I might be missing your intent, but we are the same order of primates as well as all primates. That is our order. We are members of the same Family as the great apes and same Subfamily Homininae and Tribe Hominini. We separate here into Genus Pan and Genus Homo. The split from the common ancestor was over 5 million years ago. I am not sure how much further back and I do not have time to look it up. Most scientists do not include the Pans as part of Homo or vice versa.
So we are not really another species of chimp, we have separated from our common ancestor to long ago.
I can see why you’d see that post as a slam against atheists because I see now that it comes off as more confrontational than it should.
About what Jesus actually meant, there’s a lot more that I don’t know than I do know, but I know that a large part of it is this.
As an aside, I don’t like how this translation says “I needed clothes” instead of “I was naked” because it seems weaker somehow.
Also, the last verse in this passage is why I think some atheists are more christian than many Christians.
This is such a great passage. I’ll have to remember where it is because I had to look it up. I’m not one of those people that has any verse references memorized except the ones just about everyone knows like John 3:16.
You definitely are like that, or at least come off that way. The fact that you don’t believe it is kind of funny, actually. But I don’t think you’re like that in the same way as overly judgmental people. In your case I see it as something that makes you more interesting instead of as a character flaw.
An example I can remember is an American Idol thread from a few weeks back where you commented on the guy who missed his daughter’s birth.
I think on the “opinionated spectrum” you fall short of “judgmental asshole”, but I know that there are some posters here who think otherwise.
I agree, in fact doesn’t Jesus tell the story of the Good Samaritan after he says “love your neighbor as yourself” and someone asks who his neighbor is?
This lends some credence to my belief that Jesus was making a point about faith in this passage instead of being a jerk to the woman.
As for the rest of your post I think I mostly agree. There are a few points I might address later if I decide it’s worth it and the thread hasn’t moved on by then, but I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff and I want to give my mind a rest.
Ah, yes, that. One of my more favoriter Bible passages, actually.
But the modern day spin I put on it is that we should give to charities and such. It’s a really nice gesture, but terribly impractical to invite every homeless person you meet into your house and give them all of your favorite Led Zeppelin T-shirts.
Larry Borgia mentioned 9/11 and the Aztecs as examples of how horrible Religoius people can be. I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds on cruelties done by atheist or for reasons that opposed directly the person’s supposedly-held beliefs and religion would still “win”.
As to the Padeophiles the answer is something like: they do it less than most professions that have prolongued contact with children. Dunno if it proves anything, at least it kills the idea that priests are the worst.
You cannot have morality without religion. Period. Does that mean that we would go on killing people(even more) if there weren’t no religion? Nobody knows the answer since it would require re-writing the whole of human history. However, I can’t see how you can draw limits. The whole idea of, for example, equal dignity of all humans, is not based on science but on pre-conceived ideas. Dawkins may not belive if the Flying Spaghetti, but he can’t tell me why it is WRONG to murder; not nice maybe, but never WRONG. It doesn’t mean my atheist friends go around raping old ladies.
All religions the same? The “Golden rule” example are a disservice to religions. It’s like summarising Einstein’s theory into “all is relative”.
Empathy is hardwired? How? When? Any good studies? I beg to differ by a mile. A simplified version of some myths won’t do.
Atheists DON’T need to shut up, BTW, speak away.
In the end my thoughts towards atheism go around this questions: Wrong? Explain why.
Sam Harris said it well:
The level of atheism throughout the rest of the developed world refutes any argument that religion is somehow a moral necessity. Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality–belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health.
You need to read a whole lot more philosophy. (Start with Aristotle’s Ethics, then be sure to include Locke, Hume, Hobbes, Rousseau, and a handful of others.)
Since you are asserting that morality cannot procede (or begin?) without religion, you have now made the positive assertion and it is up to you to prove your claim, otherwise we can simply dismiss you as the sort of poster who throws around unfounded assertions out of ignorance.
Also, please explain by what processes you are able to determine which religious morality is the “correct” one? How can you choose a moral system without EXERCISING a moral system?
What the fuck does that mean?
Why can’t he? I’ll tell you why it’s wrong. Because I say so. No other criterion is required.
One of the most striking facets of the Golden Rule is not only that it is ubiquitous across diverse religious traditions but that it is almost always expressed explicitly as the core of those traditions. Jesus SAID it was the only rule that mattered. So did Rabbi Hillel.
Yes.
Neurologically.
In infancy. Possibly at birth. Chimps have it too.
Plenty. Try a google scholar search on “empathic response.”
You beg to differ with all of modern psychiatry? On the bsais of what evidence?
And this is exactly the sort of prejudice against atheists that we’re complaining about. The amount of violence perpetrated by various religions against, well, everyone else, massively outweighs the same sort of acts perpetrated by atheists. I mean, atheism isn’t even in the same ballpark. And yet, theists trot this sort of argument out as if it were fact… but never seem to have an answer for when atheists say, “Oh yeah? Cite?”
I predict we’ll hear something about Hitler or Stalin next.
Well Hitler was far from Atheist anyway. He was some strange misbegotten offspring of everything bad about the Christian religion with a heavy dose of pseudo-Norse BS to make it even worse. At least that how I interpret everything I have read and heard about him.
Stalin is a good example that Atheists can be as evil as any religious zealot.
I don’t think anyone would ever argue that atheists can’t be evil. That would be a pretty silly statement to make and easily disproved. It’s that the kind of people that argue that morals can only come from religion also seem to think that religion is some kind of automatic moral granting device. I mean, it can certainly help some people grasp morals, or at least, a different set of them, but that’s just one way.
So, if I point out that Stalin and Mao were atheists* and that they whacked at least 50 million that’s prejudice?
If I mention that religious people did bad things* because* they were going against their professed believes that’s prejudice?
Maybe I miswrote or screwed up on my odds things. What I meant is that if we take all the victims caused because people were following their religion and multipliy them by 10 we wouldn’t get to the number of victims caused by atheists and religious people going against their beliefs (i.e. if I raped my neighbour because I’m horny, I’m doing it despite being religious not because). I’ll do it 3 to 1 if it’s only expressly religious vs. expressly atheist.
Since Atheism* has only been around since about the French Revolution, with any force to speak of, what it’s surprising is the ammount of destruction and atrocities atheists have done. Cite: French revolution, communists countries such as Russia, China, North korea. OK?
By Atheist I mean people who don’t believe in god(s) or any soul, afterlife, transcedence, nirvana or such. Therefore, in this meaning, buddhists are NOT atheists
As I said, Atheists don’t need to shut up , but they could stop whinning.
Stalin and Mao didn’t kill people because they were atheists or on behalf of atheism. They did to gain and keep personal power and (ostensibly) on behalf of Communism, which was just another religion.
There is no evidence that atheists are any less ethical, less compassionate or less “moral” than theists.
The thing is, you allow religious people an out by saying that they were acting despite their beliefs, but you have no similar exception for atheists.
Also, why on earth do you think that atheism has only been around since the late 18th century? I’m certain some of the ancient Greeks we read in Philosophy were atheists.
Dude, I so totally called that! Okay, technically I only got it half right, but still…
As Diogenes put it, they didn’t do it because they were atheists, but because they were communists (who also happened to be atheists). Atheism was not their motivation. As a rule, atheists generally just ain’t that organized, anyway, although we do all pretty much agree that it rocks that we can sleep in on Sundays.
I suspect that any discussion concerning the subject, by atheists, would count as whining in your book.
Well, it’s not really that surprising when you consider that the “rise” of atheistic thought coincided with a tremendous technological and scientific leap forward, which made the wholesale slaughter of human beings much more convenient. At the same time, an equally impressive surge in medical and agricultural knowledge provided an unprecedented supply of humans to slaughter.
Funny how the rise of atheism coincided with the greatest period of scientific advancement and technological progress in human history, isn’t it?
Whilst human kind
Throughout the lands lay miserably crushed
Before all eyes beneath Religion - who
Would show her head along the region skies
Glowering on mortals with her hideous face
He also backed the atomic theory, had the odd theory that there was space inside matter, and thought that the soul was associated with the body, and did not exist before birth or after death. Things went downhill from him.