I completely disagree with your analysis. You seem to be suggesting that human beings inherently have no capacity to desire to do good, unless it is imposed on them by society, or god. I completely disagree with that. As I have stated before, I don't believe in God. So even if the desire to do good is a result of the social norm, then to me, that suggests that people themselves made it unacceptable to willfully do harm to someone else, which in turn suggests that people are inherently good. Since I don't believe at all in some spiritual higher power whispering in our ears what the right or wrong thing to do is, I have to conclude that human beings have an innate sense of wrong and right, stemming from what I believe to be a simple survival instinct. From the beginning, humans were communal in nature, and had to work together and help eachother out to survive, and from that has evolved the set of morals and rules that we live by, regardless of religion or lack of. Cavemen didnt sit around reading the bible, and they managed to get along in small groups just fine with eachother.

really? you knew a lot of cavemen, then? now on the one hand you're saying morality is innate, and on the other that it evolved out of a desire to survive. now let me point out that the desire to survive is none other than the fear of death, so if you're saying that morality probably evolved out of the fear of death i would say that's certainly possible, but you haven't sidestepped the fear issue. if, on the other hand, it didn't evolve and it's just completely innate then it seems absurd that it would be the subject of so much discussion, seeing as how we all already agree.

by some mysterious "thing inside them," some strange motivation. an internal desire to do good. is this merely an amplified fear of society's judgment, or perhaps an ego-desire to be seen as a good person? maybe it's just a chemical reaction that's gotten wired to certain neurons, so that when you think about starving children you start to feel miserable and worthless. looking at it in a skeptical, detached and scientific manner reduces such feelings to banality. now if you want to say this thing inside is "love" or "justice," which you're treating as a transcendent entity somehow more than just dopamine being triggered in the brain, you might as well be talking about the soul or god since most transcendent concepts are pretty much equivalent.

One, stop being deliberately argumentative about every little point, it's annoying as hell. It's a proven fact that homo erectus lived in small communities, end of discussion on that. I'm arguing with you because you insinuated that the desire to do good is ONLY a result of fear, or it is instilled by god. I'm saying that for modern human beings, this desire is an internal motivation, and not magically instilled by god.

No. He's saying that there is a basic sense of morality inherent in (most) humans that's separate from what environmental and societal evolution has instilled.
I don't agree that the need for survival has any relation to a natural moral compass. I believe that innate morality is emotional in nature, not intellectual.

inherent in most humans? i'm no longer sure what you mean by the term inherent if it only applies to most humans.

I may have misused the term, but I'm sure you know what I meant.
If you don't have a useful response in this debate, I don't see a need for the unnecessary scrutiny.

Edit:
If you don't know what I mean, here ya go:

(I mean "most" in a way that allows for cases where someone is emotionally incapable or inept due to a disorder or disease)

It doesn't only apply to humans, morality and the will to survive has more to do with genetics than any sort of "soul." CS Lewis also believed that the fact humanity had a sense of community pointed to a higher existence but I think that belief stretches it way farther then it will go.

I think there's a certain base morality that we all have - which is to keep the race alive, feed yourself, care for others of your own race, and so on but I think the more complex moral issues that face us today like abortion are issues that came from society as opposed to humanity. The two aren't contradictory.

i'm not sure if you saw the second part of my post, which was more addressing this part. i don't believe that you can draw such an easy distinction between internal and external motivation, since what we think of as our "personality" is really just an internalization of external experience with other individuals. so just because we don't sense the fear driving morality but have instead internalized that drive, doesn't mean that it doesn't still lie at the root of society.

as far as god and the soul go, it could be that even as transcendent entities they are nothing more than self-perpetuating patterns. but really that's all life is, a self-perpetuating pattern. thus, if dna shares that quality i don't see why dna can't be a positive manifestation of the negatively present soul. here we wander again into idealism, and i apologize. as far as this base morality goes, i think you certainly have a point, especially as my psychologist friend has been telling me about a certain type of neuron that even monkeys have that allow you to identify with another being's suffering. but why do we, as 'enlightened, self-conscious' beings, place a concrete value on the presence of a certain type of neuron? are we physically incapable of doing otherwise, or do we somehow sense it points to a profound presence-in-absence? i don't necessarily think i can convince you of the latter, but I feel it always presents itself as an option, regardless of how you structure your approach. i'd also recommend turning away from organized religion and looking at the consistency of the religious/mystical experience, and what sorts of insights that entails. peace.

Many people who do charity work do so from a feeling of right and wrong. It is wrong that people suffer needlessly, and they want to help. Many of these people are not religious, and they seek no gratification for their work. They don't look for ways to publicize their charity to show the world "hey everyone, look what a good person I am!" They are satisfied with just the work itself. You can reduce it to whatever you want to, you can say it's guilt , a selfish desire to look good, a selfish desire to make themselves feel better, or whatever you want to explain the motivation. I don't agree with you, and since we're arguing on points that are impossible to prove or disprove, and since frankly, this debate is starting to get boring, that's all I have to say about it.

Ok, I'll just post one more point to clarify anything of my argument that might still be a little ambiguous. I agree with you that our "personality" is MOSTLY an internalization of external experience with others (part of it is also inherited). I don't agree however that human's inherent morality stems from fear.

here's a question taking it to the extreme of abstraction: why do things perpetuate themselves if not out of fear for ending? just for kicks?

the point is you CAN trace it back to something, and if that something isn't God or something equivalent like Truth, Love, Justice, or Goodness, which all reside in a "Heaven of Ideas," it's probably something kind of stupid/banal. like a chemical reaction.

Yep, just for kicks. The end.

because since homo erectus, the human brain has grown in capacity, and we now have the ability to do things for motivation other than simply surviving. Again, arguing for the sake of arguing bores the sh*t out of me, I got into thi argument because something ZZZ said grated against something I felt strongly against. Arguing semantics just for ****s and giggles is not something I enjoy doing, so I'll let this one die. You can say you won if you like.

I think it's a bit of both. I don't see anything wrong with a species fearing the end of its existence. However with the way humanity is going it's obviously we as a species aren't going to last very long but the Earth will ultimately recover (barring a mass nuclear war or something to completely ravage the Earth so it can't sustain or even create life) and there will be new species that will evolve - that's a different discussion though.

I think, when you examine people (this is just in my experience) many live for both reasons (this is also operating under the pretense no one believes in god.) I for one live solely for pleasure, or kicks as you put it, but I do know people, who are probably more noble then myself that want to see society continue to prosper and humans to live the way they do (in control to a certain extent.)

then what are "kicks?" if everything does it for the kicks then there must be some transcendent thing "kicks" that everything has access to, since it is the motivating factor for everything in the universe. everything exists for the purpose of 'kicks,' and 'kicks' exist for the purpose of breathing life into everything, and as such, i think this loosely fits a working definition of God.

intellectual superiority confirmed. phew, i was worried there for a second.

The hilarious thing is I was going to fake quote you saying almost this exact same thing. As a joke.

the great cosmic joke!

It's my opinion that corrupting somebody's mind is one of the worst human crimes. Especially when it starts from infancy. Its programming, pure and simple, and its something that I strongly disagree with.

I feel like I just lucked out in the parents department sometimes, because they explained Christianity to us in a fairly objective way, and then let us explore it for ourselves. And naturally, I see the initial Christian messages as no more than simple human morals. Be respectful, be accepting, be honorable, to everyone. Its when an agenda got involved is when it got perverted. That's when they started saying: "Thou shalt not kill... unless we tell you to."

I actually had just this conversation with a friend of mine recently. The fact that people twist the minds of children to benefit their own biased views of life sickens me, because that child has no chance and his/her mind will be completely warped. Though it's hard to say that because at the same time, those people probably feel they're doing good, because if they didn't preach Christianity (or whatever belief), they'd be "wrong" as parents. Also, without even trying, your kids will emulate you to some respect, so in some ways you're always casting your beliefs on them.

But anyways, overall I agree completely. It's almost as if you're robbing that person of their life before they even have the choice. How can there be a bigger crime then that?

And here you are mocking me and my religious beliefs because I "lied" supposedly. Your jab at Jesus is just as arrogant as anything I've said in this thread. For the hundredth (and last) time, I asked for facts from Atheists/Agnostics that god doesn't exist because that is there reasoning behind God not existing. If they have proof God doesn't exist, I want to here it. I have no proof other than my faith. I've made it quite clear that the only reason I've asked for proof is because that is what Atheists/Agnostics use to justify their non-belief.

And for the love of God (love, not hate), stop telling me I'm arrogant. I get it that you think that of me, it's been said and made very redundant and isn't constructive in the slightest. The comment I felt sorry about posting after I posted is arrogant, yes. I took the initiative and apologized to you and offered to remove it. You declined. Cut down on the abuse, honestly.

Yeah, I'm also condoning the kind religious people who do good every day but you don't hear about it because of the way our media is.

That's not logical fallacy, it's your opinion. And it's also not true, just because they hold to their morals for religious beliefs doesn't mean they don't do good for the sake of doing good. It's not one or the other, you can have both.

Most people (in my experience) find Christianity because they are looking for a movement that preaches respecting each other and following the word of God by being a model citizen. Other than that and the benefits you reap in the afterlife (where you'd have to be good in life anyways), there's no motivation for being a Christian. You don't get paid to be one. So people who aren't the kind of people who would do the right thing in a scenario that would benefit them more to do the wrong thing aren't likely to be Christians.

I don't know how much clearer I have to be, I already explained this damn well to you jibber. I'm saying by that post that I'm referring to RELIGIOUS MORALS ONLY. Perhaps you guys recall this post I made:
Of course you chose to ignore this and go on a long diatribe about how all Christians have a “holier-than-thou” mentality, a stereotype that requires arrogance in itself to be used seriously. And yet here you are freaking out on me for ‘supposedly’ saying all non-Christians have no moral values, which is rather hypocritical in itself considering your branding of Christians.

I have one question based off of every single post in this room including my own.

Why would you attempt to question something that can't be explained? To me this thread though sucessful has been very redundant. I don't mean that in a negitive way but if you really look hard you will see the circle that this post has created.

You can't debate faith, thats why religion is so succesful. If you relate it to conspiracy thats were you get an arguement/debate, thats how you question every brainwashing verse. So in all realness you are questioning your ability not to be suckered into one of the biggest cult followings known to man designed by the powerful to keep you in line...

You only have faith in God because someone told you to.. Don't you see that? Who told you? And what happens to those who don't follow the path of "god"?

Hmm I thought we were free spirits, guess not. Its about as relevent as the f-ing lochness monster, but people have faith its real.. Oh, by the way will he go to heaven if infact he is real?? Is there a dog heaven? Cause I would hate to think that my dog will just sit in the ground and rot... Hmmm, guess its just another opinion just like yours..
God kills people when its there time? Time for what? What about the devil you can't have one without the other.. So I guess when we die and the worms eat our eyeballs were closer to him...

You can't preach in here zzz all you have is word of mouth, and dead ppl dont talk.


You can have faith in that.

What the **** are you on about? I'd be willing to bet that half the people in this thread have been given a chance to embrace Christianity by someone else and chose not to. It's a choice, no one is telling me to do anything. This is the same as the cellphone bull**** you were ranting about in the other thread. You can't believe that someone would have a differing choice or opinion than you, so you assume that they are being told to do it. Some people like having cell phones and some choose to embrace Christianity, get over that hump because it's getting rather tiring.

Yeah, an opinion I'm perfectly fine with. Don't come in here and tell me I'm being told to do something, I've chosen my path, have you chosen yours?
I'm not preaching about anything, you came in here and moronically assumed that every Christian is being told to believe what he believes in and that we don't have our own voice.

Find a new cause, the rebellion against the greatest power to exist is a tired one.

Is this your way of trying to end your post with something mesmerizing that will stop and make me think or just another lame, throwaway comment of yours?

I see where you are coming from on this... don't think it's so simple BUT the most spiritual people I've met in my lifetime always seem to "have it". I flip flop with it... so to say my faith is strong would be a lie but to say I have none would also be a lie.

what do you mean by waste a Sunday morning? not go to Church? also, in the intellectual words of one of my favorite comedians "more people have died in the name of God, then any other cause/reason". I believe this to be true and I'm pretty sure Mr. Carlin did his research before presenting this to the entire world.

to be brutally honest... the only reason I have my set of beliefs and follow the catholic religion is because I was born into it. My parents forced me to church every Sunday as well as Sunday school after church. Did it make me a better person? not entirely, I still sinned as much as any other person I knew (maybe more). What religion did for me was give me the idea "well, as long as I'm not killing anybody... I'm a good person and I should go to Heaven" and "if I kill myself, I will go straight to hell... so I better not do it". What makes me a better person today is the love I share with the people I surround myself with. It's wanting to do the right thing for them, and in turn for myself, which gives me the highest level of inner peace. I view going to church almost as being part of a social club that believes in the same thing. Who am I to say my religion is the right one? When I pray I pray to God... now, is this because it was taught to me at a very young age to pray to God? or do I really think there is a being just hovering over us waiting to hear my prayers? I simply look at it as a form of therapy that helps keep us in line... are we sheep? perhaps... but in the grand scheme of things as long as YOU can find a balance that keeps YOU happy while obeying the laws and values of society... then that's all one can ask for, regardless of what/who you believe in (if anything).

there are a few topics that will always just go in circles:

1) Religion
2) Abortion
3) War
4) Michael Jackson

Hmmm,

I notice that you left out who instructed you to have faith in god almighty.
You know that if God were real then he sent ppl to do damage here.. But the bible reads how we should be kind to our fellow neighbor, not murder the whole family. Thats the devil? So the devil sends "those" kind of ppl here? Like a counter attack on humanity. So does god make ppl autistic as well?

True that, though I'm pretty sure that George Carlin thing isn't true ;)

For God sake learn some grammar

Sleepy Jack has already instructed you multiple times to sharpen up on your English skills (as he so eloquently put it, "literallly a grammatical mindfuck" :rofl:). You understand that when you talk like that, I can't understand you right? As in, I have no idea what you just said

Holy crap, you just sinned..

Im at work and putting little thought into stiring the pot

So, first the booze and then the work distractions...

Is there a time I can get back to you when you're on your game or do you have a clever excuse for wherever you are?

I didn't mean to leave it out... I figured it was implied. My parents instilled in me the idea of having a belief (faith) in God almighty. My own brain, past the age of reason, has been questioning this idea for many years now. I feel better when I pray to God... I also feel better when I have a big mac, an ice cream cone, an orgasm or a jog around the block. So it can be argued that these values that are instilled in us at an early age may release endorphins into the brain giving us that good feeling that only "God" can provide (just a thought I've considered). I tend to find things more universal then people like to think. Also, I find it funny when Atheists or anybody else looking at Christianity from the outside call Christians sheep. Where it can also be argued that anybody who requires/follows money to live their lives are sheep-like as well. Everybody has to play the game to get by, nobody here is immune to it, no matter who/what you believe in.

I wrestled with this idea quite a bit, too. Not just in the sense of religion, but parental and societal influences in general. At one point, I realized that I've had very little control of my life. My parents never pressed their religion (buddhism) on me, but I chose to practice with them up until a few years ago. Even if they didn't, their personalities, habits and lives will forever be an influencial factor in mine - consciously or subsonsciously. Not only that, but the environment and society I was exposed to had definitely shaped me in some sort of way. It was not until I was 17 years old that I realized I was able to rebel and be my own person. I still, to this day, struggle with the idea that no thoughts are original (not even these). What we argue, say, express, fight for has been done before. Life is the epitome of "History repeats itself." Though some of what we say is worthy of repetition, with it comes the whole picture, including religion, war, power and poverty.

I think the general feeling is that Christians serve God without question as a result of blind faith, whereas non-religious folks, if you apply what you said just now, require money (in today's world) as a result of necessity and needs of survival.
Those are two distinctions that need to be made.

I'm just saying all that to clarify the perspective you're speaking of.

If this sentence is literal then disregard my post. If what you mean is that you are not the one who picks your own thoughts, then I highly disagree. You can argue for determinism all you want, but in the end too much of yourself relies on the idea that you freely choose what you believe. If you have reasoned out your beliefs then why should you even go on to think they aren't yours. Even if you are not the first to objectively create something, that does not mean you cannot enjoy the fruit of it. Hard work which leads to an output will always have consequences. If the consequence is good then you can reap from it. There is more to believing something than just creating something new. It is the state of mind of knowing that your beliefs are consistent and work with the world around you that you want. Of course, this whole time I am assuming that your life goal is the pursuit of happiness. If it isn't then no one can help you.

Religion is sheepish. The idea that you need money in order to live is a rational idea meaning that the idea has been reasoned out. There is no reason to believe in religion. That is the "sheep" factor of it.

I view it as my parents having the right to raise me however they saw fit. All people question their beliefs at one point in their lives... it's just a part of becoming an adult. When I have kids I will raise them catholic as I believe it's good to instill some set of moral values/belief system in the child and when they reach a certain age they can make up their own mind with it. I would never say to them "this is what you MUST believe" I would leave it as... "this is what I was taught to believe and you have the ability to decide for yourself what you choose to do with this knowledge" or something to that effect. It doesn't have to be so dramatic as to call it a "crime" that children are raised to believe in a particular religion.

I agree with you on nothing we are saying here is original thought, still... it's an interesting debate that kills time :)

Understandable... which is why I said "Sheep-Like". The idea that most everybody wakes up and goes to work is sheep-like... wouldn't you say? The idea that you and I need to pay the bills and alter our wants in order to do something we might prefer not to do... is sheep-like. Technically the only non sheep-like people out there, that I can think of, would be the homeless man that requires only the true basic needs for survival... food and shelter. Money is a man made concept, it's not a basic need although as you put it, it is a necessity in today's world if you don't want to become homeless :)

Happiness? Hope? It's pretty hard for you to speak from our perspective if you can't see our point of view anyway...

Tell me how believing in an invisible man/being in the sky make you anymore happy then believing in what is in front of you.

I was a Christian for 16 years of my life and I am now almost 17. I have read the whole bible multiple times. At points I could have been considered Evangelicial, post-modern, Mennonite (not conservative), or a lukewarm Christian. I have been through the phases and I know what it is like.

Did you really need to quote me twice?

Does your 'experience' with Christianity entitle you to speak for everyone now?



I'm going to let this thread go, I'm whoring it to death and fighting a losing battle. :/

Good debate, people!

eh, the Michael Jackson thread hit over 40 pages... you still have a ways to go :thumb:

The double quote was an accident.

First off, the idea that "I can't understand your point of view" hints at either:

A. Your view is irrational and only the irrational can understand.
B. You don't feel like explaining it.
C. You have no other way of arguing except to attack your opponent because you don't believe in your own point.

There could be other explanations, but they would be extraneous.

when in doubt... always choose "C".

Your scallions and sig make biology class so much more fun.