Evolution and Humans

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: buster
Morals predate religion. Throughout human history there have been thousands of gods, depending on the group.


Yes, but I believe in the one true god. So I'm going to be saved.


People don't realize that their faith is tied to where and who they were born to.
Lucky you! You must have been born into the correct faith! You're a winner!
More narcissism.
Thousands of religions have come and gone. Thousands of various sects still exist. How can ONE be correct?

People of faith also don't realize that they are 99% atheist. They are atheist against ALL other religions, except their own. You're almost there, just that last percent. Why stop at 99%? You don't believe in ANY of those other religions, so why choose that one, specific one?


Morals predate religion. Morals can be seen in other animal groups. Religion does not have a trademark on morality. Atheists are not amoral. Your exclusive religion wants you to not realize this, though. They must keep their flock. Fill the coffers. Without us, you would be a bad person! How effed up is that reasoning?

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: buster
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)


How can God prevent all evil, which mostly comes from the actions of humans, and at the same time promise to humans the free will?

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: buster
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"

Epicurus (c. 341 - c. 270 BC)


How can God prevent all evil, which mostly comes from the actions of humans, and at the same time promise to humans the free will?


So is He not omnipotent? or then He's malevolent?

Which would you prefer, and if so, why would you believe and follow in such a "higher power"? One who either cannot do what He proclaims, or would rather let His people suffer.
Lose, lose. Seems like your time and 10% $ should be put towards a better cause.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: buster
Morals predate religion. Throughout human history there have been thousands of gods, depending on the group.


Yes, but I believe in the one true god. So I'm going to be saved.


People don't realize that their faith is tied to where and who they were born to.
Lucky you! You must have been born into the correct faith! You're a winner!
More narcissism.
Thousands of religions have come and gone. Thousands of various sects still exist. How can ONE be correct?

People of faith also don't realize that they are 99% atheist. They are atheist against ALL other religions, except their own. You're almost there, just that last percent. Why stop at 99%? You don't believe in ANY of those other religions, so why choose that one, specific one?


Morals predate religion. Morals can be seen in other animal groups. Religion does not have a trademark on morality. Atheists are not amoral. Your exclusive religion wants you to not realize this, though. They must keep their flock. Fill the coffers. Without us, you would be a bad person! How effed up is that reasoning?


+1

 

[Tom NJ]

Although I am a long time atheist, I firmly believe religion has helped civilize humans through a moral code. The very notion that a powerful being is watching you, knows everything you think and do, judges you against certain moral standards, and severely punishes you after death for infractions, has to affect the behavior of believers.

Religion, however, is only one moral system. There is also a legal system and a personal moral system that affect our behavior.

When one misbehaves, religion has the advantage of positive capture, positive conviction, and positive severe punishment, but suffers from delayed punishment. People tend to put the present ahead of the future and this weakens the effectiveness of religion.

The legal system offers severe and timely punishment but has traditionally suffered from difficulty in capture and conviction. This, however, is rapidly changing with modern forensics and cameras everywhere, and I believe law affects our behavior in modern times more than religion.

Personal moral systems are usually based on ones sense of justice and guilt, much of which derives from religious teachings but some from history and environmental influences.

In spite of my lack of religion I consider myself a very moral person, based more on personal and practical considerations than religion. My goal is to be happy, and freedom, friendships, and self-pride are essential to my happiness. Therefore I treat others with respect, fairness, and generosity, while avoiding running afoul of the law. I strive for character over self gain, which make me feel good about myself.

Tom NJ

 

[buster]

If fear of divine punishment is the only thing keeping you moral, then you're just a psychopath on a leash - ?

Without god, what is to stop someone from killing/raping etc.? The fact that people think that if they didn't have this person watching over them they would go on doing all these things is very self-d@mning.

 

[Nate1979]

I'm curious. Can anyone name a single culture from known history that did not believe in some type of divinity or have any type of religious backing?

 

[buster]

I don't think I can. We all want answers, but the reality is we just don't know. That is why it's called faith. If we KNEW, it would be called something else.

 

[buster]

"That religion may have served some necessary function for us in the past does not preclude the possibility that it is now the greatest impediment to our building a global civilization." - SH

I agree with SH in that atheism isn't a good label to use.

"I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “b/s” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion."

"So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves “atheists.” We should not call ourselves “secularists.” We should not call ourselves “humanists,” or “secular humanists,” or “naturalists,” or “skeptics,” or “anti-theists,” or “rationalists,” or “freethinkers,” or “brights.” We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them."

 

[cjcride]

Originally Posted By: buster
I don't think I can. We all want answers, but the reality is we just don't know. That is why it's called faith. If we KNEW, it would be called something else.

..probably science.

 

[surfstar]

and for those who purport atheists are simply a religion of lack of belief or believing in nothing, I like this quote from a Pen Jillette book

"Atheism is a religion, like not collecting stamps is a hobby"


He wasn't sure who the original credit for the quote comes from.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


They also justify the slavery and repression of women et al that was extant before people rose up against them.


Let me begin by saying that I am not terribly spiritual, and I am discussing this strictly on a historical basis.

There's no doubt that religion has been abused horribly. But, historically there was very little in the way of equality before the teachings of Jesus introduced the idea that all human beings are equal. And he never preached slavery or misogyny.

Morals may have predated religion, but there were no widespread morals preaching equality before that one religious message got out.

It isn't so much about fear of an overseer, as simple sociological progression through an idea. Even those who don't believe still follow the modern morals which began with those teachings.

Of course, we as human being had a natural inclination against despicable behavior. Judeo-Christian beliefs paved the way for these idea to become standard practice and law.

 

[surfstar]

I'm going to go out on a very large limb here and say that religion has caused more fighting, social discourse, and deaths than prevented.
The very nature of religious belief is exclusionary. Yahweh/God/[censored] was never a peaceful god.


and there we go again with some biased censorship. A.llah is forbidden.

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted By: stockrex
Our evolution as humans beings has shown time and time again that we are getting smarter.

But then we get set back a few thousand years by not so smart actions like this one:

http://woodtv.com/2015/09/05/fire-at-wal-mart-in-cascade-township/

One reader put is very politely, he should stay in jail for his own safety.

if you thought it could not get any worse, well guess again, never under estimate a the will of a not so good bystander, not any bystander but one in a wheelchair.

http://wgntv.com/2015/09/08/man-in-wheel...f-walmart-fire/


Humans aren't getting smarter.Evolution is a degrading process. Mountains erode with time into the seas.

 

[surfstar]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: stockrex
Our evolution as humans beings has shown time and time again that we are getting smarter.

But then we get set back a few thousand years by not so smart actions like this one:

http://woodtv.com/2015/09/05/fire-at-wal-mart-in-cascade-township/

One reader put is very politely, he should stay in jail for his own safety.

if you thought it could not get any worse, well guess again, never under estimate a the will of a not so good bystander, not any bystander but one in a wheelchair.

http://wgntv.com/2015/09/08/man-in-wheel...f-walmart-fire/


Humans aren't getting smarter.Evolution is a degrading process. Mountains erode with time into the seas.


Trying to make a joke or proving your own point?