Questions You Have Always Pondered On

[Rainmaster 7]

In Andres's defence, it would take a saint to read some of the posts in this thread from start to finish. That said, just as an aside, I do think religions have promoted learning, including science, oftentimes throughout history. I know very little about history but it seems to me that, for example, monasteries in Europe provided a space for learned people to work in that would likely not have existed otherwise. Many religions have influenced and inspired philosophers and scientists to consider new intellectual problems, or to see an old problem in a fresh light. An example might be early astronomy, which in many cultures was driven by religious interest in the "heavens". Of course, at other times religious dogma has indeed held learning back.

Well Muzza, you'll be glad to know I've read not some of the posts in this thread from start to finish, but all of them from start to finish. Perhaps that makes me more than a saint, a god, perhaps? Whichever it is, it just shows how much better than Andres I really am.

But yes, good post. I'm sure you could find an abundance of examples of religion both helping and hindering science at different times in different ways throughout history.

[AleHop 0]

Sorry Andrés, maybe you realised I was sarcastic on my previous post.

Exactly how do you think that Mendel being a priest and a christian helped him discover of genetics?

I don't think it helped him with genetics particularly. You can reverse the question and ask how it handicapped him and the answer won't change. Mendel's work was amazing, I think he found the peace of mind he needed with his life style as a monk but he had the intelligence and the knowledge to be able to do it.

Do you think that there is something in Christian beliefs or about being a priest that favors breakthroughs in science?

Again, you can reverse the question and the answer won't change but peace of mind is a good thing to have for any productive human being and you can get it through faith. It can help you in many ways.

On the other hand, do you think that there are points in dogma that actually discourage trying to reveal the secrets of nature?

I don't think Christian dogma discourage it.

Yes, maybe you can find a Bible quote that could be interpreted as an impulse to scientific research, but wouldn't you agree that most often than not the Bible was used as a deterrent of scientific research more than an encouragement?

Yes, they did. People use whatever thing they have at hand to encourage/discourage whatever they want for their own benefit. There have been many important scientists, some of them members of the Catholic Church/Catholic Univerities, with different points of view and they fought each other because they had their own interests.

[Quiet One 15]

Hey! I've read the first and last word of every other post in this thread!

In any case, even though Monasteries served sometimes as a peaceful place were erudites could join and knowledge could travel, they were seldom conceived as places for scientific advancement. You only replaced "Mendel" with "monasteries", but hardly proved that anything in the belief itself promoted such thoughts. That said, there are more Giordano Bruno's in the history of the churcg than Gregor Mendels.

In any case, it was just an example. I don't want to get involved in all this. Believe whatever you want to, as long as you let me live my life in peace (which not only means "no ****ing mormons trying to convert me at 9:00 am on Sundays by showing at my door" but also allowing me to become a homosexual and marry another guy if we both want to)

[Max Mosley 2]

Well Muzza, you'll be glad to know I've read not some of the posts in this thread from start to finish, but all of them from start to finish. Perhaps that makes me more than a saint, a god, perhaps? Whichever it is, it just shows how much better than Andres I really am.

I think it just makes you a blasphemer. Better than Andres? The Lord our Andres (blessed be his shiny dome) won't take kindly to that!

[AleHop 0]

In any case, even though Monasteries served sometimes as a peaceful place were erudites could join and knowledge could travel, they were seldom conceived as places for scientific advancement. You only replaced "Mendel" with "monasteries", but hardly proved that anything in the belief itself promoted such thoughts. That said, there are more Giordano Bruno's in the history of the churcg than Gregor Mendels.

Monasteries were conceived as places for whorshiping God from many points of view, it includes art and science. I didn't pretend to prove there was anything in Mendel's belief or in the monastery itself that promoted Mendel's laws but it didn't hurt him either.

As you can read in my signature I know there have been others imprisoned and accused of heresy by the Inquisition alghough very few suffered the brutality of Giordano Bruno and Miguel Servet. From my point of view they didn't suffer such brutality because of religion itself as Mendel didn't discovered inheritance rules because of religion itself.

[Quiet One 15]

Monasteries were conceived as places for whorshiping God from many points of view, it includes art and science. I didn't pretend to prove there was anything in Mendel's belief or in the monastery itself that promoted Mendel's laws but it didn't hurt him either.

As you can read in my signature I know there have been others imprisoned and accused of heresy by the Inquisition alghough very few suffered the brutality of Giordano Bruno and Miguel Servet. From my point of view they didn't suffer such brutality because of religion itself as Mendel didn't discovered inheritance rules because of religion itself.

Oops, again that reply was not aimed at you but at Muzza and TP (heh heh I said "TP"!)

[Max Mosley 2]

Christ! Am I agreeing with Alex on something other than the beauty of a bonita chica? What's el mundo coming to...

Well, I mean for example in the case of astronomy, the ideas involved in religion were important in promoting scientific advancement. But yes I agree science is different to religion and you don't need one to develop the other. Alex's point, which I agree with, is that religion itself doesn't hold back science when properly understood. Alex makes some good arguments, I feel, in the face of rather evangelical atheists saying that religion as an idea is to blame for all the terrible deeds done in its name. To me that's like blaming science for the experiments the Nazis did on their prisoners, or atheism for Stalin but like I said, I know nothing about history.

[yurp 0]

Let's make this easy - A quick pop quiz...

Is it true that different people interpret the bible in different ways?

Is it true that theists on average commit more crimes, have higher divorce and underage/unmarried pregnancy rates than atheists?

Is it true that some theists support the teaching of religion-based, unscientific ideas (creationism/intelligent design) in the science classroom and oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory?

Is it true that there is more evidence in support of evolutionary theory than in support of the theory of gravity?

Is it true that people have done many bad things through history and attributed their actions to their religion/the service of god?

If your answer is no to any of the above, please supply some evidence to the contrary.

Now to answer some individual posts...

However. As an athiest, I have to ask you. How can you ask for evidence to prove there is a God, when we know full well that christianity and any other religion is based on faith?

Two points...

First - A christian would argue that there is no evidence to support a muslim's belief that islam is the one true religion, yet they do not put the same constraints upon their own religion. Hypocritical? I think so.

Second - The 'faith' argument is what I've hoped the theists would avoid Steph - to their credit they've done very well.

The problem is there is nothing to say the 'faith' is not simply self-dellusion. We dellude ourselves all the time in hoping for the impossible. I'd like something concrete. There is nothing. They have ignored the question.

1.- Mendel was The Father of Genetics. OMGOMGOMG!!! HE WAS A CHRISTIAN MONK, A PRIEST, AN ABBOTT!!! OMGOMGOMG!!!

2.- Darwin's theory had a few flaws and evolutionists rejected Mendel's laws for more than a century.

That's the problem with prejudiced people no matter what they are; believers or atheists. Now you can praise Christianity for the contribution to the modern evolutionary theory.

- I like the OMGOMGOMG bits!

I never said christians don't do good things. Please stop pretending I have.

I never said christians don't contribute to science either. Please stop pretending I have.

Misrepresenting my argument to suit your answer is dishonest.

I'll say it again (for the 4th time)...

If you want to attribute Mendel's actions to christianity, then you should also attribute the bad things people have done in religion's name to religion.

If you want to blame those individual's for their misdeeds, then Mendel's work should be attributed to himself and not his religion.

Personally I believe that Mendel's work was his own and the Spanish inquisition's deeds were their own. But if you wish to attribute them both to christianity, then that is a position you should defend.

Sorry, I don't want to meddle in this debate which I find fascinating for tghe passion and level of detail each one has gone to defend their positions, but I just can't resist posting even a little bit. I promise I will let you guys keep on without any further interruptions.

Oh do - you can take over - I'm getting bored - It's getting repetative and all they're writing is replies to things I haven't said anyway.

Exactly how do you think that Mendel being a priest and a christian helped him discover of genetics? Do you think that there is something in Christian beliefs or about being a priest that favors breakthroughs in science? On the other hand, do you think that there are points in dogma that actually discourage trying to reveal the secrets of nature? Yes, maybe you can find a Bible quote that could be interpreted as an impulse to scientific research, but wouldn't you agree that most often than not the Bible was used as a deterrent of scientific research more than an encouragement?

Yes - also a valid point.

Alehop should perhaps compare Mendel to Gallileo.

Same happens both ways. But it still doesn't actually relate to my point anyway.

If you followed the debate, it is Adams who defends to blame/praise Christianity for the bad/good things Christians do. My comment was sarcastic and just to point out how irrational can be the praise and blame theory Adams seems to love.

See above. No irrationality, you just keep misinterpreting my sentences.

*Please also read the conclusion Alehop - I have enjoyed our discussions.

Had there ever existed a country, group or any other kind of civilization that had not idea of what a god is? I mean a tribe or town or anything like that, than when an outside ask anyone of then about he they worshiped they aks "what is that? what is a god? I would like to know because as far I as know every etnia, town, country, tribe o whatever group of people I've even know they had a god o worshiped something, my point is that teh knowledge of god is within the human being it does matter from what continent or era they are, if Gos doesn't exist there should have been at least one group that had no idea of what is a god.

Yes - atheism is older than religion. Atheism has always existed. Atheism is the default position for a human. A baby would remain an atheist without religious ineterferance. It may grow up and question itself 'why am I here?' but it would never reach the conclusion 'because a monotheistic god made me in his/her/its image'. Theists will claim that is why we need religion. I would ask how it verifies that claim. It would eventually come back to 'faith' again.

If you're particularly concerned with recorder history then again the answer is yes - many parts of Asia, Africa, the Americas were completely atheist. In some places they had animalistic type 'religions' in others they worshipped multiple gods or even earthly elements, but there were large areas where there simply was no concept or belief in any god or religion of any sort.

Very amusing link. It also shows that you have no clue whatsoever about what I was referencing. You're pretty good at quoting snippets of the Bible to suit your arguments, but can you figure out my reference? Strictly as a reading comprehension exercise, mind you.

First - Quoting snippets from the bible is exactly what theists do to make their argument. Why can't I? I haven't seen any theist here give any source other that snippets from the bible. Don't you think that's more than a little hypocritical to complain about me doing the same?

Second - I have no problem telling you that I don't know what chapter and verse you're refering to. That proves that I don't know the entire bible by heart. I never claimed to and nor do you.

There is no attempt at 'saving' you in this; indeed, I find you occasionally decent but mostly rude and obnoxious.

Nice - first Kate, now you. Its a shame that anyone resorts to this kind of name calling. I have not and will not do the same. Please offer some evidence refuting my arguments about religion - that is all I ask.

the thought of spending eternity with you isn't appealing. So I'd rather you not be saved.

Wow - I think that pretty much says it all. I will simply add that if I ever said that to anyone (theist or not) - I would be utterly ashamed of myself. And no - I'm not joking.

You have every right to think what you like. For my part, I sincerely hope that everyone on this forum (including you) lives out a very happy and productive life and that (if it exists) their afterlife will be happy too.

I honestly still believe you are a good person regardless of what you just wrote.

moving on...

IN CONCLUSION

I have been consistently arguing the same points. Those points have been consistently misrepresented (deliberately or not) or simply ignored by the theists amongst us to suit their replies.

For my part, I have attempted in my posts to address every point they have made directly.

For clarity I will say again what I believe and what I dont...

I believe theists and atheists do good and bad.

I believe that our morality is an evolutionary trait and we do not require a religion to teach it.

I believe religion (on average) fails to teach good morality (or provides a way for its adherants to justify immorality to themselves). There is a seperation between what religions attempt to teach and the actual results (see sources on previous post)...

• Secular states have lower crime rates than non-secular ones.
• Theists are more likely to commit crimes especially voilent crimes.
• Theists have higher divorce rates than atheists.
• Theists have higher levels of teenage pregnancy and pregnancy out of wedlock than atheists.

I believe that the various religions of the world were inevitable elements in human evolution and attempted to answer questions that our inquisitive nature as humans will always cause us to ask.

I believe many of the answers that religions gave us were incorrect and currently humanity is reaching a stage where it has the knowledge to understand that.

I believe that it is natural that various religious people will attempt to refute any knowledge that they perceive as a threat to their religion and that they will do this dishonestly if they think it necessary.

I believe that religions also became another means (along with the nation state) by which political control could be used by a few over many.

I believe that religion will inevitably decline over the course of the next 200 years or so.

I believe that debates are better conducted using evidence and not personal attacks.

I believe that a person should have the right to say what they believe whether they are religious or not.

I do not believe that a monotheistic 'god' exists.

I do not believe that I or any other member of TF1 knows entire bible cover to cover.

I do not believe that anyone should have the right to impose their own beliefs upon others or attempt to censor the honest comments of people with whom they disagree.

I do not believe it honest to misrepresent a person's argument in order to make your own.

I do not believe it morally sound to use ad hominem arguments in any discussion.

*Finally - I have been amazed at how 'unchristian' many christians have been during this discussion - but this addition is not for them...

There is one christian here who has done his best to remain 'christian' (in the moral sense) and honest throughout this debate...

Alehop - Although I think you're still deliberately misrepresenting my argument , you have still gained a massive ammount of respect from me for your desire to debate fairly.

I honestly applaud you. You have not resorted to ad hominem attacks or victimhood. You understand that to do such things would undermine your argument.

You have remained morally resolute. Well done and thank you.

(Until next time you go crazy about Alonso!)

[Kopite Girl 0]

Josef Stalin and the Nazi's, as a historian, that is quite possibly my favourite subject to learn/discuss, would love to start a topic on it.

I bet that'd turn into a 90 page argument about religion too.

[AleHop 0]

Again - how is this relavant? I've been saying that a lot of evil is done in the name of religion. Are you refuting that by telling me that athiests kill too?

Of course they do. So what? They didn't do it in the name of athiesm did they.

If believers kill atheists for the only reason that they don't believe in God, they kill them in the name of God.

When atheists kill belivers for the only reason that they believe in God, they kill them in the name of ???

i) that is no excuse for committing more crime, being in favour slavery, being against universal suffarage etc etc.

How many Christians have fought against crimes, against slavery, for universal suffarage, etc.

ii) christianity is supposed to preach morality and good? so why do poor christians commit more crimes than non-christian poor people?

I don't believe it is true in any given area or region among people of the same ethnicity.

iii) christianity is by far the richest religion on the planet - ironic that the adherents remain so poor while many priests live in mansions

Most of them live a normal life. No mansions and a lot of work.

iv) yes - prosecuted for the crimes they commit more than others http://www.timesonli...ticle571206.ece but as they study said - they where christian before they committed the crime.

That article sounds like anti-american propaganda.

v) the christian religion is extremey powerful and has been for a very long time

Maybe because it's the largest religion in the world, and maybe because it is not so bad after all.

vi) perhaps the repenting (in jail)

I hope not.

Perhaps what you mean is that christianity recruits new followers from amongst the poor, weak and prosecuted.

If so - of course they do. Its much easy to dupe those with no money or education. The religions of the world figured that out millenia ago. They all offer false hope to those with none in return for the their adherence.

You must be proud they were unable to recruit you, right?

Your support in this life for eternal bliss in heaven when you die. What ill educated, destitute person wouldn't sign up? Especially if the church gives free "education" and free meals like they did all over Africa.

Education and free meals sounds good. Do they have to wash the dishes? If they keep their promise about eternal bliss in heaven then it would be a great extra.

Atheists use our own judgement to decide what is morally sound. Theists use their own judgement to decide what the bible says is morally sound.

Those are my principles. If you don't like them... Well, I have others.

Groucho Marx

Come on, what's your moral code made of?

Just skip the bible/god/jesus stuff and understand that any decisions or actions are your own - just as they have always been.

Yes, I don't feel the need to skip the Bible/God/Jesus to realise that.

[yurp 0]

Haven't got long left - things to do - just spent an hour writing the latest post above. Your answering one from 3 days ago!

Quickly -

I don't believe it is true in any given area or region among people of the same ethnicity.

That article sounds like anti-american propaganda.

Is that your idea of evidence to refute the figures?

Yes, I don't feel the need to believe in the Bible/God/Jesus to realise that.

fixed

Please see the post above - it has a really nice ending for you personally

[AleHop 0]

Oops, again that reply was not aimed at you but at Muzza and TP (heh heh I said "TP"!)

The devil is playing with us.

Christ! Am I agreeing with Alex on something other than the beauty of a bonita chica? What's el mundo coming to...

It's good to agree with you...

Once in a blue moon.

[AleHop 0]

See above. No irrationality, you just keep misinterpreting my sentences.

Sorry if I did so, it wasn't deliberately. I think we can't make an agreement because there's a truth based on facts and then there's a truth based on perceived facts. The truth based on facts is almost irrelevant in a debate like this and the perceived truth will always be different for you and me. I see Christianity as a basically positive influence for humankind and you see it as a mainly negative thing. I could bring facts to prove my point, you could bring facts to prove yours but our positions would remain almost unchanged.

Thank you, Adams.

[yurp 0]

Sorry if I did so, it wasn't deliberately. I think we can't make an agreement because there's a truth based on facts and then there's a truth based on perceived facts. The truth based on facts is almost irrelevant in a debate like this and the perceived truth will always be different for you and me. I see Christianity as a basically positive influence for humankind and you see it as a mainly negative thing. I could bring facts to prove my point, you could bring facts to prove yours but our positions would remain almost unchanged.

Thank you, Adams.

Cheers Alehop. It sounds like you're finished here and TBH I have not been impressed by the debating tactics of the other theists, so this will probably be my last post too.

Obviously I must say the following in answer to your post...

I stated truths (perceived or not) from historical record and empirically obtained data.

The theists here have neither accepted those truths or offered any evidence to refute them.

Secondly - whether religion is a positive or negative influence is subjective (I think its a bit of both), but I think that's only a side issue. What I am more interested in correcting is the claim that religion teaches morality or that morality somehow comes from or relies upon religion. I have provided the crime data to support my view that that claim is a false one.

But anyway without you this debate is no fun - why?...

The other theists (not you) have shown a desire and willingness to misrepresent my points, make ad hominem attacks and deny my right to free speech - they have the right to write what they want, but I don't feel those posts in themselves were moral or christian.

I don't think those posts represent their true natures either. I believe they are good people. Everyone makes mistakes and I am strongly in favour of forgiving. I don't want them to write further things that they would later regret and I think that would happen more and more if I continued to debate with them.

You have acted far more morally and I think its a shame for all of us that they didn't follow your lead, but what's done is done.

Now that's out of the way...

Bravo and thanks for the debate. You have been a decent and fair debating oponent.

It was fun. Everyone should believe what they wish, speak freely about what they believe and act in accordance with those beliefs.

Long live honesty, integrity and freedom of expression.

(and Alonso did jump the start )

[Kopite Girl 0]

Adam, thanks for your answer mate.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

There is one christian here who has done his best to remain 'christian' (in the moral sense) and honest throughout this debate...

How? Exactly how do you know how a christian is suppose to remain "christian", did you read the bible, or are you living by faith, or are you making your own assumptions. By not offending or challenging you??? I can call you a hypocrite, because you've done exactly that to christian people in here.

[AleHop 0]

I stated truths (perceived or not) from historical record and empirically obtained data.

The theists here have neither accepted those truths or offered any evidence to refute them.

Facts are numbers. When reasoning is needed, as it always is in a debate like this, then I think it is very difficult for both you an me to reach the same conclusion. Besides, emprically obtained data is many times cooked for a better taste.

1.- Christians killed x% more people than atheists

2.- Christians gave y% more money for charity than atheists

3.- Christians were involved in z% more sexual crimes than atheists

4.- Christians did w% more hours of work for the community

I don't really mind whether that is true or false, my point is that no matter what x, y, z and w are, our positive or negative perception wouldn't change much.

I don't think those posts represent their true natures either. I know they are good people. Everyone makes mistakes and I believe strongly in forgiving. I don't want them to write further things that they would later regret and I think that would happen more and more if I continued to debate with them.

You're nearly a good Christian buddy.

I think it was in the heat of the moment. It's quite easy to misjudge what others write in a debate about religion then you undeservedly get/give a bad reply and suddenly it's no possible to get back to a construtive conversation.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I don't think those posts represent their true natures either. I believe they are good people. Everyone makes mistakes and I am strongly in favour of forgiving. I don't want them to write further things that they would later regret and I think that would happen more and more if I continued to debate with them.

You have acted far more morally and I think its a shame for all of us that they didn't follow your lead, but what's done is done.

To forgive is a God-like atribute, being moral stems from religion. Youre practising cristian values without realising it

[yurp 0]

Hi Brad - welcome aboard...

How? Exactly how do you know how a christian is suppose to remain "christian", did you read the bible, or are you living by faith, or are you making your own assumptions. By not offending or challenging you??? I can call you a hypocrite, because you've done exactly that to christian people in here.

Lets go through this one at a time...

I have read the bible yes. I also went to a very nice little country C of E primary school and church regularly as a child. My teachers were devout christians and lovely, the head master was christian and mean, but to be fair to him I think that was part of his job.

My own moral definition of 'christian' (hence the quotations) relies not my own assumptions but what I read in the bible and was taught by my christian teachers and friends (like many people): tollerant, kind, honest, forgiving etc etc. Perhaps people interpret the bible in different ways or perhaps I'm simply incorrect.

You can call me what you like - its your right and 'hypocrite' isn't as bad as some of the other slurs I've received in this thread.

But I can also refute that charge and I feel I should...

First - I never claimed to be "christian" (morally or religiously).

Second - I never said 'causing offense' or being 'challenging' were not "christian" (these are your words), I said misrepresentation, ad hominem attacks and attempted censorship weren't "christian".

NB: By adding your own definition "By not offending or challenging you???" and superimposing it upon my post in order that "[you] can call you a hypocrite" - are you representing my post fairly and honestly? Don't answer that. I don't want to make you angry too, I'd just like you to think about it.

Third - I never claimed to be inoffensive either - although I don't try to be - I just write what I believe.

Forth - After many posts I still don't know what I have written that was offensive or rude. No one's actually told me apart from Kate's 2 sentences which were discussed earlier. It remains my belief that I have not actually been offensive, but rigorous and challenging and that the accusation of offense was born out of the lack of a sound counter argument (hence the ad hominems). You are entitled to deny this, but usually an accusation should be accompanied with proof or at the very least some evidence. After 2 pages, I still haven't seen any.

NB: I write what I conclude from historical record and statistics. I don't call people names or make unsubstantiated accusations, I attempt to fully answer precisely what they write, I defend their right to say what they think (even ad hominem attacks against myself) and I thank them for civil input - even though I may disagree.

NB: If even 1 of these 4 points is true, your charge of hypocrisy on the grounds you stated is untrue.

Incidently - I hope I am challenging. I hope my points are too - any debate should be.

I hope your satisfied with these answers. My aim is not to anger you, but simply to state what I believe clearly and logically.

Facts are numbers. When reasoning is needed, as it always is in a debate like this, then I think it is very difficult for both you an me to reach the same conclusion. Besides, emprically obtained data is many times cooked for a better taste.

1.- Christians killed x% more people than atheists

2.- Christians gave y% more money for charity than atheists

3.- Christians were involved in z% more sexual crimes than atheists

4.- Christians did w% more hours of work for the community

I don't really mind whether that is true or false, my point is that no matter what x, y, z and w are, our positive or negative perception wouldn't change much.

If the figures favoured religion, I would not start to believe in god - you are correct - I'd need some definate proof of his existence for that. But I would acknowledge that religious people are more moral than atheists - it would be nice if religious people acknowledged the opposite as the first step to fixing this problem.

I think it was in the heat of the moment. It's quite easy to misjudge what others write in a debate about religion then you undeservedly get/give a bad reply and suddenly it's no possible to get back to a construtive conversation.

Yeppers. Often when people disagree they see their oponent as a threat and lash out before considering their oponent's actual point of view. Natural human defense mechanism (evolved).

You're nearly a good Christian buddy.

To forgive is a God-like atribute, being moral stems from religion. Youre practising cristian values without realising it

Nice try both of you - great minds think alike eh.

But I don't want to be a nice christian, I want to be a nice person.

The fact that I try to be moral (as we all do) is further evidence that morality doesn't stem from religion, but is simply an innate, beneficial, evolutionary trait. Psychopaths and sociopaths lack morality as we perceive it and we can see how it disadvantages them.

A theist is conditioned (most often from an early age) to think they get their morality from religious beliefs.

I believe in trying to be good because its the right/honest thing to do. It's better for everyone too. Sometimes I fail, but we all do - that's why its important to forgive others when they fail also - it's only fair. Simple as that.

[AleHop 0]

The fact that I try to be moral (as we all do) is further evidence that morality doesn't stem from religion, but is simply an innate, beneficial, evolutionary trait. Psychopaths and sociopaths lack morality as we perceive it and we can see how it disadvantages them.

Partially true but basically incorrect.

Innate, no. Beneficial, yes. Evolutionary trait, yes.

Children are cruel. A few of them truly inspire goodness. Leave them (a group of them) in the jungle alone at the age of 5 with food at their disposal initially and let them grow up wild.

Take another group of them and talk to them about humanism, christianism, socialise them with good adults. And see what each group have achieved in morality and moral conscience in ten years time.

They will have totally different moral codes.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

I believe in trying to be good because its the right/honest thing to do. It's better for everyone too. Sometimes I fail, but we all do - that's why its important to forgive others when they fail also - it's only fair. Simple as that.

You were making the point that babies are essentially atheist when borne, but from christian fundamentals, babies, or people actually come from heaven. You don't realise that, that's what Faith teaches us.We as individuals choose circumstances thatwe think would be a challenge, the problem is the physical body does'nt understand the spiritual. Now when babies are reared, we teach them good values and morals, religious principles, much the same way christians teach their children God principles. There's really no argument in between trying to be a good or forgiving person, it's essentially the same as being Christian. Born-again Chistians acknowledges the Maker, we are lucky in that sense "finding our way back home"......thats the only difference...

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Does anybody want to start a religion topic?

I think would be better!

I'm glad the topic took it's own way to were we've progressed. It's good that people express their views on a topic that will intruge us till end of eternity. We don't have all the answers, atheist and believers, but it helps us understand each other a little better.

We got us talking again dear

[yurp 0]

Partially true but basically incorrect.

Innate, no. Beneficial, yes. Evolutionary trait, yes.

Children are cruel. A few of them truly inspire goodness. Leave them (a group of them) in the jungle alone at the age of 5 with food at their disposal initially and let them grow up wild.

Take another group of them and talk to them about humanism, christianism, socialise them with good adults. And see what each group have achieved in morality and moral conscience in ten years time.

They will have totally different moral codes.

Nice example - I haven't heard it for a while. But sorry...

The kids in the jungle would still be moral - their expression of morality might differ (but only slightly) from our own, but it remains innate.

For instance, Chimpanzees protect family members - why? Children in the jungle would innately understand that their survival relies on numbers. Live together die alone. Babies know this without being taught - they cling to other people for protection as well as milk.

We are naturally social creatures. All great apes are. Social interaction depends on innate morality.

Humanity survived for millenia before humanism and christianity existed. Good adults are a result of innate morality just as good kids are.

On the other hand - Put a bunch of psychopaths and sociopaths in the jungle and you'd only have 'learnt' morality. If they weren't taught it, you would have the results you're talking about.

Innate, yes. Beneficial, yes. Evolutionary trait, yes.

[yurp 0]

You were making the point that babies are essentially atheist when borne, but from christian fundamentals, babies, or people actually come from heaven. You don't realise that, that's what Faith teaches us.We as individuals choose circumstances thatwe think would be a challenge, the problem is the physical body does'nt understand the spiritual. Now when babies are reared, we teach them good values and morals, religious principles, much the same way christians teach their children God principles. There's really no argument in between trying to be a good or forgiving person, it's essentially the same as being Christian. Born-again Chistians acknowledges the Maker, we are lucky in that sense "finding our way back home"......thats the only difference...

Honest questions...

Do you personally believe all that?

If so, why?

I'm glad the topic took it's own way to were we've progressed. It's good that people express their views on a topic that will intruge us till end of eternity. We don't have all the answers, atheist and believers, but it helps us understand each other a little better.

We got us talking again dear

Indeed

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Honest questions...

Do you personally believe all that?

If so, why?

Yes, I do.

If you live by faith you gain a deeper understanding of the spiritual. My whole life's been shaped by this. Don't get me wrong, I'm by no means perfect, actually I fail everyday, but it was a hard one from being a conservative, to seeing things with a more open mind.