Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1306888260' post='2248433']
Yes he was an author /historian who wrote about the prominate people at court, he said this was the case ....WHILE Torquemada was alive and had the ability deny it refute it or punish him for it. But Torquemada did no such thing. That seems like pretty good evidence to me. You know sincere converts are the most zealous believers.

Of course they can fail, and of course there can be people reporting for less than honest reasons, however, the inquisition had protections agiant that, for onething you were allowed to give a list of your enemies 9 you were not told your accuser) and if your accuser was on that list, you were sent home. Torquemada was in many ways a penal reformer, he improved prison life tremendously.
Of course their was, on both sides. But the fact that Nroth Africans were landing and enslaving entire cities didn't help.

to some extent yes.[/quote]

The short snippet wikipedia has on him says:

[b]Hernando del Pulgar[/b] (1436 - c. 1492) was a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain"]Spanish[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writer"]writer[/url].

He was born at [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulgar"]Pulgar[/url] (near [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledo,_Spain"]Toledo[/url]) and was educated at the court of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II_of_Castile"]John II[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_Castile"]Henry IV[/url] made him one of his secretaries, and under [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabella_I_of_Castile"]Isabella[/url] he became councillor of state, was charged with a mission to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France"]France[/url], and in 1482 was appointed [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiographer"]historiographer[/url]-royal. He is said to have died in 1492.

His [i]Crónica de los Reyes Cathólicos[/i], wrongly ascribed in the first edition (1565) to [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_de_Lebrija"]Antonio de Lebrija[/url], [b]is often inaccurate and always obsequious[/b]; but the record is not without value as regards events within the author's personal experience. Pulgar's [i]Claros Varones de Castilla[/i] (1486), an account of celebrities at the court of Henry IV, is interesting in matter and style. He compiled a commentary (1485?) on the [i]Coplas de Mingo Revulgo[/i]. His [i]Letters[/i], written to various persons of eminence, were first published in 1485-1486.

I don't know.

I couldn't find what he had written, but I'm still not sure about his motivations. He could be very easily confusing the attempts of conversos to protect themselves and theirs as a plan to undermine the culture and societal fabric that the State had imposed, especially if he was a particularly loyal and subservient subject. A lot of it looks like paranoia to me.

Edited June 1, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1306865417' post='2248227']
First of all what exactly do you mean by the "dark ages"? That's a vague (and derogatory) historical term, which different historians have used to refer to different periods of history (though many current historians prefer not to use the term at all).
And what exactly in "the dark ages" allegedly refutes Christianity or Catholicism? You're making vague and nebulous charges about a vague and nebulous historical term.

No century in the "dark ages" can match the past 100 years for shear bloodshed and brutality.

As for " non tolerant enforcement of Catholicism," Protestant rulers after the Protestant revolt were much less tolerant of Catholics, and witch-burning was a largely protestant, post-Reformation phenomenon. which was largely unknown before the 1400s.

And you need to understand the history of medieval Spain to put the events there in the 15th century in perspective. Spanish Christians had recently completed a centuries-long struggle to reclaim their land from the rule of the Muslim Moors who had invaded Christian Spain and conquered it by violent force.
I'm not defending everything that went on in the Inquisition, but you need historical context to put it all in perspective. There is a lot of misinformation about the Spanish Inquisition going back to Protestant English propaganda from when they were at war with Spain. (Their own persecution of Catholics at the time was much harsher than anything that went on during the Spanish Inquisition.)
[/quote]

From the time of the Roman colapse to the renaissance (that's when the term was coined, wasn't it? That's why it was a derogatory?)

Actually nevermind, this isn't going to go anywhere. It doesn't really even matter anyways.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306868127' post='2248245']
I have no problem with monogamy, but condoms are a act of responsibility as well, especially if one already is HIV positive. It's between preaching abstinence over condoms that I find to be a wrong.
[/quote]

Condoms are anything but safe. They have a fail rate when properly used in the 10 to 20% range, but lets pretend it's 5%. Saying "Here, let me have fun, but I'll reduce your odds of getting a debilitating disease that will eventually make your life miserable and take months or years to kill you *this time to only 5%* is hardly responsible. That's not even mentioning that the virus is small enough to fit through the microscopic holes in the 'fabric'.

If you want some nice circumstantial evidence of the validity of Catholicism, look at some predictions it has made that are completely contrary to common sense (granted, I'm cherry picking one that's relevant to the discussion, but others can certainly add more):
Prior to contraception being accepted by Protestantism, the common knowledge was that it would eliminate divorce, and make for much happier marriages. The pope predicted that it would cause moral decay, lead to abortion, a weakening of marriages, and out of wedlock births. He was laughed at when he said this. "No one would commit an abortion, that's ridiculous!" "Of course it will make marriage stronger, because it will lead to more happiness!" ~Seventy years later, who one that argument?

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306796229' post='2247814']
. . .
Are you trying to compare Christianity's (as a positive belief system) track record against atheism (just denotes a lack of belief in gods) by comparing the number of people which each supposedly killed?
[/quote]
Sorry, missed that one.

I'm just pointing out the failure and hypocrisy of the popular atheist "historic track record" "argument."
It seems that atheists' current favorite tactic is to give a laundry list of alleged crimes and atrocities committed by Christians through history, and then say, "Christians did XYZ horrible things, and this proves how wrong and evil Christian religion (or religion in general) is."
However, one can just as easily (and quite accurately) give an even bigger list of crimes and atrocities committed by atheists.

The simple fact remains that the "historic track record" of atheists in political power is much worse than that of Christians. I could care less about whether they're "positive" or "negative" belief systems.

And I find the "blame game" generally a stupid waste of time, as it ultimately proves nothing about the rightness or wrongness of either Christian or atheistic beliefs.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306870489' post='2248259']
Okay. I'm analysing it from a conceptual point of view, which would hit this sort of barrier when discussing it with someone who is analysing it from a realistic point of view.




Actually I think that even if everybody in the world followed one religion they would'nt be more good or peaceful. The error I think you made there was that atheism is not a belief system but is one part of belief systems that don't believe in gods, while Christianity is. T[b]here's nothing in atheism that says that you should 'turn the other cheek' or be good and mora[/b]l so you can't construct a set of rules, attribute it to atheism and say that some atheists are bad because they were atheists. There's just no such thing.[/quote]
You've inadvertently raised a good point. Atheism does not dictate nor necessitate that people live evil or immoral lives, but neither is there any thing about atheism that sets limits on evil human behavior nor provides guidance toward living a virtuous life.
Whatever else you might say about Christian religion, it does do both of those things.
Whether you're religious or not, one has to admit that a world in which people follow the Ten Commandments (though atheists would dispute the first three) is better than one in which people do not, and merely do as they please.

[quote]This may look like a cop-out but it's not. I'm not denying that communist atheists were responsible for the atrocities, but it was not because of atheism.[/quote]
It is indeed a cop-out to blame the Christian Faith for every atrocity done by professed Christians, yet deny that atheism had anything to do with atheist atrocities against religious believers.

I'm sure the atheist anti-religious followers of Marxist-Leninist Communism would themselves strongly disagree that their atheism had nothing to do with their actions against religion.

But if you are right, all I can say as I envy your remarkable ability to know the inner minds and motivations of many men across the centuries.

[quote]The reason I asked you what you thought an atheist believe in is because time and again I've come across Christians who seem to think that atheism is a negation of everything they believe in. For instance, if somebody believes that you can only be a moral human being if you believe in god, then if you don't then you are not moral. Or that we're nihilists who don't believe in anything. I just thought I'd clear that up. [/quote]
Atheism is a negation of belief in God, nothing more, nothing less (though it commonly is coupled with hatred or contempt for religion - understandably if one believes religion inherently false).

Let's stick to what I [i]did[/i] say, thank you.


[quote]I try to analyse the systems as separate from the people trying to follow them. There's a lot of variability even within the Christian community itself.[/quote]
However, you are admittedly not knowledgeable of either Christian Scripture nor Church teachings, yet are quick to blame them for all kinds of evil.


[quote]No, but it's giving people fish rather than teaching them to fish. Though I know that making fishermen of people is a way more complicated process, especially with all the non religious issues going on. [/quote]
Who said that Christians never "teach people to fish"? There are plenty of Christian educational programs to help people learn life skills and improve their lives. The Church has been known for its schools and educational endeavors for centuries (including those aimed at providing education for the less fortunate).

However, when dealing with a young AIDS orphan, or a leper dying on the streets of Calcutta, or a family who just lost everything in a natural disaster, is it reasonable to begrudge one for attending to their immediate needs before offering them career training?

There are many Christian charitable missions and programs attending to a wide variety of different needs. I'm sure a simple web search can return many examples.
However, no doubt none of them would meet with your approval, as it seems you've already made up your little mind that Christians can do no good.



[quote]Those were about one country, Uganda, which is hardly the whole African continent in which Christian influence using the scripture as a basis has taken over its legislature (based on unreasonable premises).

As for the rest, each portion of Christian Africa has its own problems, some more related to or instigated by religion than others.[/quote]
Every part of the world has its own problems.


[quote]Can you provide links to dispel the "propaganda" or are you just saying?[/quote]
I already linked you to a whole slew of articles dispelling the "Nazi" and "Hitler's Pope" propaganda.

I can provide more if you want them.
I honestly don't have the time to refute every single statement on an entire website full of nonsense, but let me know if they're any specific points you want me to address.


[quote]I have my doubts as to whether they are more "spiritually" satisfied because they are Christians. In my experience with poorer people I've come to a conclusion that they're simply happier because life is simpler and they're free from the endless pursuit of trying to find meaning in consumers, creating and then trying to fill one void at a time. I've lived in South Africa, though a long time ago, and have not had direct contact with missionaries there.

The problem with religious escapism is that if you live in hopeless conditions (not just poverty but endless war and conflict right on your backyard) and somebody promises you a savior that guarantees that when you die you'll be free from all that, it just too easy to devote yourself purely to spiritual matters such as going to church and studying the bible instead of trying to build something for yourself to better your worldly existence. I think it's understandable, but it doesn't make things any better, obviously.[/quote]
Yeah, cause nothing brings joy more than abject poverty. Just one post ago you were saying that Christians in harsh and desperate conditions were unhappy and violent. At least try to be consistent.
I've seen Christian Faith bring joy and meaning to the lives of rich and poor alike - it's not a socio-economic thing. And studies repeatedly show that religious people as a whole are happier than unbelievers.

If find your dismissal of religious faith as mere escapism is rather inaccurate and condescending, but then again I lack your infinite insights into every one else's hidden motivations.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306870574' post='2248260']
YouTube produces videos?[/quote]
No, it's more of a source of conferring official legitimacy to one's statements. Kind of a secular magisterium.
Once one's views are posted on Youtube, they are given a stamp of Truthfulness and must not be disputed by mortals.

[quote]Seriously now, it was a journalistic report in which a community leader was complaining that religion was directing people's attention in this way.[/quote]
I'm sure it was extremely serious and professional. And we all know how "religion" (unlike atheism) is a monolithic entity (rather like the Borg).


[quote]Just chartering a goldfish's movements from outside the fishbowl...[/quote]
More like a tiny goldfish selectively viewing tiny parts of a huge vast deep ocean . . .


[quote]No, it doesn't make it any less real, but of those Christians, did the majority of the groups have a religious foreign or domestic power?[/quote]
Say what?


[quote]Using the example of Uganda again, does the NT say anything about homosexuals? If not, then why do people cherry pick especially that passage from the OT to use as a basis?[/quote]
Yes, homosexual activity is mentioned as immoral several times in the Epistles of St. Paul. However, it mentions conversion from immoral behavior - nothing about stoning homosexuals.
"And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God."(1 Cor. 6:11)

As for stoning people for sexual immorality, Christians have generally heeded the words of Christ Himself who saved the woman caught in adultery: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7)

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1306961669' post='2248906']
Condoms are anything but safe. They have a fail rate when properly used in the 10 to 20% range, but lets pretend it's 5%. Saying "Here, let me have fun, but I'll reduce your odds of getting a debilitating disease that will eventually make your life miserable and take months or years to kill you *this time to only 5%* is hardly responsible. That's not even mentioning that the virus is small enough to fit through the microscopic holes in the 'fabric'.[/quote]

Even if they had a fail rate of 80% it's still better than 100% (as it would be in this context if condoms are not used). Just to be sure, what exactly are you defending? The non use of condoms in general or just within marriages?

Also, if you want compare the number of viral molecules that can get through the fabric and the number contained in semen, just to let you know, semen has a much higher chance of actually infecting (as in causing an autoimmune response) than a few viruses which might not even be enough to be detected in blood tests.

Even between married monogamous couples, if one or both are HIV positive, they should still use condoms because one characteristic of the AIDS virus is that it mutates frequently (there are many types in the HIV "family") so someone with one type can still get infected with a more aggressive strain.

[quote]If you want some nice circumstantial evidence of the validity of Catholicism, look at some predictions it has made that are completely contrary to common sense (granted, I'm cherry picking one that's relevant to the discussion, but others can certainly add more):
Prior to contraception being accepted by Protestantism, the common knowledge was that it would eliminate divorce, and make for much happier marriages. The pope predicted that it would cause moral decay, lead to abortion, a weakening of marriages, and out of wedlock births. He was laughed at when he said this. "No one would commit an abortion, that's ridiculous!" "Of course it will make marriage stronger, because it will lead to more happiness!" ~Seventy years later, who one that argument?[/quote]

I don't trust statistics that much, but I think I came across one study that spoke of this...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1306974598' post='2248980']
Sorry, missed that one.

I'm just pointing out the failure and hypocrisy of the popular atheist "historic track record" "argument."
It seems that atheists' current favorite tactic is to give a laundry list of alleged crimes and atrocities committed by Christians through history, and then say, "Christians did XYZ horrible things, and this proves how wrong and evil Christian religion (or religion in general) is."
However, one can just as easily (and quite accurately) give an even bigger list of crimes and atrocities committed by atheists.

The simple fact remains that the "historic track record" of atheists in political power is much worse than that of Christians. I could care less about whether they're "positive" or "negative" belief systems.

And I find the "blame game" generally a stupid waste of time, as it ultimately proves nothing about the rightness or wrongness of either Christian or atheistic beliefs.

It is indeed a cop-out to blame the Christian Faith for every atrocity done by professed Christians, yet deny that atheism had anything to do with atheist atrocities against religious believers.

I'm sure the atheist anti-religious followers of Marxist-Leninist Communism would themselves strongly disagree that their atheism had nothing to do with their actions against religion.[/quote]

I agree that the blame game is pointless when trying to place the onus on another's hands for what that person hasn't done, but the whole point I've been making here is that 'atheism' really doesn't say much about what you can blame in the first place. If you say that atheists did something and it were true, then I wouldn't deny it, but when you speak of 'atheism', it's a non thing to begin with.

As for Christianity and all other positive belief systems (meaning that they [i]have[/i] structured beliefs) I think it's perfectly valid to criticize the beliefs, given that you're aware that people are not the same as the systems they try to follow. Though I agree now that it's pointless to play the blame game for what a belief system caused in the past but no longer does today. I'll make a more conscious effort not to fall into that game from now on, though that still doesn't mean that I think that the claims that today's Christians make shouldn't be challenged if deemed bad or unreasonable for our current knowledge and values.

Another illustration to make my point :

Say someone were to say that theists were responsible for the worst atrocities in human history and then goes on to list a number of things that one sub group within the larger group of 'theists' such as Muslims did and attribute it to Catholics, just because your belief system is also contained within the category even though let's say the only thing that you shared in common was a belief in god.

As for the atheism example, if you want to criticize humanism which is what most atheists are for what humanists have done, it's one thing because those [i]are [/i]a set of beliefs and the categorization would be valid. I'm not a Communist or much less a Stalinist or Maoist, so...go tell [i]them[/i] how bad their ideologies are.


[quote]You've inadvertently raised a good point. Atheism does not dictate nor necessitate that people live evil or immoral lives, but neither is there any thing about atheism that sets limits on evil human behavior nor provides guidance toward living a virtuous life.
Whatever else you might say about Christian religion, it does do both of those things.
Whether you're religious or not, one has to admit that a world in which people follow the Ten Commandments (though atheists would dispute the first three) is better than one in which people do not, and merely do as they please.[/quote]

Yes, though you do know that the basic ideas there are way older than the Old Testament, right? The golden rule included.

Some morality can overlap very well between athiests and thiests of all religions, though atheism has nothing to say about those issues. You can't infer what someone thinks is moral based on them being an athiest.


[quote]But if you are right, all I can say as I envy your remarkable ability to know the inner minds and motivations of many men across the centuries.[/quote]

It makes [u]no[/u] sense for a totalitarian government to try and eradicate a religion simply because they don't believe. That would be like persecuting people for believing in garden gnomes.

The difference between people that believe in gnomes and those that believe in gods, from an atheistic and even anti religious perspective is that gnomes don't have an organised following that might pose a political threat. Gnomes don't have Churches and the equivalent of a governmental Head such as the Pope in the case of Catholicism and the Patriarch as in the case of the eastern Orthodox, not to mention bishops etc which do wield some power over people. It's a real threat to a totalitarian dictator.


[quote]Atheism is a negation of belief in God, nothing more, nothing less (though it commonly is coupled with hatred or contempt for religion - understandably if one believes religion inherently false).

Let's stick to what I [i]did[/i] say, thank you.[/quote]

Just to clear any doubts.

[quote]However, you are admittedly not knowledgeable of either Christian Scripture nor Church teachings, yet are quick to blame them for all kinds of evil.[/quote]

I'll try to focus them from now on and blame them for the evils that are both relevent and not falsely attributed by me.

[quote]Who said that Christians never "teach people to fish"? There are plenty of Christian educational programs to help people learn life skills and improve their lives. The Church has been known for its schools and educational endeavors for centuries (including those aimed at providing education for the less fortunate).

However, when dealing with a young AIDS orphan, or a leper dying on the streets of Calcutta, or a family who just lost everything in a natural disaster, is it reasonable to begrudge one for attending to their immediate needs before offering them career training?

There are many Christian charitable missions and programs attending to a wide variety of different needs. I'm sure a simple web search can return many examples.
[u]However, no doubt none of them would meet with your approval, as it seems you've already made up your little mind that Christians can do no good.[/u][/quote]

Jeez. :rolleyes:Talk about missing the point completely...


[quote]Yeah, cause nothing brings joy more than abject poverty. [/quote]

Yeah, because happiness is all about having a lot of money and things. Nothing buys more joy than those.

[quote]Just one post ago you were saying that Christians in harsh and desperate conditions were unhappy and violent. At least try to be consistent.
I've seen Christian Faith bring joy and meaning to the lives of rich and poor alike - it's not a socio-economic thing. And studies repeatedly show that religious people as a whole are happier than unbelievers.[/quote]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...rewind...


"These are African Christians who live in harsh and sometimes hopeless conditions, not the happy and satisfied Christians that live a normal life with its ups and downs but get by."

Telephone game...right there...

Maybe I should've elaborated a bit more on the comparison. The 'poor' people (who were not all Christians btw) were not below 'miserably poor' line that divides those that do get by (work, have a house, have food etc) with those who live with up to one to two dollars per family per day. Many in Africa would be classified as that second kind of poor.

[quote]If find your dismissal of religious faith as mere escapism is rather inaccurate and condescending, but then again I lack your infinite insights into every one else's hidden motivations.[/quote]

I'm glad I lack your uncanny ability to put words in another's mouth and then attack them.

Where did I say that religious faith was [i]mere [/i]escapism? I said that in certain conditions it can easily become that and that I find it totally understandable, though not in the condescending way. I'm not judging these people in these circumstances.

But hey, if the situation really is hopeless and there really only so much they can do with all the other factors that go on then who can blame them? Though religion for those has its good side and it's bad, meaning they find some sort of meaning in their lives but not for their lives.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306985925' post='2249051']
I agree that the blame game is pointless when trying to place the onus on another's hands for what that person hasn't done, but the whole point I've been making here is that 'atheism' really doesn't say much about what you can blame in the first place. If you say that atheists did something and it were true, then I wouldn't deny it, but when you speak of 'atheism', it's a non thing to begin with.

As for Christianity and all other positive belief systems (meaning that they [i]have[/i] structured beliefs) I think it's perfectly valid to criticize the beliefs, given that you're aware that people are not the same as the systems they try to follow. Though I agree now that it's pointless to play the blame game for what a belief system caused in the past but no longer does today. I'll make a more conscious effort not to fall into that game from now on, though that still doesn't mean that I think that the claims that today's Christians make shouldn't be challenged if deemed bad or unreasonable for our current knowledge and values.

Another illustration to make my point :

Say someone were to say that theists were responsible for the worst atrocities in human history and then goes on to list a number of things that one sub group within the larger group of 'theists' such as Muslims did and attribute it to Catholics, just because your belief system is also contained within the category even though let's say the only thing that you shared in common was a belief in god.

As for the atheism example, if you want to criticize humanism which is what most atheists are for what humanists have done, it's one thing because those [i]are [/i]a set of beliefs and the categorization would be valid. I'm not a Communist or much less a Stalinist or Maoist, so...go tell [i]them[/i] how bad their ideologies are.

[/quote]

Just curious, as an atheist how do you structure and order morality? totally off topic, but i think that it is appropriate to this discussion

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306990014' post='2249067']
Just curious, as an atheist how do you structure and order morality? totally off topic, but i think that it is appropriate to this discussion[/quote]

Of those things that you're free to choose, you choose whatever you want based on the reasons you find relevant. Of those who value a reasoned approach, they will adopt a system of values that they feel are reasonable. Though among atheists you have everything from nihilists to people who adopt a system of morality very similar to a religious one but without the supernatural element or god in the picture.

For instance, an atheist can look at a moral teaching or message in the Bible and accept it as perfectly reasonable and worth having even though he or she remains an atheist.

There are arguments that support that some of the pro-social things that are contained in the 10 commandments, such as don't kill and don't steal have are both hardwired (based on a particular type of neuron called the 'mirror neuron' and natural psychological characteristics) and socially cultivated and encouraged behaviours. Psychologically normal people don't kill others (not counting self-defense) and in most situations don't steal from others either (not counting cases such as starving thieves or those with families to feed).

A great majority of normal people accept that harming others is bad in the majority of cases. What constitutes 'harm' is basically what you wouldn't want to experience yourself. This is the reasoned basis for the golden rule. The closer a society is to this, hypothetically in its simplistic terms, the more stable it is and therefore more able to survive. On the other hand a society where most people kill eachother will eventually die out or collapse, and will ultimately not benefit the people doing the killing. Or it will, depending on the case, but the barrier against intentionally killing others in most cases is psychological in normal people.

Though morality is a complicated and intricate subject, to put it simply you start with a few premises and build from there, being sensitive to context and even reconsidering based on your values if need be.

Edited June 2, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Amppax]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306991857' post='2249080']
[b]Of those things that you're free to choose, you choose whatever you want based on the reasons you find relevant. Of those who value a reasoned approach,[/b] they will adopt a system of values that they feel are reasonable. Though among atheists you have everything from nihilists to people who adopt a system of morality very similar to a religious one but without the supernatural element or god in the picture.

For instance, an atheist can look at a moral teaching or message in the Bible and accept it as perfectly reasonable and worth having even though he or she remains an atheist.

There are arguments that support that some of the pro-social things that are contained in the 10 commandments, such as don't kill and don't steal have are both hardwired (based on a particular type of neuron called the 'mirror neuron' and natural psychological characteristics) and socially cultivated and encouraged behaviours. Psychologically normal people don't kill others (not counting self-defense) and in most situations don't steal from others either (not counting cases such as starving thieves or those with families to feed).

A great majority of normal people accept that harming others is bad in the majority of cases. What constitutes 'harm' is basically what you wouldn't want to experience yourself. This is the reasoned basis for the golden rule. The closer a society is to this, hypothetically in its simplistic terms, the more stable it is and therefore more able to survive. On the other hand a society where most people kill eachother will eventually die out or collapse, and will ultimately not benefit the people doing the killing.

Though morality is a complicated and intricate subject, to put it simply you start with a few premises and build from there, being sensitive to context and even reconsidering based on your values if need be.
[/quote]

specifically focusing on the highlighted statement, what are you free to choose? How is this determined?

I would also think that "not harming others" is a good baseline for morality, but where do you draw the line?

Edited June 2, 2011 by Amppax

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1306975443' post='2248987']
No, it's more of a source of conferring official legitimacy to one's statements. Kind of a secular magisterium.
Once one's views are posted on Youtube, they are given a stamp of Truthfulness and must not be disputed by mortals.


I'm sure it was extremely serious and professional. And we all know how "religion" (unlike atheism) is a monolithic entity (rather like the Borg).[/quote]

I'm assuming you haven't been visiting YouTube much lately if you think that people actually think that the site itself is a stamp of legitimacy. Well I couldn't find the documentary anyways, but it was not "YouTube's", but BBC's Dispatches I think (though not really sure), which I think offers it slightly a bit more credibility than your average Vlogger.

[quote]More like a tiny goldfish selectively viewing tiny parts of a huge vast deep ocean . . .[/quote]

Hmm...actually a goldfish would die in the ocean...

[quote]Say what?[/quote]

I think I clarified it now, though if you need me to clarify it some more, please don't throw in some more ad hominems...they add nothing.

[quote]Yes, homosexual activity is mentioned as immoral several times in the Epistles of St. Paul. However, it mentions conversion from immoral behavior - nothing about stoning homosexuals.
"And such some of you were. But you are washed: but you are sanctified: but you are justified: in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God."(1 Cor. 6:11)

As for stoning people for sexual immorality, Christians have generally heeded the words of Christ Himself who saved the woman caught in adultery: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7)
[/quote]

Why is homosexuality immoral?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306870489' post='2248259']
This may look like a cop-out but it's not. I'm not denying that communist atheists were responsible for the atrocities, but it was not because of atheism.
[/quote]

Communist States like the USSR were/are officially atheist. Outlawed religion and specifically targeted religious people. And it wasn't because of atheism? Hard to believe. Also atheists must come to the realization that atheism can be a [i]positive[/i] belief, not just negative. The atheism that the Communist employ(ed) is a form of [i]positive [/i]atheism.

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism" - Vladimir Lenin


Edited for typos, that I could find :]

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306992855' post='2249085']
Why is homosexuality immoral?
[/quote]

It is against the natural law. But purely from a naturalist/Darwinist POV homosexual is against nature. It endangers the propagation of the species.

Edited June 2, 2011 by KnightofChrist

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1306992059' post='2249082']
specifically focusing on the highlighted statement, what are you free to choose? How is this determined?[/quote]

Two things:

There are legal rules that you can't really choose not to follow and not pay the legal consequence for and there are the things that society sort of chooses for you. If you go against them, you also suffer the social consequences . On the second, it's your call, especially if there are social groups in which you don't suffer social consequences such as ostracism (which for a social species such as us, is usually undesirable for most).

There's a species of cooperative vampire bat who lives in large social groups. After they return to their cave before dawn they regurgitate and share blood with those who were less lucky in finding food. If a bat for some reason refuses to share blood with another, it's marked and ostracised by the group and when that marked bat happens to be the unlucky one, the others aren't too enthusiastic to share with it.

I find this example to be interesting and apply on some basis, though bats would never reason through the pros and cons when weighing a decision on whether or not to share food with another.

You're free to choose your motivations for your actions and for cases not involving worse harm (such as killing, physically or emotionally harming, stealing etc.) [i]you're free to choose what you feel is pro social. [/i]


[quote]I would also think that "not harming others" is a good baseline for morality, but where do you draw the line?[/quote]

Depends on the context, there's no absolute answer. You have to analyse whether harm is necessary or the situation where there will be less harm. There's a hierarchy of course, for instance choosing to kill someone is much worse than stealing from them.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1306993955' post='2249090']
Depends on the context, there's no absolute answer. You have to analyse whether harm is necessary or the situation where there will be less harm. [b]There's a hierarchy of course, for instance choosing to kill someone is much worse than stealing from them.[/b]
[/quote]

If there is no absolute answer then there is no such thing as objectivity i.e. objective good and objective evil. Therefore any "hierarchy" constructed is purely subjective, so murder is not necessarily "much worse" than theft. The "hierarchy" idea itself cannot stand because any part of the hierarchy can be rearranged or moved - and no objective argument can be made for or against where each "crime" (which is also relative) is placed or replaced.