Questions You Have Always Pondered On

[AleHop 0]

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.

Yes, I know they would still be moral but their expression of morality would be quite different.

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.

You're basically saying that the first group in the jungle would have a primitive moral code although apes do not have morals. They do not behave in a moral or inmoral way because they can't see the difference between good and evil. Chimpanzees do not protect family members because they have a moral code but because of their survival instinct.

Humans have an innate morality that comes from our insticts but our moral codes are not entirely innate. We have an innate intelligence and we are able to interact with the enviroment but we don't know Newton's law innately. We have the basics of morality, we don't know Christian morals innately.

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.

Social interaction and survival do not relate to morale, good and evil is what moral is about.

[yurp 0]

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.

It's interesting you come from a conservative position to relgion. I have a very liberal view to life.

Open mindedness is an interesting question. I believe open-mindedness can be assessed by a person's willingness to change their opinions.

I asked the question earlier in this thread...

As an atheist I can name a list of things that would make me believe in god (to change my beliefs)

• seeing him/her/it
• verifiable exact predictions in the bible
• verifiable observable miracles
• proof of the positive results of prayer (not just placebo effects)
• plus a few more

As a theist what would make you disbelieve in god? (to change you beliefs)

Yes, I know they would still be moral but their expression of morality would be quite different.

Yes they would - morality is innate.

You're basically saying that the first group in the jungle would have a primitive moral code although apes do not have morals. They do not behave in a moral or inmoral way because they can't see the difference between good and evil. Chimpanzees do not protect family members because they have a moral code but because of their survival instinct.

Humans have an innate morality that comes from our insticts but our moral codes are not entirely innate. We have an innate intelligence and we are able to interact with the enviroment but we don't know Newton's law innately. We have the basics of morality, we don't know Christian morals innately.

Social interaction and survival do not relate to morale, good and evil is what moral is about.

Sorry - we'll have to disagree again here Alehop.

'Good' and 'evil' are words we use to describe our concept of the morality of a thing/animal/person or its actions. They are not morality itself.

Morality exists without the words 'good' and 'evil' as it would with the jungle children.

Morality is innate.

If you google 'morality innate' you'll find masses of articles, experimental research papers and other material on this very subject.

Here's a particularly good and well referenced one - better than I could ever write for you... http://www.unc.edu/~...InnatePrinz.pdf

[AleHop 0]

As an atheist I can name a list of things that would make me believe in god (to change my beliefs)

• seeing him/her/it
• verifiable exact predictions in the bible
• verifiable observable miracles
• proof of the positive results of prayer (not just placebo effects)
• plus a few more

As a theist what would make you disbelieve in god? (to change you beliefs)

Only God can make you believe or disbelive but you are free to do as you please. In the Bible many people saw God's wonders and still they didn't believe. It's better if you decide not to believe not to see God wonders in your life. It's in the Bible.

'Good' and 'evil' are words we use to describe our concept of the morality of a thing/animal/person or its actions. They are not morality itself.

How is it that morality can be applied to things and animals? if we ignore two fundamental concepts like good and evil, what is morality itself? I'm not talking about different moral codes, I'm talking about morality in the purest sense of the term. What is our conscious for if not to differentiate between good and evil?

Morality exists without the words 'good' and 'evil' as it would with the jungle children.

The words 'good' and 'evil' is how we verbalise the concepts of good and evil. In Spanish we use different words, el bien and el mal, but the concepts are strictly the same. Morality and those two concepts are always linked.

Morality is innate.

Only the most basic moral requirements are innate and thus a concept of morality is universal in mankind.

If you google 'morality innate' you'll find masses of articles, experimental research papers and other material on this very subject.

Here's a particularly good and well referenced one - better than I could ever write for you... http://www.unc.edu/~...InnatePrinz.pdf

Sorry, the document is too long. Do you have a summary?

Morality is innate can be disputed, I said only a moral instict is innate and I won't change my point of view as you won't change yours. What I had never heard about was morality applied to any other creatures but humans. And I never heard about a morality without a clear link to good and evil. What philoshopical school can say such nonsense?

[Autumnpuma 0]

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.

So you're arguing against something you admit to knowing very little about. Nice. And I can assure you that while I don't have every tittle and jot memorized, I am far more knowledgeable about the Bible than you appear to be.

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.

You won't resort to name calling? I wish you would! That would be less insulting than what you've been doing for the past three pages!

I was pointing out an irony in the Bible, nothing more. Most atheists demand physical, verifiable, 'I want God right in front of me' proof. The irony is that if you ever get that proof, the Bible states that you shouldn't believe it. You fired the first shot by taking that comment of mine and replying with sarcasm and a link to an absurd website. Now you're gonna b!tch about it when I respond by calling you rude and obnoxious? Graham, Russ, Maure and Andres are atheists that can talk religion without insulting those that believe in said religion. I respect them immensely for that. You, not so much. And consider, please, that you've earned that response from me.

Proof? Every person has his/her own standard of proof. Mine has been met. So have many others' here. Yours clearly has not. Why then continue with all this? What are you getting out of this thread? Do you enjoy the sport we Christians give you? Are you stroking your ego? What's the reason, Adam, why you couldn't just accept three pages ago that we Christians wont suddenly throw our religion out because of your posts?

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.

Really? You come here, insult quite a few people's dearly-held beliefs with no respect with posts dripping barely-concealed venom and contempt and you're surprised that I don't like you? God is perfect. God probably loves you. I, however, am not and do not. Sorry.

Are you saying you don't feel ashamed at any of what you've been doing here? I'll gladly stand by my comments. Someone like you, who has no concept of how insulting all this is, is someone that I genuinely dislike and would not like to be around. To me, you're devoid of something that better people seem to have; grace.

What would it harm you to let us hold our beliefs in peace? Of course none of us can give you what you want, yet you still, post after post, return to challenge, to bait, to wallow in your supposed intellectual superiority over us barbaric, illogical believers in God.

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.

Ah, so now, after pages and pages of bashing people's religion and doing everything you can to demean and belittle them for it, you decide to take the moral high road? I'm not buying it. You bait people into reacting to what you say/write then have the audacity to act surprised by it. Truth is, you want a reaction if for no other reason than to make yourself look all the more reasonable. I play no such games. I'm honest and will tell you to your face (so to speak) what I think of your actions. If you can't take someone's honest assessment of you based on your own actions, pack up and go home.

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

Thanks. I can't tell you how much that means to me. Really, I can't.

I mention 'respect' frequently. Respect is earned or lost based on actions but there are exceptions. Religion and age are two of those. I give a blanket respect to what people believe (or don't believe) and I give a blanket respect for those older than me. Out of that blanket respect for people's beliefs, I have never tried to 'convert' anyone to my religion. I can sup with a Shinto as well as a Muslim and a Mormon as well as an Atheist and have absolutely no desire to 'save' any of them. I respect them enough to let them have their own beliefs without dispute. I would ask that you afford me and mine that same respect.

[yurp 0]

Hey my favourite theist! Thanks for continuing the debate.

Only God can make you believe or disbelive but you are free to do as you please. In the Bible many people saw God's wonders and still they didn't believe. It's better if you decide not to believe not to see God wonders in your life. It's in the Bible.

Nice filibustering - but you've still avoided answering my question.

I'll write it differently - "What would change your mind about the existence of god?"

Its a question regarding open-mindedness again.

I've asked many questions in this thread which you and the others have ignored. Here are some from just one post...

• 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.

I never got any answers for them either.

Last thing - "Only God can make you believe or disbelive but you are free to do as you please"

If god can make me believe and chooses to. I am not free to do as I please.

If I am always free to do as I please and choose not to believe in God, he can't make me.

???

How is it that morality can be applied to things and animals? if we ignore two fundamental concepts like good and evil, what is morality itself? I'm not talking about different moral codes, I'm talking about morality in the purest sense of the term. What is our conscious for if not to differentiate between good and evil?

First - you said animals don't have morality and now you are using the application of morality to animals to make your point.

Second - Sorry but you are not talking about morality in its purest form.

You are mixing up linguistic concepts (the tools we use to describe something) with the object they're used to describe (in this case, an innate trait).

If we had no linguistic concept of 'hot' or 'cold' would an ice-cube still melt on a fire? Of course it would.

We didn't have any concept of an atom until the last hundred or so years - did nothing exist previously? Of course it did.

Third - Perhaps your meaning has been lost in the translation...

"Conscious" is an adjective to describe being lucid (awake and aware).

We do almost everything "conciously" (type this message, add numbers etc) as opposed to subconciously (such as breathing).

"Conscience" is an innate ability of the brain that makes our moral judgements - I think this is what you might mean.

But it is not a physical part of our brains like the thalamus (which maintains consciousness) it is a function of our brains. Conscience is an innate ability apart from in psychopaths and sociopaths.

Your statement has the further inaccuracy as morality does not depend on our liguistic concepts of 'good' and 'evil' but we've already discussed that.

The words 'good' and 'evil' is how we verbalise the concepts of good and evil. In Spanish we use different words, el bien and el mal, but the concepts are strictly the same. Morality and those two concepts are always linked.

All totally true. We do use different words 'hao' and 'huai' in Chinese The two concepts are linked. BUT Morality is still not dependent upon the concept of 'good' and 'evil'. Sorry.

Only the most basic moral requirements are innate and thus a concept of morality is universal in mankind.

Ahhh - So you DO accept that at least the "most basic moral requirements" are innate. OMGOMGOMG! - Now please define "most basic moral requirements" for me and explain why this isn't just like saying "morality is innate".

You whole sentence is essentially what I've been saying.

Sorry, the document is too long. Do you have a summary?

Morality is innate can be disputed, I said only a moral instict is innate and I won't change my point of view as you won't change yours. What I had never heard about was morality applied to any other creatures but humans. And I never heard about a morality without a clear link to good and evil. What philoshopical school can say such nonsense?

Summary: Morality is innate.

If you honestly want to conduct your own objective, open minded research into the subject in pursuit of truth, then I recommend again that you google 'morality innate' and read some of the about 427,000 results.

If you want to ignore the massive ammounts of verifiable observations and evidence and deny the possibility that your supposition might be incorrect, then are you really pursuing truth in an open minded fashion?

Is that blue sentence consistent with being open minded?

And you are incorrect I will change my point of view if new evidence shows that morality is not innate. I have no personal preference either way.

We covered all this above.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

As an atheist I can name a list of things that would make me believe in god (to change my beliefs)

• seeing him/her/it
• verifiable exact predictions in the bible
• verifiable observable miracles
• proof of the positive results of prayer (not just placebo effects)
• plus a few more

As a theist what would make you disbelieve in god? (to change you beliefs)

That would really make you believe in God? Mike has touched on this with te post above, the problem is people that resort to signseeking never end up believing anyway. You get that from Jesus teaching and miracles. People turned their backs on God even when they saw miracle signs, you think that is the solution, but it really aint. God touches the heart if you're willing to listen to what He says. He does'nt use YOUR proof demands my friend

[maure 1]

That would really make you believe in God? Mike has touched on this with te post above, the problem is people that resort to signseeking never end up believing anyway. You get that from Jesus teaching and miracles. People turned their backs on God even when they saw miracle signs, you think that is the solution, but it really aint. God touches the heart if you're willing to listen to what He says. He does'nt use YOUR proof demands my friend

You make an excellent point.

Besides which, there is the definition of _what_ god is. What I mean is that if one chooses carefully, one can choose a definition of god that is tangible and scientifically verifiable. For instance, we could use as definition of god the following qualities: omnipotent, omniprensent, ehtically bound, and creator of us all. Well, then, Nature fits all those qualities. Nature certainly is omnipotent from our prespective as a mere specie. Nature is certainly everywhere. Nature sure has its own kingdom of ethics. Nature is, as far as science can prove, the creator of us all. We come from the Earth and to the Earth we return... that's Nature big recycle bin for ya'll.

So, as I said, it is just a matter of how one wants to define god and, then, how EACH OF US wants to pursue its definition.

The debate is pointless, useless, otiose, purposeless, senseless, futile, ineffectual, inutile, and certainly unavailing except among those that agree, definition-wise, to begin with.

[yurp 0]

So you're arguing against something you admit to knowing very little about. Nice. And I can assure you that while I don't have every tittle and jot memorized, I am far more knowledgeable about the Bible than you appear to be.

You won't resort to name calling? I wish you would! That would be less insulting than what you've been doing for the past three pages!

I was pointing out an irony in the Bible, nothing more. Most atheists demand physical, verifiable, 'I want God right in front of me' proof. The irony is that if you ever get that proof, the Bible states that you shouldn't believe it. You fired the first shot by taking that comment of mine and replying with sarcasm and a link to an absurd website. Now you're gonna b!tch about it when I respond by calling you rude and obnoxious? Graham, Russ, Maure and Andres are atheists that can talk religion without insulting those that believe in said religion. I respect them immensely for that. You, not so much. And consider, please, that you've earned that response from me.

Proof? Every person has his/her own standard of proof. Mine has been met. So have many others' here. Yours clearly has not. Why then continue with all this? What are you getting out of this thread? Do you enjoy the sport we Christians give you? Are you stroking your ego? What's the reason, Adam, why you couldn't just accept three pages ago that we Christians wont suddenly throw our religion out because of your posts?

Really? You come here, insult quite a few people's dearly-held beliefs with no respect with posts dripping barely-concealed venom and contempt and you're surprised that I don't like you? God is perfect. God probably loves you. I, however, am not and do not. Sorry.

Are you saying you don't feel ashamed at any of what you've been doing here? I'll gladly stand by my comments. Someone like you, who has no concept of how insulting all this is, is someone that I genuinely dislike and would not like to be around. To me, you're devoid of something that better people seem to have; grace.

What would it harm you to let us hold our beliefs in peace? Of course none of us can give you what you want, yet you still, post after post, return to challenge, to bait, to wallow in your supposed intellectual superiority over us barbaric, illogical believers in God.

Ah, so now, after pages and pages of bashing people's religion and doing everything you can to demean and belittle them for it, you decide to take the moral high road? I'm not buying it. You bait people into reacting to what you say/write then have the audacity to act surprised by it. Truth is, you want a reaction if for no other reason than to make yourself look all the more reasonable. I play no such games. I'm honest and will tell you to your face (so to speak) what I think of your actions. If you can't take someone's honest assessment of you based on your own actions, pack up and go home.

Thanks. I can't tell you how much that means to me. Really, I can't.

I mention 'respect' frequently. Respect is earned or lost based on actions but there are exceptions. Religion and age are two of those. I give a blanket respect to what people believe (or don't believe) and I give a blanket respect for those older than me. Out of that blanket respect for people's beliefs, I have never tried to 'convert' anyone to my religion. I can sup with a Shinto as well as a Muslim and a Mormon as well as an Atheist and have absolutely no desire to 'save' any of them. I respect them enough to let them have their own beliefs without dispute. I would ask that you afford me and mine that same respect.

I'm sorry you think those things and feel that way.

[yurp 0]

That would really make you believe in God? Mike has touched on this with te post above, the problem is people that resort to signseeking never end up believing anyway. You get that from Jesus teaching and miracles. People turned their backs on God even when they saw miracle signs, you think that is the solution, but it really aint. God touches the heart if you're willing to listen to what He says. He does'nt use YOUR proof demands my friend

Good points about my own position.

Yes - honestly I do think that if any of those things happened I would happily believe in god or at least in a spiritual element to the world (a big part of me would like there to be a god). I take your posts on face value and I would hope you would take mine in the same way.

I understand what you say about not using my proofs though and your point is valid.

Re. Mike's post - I'm leaving that one. He's evidently upset and I'm sorry about that.

Moving on...

You haven't answered my actual question - 'What would change your mind about god?'

I think its an important question when discussing open-mindedness (as we were).

Alehop's avoided this question and so have you (both very skillfully ).

In fact I've asked this question to many theists and only once got a semi-answer: 'proof that god doesn't exist'. I thought that was kind or ironic.

When I asked for an example of the kind of proof my friend would need, he thought a while, commented on how nice the food was that evening and moved onto a different subject.

I have asked a lot of other questions in my previous posts that have been avoided/ignored too. I'm putting a lot of effort in replying to everything you guys write, but I would like a little parity in the answers front. None of us have all the answers, but I don't think we should ignore the questions.

Cheers any way.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Moving on...

You haven't answered my actual question - 'What would change your mind about god?'

You mean what would change my current mindset to believe God does't exist?

[yurp 0]

You mean what would change my current mindset to believe God does't exist?

yes - I think so

Its not a trick question.

I've heard many answers that are essentially a re-wording of the original question...

the answer "a loss of faith" leads to "what would cause that loss of faith?"

the answer "proof of god's non-existence" leads to "what might that proof be?"

So those are the answers I'd like you to try to avoid. They don't really get us anywhere.

imagine you go from believing god exists to not believing god exists. why would you do that? what would be the cause?

A kind of related topic (and one which I haven't really thought about lately)...

Some people who were formerly theists and lost their faith say it was a result of a tragedy in their lives.

Other theists turn to their faith even more when tragedy occurs.

Some former theists find it very painful to leave their faiths, while others describe it as liberating.

On the other side, some people who were formally atheists and then became theists will also offer some kind of event in their lives as a reason they became religious - perhaps a tragedy, perhaps a near death, perhaps a happy experience.

I find all of these situations and reactions interesting - I don't have any theories or conclusions on it, but it's interesting all the same.

[Rainmaster 7]

Adam, that article you linked to regarding morality doesn't appear to support your argument that it's innate, quite the opposite in fact, it concludes (half way down page 28):

"In sum, I think the evidence for moral nativism is incomplete, at best. We have,

as yet, no strong reason to think that morality is innate. This conclusion is surprising

because morality seems to crop up in every society, no matter how isolated and how

advanced. Massive variation in religion, physical environment, and means of subsistence

have no impact on the existence of morality, even if the content of morality varies

widely. Capacities are canalized in this way are often innate. Often, but not always.

Take the case of religion. Some people think there is an innate religion module in the

human brain, but this is a minority opinion. The dominant view of religion is that is a

byproduct of other human capacities: theory of mind systems, a thirst for explanation, a

good memory for the exotic, and emotional response to intense sensory pageantry, and so

on (Boyer, 2001; Whitehouse, 1999). Religion, like morality, appears everywhere, but

not because it is innate. It appears everywhere because it is a nearly inevitable

consequence of other capacities.

I think the same is true for morality."

I'm sure there are plenty of other researchers with a different conclusion which would support you, just not the one you posted. Sorry to screw you over there, fellow atheist, but I must hold you to your own high standards

[yurp 0]

Adam, that article you linked to regarding morality doesn't appear to support your argument that it's innate, quite the opposite in fact, it concludes (half way down page 28):

"In sum, I think the evidence for moral nativism is incomplete, at best. We have,

as yet, no strong reason to think that morality is innate. This conclusion is surprising

because morality seems to crop up in every society, no matter how isolated and how

advanced. Massive variation in religion, physical environment, and means of subsistence

have no impact on the existence of morality, even if the content of morality varies

widely. Capacities are canalized in this way are often innate. Often, but not always.

Take the case of religion. Some people think there is an innate religion module in the

human brain, but this is a minority opinion. The dominant view of religion is that is a

byproduct of other human capacities: theory of mind systems, a thirst for explanation, a

good memory for the exotic, and emotional response to intense sensory pageantry, and so

on (Boyer, 2001; Whitehouse, 1999). Religion, like morality, appears everywhere, but

not because it is innate. It appears everywhere because it is a nearly inevitable

consequence of other capacities.

I think the same is true for morality."

I'm sure there are plenty of other researchers with a different conclusion which would support you, just not the one you posted. Sorry to screw you over there, fellow atheist, but I must hold you to your own high standards

Thanks - serves me right for not reading the whole article .

I chose that link because it was the first one in the google results. Oops!

But watch out - the author makes no conclusion either way.

It does say "no strong reason to think that morality is innate" but it doesn't say "there is strong reason to think morality is not innate" or anything like it either.

It also goes on to say "Massive variation in religion, physical environment, and means of subsistence have no impact on the existence of morality" which would support my original point that religion can not teach morality.

But yes - sloppy me and well spotted.

I better google again...

EDIT - hang on....

I just had a thought. Shouldn't I be agreeing with Alehop anyway?

If morality isn't innate then religion can teach it.

If religion can teach it then religion would be responsible for the higher crime rate of theists.

[freaky2 1]

Cheers to George for reading all that!!! (Boy, you must be bored!!)

"It might be innate, or it might not be innate", how typical of trying to apply science to social studies! Tell me about it!

And btw, I don't know why I bothered reading this, seeing as I'm not posting anything relevant to either side of the debate, but I wanted to mention that I quite agree with Mike, the religious guys are behaving way better and I'm getting tired of reading Adam's posts. But well, I AM learning interesting things about the Bible in the whole process...

[yurp 0]

Point taken - less of the confrontational more of the inclusive...

I just had another thought on this from my earlier post.

A kind of related topic (and one which I haven't really thought about lately)...

Some people who were formerly theists and lost their faith say it was a result of a tragedy in their lives.

Other theists turn to their faith even more when tragedy occurs.

Some former theists find it very painful to leave their faiths, while others describe it as liberating.

On the other side, some people who were formally atheists and then became theists will also offer some kind of event in their lives as a reason they became religious - perhaps a tragedy, perhaps a near death, perhaps a happy experience.

I find all of these situations and reactions interesting - I don't have any theories or conclusions on it, but it's interesting all the same.

Were any of the theists here previously athiest and were any atheists previously religious? If so, how did the change occur for you personally?

Was there any particular moment when you decided that you can remember?

I'm guessing everyone will be different, but I'm trying to get a handle on 'faith'.

Again - not a trick question - I'm genuinely interested.

Perhaps I'll go first myself...

For me, I guess I've always been athiest, but I remember praying to god of my own accord a few times (not just in school assemblies and church). One time I clearly remember was when I was about 7 or 8 and our rabbit had just dissappeared. I remember praying that blackadder (my brother named him!) would not get eaten by our neighbour's jack russell (dog) which had killed our previous rabbit a year or so before.

I can't ever remember deciding one way or the other on the existence of god, but I certainly know today that I currently don't believe he/she/it exists.

Probably the one thing that (to this day) affects my views of religion most adversly is Israeli zionism.

I have also always been strongly critical and admittedly outspoken concerning anything I perceive as immoral or especially hypocritical. When I was young, I couldn't keep quiet when someone was bullying someone else. Even if I didn't like the kid being bullied I couldn't stop myself from calling the bully a 'big bugger' and then usually legging it.

Most politicians and intollerant theists come low on my list. Good politicians and tollerant theists I admire immensly - they are brave and principled people.

My biggest failing is that I am not very good at tollerating of intollerance. I try, but I do find it hard. I often find myself saying sorry when I realise I've become intollerant too. That's why I admire tollerant people so much.

Blimey - That turned into a bit of a ramble. Anyway - What formed your religious beliefs or lack of them or changed them one way or the other?

[Rainmaster 7]

Cheers to George for reading all that!!! (Boy, you must be bored!!)

"It might be innate, or it might not be innate", how typical of trying to apply science to social studies! Tell me about it!

And btw, I don't know why I bothered reading this, seeing as I'm not posting anything relevant to either side of the debate, but I wanted to mention that I quite agree with Mike, the religious guys are behaving way better and I'm getting tired of reading Adam's posts. But well, I AM learning interesting things about the Bible in the whole process...

I didn't actually read it all I just skimmed through some of the interesting bits!

Edit: although yes, I am bored.

[yurp 0]

I didn't actually read it all I just skimmed through some of the interesting bits!

Edit: although yes, I am bored.

Interesting bits?

like this? (page 30)...

If I am right, then morality is not buggy, wrassey, or starlingy. It is more like pigeon piano (the result of general purpose conditioning mechanism) and flea toss (a new use for systems that evolved to serve other functions).

[BradSpeedMan 6]

yes - I think so

Its not a trick question.

I've heard many answers that are essentially a re-wording of the original question...

the answer "a loss of faith" leads to "what would cause that loss of faith?"

the answer "proof of god's non-existence" leads to "what might that proof be?"

So those are the answers I'd like you to try to avoid. They don't really get us anywhere.

imagine you go from believing god exists to not believing god exists. why would you do that? what would be the cause?

A kind of related topic (and one which I haven't really thought about lately)...

Some people who were formerly theists and lost their faith say it was a result of a tragedy in their lives.

Other theists turn to their faith even more when tragedy occurs.

Some former theists find it very painful to leave their faiths, while others describe it as liberating.

On the other side, some people who were formally atheists and then became theists will also offer some kind of event in their lives as a reason they became religious - perhaps a tragedy, perhaps a near death, perhaps a happy experience.

I find all of these situations and reactions interesting - I don't have any theories or conclusions on it, but it's interesting all the same.

I've been thinking quite hard...Maybe if the link of faith is broken, sorry Adam, don't have an answer. Life would surely be extremely dull without God

[BradSpeedMan 6]

It's interesting you come from a conservative position to relgion. I have a very liberal view to life.]

no, i come from a conservative religious background to my own liberal viewpoint on life, still bearing the essential Christian fundamentals at heart

I hope that makes sense, maybe I'm not that liberal after all

[Autumnpuma 0]

I'm sorry you think those things and feel that way.

I'd rather you felt a bit of remorse over the general contempt in your tone that's riddled all through this thread. I'm sorry that I'm having to teach you a lesson in manners that your parents should have done years ago.

Re. Mike's post - I'm leaving that one. He's evidently upset and I'm sorry about that.

I suppose it's easier to dismiss what I've said than try to see if I've made some valid points. After all, that would require from you a certain introspection that I don't think you can muster. I would be happy to be wrong in that, however.

On the topic of being sorry: I am sorry I didn't pick my words more carefully when I said I would prefer that you *not* be 'saved'. I failed in my intent. I wanted to express in a dramatic and clear way that anything I say on the topic of religion is most sincerely *not* aimed at saving anyone's soul. I find religious discussions go much easier when I can convince someone of that from the get-go.

Taking a cue from my religion, Paul was a vehement prosecutor of the early Christian church. He even held the coats of those that were (illegally) stoning a Christian. Yet for all of that, he was turned 180° so I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh about a few obnoxious atheists today.

EDIT: This whole thread has re-ignited a desire of mine to post a series of blog entries clarifying some common misconceptions about the Christian religion. I think I'll finally do those entries. They will in no way prove to an atheist that God exists, but they might clear up some erroneous ideas about Christianity.

[AleHop 0]

[quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179']
Nice filibustering - but you've still avoided answering my question. [img]http://www.totalf1.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif[/img]
I'll write it differently - "What would change your mind about the existence of god?"
Its a question regarding open-mindedness again.
[/quote]
It isn't filibustering. Maybe not easy to understand, especially for you. I'll try to explain it below.

Open-mindedness is not about changing your mind. If you can change your mind but you can't understand other positions in life you are not open-minded. You, Adams, are not open-minded, even if you think you are the most open-minded creature in the world. In fact you're one of the most narrow-minded persons I've met about these matters.

Your question is absurd to begin with. I could change my mind about the existence of God if I wanted so, I'm free to believe and free to disbelieve, right? You're free to believe and free to disbelieve, right? So the answer is you, I, he, she... And God's grace.

[quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179']
Last thing - "Only God can make you believe or disbelive but you are free to do as you please"
If god can make me believe and chooses to. I am not free to do as I please.
If I am always free to do as I please and choose not to believe in God, he can't make me.
[/quote]
Did you pass your Logic exam?

A conclusion is true if two premises are met.

Think about it.

[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"][quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179'][/color]
First - you said animals don't have morality and now you are using the application of morality to animals to make your point.
[color="#000000"][/quote][/color]
[color="#000000"]Maybe my English is not good enough to make my point completely clear. Animals don't have morality, I never said they have. I said the concept of morality doesn't apply to animals because good and evil do not apply to whatever animals do. They're not free to choose, they behave by their instincts.[/color][/color]

[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"]I asked "how it was that morality can be applied to things and animals" because you said that thing:[/color][/color]

[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"][quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 01:33 AM' timestamp='1276731227' post='319160']
'Good' and 'evil' are words we use to describe our concept of the morality of a thing/animal/person or its actions. They are not morality itself.
[/quote]
I never said good and evil were morality itself. Read below.
[/color]
[/color][color="#0000ff"][color="#000000"][quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179'][/color]
Second - Sorry but you are not talking about morality in its purest form.
You are mixing up linguistic concepts (the tools we use to describe something) with the object they're used to describe (in this case, an innate trait).
If we had no linguistic concept of 'hot' or 'cold' would an ice-cube still melt on a fire? Of course it would.
We didn't have any concept of an atom until the last hundred or so years - did nothing exist previously? Of course it did.[/color]
[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"][/quote][/color]
[color="#000000"]The concept of an atom is around 400 years older than Christianity. The concept in its purest form.[/color][/color]

[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"]I was talking about morality in its purest form:[/color][/color]

[color="#ff0000"][color="#000000"][quote name='AleHop' date='17 June 2010 - 04:37 AM' timestamp='1276742252' post='319165']
How is it that morality can be applied to things and animals? if we ignore two fundamental concepts like good and evil, what is morality itself? I'm not talking about different moral codes, I'm talking about morality in the purest sense of the term. What is our conscience for if not to differentiate between good and evil?
[/quote]
Thanks for the correction about conscience, you understood what I meant even if it wasn't correctly expressed in English. Why do you twist my words more often than not?
[/color]
[color="#008000"][color="#000000"][quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179'][/color]
[/color][/color][color="#ff0000"][color="#008000"]Your statement has the further inaccuracy as morality does not depend on our liguistic concepts of 'good' and 'evil' but we've already discussed that.
[/color][/color][/quote]
No, we haven't discussed it. You twisted my words and accussed me of applying the concept of morality to animals which I did not do.

[quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179']
All totally true. We [i]do[/i] use different words 'hao' and 'huai' in Chinese [img]http://www.totalf1.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif[/img] The two concepts [i]are[/i] linked. BUT Morality is still not [i]dependent[/i] upon the concept of 'good' and 'evil'. Sorry.
[/quote]
If morality is independant of the concept of good and evil, what is morality for you?

[quote name='adamstrags' date='17 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1276758919' post='319179']
Ahhh - So you [b]DO[/b] accept that at least the "most basic moral requirements" [b]are[/b] innate. OMGOMGOMG! [img]http://www.totalf1.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif[/img] - Now please define "most basic moral requirements" for me and explain why this isn't just like saying "morality is innate".

[color="#000000"]You whole sentence is essentially what I've been saying.[/color]
[/quote]
I implicitly said the most basic moral requirements were innate in my first post and then I said it explicitly in the next one. I will try to explain without linking any googled document what "most basic moral requirements" mean and why this is not like saying "morality is innate".

To understand morality there are three simple concepts to deal with. And I mean only the concepts, not their meaning yet. Good, evil and free will. Without these three concepts there's no point on talking about morality because it wouldn't even exist.

When a human being is born, it has natural instintcts and conscience, thus it's ready for a morality that we call natural. That's what I call the most "basic moral requirements" but it doesn't mean morality is innate because good and evil are basically not innate.

[AleHop 0]

If you honestly want to conduct your own objective, open minded research into the subject in pursuit of truth, then I recommend again that you google 'morality innate' and read some of the about 427,000 results.

If you want to ignore the massive ammounts of verifiable observations and evidence and deny the possibility that your supposition might be incorrect, then are you really pursuing truth in an open minded fashion?

Is that blue sentence consistent with being open minded?

And you are incorrect I will change my point of view if new evidence shows that morality is not innate. I have no personal preference either way.

You linked a document to explain why morality is innate and it resulted that it was stating that morality was not innate. What about the other 426.000 documents? Can you for once google inside and tell us why morality is innate? You ask for factual proves for you to believe in God, I want at least a good reasoning to make me think morality could be innate beyond a basic rudiments of morality.

Adams, we don't even agree on what an open-minded person is. You think you're open-minded just because you're able to change your mind about concepts in life that I call principles. Morality, good and evil are hardcoded in every human being's principles. If you can change your principles, you are a moral relativist or you are able to change your point of view about gastronomy it doesn't make you an open-minded person.

We covered all this above.

I did, you didn't.

[cavallino 2]

Ok, seeing usually cool headed Mike worked up made me curious enough to skim through the thread.

You're just baiting adam, plain and simple. You threw a line again and again trying to get someone's attention. It is such obnoxious self righteousness that gives atheists a bad name sometimes. Seriously, it's pathetic. Get on with your life, there is no point in arguing for the sake of it. This kind of throw the bait and run posting is typical of you.

It is all about people, individuals.

you've hit the nail on the head there. Atheism is no holy grail to save humanity. Knowing a person is atheist doesn't ever increase the odds that a person will be a good person, it is no guarantee to the things I respect in people - intelligence, kindness, honesty, integrity etc. Some of the people I respect most in the world are religious. We get along fine. You have a problem with someone's beliefs, think of it this way - is their belief really the worst thing about them? Is it even a negative thing at all? By all means argue against intolerance, against violence based on religious. But get rid of that smugness. You haven't answered the questions of Life Universe and Everything (you haven't even figured out the right questions to ask, with apologies to Douglas Adams), so don't trot around like you've got it all figured out and all that's wrong with the world is religion, that your crusade against religion is out of a sense of magnanimity, and not an ego trip. You're the bully in high school who chooses the easy kid to pick on. There are far far worse things in the world than people who practice their own faiths, and if someone I respect is the person they are because of their faith and beliefs, then who the hell am I to go and tell them what to believe.

[yurp 0]

I've been thinking quite hard...Maybe if the link of faith is broken, sorry Adam, don't have an answer. Life would surely be extremely dull without God

That's okay Brad - I appreciate that you thought about the question.

no, i come from a conservative religious background to my own liberal viewpoint on life, still bearing the essential Christian fundamentals at heart

I hope that makes sense, maybe I'm not that liberal after all

Oh okay - I misunderstood you before - now I get what you mean.

[snipped to cut my post length down a bit]

Thanks for the answers too Alehop - would it be fair to conclude the points you've talked about this way?..

...

To clarify - I believe open-mindedness is the ability to change one's mind, not the actual changing of it.

I also think we are both closed-minded about our definitions of 'open-minded'

Its funny and I think quite true.

I hold my own closed-minded idea of what "open-minded" is to me.

You hold your own closed-minded idea of what "open-minded" is to you.

We both fit our own definitions of "open-minded" while being closed-minded about what that definition actually is.

Fair?

...

In the sub-debate on morality. What occured to me yesterday was this...

If morality is innate, then religious claims to teach it would be incorrect.

If morality isn't innate, then religious claims to teach it would be correct, but then it would take us back to the crime rates question again.

After much thought I'm not sure it adds up well either way. And anyway that would be going back on ourselves.

(Read on before you answer this, because my position has changed a bit)

...

When seperating linguistic concepts from what we use them to describe, I think my 'does an ice-cube still melt on a fire with out concepts of hot and cold?' was the good example.

Concerning your definition of a molecule - if you wish to say the concept is thousands of years old that's okay too. The question still remains: "before we had a concept of 'molecule' did nothing exist?"

(But still read on a bit more before you answer)

...

to answer your question: morality (to me) is a function of the brain.

Thanks for your definition of 'basic moral requirements'.

Let me just check if I'm understanding you properly...

Are you saying that the 'ability to be moral' is innate, but not morality itself?

(This is the bit...)

If so - its an interesting position and one which I can happily accomodate within my understanding of what I've read...

My take would be that since the tools to be moral exists natively then so does morality since it is a function of those tools.

But I think your stance is also a strong one. What you say has merit.

If we consider the following - I think we can reach a joint conclusion...

I think you're talking about "considered" actions (deciding to buy free range eggs or not), while I'm talking about "automatic" actions (protecting others from flying frisbees).

I agree that we have to learn to process the question 'should I buy free range eggs?' before it can be inputted into our moral calculator. But the function of making the calculation remains (to me) an innate function of the brain.

Kind of like we learn how to feed numbers in to a compter, but the computer still does the adding up.

In support of your opinion - how we choose which numbers to input would be a learned skill and so that element of the overall moral decision making process would not be innate.

Does that sound right?

You're just baiting adam, plain and simple.

oh the irony!

...

IN CONCLUSION

Perhaps I have baited people (its not the word I'd use, but lets not quibble). I hope to be challenging. I am certainly combatitive in my posts. I will always discuss religion as I discuss politics, F1 and McDonalds. I will ask difficult questions and put people on the spot if I can - that is my nature. I try to trip people up in their reasoning - I try to trip myself up too - I'm always skeptical of my own position - bizarre but totally true.

But I also aim ultimately for the common ground - the amicable result - the compromise. Only when positions have been fully explored, questioned and challenged does an idea of where that common ground is and how the consensus can be reached become properly and fairly defined.

What I challenge is the hypocrisy I see within people's (including my own) positions, actions, ideas or concepts - not the people themselves.

I believe humans are all essentially good (I remember Max and I had a good debate on that question before somewhere). I believe we all do bad things on occasion - everyone. I believe in forgiving others their misdeeds. I believe that tollerance is difficult but extremely important.

and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,

Has stuck with me though all these years. The sentiment is a beautiful and attainable one.

I believe that the right to freedom of expression is the most important right of all.

My questions about religion have sparked an fascinating range of reactions from all quarters - from emotional to personal to considered to profound to surprising to enlightening to humorous.

I personally have learnt a lot!..

I have learnt that there is a far wider range of personality types than I expected on TF1 - which makes sense - my religious friends tend to have similar personalities as we're friends but people here come from a wider range of backgrounds.

I have learnt that some theists identify themselves with their religion or their fellow theists far more than others (previously I hadn't directly observed this - my christian friends don't tend to identify themselves with wider christian community but remain christian independently).

I have learnt that the nature of people's relationship with their religion differs vastly also. This I expected, although not to the degree I found.

I have learnt that the hypocrisy I previously perceived as more uniform in religious adherent's words and actions is actually far from uniform. This has been a very good lesson for me.

• For some there is no overt hypocrisy in their actions that I have seen. (these are what I would refer to as the tollerant, engaging, forgiving theists)
• For some the hypocrisy is acknowledged and they are trying to fix it.
• For some the hypocrisy itself is acknowledged but they accept no responsibility for it.
• For some the hypocrisy is flatly denied.

The identity issue is fascinating too. Its a similar issue to one of national pride. Some people identify themselves with their country to the extent that they consider comments on their government to be comments on them personally. Other's (me included) see a comment on a government as having little to do with a person of that country.

It occurs to me that this is why I fail to understand why a question about a religion can be taken personally - because I take very few things personally myself. I ought to work on fixing my lack of empathy in this regard. That is probably the most important personal lesson of all for me.

To those who were upset by my behaviour - I apolygise - it's my character, but I shall try to change it.

To those who weren't - thanks for the debate, it has been really eye-opening.

I will continue to check in, but the debate seems to be winding down / fragmenting now anyway.

I'd still be interested to get a better understanding of how religious or atheistic beliefs appear or change.

If you want to share how you personally became religious or left religion or made the decision that god exists or doesn't I'd like to hear about it.

[AleHop 0]

I believe open-mindedness is the ability to change one's mind, not the actual changing of it.

Ok, I share your belief, together with mine, but I would add this to yours:

The ability to change one's mind when there's a good reason for a change.

In the sub-debate on morality. What occured to me yesterday was this...

If morality is innate, then religious claims to teach it would be incorrect.

If morality isn't innate, then religious claims to teach it would be correct, but then it would take us back to the crime rates question again.

After much thought I'm not sure it adds up well either way. And anyway that would be going back on ourselves.

I studied with the Jesuits at the University and I met some old Fathers with an amazing intelligence and absolutely open minded. One of them gave me the subject Christian Morality. He was always saying an atheist could be as moral as a believer and he always told us to respect atheists. That was an open-minded person in his eigthies.

Both religious and atheists can teach morals. They only need to be moral. TBH, I prefer the debate about morality which applies to all human beings than a confrontational and pointless debate about religion. What I won't accept is a new-age moral relativist teaching morals: nothing is good or evil, it just depends on society, blah, blah, blah.

Are you saying that the 'ability to be moral' is innate, but not morality itself?

Our ability to be moral is partially innate and partially acquired. I think morality might be naturally acquired but developed and evolved through human's History. For me naturally doesn't exclude God, developed and evolved through human's History doesn't exclude God either.

Does that sound right?

The part about the eggs and the frisbees not so much.