# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/481 "2010-09-06T05:05:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Just because you read the term, “Moving the Goalposts” doesn’t mean you have to try to work it in everywhere you get a chance. I did no such thing. > > > > We don’t have the information to make that sort of assessment. Saying that it’s evidence for a God is beyond silly. Not knowing where you car is isn’t evidence that aliens took it. If you thought about it for a second you’d realize why complexity doesn’t beg a designer. Because God, if he exists, is undoubtedly more complex the universe. Who designed him? > > > > I actually know the answer to that. Ignorant, stinking, frightened bronze-age men designed God. 😃 > > > > Sure it is. There is zero evidence for a soul, so where else would it be? People with brain injuries have changes to what they perceive as morality. So that’s plenty of evidence that it’s physical. > > > > No, it isn’t. It’s physical, evolved into us. We take it with us wherever we go. > > > > It doesn’t seem that easy, since you have utterly and embarrassingly failed to do so. > > > > God is the real speculation here. You believe it with no evidence and believe that he instills morality against the obvious evidence that it is evolutionarily advantageous. > > > > Humans primarily lived in familial groups in times past. And we’ve always had the ability to turn off our morality when faced with enemies. > > > > It is. And your ignorant protestations have no bearing on that fact. As I said earlier, your lust is a biological urge. It works even on photos of women, which is weird, because photos didn’t exist when we were evolving as tribal nomads. But the switch in your head, the one that lusts after healthy, youthful women is still triggered by a pic of Natalie Portman wearing a thong and pasties. > > > > It is a conditional coding that is used for something it wasn’t intended for. Just like protecting the tribe’s children is a coding that applies to other children the world over. You see a pic of Amidala and you get excited and want to fuck her. You see a pic of a starving child and you get defensive and want to save her. > > > > The protection of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous. So we still carry the wiring. > > > > It’s funny that you’re so invested in your ideology that you can’t see this. > > Why the appeal to the issue of lust? I have said from the beginning this is a biological response, the very reason why it is irrelevant to the issue of morality. Because protecting children is based in biology. I’ve shown it a half dozen times. You deny it because you’ve vested up the idea that it somehow threatens your faith. If you faith was worth anything it should be able to reconcile with reality. > [@](#): > > But as you seem content to avoid addressing the problems in your ideology, I will restate: > > 1. The intricacy of evident design in the universe is better explained by an intelligent agent than random chance, that has to deal not only with enormous improbability, but also overcoming the vast number of constants demanded. Complexity of the universe isn’t a call for a creator. As I said, who created your creator? It is a simple question that you run away from. > [@](#): > > 1. Present your evidence that benevolence can be explained by purely naturalistic means. In summary, this argument is stuck on the problem of stranger benevolence, and of the contradiction of tribal development. Humans that have head injuries experience changes in morality. This is evidence that morality is present in the brain. Show me evidence for a supernatural basis of morality? Show me some evidence of a soul? You can’t, because there isn’t any. It is something you are asserting. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/482 "2010-09-06T05:34:13Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@pedescribe](#): > > > > aigonz, somewhere in this thread you claimed that murder was objectively morally bad. > > And yet war is generally considered to be morally acceptable by those involved in it. How do you reconcile that? > > It has long been accepted (at least I have been arguing on this assumption) that murder, in the context of moral philosophy, refers to a premeditated action by one individual against another without provocation or cause. I can expand thatd efinition if you wish, however the intention is to have oout this debate without getting involved in the moral justification for war, for self defence, etc etc. The bible says “Thou shalt not kill”. Not “Thou shalt not kill in a premeditated manner without provocation or cause”. If we have an objective morality system, why would it be different than God’s? ---
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/483 "2010-09-06T05:52:30Z")
For a full understanding on how morality evolved, read the excellent work [Primates and Philosophers](http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477) and [Good Natured](http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp/0674356616), both by Frans de Waal, a top primatologist who’s written a lot on the subject. From the amazon pages: > [@](#): > > Sympathy, empathy, right and wrong are feelings that we share with other animals; even the best part of human nature, the part that cares about ethics and justice, is also part of nature…Many people assume that to be good, be nice, behave, play well with others, we have to rise above our animal nature…De Waal calls this “Veneer Theory.” In this view, human morality is a thin crust on a churning urn of boiling funk. In reality, de Waal reminds us, dogs are social, wolves are social, chimps and macaques are social, and we ourselves are “social to the core.” Goodness, generosity and genuine kindness come just as naturally to us as meaner feelings. We didn’t have to invent compassion. When our ancestors began writing down the first codes of conduct, precepts, laws and commandments, they were elaborating on feelings that evolved thousands or even millions of years before they were born. > [@](#): > > This work succeeds most of all by gradually eroding invisible assumptions about morality as an exclusively human prerogative. Chapter by chapter, Frans De Waal builds a convincing and rich assembly of proto-moral practices among nonhuman primates, defining and illustrating terms such as empathy, nurturance, cognitive altruism, and many others along the way. The result, which can sometimes feel like a complicated mass of overlapping and related terms, is a kind of ground shift in perception. …For some readers this might be a kind of Copernican Revolution against the absolute centrality of human beings in the moral universe. We are not alone: we have moral ancestry and moral companionship (fast disappearing) in the wilderness, in the zoos, and in the animal research laboratories. [As an aside, it also seems clear that there could be no effective substitute for the actual first-hand experience of social primates that De Waal reports] Basically, there is a lot of strong evidence that we evolved from social creatures that also exhibited forms of morality. ---
**Author:** ![kimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f0a364/32.png) [@kimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kimera)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/484 "2010-09-06T06:35:11Z")
Oh, and since cites were demanded: [Darwin on the evolution of morality](http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/D.onM.html) [How altruism could’ve evolved in humans.](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1569) [A whole bunch of articles on the biological basis of morality](http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html) [Morality in dogs and other species](http://www.springerlink.com/content/g66471746l725072/) [Inequality aversion in dogs](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/12/08/0810957105.abstract) [A book exploring morality in many species](http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Justice-Moral-Lives-Animals/dp/0226041611) [New York Times article summarizing some of the research](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) That’s all from a quick search. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/485 "2010-09-06T08:39:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Why the appeal to the issue of lust? I have said from the beginning this is a biological response, the very reason why it is irrelevant to the issue of morality. > > Because protecting children is based in biology. I’ve shown it a half dozen times. You deny it because you’ve vested up the idea that it somehow threatens your faith. If you faith was worth anything it should be able to reconcile with reality. > > Complexity of the universe isn’t a call for a creator. As I said, who created your creator? It is a simple question that you run away from. > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. Present your evidence that benevolence can be explained by purely naturalistic means. In summary, this argument is stuck on the problem of stranger benevolence, and of the contradiction of tribal development. > > Humans that have head injuries experience changes in morality. This is evidence that morality is present in the brain. Show me evidence for a supernatural basis of morality? > > Show me some evidence of a soul? You can’t, because there isn’t any. It is something you are asserting. 1\> You haven’t ‘shown’ anything. You have ‘claimed’ much, but supported very little. 2\> Complexity begs the question. Is an intelligent agent more likely than a random series of obscure chances that are, for the most part unable to be repeated or observed? The answer is yes. 3\> Of course morality is presnt in the brain,…this is simply another red herring you present for lack of argumentation. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/486 "2010-09-06T08:42:59Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > It has long been accepted (at least I have been arguing on this assumption) that murder, in the context of moral philosophy, refers to a premeditated action by one individual against another without provocation or cause. I can expand thatd efinition if you wish, however the intention is to have oout this debate without getting involved in the moral justification for war, for self defence, etc etc. > > The bible says “Thou shalt not kill”. Not “Thou shalt not kill in a premeditated manner without provocation or cause”. If we have an objective morality system, why would it be different than God’s? The opening post of this thread was based on a misundersting of the Biblical text. As is this claim. The Hewbrew term used for ‘kill’ in the Bible fits closely with my definition, and is similar to how we would today define ‘murder’ in a court of law. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/487 "2010-09-06T08:53:09Z")
> [@kimera](#): > > For a full understanding on how morality evolved, read the excellent work [Primates and Philosophers](http://www.amazon.com/Primates-Philosophers-Morality-Evolved-Princeton/dp/0691124477) and [Good Natured](http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp/0674356616), both by Frans de Waal, a top primatologist who’s written a lot on the subject. > > From the amazon pages: > > > [@](#): > > > > Sympathy, empathy, right and wrong are feelings that we share with other animals; even the best part of human nature, the part that cares about ethics and justice, is also part of nature…Many people assume that to be good, be nice, behave, play well with others, we have to rise above our animal nature…De Waal calls this “Veneer Theory.” In this view, human morality is a thin crust on a churning urn of boiling funk. In reality, de Waal reminds us, dogs are social, wolves are social, chimps and macaques are social, and we ourselves are “social to the core.” Goodness, generosity and genuine kindness come just as naturally to us as meaner feelings. We didn’t have to invent compassion. When our ancestors began writing down the first codes of conduct, precepts, laws and commandments, they were elaborating on feelings that evolved thousands or even millions of years before they were born. > > > [@](#): > > > > This work succeeds most of all by gradually eroding invisible assumptions about morality as an exclusively human prerogative. Chapter by chapter, Frans De Waal builds a convincing and rich assembly of proto-moral practices among nonhuman primates, defining and illustrating terms such as empathy, nurturance, cognitive altruism, and many others along the way. The result, which can sometimes feel like a complicated mass of overlapping and related terms, is a kind of ground shift in perception. …For some readers this might be a kind of Copernican Revolution against the absolute centrality of human beings in the moral universe. We are not alone: we have moral ancestry and moral companionship (fast disappearing) in the wilderness, in the zoos, and in the animal research laboratories. [As an aside, it also seems clear that there could be no effective substitute for the actual first-hand experience of social primates that De Waal reports] > > Basically, there is a lot of strong evidence that we evolved from social creatures that also exhibited forms of morality. To be blunt, this is nonsense, but fairly typical of this sort of presumtptive scholarship. An example is the leap from claims about animal social systems to that of ‘strong evidence that we evolved from social creatures’. There is no such evidence. And is it such a revelation that animals are social creaturs and exhibit empathy? Of course not. But answer this. Will a member of a pride of lions show empathy towards a wounded lion form a competing pride? Perhaps having considered this, someone will answer my question about benevolence towards strangers. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/488 "2010-09-06T11:30:19Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > How do you know (or prove) that God is not limited by time or space, isn’t that just some peoples idea of what God is? It is still just a matter of Faith not fact. > > > > How does a being exist, with out first being in existence? That is your burden of proof! > > > > First one has to prove there is God before they can know anything about Him and faith can never be proof of anything. One first has to prove what they believe is true before they can state it as fact! > > Ah but here we see a double standard. > > You (I speak broadly) require ‘proof’ of God, yet you do not require ‘proof’ of principles of quantum mechanics. > > You reject an argument from authority when it supports design, yet you accept what those same physicists say about virtual particles or the quantum vacuum. > > Do you see a problem here? When did I state anything about quantum mechanics? Not being a scientist I go only by what science has proven. One needs to “KNOW” something before it can be stated as fact. Scientists work on different levels all over the world, and independent on another. Faith is just that Faith, you seem to speak as if what you have faith in is fact; too many people have different translations of what the word God is.I believe that is why there is so much descention in the various religions. The main thing is, religion is based on the belief’s of someone else, either their writings, teachings, or one’s own mind; the belief is not in God, but the persons idea of God, and many contradict the other. I do not pretend to know anything I can’t prove. What I believe is a different story. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/489 "2010-09-06T11:40:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Sure it is, you are just saying it isn’t because you want evidence that God is real. > > > > Sure I did. I explained it very reasonably. We are social animals. And being protective of children is a good thing for social animals. Other social animals do it too. > > > > Emotions are our bodies telling our mind things. When you feel lust it compels you to take action. Does lust have a scientific basis? We’re chemical sacks, and everything you think and feel, even the piety to the god you think exists are the results of physical interactions. > > > > We evolved in small groups. Modern society is the result of wiring for small groups writ large. We want to protect all children, because our bodies don’t know that we don’t know them. The child of a person from a town we’ve never been to triggers the same response. > > > > Again, when you feel lust, do you have to know the target? > > > > Ahem, I’m the one actually thinking in this conversation. You’re suggesting that there is no evolutionary basis for not wanting to fuck children based on nothing more than your assertion that there is no physical basis for it. > > > > Look, if you want to argue evidence, there is no evidence for the Bronze-Age Storm God you worship even existing. So maybe you shouldn’t jump to use him as an answer to questions you don’t fully understand? > > 1\> There is ample evidence for an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe. Design is an excellent start, as many scientists agree. > > 2\> The history of mankind being in small groups is hardly a reason why we would empathise with a child in Ethiopia, if not for some objective mechansim. We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response. > > 3\> Lust does have a scientific basis. It relates to the need to breed, and man has been given that by his creator. But again, you move the goal posts. Lust is not a moral issue. It is biological. Try supporting your case with like for like. You’ll find you can’t. And you know this is put there by a creater? Prove that is true and not just belief. Of course you believe that and I see nothing wrong in you believing it but it is not fact, unless you can prove it. Until then it can be viewed as just your belief. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/490 "2010-09-06T11:51:13Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > In true scientific fashion, I look forward to receiving notification of a peer reviewed study that establishes emmpirically, in a defined society, Goulds opnion piece. See, this is “shifting the goal posts”. You’ve said, repeatedly – and after being corrected, even – that: “There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition.” “This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose.” “There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple.” “Benevolence cannot be adequately explained by purely evolutionary repsonses, because there is no place in a purely naturalistic development for unrewarded assistance of ones fellow man.” “We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.” “None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers.” “The notion that evolutionary impulses alone accoount for benevolence or objectove morality is full of self contradiction.” I’m merely telling you there’s _ **no** _ contradiction. I’m merely telling you a purely naturalistic explanation _ **could** _ serve an evolutionary purpose. You say it’s a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple; I’m telling you it’s _ **not.** _ You say it’s unrelated to any supposed biological response, and has no place in a purely naturalistic development; I’m telling you to _ **stop doing that,** _ because you’re utterly mistaken. Now, if you’d like to move on from denying it’s even possible to discussing evidence that it’s actual – look, that’s fine, we can do that. But I first want to make sure you’re reversing all those prior comments; that’s a _ **huge** _ step. That said, I’m not especially interested in moving on to that next step; it’s not what concerns me either way. I primarily care about the moral code that both atheists and Christians are perfectly capable of recognizing and living by: I want to stop Christians who don’t live up to it (say, those who’d rape a three-year-old), and I want to stop atheists who don’t live up to it (ditto), and it’s a matter of profound indifference to me whether the ability to recognize such a code stems from evolution or an outside agent or whatever; living up to the code is what’s important, IMHO. But if _ **you** _ (a) care, and (b) can grant that it could of course stem from evolutionary processes, then, yeah, we could look at the evidence. > [@](#): > > _And is it such a revelation that animals are social creaturs and exhibit empathy? Of course not. But answer this. Will a member of a pride of lions show empathy towards a wounded lion form a competing pride? Perhaps having considered this, someone will answer my question about benevolence towards strangers._ And we often don’t show empathy toward wounded people from a competing group either. Of course, we also cooperate plenty _ **more** _ than lions, and so we accomplish more – but we’re also capable of genocide, which lions don’t quite get worked up enough to manage. As always, it’s tricky work to derive an “ought” from an “is”; what’s moral isn’t always what we do. I mean, take religious types who put homosexuals to death, or stone blasphemers, or enslave people from a competing tribe! Monstrous! Horrifying! My sympathies are with their victims. My moral code is outraged. Some people crash planes into office buildings. Others practice female genital mutilation. Religious types can be worse than lions. What can we extrapolate from that? Well – me, I don’t try to extrapolate much of anything; I was _ **already** _ on board once my sympathies and my moral code lined up. I don’t much care whether their evil stems from evolution or religion; I just want to stop it. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/491 "2010-09-06T11:53:14Z")
> [@scorpio5169](#): > > The Bible as written, leaves each reader with questions. In order to decide the answer to these questions, certain steps must be taken. First step: Read the Bible in it’s entirety. So many people want to base their beliefs without taking the first step. Secondly is a choice: Either have a belief based on what you believe, or let someone else tell you what to believe. Either way the choice is up to you. I’d rather be wrong believing in God than be wrong not believing. Just a thought… :smack: The only thing with that is that the Bible is contradictory, from one writer to another. One discribes a loving kind God, the other a monster. At least how the actions of this God is expressed in their writings: killing a lot of innocent people so that one tribe can prosper,even though all humans are said according to religious teachings that God is a good father. What good father does some of the terrible things to some of His children and then protects the favorite ones? This same being chooses a murderer and a Adulterer,and murderer as one to lead His people. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/492 "2010-09-06T20:25:08Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@pedescribe](#): > > > > The bible says “Thou shalt not kill”. Not “Thou shalt not kill in a premeditated manner without provocation or cause”. If we have an objective morality system, why would it be different than God’s? > > The opening post of this thread was based on a misundersting of the Biblical text. As is this claim. > > The Hewbrew term used for ‘kill’ in the Bible fits closely with my definition, and is similar to how we would today define ‘murder’ in a court of law. Okay, first, you’re incorrect. Kill means kill, and no amount of weaseling will change that. But second, you’re missing the point. People don’t all have the same abhorrence toward killing you claim they do. Some people abhor war, others do not. Some people abhor infanticide, others do not. Some people abhor honor killings, others do not. Some people abhor abortion, others do not. Some people abhor the death penalty, others do not. Some people abhor euthanasia, others are not. If there was one objective morality about killing, why would there be _so much_ disagreement about the morality of killing, eh? ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/493 "2010-09-06T20:43:08Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Okay, first, you’re incorrect. Kill means kill, and no amount of weaseling will change that. Was the Bible written in English? The Hebrew for “Thou shalt not kill” does indeed mean “murder”. Check any recent mainstream translation. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/494 "2010-09-06T20:46:30Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > > [@pedescribe](#): > > > > Okay, first, you’re incorrect. Kill means kill, and no amount of weaseling will change that. > > Was the Bible written in English? The Hebrew for “Thou shalt not kill” does indeed mean “murder”. Check any recent mainstream translation. What? God can’t properly express himself in english? ---
**Author:** ![BadgerHunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cc9497/32.png) [@BadgerHunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BadgerHunter)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/495 "2010-09-06T22:15:04Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Because protecting children is based in biology. I’ve shown it a half dozen times. You deny it because you’ve vested up the idea that it somehow threatens your faith. If you faith was worth anything it should be able to reconcile with reality. > > > > Complexity of the universe isn’t a call for a creator. As I said, who created your creator? It is a simple question that you run away from. > > > > Humans that have head injuries experience changes in morality. This is evidence that morality is present in the brain. Show me evidence for a supernatural basis of morality? > > > > Show me some evidence of a soul? You can’t, because there isn’t any. It is something you are asserting. > > 1\> You haven’t ‘shown’ anything. You have ‘claimed’ much, but supported very little. > > 2\> Complexity begs the question. Is an intelligent agent more likely than a random series of obscure chances that are, for the most part unable to be repeated or observed? The answer is yes. > > 3\> Of course morality is presnt in the brain,…this is simply another red herring you present for lack of argumentation. I am curious about #2. This seems to be a purely emotional argument. What empirical evidence is there of Intelligent Design? Specifically: show me _proof_ that _something_ was designed. Keep in mind that I’m not asking you to tell me that ID is more likely, or neater, or simpler. I’m also not terribly interested in hearing emotional arguments, or arguments that demand a theist’s perspective. This is where this type of discussion goes down the drain. You believe because you want to believe. Evidence, proof, etc, is only ever a way of keeping score for you; if any evidence ever contradicts your belief you’ll always shift to “a wizard did it” explanations. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/496 "2010-09-06T22:25:30Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Ah but here we see a double standard. > > > > You (I speak broadly) require ‘proof’ of God, yet you do not require ‘proof’ of principles of quantum mechanics. > > > > You reject an argument from authority when it supports design, yet you accept what those same physicists say about virtual particles or the quantum vacuum. > > > > Do you see a problem here? > > When did I state anything about quantum mechanics? Not being a scientist I go only by what science has proven. > > One needs to “KNOW” something before it can be stated as fact. Scientists work on different levels all over the world, and independent on another. Faith is just that Faith, you seem to speak as if what you have faith in is fact; too many people have different translations of what the word God is.I believe that is why there is so much descention in the various religions. The main thing is, religion is based on the belief’s of someone else, either their writings, teachings, or one’s own mind; the belief is not in God, but the persons idea of God, and many contradict the other. > > I do not pretend to know anything I can’t prove. What I believe is a different story. My apologies, I was erhaps spekaing of the ‘royal’ you…as in I lost traxck of who had claimed what. As to faith…I know of no ‘ideology’, including athiesm, that does not rely on faith to some extent. Man seeks for answers to the great philosophical questions of life, origins, meaning, morality and destiny. There are no satisfactory answers to these from purely naturalistic sources. My position is that an intelligent agent, outside of mankind, is the explanation that best fits the facts. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/497 "2010-09-06T22:27:01Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Are you suggesting that the organisations, conferences, books, websites, articles etc etc run, written and operated by atheists are a figment of the imagination? You’re one level too far up. There are religious organisations , conferences, websites, articles etc etc, run, written and operated by theists. But we do not tend to lay those things at the foot of theism, or polytheism; those are simply the answer to the question “Do you believe in gods?” with “yes, one” or “yes, more than one”, just as atheism give the answer “no”. We lay those things at the foot of the particular brand of idealogy that permeates those events. When the Pope holds a mass, we tend to call it a Catholic event, not a theistic event; although it would be accurate to call it such, theism in that case is still merely the base answer. It doesn’t explain why there is a mass, why there is a Pope, why he uses the words he uses. In the same way, it’s not really correct to call organisations or events or books atheistic, because even though that’s correct it, too, is simply an answer to the base question; being an atheist alone doesn’t explain why there are those events, why atheists say what they say, why the content of those books is not simply “God does not exist”. It isn’t reasonable to say that atheism compares to Christianity, or whatever particular religion, in this way. Atheism compares to theism. It is secular humanism, or utilitarianism, or even some forms of Buddhism, that are comparable in the sense you’re drawing; they provide the explanations and rationales that people are living by or trying to convince other people of. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/498 "2010-09-06T22:27:22Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> There is ample evidence for an intelligent agent in the creation of the universe. Design is an excellent start, as many scientists agree. > > > > 2\> The history of mankind being in small groups is hardly a reason why we would empathise with a child in Ethiopia, if not for some objective mechansim. We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response. > > > > 3\> Lust does have a scientific basis. It relates to the need to breed, and man has been given that by his creator. But again, you move the goal posts. Lust is not a moral issue. It is biological. Try supporting your case with like for like. You’ll find you can’t. > > And you know this is put there by a creater? Prove that is true and not just belief. > > Of course you believe that and I see nothing wrong in you believing it but it is not fact, unless you can prove it. Until then it can be viewed as just your belief. No, this is argumentation, based to some degree on opinion, which is informed by facts. If there was no room for opinion, these threads ould be fairly barren. ---
**Author:** ![scorpio5169](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e480ec/32.png) [@scorpio5169](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scorpio5169)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/499 "2010-09-06T22:31:41Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@scorpio5169](#): > > > > The Bible as written, leaves each reader with questions. In order to decide the answer to these questions, certain steps must be taken. First step: Read the Bible in it’s entirety. So many people want to base their beliefs without taking the first step. Secondly is a choice: Either have a belief based on what you believe, or let someone else tell you what to believe. Either way the choice is up to you. I’d rather be wrong believing in God than be wrong not believing. Just a thought… :smack: > > The only thing with that is that the Bible is contradictory, from one writer to another. One discribes a loving kind God, the other a monster. At least how the actions of this God is expressed in their writings: killing a lot of innocent people so that one tribe can prosper,even though all humans are said according to religious teachings that God is a good father. What good father does some of the terrible things to some of His children and then protects the favorite ones? This same being chooses a murderer and a Adulterer,and murderer as one to lead His people. This goes back to the key phrase entirety. To my knowledge, God is never described as a loving, kind, God. His son Jesus however, is described as the one who is the mediator between a wicked people and a righteous God. As far as being the Heavenly Father, the Bible says that He is the perfect father and love requires chastisement. On a further note, which innocent people did God kill? Finally God has shown that he will use anyone for his purpose that is willing. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/500 "2010-09-06T22:34:57Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > In true scientific fashion, I look forward to receiving notification of a peer reviewed study that establishes emmpirically, in a defined society, Goulds opnion piece. > > See, this is “shifting the goal posts”. > > You’ve said, repeatedly – and after being corrected, even – that: > > “There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition.” > “This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose.” > “There has not even been a sensible attempt to explain benevolence. It is a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple.” > “Benevolence cannot be adequately explained by purely evolutionary repsonses, because there is no place in a purely naturalistic development for unrewarded assistance of ones fellow man.” > “We consider the rape of a 3 year old in Ethiopia as wrong. This is totally unrelated to any supposed biological response.” > “None of this explains the same affinities to total strangers.” > “The notion that evolutionary impulses alone accoount for benevolence or objectove morality is full of self contradiction.” > > I’m merely telling you there’s _ **no** _ contradiction. I’m merely telling you a purely naturalistic explanation _ **could** _ serve an evolutionary purpose. You say it’s a counter-evolutionary response, pure and simple; I’m telling you it’s _ **not.** _ You say it’s unrelated to any supposed biological response, and has no place in a purely naturalistic development; I’m telling you to _ **stop doing that,** _ because you’re utterly mistaken. > > Now, if you’d like to move on from denying it’s even possible to discussing evidence that it’s actual – look, that’s fine, we can do that. But I first want to make sure you’re reversing all those prior comments; that’s a _ **huge** _ step. > > That said, I’m not especially interested in moving on to that next step; it’s not what concerns me either way. I primarily care about the moral code that both atheists and Christians are perfectly capable of recognizing and living by: I want to stop Christians who don’t live up to it (say, those who’d rape a three-year-old), and I want to stop atheists who don’t live up to it (ditto), and it’s a matter of profound indifference to me whether the ability to recognize such a code stems from evolution or an outside agent or whatever; living up to the code is what’s important, IMHO. But if _ **you** _ (a) care, and (b) can grant that it could of course stem from evolutionary processes, then, yeah, we could look at the evidence. > > > [@](#): > > > > _And is it such a revelation that animals are social creaturs and exhibit empathy? Of course not. But answer this. Will a member of a pride of lions show empathy towards a wounded lion form a competing pride? Perhaps having considered this, someone will answer my question about benevolence towards strangers._ > > And we often don’t show empathy toward wounded people from a competing group either. Of course, we also cooperate plenty _ **more** _ than lions, and so we accomplish more – but we’re also capable of genocide, which lions don’t quite get worked up enough to manage. As always, it’s tricky work to derive an “ought” from an “is”; what’s moral isn’t always what we do. > > I mean, take religious types who put homosexuals to death, or stone blasphemers, or enslave people from a competing tribe! Monstrous! Horrifying! My sympathies are with their victims. My moral code is outraged. Some people crash planes into office buildings. Others practice female genital mutilation. Religious types can be worse than lions. What can we extrapolate from that? > > Well – me, I don’t try to extrapolate much of anything; I was _ **already** _ on board once my sympathies and my moral code lined up. I don’t much care whether their evil stems from evolution or religion; I just want to stop it. 1\> You can tell me what you like, but you have provided no argument to refute my points you quote above. All are valid. 2\> You again return to the claim that atheists and christians can both recognise the moral code. Of course they are. If not, it would not be objective, surely? My question has consistently been not whether it is recognised but how and where it came from. I have made the claim that an objectove moral code can not have come from mankind. The only rebuttal I have seen is a very long bow of opinion about evolutionary theory. I have demonstrated the problems with this both as to the development of this from tribe to nation, and as to the extension of this from family to stranger. You claim evolution has the answers. Well I ask again, provide the 2 key scientific requireemnts, observation and repetition. 3\> You final comments about ‘religious types’ is just irrational raving. We can all agree to the inappropriateness of certain behaviour. The question the atheist must adddress is why? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=26)