeping methods have improved. There are more people to rape, pillage, and murder... and there are also more people to remember it.

You're an idiot if you think that evil acts on large scales are in any way unique to the 20th century. People in the past did the same things, but victims were not as easy to come by as they are today.

Why do believers make such pathetic attempts to scapegoat secularism for evils that transcend all cultures and belief systems?

How does evolutionarily developed altruism, so-called, square with the more fundamental evolutionary idea that any strategy that spreads genes is an adaptive one?

In our ancient evolutionary environment, humans traveled in small bands of mostly related individuals. Altruism we see today probably developed out of kin selection - selective altruism toward those who are genetically similar. You can still see that pattern today. People are most altruistic toward their families.

In the setting of modern human societies, altruism does help spread genes. Most social interactions that involve an ethical element can be broken down into decisions between altruism and antagonism. It becomes a prisoner's dilemma sort of situation where mutual cooperation yields the best result, but engaging in such altruistic behavior leaves you open to exploitation. Only a few strategies can stand up to repeated rounds of this situation. One of those strategies is to always cooperate until you are exploited, at which point you cease to be altruistic. The "tit for tat" ethics of most religions are just codifications of evolutionarily-honed impulses.

Reciprocal altruism is a direct product of our evolution in progressively larger social environments. It's ridiculous to see religious buffoons arrogantly prance about as if they, in their self-proclaimed wisdom, have a monopoly on the concept.

"What mass rapes are you talking about...?"

Among at least three others I can think of just sitting here, the mass rape that accompanied the Soviet invasion of Germany in 1945.

" There are more people to rape, pillage, and murder... and there are also more people to remember it. "

Not to mention far more effective killing technology. Fortunately, religious zealots were confined to very primitive weapons for most of history.

"Assuming you are just not pulling that out of your ass...."

It would help if you had a more rounded education. Would you like me to suggest some reading?

"Pathetic attempts to scapegoat secularism...."

You allege you are a scientist of sorts.

If the term "pathetic" really has any bite as far as you're concerned, if you'd really like to avoid that name personally--you have a duty to point out the limitations and faults of methodolgy these sorts of studies have---

Rather than embracing them fervently as some sort of nail in someone else's philosophical coffin. It's dishonest and, worse, degrades the scientific worldview.

"Just codifications of evolutionarily based impulses...."

Really? How does that idea apply to New Testament ethics? Tit-for-tat? Jesus said (paraphrased) if you steal my shoes I'll give you my cloak.

That sounds---Counterintuitive---To give up personal advantage---Not just in the short-term and not just in reaction to the behavior of others--But with apparently complete negation of self.

If you can't fit this into any pet theories, ignore it. That's how you adapt. God knows, maybe if you continue avoid anything serious you'll live long enough to reproduce.

What biological imperative were the Vikings and the Comanches obeying? Why didn't they stay peacefully at home, uh, sharing apples?

Culture and religion can circumvent biology, or at least attempt to. They generally have the best success at encouraging non-altruistic behavior when their targets are not members of the group. The Comanches and Vikings certainly engaged in in-group altruism and cooperation. When they were at home, they did share apples. Their cultures and religion prized out-group exploitation.

Note that the Vikings and Comanches don't exist anymore, at least as societies. Their cultures' support of prolific out-group exploitation was their undoing. Victims began to fight back more effectively and the aggressors' cultures changed to be less supportive of rampant out-group violence. Biological impulses did not direct these societies toward violence. Culture did.

Not talking about the Bible Corky, but the beliefs of the followers. Many here for example condemn those who do not believe as they do to Hell as if they are doing what they do simply to avoid Hell, not in love of G-d.

#8 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-12 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Interesting.

Who for example? The way you state this, there must be many examples on DR -- given the frequency of threads about Christianity.

I think you are taking your presumptions and projecting them.

Vern,
You are free to think that. I am not going to call anyone out in a thread they are not in. I have respect for people who do that.

And Vern,
I made no concrete statements about anyone, but rather how it APPEARS to me.

Many here for example condemn those who do not believe as they do to Hell as if they are doing what they do simply to avoid Hell, not in love of G-d.

"As if" clearly means the impression I get, not what they are doing.

"Culture and religion can circumvent biology...."

Then these things are separate from biology, at least in part.

Really? How does that idea apply to New Testament ethics? Tit-for-tat? Jesus said (paraphrased) if you steal my shoes I'll give you my cloak.

I was going broader. You find tit-for-tat ethics in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism. The "golden rule" pops up in every religion for a reason. It's part of our hardware. You bring up a very interesting point with Jesus' "turn the other cheek" brand of morality and conflict resolution. One strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is to always cooperate, which would be the game theory equivalent of Christian morality. It tends to be less effective than "tit-for-tat" and "2 tits for a tat" strategies because there is another strategy that is somewhat effective also: always exploit.

How often do you see Christians really live out those values? How many idiots turn their cheek in a fight? How many people love their enemies? How many people don't press charges when they're robbed, but instead give the thief their plasma TV? Not many... far less than the number of people who call themselves "Christians".

Unconditional altruism cannot hold the "always exploit" strategy in check and is not as effective as "tit for tat" or "2 tits for a tat" in the long-term. Christianity tries to use heaven and hell as a carrot and a stick to encourage people to act with unconditional altruism. Biologically, yes, we are capable of those actions. History has shown us, however, that being a pussy leads to your exploitation and Christians rarely act with unconditional altruism.

I've seen cleverer ways to excuse human beings from personal responsibility, but not recently, I admit.

It's not an excuse.

An increased ability for events to be reported coupled with a larger likelihood of people being repulsed by the reported behavior will certainly make it seem as if there is a rise in the type of behavior. That doesn't mean the increase is genuine.

It's dishonest and, worse, degrades the scientific worldview.

As does your ability to hone in on the faults of a study and trumpet those without regard to the results obtained.

you have a duty to point out the limitations and faults of methodolgy these sorts of studies have

What the hell are you talking about? Studies of what?

"Without regard to the results obtained...."

Getting results from a study is never any big deal. I could train a dog to get experimental results. It's the meaning of what you get that's of importance.

"How many Christians really live out these values...?"

I dunno, ZOMBIE---How many Biology professors sleep with their grad students? That has to do with human nature, not science.

Getting results from a study is never any big deal. I could train a dog to get experimental results. It's the meaning of what you get that's of importance.

No kidding.

The point being made, if morality always has a substrate understandable from the viewpoint of the selfish gene, why do ethical principles that contradict that selfishness arise at all?

Why contradict animal nature? But, having said that, I've provided you part of the answer.

"No kidding...."

I'm glad we agree. Results of the scientific method are in no way to be accepted ex cathedra.

"Studies of what...."

Start with this study, ZOMBIE. Tear it apart. Think of it as a mental exercise.

"One strategy in the iterated Prisoner's Dillema is to always cooperate..."

And one is to always defect. Of course, that strategy is never iterated.

"Being a pussy leads to your exploitation...."

Here you have it, folks---ZOMBIE'S fervent defense of lex talionis. I'm often left speechless, and this is one of those times.

By all means, ZOMBIE---No one wants you to be a pussy. In fact, I'm glad you have at least that much behavioral guidance.

Start with this study, ZOMBIE.

Be specific. What study? What is being investigated? How are you investigating it? What are your results? How do you interpret them and why? None of these questions have been answered, so forgive me if I'm a little puzzled.

This study, the subject of this post. I don't know why you're confused.

Forgive me for reacting to the "pussies" thing. Fact is, I've met hundreds of people now who are equally afeared of being one.

I guess they are rarely exploited but none of them I'd let in may parlour door before hiding my silver, daughters, and family dog.

And one is to always defect. Of course, that strategy is never iterated.

Oh, but it is.

"Tit for tat" is an evolutionarily stable strategy compared to "always defect". If your starting condition is a population in which everyone adopts a "tit for tat" strategy, and you introduce a group playing an "always defect" strategy the "tit for tat" strategy always wins in the end. "Always cooperate" and "tit for tat" are equivalent if they are the only two strategies present. Introduce a group of defectors, though, and "always cooperate" becomes less viable than "tit for tat".

If you don't have homogeneous starting conditions, you don't have an evolutionarily stable strategy and things get complicated. Populations playing "always defect" can coexist with populations playing "tit for tat" if there are also populations playing "always cooperate". The situation gets even more complex when players don't always stick with one strategy.

The point is that there are and always will be populations that rely on some variant of "always defect" strategies.

This study, the subject of this post.

How is it a study? It's a topic to debate where all parties can bring their own evidence to the table, but to me the word "study" means something different.

ZOMBIE'S fervent defense of lex talionis. I'm often left speechless, and this is one of those times.

I'm not defending it so much as showing why it is a robust strategy that cannot be outcompeted.

My evidence? Christians. "Tit for tat" is so effective that it is not advantageous for Christians to live out Jesus' teachings. As a result, they ignore that inconvenient part of scripture.

I guess they are rarely exploited but none of them I'd let in may parlour door before hiding my silver, daughters, and family dog.

Of course, you're right. In principle, if everyone always cooperated, there would be no need to protect yourself against exploitation. Communism works too, in theory.

In reality, there are always exploiters who dramatically reduce the viability of any strategy that involves unconditional cooperation. It's one of the reasons why communism doesn't work, and it's also the main reason why you rarely see people turning the other cheek.

I think you are taking your presumptions and projecting them.
#38 | Posted by vernon

Vermin should be heard out on this subject of taking his presumptions and projecting them.
After all, he's an expert.

Human morality must be quite a bit older than religion and civilization. It may, in fact, be older than humanity itself. Other primates live in highly structured social groups in which rules and inhibitions apply and mutual aid

well, at least he got one thing right. Morality is older than humanity. Lucifer fell before man was created.

The author is clearly unqualified to make his statement since he equates morality with "structured social groups with rules and inhibitions". As such, his conclusion has no basis in fact.

Morality is about man's relationship to God. There is no analogy to the animal world.

" Lucifer fell before man was created."

What year was that, anyway?

"What year was that, anyway?"

1066?

No, wait, that was the Battle of Hastings.

I don't believe we are given any idea of time before man walked the earth.

to whom do you attribute your moral compass?

#1 | Posted by nanc at 2009-10-12 11:05 AM | Reply

Not to the same mystical man in the sky that told Bushie to invade Iraq.

Now there is a moral compass for you.

"Lucifer fell before man was created."

For a guy that has 'fallen', he sure wields a hefty amount of power.

And he prefers "Beelzebub".

Being a non-theist-humanist I have known this for years.. :/

Not talking about the Bible Corky, but the beliefs of the followers. Many here for example condemn those who do not believe as they do to Hell as if they are doing what they do simply to avoid Hell, not in love of G-d. I am asking a general question not pointing to any specific faith. Muslims do things to avoid Hell, Christians do things to avoid Hell, Jews who don't understand their faith do things to avoid Hell, but are they doing them to love G-d or avoid Hell?

#8 | Posted by kanrei

It is fear that dominates most of their lives not love..They might as well worship Cthulu .. at least he is loathsome and awe inspiring.

"It is fear that dominates most of their lives..."

Believers, from personal obervation, are afraid about as often as non-believers are, from personal observation. They do have greater conviction things will work out, however.

"He (Cthulu) is loathsome and awe inspiring...."

Where's that old fart been recently?

Morality is about man's relationship to God. There is no analogy to the animal world.

#60 | Posted by L_RContrarian

horseshit..go back to worshiping your pagan god moron.

We are animals.. that is why fuckheads like you cannot understand "human" nature.

We are a part of the animal kingdom not apart from the animal kingdom.

"We are animals...."

Of course we are. But the man's point was that cooperation, social organization, and a system of rewards and punishments does not equate to morality.

Which of course it doesn't. This is one of the validity issues created by this study. It takes a leap of faith to ignore that.

Jews who don't understand their faith do things to avoid Hell, but are they doing them to love G-d or avoid Hell?

#8 | Posted by kanrei

It was my understanding that Judaism does not incorporate the concept of Hell. Please correct me if I am in error.

#72
You are correct which is why I say "Jews who do not understand their faith" and there are tons of them.

"It was my understanding that Judaism does not incorporate the concept of Hell."

Correct.

Hence: "Jews who don't understand their faith..."

Just damn.

I have heard that elephants will return to the places relatives have died, years later sometimes. I did see a family of raccoons in Boulder cross the street and was amazed at what I saw:

The father walked half way and stopped. The babies joined him as the mother crossed the street. The babies then joined the mother as the father finished crossing after everyone else was safe. It was amazing.

But the man's point was that cooperation, social organization, and a system of rewards and punishments does not equate to morality.

#71 | Posted by Zed

It is my contention that as a species collectively, religion or not, we are not moral. Or compassionate. Or brotherly/sisterly.

If we were, then we wouldn't be killing each other off by the 100s of thousands, we wouldn't be allowing others by the millions to starve, we wouldn't be polluting our waters and lands, we wouldn't be arbitrarily eradicating other species because they get in the way or they aren't "human."

We do not live in harmony with each other.

We do not live in harmony with our planet, the Life Giver.

Though death is necessary for us, and all life for that matter, to survive, we are a Culture of Death in that we liberally dole death out far above what is necessary to survive.

Walk into any movieplex and you will see, displayed before you in multiple visions in multiple manners in all its gory, blood-soaked glory, just how deeply we wallow in our Culture of Death.

No wonder the damn ETs just kinda poke around the fringes of us. We probably scare the hell out of them.

Among the major league problems I have with the anti-religion idiots is that they never ever even so much as think about arguing about religion with the better pro-religion scholars and priests.

Instead, they seek out the dumbest televangist they can find, or a Pope who has been dead for 500 years, etc, and argue with THEM. (No trailer park theologen is too stupid for air time....)

Then they get extensive coverage from PBS or MSNBC, and crow over their defeated straw man.

If they had balls, they'd do their arguing in weekly or bi-weekly back and forth publications. Plenty of time think about what you are writting, and no "I mis-spoke" excuses.

So say I, the religion friendly man who has no religion and no faith.

^.^

Ah yes, another "scientist" who has come up with a rational scientific reason for human behavior ... while at the same time, taking God out of the picture, and then saying that it'd be frightening if it were our own beliefs sererating us from horrific behavior.

And this of course gives those here on DR who want to bash God another outlet to do so. To them, I would say that if you dislike God so much, avoiding Him is as easy as switching channels on a TV ... simply avoid talking about Him, thinking about Him, posting threads in DR about Him, reading threads in DR about Him, etc. As others have said here before, those who are skeptics here seem to take an inordinate amount of time talking about something they don't believe in.

As to the morality question itself, what about the idea that morality is contained within each of us, but is reinforced by other things, such as environment, sociology, God, whatever...

John B.

Ah yes, another "scientist" who has come up with a rational scientific reason for human behavior ... while at the same time, taking God out of the picture, and then saying that it'd be frightening if it were our own beliefs sererating us from horrific behavior.

Ah yes, another "Christian" bashing a scientist for coming up with rational explanations for observable phenomena while inserting God into the picture, then saying it may not be just God behind morality...

"And this of course gives those here on DR who want to bash God another outlet to do so. To them, I would say that if you dislike God so much, avoiding Him is as easy as switching channels on a TV ... simply avoid talking about Him, thinking about Him, posting threads in DR about Him, reading threads in DR about Him, etc. As others have said here before, those who are skeptics here seem to take an inordinate amount of time talking about something they don't believe in."

That's what religion wants, unquestioning blind faith. If you can't handle the questions, then your faith is weak. If you can't answer teh questions then your understanding is weak, and if you avoid the question, well then just STFU. You call it bashing, I call it correcting lies and preventing brainwashing of others. If you have anything to come back with other than well, either you believe or you don't, see how far that gets you in an argument.

LM

Those who think that morality can only come through their OWN brand of faith are brainwashed or uneducated. Just take a look at the many philosophers that were around way before monotheism was around, preaching the basics of human behavior way before some organized religion claimed ownership of "how to be good".

The BETTER current secular morality has large doses of the old pre-christain stuff (some of which was quite good....)

There is a reason that Hector was more admired than Achilles by many people (and still is). The old Greek stuff has many many virtues (my favorite being the Greek understanding that the good guys often do NOT win, and in many cases BOTH sides are seriously flawed).

Its good stuff, and I like it. I also like the idea that morality has a living essence that is not merely part of the universe, but goes beyond it in a manner that makes it significant even after the last star in the Universe goes nova. I'll find out when I die (or things will just go dark...)

The author is correct that one need not follow Gods to have morality. That idea is EXTREMELY old. But it takes an idiot to use the argumnet to attack Christains.

to whom do you attribute your moral compass?

#1 | Posted by nanc

Ted Bundy

Where's that old fart been recently?

#87 | Posted by zombiehunter

The reason there are no witnesses to Cthulu is the same reason said entity has a huge smile on its mug. And is so fat.

So, as the Russians raped every German girl and woman they met above the age of eleven as they invaded in 1945---They were being exquistely moral and (better yet) suprememly adaptive from a Darwinin point of view.

I think they were being revengeful. The Germans didn't exactly ignore the Russian girls they came across, so to speak, during their invasion. And even for the most devout of armies, raping was long considered an acceptable pastime, along with pillaging and looting and the general slaughter of civilians. Hell, even the most noble of knights got to rape any peasant girl they found. It was, indeed, good to be King...

Among the major league problems I have with the anti-religion idiots is that they never ever even so much as think about arguing about religion with the better pro-religion scholars and priests.

In fairnes, how do you argue religion with people who speak to invisible spirits and base their entire belief system on an anonymous book that's been editted and changed for thousands of years. Why don't the religious scholars come up with one theory of God and get back to us idiots? Hell, I'll make it easier-let them come up with a unified theory of Christianity. Who's right-the Pope, Joseph Smith or John Knox? Can't all be...

If you try and apply science to religion, YOU fail.

The whole driving force behind religion is one simple question:

"Why?"

If one insists on answering using ONLY what science can show, the answer is: "There is no reason "why", it just is. Deal with it."

Which is fine assuming that the Universe is all there is.

Those who take the above "scientific" answer no further show a large amount of FAITH.

Those who take the above "scientific" answer no further show a large amount of FAITH.

Faith in what exactly? That there is only the universe and that's it?

Considering there is no evidence to the contrary, that's the correct assumption to make.

"That there is only the universe and that's it?
Considering there is no evidence to the contrary, that's the correct assumption to make." - JPW

So you've explained this to those astrophycists who think an infinite number of bubble universes may exist?

So you've explained this to those astrophycists who think an infinite number of bubble universes may exist?

Which is largely based on theoretical (ie mathematical) evidence if I'm not mistaken.

If there's empirical evidence to support this, then I'm simply unaware of it and would like to see it.

Also, I was using the word "universe" imprecisely. I meant it as our physical, measurable world.

"Which is largely based on theoretical (ie mathematical) evidence if I'm not mistaken." - JPW

Yep, it is. But you stated that "there is only the universe". Which implies you have evidence that makes their efforts fruitless. So, I merely suggested that you should let them know and thus save them huge amounts of effort.

"Also, I was using the word "universe" imprecisely. I meant it as our physical, measurable world."

Yep, was aware of that. Doesn't detract from my point.

Morality requires God.

De Waal is whistling in the dark.

conforming to a standard of what is right and good

The world that hates God already disqualified themselves.

Example:

WE HAVE A NEW MORAL STANDARD AND IT DOESN"T INVOLVE WORRYING ABOUT WETHER WE KILL ANYONE< STEAL FROM ANYONE, RAPE ANY NEIGHBOR, DISHONOR PARENTS< COVET EVERYTHING WE SEE AND HATE GOD.

The MORAL law is the ten commandments.
If you follow it, yo are moral and if you dont you are not.

(Put your response here)

I disagree. You cannot call yourself moral and kill people
you cannot call yourself moral ( conforming to a standard of what is right and good) and rape women

you cannot call yourself moral ( conforming to a standard of what is right and good) and rape children.

you cannot call yourself moral ( conforming to a standard of what is right and good) and steal from your neighbor.

you cannot call yourself moral ( conforming to a standard of what is right and good) and covet and sneak yourneighbors goods.

you cannot call yourself moral ( conforming to a standard of what is right and good) ignore God, make idols or ignore the Sabbath.

Therefore

De Waal is wrong.

pretty obvious.

Don't agree, then write down YOUR moral code that allows you to rape kill and steal and still call yourself moral.

Yer blowin in the wind.

y

REGARDING THE POST: "arguing about religion with the better pro-religion scholars and priests."

First off most high level priests and scholars really are bad christians. (pharisees) They really don't know their Bible, and usually a plowbow can show them their error.
They ahve no time to read or worry about doing right, but spend most of their time in politics, and making money.

Scholars ALWAYS have an agenda, and it is usually higher education and another degree, no matter what rediculous thesis they try and post.

I am not afraid of scholars, I can take my two-edge and take apart their arguments in just a few minutes, they are always ignoring some part of the Bible or directly contradicting it.

Morality requires God.

This is not true. I am an atheist, yet I am a very moral person. I am more moral than many Christians I've seen.

You cannot be moral without God (ten commandments)

If you are not following any of them you are immoral no matter what you think.

New Guinians didn't know god, ate people killed their nearest tribes, raped their women and thought they were great guys.

Now, you COULD be moral and be an athiest only because you just don't know you are a christian.

Read the ten commandments and that is the moral law, has been for 4000 years.
nothing is changing now.

Then you know if you are moral or not

#70 legio
Morality is about man's relationship to God. There is no analogy to the animal world.

#60 | Posted by L_RContrarian

horseshit..go back to worshiping your pagan god moron.

Earth to legio. Are you there Legio?

morality
- 3 dictionary results
mo⋅ral⋅i⋅ty
  /məˈrlɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
Use morality in a Sentence
See web results for morality
See images of morality
noun, plural -ties for 46.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.
6. morality play.

How does an Animal fit into this definition???

Kanrei: What is the significance of writing G-d?

Athiest Libs have their own made up sense of morality:

1. Infantacide is great.

2. Narcotics are great.

3. Fornication outside of marriage is great.

4. Taking money from people who earned it and giving it to people who won't work is wonderful.

5. Letting murderers, rapists amd pedofiles out of jail is great.

6. Attacking Christians is OK, but attacking Muslims is not.

7. Attacking the US is OK, but attacking the UN is not.

8. Guns are bad, but murderers deserve sympathy.

9. Destroying the black family with lib programs is OK as long as libs meant well.

10. All taxes are good and raising them is better.

11. We should always appease our enemies.

FWTHOM
Is my face red...boy you really have our numbers.
You're list is so perfect. You nailed us. What an intellect. Who could possibly argue with such a well thought out argument. I am in awe. Really, everyone I know is exactly as you describe.

"You've got a point, but if you wore a hat it wouldn't show."
----Groucho Marx----

I'll list one at a time and you tell me what is not moral about them

no wait

why dont YOU list the ten YOU think are moral?
(I gotta see this)

betcha can't.

It took an infinite God to condense love of your brother into ten rules.

The MOral law is the rules that you HAVE to follow to keep from destroying the whole universe.

If any one of the ten are broiken, then eventually the whole universe would be destroyed unless God steps in and terminates the program.

Sin is a viral rogue behaviour that spreads to total destruction of the universe if not terminated and program cancelled.

Love is the smooth functioning of the intended beings to increase crativity and love eternally forever.

and it all boils down to ten rules. very simple.

"and it all boils down to ten rules"

Which ten?

First four commandments are self serving Bullshit

If you follow these ten rules, everything else you do is moral! That is awesome!

1. Thou shalt have no other God's before me.

2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

If you keep these ten, you can do anything else and the universe will survive.

If you break any one of them, the universe would eventually be completely destroyed, if God didn't step in and eliminate you first.

Your choice.

#109

Translation: Thump, thump, thump...

# 109

Ideology: none?

The first four commandments are what keep the universe running.

When a warning comes, it is to save you

If you break any of the first four commandments you become a loud rude obnoxious troglodite who uses words like bullshit, and eventually gets drunk and takes crack and destroys his family and comits adultery and drinks bear and eventually gets into a knife fight causing gangs to develope and spread and take over countries and make nuclear bombs and develop star travel and go where no man has gone before using photon torpedoes to wipe out anyone, causing borg to form and eventually time travel to stop borg and mixing of time lines until everything falls into a heap of pulsating throbbing manure before everyone vomits their intestines out and dies.

universe dies when smargle whitlow develops the self perpetuating black wormhole and the universe disappears.

#112
Can't argue with you there ,Richard.

That last post parody of RICHARDRHINE made me shoot beer out my nose.
I shit you not, I almost fell out of my chair laughing
Well played...

That was just the most obvious event-timeline when one looses respect for God.
there are many others, and they all end the same, universe disappears eventually.

Moral:
It is better to lightning strike a troglodite, than to skewer the future in manure of sins...

Hiding behind God keeps Washington in Operation!!!

True "Morality Does Not Require God" - but "No Morality" which is the standard throughout the US Govt,requires lots and lots of fawning,hypocritical devotion to God!!!

God is required to show that divorce is a moral failure and adultery is a moral offense.

Macro Evolution has no scientific evidence and bringing a plagiarized Koran into the mix is an attempt to confuse the ignorant.

"God is required to show that divorce is a moral failure and adultery is a moral offense."
"Macro Evolution has no scientific evidence"

Do you ever get tired of just making up bullshit?

"a troglodite(sic)"

#115 | POSTED BY RICHARDRHINE

Pot...meet kettle. LOL.

"God is required to show that divorce is a moral failure and adultery is a moral offense."

I'm sure NONE of these people are "true" "Christians", then, right?

1. Thou shalt have no other God's before me.

Are there other Gods? What if one shows up and wants some attention? Do we just ignore it and hope it goes away? How do you get rid of an unwanted God? You think God would actually show up to defend us finally?

Just asking...

TV, INternet, Women, playing pocker,6000 dollar bicycles.. .BMW, MERCEDE Ralp De Lorenz cloths,
Lots of gods, non of them created us and we're wasting time on them.

How do you get rid of them?
Stop spending money on them.

Divorce rate simply shows that christians are failing too; but the moral virtue of marriage stands.

Actually there is no other god, only humans have a tendency to to assign deity to certain forces and ideologies and worship falsehood as god. For example, some liberals are worshipping Obama.... some worship Elvis, Michael Jackson, Madonna, etc...

Christians are the worst of the worst.

Paul says: Phil 2:3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

You see, people who know better, when they act like blockheads, should suffer witheringly without remorse the desrved Ire of the non-christiina, so, when you see a hypocrite, let him have it, he deserves it.

this is 98% of all christians.

It's good to tell it like it is.
Wakes 'em up and it might even save them from self-destruction, so don't feel bad about calling a spade a spade, I mean even a christian can be saved! (though unlikely)

Almost 100% of the church and Jews in Jesus time were lost, jsut folllowing the blockhead pharisees.

There has to be God, he is the strong nuclear force, holds every atom together.

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power,

Without God the protons in each atom would separate at relativistic velocities.

The word is the strong nuclear force.

Let there be... and there was.

Much stronger than Q could ever dream of being, Q can't keep track of three people at once, God holds all atoms 2.58x10^43 atoms together and vibrating in our universe.He is infinite. No sweat.

TV, Internet, Women, playing pocker, 6000 dollar bicycles.. .BMW, MERCEDE Ralph De Lorenz clothes,

Lots of gods, none of them created us and we're wasting time on them.

How do you get rid of them?
Stop spending money on them.

Posted by richardrhine at 2009-10-14 03:59 AM

6. Thou shalt not kill.

#109 | Posted by richardrhine

Number 6 has been mistranslated and wrongly applied because of the error in translation.

"Thou shalt not murder."

Number 6 has been mistranslated and wrongly applied because of the error in translation.

"Thou shalt not murder."

#128 | Posted by ZOT at 2009-10-14 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag: "Just" War Theory

"Just" War Theory

#129 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine

What's your point?

I've said that athiests have faith. The questions to that statement show the same faith that they question.

Adding to what I've stated above, the FAITH many athiests show is based in large part on FATHER Ockham's Razor.

Father (Franciscan Friar) Ockham's Razor is "working assumption". That is all it is, nothing more, and nothing less.

The razor is a tool in the extremely potent toolbox of science. Nothing more, and nothing less.

"Working ASSUMPTION"

Nothing more, nothing less.

Assuming fact from a working assumption and NOTHING MORE, is not very scientific.

Show that there is no Soul with some evidence OTHER than arguing with dead popes, specific religious references, or trailer park theologens.

Stupid Popes (and other religious figures) show that a stupid man once held the office. Nothing more, nothing less.

Disagreements among religions do not disprove God, they only prove that man disagrees on God's nature.

Provable error in religious record prove only that a flawed piece of data was added to a work by a human.

Treating trailer park theologens as serious religious scholars only proves that the person doing so is a moron (MSNBC.....)

When I die, possibly things will merely go dark. Or maybe a whole new world. I'm in no rush. Plenty to do here.

Morality requires a belief in goodness not simply as a relativistic value, concept or human construct, but as an absolute, applicable to all regardless of culture or time.

Otherwise, there is no basis for making judgments on the actions of others if all definitions of goodness are artificial, relative and, therefore, equally valid.

If you recognize this as true, then you are naturally lead to the question of what is the source of that absolute if it can't be human created.

This is simple, no just god would ever judge a manby his beliefs as opposed to his actions. In asimple scenario, all the tribes and peoples who have existed without x-trianity have certainly produced some persons who have lived by actions, a fa better life than 99% of all x-trians. These persons are excuded from a heaven simpl because hey didn't say Ibelieve in Jesus Christ. Now that is a joke, people can't understand that religion is all about control, sad!

Stil no takers on that simple challenge? Wow, for a bunch of believers, you all have no faith!

LM

Grendel raises a point that is central to my fondness for the concept of "God" (and yes, I am well aware of the concept of self-seduction....)

I do not like the idea of living in a Universe where Jeffry Dalmer's or Charles Manson's morality is as valid as my own.

I prefer a Universe where if a yound child, in a spirit of kindness and goodwill, plays with a puppy, and then years pass, the child grows and forgets he ever saw the puppy, and then more years, and the child grows to be an old man and dies, and billions more years, and sun goes nova and reduces the Earth to dust, and all traces of humanity are gone, nothing to remember us, and only cosmic dust remains of the earth, EVEN A TRIVIAL ACT OF GOODWILL AND KINDNESS WILL STILL RESOUND WITH A SIGNIFICANCE BEYOND MERE MATTER AND DUST, AND NOT JUST BECAUSE WE SAY SO.

I much prefer a Universe where good deeds, large and small, are profound in a spiritual sense.

My favorate concepts involve the Universe as a "Free will machine" designed to develope souls, much as a womb developes an unborn child.

LIBERAL MONGREL

Nice to see that you in line with current Catholic Dogma.

(As per the Pope: morality, deeds and contrition for bad behavior trump attending Mass and belief.)

Nothing really requires god...but some people do require a crutch to keep themselves on track.

I tossed my crutch away a long time ago and am doing OK. I now go to the "Church of the Sunday Funnies" occasionally on the weekend ;)

And certainly, any belief system can be seen as religious, from the "green movement" to the "muslim fundamentalist" to ....

But me, I believe I'll have another beer later today.

"LIBERAL MONGREL

Nice to see that you in line with current Catholic Dogma."

No, the only dogma I am in line with is "manwhore", see Deuce Bigelow. I get a kick out of all the god(s) and the interpretations out there.

LM

Why would you want to get rid of women?

#127 | Posted by CalifChris

Richard is trying to come out of the closet.

Jefferson said that "we hold these truths to be self evident..." not we hold these truths to be compatible with scripture or we hold these truths to have been revealed by God or we hold these truths as interpreted by priests. (Incidentally does TJ ever mention "God" in the D of I?) The moral truths of nature are self evident, obvious, understandable. Nature does not tell man to sacrifice, execute, or shun other humans. Medicine men, shamans, and other fakers do.What's right is obvious, self evident. The whole idea of a holy book is to prevent a person on his own from figuring out what is right and wrong because the rational mind will reject the priests and clergy and superstition and rebel. Somebody else said metaphorically that mankind will never be free until the last king is choked with the entrails of the last priest.Alas the priestly class appears to be ever perennial and ever ignorant and ever powerful, for example preaching to large unthinking congregations that the earth is only 5000 years old.And these jokers have the temerity to dictate morality?

'Jefferson said that "we hold these truths to be self evident..." '

Actually Jefferson wrote 'we hold these truths to be sacred' and Franklin changed it to 'self-evident'.

that got you a NW flag Nemo!

nicely done...thank you

RICHARDRHINE:
You are so fricking hilarious.
Do me a favor.
Create a chart of planetary motions based on the bible.
Create a tide table for any given day. (using your "all knowing" book).
Predict the coming of comets or the orbits of the planets and their moons.
Cure diseases.
Until you can do any of these things - stop trying to compare religion to science. One is a collection of old stories, parables and fables. And one is a quest for the truth following very strict(and testable) rules.

Morality requires a belief in goodness not simply as a relativistic value, concept or human construct, but as an absolute, applicable to all regardless of culture or time.

I disagree completely with this statement.

BILLYCHAN, they have been teaching the religion of evolution in schools for years as science, it isn't working. You can't prove any of their wishes work out in the lab, mess with a DNA and it stops making animals.

Thanks for the advice, now I have advice for you.

Try and read instead of spouting nonsense. The Bible and the hebrews knew all about planetary motion.

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers;

They knew the earth was a globe. the central universal theory and flat earth came from the ROMANS who were PAGAN and who recieved their errors from the EGYPTIONS and BABYLONIANS and the Dark ages TAUGHT the earth was FLAT and you would FALL OFF due to MYTHOLOGY that was in ERROR, and I hope you LIKE my capse for EMPHASIS isnt it NICE?

LOL

Now, isnt YOUR face RED?

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth

they used the motion of the PLANETS and the MOON and they KNEW sunrise and had to know it, the finest ASTRONOMERS were the PHARISEE priests in JEsus time for they had to SET the NEW YEAR.!

So dont you feel silly now?
The JEws knew the real motions ...

the pagans used to make up STORIES about CONSTELLATIONS being GODS isnt that SILLY?>
Deu 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

I mean that is as silly as EVOLUTION!
LOL

imagine that.

1 Sam 20:18 Then Jonathan said to David, To morrow is the new moon: and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat will be empty.

NEW MOON is a term BEFORE ROMAN EMPIRE! imagine that! Hebrews invented it!

Psa 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

they knew all about it.

you said until I can tell the future from the stars... that is childs play, you cannot

you can tell the future by reading revelation...

So you sdvised me too be quiet.

I advise you to start reading, throw out trash like evolution and lies that the bible said the earth is flat... and see for yourself.

Oh, and throw out the evolution garbage.protein cannot be produced from protein mixtures of racemic isomers, your professors are basically ignorant.

Life did not come from a rock and a mudpuddle, not possible.

Have a nice day, BILLYCHAN.
IF you read a little every day, soon you become good at it and you can start to get truth and enlightenment!
It is real nice to learn to read!
The Bible is very easy to learn to read from.

Put down the DVD's give up the simpsons, and maybe you will see how foolish evolutionary university sponsored professor pressured impossibilites "just to keep your job" theories.