Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307150392' post='2249717']
I think part of the argument is not that stalin killed people because he was atheist, but because he lacked the ethical values, which KoC, and others, [b]would [/b]attribute to his lack of belief in God.
[/quote]
There was a demographic report done in 1997 by Federal Bureau of Prisons in America it showed that with regards to religous demographic of prison inmates only 0.2% where Atheist, in comparison 39% were Catholic. When you take into perspective that about 5% of Americans are Atheist then this shows that Atheists are seriously misrepresented in American prisons. So Atheists are law abiding, I am not sure how closely you can link law abiding to be ethically moral but it seems there should be some sort of correlation.
This kind of study to me would be a much better guage than citing that Lennin was an Atheist and Lennin's regime killed people.

Edited June 4, 2011 by stevil

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307159821' post='2249777']
There was a demographic report done in 1997 by Federal Bureau of Prisons in America it showed that with regards to religous demographic of prison inmates only 0.2% where Atheist, in comparison 39% were Catholic. When you take into perspective that about 5% of Americans are Atheist then this shows that Atheists are seriously misrepresented in American prisons. So Atheists are law abiding, I am not sure how closely you can link law abiding to be ethically moral but it seems there should be some sort of correlation.
This kind of study to me would be a much better guage than citing that Lennin was an Atheist and Lennin's regime killed people.
[/quote]

There's just less Atheists in prison because there's less Atheists in America than Religious people. Plus it may have something similar to do with the saying "there's no atheist in a fox hole." Nothing like the fear of what happens in Prison to make a man want God.

Edited June 4, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307159712' post='2249776']
First, I would like to applaud you on your concern for the defenseless children - I have to assume that you are pro-life by your zeal for their innocent lives.

Now, yes, the children were innocent. I did not, nor do I, dispute that. God did not kill the children because they were "bad" and he did not kill the children "just because". The children died because the Pharaoh, their earthly lord and protector, failed in his duty to protect them. All leaders are meant to serve their people by putting their people above themselves; they are to act in their people's best interests. The Pharaoh acted in his own best interests (he wanted to keep his slaves) and he essentially allowed his people, the children, to die - he was not an ignorant man, he had already seen the power of the Jewish God but remained obstinate. An honorable leader would sacrifice his very life for his people. An honorable leader also sets an example. There is a reason why the captain is the last off his ship, or dies with his ship. There is a reason why a husband is willing to cover his wife and children to protect them from a collapsing roof or wall. There is a reason why the Holy Father is called "the servant of the servants of God." There is a reason why a manager "takes the heat" from corporate when sales are down to prevent his or her hard-working employees from getting fired.



I know you want a simple answer to your question and I really, really wish I could give it to you.

Pharaoh dwelt in his own pride and selfishness and virtually handed over his people to be put on the chopping block. The plagues became increasingly worse, and his people suffered from them, but still he refused what Moses (and God) were asking. He adamantly refused to give up his slaves. It became less about the free labor and more about his thirst for power, his challenge to Almighty God. So God met out the punishment against Pharaoh.

But if you want me to try and make this simple, I can say this: technically, God killed the children, but only because Pharaoh stepped aside and "allowed" Him.



I agree! There is nothing like the smell of a book or the feel of its pages between your fingers.
[/quote]

Indeed Pharaoh put himself above the well being of his people, they died because he refused to admit he was wrong. Pharaoh represented the whole of Egypt, his refusal to obey and submit was Egypt's refusal to obey and submit. All the Egyptians had to do was obey God and paint their doors with blood of a lamb and their first born children would have been saved. They refused, like a foolish man who dies because he would refuse a life saving treatment. Those that did not paint their doors with the blood of a lamb suffered the final plague of Egypt at their own peril. After all the other plagues one would think some sense would have been knocked into them, and yet they still did not believe. They paid for their doubt, just as the foolish man pays for refusing life saving treatment.

Also note one cannot vandalized his own property, your property is yours and if you wish to destroy it it is yours to destroy. We are all God's property we are not our own but we belong to God. We are His to do with as He pleases. Also note if it was not for the pride and sin of another man who rebeled against God death would not have entered the world. All death is a result of Original Sin, we all die because we all sin and all have the effects of original sin. There is no escape, all shall perish.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307160093' post='2249779']
There's just less Atheists in prison because there's less Atheists in America than Religious people. Plus it may have something similar to do with the saying "there's no atheist in a fox hole." Nothing like the fear of what happens in Prison to make a man want God.
[/quote]

Misrepresented means that there's 0,2% (prison) versus 5% (population) whereas the percentage in prison of religious people would roughly correspond to the percentage of religious people in the population. And those were based on what people answered when they started serving their sentences, not during or after their sentence when they could've chosen to convert to a religion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307146263' post='2249671']
Love is an experience, it is felt, there's nothing to suggest that it exists outside minds capable of feeling it.

Saying that love does not exist without god, however, does not follow. That is pure subjective opinion, and just because you believe in god does not make it factual (objective). [/quote]

Love without God is just imagery. Without God what we "feel" and what actually exist about love are two different things. Without God much of what is love is just imagery. It isn't really real but only seems to be real. Love without God is just a social construct to explain purely biological drives and desires. Nothing more, all that poetic love that poets write of is just as nonsense without God. Without God the love felt between a man and woman is really nothing more that the biological desire to reproduce at that's pretty much it all the lovey dovey stuff is made up, if God is made up.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307146263' post='2249671']I think you are. Your attack on wikipedia (and by extension other encyclopedias and information databases, however crude) shows this. [/quote]


YOU [i]think[/i] I am, it is your [i]subjective opinion[/i] I am. I don't agree with your disagreement. Wikipedia is simply not a reliable source of information. It simply cannot be trusted fully.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307146263' post='2249671']How is 1+1=2 relative? [/quote]

Sure, if someone thinks morality is relative, it's just as silly and possible to suggest that 1+1=2 is relative. I never said it made sense. In fact it makes just as much sense as those that deny objective morality.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307146263' post='2249671']And we all make our realities...
[/quote]

Atheists try, too bad they fail.

Edited June 4, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307161906' post='2249793']
Misrepresented means that there's 0,2% (prison) versus 5% (population) whereas the percentage in prison of religious people would roughly correspond to the percentage of religious people in the population. And those were based on what people answered when they started serving their sentences, not during or after their sentence when they could've chosen to convert to a religion.
[/quote]

Still though many people 'get religion' in prison (ps it's often phoney but they say they do in one way or other to look good), this likely could help the misrepresentation. I mean every body in prison is innocent too and the perfect little Church boy or girl. Specially when there up for parole or up for trial.

Edited June 4, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307159712' post='2249776']
First, I would like to applaud you on your concern for the defenseless children - I have to assume that you are pro-life by your zeal for their innocent lives.

Now, yes, the children were innocent. I did not, nor do I, dispute that. God did not kill the children because they were "bad" and he did not kill the children "just because". The children died because the Pharaoh, their earthly lord and protector, failed in his duty to protect them. All leaders are meant to serve their people by putting their people above themselves; they are to act in their people's best interests. The Pharaoh acted in his own best interests (he wanted to keep his slaves) and he essentially allowed his people, the children, to die - he was not an ignorant man, he had already seen the power of the Jewish God but remained obstinate. An honorable leader would sacrifice his very life for his people. An honorable leader also sets an example. There is a reason why the captain is the last off his ship, or dies with his ship. There is a reason why a husband is willing to cover his wife and children to protect them from a collapsing roof or wall. There is a reason why the Holy Father is called "the servant of the servants of God." There is a reason why a manager "takes the heat" from corporate when sales are down to prevent his or her hard-working employees from getting fired.

I know you want a simple answer to your question and I really, really wish I could give it to you.

Pharaoh dwelt in his own pride and selfishness and virtually handed over his people to be put on the chopping block. The plagues became increasingly worse, and his people suffered from them, but still he refused what Moses (and God) were asking. He adamantly refused to give up his slaves. It became less about the free labor and more about his thirst for power, his challenge to Almighty God. So God met out the punishment against Pharaoh.

But if you want me to try and make this simple, I can say this: technically, God killed the children, but only because Pharaoh stepped aside and "allowed" Him.[/quote]

When they become children, yes.

I agree with your descriptions of what a good leader should be like in assuming responsibility for those under his or her leadership, but I really can't see how killing the children can be moral, and therefore how the killer (god) could be moral, unless of course god's morality is either arbitary or god is amoral himself, being just a Being who sets the rules but doesn't have to abide by them. Why didn't god just kill the Pharaoh instead of the children who I'm using as the prime example because they couldn't even choose in the first place whether to follow the Pharaoh or not?

Does the bible lend any insight as to how god determines innocence and what situations would not fall under the commandment 'thou shalt not murder?'


[quote]I agree! There is nothing like the smell of a book or the feel of its pages between your fingers.[/quote]

Or the lack of strain on the eyes...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307162033' post='2249796']
Love without God is just imagery. Without God what we "feel" and what actually exist about love are two different things. Without God much of what is love is just imagery. It isn't really real but only seems to be real. Love without God is just a social construct to explain purely biological drives and desires. Nothing more, all that poetic love that poets write of is just as nonsense without God. Without God the love felt between a man and woman is really nothing more that the biological desire to reproduce at that's pretty much it all the lovey dovey stuff is made up, if God is made up.[/quote]

This is just nonsense. You can't even experience what other people feel when they feel love, so you're really not in the place to make such statements about it not being real as you did above.

[quote]YOU [i]think[/i] I am, it is your [i]subjective opinion[/i] I am. I don't agree with your disagreement. Wikipedia is simply not a reliable source of information. It simply cannot be trusted fully.

Sure, if someone thinks morality is relative, it's just as silly and possible to suggest that 1+1=2 is relative. I never said it made sense. In fact it makes just as much sense as those that deny objective morality. [/quote]

If you think that 1+1=2 is just a opinion, then we have nothing more to talk about.


[quote]Atheists try, too bad they fail.[/quote]

yeah...and we're the ones who claim knowledge about the nature of reality.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307163150' post='2249801']
This is just nonsense. You can't even experience what other people feel when they feel love, so you're really not in the place to make such statements about it not being real as you did above. [/quote]

Some people really feel God exists. You can't even experience what other people feel when they feel God, so you're really not in the place to make statements about God not being real as you have.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307163150' post='2249801']If you think that 1+1=2 is just a opinion, then we have nothing more to talk about. [/quote]

I could say the same about objective morality.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307163150' post='2249801']yeah...and we're the ones who claim knowledge about the nature of reality.
[/quote]

But objective morality and objective truth exist without me or my belief in them. The truth that rape is wrong exist outside of my belief that it is wrong and outside the belief of any other individual or society.

Edited June 4, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307163586' post='2249805']
Some people really feel God exists. You can't even experience what other people feel when they feel God, so you're really not in the place to make statements about God not being real as you have.[/quote]

I know that people experience 'god' and have no reason to doubt that they have those experiences, but if you look up what ignosticism is (which [i]is[/i] a statement of my beliefs), I question if what they feel is actually 'god', and especially, which 'god'?

Just as love doesn't exist outside the mind, 'god' doesn't either, IMO.


[quote]I could say the same about objective morality.[/quote]

How do you know if you're just objectifying your own or accepting one that's been objectified?

[quote]But objective morality and objective truth exist without me or my belief in them. The truth that rape is wrong exist outside of my belief that it is wrong and outside the belief of any other individual or society.[/quote]

I think that objective truth existing is a factual statement, but it doesn't mean that it's known...

I also think that rape is wrong in any circumstance. For some actions there are no relative situations where it would be allowable, but I don't call it objective Truth.

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307162715' post='2249799']
When they become children, yes. [/quote]

Oh my. So what species was I before I was a human?

Out of curiosity, would you be as troubled or troubled period if God instead killed unborn children?

[quote]
I agree with your descriptions of what a good leader should be like in assuming responsibility for those under his or her leadership, but I really can't see how killing the children can be moral, and therefore how the killer (god) could be moral, unless of course god's morality is either arbitary or god is amoral himself, being just a Being who sets the rules but doesn't have to abide by them. Why didn't god just kill the Pharaoh instead of the children who I'm using as the prime example because they couldn't even choose in the first place whether to follow the Pharaoh or not?
[/quote]

When a violent and dangerous criminal is put to death via lethal injection, are the men who administer the drug moral or immoral? The criminal, we will assume he is a serial killer, forfeited his right to life when he took his first life, and subsequent ones. He knew that the death penalty was a possible (huge) consequence of his behavior but that did not stop him from repetitively murdering other human beings. The administrator is technically taking a life but is at the same time morally neutral because, in essence, the criminal has taken his own life. As Knight explained, the Pharaoh as the ruler of Egypt represented Egypt and the death of the children was like killing a part of him, and his authority over the people (who would now trust a Pharaoh that gambles with his people's lives?). Why not kill the Pharaoh instead, you ask - his son (not Moses) would become the new Pharaoh and rightly uphold his father's command. It would be a never-ending cycle - for a Pharaoh, well he would see it as the ultimate humiliation: to submit to Moses and a foreign God, to tempt his deities by submitting to this other God, to show the Egyptian people apparent weakness. Of course it was a test, unfortunately in the end Pharaoh let his pride and false sense of power get the better of him. Surely if he put his trust in this new, great God he and his people would have been forgiven for their enslavement of God's people; they would have been looked after and protected, and he would have become a Pharaoh known for his great love for his people and for his great humility.

[quote]Does the bible lend any insight as to how god determines innocence and what situations would not fall under the commandment 'thou shalt not murder?'
[/quote]

The Commandments were given to mankind, about how mankind is to worship God and treat one another. They do not tell God how to be God.

You seem rather focused on the innocence of the children, which is commendable, but as I have been saying the core issue here is between God and the Pharaoh - their death was a consequence of Pharaoh's pride and lack of responsibility for his people, it has nothing to do with their behavior or lack of behavior.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307164085' post='2249808']
I know that people experience 'god' and have no reason to doubt that they have those experiences, but if you look up what ignosticism is (which [i]is[/i] a statement of my beliefs), I question if what they feel is actually 'god', and especially, which 'god'?

Just as love doesn't exist outside the mind, 'god' doesn't either, IMO. [/quote]


Ah so love is imagery and doesn't actually really exist?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307164085' post='2249808']How do you know if you're just objectifying your own or accepting one that's been objectified?[/quote]

How do you know your not just being objectified by a math wizard? We actually both believe in absolute (aka objective) morality. Your claim comes down to there is absolutely no absolute morality. By making this argument you do believe in absolute/objective morality. Only our ends differ. Anyway since your question is deep and I don't have the time to answer I shall allow [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm"]Peter Kreeft to answer for me[/url]. [color="#8B0000"][b]ETA:[/b] Time I guess I do have but it's late and I just can't think right now. Plus Kreeft gives a good answer and I would likely just give the same but not as well.[/color]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307164085' post='2249808']I also think that rape is wrong in any circumstance. For some actions there are no relative situations where it would be allowable, but I don't call it objective Truth.
[/quote]

But without objective morality it's just your opinion. It's a nice opinion but still just an opinion. Anyway we've been around this enough, so long as you deny objective morality any opinion you have of morality is just your opinion.

Edited June 4, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307165756' post='2249811']
Oh my. So what species was I before I was a human?[/quote]

Before you became a person you were a bunch of cells which contained your DNA.

There are other philosophical questions involved with this issue. I don't see it as killing a person, but removing the possibility of that future person existing.

In the case of stem cells, actual people trump a bunch of cells at that early stage which is early on in the pregnancy. By the time the cells start differentiating into the tissues, the philosophical question gets more complicated. From that point I'm unsure as to whether I'm against abortion, except in the case of rape (and even then, once there is a nervous system, I'm against abortion).

[quote]Out of curiosity, would you be as troubled or troubled period if God instead killed unborn children?[/quote]

I'm not troubled by miscarriages (which I would interpret to be god killing embryos assuming nothing happens if not his will)...Natural abortions happen too in very early pregnancy. I don't assign a negative meaning to those because I don't believe in god. In the natural world stuff like that happens, even if it's no one's fault.

The problem with god in the picture is that then there is the conscious intent on his part, and the intent to cause an effect or action is also a strong premise that I consider when subjectively analysing whether I think something is moral or not.


[quote]When a violent and dangerous criminal is put to death via lethal injection, are the men who administer the drug moral or immoral?


The criminal, we will assume he is a serial killer, forfeited his right to life when he took his first life, and subsequent ones. He knew that the death penalty was a possible (huge) consequence of his behavior but that did not stop him from repetitively murdering other human beings. The administrator is technically taking a life but is at the same time morally neutral because, in essence, the criminal has taken his own life. As Knight explained, the Pharaoh as the ruler of Egypt represented Egypt and the death of the children was like killing a part of him, and his authority over the people (who would now trust a Pharaoh that gambles with his people's lives?). Why not kill the Pharaoh instead, you ask - his son (not Moses) would become the new Pharaoh and rightly uphold his father's command. It would be a never-ending cycle - for a Pharaoh, well he would see it as the ultimate humiliation: to submit to Moses and a foreign God, to tempt his deities by submitting to this other God, to show the Egyptian people apparent weakness. Of course it was a test, unfortunately in the end Pharaoh let his pride and false sense of power get the better of him. Surely if he put his trust in this new, great God he and his people would have been forgiven for their enslavement of God's people; they would have been looked after and protected, and he would have become a Pharaoh known for his great love for his people and for his great humility.[/quote]

What if the criminal is innocent (as in did not commit the crimes?) If there's absolutly no doubt as to whether he is a criminal and if he's a real threat to other lives, then no, they would not be morally accountable for killing him, even if they performed the action of injecting a lethal dose with the intent to kill him.

I don't think I would call them moral, but they wouldn't be immoral either in that case.

I still don't think that it's okay to kill the criminal's children though if they didn't do anything to deserve the death penalty themselves.

[quote]The Commandments were given to mankind, about how mankind is to worship God and treat one another. They do not tell God how to be God.

You seem rather focused on the innocence of the children, which is commendable, but as I have been saying the core issue here is between God and the Pharaoh - their death was a consequence of Pharaoh's pride and lack of responsibility for his people, it has nothing to do with their behavior or lack of behavior.[/quote]

Yes, but what I'm struggling here with is why they deserved to pay for both a concept that they couldn't even grasp in the first place, and for actions that weren't theirs. To put it simply, what the Pharoah did was not their problem, so they shouldn't have had to pay for it. Makes no sense. What I'm saying is this should be focused on God versus the Pharaoh and not on some innocent group in the first place.

Would you kill the children of your enemy or find a justification to do so?

Edited June 4, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307166200' post='2249813']
Ah so love is imagery and doesn't actually really exist?[/quote]

'Love" is a word that we use to label the experience of feeling love. Words also don't exist outside the mind they're just labels for things that exist.


[quote]How do you know your not just being objectified by a math wizard? We actually both believe in absolute (aka objective) morality. Your claim comes down to there is absolutely no absolute morality. By making this argument you do believe in absolute/objective morality. Only our ends differ. Anyway since your question is deep and I don't have the time to answer I shall allow [url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm"]Peter Kreeft to answer for me[/url]. [color="#8B0000"][b]ETA:[/b] Time I guess I do have but it's late and I just can't think right now. Plus Kreeft gives a good answer and I would likely just give the same but not as well.[/color][/quote]

Well for one I can perform the simple math test that I did all the way back in kindergarten, which is take one apple, take another apple, put them together and count them. Is there any other interpretation of 1+1=2 that might suggest that it is just an opinion that is just as true as any other, including 1+1=3?

Though according to quantum physics, if I wait long enough another apple might materialize and join the group of two, that would change the equation, not the fact that 1+1=2.

Looks like an interesting article, good for starting to align what we mean.

[quote]But without objective morality it's just your opinion. It's a nice opinion but still just an opinion. Anyway we've been around this enough, so long as you deny objective morality any opinion you have of morality is just your opinion.[/quote]

I don't have a problem with having opinions.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168865' post='2249818']
'Love" is a word that we use to label the experience of feeling love. Words also don't exist outside the mind they're just labels for things that exist. [/quote]

Something that just exists inside the mind is imagery.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168865' post='2249818']Well for one I can perform the simple math test that I did all the way back in kindergarten, which is take one apple, take another apple, put them together and count them. Is there any other interpretation of 1+1=2 that might suggest that it is just an opinion that is just as true as any other, including 1+1=3?

Though according to quantum physics, if I wait long enough another apple might materialize and join the group of two, that would change the equation, not the fact that 1+1=2. [/quote]

Why does 1 equal 1?

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168865' post='2249818']Looks like an interesting article, good for starting to align what we mean. [/quote]

What you mean by what? But somehow I doubt it does because you're likely wrong, since your outlook is in error.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307168865' post='2249818']I don't have a problem with having opinions.
[/quote]

I have no problem with opinions but if that's all there is that's a problem. Why is rape always wrong not a objective or absolute truth? Unless you think rape is sometimes ok... which I don't think you do.