Decay of Civilization - Generation by Generation

[Minkoff]

To murder is consistent with atheism, but likewise so is being nice, because essentialy in atheism you are your own God, and you decide right and wrong.

In saying that, you just prove that you don't really understand either Atheism or morals. Arbitrarily making up your own moral code isn't part of Atheism. If that were the case, and it was completely arbitrary, then more Atheists than other people would be running around killing and generally doing bad things. The fact is that they don't. Put simply, people have a better chance of survival if they work together. Evolution undoubtedly favors people who treat other people well. That's why people know not to murder, steal, etc regardless of whether or not we're Christians. Morals == survival. It is not in line with the beliefs of someone who trusts in evolutionary science to murder. Do not try to tell atheists what atheists believe, because you just don't get it.

HOWEVER (Big however) The spanish inquisition, the crusades and all other so called holy wars, plus the violence in ireland and any other forms of violence supposedly in the name of God are NOT consistent with christianity.

You missed the point. Whether or not their interpretation of the Bible was "correct," people killed because of Christianity. Where there is religion with such an enormous, vague set of guidelines, there will be people using it to justify violence. People do bad things. Regardless of which religion is dominant or if there is no religion, there will be morals, and there will be people who pay more and less attention to them. And it's incredibly self-righteous of you to say that your religion is the only one that will lead to a happy world without understanding the other ones.

 

[Jonathan]

The Bible was used as a political tool, a vague means of justification, yet with no scriptural basis. since not many people had access to the Bible in the times of the crusades, the Pope was able to use the supposed 'scriptual' evidence to justify a war. But the evidence wasn't there.

Maybe you missed the point. If people decide to miss quote the Bible, then what fault of God's is that? If people try to justify their violence from non-existant arguments, then how is that Christianities fault?

And How is "Love your neighbour as yourself" vague?
What i was saying about atheism was this: If someone did murder, then there is in effect no reason why he shouldn't. There is no solid, unchangable moral guidelines. Yes there are the Laws of society, but ultimately that person is free to "do what is right in his own eyes."

I wasn't trying to tell atheists what they believe, and if it came across that way i'm sorry. What i was trying to get across is that 'Holy wars' and violence is not consistent with the Bible, wheras Eugenics and Letting the People starving in other countries die would be consistent with an Evolutionary worldview. AND I'M NOT SAYING ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE THAT. In fact probably an incredible tiny minority would be like that. But the thing is, if someone were to be like that, they wouldn't be being Hypocritical.

As for morals, we have morals not because they are 'evolutionarily (is that a word?) beneficial', but because we are made in God's image.

Evolution doesn't neccesarily treat nice people better. In fact, If you were to lie and Backstab and maybe murder your way to the top, you would be likely to pass on your genes a lot more than if you were just someone who always treated other people nicely. This isn't always the case though, and again, I'm not saying everyone is like this. All I'm saying is that evolution doesn't undoubtedly favour those who are nice.

Beleiving the Bible to be unshakeably the Word of God, and believing the God of the Bible to undoubtedly exist is not self righteous. I Have done NOTHING in my life of any merit to get myself to Heaven, I have done nothing even relatively good to get my self 'in there' with God. I still lie, and i'm often still horrible to people, I never seem to do anything right, and i'm definately not proud of these things. But if I am going to Boast about anything, I'll boast that God is so fantastically awesome that any time I do do these things, he is always waiting for me when I turn around.

I haven't a clue why he would even bother with people on earth, but he does and that is amazing.

I don't believe it is self-righteous to believe the Word of God after he has done all this for me, and in the Word of God he says:

"I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me." (Emphasis Added)

I don't think it is at all self righteous to believe God when he says there is only one way to him, and that is through Jesus.

 

[Minkoff]

Whoosh. Forget it, I'm done here.

 

[Jonathan]

???

 

[Roman Candle]

I have to admit, I'm feeling almost the same way as Minkoff right now :p

Evolution is not a life philosophy or a 'world view'. It's a scientific model to describe how species diversify. It's not an opponent to religion; it's not an enemy to religion; it's not even related to religion. You really need to stop being so defencive. The world is not defined in terms of theists versus scientists. There's no reason to keep bringing it up. Evolution has nothing to do with moralism. Evolution only applies to animals which cannot reason out their situations and cannot abstractly decide on their courses of action. We can. We don't go around saying things like "This man is rich and powerful, therefore I must have thrty children by him", or "This woman is the most fertile. Therefore I must own her and impregnate her as many times as possible before I die". Evolution has nothing to do with modern society, and nothing to do with moralism.

what fault of God's is that?

Calm down! No one said, implied or even hinted that they were blaming the inquisition on God! All that was said was that belief in God does not guarantee perfect moralism - not even an ambition to perfect moralism. No one's saying that religion is bad - we're just saying that it's not any better than any other moral code.

Murder is wrong because it just is. It just is! There doesn't have to be a reason. It just is. No one's ever stood up and said "I commited cold blooded murder because ... Why not?". If you don't commit muder because God tells you not to, that's not moralism. That's just doing what you're told. When you don't commit muder because you believe it's wrong - for religious reasons or not - that's when you have morals.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Unless someone is being violent towards me, I'm not a violent person nowadays.

I used to get very violent and do horrible acts towards people. Reguardless of any law or god. Then, one day, when I really wanted to hurt someone an image drifted into my mind.

A dog I had smacked when I was 6. A real playful dog that I loved to play with, but wouldn't stop jumping on me. The dog never played with me again, and gave me such a sad look all the time. And so, I don't get violent towards people. A push, I shrug it off. Not until it comes down to me being injured do I fight, because now I always think of a sad puppied eyed dog.

Empathy. Not god, not evolution, not the law of the land and not what other people have told me. That, and evolution has nothing to do with morals. Neither does God's word - as they are viewed the same as legal laws by most people, which shows how much that affects us. Simple empathetic nudges.

 

[Jonathan]

Murder is wrong because it just is. It just is! There doesn't have to be a reason. It just is. No one's ever stood up and said "I commited cold blooded murder because ... Why not?". If you don't commit muder because God tells you not to, that's not moralism.

But where does that in built sense of morality come from?

Evolution is not a life philosophy or a 'world view'.

In a way, if you believe in evolution, you will look at the world differently to if you beleive in special creation by god, so in a sense it is.

@sixtyandaquarter: again, Where did the ability to be emphatic come from? A tree isn't emphatic, even monkeys aren't emphatic. Sometimes, when mother baboons cross rivers with their baby clinging to their underside, they get drowned, because the mother assumes it can breathe because she can. baboons can't put themselves in other people shoes: We can. That and the inbuilt sense of morality again leads me to believe we were created in the image of God.

(Sorry of i was a bit forward in the second to last post, if i was forcing things down peoples throat, i didn't mean to. Sorry.)

 

[Roman Candle]

It's BUILT IN.

Just because someone trusts that evolution is true, it doesn't mean that they see the whole world in evolution. You have some kind of major hang-up over this. It's just a scientific/economic model. It means nothing in terms of our current society.

Actually many animals do have some empathy. However, this trait is often suppresed later in life, because how can you function as, say, a carnivore, if you feel bad when you eat another animal alive? Example: Cats have empathic capacity as kittens, but as they mature their brain changes and they lose it. Which makes perfect sense.

 

[Andy6000]

The Bible was used as a political tool, a vague means of justification, yet with no scriptural basis. since not many people had access to the Bible in the times of the crusades, the Pope was able to use the supposed 'scriptual' evidence to justify a war. But the evidence wasn't there.

Why do you think the pope did that? Because he was a bad guy? Maybe because he felt like overall, he had to rally the people to a greater good and the ends would justify the means?

Maybe you missed the point. If people decide to miss quote the Bible, then what fault of God's is that? If people try to justify their violence from non-existant arguments, then how is that Christianities fault?

And How is "Love your neighbour as yourself" vague?

Vague as in that I don't consider a guy I hate from another country to be my neighbor.

What i was saying about atheism was this: If someone did murder, then there is in effect no reason why he shouldn't. There is no solid, unchangable moral guidelines. Yes there are the Laws of society, but ultimately that person is free to "do what is right in his own eyes."

I wasn't trying to tell atheists what they believe, and if it came across that way i'm sorry. What i was trying to get across is that 'Holy wars' and violence is not consistent with the Bible, wheras Eugenics and Letting the People starving in other countries die would be consistent with an Evolutionary worldview. AND I'M NOT SAYING ALL ATHEISTS ARE LIKE THAT. In fact probably an incredible tiny minority would be like that. But the thing is, if someone were to be like that, they wouldn't be being Hypocritical.

As for morals, we have morals not because they are 'evolutionarily (is that a word?) beneficial', but because we are made in God's image.

So God's got morals? Like not killing the vast majority of everyone on the planet with a giant flood?

Evolution doesn't neccesarily treat nice people better. In fact, If you were to lie and Backstab and maybe murder your way to the top, you would be likely to pass on your genes a lot more than if you were just someone who always treated other people nicely.

The top of what? If we were to think this way, that it's fine to just do whatever, then there wouldn't be anything to stab your way to the top of. No magic structure, because the godless heathens are all anarchy because they don't feel like working together.

This isn't always the case though, and again, I'm not saying everyone is like this. All I'm saying is that evolution doesn't undoubtedly favour those who are nice.

Evolution favors those who can work in a group, not those that are nice. A group of animals is undoubtedly more potent and able than a single animal of the same type (a pack of wolves can take down a moose, while one wolf attacking a moose is likely to be killed or driven off easily). The leader is probably the mean guy of the group even, but he realizes the benefit of the group overall.

Beleiving the Bible to be unshakeably the Word of God, and believing the God of the Bible to undoubtedly exist is not self righteous. I Have done NOTHING in my life of any merit to get myself to Heaven, I have done nothing even relatively good to get my self 'in there' with God. I still lie, and i'm often still horrible to people, I never seem to do anything right, and i'm definately not proud of these things. But if I am going to Boast about anything, I'll boast that God is so fantastically awesome that any time I do do these things, he is always waiting for me when I turn around.

I haven't a clue why he would even bother with people on earth, but he does and that is amazing.

I've always wondered how you know he bothers, but you know, completely unrelated.

I don't believe it is self-righteous to believe the Word of God after he has done all this for me, and in the Word of God he says:

I don't think it is at all self righteous to believe God when he says there is only one way to him, and that is through Jesus.

It's self righteous to tell everyone else they're wrong, not to believe in your own salvation. Though the desire to save others (whether misguided or not) is quite nice and I can understand the general consensus of 'give it a try, whether or not it'll be considered rude'. (though really, it is really, really annoying, and like 99% of the time, if you try to talk someone into converting to whatever, they'll just think of it as a really awkward or annoying conversation)

(I felt like making this post because I was bored, feel free to nitpick with me, I most likely won't visit this topic again)

 

[Rhazdel]

But where does that in built sense of morality come from?

It is instilled by both instinct and society. By instinct, people do not commit murder intentionally because, from an evolutionary standpoint, to ensure the survival of your species, you should work together. No child is born homicidal. This usually is developed in later stages of life, usually due to poor upbringing or mental disorders.

@sixtyandaquarter: again, Where did the ability to be emphatic come from? A tree isn't emphatic, even monkeys aren't emphatic. Sometimes, when mother baboons cross rivers with their baby clinging to their underside, they get drowned, because the mother assumes it can breathe because she can. baboons can't put themselves in other people shoes: We can. That and the inbuilt sense of morality again leads me to believe we were created in the image of God.

There is a difference between lack of empathy and lack of critical thinking. Monkeys are very empathetic towards one another (in most cases). Some monkeys mourn the loss of a loved one. Elephants, raccoons and pidgeons have also been shown to mourn loss of a significant other (all those animals are actually monogamous for life).

These animals are more moral than most people I know.

 

[Jonathan]

Vague as in that I don't consider a guy I hate from another country to be my neighbor.

Actually if you read the whole story then the guy is asking "who is my neighbour" and Jesus used an example of a guy from a foreign country that most Jews hated. you should love everyone. Jesus also said Love your enemy. The story can be found in: Luke 10:25.

So God's got morals? Like not killing the vast majority of everyone on the planet with a giant flood?

As in we have a soul, and so we know right from wrong. God can see the world from a much better perspective than you or I, so to judge his actions as if you knew bwtter is a bit arrogant.

The top of what? If we were to think this way, that it's fine to just do whatever, then there wouldn't be anything to stab your way to the top of. No magic structure, because the godless heathens are all anarchy because they don't feel like working together.

You know exactly what I mean. The "top" as in the most succesful in the eyes of humans (most money etc.)

Evolution favors those who can work in a group, not those that are nice. A group of animals is undoubtedly more potent and able than a single animal of the same type (a pack of wolves can take down a moose, while one wolf attacking a moose is likely to be killed or driven off easily). The leader is probably the mean guy of the group even, but he realizes the benefit of the group overall.

Evolution favours genes. There is no genetic make-up for "working together", that is an environmental trait (i think... well, i'm pretty sure anyway).

I've always wondered how you know he bothers, but you know, completely unrelated.

Because he sent his Son to die for us. If you want to know more about this, PM me, or start a new thread.

It's self righteous to tell everyone else they're wrong, not to believe in your own salvation.

Bad example, but hey: Is it self righteous to warn someone about a tidal wave that is coming, and to tell them tat they are wrong when they think they can laze on the beach safely?

By instinct, people do not commit murder intentionally because, from an evolutionary standpoint, to ensure the survival of your species, you should work together.

So when Male lions kill all cubs when they take over a pride...? It isn't about ensuring the species genes survive in the wild (on a whole) it is about ensuring your own genes do. So, then, why not leave all the people to starve in africa. They haven't done anything for us, so... Again, i hope you all see that is a pathetic viewpoint, and thus we do have a consideration for every member of the human race, consistent with if we were created by God.

No child is born homicidal

This could also be used to favour the "we are born with God-given morality" viewpoint.

[Well aproximately quoted anyway] Animals can be empathetic

Yes, but not to the level humans are. Plus, they don't have morality, are lead chiefly by instinct and don't have the capacity to worship.

 

[Roman Candle]

You're wrong about sociality being genetic. Behaviors are given predispositions by your genes - likelyhood to drink, smoke, etc. Some people even propose that risk taking and various other things are also genetically predisposed, (NB NOT decided). Obviously no one's born right wing or charismatic, but the various parts of those behaviors are influenced, if only slightly, by your genetic makeup. Clearly, that's not the be-all and end-all - upbringing and environment are just as important. Some people, for instance, are born with a predisposition to psychopathy - and sometimes, no matter how mittigated it is by fantastic parenting, it's clear almost the begining. If you look at child development charts, you'll see that the naturally resilient children born into bad families and naturally vulnerable children born into good families do about as well as eachother; vulnerable children in bad families do very badly, and resilient children in good families do very well. Behavioral predispositions are very real and not that strange to think about. As you pointed out, an individual can't always see how social conformity is benefitial by it's own reasoning - society in animals shows how social behavior must have some kind of genetic hint attatched.

 

[Andy6000]

Surprise! I came back. (I've got a couple minutes to spare today so I'll continue with pointless symposium bickering, like the good old days when I was the one moderating this place. Don't you wish that still were the case?)

Actually if you read the whole story then the guy is asking "who is my neighbour" and Jesus used an example of a guy from a foreign country that most Jews hated. you should love everyone. Jesus also said Love your enemy. The story can be found in: Luke 10:25.

Yeah I can't claim too well of knowledge on the whole scripture thing, because to be honest, it's always bored me and I've never gotten through more than about 3 pages at a time. (go figure)

As in we have a soul, and so we know right from wrong. God can see the world from a much better perspective than you or I, so to judge his actions as if you knew bwtter is a bit arrogant.

If I knew your every action, I'd probably want you dead. Kind of like objectively, I want myself dead. Doing it is another case. Also, I'm pretty arrogant, and I think God's above my criticism anyways, so you know, whatever.

You know exactly what I mean. The "top" as in the most succesful in the eyes of humans (most money etc.)

No, I really don't, because you're saying without god, that there'd be no reason for people to not backstab and whatever everyone else for their own personal gain. If everyone were like that inherently, then where did this structure come from? (On the other hand, that question's pretty easily answered with 'god put it there' as well, so you know, I digress)

Evolution favours genes. There is no genetic make-up for "working together", that is an environmental trait (i think... well, i'm pretty sure anyway).

Yeah I'm kind of just talking about natural selection in a broad sense, not really evolution (I'm bad at making myself clear). 30 humans can take down an elephant with spears, so humans win, because the elephant didn't happen to be working together with another elephant (A herd would probably stomp down a hunting party with giant elephant-like ease)

Because he sent his Son to die for us. If you want to know more about this, PM me, or start a new thread.

Trust me, I've heard it all before. My best friend is a Christian, and I talk about this stuff all the time with him. It's fun.

Bad example, but hey: Is it self righteous to warn someone about a tidal wave that is coming, and to tell them tat they are wrong when they think they can laze on the beach safely?

When there's no indication this tidal wave will ever show up by my standards, and people have been saying this tidal wave has been coming for about a thousand years, yes, yes I'd dare say it's slightly self-righteous. Also like I said last time, I understand your standpoint, but I'm going to refuse to see the tidal wave with no form.

So when Male lions kill all cubs when they take over a pride...? It isn't about ensuring the species genes survive in the wild (on a whole) it is about ensuring your own genes do. So, then, why not leave all the people to starve in africa. They haven't done anything for us, so... Again, i hope you all see that is a pathetic viewpoint, and thus we do have a consideration for every member of the human race, consistent with if we were created by God.

Yeah I don't really get this, so you know. I dunno if you actually have a point and it's just flying over my head or not, but whatever.

This could also be used to favour the "we are born with God-given morality" viewpoint.

No child is born as a saint either. Well, I'm sure you believe Jesus was, but that's aside the point. I'm sure he's just saying something about nature vs. nurture.

Yes, but not to the level humans are. Plus, they don't have morality, are lead chiefly by instinct and don't have the capacity to worship.

I'm only quoting this part because it'd look like I was ignoring it on purpose if I didn't. And... You know I don't really know. I don't have an opinion on this because it's hard to measure the extent of empathy. EDIT: Not to mention you're equating empathy with worshipping God for some reason, that's just sort of out there.

You know, I could've spent some time studying instead of making pointless arguments here.

 

[Dirtie]

By instinct, people do not commit murder intentionally because, from an evolutionary standpoint, to ensure the survival of your species, you should work together.

I think that's the whole crux of this discussion - whether or not you have an evolutionary standpoint. It's obvious this is going nowhere.

If I was going to continue on the argument, I'd probably say something like "Who put the instinct there in the first place then? Why exactly do we have inbuilt instructions in the first place?" Evolution can't exactly explain that, apart from going back to "we evolved them", and people who believe we were created by God will say "God put them there" - so once again we reach another standoff.
It's probably at this point when some of the points about "intelligent design" come up.

 

[Rhazdel]

I think that's the whole crux of this discussion - whether or not you have an evolutionary standpoint. It's obvious this is going nowhere.

If I was going to continue on the argument, I'd probably say something like "Who put the instinct there in the first place then? Why exactly do we have inbuilt instructions in the first place?" Evolution can't exactly explain that, apart from going back to "we evolved them", and people who believe we were created by God will say "God put them there" - so once again we reach another standoff.
It's probably at this point when some of the points about "intelligent design" come up.

You are right, it is impossible to debate this because essentially there is no right or wrong to the theological side of this.

But, it is of course natural to fear the cessation of life. It is something that is typically not instilled at birth, but rather learned during life. Babies show no fear of death. Fear of death is a neurological association with pain (or fear of the unknown). More simplistic creatures react to danger through fear of a known, negative response.

Some creatures do exhibit survival instincts at birth, however. But could you not also argue that these creatures "evolved" this response, receiving it from their parents? This could all be theoretically traced back to the beginning of life and creatures learning to associate avoidance of pain with survival, and thus, through natural selection, the instinct was adopted and passed through the generations.

 

[Sleepy_Dragon]

Considering crime for the past decade here in the US is at an all time low (and is projected to continue falling) and it is the same case in other countries most likely I would say Civilization is doing pretty good.