[Zain890]

Edit: For some reason, it is not allowing me to post my entire post in 1 shot, so I'm going to try to break it up into 3 separate posts in hopes that it works =/


Please note that I ~~ABSOLUTELY ENCOURAGE~~ debating back and forth on this thread, and I hope it becomes very popular. I will do my best to answer any and all questions swiftly and decisively.

Due to this being a mix of Philosophy + Religion, mainly based on religion, I chose to put it in this forum. I apologize if you don't understand the concept of Premises and Conclusions, but I'm sure the layman could always google/wikipedia it if you can't pick up the idea from context clues.



Now, for any christians, muslims, and jews out there, I'd like to throw you a quick version of why your god cannot exist, and in fact why I think it is likely none do.


P stands for Premise, and C stands for conclusion in this format.

I.) The Epicurus Argument, aka "The Problem of Evil"

Philosophical Argument Form

P1) God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and All-Loving. (He loves everyone as his children)
P2) There are bad things happening to good people, and good things happening to bad people.
P3) If there was something that could see all of these things, have the ability to stop all of these things, and cared about these things happening, they would.
C1) Nothing is stopping these horrible things from happening.
C2) The "God" stated in premise 1 does not exist.

This question has multiple possible answers from the theist, but every single one of them I can address 1 by 1 in replies, as it would take far too long to type them all out.




II.) The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, aka. "Why is there something rather than nothing?", aka "Prime Mover"

Philosophical Argument Form

P1) Every reaction requires a previous action.
P2) The universe being created was an action.
P3) Nothing in science can explain a reaction happening without a previous action.
C1) Therefore, God did it.


Even though this argument is under a very strong presumption from Premise 1, we know Premise 2 and 3 are true insofar as science is aware. So this argument may give pause. This may give slight pause even to the most intelligent and well-read atheist. One of the most common arguments to respond to this was the "the universe has always been around" reply, which has since been proven wrong. The universe has not ALWAYS existed in the format we know, so that reply fails. However, the easiest answer to come-back at this with absolutely no scientific evidence is to say that the Conclusion does not logically follow, by appealing to Occam's Razor. By jumping to a vast conclusion that answers an unknown with an unknown, we can say that Occam's Razor swiftly cuts this answer down before it has a chance to take root. It is much more likely that our knowledge of the universe is not yet complete, rather than create a "God Of The Gaps" argument like The Cosmological Argument.

Though I must say, I am pleased to announce here to anyone who has not yet learned this, but we have a very strong and firm answer to this question. We have discovered how our universe could've been created, and what could have happened before the Big Bang, which created our universe. It can be shown in a very well-created hour long lecture that a man named Professor Lawrence Krauss made. The link is as follows: The Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

So due to the fact we actually have ANSWERED this question with science, there is no need to pursue this any further.

[Zain890]

III.) The Teleological Argument for the Existence of God, aka Creationism, aka Intelligent Design

Philosophical Argument Form

P1) There are things in nature that are incredibly complex.
P2) Complex things require a creator.
P3) Man did not create this things.
C1) Therefore, God did it.

As you can tell, even with my negative bias in the above argument. it's obvious that this is yet another "God of the Gaps" argument. Now to be completely fair, if I lived back in the time this was originally written by Paley in 1802, it would've made me a deist. (One who believes in a creator, but not in a creator that interferes with our lives) But once Darwin came around, and our molecular understanding of biology, chemicals, and proteins, there is no reason anymore to believe in something like this. It was swiftly eradicated once The Origin of Species was released into the public, and should have remained so. The Intelligent Design or "ID" movement that has gained ground currently is nothing new, and they have not since provided a single shred of evidence on their side to show that ID is true. Every single shred of "evidence" they show is either an IMMENSE ignorance of how Evolution, Natural Selection, and Adaptation work, or they have been proven wrong.


IV.) The Presumption of the Soul

This argument is a personal one that I have since put forth. I'm sure it has been thought up by other people, but just in case it hasn't, I'll call it my own argument.

Philosophical Argument Form

P1) In order for MOST religions to make sense, we must have a soul, or some kind of spirit that is able to exist without our bodies.
P2) There is absolutely no evidence showing that anything outside of the material world concerning humans exists.
P3) Any "Spiritual feeling" or "Spiritual Connection with God/Jesus/Holy Spirit/Anything Transcendental" can be shown through 100% scientifically legitimate processes happening within the brain via an FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) Machine.
P4) Occam's Razor states that you should not multiply entities beyond necessity.
P5) Assuming something is there without the tiniest scrap of evidence, and a massive amount of counter-evidence is multiplying an entity beyond a million times.
C1) Therefore, Souls, Spirits, and all similar events do not exist.


I apologize for the argument being so wordy, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything in it's explanation, so that it could be understood easily.

[Zain890]

V.) Why Don't Any Gods Exist?

P1) There must be a well-founded reason to believe in the existence of a deity before it is rational to do so.
P2) There are no current ideas or knowledge out there that blatantly contradicts science that can be tested or verified, that shows even the slightest possibility of anything spiritual, soul-like, psychic, or any superstitious.
C1) Therefore, it is not rational to believe in these things.
C2) Therefore, you should not believe in a deity.


Now, before I continue, I have heard from multiple philosophy friends of mine that the reason they are deists is due to the breadth and magnificence of math in and of itself. This is an incredibly intelligent idea, that I think must be scrutinized well. I think that this violates Occam's Razor in the same way that the Intelligent Design argument does, but nonetheless it is a very intelligent and understandable reason for believing in a deity or something similar.



Also: The way I have defined an Atheist, Agnostic, Theist, and Deist are as follows.

Set Atheist, Agnostic, and Theist on a continuum. Atheist is %0-%49 possibility that a theistic deity exists, Agnostic is EXACT %50 possibility that a theistic deity exists, and Theist is %51-%100 possibility that a theistic deity exists. Now remember that it is impossible to be on the 2 ends of the spectrum. It is impossible to prove that ALL deities DO NOT exist, or that ANY specific deity DOES exist.


Please, feel free to comment on any or all arguments, or feel free to add your own. I'd love to see this become a "Prove the Atheist Wrong!" thread, or better, an intelligent discussion between people who think differently, who can come together on a topic like this in hopes of reaching truth.

[brian]

Wow, long post but interesting. Religion forum is certainly the right place for this.

I don't necessarily agree with your percentage based classification of theism. I always thought that athetism was the proactive belief that god does NOT exist, while theism was the opposite. I thought that agnosticism was a play on the likelihood of god existing, but only a statement that the answer to the question is unknowable (and thus speculation or debate is futile).

I would almost propose a different "class" for which I don't have a clever name. This class thinks that the question of god is irrelevant. I.e. as an irreligious person today I behave in essentially an identical way to when I was a theist. My morals are no different: I still believe in honesty and goodness and treating my fellow man well. Whether or not some bearded guy in the sky tells me to do these things, I believe that I should be doing them. So really, whether a god exists or not, my morals aren't impacted.

But aside from this point, I think certain aspects of the arguments above are too easily dismissed, especially as it relates to the "Problem of Evil". Many people I know are very religious, and would say that "evil things" are very, very different from "things that hurt now but are good for you in the end". These people think that if you behave right, every "bad thing" is a blessing in disguise, a character-building exercise, a test from a god that wants us to learn, that in the end you'll look back and seen only a beneficial, albeit painful occurrence.

In that mindset, the conclusions of the Problem of Evil don't necessarily hold, because one could counter that truly evil things DON'T happen to good people.

[Zain890]

brian, on 30 July 2010 - 12:02 AM, said:

In that mindset, the conclusions of the Problem of Evil don't necessarily hold, because one could counter that truly evil things DON'T happen to good people.

Well, since you've brought it up, I can show multiple examples of what the Theist tried to say against The Problem of Evil and the atheist / agnostic / deist's response to it.


The Problem of Evil Soltuion 1: "God doesn't make evil, he makes humans, who because of free will, give us evil." aka "The Free Will Theodicy"

In all philosophical arguments, generally the word "evil" is ambiguous with the term "suffering". This is because it is hard to make a straight-forward idea of what "Evil" truly is, whereas "suffering" is much easier to understand on multiple levels.

P1) God made the best possible world for humans. (He is omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving)
P2) God gave man free will.
P3) Because man has free will, he does/thinks/makes bad things happen through poor choices, which in term creates suffering.
C1) Therefore, suffering can exist and God can still exist.

The "official" version of this argument is:

P1) Not possible for humans to be Free and incapable of doing moral evil.
P2) A world in which we are free is better than one we are restricted.
P3) God creates the best possible world.
C1) Therefore, god creates a world in which people can do moral evil.

Now, before I get into this concept too deeply, I must first state that the idea of "Free Will" has already been proven impossible on a philosophical level. I'll make sure to post the argument for it below, and I originally did not include it because that specific argument is a philosophical one that has nothing to do with religion, even though it has religious ramifications.

The atheist in this argument actually has an incredibly difficult time given the premises and conclusion that follows. It truly is a well-founded argument that has been around for hundreds of years, and for good reason. So what exactly could the atheist actually say? Well, in order to make it more understandable, I'll leave the answer out of a paragraph format. The following answer will be shown AS IF WE HAD FREE WILL, even though as I've previously stated it has been proven impossible.

A certain amount of bad things happen due to us having free will.
This "free will" we have been given is very limited.
For example, we cannot choose to ignore gravity, and float up into the sky whenever we want.
We require machines and devices in order to do things.
So in a sense, you can say that we have free will to do the things we are capable of doing.
So our free will is actually limited to a certain extent, because it is bound by physical and natural laws that supersede our free will.


So if we were actually limited in such a way that we couldn't kill another person, we could still have complete free will, because we would not know that we are unable to kill another person.

Or, if we could say that it's possible that we could have the slightest less free will in order to live happier lives, wouldn't that be better?
If we were unable to commit massive genocide on other people, but be limited in our free will just the tiniest, slightest amount, wouldn't the world be better?
I think it's very apparent that if we lost the ability to commit massive genocide that our world may be better.
We are already limited in many ways, why not be limited in 1 more? And due to God's omnipotent and omniscience, he could do it in such a way that we would be unable to know that our free will has actually been limited to this said extent.


How We Know Free Will Doesn't Exist

In philosophy, "Free Will" is defined as "The Ability to do Otherwise" meaning, the ability to make a choice that you weren't already going to make. This sounds kind of hazy to the layman, so I will explain.

P1) We live in a world determined by natural laws.
P2) Your brain functions are determined by these laws.
C1) Human actions are determined.
C2) We don't have free will.

The problem you'll quickly find with this argument, is that the average person finding this instantly becomes either infuriated, dumbstruck, or instantly rejects it out of disgust. This argument can be considered sound in philosophy because the premises and conclusion are set up in such a way that the argument can be said to be true if the premises are true, which they absolutely are. The only way out of this argument is to suppose that miracles are happening in your brain all the time causing you to step outside the laws of nature. Currently, every single attempt at this has been proven wrong. Just like I proposed with my "argument against the idea of the soul/spirit" there has been ZERO reason to be a dualist-(belief that the body and mind are separate). There has been absolutely no evidence or philosophical argument to show that human brains magically step outside the laws of nature in order to process thought. So, going by sheer science and math, we have come to acknowledge that our brains are a product of their original DNA, and input from the outside world in the form of sight, sound, sensation, and thought. There is no reason to say that there is anything magical or mystical taking place inside your brain.

So there end up being 2 sides to this. There is what we call the Hard Determinist, and the Soft-Determinist(Compatiblist).

Hard Determinists say we have no free will, and that's pretty much all there is to it.
Soft Determinists say that we don't have free will, but what matter is that we have the option to make choices.

I won't insult your intelligences and tell you that's all there is, because it becomes much more intricate, but when boiled down, that's all those two sides are left with. There has been absolutely ZERO proof from logic, science, math, or any other means to show that we MAY have free will in the conventional sense that we can do or think anything at any given time. The only other objective I've heard of is once quantum mechanics was introduced, they said it's possible that our brain could be working on a quantum level, and so the outcome of our neurons may actually be quantumly derived, and therefore not determined. That's entirely true. If our brain is working on a quantum level, it is impossible for them to be determined. However, random-chance, which is the world of quantum mechanics, is NOT free will. So you are still left with a system that leaves the idea of free will impossible.

Now, on to a different answer to the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil Solution 2: "The Counterpart Theory" aka "You can't have good without evil." aka "The Yin-Yang Argument"

P1) Just as tallness can't exist without shortness, Good cannot exist without evil.
P2) God wants us to feel happiness.
P3) God creates the best possible world.
C1) God created a world where sometimes evil happens, so that we may feel goodness.

This argument is also rather challenging for the layman, so this one may take a little bit of thinking to get arise at a solution. Once again I'll lay it out in a line-by-line format in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing.

Consider "Good" as the color BLUE and "Evil" (suffering) as the color RED.
We will consider the entire existence of man as a single room, in order to make the analogy understandable.
We will assume that like a Yin-Yang, that the balance between Good and Evil in our world is even. (Even if it isn't, it doesn't matter)
The Room is %50 Blue, and %50 Red.
The Counterpart Theory states that you must have so much pain in order to see so much goodness.
Is this true in the analogy? Obviously not.
If you had the room painted 95% Blue, you could still see that Red, and know of the contrast between blue and red.
You do not need to feel a massive amount of pain and suffering to know the difference between you stubbing your toe, and a kiss.
You do not need to feel the breaking and shattering of your own bones to know how good it is to feel love, or to make love, etc etc.
So even if good and evil exist, we can easily state that it's possible to have LESS EVIL in the world, and still be able to know good.
God obviously did not create the best possible world.
The argument falters, and is considered invalid.

So we're on to the 3rd and final argument that I'll post in this reply unless I'm prodded for more.

The Problem of Evil Solution 3: The Virtue Defense. aka "If evil didn't exist, we couldn't have compassion!"

P1) Certain Virtues like sympathy, compassion, and forgiveness all REQUIRE suffering.
P2) God wanted us to be able to have these Virtues.
C3) Therefore, God creates a world in which bad things happen so that we could have Virtues.

Now this argument, unlike the last two, is very easy to write off as a feeble attempt. Consider for example that you have a friend who has just found the cure for all of cancer. All cancer can be cured with this simple pill that you can give to ANY creature at a very young age, and cures all cancer as well as prevents cancer from ever occurring. This cure also has ZERO ramifications, and has a %0 chance of hurting or harming anyone who takes it. It is literally a miracle-cure. Just after telling you this, you quickly ask, "So when are you going to share it with the world?!" He responds, "Well, honestly... Cancer (suffering) is bad of course, it causes suffering and bad stuff, but I'm not going to share this information. In fact, I'm going to destroy it and all of the research I've done, because cancer allows us to have Chemotherapy. (Virtues)" Obviously this guy is a complete nut. If you had any shred of morality in you, you'd probably knock the guy unconscious, steal his research, and share it with the world. It's an absolutely ridiculous claim. It also can be answered the same way that the above "Yin-Yang Argument" is. It's ludicrous to think that such EXTREMELY bad things need to exist in order for us to act nicely to each other.


There you go. Enjoy the long read, and I look forward to reading your replies.




Edit: It seems I'm an idiot and completely forgot why I was going to answer your reply with such a long post. I forgot about the reply given by you about the "Good for you later but hurts now" kind of situation. So I'll show you the philosophical answer to that one.

The Problem of Evil Solution 4: The Parent Analogy. aka "It sucks now but it's for the best" Argument

P1) Bad things happen that seem really horrible, but eventually can turn into good things.
P2) God knows more than we do.
C1) Therefore, God allows horrible things to happen because he knows eventually it will be good things.

The analogy: You are the parent, and your son only 3 years old has broken his arm by falling off a swing, or something similar. You take him into a doctor, and the doctor puts him in a cast. 1 month passes, and you return for a checkup where upon an x-ray exam, your doctor tells you that your son's arm is healing incorrectly, and needs to be re-broken in order for it to heal right. If it doesn't heal right, eventually the muscles and tendons in your sons arm will cause him to lose function of the arm. Because your son is so young, it's hard to explain to him WHY you're about to cause serious pain to him, but because you know it's for the best, you have the doctor re-break his arm. After this, your son's arm heals fine.

This argument when paired with the analogy is a very intelligent and well thought out one, but once again it can be answered in the same way the previous two are. The extent of the amount of evil in the world does not add up to how it could be "worth it" in the end. Was the genocide of the Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals by Hitler really NECESSARY? That's the answer that the Parent Analogy argument is giving. Every horrible act is NECESSARY, or else God wouldn't let it happen. Was every single of the following genocides "Worth it"? : The Persecution of the Christians by Romans, the genocide of the Native Americans by the settlers, the genocide of the native patagonians (now southern argentina) by General Julio Argentino Roca, The Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empires just after World War I, The Rapes in Rowanda, and even natural disasters like the tsunami's that killed millions in India and eastern countries, Hurricane Katrina in the US, the recent earthquakes in Haiti, and thousand of others. Is EVERY SINGLE ONE of those Necessary? I think it's pretty blatantly obvious that we could have not lost some lives, and the world may have been a slightly better place, just because those people would've not felt that immense amount of suffering. It is a pretty ridiculous presumption to say over and over that "we can't know why God does it". If you never question your authority, you'll be doomed to live a life shrouded in ignorance. You can't just keep answering every question with "God works in mysterious ways." It does not work.

Enjoy!

[Zain890]

I'll make this post on a separate reply so that my original ones don't get clogged up.

I am an atheist that sees absolutely no reason for any god to exist. My morals are well-founded on utilitarian values, and I see absolutely no reason to step outside of those, and deontological moral intuitions to answer any moral questions proposed. The idea of a theistic deity I find makes more problems than it solves.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. " - Steven Weinberg, American Physicist

[Big Red]

Yes... God did it. Why put so much effort into trying to disprove the existence of someone that you think doesn't exist? And as smart as you are, i would expect you to see that point of view of being a fool to even put any type of energy towards such a "figment". Why not just go and learn alot about science and stuff, and help the world find the truth about physics and junk like that? Also as smart as you are, i would think that you could see at LEAST a POSSIBILITY of a God...

YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. If there were EVER NOTHING not even a universe, could there possibly be something ever? Anyways, James, ir espect you as a human, i know you've learned some moral and family values through religion even if you don't believe in a creator, so relax dood, it's all gravy. When you see religion breaking laws, being selfish, acting in "evil" ways, those are the times you need to "Shine The Light" on those bastards.

Sometimes people are nice on the outside and show something good, but really they are evil baastards and rotten on the inside.

YES even religious leaders.

This post has been edited by Big Red: 05 August 2010 - 03:48 PM

[Zain890]

Big Red, on 05 August 2010 - 04:45 PM, said:

1. Also as smart as you are, i would think that you could see at LEAST a POSSIBILITY of a God...

2. YOU CANNOT MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING. If there were EVER NOTHING not even a universe, could there possibly be something ever?

3. Anyways, James, ir espect you as a human, i know you've learned some moral and family values through religion even if you don't believe in a creator, so relax dood, it's all gravy.

1. My entire point is that the possibility of "a god" is much more likely than the theistic god that the common monotheistic ideas proclaim. There could be thousands of types of gods that may exist, but this isn't one of them. The point is that the belief in this god-thing is causing problems. People are dying because they've been told by insane catholics that condoms increase the chance of HIV and AIDS. People are being tormented every day because they have to choose between religion or their family. You'd be surprised how many people lie within the church who feel absolutely terrible, and go through psychological pain every time they do something as simple as masturbate, or have sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm not the only one who's heard of this.

2. Actually, you're 100% entirely wrong. Here's a lecture given by an extremely intelligent astrophysicist by the name of Lawrence Krauss. He's more or less the Stephen Hawking of astrophysics. We have found how the universe could have come into existence. We don't need a "god did it", and we never have needed it. A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

3. No... can't say I've learned moral or family values through religion at all. I knew of the golden rule long before I heard about Jesus, Allah, Zues, Dionysus, Attis, or any other deity. I figured that out as a child, just like everyone else does. In fact, it appears rather blatant to me that morality gets stolen from mankind and then put in religion. Not the other way around.


The reason I write out so much about this, is because it's important. Billions of people spend their lives guided by something which is far less likely than most are willing to admit. It's detrimental to the life they could be living, truly enjoying the wonders of this world, without all the burdens of a hypothetical father figure who commands they love him.

[brian]

@Zain - On your numbered points (which you're right, does help reference complicated posts):

1. I agree that a traditional monotheistic god, the kind that was worshiped in the past and to a lesser extent today, is problematic. But many religions have done an interesting job of either changing or adopting different god-narratives that aren't as problematic. It's a problem when your god allegedly lives on top of Mount Olympus. It's less problematic when you can say your god lives a few galaxies over.

Where I disagree with you a bit is that this "god type" is inherently responsible for the evils you described. Yeah, the Catholic church makes a lot of crazy rules under the auspices of a monotheistic god's whims. But this is hardly exclusive to monotheistic gods: the Mesoamericans sacrificed captives to their gods; the Hindu gods demanded a caste system; african animistic cultures require female genital mutilation; and the list goes on. And let's not even start on the atrocities committed in atheist communist nations where the state was essentially god. To me, it doesn't seem like a certain "type of god" is the common thread in these horrible actions: it's the fact that people in power want to stay in power by whatever means necessary. Religion isn't always the motivation, but is sure provides a convenient justification a lot of the time.

3. Not sure if religion necessarily "borrowed" morality from mankind. In fact, I think our basest tendencies are pretty tribal, and the "golden rule" had no real place outside the clan. On the flip side, I don't think society borrowed morality from religion either. To me, it seems that rules of behavior evolved out of necessity as more people started living in closer proximity. Religion provides one convenient way to pass society's moral code onto a new generation. But of course there are others: fables and non-religious mythology, written laws, etc.

Again, gets to my general belief that religion is neither the cause nor the cure of mankind's ills. It's just one of many ways that bad people perpetrate their bad acts and good people do their good works.

[Zain890]

I was going to quote you Brian, but then I realized I was going to just quote the entire thing, so I'll just respond normally.

As far as the idea of "is religion really a problem" idea, I think I have to argue that it causes more harm than it does good. There are certain religions or belief-systems that actually do perpetuate goodness, which I would be willing to submit that maybe certain ones should be allowed to continue, while others shouldn't. I think however that this may be a statement that is too much for me to debate with on a professional-level manner, given my current knowledge. However, I think we are at a turning point in society where we should be able to have the strength to say when certain belief systems are not just detrimental, but so bad and detrimental to society that they should not be allowed. For example, no matter how much you dislike the gays, or hate the armed forces, would you really say that we should be allowing the children of the Westboro Baptist Church be brain-washed the way they are? I honestly think it's a crime the way these parents are raising their children. They are creating psychopaths through propaganda and hatred, all perpetuated through NOTHING but religious means. This isn't an idea that comes outside of church. This is a bold-faced religious dogma, no more, no less. It's not a political or personal bias. It's %100 religious. This kind of thinking really should not be tolerated.

There are certain religions that do nothing but good in the world. For example, 99% of Buddhists (and I say 99% because there are some really crazy "how do you even call yourself a buddhist?" buddhist sects out there that commit violence) are incredible people who live by one of the greatest ideals I have ever known. This is also true for the Jainists. Both are beliefs based 100% around ending suffering. Both say that a belief in a deity is second to ending suffering. Both do nothing but try to rid of the world of pain and bring upon happiness, and the end of suffering. I have never heard of a nobler cause, and as a utilitarian, I am moved very much by this line of thinking.

As you commented on my "god type" idea, I think you ended up pointing out why I think religion in itself causes a vast amount of harm. You're right, a specific type of God doesn't necessarily cause harm, except theistic ones. The Theistic God is one who is supposedly interacting with us in our life, or who has something to do with our life. Those are the kinds of gods that command us to do something, think something, or live a certain way. There is no deistic deity that requires you to live by a dogma. Hence why I have no problem with deism, agnosticism, or atheism. There are no commandments to follow, no "duties" which must be done in because a man who claims to have authority tells you to do it. I apologize for not being clear enough. I should have made it apparent that the "god-type" that has the massive capacity to cause harm, is the theistic one.

I must say Brian, I think you may not have noticed when you typed it out, but you agree with me. I'll quote you specifically here in hopes that you see your answer as clearly as I see it.

Quote

Brian
To me, it seems that rules of behavior evolved out of necessity as more people started living in closer proximity.

If you replace the word "rules of behavior" with the term "morality" you'll get this.

Quote

Brian
To me, it seems that morality evolved out of necessity as more people started living in closer proximity.

This is the exact stance that evolutionary psychology, and anthropology unanimously agree upon. A set of conduct MUST be drawn out, or the society turns into an anarchy where everyone kills everyone, and no one is left. We were required to have a code of conduct, or morality to survive. If we didn't have one, we wouldn't be around. Plain and simple. Morality on a basic level is found on every single animal species around the world, that can be said to have a brain, or at least a nervous system. (Except maybe starfish, jellyfish, sea cucumbers, and other animals that don't have brains. Though I don't honestly know if it's possible for them to be able to kill one another, so I don't know whether it's possible for them to have a sense of morality.) Animals that live in packs obviously have a code of morality. There are countless numbers of cases where animals will protect each other to the brink of death, or protect a young animal even though it's not their own cub. There are hundreds of other scenarios too, but it's pretty pointless to name them all off.

As far as morality can be dated in a historical sense, currently, the oldest known origin of a code of morality dates back to the Egyptian writing:

Ancient Egypt

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – 1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."[8] An example from a Late Period (c. 1080 – 332 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[9] Golden Rule - Wikipedia

This isn't something we've "discovered" thanks to any religion. This is something we found in the dawn of our existence. It didn't take a revelation to figure it out. It took a realization. It took an introspective mind.

[Big Red]

NOBODY KNOWS how the universe was actually created, don't ever say someone is 100% wrong when we don't even know what's 100% right.

I watched the vid, he might be somewhat intelligent, but he's still a jackass. Knocking Jesus in his lecture isn't very respectable. When he talks about nothing being something in quantum mechanics with neg energy, i am talking about NOTHING, not space, not anything. he's assuming space (or multiple universes) existed b4 the big bang... He's talking as if it is fact... Arrogant...

I enjoyed the lecture non the less. Ty for sharing this vid, it's pretty cool.

Jesus is my savior, i know it for a fact, every day i have proof, my prayers are always answered.

[springfang]

Zain890, on 06 August 2010 - 12:53 AM, said:

However, I think we are at a turning point in society where we should be able to have the strength to say when certain belief systems are not just detrimental, but so bad and detrimental to society that they should not be allowed. For example, no matter how much you dislike the gays, or hate the armed forces, would you really say that we should be allowing the children of the Westboro Baptist Church be brain-washed the way they are? I honestly think it's a crime the way these parents are raising their children.

This is a tricky subject, but I feel that what you're saying is dangerous. I don't think we have a right to criminalize ways of thinking -- that's treading very dangerous ground.

[brian]

Quote

This is a tricky subject, but I feel that what you're saying is dangerous. I don't think we have a right to criminalize ways of thinking -- that's treading very dangerous ground.

Agreed 100%. We can criminalize bad acts, but outlawing certain kinds of speech or thought or religion is dangerous. Cause after all, if we outlaw one type of speech but not another, someone has to make that decision. And I don't want the government making that decision for us: it's a really slippery slope. Sure, certain types of expression don't fall under free speech protections in this country, like child pornography. But these are things that are SO offensive to society that any possible "good" that comes from them (if there is any) is CLEARLY overwhelmed by the bad. By and large, censorship in this country isn't taken lightly.

Whether you believe religion causes more harm than good, or the other way around, it certainly doesn't fall into the category of nearly-unequivocal bad.

As for the Westboro kids, I feel bad. I feel bad for the FLDS kids and the snake-handler kids and the "faith healing" kids and all. We can criminalize the horrible things they do to some extent ("it's my religion" is almost never a valid defense to a crime), but to police ideas and make value judgments on the non-criminal things bad religions (or cults or political parties or whatever) may do is to invite a nanny state. And let's remember that the disposition of the nanny depends largely on who hires her. If you're in favor of a nanny state when the Dems are in power, just think about what will happen when the GOP inevitably sweeps back into office.

[Zain890]

Big Red, on 06 August 2010 - 03:58 AM, said:

NOBODY KNOWS how the universe was actually created, don't ever say someone is 100% wrong when we don't even know what's 100% right.

Uhh... You said that you CAN'T Get something out of nothing. You are 100% wrong. I can say it just as easily as I can say the grass is green, or that I enjoy the pizza. This isn't something that's debated in math or science. You CAN in fact get something from nothing. So if you say that you CAN'T, you are wrong.

I'd like to know though BigRed, is what is your answer to the problem of evil, or the problem with the ontology of the soul? When does a human soul form? What about in the case of chimeras, when two eggs are fertilized, and eventually the cells combine into one? Does one of the human souls get lost? Does the one person have two souls now? What about in the case of identical twins? Does a single human soul split into two? When exactly does one "gain a soul"? What if I were to tell you that every experience you have in your life, every emotion you felt, every interaction with "The Holy Spirit/Ghost" or "Jesus" or could be boiled down to a combination of neurons firing, dopamine, norepinephrine, and other chemicals. This isn't something that's a "theory". This is something that can be observed, reproduced, and tested with nothing more than an FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine. What is your answer to that? I really hope that you have more to add to the conversation than "I love Jesus and I know it's true from personal experience that is unfalsifiable." We're supposed to be having an intelligent conversation here. Not just a "Nope I love Jesus." post.


Brian: I completely agree that we can't criminalize thought. That is far from where I am going. All I am saying is that we need to realize that certain lines of thought are dangerous, and we need to be more strict when it comes to define as to what is healthy for a child or not. The Westboro Baptist Church is not a healthy institution for raising a child. Every single person out there who is a "faith healer" like the parents of the children who have already died, should be tried for murder. This isn't something that is fair to the life of another human being. It's about time we stop being so conservative, and stop up for what society damn-near unanimously agrees on. Institutions like these are dangerous. I think it's our right as a society that when we find an atrocity being done to children, that we stop whoever is doing it, even if it's the parents. This isn't a violation of "Free speech". It's an upholding of it on behalf of the children.

[Big Red]

James, you are in a religious forum area, Expect testimony of the truth. Also, just wanna put in my opinion of your attitude... You are kind of being an insensitive jerk towards other's feelings, i don't care if you believe in God or not, you still sound like a stubborn jackass, just my opinion, don't get all fired up.

In the lecture when he was saying you can make something out of nothing, he was talking about like bits of energy flowing in and out of EXISTENCE, if there were nothing, NOT EVEN EXISTENCE , there is no possible way for there to be any form of energy. Do not be so retarded not to understand that, just because someone else says something like that, doesn't mean it's true. Science is only what we've seen, there is WAY more to know, don't get so riled up over the common knowledge that was in the lecture in the previous reply. He did cover MOST of what we know, and it's not that hard to understand.

I like also how you CHOOSE ONLY what you can argue out of other people's posts, and leave everything else alone.

Even if i wanted to discuss the soul/spirit with you, it wouldn't really matter, because you'd just bash the matter anyways, just like you bash everything that's different from what you think is right or acceptable.

[brian]

Guys, calm down a bit. Don't need the name calling. But Red is right: this IS a religion forum. And there are a lot of religious people on here. You can't expect to walk in here, start a debate, and then arbitrarily define the debate so that it can only be argued on your terms. We get it: you want to discuss this topic in a certain way. And that's fine. But to most people, religion involves a lot more than cold logic and reason. If you don't at least respect peoples' right to hold their own very personal religious beliefs, no one will want to talk with you about it.

From a theological standpoint I don't agree with Red's religion any more than you do. But if I want to engage Red in a conversation, sometimes I've just got to accept the "I love Jesus" stuff,cause that's part of who he is and what he believes. And I'm fine doing that, as long as he respects my viewpoint as well.

Quote

What if I were to tell you that every experience you have in your life, every emotion you felt, every interaction with "The Holy Spirit/Ghost" or "Jesus" or could be boiled down to a combination of neurons firing, dopamine, norepinephrine, and other chemicals. This isn't something that's a "theory". This is something that can be observed, reproduced, and tested with nothing more than an FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine. What is your answer to that?

If you could tell me this, and be right about it, I'd be really impressed and very interested. There have been some studies that indicate this MIGHT be the case, but nothing conclusive yet. If I'm not mistaken, several of these studies haves shown that religious people have either more/less electrical activity or more/less of certain chemicals when given religious stimuli. I don't know if any of them have shown true causation; i.e. you can't be sure that having a lot of a certain chemical makes someone more religious, or whether "the spirit" causes religious people to produce more of these chemicals, etc. Until you have a study where you find a way to increase chemical concentration artificially, and then see if they become more religious, you can't draw a logical conclusion. At least from the studies I've seen.

And it's not a matter of a "simple FMRI" either. Saying that you can draw definitive conclusions from viewing an MRI assumes the fallacy of what my girlfriend (neuroscience and psych degrees, working on PhD in psych) calls the "light bright brain". For most complex brain activities, there isn't a predicable spot on the brain that just "lights up" given a certain stimulus. Sometimes a certain area of the brain controls certain functions for most of the population, but injury, disease, or even just extensive mental conditioning can alter this significantly. This is one of the reasons that lie detectors, even using FMRIs, are not allowed as courtroom evidence in this country: there is too much margin of error.

One interesting study the professor in my "Law and the Brain" class mentioned (no reference handy, but I can check my notes or email him if anyone cares enough) involved Shaolin monks. They undergo tons of mental and physical training to be able to resist and channel pain. And their brains actually respond noticeably different to a punch in the gut than the rest of us. If I remember right, the Shaolins actually DO have a certain localization of brain activity with pain, but for the average Joe, pain remains one of those things that is almost entirely subjective.

Quote

This isn't a violation of "Free speech". It's an upholding of it on behalf of the children.

OK, your clarification is much more reasonable than what I originally thought you meant. But the problem remains thus: how do we craft a set of legal rules to deal properly with situations like these, but don't infringe on other freedoms? The FLDS case in Texas highlighted the difficulties: child marriage/rape is a crime, but when they couldn't prove that, the authorities struggled. Justifying the use of broad "child welfare" laws is tough when you think they might be brainwashed according to your belief system, but seem otherwise they seem healthy and happy. And with the faith healings, getting them on murder is next to impossible because prosecutors can't really prove the premeditation that goes into charging someone with murder. Even lesser manslaughters, which don't carry anywhere near the same amount of jail time, are tough to prove in most of these cases.

[springfang]

Zain890, on 06 August 2010 - 11:37 AM, said:

Brian: I completely agree that we can't criminalize thought. That is far from where I am going.

Well, you DID say:

Zain890, on 06 August 2010 - 12:53 AM, said:

However, I think we are at a turning point in society where we should be able to have the strength to say when certain belief systems are not just detrimental, but so bad and detrimental to society that they should not be allowed.

It seems like you're saying certain belief systems should be outlawed. I just don't know how else to interpret that. Belief systems are ways of thinking. Sure, actions often accompany beliefs, and I'm okay with outlawing certain activities, but "belief systems" do not necessitate actions.

Zain890, on 06 August 2010 - 11:37 AM, said:

All I am saying is that we need to realize that certain lines of thought are dangerous, and we need to be more strict when it comes to define as to what is healthy for a child or not. ... I think it's our right as a society that when we find an atrocity being done to children, that we stop whoever is doing it, even if it's the parents. This isn't a violation of "Free speech". It's an upholding of it on behalf of the children.

This seems to reinforce the idea of "criminalizing thought." I think that, in general, we all agree that the prejudices being instilled in the children of the Westboro church are very bad, but once you say "this type of thought is unacceptable and will be punished," I think you start down a slippery slope. If you allow governments to determine what type of thought is and is not "healthy for society," you're just asking for trouble. Additionally, I don't think you can label instilling certain beliefs in a child as an "atrocity". Because, again, this is dangerous; what you consider to be a healthy belief system for a child to have, someone else might think is an atrocity, and vice-versa.

[Zain890]

Big Red, on 06 August 2010 - 06:37 PM, said:

James, you are in a religious forum area, Expect testimony of the truth.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Claiming to know the truth with no possible way of knowing. I'm more than willing to say I don't know what's really out there, and I'm also willing to say that neither do you, because you do not have mental powers I do not, and nor does that book of yours. If you can, I'd like to see you find a way to prove that the Bible is the inherent word of God. Honestly, if there's something in there I'm missing that shows it, please show me. I'm extremely interested. But insofar as what I've read of the Bible, it doesn't honestly seem like anything better than what the people at the time could've thought up.

Big Red, on 06 August 2010 - 06:37 PM, said:

Also, just wanna put in my opinion of your attitude... You are kind of being an insensitive jerk towards other's feelings, i don't care if you believe in God or not, you still sound like a stubborn jackass, just my opinion, don't get all fired up.

We'll just leave that jackass comment alone. I just wanted to quote it for the sake of the "What Would Jesus Do" effect.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Big Red, on 06 August 2010 - 06:37 PM, said:

In the lecture when he was saying you can make something out of nothing, he was talking about like bits of energy flowing in and out of EXISTENCE, if there were nothing, NOT EVEN EXISTENCE , there is no possible way for there to be any form of energy. Do not be so retarded not to understand that, just because someone else says something like that, doesn't mean it's true. Science is only what we've seen, there is WAY more to know, don't get so riled up over the common knowledge that was in the lecture in the previous reply. He did cover MOST of what we know, and it's not that hard to understand.

I'd like to know how you know for a fact that energy could not pop in and out of existence before the Big Bang. If you were paying attention, Lawrence Krauss said that this explanation can actually show how the universe could have been created. Meaning energy could pop in and out of existence before the Big Bang. Assuming there was no "existence" before the Big Bang is actually counter-intuitive. Just because there was nothing but energy in the time before the big bang, doesn't necessarily mean that there was not "existence." Existence as we know it as stars, life, etc. definitely wasn't around, but it seems implied very strongly that energy popping in and out of existence was happening before the Big Bang.

Big Red, on 06 August 2010 - 06:37 PM, said:

I like also how you CHOOSE ONLY what you can argue out of other people's posts, and leave everything else alone.

I've said this once and I'll say it again. Please, if you want me to respond to something specific, quote it and ask me. I'm not psychic. Currently, no one is known to be. I'm not "dodging" arguments. I answer questions that I find more enjoyable to answer, or ones that seem to require more of an answer than others. It was already brought up that "ridiculously long posts killed Zogdog", so I don't answer every single question or rebuttle. If you want me to answer a question, ask. I will answer it to the best of my abilities, or do my best to point you in the right direction of someone I think who can.

Big Red, on 06 August 2010 - 06:37 PM, said:

Even if i wanted to discuss the soul/spirit with you, it wouldn't really matter, because you'd just bash the matter anyways, just like you bash everything that's different from what you think is right or acceptable.

Try me. I have yet to have someone come up with a good reason as to why souls should exist, without an answering being comprised of ONLY religious text. The only ones I have heard of in philosophy class are far from what normal religious people are willing to say, because of the massive amount of holes in each concept of dualism.

So you'd know, I'm not an atheist because I "hate god" or something juvenile. I wish a god like the liberal-christian version of Jesus existed. I really do. This world wouldn't be filled with all of the pain that it currently is. But I look around me, and nothing adds up to the idea of someone looking out for us. I don't say that one doesn't exist because I want to make people angry, or upset, or hurt them. I say it because I want them to be skeptical. Don't just read a book and say it's true. Don't just say "Jesus loves us" without realizing the multiple assumptions you have to make.

As far as the "just like you bash everything that's different from what you think is right or acceptable" goes, you really don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Even with that in mind, I'm sorry that we have differing opinions, but hurting someone's feelings isn't going to deter me from engaging in a debate or an argument. The sympathy card isn't a viable one. I'm more than willing to admit that multiple times I am pompous in my opinions, I am at times arrogant, and an outright a-hole. But I'm human. I'm full of flaws, and I'm ok with that. I do my best to right them, but I know that perfection is impossible.

[RidleyScott]

Quote

Try me. I have yet to have someone come up with a good reason as to why souls should exist, without an answering being comprised of ONLY religious text.

According to Christian doctrine, only those reborn in Christ have souls.

With all this talk of whether God created everything or energy was around, I wonder if existence isn't the natural order of things over non-existence. If you just think about what could have been here before the universe or where the energy to create the universe came from or why there should even be energy at all... why isn't there just absolutely no universe or dimensions or external universe at all. Why would there even be nothing? There should just be a complete lack of anything at all. Nothing before this, nothing to make this, no nothing just absolutely and perfect non-existence seems as though it should be the natural order and origin. Even in our Big-bang model, this universe didn't exist and then existed, we tend to think of things with beginnings and endings.

Just impossible to warp your mind around really. Without a origin entity why would energy be or whatever energy comes from... why would it be? It just seems that the only way out of the endless loop of impossibility is God - its the only logical answer. God is the only concept which maintains the proper logical order, without it we create logical paradoxes. But then again, why should a God exist at all? Absolutely nothing and God just chilling forever and ever and ever and ever and then he makes some stuff? I think it is all impossible. Why would the natural order be God permeating nothing? Why would it be absolutely nothing? Why would it be something? None of the answers make sense to me really.

the only logical answer is that nothing exists, nothing has ever existed and nothing will ever exist. We live in a non-existent reality. God isn't real, we aren't real, this world isn't real, nothing isn't real. Its the only way this is all possible.

[Big Red]

I can confidently say that i know that God exists just because of all of the evidence that i have personally observed and experienced. Of course i can't prove it, but that's not necessary for my own salvation. The relationship between God and another individual is going to be a 1 on 1.

I was giving you positive feedback James, and all i got from you was negativity, and you expect me to let you be a jerk and not say anything? i don't think so.

I am my own self, and i have a personality, i defend myself and God when it matters. If i were to hear someone on the street just blab out "God doesn't exist!!" i would probably just look at him like hes a friggin nut bag and keep walking, But i MIGHT also say something smart arse too, idk. My comments are really random at times. i might even say something to him that totally doesn;t have anything to do with anything like "Hello Sir, Good morning to ya, have a good day.". I don't usually get mushy, but you know what, i am on the side of good, and i will defend what matters at the end, which IS YOUR spirit and MY spirit. The Sprirt lasts forever, so prepare yourself, your tolerance and everything else for eternity.

If existence existed before the big bang, that would make more sense. I'm gonna go play MegaMan5, maybe Tetris Attack, not sure yet, maybe i'll just goto sleep.

<---- Tired...