Is PKB the only relgious member here?

Interesting percentages -

38% of natural scientists do not believe in god
31% of social scientists do not believe in god
41% of biologists do not believe in god
27% of political scientists do not believe in god

ikillu wrote:Also, yellowrock. They are "common sense" today. Do you think they were 2000 years ago?
The answer is no. Hell, you can look in other cultures (none western/Judeo/Christin) and see many of them missing (before invasion of Western Culture).

Common sense is anything but common.

So you're saying that when the bible was written people had a limited understanding of the world, and 90% of what they wrote should be completely discounted?

IMO, there are still far too many people in the world that blindly follow the words of the bible, that, as you said, was written at a time when people were pretty dumb.

Being spiritual and having faith is one thing, and I can respect that, but when I hear people say "it must be true, it's in the bible" (and other things like that), I can't help but cringe a little.

Technically I'm a member of the Roebuck Parkway Church of Christ, but that doesn't stop me from liking things.

Cloud wrote:The point still remains that religion is just used to make things that we don't understand explainable. Their is an infinite amount of possibilities about what created the earth, what happens after we die, etc. etc. So it makes sense that people are losing faith when they're starting to see how so many other things could be true.

lolno.
The bible is a moral guidline. A philosophical book. Not supposed to explain the world. Though one can take it as they will.

And the percentage of the religious actually hasn't changed much... ever. It is just easier to contact athiests in mass online.

yellowrock wrote:
So you're saying that when the bible was written people had a limited understanding of the world, and 90% of what they wrote should be completely discounted?

IMO, there are still far too many people in the world that blindly follow the words of the bible, that, as you said, was written at a time when people were pretty dumb.

Being spiritual and having faith is one thing, and I can respect that, but when I hear people say "it must be true, it's in the bible" (and other things like that), I can't help but cringe a little.

You know I was refering to morals in that comment.


Now, I am quite drunk... I shall be quiet till the morning.

ikillu wrote:

Cloud wrote:The point still remains that religion is just used to make things that we don't understand explainable. Their is an infinite amount of possibilities about what created the earth, what happens after we die, etc. etc. So it makes sense that people are losing faith when they're starting to see how so many other things could be true.

lolno.
The bible is a moral guidline. A philosophical book. Not supposed to explain the world. Though one can take it as they will.

And the percentage of the religious actually hasn't changed much... ever. It is just easier to contact athiests in mass online.

yellowrock wrote:
So you're saying that when the bible was written people had a limited understanding of the world, and 90% of what they wrote should be completely discounted?

IMO, there are still far too many people in the world that blindly follow the words of the bible, that, as you said, was written at a time when people were pretty dumb.

Being spiritual and having faith is one thing, and I can respect that, but when I hear people say "it must be true, it's in the bible" (and other things like that), I can't help but cringe a little.

You know I was refering to morals in that comment.


Now, I am quite drunk... I shall be quiet till the morning.

So you're telling me that if we ever find out what happens to us after we die and it's not that we go to heaven that everyone will still believe in the bible? No. It disproves it so you would be a fool to believe it.

Yeah, I'm an atheist.I was under the impression that most people here didn't give much of a shit about religion but whatever. I can only speak culturally about Europe, so excuse me if I make some generalisations about people.


I'd say most people are currently agnostic or believe in "something" as they will so often put it. I'd say atheism is increasing (according to the last UK census it did at least). The why is that religion has been lampooned for ages and that more people are being "spiritual" rather than "religious". In the UK it's mostly a non-issue (except when regarding Muslims).

I mostly don't really care any more. But, I agree that intellectual liberty (newspapers, TV, radio and books) had it's toll on religion, I think culturally in the west(though I'm mostly commenting about developed countries besides the US) as an entity we're moving away from organized religion. But religion and God. I think Nietzsche was wrong. God isn't dead, it's just changed to being "spiritual" and going for varied religions. I don't think that's bad for the religious and God lovers. It was separation of church and state that allowed religion to flourish in the US, by allowing all the different denominations.

But that's all speculation and theories with anecdotal back up,then again the entire thread will be mostly that.a thing to correct is that PKB is saying that evolution contradicts Thermodynamics (I assume he means the second). His argument will most likely be that "Entropy increases as time goes on ergo evolution can't happen because chaos" Which is a misunderstanding of the second law which only works with a closed system. However, one part of a closed system can get more ordered as long as the another part of the closed system gets more disordered. You're applying something to a small part of the system when the law regards the entire system.

PKB, the knowledge that things like killing, stealing, etc can have negative consequences isn't really something that needs to be taught on a mass scale by something like the bible. By the time the bible was written there were already many, many civilizations that had books of laws regarding these things.

And it's just basic human instinct to be afraid of death. Killers are seen as a danger to family/tribal groups, and are put down. Basic cause and effect is something that, for the most part, is hardwired into our brains. The more complex applications are passed down from parent to child.

All religion does is give an overall consequence for bad behavior, aside from the real, actual consequences that a person would face from their peers.

yellowrock wrote:PKB, the knowledge that things like killing, stealing, etc can have negative consequences isn't really something that needs to be taught on a mass scale by something like the bible. By the time the bible was written there were already many, many civilizations that had books of laws regarding these things.

Morality is not innate, it is acquired.

Religion gave out morality, where as before there were no reasons or consequences.

x13 wrote:

yellowrock wrote:PKB, the knowledge that things like killing, stealing, etc can have negative consequences isn't really something that needs to be taught on a mass scale by something like the bible. By the time the bible was written there were already many, many civilizations that had books of laws regarding these things.

Morality is not innate, it is acquired.

Religion gave out morality, where as before there were no reasons or consequences.

Of course there were consequences. Mutually assured destruction is more than enough consequence to not be a dick.

If you hit me, odds are I'm going to hit you back. You don't want to get hit, so you don't throw a punch in the first place. We all play nice with each-other simply because it works best for everyone involved. Religion just adds further stipulation for the purpose of adding BS morals (masturbation is wrong, hurr) or blatant power tripping.

For an example, people of the Jewish faith are forbidden from eating ham, and other non-kosher foods. The consumption of these foods doesn't really hurt anyone, and these food items aren't considered sacred (like cows, etc are in Hinduism), they're just "bad".

Human beings learn basic cause and effect at a very young age, both naturally through experimentation, and through their parents.

Religion didn't invent morals or consequences, it just made them exploitable.

I can understand the use of religion long ago and even in today's world to motivate people, give them reason, and in ancient times to keep them from killing each other and what not, but a set of morals that does not change will eventually be wrong. People believe that these morals are given from (in most cases) some higher power who can't be wrong, therefore they are never changed. Society changes and what we believe is right or wrong doesn't stay the some for long (heh that rhymed) so they have to at some point change or be put up for debate.

On the scientific aspect of it I believe that currently there isn't a single religion with concrete proof and evidence as to how the world was created, and without that it's really just a guess. There's infinite ways the universe could have been created and trying to limit it to your idea without anything to back it up is stupid. This has nothing to do with evolution or the formation of planets and life all that, but rather what created the universe it self.

That's my 2 cents...

yellowrock wrote:

x13 wrote:

yellowrock wrote:PKB, the knowledge that things like killing, stealing, etc can have negative consequences isn't really something that needs to be taught on a mass scale by something like the bible. By the time the bible was written there were already many, many civilizations that had books of laws regarding these things.

Morality is not innate, it is acquired.

Religion gave out morality, where as before there were no reasons or consequences.

Of course there were consequences. Mutually assured destruction is more than enough consequence to not be a dick.

If you hit me, odds are I'm going to hit you back. You don't want to get hit, so you don't throw a punch in the first place. We all play nice with each-other simply because it works best for everyone involved. Religion just adds further stipulation for the purpose of adding BS morals (masturbation is wrong, hurr) or blatant power tripping.

Religion didn't invent morals or consequences, it just made them exploitable.

So you're argument is we just all have this sense to not be dicks? You're argument is really just simplified to "Just cuz". So when you say that everybody played nice together just because they wanted to work together (perhaps gather resources), that's still not morality.

Every single civilization to date, had a religion.

Why don't we just stop arguing about religion?
hmm?

Cat Montgomery wrote:Why don't we just stop arguing about religion?
hmm?

It's interesting, so long as people don't get all butt hurt and can stay reasonable. Than it just becomes an argument of "I'm right because I said so"

I'm christian, and can really not care one way or another what you are, as long as you respect everyones right to choose.

Cloud wrote:

ikillu wrote:

Cloud wrote:The point still remains that religion is just used to make things that we don't understand explainable. Their is an infinite amount of possibilities about what created the earth, what happens after we die, etc. etc. So it makes sense that people are losing faith when they're starting to see how so many other things could be true.

lolno.
The bible is a moral guidline. A philosophical book. Not supposed to explain the world. Though one can take it as they will.

And the percentage of the religious actually hasn't changed much... ever. It is just easier to contact athiests in mass online.

yellowrock wrote:
So you're saying that when the bible was written people had a limited understanding of the world, and 90% of what they wrote should be completely discounted?

IMO, there are still far too many people in the world that blindly follow the words of the bible, that, as you said, was written at a time when people were pretty dumb.

Being spiritual and having faith is one thing, and I can respect that, but when I hear people say "it must be true, it's in the bible" (and other things like that), I can't help but cringe a little.

You know I was refering to morals in that comment.


Now, I am quite drunk... I shall be quiet till the morning.

So you're telling me that if we ever find out what happens to us after we die and it's not that we go to heaven that everyone will still believe in the bible? No. It disproves it so you would be a fool to believe it.

Considering Jewish people don't believe in heaven, I'm gonna say yes.

Well it seems to me it's turned into an argument of "Where does our sense of right and wrong come from" I'd argue it's mix of memes and genes.

But we see "morality" in the animal world. Chimpanzees remember who were nice to them and who did were mean to them. For example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them.

Us humans though had to add sophistication and complexity to our moral structure when it reached numbers that were unheard of in Chimpanzee groups. We enforce our moral codes with bigger punishments and rewards. There is also Kin selection which shows why people put themselves in very risky situations for their family or wanted family"

But that only shows how morality establishes itself and I'm sure the response will be "Then why do people adopt children" It offers no genetic help etc etc, And honestly I don't know. Though I think it's safe to say it's evolutionary, But I don't know.

also when you say "ever civilisation had religion" I'd say "every civilisation has people who had religion in it"

Which brings me to a good point how does religion arise, once again I don't know. The two main schools of thought on it though are that religion came to being through natural selection and has a selective advantage or that religion is an evolutionary after effect of other mental adaptations.

Haza wrote:
But we see "morality" in the animal world. Chimpanzees remember who were nice to them and who did were mean to them. For example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them.

Animals don't know right from wrong. Why do dogs try to attack smaller animals or shit inside without us telling them it's wrong? Because they don't know. The chimps you're talking about who allow you to groom them or feed them, are the ones who have been trained and taught a few things.

Animals live on the instinct of survival, not morality.

x13 wrote:

Haza wrote:
But we see "morality" in the animal world. Chimpanzees remember who were nice to them and who did were mean to them. For example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them.

Animals don't know right from wrong. Why do dogs try to attack smaller animals or shit inside without us telling them it's wrong? Because they don't know. The chimps you're talking about who allow you to groom them or feed them, are the ones who have been trained and taught a few things.

Animals live on the instinct of survival, not morality.

Well no, they don't only animals with reptilian brains would work in such a way . And no, it's chimps in the wild that do the Groom for food, there are many examples of reciprocal altruism in the animal world another is that Vampire bats will regurgitate blood for the other vampire bats however, they will not do this to the vampire bats that have never gave any blood back they do not choose randomly on who to help. During play, dominant wolves will "handicap" themselves by engaging in roll reversal with lower wolves, showing submission and allowing them to bite, provided it is not too hard.

But of course, a lot of this argument is going to be semantics on how you define morality. But you do seem to work under the assumption that humans are not animals and the rules of evolution don't apply to us.

x13 wrote:

yellowrock wrote:

x13 wrote:

yellowrock wrote:PKB, the knowledge that things like killing, stealing, etc can have negative consequences isn't really something that needs to be taught on a mass scale by something like the bible. By the time the bible was written there were already many, many civilizations that had books of laws regarding these things.

Morality is not innate, it is acquired.

Religion gave out morality, where as before there were no reasons or consequences.

Of course there were consequences. Mutually assured destruction is more than enough consequence to not be a dick.

If you hit me, odds are I'm going to hit you back. You don't want to get hit, so you don't throw a punch in the first place. We all play nice with each-other simply because it works best for everyone involved. Religion just adds further stipulation for the purpose of adding BS morals (masturbation is wrong, hurr) or blatant power tripping.

Religion didn't invent morals or consequences, it just made them exploitable.

So you're argument is we just all have this sense to not be dicks? You're argument is really just simplified to "Just cuz". So when you say that everybody played nice together just because they wanted to work together (perhaps gather resources), that's still not morality.

Every single civilization to date, had a religion.

Religion didn't invent morality, not even close. Self preservation is part of the human condition, this includes avoiding mutually assured destruction type scenarios. Religion simply provides a way to put everything down in one place and manufacture consequences.

In almost every case, religion has been used as a way to control a populous. The ancient Egyptians believed their pharaoh was god-incarnate, and the pharaoh would use this superstition to keep the slaves in check.

You can raise a child without religion and they'll still have a basic sense of right and wrong. People don't automatically go on murderous rampages or steal everything they want just because they aren't religious.

Saying that a lack of religion is a lack of morals, or that religion invented morality and consequences is utterly stupid. Codes of laws have been around in some form or another since the dawn of time.

@Haz - Reciprocal altruism is used only to keep the herd or pack strong and healthy, which I would argue that that would be considered an instinct of survival not morality. The thing about chimps grooming each other for food is called mutualistic symbiosis.

I think all animals, including humans, do not have the innate feature of morality. Look back in the thread and you'll see my views on evolution.

@yr - We were arguing about how morality came to be (if it was innate or not), we weren't talking about modern day. I don't think you need to be religious today to have morals. Pinpoint me the exact points in which the first law was created and the first religion was created.

Like I said, every civilization to date has had a religion. There's not much more evidence past that.

x13 wrote:@Haz - Reciprocal altruism is used only to keep the herd or pack strong and healthy, which I would argue that that would be considered an instinct of survival not morality. The thing about chimps grooming each other for food is called mutualistic symbiosis.

I think all animals, including humans, do not have the innate feature of morality. Look back in the thread and you'll see my views on evolution.

@yr - We were arguing about how morality came to be (if it was innate or not), we weren't talking about modern day. I don't think you need to be religious today to have morals. Pinpoint me the exact points in which a law was created and a religion was created.

Like I said, every civilization to date has had a religion. There's not much more evidence past that.

They've also had codes of laws. The two weren't always combined.

People don't kill other people not out of fear of punishment after death, but out of fear of punishment in life, from their fellow man. Each individual has an instinctual desire to protect his or her family group, and his or her personal belongings. We're all the same species, so we know that other people feel this way too. This gradually evolved into set lists of laws and punishments.

The Code of Hammurabi is the most basic example, with the punishment being directly related to the crime. In modern times there is a more complex set of punishments depending on the severity of the crime, ranging from community service to the death penalty.

x13 wrote:@Haz - Reciprocal altruism is used only to keep the herd or pack strong and healthy, which I would argue that that would be considered an instinct of survival not morality. The thing about chimps grooming each other for food is called mutualistic symbiosis.

I think all animals, including humans, do not have the innate feature of morality. Look back in the thread and you'll see my views on evolution.

@yr - We were arguing about how morality came to be (if it was innate or not), we weren't talking about modern day. I don't think you need to be religious today to have morals. Pinpoint me the exact points in which a law was created and a religion was created.

Like I said, every civilization to date has had a religion. There's not much more evidence past that.

I'd say that what we consider morality to be is just the product of evolution in the same way as the animals social constructs (whether you define that as being moral or not) as they will still get similar endorphins and there effects will be similar. I believe our "morality" is just another continuation from this. I don't believe it's innate in the world, but in people I'd assume it's a mix of "genes and memes" Ideas and our genetic background. It could be culture or it could be genes or a mix of both, I'm inclined to believe in a mix of both. But, I suppose that's all I can really say on morality being innate or not the answer in the universe I'd say no, in humans well that depends how you define morality.

Yeah, not much more to say about it being innate or not, so I'll just agree to disagree for right now.

ikillu wrote:Considering Jewish people don't believe in heaven, I'm gonna say yes.

lol

ikillu wrote:

Cloud wrote:

ikillu wrote:

Cloud wrote:The point still remains that religion is just used to make things that we don't understand explainable. Their is an infinite amount of possibilities about what created the earth, what happens after we die, etc. etc. So it makes sense that people are losing faith when they're starting to see how so many other things could be true.

lolno.
The bible is a moral guidline. A philosophical book. Not supposed to explain the world. Though one can take it as they will.

And the percentage of the religious actually hasn't changed much... ever. It is just easier to contact athiests in mass online.

yellowrock wrote:
So you're saying that when the bible was written people had a limited understanding of the world, and 90% of what they wrote should be completely discounted?

IMO, there are still far too many people in the world that blindly follow the words of the bible, that, as you said, was written at a time when people were pretty dumb.

Being spiritual and having faith is one thing, and I can respect that, but when I hear people say "it must be true, it's in the bible" (and other things like that), I can't help but cringe a little.

You know I was refering to morals in that comment.


Now, I am quite drunk... I shall be quiet till the morning.

So you're telling me that if we ever find out what happens to us after we die and it's not that we go to heaven that everyone will still believe in the bible? No. It disproves it so you would be a fool to believe it.

Considering Jewish people don't believe in heaven, I'm gonna say yes.

1. You're fucking retarded for thinking that.

2. You're purposely missing the point of what I'm saying, I'm going to stop replying to this thread.