Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307561024' post='2251369']
Atheism doesn't give people ideologies, it's just a word to describe a person who holds ideologies and beliefs about the world that do not include god. I live my life as if there were no god, which is why I'm an atheist. If I truly believed, then that would affect my life somehow.

Based on my knowledge I can't reject any version of god, since I'm agnostic, but doesn't mean that I believe or have doubts about any of them.
[/quote]

Atheism can and does shape ideologies or what people believe. People conform their ideologies to Atheism or any other ism's. Atheism shaped the ideologies of the Communists and other positive atheists who used their atheist beliefs to attack the Church. Their ideology was a product of positive atheism. The idea that man is an animal with no soul is a product or result of rejecting the existence of God. The justification for killing millions of people is based on the belief that morality does not exist and that man is just an animal. And that is a result of believing man has no soul that again leads back to Atheism.

It is simply not reasonable to accept that atheism (negitive or positive), agnosticism, or theism does not shape what people believe about existence, truth, morality etc. Because it does, whether or not God exists makes a difference and shapes what we believe about reality. You've shown yourself your agnosticism shapes what you believe about truth and morals and what you do not believe, and/or doubt about truth and morals.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307561277' post='2251372']
You are very good at talking but listening seems to be somewhat of a challenge
[/quote]He doesn't listen, does he?

"[i]Agnostic Atheism[/i]" simply does not imply doubt, it implies lack of knowledge and lack of belief in regards to theism. Typical theistic apologist to tell the atheist their not really an atheist.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307208678' post='2249909']The example of geocentrism.

[/quote]
Didn't see anybody answer this, but the Church is infallible only on matters of the Faith (including morality &c), not on other fields such as science. The Church cannot speak infallibly on things such as astronomy, leaving room for changed teaching there.

(For instance something you may or may not know (I'd bet on "may not" , but who knows?): the fact that our priests must remain celibate is a matter of discipline. If the Pope saw fit to allow priests to marry* effective tomorrow, that would be completely kosher and not mess with the whole infallibility thing at all.)



[i][size="1"]*Strictly speaking, priests would never be able to marry, but married men would be able to be ordained as priests. I omitted this above in the interest of being concise.[/size][/i]

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307559959' post='2251358']
I can't do that without sounding like a whiny persecuted self made victim (which I don't like).[/quote]
Well alrighty then . . .

[quote]Some of religious ideals go against my ideals and are in the public sphere, meaning that they influence political decision that in turn influence every private individual or at risk of doing do. The interference of religious doctrine (even if not yours specifically, but still Christian) in education which is a step backwards. The interference in scientific research too. Though ethics is necessary, sometimes they just don't seem right. The treatment of homosexuals and denying them rights which I feel do not infringe on the rights of others. It makes no moral sense, unless intrinsically wrong, which I and many others don't feel to be the case though the Church disagrees (I see it as mere opinion). I think that in a few years those rights will be achieved, though and society will change to accommodate them. [/quote]
Of course, as you've probably surmised, many of my deeply held beliefs regarding right and wrong are diametrically opposed to your ideals.
But people like myself who believe in "traditional" morality and the sanctity of human life have every right to act on, and vote according to, our conscience, and I will continue to challenge any attempts by the state to infringe on those rights.

There no reason why your ideals (whether you want to label them "atheistic," "humanist," or anything else) must be given priority over mine or anyone else's.

I don't want my tax money going funding the killing of innocent unborn children, nor funding research which involves deliberately killing innocent human life.
I don't want my tax money supporting the promotion of immoral behavior, and teaching it to young children as acceptable.

I believe at the very least as a Christian, I should have a right to not be forced to give my money to fund things contrary to my conscience and morally abhorrent, and I will not stop fighting for that right.

And if you have a government bypassing constitutional limits, and actively opposing any practices or decisions of the people it deems to be based on "religious" morality (even if it has nothing to do with the establishment of a state church, or even religion per se), you wind up with a totalitarian tyranny similar to that of Communist countries - which you say you oppose.


[quote]I think the greatest wrong is the propagation of ignorance, though not exclusive to religious groups.[/quote]
Who determines what is and isn't "ignorance"? The government?

[quote]If something that any religious group says about morality seems reasonable to me, I have no problem accepting it. I won't dismiss something I see to be a truth, or wisdom because it comes from a religious source. I just don't accept the whole bulk and certainly don't think that they come from an objective source.[/quote]
But I thought according to you there is no such thing as objective morality.


[quote]It's not the faith that leads people to murder, but people do use it as a justification (in my personal experience, in smaller scales. I've yet to come across someone who used it to justify killing someone without sounding crazy). It's more a question of numbers, if there are way many more people using the bible to justify what they do, then the bible is going to be more noticed as a source of justifying bad behaviour and so will spend more time under the spotlight of criticism, whether the religious like it or not. [/quote]
As I said, people can use always come up with justifications for anything (even if they are incredibly lame). The Bible doesn't cause people to kill or commit any other immoral acts, and put in context such" justifications" are shown to be absurd. The fact that people are looking for justification shows they probably actually know what they are doing is wrong - it's like someone looking for some legal loophole to justify otherwise criminal actions. As I said, an atheist doesn't need Biblical justifications to do anything - if he wants to do something morally abhorrent, he just does it.
There's certainly no evidence that getting rid of the Bible will make people more moral or less violent. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were able to commit horrendous crimes without giving any scriptural justifications. Today, studies show a drastic decline in religious practice, and that the majority of Americans, including self-professed Christians, rarely or never read the Bible, nor attend Church services. However, there has certainly been no attendant decline in violence or immoral activity.


[quote]You know what, never mind. I see this as another dead horse on the horizon.



That's your right. But do you understand why I see yours as subjective too?[/quote]
I thought as an atheist you saw [i]all[/i] morality as subjective.

The whole debate is over whether objective morality exists, period.

[quote]After a quick read it's interesting to note that within the Church the ones who actually wanted the abolition of slavery were non conforming believers. The Church spoke against the slave trade, but there's no reference to them actually wanting to abolish it in that period. Some Popes even had their slaves. [/quote]
Popes can sin like everybody else. Some Popes even held mistresses and fathered illegitimate children, but that didn't change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexual morality. (Though, as someone famously noted, the wonder is not that there have been immoral popes, but that there have been so few of them.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "non conforming believers." Slavery was abolished in Catholic countries long before it was in Protestant America.
And it should be noted that the abolitionists were religious Christians, not atheists or secularists.

[quote]Is objective morality unchanging?[/quote]
Yes.




[quote]Yes, because without more than an individual morality is meaningless. What would be the point of telling someone who has no contact and never comes into contact with another person that killing is wrong? Also, this person has had no upbringing in a cultural context which taught him that killing is wrong.

Supposing this person did come into contact with another, what reasons might he find to not kill? Or to kill?

I think it's a social construct. It's more complicated to pin down what some of the premises are and how much is nature/nurture.[/quote]
While as an atheist you'd disagree, but as a Christians, we believe individuals can sin against their own selves and God, as well as other persons.

But that aside, that "argument" is a silly one. While a person living in solitary confinement may not be able to commit murder of other immoral acts against another person, it would still be wrong for him to do so if he does come into contact with others.
Whether I personally have an opportunity to steal or not, stealing is still an immoral act.


[quote]I take the consequentialist approach to this. In the context of banning condom use, Christianity is not making things any better in Africa. In fact, it may be responsible for future colapse.[/quote]
The Church teaches chastity, which is far more effective than condoms. The last I checked, no one has ever died from chastity.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307599533' post='2251583']
Atheism can and does shape ideologies or what people believe. People conform their ideologies to Atheism or any other ism's. Atheism shaped the ideologies of the Communists and other positive atheists who used their atheist beliefs to attack the Church. Their ideology was a product of positive atheism. The idea that man is an animal with no soul is a product or result of rejecting the existence of God. The justification for killing millions of people is based on the belief that morality does not exist and that man is just an animal. And that is a result of believing man has no soul that again leads back to Atheism.

It is simply not reasonable to accept that atheism (negitive or positive), agnosticism, or theism does not shape what people believe about existence, truth, morality etc. Because it does, whether or not God exists makes a difference and shapes what we believe about reality. You've shown yourself your agnosticism shapes what you believe about truth and morals and what you do not believe, and/or doubt about truth and morals.
[/quote]

Atheism is not a structured ideology. There's nothing about it to keep it from accepting any idea from any ideology, except the belief in god(s) because then it wouldn't be called athiesm.

Within atheism you have everything from people who believe in aliens, ghosts, to an Buddhist athiestic approach where the existence of gods isn't denied, but is seen as irrelevant and unnecessary to their lives on Earth. You can't really accuratly apply the word 'atheist' with defined beliefs to a varied group of people as if they were all the same and saw things the same way.

Edited June 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1307600653' post='2251588']
Didn't see anybody answer this, but the Church is infallible only on matters of the Faith (including morality &c), not on other fields such as science. The Church cannot speak infallibly on things such as astronomy, leaving room for changed teaching there.

(For instance something you may or may not know (I'd bet on "may not" , but who knows?): the fact that our priests must remain celibate is a matter of discipline. If the Pope saw fit to allow priests to marry* effective tomorrow, that would be completely kosher and not mess with the whole infallibility thing at all.)



[i][size="1"]*Strictly speaking, priests would never be able to marry, but married men would be able to be ordained as priests. I omitted this above in the interest of being concise.[/size][/i]
[/quote]

Interesting. No, I didn't know that...

Edited June 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307648616' post='2251719']
Atheism is not a structured ideology. There's nothing about it to keep it from accepting any idea from any ideology.

Within atheism you have everything from people who believe in aliens, ghosts, to Buddhists you don't deny the existence of gods, but see that as irrelevant to their lives on Earth. You can't really accuratly apply the word 'atheist' with defined beliefs to a varied group of people as if they were all the same and saw things the same way.
[/quote]

Atheism certainly can be a well structured ideology, Communists and other positive atheists have proven that fact. There is something about Atheism that does keep it from accepting ideas from certain ideologies. Such as objective moral truth. Atheism can and is often a doctrine when it comes to the meaning of existence, the dignity of man and numerous other factors from love to evil. Because it denies the existence of objective truth and objective morality.

It may effect each individual different ways but it does shape and it does effect what people believe. In this way Atheism is a doctrine and is an ideology which differs from person to person (who is an actual atheist.) But agnosticism does effect agnostics in a similar manner.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1307641921' post='2251676']
Of course, as you've probably surmised, many of my deeply held beliefs regarding right and wrong are diametrically opposed to your ideals.
But people like myself who believe in "traditional" morality and the sanctity of human life have every right to act on, and vote according to, our conscience, and I will continue to challenge any attempts by the state to infringe on those rights.

There no reason why your ideals (whether you want to label them "atheistic," "humanist," or anything else) must be given priority over mine or anyone else's.

I don't want my tax money going funding the killing of innocent unborn children, nor funding research which involves deliberately killing innocent human life.
I don't want my tax money supporting the promotion of immoral behavior, and teaching it to young children as acceptable.

I believe at the very least as a Christian, I should have a right to not be forced to give my money to fund things contrary to my conscience and morally abhorrent, and I will not stop fighting for that right.

And if you have a government bypassing constitutional limits, and actively opposing any practices or decisions of the people it deems to be based on "religious" morality (even if it has nothing to do with the establishment of a state church, or even religion per se), you wind up with a totalitarian tyranny similar to that of Communist countries - which you say you oppose.[/quote]


[quote]But I thought according to you there is no such thing as objective morality. [/quote]

Like I said, that's your right. I reject the claim that there are objective morals and oppose those who say that they know the true right and wrong, but will analyse for myself whether I think there is merit in each idea of people who follow what they call an objective moral framework.

IMO society is just that, groups of people trying to find a way to reach a common good and constantly bickering and fighting over what that common good is and how to reach it. It's way better to have bickering than a monopoly. These things just shouldn't be left in the hands of one group.


[quote]Who determines what is and isn't "ignorance"? The government?[/quote]

Pfft. You kidding me?


[quote]As I said, people can use always come up with justifications for anything (even if they are incredibly lame). The Bible doesn't cause people to kill or commit any other immoral acts, and put in context such" justifications" are shown to be absurd. The fact that people are looking for justification shows they probably actually know what they are doing is wrong - it's like someone looking for some legal loophole to justify otherwise criminal actions. As I said, an atheist doesn't need Biblical justifications to do anything - if he wants to do something morally abhorrent, he just does it.
There's certainly no evidence that getting rid of the Bible will make people more moral or less violent. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were able to commit horrendous crimes without giving any scriptural justifications. Today, studies show a drastic decline in religious practice, and that the majority of Americans, including self-professed Christians, rarely or never read the Bible, nor attend Church services. However, there has certainly been no attendant decline in violence or immoral activity.[/quote]

True.

[quote]I thought as an atheist you saw [i]all[/i] morality as subjective.

The whole debate is over whether objective morality exists, period.[/quote]

Yes.


[quote]Popes can sin like everybody else. Some Popes even held mistresses and fathered illegitimate children, but that didn't change the Church's teaching on marriage and sexual morality. (Though, as someone famously noted, the wonder is not that there have been immoral popes, but that there have been so few of them.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "non conforming believers." Slavery was abolished in Catholic countries long before it was in Protestant America.[/quote]

Non conforming catholics, not protestants.

[quote]And it should be noted that the abolitionists were religious Christians, not atheists or secularists.[/quote]

Were there really any outspoken well known influential atheist/secularists at all in those days?


[quote]While as an atheist you'd disagree, but as a Christians, we believe individuals can sin against their own selves and God, as well as other persons.

But that aside, that "argument" is a silly one. While a person living in solitary confinement may not be able to commit murder of other immoral acts against another person, it would still be wrong for him to do so if he does come into contact with others.
Whether I personally have an opportunity to steal or not, stealing is still an immoral act.[/quote]

Why is it silly? I mean, how do you even know? I'm assuming that like the majority of other people living on the planet, you've never lived in complete solitude before having to learn how to get along with other people.

How do you know that what you hold as right and wrong weren't taught to you in part?

Think of it as a thought experiment. Imagine you lived isolated all your life (doesn't have to solitary confinement) stranded somewhere with no access to other human beings and came into contact somehow with one other person who had something that you wish you had yourself. You never heard of the church or read it's teachings.

If you're able to imagine yourself in this scenario, what would be the good reasons [i]not[/i] to steal that thing you wish you had?


[quote]The Church teaches chastity, which is far more effective than condoms. The last I checked, no one has ever died from chastity.[/quote]

Doesn't look like the Church's teachings are really working then.

In contrast, in the west, teaching sex education, informing about AIDS and other STDs, and the responsible use of condoms is at least keeping AIDS under control. In Africa the percentages of HIV positive people are staggeringly high. That's not going to come cheap.

Edited June 9, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307649619' post='2251725']
Atheism certainly can be a well structured ideology, Communists and other positive atheists have proven that fact. There is something about Atheism that does keep it from accepting ideas from certain ideologies. Such as objective moral truth. Atheism can and is often a doctrine when it comes to the meaning of existence, the dignity of man and numerous other factors from love to evil. Because it denies the existence of objective truth and objective morality.

It may effect each individual different ways but it does shape and it does effect what people believe. In this way Atheism is a doctrine and is an ideology which differs from person to person (who is an actual atheist.) But agnosticism does effect agnostics in a similar manner.
[/quote]

[i]Atheism[/i] is[i] not[/i] a structured ideology, it's just a word to describe a group of people with varied beliefs among themselves but without a belief in god or gods. Communism is not equal to atheism.

Sure, there are some things that logically follow, such as whatever belief which has god as a source is also rejected. An atheist wouldn't say that an objective morality exists and comes from god, but on the subject of morality, you have atheists who are everything from moral nihilists to those who accept a rigid non objective moral framework in much the same way that religious groups do, with their ideas of clearly defined right and wrongs, regardless of context.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307650477' post='2251732']
[i]Atheism[/i] is[i] not[/i] a structured ideology, it's just a word to describe a group of people with varied beliefs among themselves but without a belief in god or gods. Communism is not equal to atheism. [/quote]

Keep living the dream. You're opinions are not based in reality, I am sorry, the Communists were/are Atheists who did/do enforce the propaganda of Atheism. Without objective truth you cannot actually say with any absolute certitude that their atheism is not atheism or atheism is not their ideology.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307650477' post='2251732']Sure, there are some things that logically follow, such as whatever belief which has god as a source is also rejected. An atheist wouldn't say that an objective morality exists and comes from god, but on the subject of morality, you have atheists who are everything from moral nihilists to those who accept a rigid non objective moral framework in much the same way that religious groups do, with their ideas of clearly defined right and wrongs, regardless of context.
[/quote]

And without objective truth and objective morality all that is mere opinion changing from person to person.

Back to a previous point. How is rape always wrong? I don't believe you explained it. How is it always wrong? You cannot base it on individual opinion and you cannot base it on society. Those things are relative and some individuals and some societies believe what we think of as rape is just find and dandy. So please explain.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307650983' post='2251740']
Keep living the dream. You're opinions are not based in reality, I am sorry, the Communists were/are Atheists who did/do enforce the propaganda of Atheism. Without objective truth you cannot actually say with any absolute certitude that their atheism is not atheism or atheism is not their ideology. [/quote]

Seriously, I'm not going keep dwelling on this point. It's gotten tiring.

[quote]And without objective truth and objective morality all that is mere opinion changing from person to person.

Back to a previous point. How is rape always wrong? I don't believe you explained it. How is it always wrong? You cannot base it on individual opinion and you cannot base it on society. Those things are relative and some individuals and some societies believe what we think of as rape is just find and dandy. So please explain.[/quote]

It infringes on the personal liberty and it causes suffering. I seriously doubt even a rapist would want to be raped.

Now you tell me, why is rape always wrong?

[Mr.Cat]

Communism is a political, economic, social, and philosophical ideology... Atheism is a philosophical opinion.[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307651444' post='2251751']Seriously, I'm not going keep dwelling on this point. It's gotten tiring.[/quote]Yes, respectfully agreed.[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307651444' post='2251751']It infringes on the personal liberty and it causes suffering. I seriously doubt even a rapist would want to be raped.

Now you tell me, why is rape always wrong?[/quote]You must understand that knightofchrist thinks that atheism logically concludes in extreme nihilism, amoral behavior, communism, and no responsibility. He is immune to you.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307651444' post='2251751']
It infringes on the personal liberty and it causes suffering. I seriously doubt even a rapist would want to be raped.

Now you tell me, why is rape always wrong?
[/quote]

Personal liberty where does that come from? Who or what defines personal liberty? Have you yet defined what a person is outside what the law says a person is? Again if the law decides who and who is not a person, and what liberty is and who is afforded liberty, you just gave yet another subjective answer. If man is an animal why is it wrong to look at the immorality of rape as just a subjective construct of society? Many ape males will take their mates forcefully, but it isn't rape, many other animals will also, as well as kill other animals but it isn't murder. Why is man really that different when if he is just an animal he really isn't that different. Animals feel pain like humans but it is not immoral for one animal to harm another. It's nature.

Rape is always wrong because it is objectively immoral. It is objectively immoral because it is an offense against God and it is against the Liberty of human beings given to man by God. It is an offense against the image and likeness of God found in humans.

Edited June 9, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307651459' post='2251754']
Communism is a political, economic, social, and philosophical ideology... Atheism is a philosophical opinion.[/quote]

This. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[quote]You must understand that knightofchrist thinks that atheism logically concludes in extreme nihilism, amoral behavior, communism, and no responsibility. He is immune to you.[/quote]

I've noticed. Now its up to the one who has the most stamina.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307652328' post='2251762']
Personal liberty where does that come from? Who or what defines personal liberty? Have you yet defined what a person is outside what the law says a person is? Again if the law decides who and who is not a person, and what liberty is and who is afforded liberty, you just gave yet another subjective answer. If man is an animal why is it wrong to look at the immorality of rape as just a subjective construct of society? Many ape males will take their mates forcefully, but it isn't rape, many other animals will also, as well as kill other animals but it isn't murder. Why is man really that different when if he is just an animal he really isn't that different. Animals feel pain like humans but it is not immoral for one animal to harm another. It's nature.[/quote]

Actually I see these things having to do more wisdom of the crowds than any authoritative statement about what is wrong or right.

[quote]Rape is always wrong because it is objectively immoral. It is objectively immoral because it is an offense against God and it is against the Liberty of human beings given to man by God. It is an offense against the image and likeness of God found in humans.
[/quote]

One question: what about the biblical story of the fall of Sodom?