Do we need religion to make good decisions?

...their morality predates their knowledge of the text.

This statement makes the assumption that someone's morality is unchangeable. Christians don't read through the Bible once marking the sections that "fit" and discarding those that don't. Christianity involves a life long commitment to reforming yourself to be more like Jesus through study and application of Biblical principals and a personal relationship with Jesus.

I will agree that some interpret the Bible to fit their personal views/desires/etc., but to say that there's not "a single person who really derives their morality from the Bible" is simply not true.

I think everyone's morality is personal.

I agree. Each person has their own idea of what to do and what not to do, and how they are raised, what they read, in essence what they experience. From there a person decides how to act.

It is easy for me to say that because that is how my own morality has developed - through experiences of all kinds. When I do something (or don't) I feel as though I did the right thing - or guilty, depending on what transpired.

My morality and my approach to the world has for the past few years been colored through my various readings. I have read Nietzsche, the Bhagavad Gita, and other philosophical tracts; I intend on reading more in the future. Every time I read I get a little more added to my own code, and perhaps some of my existing code changes.

To answer the question, religion can help, but not necessarily the only way to make "good" decisions.

someone: Which morals do you now have that you did not have before reading the Bible, and which did you have but no longer have?

I think you are missing the point of religion, specifically, Christianity. I will try to explain the basics. You do not get to heaven by being a good person or doing good works or things. Christians believe that if you accept that Jesus Christ was God in human form and that He died as payment for our sins then you get to heaven.

Being good and doing good works are simply side effects, if you will, of trying to live your life according to the Bible. I do not believe that people who are not Christians are bad or immoral people. I would hope that most Christians do not believe this. Nobody is perfect which is exactly why God sent his Son to die. Nobody could live up to His expectations so He provided us with the means to get to heaven.

Adam: I'm slower to anger than I once was. I volunteer my time to help others (inside and outside of church). I try to see people as God would see them instead of basing my view on their situation, appearance or actions. I try to extend God's grace and love to the people I meet. I pray that each day my words and actions would be reflect God's love and be a positive influence on those around me. I pray that God's will be done over my own.

Please don't take those comments to mean that I always accomplish those things. I do try, and I am improving, but I still have a long way to go.

Christians don't read through the Bible once marking the sections that "fit" and discarding those that don't. Christianity involves a life long commitment to reforming yourself to be more like Jesus through study and application of Biblical principals and a personal relationship with Jesus.

According to your definition of Christianity, there are very few (maybe even no) Christians in America.

someone: So before reading the Bible you didn't help others, or try to respect people instead of being judgemental? Nothing else you mentioned is actually a moral issue. I don't consider praying to be a moral act. A nice thought, maybe, but not a moral act.

Jason: Well said. There are a lot of "good" people who aren't Christian.

Christians believe that if you accept that Jesus Christ was God in human form and that He died as payment for our sins then you get to heaven.

Those things are required, but in my opinion there is a little more to it than that. You also need to have a personal relationship with God and actively pursue God's will for your life (Matthew 7:21-23).

Jimmy: You need to meet more people. I can assure you that there are people who are committed to Bible study and personal reform.

Adam: If you're asking if I was a "bad" guy... probably not, but I'm much more focused on being a "good" guy now than I was then.

Someone-just trying to keep it simple for those who are not familiar with it.

I didn't ask if you changed your attitude. I asked if your morals changed. If you can't think of a moral rule that you now live by that you didn't believe to be moral before (whether you followed it or not), then the Bible didn't change your morality. It's great that it convinced you to actually follow what you think is right, but so far you haven't given any indication that your moral instincts actually changed.

Adam: In my opinion, extending grace and love to those around you and viewing people as God views them are moral decisions. I have changed in those areas.

I was raised in a Christian home and was taught Christian values as a child, but didn't really embrace them. As an adult I have returned to Christianity with a greater appreciation and acceptance of those values. I attempt to apply them to my life where I did not previously.

You can say that those values were already there (they still are based on Christianity) and I have just recently began to act on them. In my opinion this still constitutes a change in my morality.

If I claimed to have Christian values while not practicing them wouldn't you call me a hypocrite?

I think the concept of "extending grace and love" is too vague. What do you mean by that? What actions do you perform to do that? The best interpretation I can come up with is "I'm nice to people". Same with "viewing people as God views them" => "I don't judge people".

My point was that you were raised with those values. You didn't follow them, but you were taught them. Then, when you read the Bible, you recognized those values you had been taught and decided to follow them. Meanwhile, other values taught in the Bible (like the role of women) went unnoticed. They don't fit with your upbringing, so you don't pay attention to them. Some people are raised with those views of women, though, and so they do pay attention to those parts of the Bible.

I'm not disputing whether the Bible has a positive effect. I'm disputing that the moral values themselves actually came from the Bible originally, and since you've basically agreed that you understood these moral values before reading the Bible (but didn't follow them), then I think you've supported my argument.

Adam: Sorry, you don't get to tell me which values I have "noticed" or not.

I'll stand by what I've already written.

There was a time, before religion was founded, that people were essentially looking out for themselves and their own. Screw everyone else.

i disagree with that. While i'm far from a biology expert, we are 99% similar in DNA to chimpanzees. Chimpanzees and other primates live in societies with social customs and hierarchy, without religion (i assume). Even dogs have these traits. i doubt before religion our ancestors were any different.

I hate to sound like I'm doing a shameless plug for a very old article, but I wrote about precisely this a good while back.

Social altruism is indeed part of human nature. Religion is rather unnecessary, though admittedly it usually facilitates socially beneficial behavior.

Chimpanzees and other primates live in societies

Let me reemphasize.

There was a time, before religion was founded, that people were essentially looking out for themselves and their own.

Chimp societies are based on familial connections, and therefore they protect it. Humans did this too. But what happens when a group of animals comes in contact with another group of animals who want the same territory? At best, avoidance altogether. At worst, abject violence. The same was true for humans. Of course we looked after our families, and we still do. But before religion began to set up laws for how to treat people of other cultures (families, tribes, et cetera), people essentially did whatever they wanted. Screw everyone else. Like I said. ;-)

One could argue that the people coming up with these laws did so on their own (this would likely be argued from the perspective that God doesn't exist). And conceding that may be true, of course, the real question I'm asking is: if the lawmakers didn't invoke the name "God," would people have been so quick to listen and adopt the laws? Like I said, this could've resulted in a rather large shift in our modern moral structure.

There was a time, before religion was founded, that people were essentially looking out for themselves and their own. Screw everyone else.

On what evidence do you base this conjecture, and on what evidence do you base your implication that it has changed?

Now that you've clarified, I would argue that we still act like that. Every major conflict in history (including things like the Crusades) involved the interaction and competition of various groups of people, who were all "looking out for their own". This didn't end with religion. In fact, I think religion makes it worse by giving people a sense of God-given entitlement, as if other people don't deserve to live as well.

On what evidence do you base this conjecture, and on what evidence do you base your implication that it has changed?

Emperically, from the fact that the earliest records of society we have contain no laws, and those societies did essentially run on a tribe/family mentality. It was very separatist mode of thinking. "We are here and we take care of ourselves, they are there and take care of themselves." The infighting among the tribes in the Old Testament (and the fact that so much of the OT is doling out laws to prevent that infighting) is a great example. There are some tribes in the world that still run on this mentality, though they have built some forms of religion around it.

From a philoosphical standpoint, I base it on Kohlberg's stages of moral development. If you subscribe to the belief that humanity is morally evolving (as I do), their steps took place much in the same manner that Kohlberg proposes children do. According to his model, the steps of morality build on themselves, and the first two steps are fairly selfish. The first is obedience, followed by the supposition that other humans have the same needs, goals, et cetera.

Now that you've clarified, I would argue that we still act like that. Every major conflict in history (including things like the Crusades) involved the interaction and competition of various groups of people, who were all "looking out for their own".

I don't think that we can properly use people's misuse of religion when talking about the implications of religion as a foundation. I'm referring specifically to a period in time when tribe law ruled and religion helped to found community law. Your counter that, at certain periods in time, people misused religious law to go back to tribe mentality is accurate, but has nothing to do with the foundational concepts that I'm applying here. I'm proposing that, while tribe mentality still reigns from time to time and religion is used as a crutch for it, it would (in my opinion) be much more prevalent (and perhaps simply the moral standard) had religious law never existed.

and those societies did essentially run on a tribe/family mentality. It was very separatist mode of thinking. "We are here and we take care of ourselves, they are there and take care of themselves."

As Adam stated above, this is still the modus operandi of human society, religion be damned. In defending religion, you can point at the good that some religious people do and the "good principles" that they live by. But, you cannot ignore all of the "bad" things that religion has helped facilitate, or that religion has been used to justify.

Your counter that, at certain periods in time, people misused religious law to go back to tribe mentality is accurate, but has nothing to do with the foundational concepts that I'm applying here.

This has everything with your foundational concepts. If the tribe mentality is still the default that we adhere to when the situation is suitable, then I see religion as the makeshift bandage that's holding the shiny facade of human morality together. Underneath, it's still a roiling mass of infected tissue (per your claim that tribe mentality is "bad" and religion is "better").

I'm proposing that, while tribe mentality still reigns from time to time and religion is used as a crutch for it, it would (in my opinion) be much more prevalent (and perhaps simply the moral standard) had religious law never existed.

Can you say with any amount of certainty that the tribe mentality is currently not the standard? Further, can you say with any degree of certainty that religion has helped weaken the iron rule of tribe mentality? I would answer "no" to both questions. Religious affiliation is just another brand of tribe mentality.

You talk about how misuse of religion is the exception. Why should it be? If "misuse of religion" is indeed the exception, then why do a good number of Protestants hate Catholics? Why did the Lutheran Church form? How about the Anglican Church? Why do many Catholics hate homosexuals (or "oh, you're fine, but you're just going to Hell for your lifestyle")? If religion is the great societal glue, and religious clashes are "the exception", then why are there so many sects of Christianity? Why are there so many fundamentalist sects of all religions?

Why are all of these exceptions? Why are there so many? Can you call them exceptions anymore?

Religion isn't the morally superior descendant of the tribe mentality. It's the quick-witted kid brother who found the great shortcut that his big brother didn't find: God.

Can you say with any amount of certainty that the tribe mentality is currently not the standard?

No I can't, actually. It's impossible for me to falsify something that relies on people's mindsets. But at this point you are asking me to prove your assertion inaccurate, when the rule of burden of proof relies on the person who makes the assertion to prove it accurate. So to turn the question around: can you say with any amount of certainty that tribe mentality is currently the standard? I think you'll find a definite answer fairly difficult.

My point, however, isn't what people will do when at their worst. If we're judging moral standards by what people will do in the lowest of lows, we have no morals. In our lowest point, we randomly riot, murder, rape; people in our own "tribe" as well as strangers. But using the lowest point of human morality as the benchmark for all of human morality doesn't make sense. You may as well examine a tape of the Watts Riots and take it to the conclusion that people in Los Angeles were evil and violent. It's a poor benchmark.

Instead, we should rely on a more neutral place, like philosophical concepts of people when in a neutral state. When there is no threat, and no benefit, to doing right or doing wrong, the majority of people in our society ascribe to some varient of utilitarianism. Most people in modern society, atheist or Christian, say they base the logical part of their morality on a construct of looking out for fellow humans based on the fact that they are fellow humans.

You talk about how misuse of religion is the exception. Why should it be? If "misuse of religion" is indeed the exception, then why do a good number of Protestants hate Catholics? Why did the Lutheran Church form? How about the Anglican Church? Why do many Catholics hate homosexuals (or "oh, you're fine, but you're just going to Hell for your lifestyle")? If religion is the great societal glue, and religious clashes are "the exception", then why are there so many sects of Christianity? Why are there so many fundamentalist sects of all religions?

I'm talking about evil actions, Jack. Disliking a group's beliefs or forming a different sect due to disagreement about a fundamental concept is not evil; no more than me choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla. Preferences are not an issue of morality. And the times when those preferences lead to violence, like the Crusades, are the exception I'm referring to. Think of all of the religious people that have ever existed. Now think of the ones that were violent. That's an exception to the rule.

How can you distinguish between the "use" and the "misuse" of religion? The question is whether religion is good or bad for society. You can't determine that if you ignore all of one side. You can't declare all misuses of religion as invalid and then declare that religion is always good.

Not to mention that fact that your assertion that these people were wrong is pure subjectivity. The Pope certainly didn't think it was wrong at the time (referring to the Crusades). Who says you're right and he's wrong?

You can't declare all misuses of religion as invalid and then declare that religion is always good.

I didn't.

The question is whether religion is good or bad for society.

No, it isn't.

Honestly, people. If you're going to address my points, address them accurately. The question is "do we need religion to make good decisions?", not "is it good or bad for society?" My answer was that individuals clearly do not need it to make good moral decisions, but at one point humanity may have needed to rely on it for moral foundations that we still see the effects of today. This does not mean religion is always good, or that it has always been used for good. It means that, at one point in history, it played a role in forming moral foundations.

So to turn the question around: can you say with any amount of certainty that tribe mentality is currently the standard? I think you'll find a definite answer fairly difficult.

I have yet to see any sign of religion being anything more than an extension of tribe mentality. So... yes. According to what I've seen, tribe mentality is prevalent.

You may as well examine a tape of the Watts Riots and take it to the conclusion that people in Los Angeles were evil and violent. It's a poor benchmark.

If you take a snapshot of the entirety of Los Angeles during the Watts Riots, I think that that's actually a good indicator of general moral inclination. Religion, by the very nature of its development has been divisive. The multitude of Christian sects in the world isn't some sort of statistical aberration, an anomaly, an exception. It is very much a part of the definition of modern religion.

Instead, we should rely on a more neutral place, like philosophical concepts of people when in a neutral state. When there is no threat, and no benefit, to doing right or doing wrong, the majority of people in our society ascribe to some varient of utilitarianism. Most people in modern society, atheist or Christian, say they base the logical part of their morality on a construct of looking out for fellow humans based on the fact that they are fellow humans.

I don't exactly know where you're trying to go with this, but I'll give rebuttal a shot. If you're saying that such a mentality is due in large part to religion, and that the same would not have come about without religion, I would disagree. If people are experiencing no dangers, no threats, no negative externalities, then ofcourse they'll be happy-go-lucky with everyone. There's no reason not to be. Social altruism dictates that a kin group (in this case, all of happy-go-lucky humanity) working together produces a more beneficial outcome than a cutthroat mentality. But, the minute you insert a negative externality, people begin to fear. They find reasons for such fear. The fear festers and grows. Suddenly, they unconsciously begin seeing a few others in a different, darker light. Religion provides a convenient "Approved by Divine Judgment" sticker that they can slap onto their prejudices.

There's no more need for justification beyond making the leap from "I don't like them" to "God says they're evil." At that point, if God said so, then let us Smite, by all means. Sure, if you boil down the foundational tenets of modern Catholicism during a time of perfect peace and tranquility, you can find that such things are good. But, I see no reason that the tribe mentality would be any worse in utopian circumstances.

Disliking a group's beliefs or forming a different sect due to disagreement about a fundamental concept is not evil; no more than me choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla.

In saying this, you've implicitly conceded that religion does divide, and that such divisions are not evil. So, how is religion fundamentally different from tribe mentality?

Think of all of the religious people that have ever existed. Now think of the ones that were violent. That's an exception to the rule.

Think of all the non-religious people that ever existed. Think of the violent ones. We're talking about relative cost-benefit. If you or I cannot find an non-religious benchmark, then you cannot say that "they withheld from slaughtering children precisely because they believed in God."

If you're saying that such a mentality is due in large part to religion, and that the same would not have come about without religion, I would disagree.

That's fine. I suggested that in my first post in this topic: ;-)

Again, all of this may have happened without religion as well... but none of us knows that for sure.

If people are experiencing no dangers, no threats, no negative externalities, then ofcourse they'll be happy-go-lucky with everyone. There's no reason not to be.

Sure there is. You linked to your essay about groups of monkeys, pointing out how when two groups meet, they fight. The same existed for humans. The tribe of Such-and-such had no specific reason to distrust the Tribe of So-and-so, but they did anyway. No danger, no threat, but they certainly weren't happy-go-lucky with everyone.

In saying this, you've implicitly conceded that religion does divide, and that such divisions are not evil. So, how is religion fundamentally different from tribe mentality?

Well, for one thing, I haven't seen the Church of Christ slaughtering the Lutherans anytime recently...

Like I said, we have different sects based on preferences, not fear. I'm non-denominational, but I have a certain number of prescribed beliefs that others may not share. And that's fine for them. Separating based on different beliefs, with respect to the beliefs of others, is not the same as automatic distrust of other tribes, leading to avoidance, fear, or war.

If you or I cannot find an non-religious benchmark, then you cannot say that "they withheld from slaughtering children precisely because they believed in God."

What an excellent example of a strawman. Once again, I am not saying that. I am saying that, many years ago, there was a lot of division among tribes, and religion advocated removing those divisions. Today we live in a society that basically believes in utilitarianism, which may or may not have been implimented differently had religion not existed.

Perhaps you'd be less eager to counter me if you would stop to read what I said in the first place:

Religion helped to found concepts of community and social justice that may not have surfaced, may have taken different forms, or may have taken much longer to establish without a God or gods being the catalyst.

Cheers.

Then how can society need religion to make good decisions if religion doesn't seem to help people avoid bad decisions? When I pointed to instances in which religion led people to make very bad decisions your response was basically "those don't count". Why not?

Then how can society need religion to make good decisions if religion doesn't seem to help people avoid bad decisions?

Sigh. Adam, I'm starting to wonder if you're reading what I'm saying. Please, by all means, review what I've said so far and point out to me where I've said that society needs religion to make good decisions.

I am saying that it is a possibility (in my opinion, a strong one) that, historically, it helped lead to certain moral standards of social justice. The possibility exists that these same moral standards could've been reached if religion had never taken root; I'm not going to claim to know how history would've folded out in that instance. But religion did take root, and it did help form our moral standards. And just as I concede that it is a distinct possibility that standards would be the same, it seems unrealistic to fail to concede that there is the distinct possibility that our standards would be different.

Personally, I think the latter is more likely. Purely speculative, our moral standards may've taken longer to form (with no absolutes to make up the foundation, as Kohlberg's development postulates as necessary), but they would've been more logical with less odd and silly moral standards that some people still hold today (example: interractial marriage).

Alright, in getting back to your original question of "Do we need religion, historically, to make good decisions?" I would once again say no.

My answer was that individuals clearly do not need it to make good moral decisions, but at one point humanity may have needed to rely on it for moral foundations that we still see the effects of today.

If that is your claim, then I would say that it's ridiculous to think that religious morals came about from thin air, or from the Voice of the Divine. That would imply a certain degree of absoluteness that, since you've read my old article, I gave evidence against.

Well, for one thing, I haven't seen the Church of Christ slaughtering the Lutherans anytime recently...

Well, you haven't seen rival herds of elephants slaughtering each other, now have you? Tribe mentalities among social animals don't always result in violence. How is religion... better? The root action is that religion has created many social rifts which previously either did not exist or had not been so evident. With officiated rifts, extremism is much more likely to happen. After all, it's that much easier to point fingers if you name your chosen enemy is eight syllables or less.
If religion is indeed unnecessary for making ongoing moral decisions, why do you think that religion, apart from everything else, played a formative role in morality, and not the other way around? Social morality naturally comes about from the behavior of social animals. You can see social morality in lions, chimpanzees, wolves, and dolphins. You may not want to call it morality, but the effects are the same, and thus they are realistically indistinguishable.

Once again, I am not saying that. I am saying that, many years ago, there was a lot of division among tribes, and religion advocated removing those divisions.

This may very well be true at face value, but where did this religion come from? Did this unity come from the the assertion that religion's core is a feel-good message? Or, as was the case under Constantine, was religion a tool for reining in the masses? Further, I need not remind you of the historical instances in which religion has been used as a rallying cry for war, genocide, and conquest.
Morality begat religion, not the other way around. I would even go so far to say that religion may have initially been used to spread the specific morals of a dominant/influential group, but more recent history shows that it's been twisted into a perversion of social morality. While social morality can be used to justify wars and conquest, religion gives such justifications without a need for rational explanation, and even worse, gives such justifications a much more unquestionable and distant aura, by saying "We do this in the name of God/Poseidon/Shiva/Osiris/Odin/etc. That's it."
Religion is an extension--sometimes a dangerously arrogant extension--of social morality.

If that is your claim, then I would say that it's ridiculous to think that religious morals came about from thin air, or from the Voice of the Divine. That would imply a certain degree of absoluteness that, since you've read my old article, I gave evidence against.

Jack, it's almost as if you're reading my own posts and taking comments to argue with me:

One could argue that the people coming up with these laws did so on their own (this would likely be argued from the perspective that God doesn't exist). And conceding that may be true, of course,

I said, quite early on, that God may not exist. I've never been trying to argue that God does exist. Again, you're constructing strawmen to toss at things I've already diffused, while doing nothing to address my real point, which I also stated in that early post:

the real question I'm asking is: if the lawmakers didn't invoke the name "God," would people have been so quick to listen and adopt the laws? Like I said, this could've resulted in a rather large shift in our modern moral structure.

It's really a speculative question. I tend to think the answer is no. At one point, people were uneducated enough to need an absolute invoked when founding structure. So I'm not saying that God does or doesn't exist (a much larger topic than this one, and one I'm not even attempting to get into). I'm speculating that believing God existed influenced people far more than could have been accomplished than some particularly intelligent members of society saying "hey guys, we should be kind to each other."

I'm sorry Steve, I'm trying to keep multiple conversations in mind. Perhaps I tried to hold you down to a view you didn't express. However, I still disagree.

Back to what you said earlier:

I don't think that we can properly use people's misuse of religion when talking about the implications of religion as a foundation. I'm referring specifically to a period in time when tribe law ruled and religion helped to found community law. Your counter that, at certain periods in time, people misused religious law to go back to tribe mentality is accurate, but has nothing to do with the foundational concepts that I'm applying here. I'm proposing that, while tribe mentality still reigns from time to time and religion is used as a crutch for it, it would (in my opinion) be much more prevalent (and perhaps simply the moral standard) had religious law never existed.

What I get from that is that religion led people away from the "tribal mentality", but they occasionally slip back into that mentality and use religion to support that. I don't think you can distinguish between "tribal mentality" and "religious morals". If you look at history, you'll see that "tribe" was often equivalent to "religion". The people in my tribe would be the same as the people who shared my religion. Having a religion didn't make them think any differently about how they should treat other tribes. I don't think it ever did.

I think people learned over time that working together with other people was not only beneficial, but necessary for survival. As a result, they began to treat other groups better and develop relationships between groups. However, any time there was a conflict about resources or a dispute about whether the two sides were being fair (in other words, when being nice wasn't working), then they devolved into the "us vs. them" state of mind. Again, religion never changed that. It was always there, and it still is there whenever being nice doesn't work.

What I get from that is that religion led people away from the "tribal mentality", but they occasionally slip back into that mentality and use religion to support that.

That's somewhat close. What I'm really talking about, though, is the standard mindset. Tribal mentality was the way people related to each other, and it wasn't questioned. Religion advocated more growth in the community of humanity rather than the tribe of this or that. So like I said, while we may have arrived at the same place without religion (like you propose), I think it's a strong possibility that we would arrive there very differently, taking a different amount of time, coming to slightly different conclusions, and so on.

And that conclusion, according to my proposal, is again about standards. Of course people have a tendency to fear and mistrust the unknown, and sometimes divisions take place. But the standard, the belief system that most people subscribe to if asked, is utilitarianism in the overall scope of humanity. Maybe we would've gotten here without religion; but religion did help guide us here, and I don't see any reason to deny that.

Tribal mentality was the way people related to each other, and it wasn't questioned. Religion advocated more growth in the community of humanity rather than the tribe of this or that.

On this point, I think I would still disagree.
If you're only referring to Christianity when you say "religion," then the foundational tenets of Christianity, taken without added political flavor can very well be construed as embracing of all humanity. But, I still say that the application of such religious morals led to horrible consequences. The only concrete unifying event facilitated by Christianity, that I can think of (please give me more examples if you can think of them), was the unification of Rome under Constantine. But, there are so many large-scale events and eras of conquest that at least used Christianity as a justification that I can't ever say that Christianity, pragmatically, really brought people closer anymore than tribal mentality could have.
If we're talking religion in general, then I would argue that religion only cemented tribal closeness intertribal animosity. When the Aztecs went to war, what did they do some of their prisoners? They were sacrificed to the Sun God. Was Norse mythology a feel-good message that brought together disparate tribes under a veil of peace and happiness? Was the Greco-Roman pantheon used, in relations with outside civilizations, more for wartime calls for divine aid or "Here are our gods, I think you'll like them"? Now, one big feel-good religion that I can think of is Buddhism. I have yet to hear of the Buddhist Crusade or the conquests made in the name of Buddha. But, I personally don't know of any indication that, without Buddha, the kingdoms which were Buddhist would've erupted in pandemonium.
Maybe historical record is biased. Heck, it is biased. But, can you say that religion really helped bring people together? From where I'm sitting, it's only helped strengthen and give divine allowance to existing facets of tribal mentality, many of them divisive and aggressive.

And that conclusion, according to my proposal, is again about standards. Of course people have a tendency to fear and mistrust the unknown, and sometimes divisions take place. But the standard, the belief system that most people subscribe to if asked, is utilitarianism in the overall scope of humanity.

I agree that this is very much about standards. I do not believe that you can talk about the general benefit of religion when you throw out all the divisive, aggressive, violent, and bigoted things done in the name of religion, and facilitated by religion. As I said above, the very act of incorporating your beliefs into a divine religion means that you have just granted yourself the powerful possibility of giving divine support to your personal prejudices, opinions, and judgments. This... is very, very dangerous.
For each specific culture, within its own sphere, religion has been about utilitarianism. This is why the religions of the world--the religions throughout recorded history--have been so very different. They were derived from, what you said, utilitarianism. But, religion allows a person to claim "for the good of all" without requiring any justification for such a claim. A person can claim that his/her religion is utilitarian for all of humanity even in the face of contrary evidence. That, in part, is why I firmly do not believe that religion helped guide us, in the right direction, here. It may have influenced our current moral compass, but "helped"? Hardly.
Of course, having said all this, I seem to be shooting blanks half the time in this discussion, so please correct me if I've misconstrued your point, once again.

No Jack, you seem to have my points fairly accurate. I am talking primarily about Christianity (more specifically, Old Testament law), since that seems to have been incorporated most heavily into this discussion in particular, and since it's so pervasive in American modern culture.

And again, I agree with you that religion has been used to justify bad behavior as well. But as you stated, I am essentially talking about the fundamental tenets of Christianity. The question is if religion helps us make good decisions, so I suppose I'm seeing "religion" as a more abstract term while you seem to be definining it more by what people have done with it. While I'm essentially personifying religion and commenting on what it, as a presence, has the potential to have done, you're more talking about it as a concept that has been taken by humans to do this or that.

I believe that if religion had never existed, our history of moral development would be very different, perhaps better in some ways in worse in others. You believe religion has been a bit more of a blight, it seems, and has encouraged more bad than good (and I think that side has some credence to it). I think at this point we can agree to disagree.

Fair enough. It's been a good discussion.

Is there actually any evidence at all that the mentality changed as religion developed? The early Jewish groups were just as tribal as they were before their religious beliefs developed. I don't think it ever really changed, so what evidence is there that religion helped? At what point can you say "here's where religion took over and people stopped acting like tribes"?

I always enjoy reading comments from people who obviously have no clue as to what they are talking about. Only speculating here, but I'm guessing you have never read the Bible because it does not endorse anything you said. It may contain accounts of these events happening, but it does not condone them.

In the future, I would suggest commenting on areas that you have knowledge of both sides of the issue.

While it may not endorse such things, there is definitely the suggestion that one's earthly works, be they good or bad, matter not as long you accept Christ into your heart and ask forgiveness, prior to death.

True to an extent, Vincent. But there is the (generally accepted) belief that if you do bad things like crazy, figuring you'll invoke Christ before death as your "get out of jail free" card, doing so won't do a thing to help you. It has to be from a place of sincerity.

The bible is divided into two major sections; the Old & New Testament. In the Old Testament you had to live according to the Law. Works and obedience to the Law were the way to get to heaven. The New testament focuses on the life of Jesus Christ. The birth of Jesus negates the Old Testament way of getting to heaven.

I did not state that the bible condones any of these things nor did I say I focused only on christianity. I said the CHURCH does this; however there are scriptures that do seem to condone what I have stated. And, I have read the bible and other relgious texts. Here are some examples.

Regarding examples in 1.
A. Several churches define there view of abortion and members of the congregation often adopted these without thinking. Case in point is the stance many take on the morning after pill being an abortion pill when it is not. Many relgious folk belive it kills a fertilized egg, but it does not. It prevents the egg from being fertilized. Same for evolution and politics. Some churches tried to preach politics over the last few years and have been warned they will lose tax exempt status if they continue. So the church does try to push people how to vote.
B. The bible (Old testament) states that is not good to eat unclean animals (ie pork). This is why jews and muslims will not eat pork. Of course new testament reverses this.
---Lev 11:7 And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
C. God rested on the seventh so should everybody else. Lev 23:29-30
---Ex31:14Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
D. Stoning children that do not obey or strike out at parent should be stoned according to the bibles. OTher laws in Deuteronmy say it is ok to sell you daughter into slavery.
E. Several areas in the bible say the christians should kill non believers. ---Ex22:20 "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."
F. Muslim men typically will not wear jewelry. Especially Gold. That does not mean all men.
G. It is in Levi19:19 that it states taht you should not mix seeds when sowing crops. It also states not were clothing with mixed threads.

Regarding second point. A. Religion may or may not say slavery but it has been manipulated to support slavery in many ways. Exodus has text regarding selling daughters as maidservants. Becoming a slave as punishment for stealing. It also states it is ok to beat slaves.
B. For along time it was know the earth was a "sphere". Afterall the moon is round and when a ships sets off across the sea we see it "sink" into the horizon. However, several religious men preached about the rediculousness of ANTI-PODS. Antipods are people that live on the underside of earth. The bible says nothing about this of coure it was the teaching of some churches.
C. As for sex and homsexuality, it is the same as slavery and scripture is littered throughout that has been manipulated to say whatever one wants regardless of what it was supposed to mean.
D. Regarding politcal opponent being antichrist. Well I was just being funny but some sites popped up in all serious about Bush being such. Notice this nothing to with the bible but what religious people do with religion.

Third section.
People do this and it has nothing to do with the bible. THey just ask for forgiveness. How does the saying go? "It is much easier to ask forgiveness than permission."

I just post my last comment and saw Ford's response to other posts. While I agree that the texts between New and Old testament differ greatly and that the Tora (1st 5 book of Old) are laws having nothing to do with christianity, my original post was not limitied to christianity. Tora is part of jewish religion and those same texts are found in muslim law.

Regardless, the new testament has also been used to manipulate views regarding homosexuality, slavery,women's rights etc.

Homosexuality
Rom1:31,32Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Several sections call the Jewish Christ killers

OTher sections give women NO rights
1Cor 14:34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1Tim2:11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

Slavery Eph6:5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Col3:22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Several sections call the Jewish Christ killers

Quote, please?

1Cor 14:34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

I'm not going to jump up and say the Bible is super for women's rights, but it's worth pointing out that this is a commonly misused example. This was a letter to a particular church, and in that church there had been complaints of women talking, often and loudly, during the proceedings. The author was overly harsh in singling out women, but they were the ones causing the problems there. This was never meant to be a sweeping commentary on women's rights, more of a "hush up, people" to a particular group that was being troublesome.

But yes, in general Christ's disciples were not very accepting of groups like women. Which is odd, because Christ himself was fairly feminist for his time.

Below is one jewish comment from Peter. But before reading I want to clarify my original post. I am not a bible basher, I simply stated the I believe religion (any religion) helps people make bad decisions be it the something like the crusades or decisions based on "this is what the pastor said". My father who nearly point for point support democratic politics will not vote as such because he is against abortion.

What I intended to do with the post is highlight the texts that people (again I say people) maniuplate for their own agenda. Things are taken out of context on purpose. Not by me, mind you, but by those with the agenda. THis is why I stated that religion has prompted many bad choices.

Regarldess, his are quotes that could entice antisemitism.

Act 3:14,15 But ye (jews) denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Acts 10:39And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

In looking for that I found one where Jesus chastised a group of jews for not following old testament law, specifically the one regarding killing disobedient children. Mark7.

Reminds me a a quote from Richards Dawkins (he was quoting someone else, but I can't remember who right now) in his "Root of All Evil?" documentary..."Without religion you have good people doing good things, and evil people doing evil things, but for good people to do evil things...that takes religion."

Even if the Jews *DID* kill Jesus, shouldn't Christians be thanking them? My understanding is that Christ was put on Earth in order to die and release us from our sins. So, what would've happened if no one killed him?

jedipunk and Vincent are both right. The Bible does point out that the Jews killed Jesus, but to say that alone is misleading. Jesus was a Jew, and according to Christian belief, he was the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for. He was killed by his own people, which is the literary tragedy of the whole story. Some of them praised him as the Messiah, others as a prophet, and others thought he was a fake altogether.

That's not painting the Jews in a negative light, because the Bible never tries to say they were evil. The highest order it goes to is "misled," which they were to kill an innocent man. And since it was Christ's role on earth to die, the vast majority of Christians have nothing against Jews. In fact, there's several places in the Bible -- even in the New Testament -- that calls them God's chosen people. And if Jesus is God... the math is simple. It's only the insane minority of Christians that hold a grudge against the Jewish community.

Thank you, Steve. I was just trying to figure how to word it.

Last time I checked, white people killed a lot of the Indians. That doesn't make all white people Indian killers. You can't change history because you don't like what it says. I'm not ging to lobby the text book industry to remove the parts about Indians being killed by white people. It's an unfortunate fact of history.

Jason, I agree with you, but while we may be logical that does not mean others see it that way. There is tons of hatred between races and nationalities and income classes that has nothing to with individuals.

And for people that hate a another group but learn to accept someone they hated, well they tend to exceptionalize that person rather than realize that the hated group may not be what they thought.

Religion might help those incapable of seeing the big picture to understand the need for mutual cooperation and respect (and all that it entails),

How borderline insulting to the Christians among us. ;-)

But to play non-religious-based opposition-figure advocate, what would you make of children? I seriously doubt most children are capable of seeing the "big picture," and that effects all of humanity, because every adult was, at some point, a child. Are children exempt from morality until they reach the age of being big-picture-capable, or is religion required for them? If they're exempt from morality, it's hard to judge when they should become responsible for anything they say or do; punishment would be pointless, of course. If religion is required for them, it means it is required for every human being at a certain point in their lives.

I don't mean this to sound like I'm relegating the purpose of religion to child's play. I just thought it was an interesting conundrum to your proposal.

Well, children don't need religion specifically, but an education in dealing with their fellow humans.

Whether that comes in the form of religious education, lessons from their parents, or something else, certainly children aren't born (imo) with an understanding of right and wrong, cause and effect, and the grand scheme of how their actions change not only their own lives, but the lives of those around them.

As I am an atheist, and don't believe God inspired any religions, I tend to believe that one, or more very intelligent, reasoned people realized that those who *weren't* reasonable people were going about doing very foolish and destructive things to themselves and their fellow man, and so came up with a simple solution, tell them a being unimaginably powerful said they have to follow this list of rules here. Certainly, it may not have been that simple, but that's the general idea.

This is not to say Christians, Muslims, or anyone else are incapable of making good decisions without their religious upbringings and/or beliefs, but that those of us with alternate methods of learning how to deal with our fellow man are on the same wavelength, for the most part.

A child raised Christian next door to a child raised by reasoned Atheist parents is bound to live by *mostly* the same moral code, and I believe that's largely because deep down, they come from the same place.

Christians believe heaven is the big picture.

And how is monogamy not a moral issue. Most vows include being faithful to your spouse. To be unfaithful would going back on your word.

Even if Christians believe Heaven to be the big picture, they are still, as far as I know, instructed to try and act as moral people in this life, leading to the same end result as people who are moral simply for the sake of being moral.

As for the morality of violating your vows, I dunno, not everyone's vows are the same. I don't believe mine included any reference to faithfulness. I am faithful because I make that choice, not because I am bound by a vow.

Granted, Vincent, and I agree that atheist parents are just as capable of raising morally capable children as a Christian family. I was just addressing your point about how it can help those incapable of seeing the big picture.

An atheist parent would have to rely on pure logic for this. Say a child steals a jelly bean from a store. Just one jelly bean. This won't effect the store's bottom line, no one will notice, and it makes the kid happy. Was it still wrong? Most people would say, yes, it's wrong on principle. But the factors that make it wrong are far too nuanced and subtle for a child to understand. And if speaking to someone who has no ability to grasp nuance (like a child), absolutes can be helpful.

Christian parents, on the other hand, have those absolutes readily available. It's a trump card. When logic fails, because the child is incapable of understanding, "God said so." Like you said, it helps those incapable of understanding, and all children are at some point incapable of grasping parts of society that are so detailed. In that way, religious parents have a much easier moral bandage to patch up a spot that the child's mind cannot yet grasp.

True, there is an added challenge there, but so far, as a parent, I *like* that I will need to explain things with grey areas, rather than a black and white, "You don't do this because it's wrong".

As for what to do in that situation, a simple "You can't have that because it does not belong to you" should suffice for most children. If they ask why, well, then even if they might not grasp it, explaining the economic implications of many people doing what they just did should help justify it being "wrong".

An atheist parent would have to rely on pure logic for this. Say a child steals a jelly bean from a store. Just one jelly bean.

My friend was having some trouble explaining to her son why gambling is wrong, and we discussed it for a while. We eventually came to the conclusion that what made it wrong was the desire to get something without providing value in return. In other words, it came from the same root desire as theft.

Of course, if she was religious, she could have just told him it was wrong because God said it was wrong (even though thre's no scripture that I know of to back that up), and he would have had to accept that. But I think working out logically the reason for why it feels wrong intuitively is a much stronger method. That presupposes that our intuition is right...but checking intuition is one of the reasons for working things out logically.

If you truly believe in Jesus Christ and what he stood for then, yes, you try and live your life according to the Bible. Most people are not moral for the sake of being moral. They are that way because they were raised that way, either by Christian or non-Christian parents. There are exceptions to every generality but I would guess this to be true in most cases.

My brother and I were raised in the same household by the same parents. I would have classified them as non-Christians. They neither discouraged or encouraged Christianity. We hold vastly different world views. He is a non-religious person and I am a Christian. We are both moral people. We just happen to believe in very different end results.

Preserving people in a vegetative state is logical under one of the following two assumptions:
1. There is a chance they'll "wake up."
2. They're not "actually vegetative."

So, no, I would say that that one isn't very logical. We haven't yet figured out how to hook up jumper cables to a person's brain without turning it inot strawberry-colored mush. You'd do a world of good and save many lives by donating their healthy organs to non-vegetative people.

Most of our morals came from very pragmatic and logical roots. But, with religion being the best-known and strongest facilitator of this, such morals can often be overgeneralized and overdeveloped to be independent of their root causes. At this point, we run the strong risk of misapplying or manipulating formerly logical morality and ethics.

The logic in keeping someone in a vegetative state (assuming we have good reason to believe they will eventually wake up) is that we would want the same for ourselves. A person in a vegetative state, who will eventually wake up would still have the desire to live...denying them that would be wrong logically because we would want that same courtesy afforded to us.

Now, as for why we keep people who *won't* be coming back, there's no logic to that, and I don't think we should. The only reason anyone does that is either false hope (expecting a miracle or the like) or unwillingness to let go.

Whoa. You just made what is very close to the "potential person" pro-life argument.

The logic ... is that we would want the same for ourselves. A person ... who will eventually wake up would still have the desire to live...denying them that would be wrong logically because we would want that same courtesy afforded to us.

Weird.

Don't take this to mean I want to turn this into an abortion debate or anything. Just thought the similarities were eerie.

The key difference would be, IMO, that the comatose patient in question will have already been alive, had friends, family, a consciousness, etc.

A fetus, on the other hand, has no "want" to be allowed to grow and be born, it simply does as it is programmed by its' DNA to do, grow. Once a conscious mind is developed, that's different.

a consciousness, etc.

You can't really say yes/no on this point if they were truly vegetative. Sure, there might be neurons firing (there are neurons firing in my hand right now), but there's no response to any stimuli.

You can't say for certain that they're conscious.

Just a thought.

I was saying they *had* a consciousness, presumably one that desires to remain, assuming said vegetable could recover.

If they can come back, the current state of their consciousness isn't all that important, imo.

Ah, yes. They did indeed have a consciousness in the past.

The question really comes down to, as you said, whether or not you think they can come back.

Again, just because the Bible chooses to chronicle events, it does not mean that God condoned them. Also, after the death of Jesus, the "rules" changed.

Since many of his Chosen were polygamists, it seems that God must have condoned polygamy. He took Abraham straight to Heaven, if I remember the story right. If there's no condemnation, I think we have to assume the practice was condoned, especially since Mosaic law was so detailed.

Of course, you are free to insert whatever you think should be there into the Bible.

Well, it depends on which Christian you talk to.

Some Christians ascribe to the strict teaching of only the New Testament, while others believe that the New Testament didn't utterly invalidate the Old Testament. To the latter crowd, I think you make an excellent point about polygamy, but to the former crowd, your point is rendered moot because it's from the Old Testament. I've had the same frustration with similar issues when talking about the former group to a member of the latter group.

I think you're left with two options when talking about the difference between rules in the Old Testament and the New Testament. You can either assume that those rules were not from God (which means that the Old Testament is not the word of God, as it claims to be), or you can assume that moral absolutes changed. I don't think either one fits very well with Christian theology.

The first choice leaves you with the problem of the OT being wrong. If the OT is not the word of God, then what use are its prophecies which Jesus supposedly fulfilled? Why is it part of the Christian Canon?

If morality changed, then people have to acknowledge that morality is not "absolute".

If morality changed, then people have to acknowledge that morality is not "absolute".

Adam, what do you mean by "moral absolutes", and why does a morality that is not absolute present a problem to Christianity? (just wanting to understand your position before arguing.)

Christians now consider incest, polygamy, harsh punishments (including executions) for minor offenses, etc. to be immoral. They also claim that morality is absolute and unchanging. The problem is that the OT contains many instances of those "immoral" acts without any complaints from God. In fact, some of them are encouraged or commanded by God. So you have to conclude that either morality changed, or God was commanding people to do immoral acts.

Thanks for clarifying. I'll not argue with you, as I am not wiling to defend the "traditional" Christian view you present, neither do I agree with moral relativism.

I believe that there are aspects of morality that are absolute (they will always be wrong, in any culture), but I also accept that not everything labeled "morality" is in that category.

Christ brought the New Covenant, a much simpler law than the Covenant that the Hebrews had with JHVH. It consisted of two commandments: believe in the Messiah, and treat everyone else as you would want to be treated.

The Covenant wasn't invalidated, but it was pointed out the its complexity made it nearly impossible to observe completely. Much better to simply accept the New Covenant.

There was an argument about the middle of Acts about whether non-Jew Christians had to be circumcised (in other words, accept the Covenant). The anti-circumcision side won, and the pro-circumcision apostles simply disappear from the text after that point.

The New Covenant is open to a lot of interpretation, since it is possible that one could have multiple spouses while treating them as you would wish to be treated yourself, but it's generally interpreted as implying an equal and therefore monogamous relationship between spouses.

Paul was a bit of a misogynist, so his interpretation of the New Covenant tended to cut women out of the loop, eventually leading to the patriarchal streak through much of modern evangelical Christianity.

Jimmy: Where is this "new covenant" mentioned explicitly in the Bible?

Here's an article that does a better job than I could.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NewTestament/Hebrews/NewCov.htm

Looks like a lot of loose interpretation to me, which is what I expected. The belief that the NT replaces the OT is an interpretation. Not all agree.

Does that mean you won't eat shellfish, or wear clothing with mixed fibers?

I'm not a Christian, so you're asking the wrong person.

Jesus said "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." (Matthew 5:18, NIV). That sounds to me like a direct contradiction to the view that the OT no longer applies.

Like I said, there are different ways to interpret the NT. You interpret it one way, but many people interpret it differently. I personally can't see how anyone can read the above passage and still believe that the OT was "replaced" by the NT. That doesn't mean I'm going to tell people that my interpretation must be the correct interpretation. Nor do I appreciate when other people tell me that they are just reading the Bible literally, with no interpretation. That's impossible. This problem proves it.

If Christians don't believe in the New Covenant, that means they still have to follow the original Covenant, since, as you point out, it still applies.

The New Covenant is just a fancy way of referring to the idea that faith in Jesus as Saviour is all that is needed to be saved, whereas with the original Covenant, you had to follow a whole lot of laws, so many that failure was inevitable.

Don't we do that to cattle and sheep? Why not lesser humans?

Interesting statement. I'll be interested to hear the opposing side on this, since I (at the moment) can't think of what that response would be. It would seem, in the example as you've framed it, a person could only be on the opposing side (a) if they were also vegetarians or (b) if they believed humans were of a different standard than animals. And without belief in G/god, it's difficult to justify belief in free will or soul, which makes us no different from cattle and sheep.

Hmm. I'll need time to think on this one...food for thought, was the society depicted in Brave New World inherently "wrong"? I think that somewhat resembles the possible end result of this line of thinking.

What is the basis for deciding whether a choice was "good" or not?

Empathy, Information, Instinct and The Law.

...If there is no God and we are merely the product of interesting chemistry and physics, it doesn't really matter.

You've got it backwards. Without the belief in the possibility of supernatural intervention, supernatural reward, supernatural retribution, supernatural explanations and supernatural threats (miracles, prayer, gods, heaven, hell), our lives and our actions matter even more, don't they?

But if we really are created in the image and likeness of the God of the Bible, then there are no "lesser humans".

The God of the Bible is a bloodthirsty barbaric God who orders the slaying of first-born babies and condemns people to death by stoning for minor crimes amongst other atrocious evils. No child of today would learn moderation or compassion using the God of the Bible as a model, would they?

..on a Godless basis, subjecting or even culling weaker members of the human herd is probably a good idea..

You've got it backwards again. It is the delusion of being supported in some way by a supernatural omnipotent omniscient God Being (or the delusion of being one) which allows people to commit genocide, blow themselves up, enslave others (see the Bible Leviticus ch.21), justify segregation and supremacist ideologies, etc.

..on a Christian basis, it's utterly abhorrent, hence all their schools, clinics, hospitals, food banks, shelters, and rescue missions.

Aren't you discounting Christian people by crediting their good works to an imaginary being? But I suppose the doctrine of Original Sin discounts people by teaching children the negative belief that they are fundamentally evil. In contrast, Humanists, Atheists and Naturalists credit the good works of people solely to the people themselves who do the good works. Isn't that a more empowering realistic positive view?

I praise the charitable works of any community organization including those which hold silly beliefs. Scientologists do charity work. Good for them. But that does nothing to confirm the validity of their particular supernatural beliefs. Likewise, Christian charity does nothing to confirm the validity of their particular supernatural beliefs.

It does however go to show that humans, for the most part, are naturally normally generous empathetic caring creatures despite the irrational subjective claptrap they choose to believe.

But let me answer your original question with a few more: If we were to use the God of the Bible as our moral guide, whose view of this God is authentic? Who decides which people have the correct view? Given the plethora of Biblical interpretations, who decides which interpretation is correct? Who decides which translation is authentic? From where does any of this authority regarding a god derive? How do we know that authority is...

I'll stick with Secular Democracy, The Law, Science, Reason, Logic, Theories and Facts. :)

When science can explain where the first atom came from maybe I'll listen. Science says everything has a beginning. The first atom had tocome from somewhere and science cannot explain it.

I accept that there are things I will never know until I get to heaven. I accept on faith that God always has been and always will be. I cannot explain it just as science cannot explain where we came from.

Jason, does science really say everything has a beginning?

I've thought about this for the least 15 seconds, and I can't find any mental reference point for that statement. Maybe I'm just not seeing the elephant in the room.

I don't get it, what's different about accepting that there may simply be no "beginning" for a first atom to ever need to appear, and accepting that God has always been, and will always be?

Personally, the beginning, or lack thereof, doesn't really matter to me. I don't doubt we'll eventually figure it out, and I'm perfectly fine not worrying about it until then.

When science can explain where the first atom came from maybe I'll listen. Science says everything has a beginning. The first atom had tocome from somewhere and science cannot explain it.

I was only questioning the assumptions that led to the above assertion.

I don't get it, what's different about accepting that there may simply be no "beginning" for a first atom to ever need to appear, and accepting that God has always been, and will always be?

Well, the essential difference is the assertion that all knowledge can be obtained.

If there is no God, no paranormal, no miracles, then everything is able to be explained. And in science, we can't assume paranormal, so then by extension everything must be explained. Maybe we haven't figured some things out yet, but the mindset still leads to the conclusion that given enough time, enough research, enough tools, and enough brilliant minds, humanity can come to understand everything about the universe.

Belief in God, on the other hand, has an easier escape route. Christians (myself included) believe we aren't meant to understand everything in our time on earth. Our minds are unprepared for the vastness of the universe, and so some things defy human explanation. We don't have to explain why God was always around because, by definition, we don't believe that we are even able to do so.

That's the difference. Science (when taken alone) leads to the inevitable conclusion that everything should eventually be explained. That said, I think "where did the first atom come from?" is a poor argument against atheism, since it can easily be explained as "we don't know yet, but we will." Still, it is a compelling similarity between atheism and deism; both rely on faith. The latter on a supreme being, the former on our ability to discover all that a supposed supreme being would know.

Who ever said all knowledge can be obtained? I think it's very possible that, whether God exists or not, we may reach a fundamental limit to our knowledge. Or we might not. I don't think anyone's truly asserted that we will know everything, though.

Yet I can't but wonder what exactly led you, Steve, to believe in an invisible Supreme God Being?

I'd really like to know how one jumps from the understanding "Santa Claus was just a feel good fictitious myth" to "but an invisible Supreme God Being (or Beings) is real."

I'm curious as to what that reasoning looks like here.

And Steve, the part about Atheists relying on faith, that's just silly. I'll say it again: silly. If a Supreme God Being were to appear before me I would instantly become a believer. My Atheism would be no more. Why? My Atheism isn't based on faith. It's based on evidence.

In contrast, a Deist ignores evidence and reasonableness no matter how powerful and clear because faith has made him invulnerable to the onslaught of reality. So, like I've said to others, equating an Atheist's intellectual reasoning with the intellectual circumvention of a Deist's faith is, well, absurd.

The Holocaust, The Blown Up Russian Children at Beslan, 20-30 Thousand Dead Starving Children Every Year, The Asian Tsunami, Small Pox, WWI, Rawanda, The Inquisition, etc. ... these few samplings of world horrors easily show that if an invisible omnipotent omniscient Supreme God Being is real, It is immoral and cruel, worth nothing but contempt the way most people would hold in contempt a parent standing idly by as their children suffered torment after torment.

Yet Deists choose to praise their invisible Supreme Parent for his neglect by making such bizarre excuses like: "God's Will Be Done" or my favorite absurdity: "We Aren't Meant to Understand God's Plan". (But that's the sort of ludicrous world view which leads some preachers to say that dinosaur bones were put in the earth by Satan to weaken our faith by confusing us.)

So the Deists, no matter what the evidence, continue to defend their Holy Cow. And that is the height of absurdity.

Yes. True. You are correct when you point out that The SM is limited to observable phenomena. The Scientific Method will never be able to disprove that Leprechauns do not exist nor Gnomes nor Poltergeists nor an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster.

You mention witchcraft and angels. I mention Leprechauns and invisible Spaghetti Monsters. Someone else could mention the spirit of her Great Great Aunt Betsy floating next to her. Someone else could mention her experience of living in 87 different dimensions at once. Someone else could mention that their New Age group travelled to the future using a secret method of Time Travel. We could on for days when it comes to unobservable willy-nilly make believe ideas, now couldn't we?

In other words, the Scientific Method is really useful when it comes to making decisions about reality. When it comes to imaginary friends, flights of fantasy, psychotic delusions, romanticized glorified daydreams and other such subjective ruminations, we all have complete authority to believe whatever we make up.

But as the saying goes: you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Therefore, decisions (material, psychological, emotional, governental, parental, socail, career, health, etc.) ought to be made based on facts based on reality based on evidence.

Therefore, one can confidently and with intellectual honesty declare oneself to be an Atheist based not upon faith but upon reasonableness (based on facts based on reality based on evidence yada yada yada...)

This is actually why I'm agnostic. Everything that does not explicit, contradictory, rigorously peer-reviewed evidence is possible.

Thus, a higher power can exist. I've yet to see any evidence to back up the claim that it does exist, but it can. This is why I'm agnostic.

Thus, I would say that no atheist can call his atheist ideology at all scientific.

By your avenue of thought, you are saying that psychics cannot ever possibly exist, ever, just because you've seen no evidence of them and you think they're "nonsensical imaginary silliness." 0% chance. Well, that's what they said about the nonsensical imaginary silly living coelacanth, and they've found a couple live ones. Thus, to me, atheism is just as faith-based as any steadfast belief in a higher power.

The semantics of atheism vs agnosticism are always a pain :)

Personally, I'm perfectly happy to say that all evidence I have seen at this time gives me no reason to give *any* weight to the idea of God, unicorns, psychic powers, etc.

I am, given new evidence, willing to reevaluate those things, but until that day, I have no problem steadfastly believing none of them are real.

Does that make me an atheist or an agnostic? I dunno, but I like the word atheist better, as it sounds less wishy-washy, and I'm anything but (barring new information, of course)

#18.1: you are saying that psychics cannot ever possibly exist

I'm saying that given not one single psychic has ever passed a reasonable test measuring their supposed supernatural ability, the chances that psychics are anything other than illusionists are minuscule. By your reasoning, to deny the possibility that Santa Claus might exist is ultimately a faith-based conclusion.

I ask: how exactly do you differentiate historical reality from mythology? Aren't some things likely to be true based on tons of evidence while other things are likely not to be true based on lack of evidence? Let's be real simple: aren't most myths around the world dealing with God Beings simply untrue? Or do you believe they're all true? Where do you draw the line and based on what?

Eagerly awaiting your response. :)

#18.2: all evidence I have seen at this time gives me no reason to give *any* weight to the idea of God, unicorns, psychic powers, etc. I am, given new evidence, willing to reevaluate those things, but until that day, I have no problem steadfastly believing none of them are real.

Exactly. ;)

The travels of Santa Claus violate known laws of physics.

Psychics? Well, you really don't know, now do you? To say that because all known psychics are hoaxes and quacks means that all possible psychic phenomena itself is nonsense is unscientific. You have seen no evidence to the contrary, only an absence of evidence for.

Psychic phenomena, at least within my realm of knowledge, is something that has yet to be scientifically disproved. Santa, the story, is verifiably a nice little prank that parents play on their kids. Much as Baba Yaga was to the Hungarians, or the original tale of St. Nicholas. Santa Claus has treaceable historical roots to moralistic fairy tales that parents tell their kids, fully recognizing the falseness of the tale itself. Thus, your favorite whipping boy, Santa, is a horrible analogy to belief in God or even psychic phenomena.

Santa Claus directly contradicts all known scientific evidence. Psychic phenomena? There've been no rigorous confirmed observations of psychic phenomena, thus it can be said that current scientific evidence does not provide a evidence-backed avenue for psychic interaction. But, this is far from being the "violates known laws of physics" and "it's a fairy tale that helps keep children obedient" basis for Santa Claus.

This is even less true for belief in a higher being. In that case, the presence of a higher being is not logically disprovable by scientific evidence, which is why I say that the outright denial of a higher being, as admission that you think such a thing has a 0% chance of happening, is unscientific. SCience is not able to pass judgment on the validity of "a higher being exists." It can possibly refute the stories of the Bible, but a higher being itself is untouchable by science, because science will never have complete information, and a scientist should never be so unscientifically arrogant as to say that s/he Knows that there is no higher being.

I ask: how exactly do you differentiate historical reality from mythology? Aren't some things likely to be true based on tons of evidence while other things are likely not to be true based on lack of evidence? Let's be real simple: aren't most myths around the world dealing with God Beings simply untrue? Or do you believe they're all true? Where do you draw the line and based on what?

I differentiate mythology and historical reality based on the probability of occurrence based on archaeological evidence and multiple-source historical literature. For example, the story of the siege of Troy. Archaeologists believe that they've found the ruins of Troy (several stacked Troys, actually). Thus, it was very probably the siege of Troy did indeed happen, knowing the political, economic, and military importance of that particular city in the context of the Mediterranean world. But, are we to believe that Achilles' mother did indeed bodily dip him into the River Styx? No, because there is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the assertion of there being a river composed of dead-soul-enriched invincibility water. Further, literary historians agree that Greco-Roman literature often exaggerated or artistically idealized the heroes of their stories, which means that the imperviousness of Achilles can be attributed to a fanciful description of him being an absolutely awesome warrior, and that his dead body was whisked away by a goddess can be attributed to the swift removal of his body by his comrades in the midst of a heated battle. During battle, it is quite easy to miss such a event, and after a lapse in such awareness, it can be easily construed as "OMFG! He disappeared!"

To make a long story short, I draw the line where the assertions of a mythological tale contradict known scientific evidence. Thus, unicorns? Well, I won't say that they do exist, but a single-horned equine creature existing? That's possible, but unlikely given the difficulty of not having already discovered a horse-sized creature on land after all the exploration we've already done. Like I said, I don't say that it's total bunk, just rather unlikely. I guess my lack of ridicule for an assertion that has no directly contradictory evidence is the difference between you and I.

I don't give much weight to claims of psychics, and I give no weight to those who believe they can speak to the dead (contradicting all known biological evidence) and those who believe they can foretell the future (predestination? The Heisenberg uncertatinty principle takes a chunk out of that one, no?). Psychics who read other people's minds, though? Well, none have scientifically shown that they indeed possess this power, but I'll withhold judgment as to the possibility due to the fact that our brains do generate externally detectable electrical signals, and that we still understand next to nothing about how our brains function.

You say the thought of a higher being is ridiculous.
I say it's possible, but unlikely. After all, jumping the gun when you don't have solid evidence isn't really part of the scientific method, now is it?

One can be an Atheist and agree that there's more than a 0% chance that God Beings exist. I'm not a fundamentalist Atheist. LOL. However, as with Guardian Angels and Astral Out of Body Travel - about which I'm also an Atheist - I'll liberally put the likelihood at 0.0000000000000000001%.

I have no beef in the possibility that powerful god beings might exist in the universe or in a universe. When I call myself an Atheist, it is partially in reaction to the politically charged ludicrous portraits of god beings that fundamentalist religious followers paint and point to as absolutely exact while threatening the most horrific torments to those who disagree.

And I ask: Perhaps you won't call yourself an Atheist because of that 0.0000000000000000001%. But won't you at least admit yourself an Atheist when it comes to the vast multitude of God Beings profiled and invoked by various cultures throughout history? Can't you at least go so far as to say that you are in fact an Atheist when it comes to these willy-nilly proprietary human interpretations of gods?

I mean, one can call oneself an Atheist and still not negate that 0.0000000000000000001%. By stating as you have that there is no proof for the existence of God Beings, you certainly walk like one. Why not talk the talk too?

I think people often call themselves Agnostic more out of fear of the Atheist label backlash rather than out of an uncompromising stance on that chance 0.0000000000000000001%. Actually, I see Agnostics (I believe most are secretly Atheists (wink wink)) as practicing appeasement towards (or caving in to intimidation from) the religious nuts rather than steadfastly standing on principle for that 0.0000000000000000001%.

With so much at stake, I find it frustrating that more rational people aren't willing to stand up to religious leaders and their followers and state unashamedly that anyone who claims authoritatively to speak for, know, understand or visit with one or more God Beings is deluded and out of touch with reality. More rational people ought to start objecting to these people when they seek positions of power and especially when they seek to sit on a school board. Luckily this does happen from time to time. See Dover, Pennsylvania and more recently Kansas. :)

The discussion about the leeway allowed in defining atheism has already been had on Newsvine, and I ascribe to the belief that atheism is about "There is no God" while agnosticism is about "There could be, but we don't know." But, thank you for telling me that I'm a coward for being an agnostic.

Intimidation from religious nuts... uh huh... it's funny you say this because, in a separate subthread under this very article, I am rather heatedly antireligious. But, in the interest of self-serving blanket statements, we'll just gloss over that point.

Going back to your arrogant delusions about agnostics, you really believe that people who call themselves agnostics are just happy-go-lucky about the whole religious fundamentalism push? You believe that agnostics call themselves agnostics because they just don't want young-Earth creationists to jump down their throats? You have apparently never witnessed a discussion between an agnostic and a fundamentalist Christian. While I choose to call myself an agnostic, this does not mean, in the least, that I condone, like, fear, or cower in the presence of religious fundamentalism or even organized religion.

But, according to your worldly atheist wisdom, maybe I just do that really deep down inside.

I leave you with two definitions, just in case you really want to talk the talk:

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

ag·nos·ti·cism (ăg-nŏs'tĭ-sĭz'əm) n. 1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

In my experience, calling yourself an agnostic actually makes you more of a target for religious evangelists. They interpret "agnostic" as "I'm not sure yet. Convince me." That's why, evne though I consider myself officially an "agnostic atheist", I still call myself an atheist if someone asks and then clarify later if necessary.

JH: Count to ten. You're overreacting. I was not implying you are a religious nut or coward. It's clear though that some Agnostics (and Atheists) appease religious folk and/or feel intimidated by them in large numbers. I've appeased them in various ways and felt intimidated by their madness (especially when they gather in large numbers).

As for your choice of definition for Atheist, I hope you're not suggesting that is the only legitimate authoritative choice. And since most topics one can think of have already been discussed and written about elsewhere, I'll save myself the bother of checking every point against that likelihood before I bring them up. Thank you. :)

Again, I haven't heard a real explanation as to why people use the old 'we just can't know one way or the other' excuse to avoid being called an Atheist. As Adam Kemp points out, many religious folk interpret an Agnostic as basically proclaiming themselves to be unsure of themselves and in need of convincing. And I think a lot of Agnostics know that's how they'll be perceived which, as I said in an earlier comment, allows the Agnostic to avoid taking a strong stand against subjective claims of supernatural authority.

Call me arrogant all you want, but it seems to me that a person who identifies as an Agnostic is more often than not choosing to latch onto that 0.0000000000000000001% chance that supernatural causes turn out to be true. Whereas a person identifying as Atheist chooses to highlight that other 99.9999999999999999999% gargantuan chance that supernatural causes are bunk.

Is it just me, or is there an unavoidable discrepancy between the two possible likelihoods? Why not do as Adam Kemp above and acknowledge the power of that 99.9999999999999999999% by calling oneself an Atheist while allowing for that 0.0000000000000000001% by clarifying, when asked, that you are an Agnostic Atheist (one who points to an overwhelming lack of empirical proof for God Beings while refusing to deny the possibility however minuscule)?

Hmmm? :)

I've appeased them in various ways and felt intimidated by their madness (especially when they gather in large numbers).

Then you are more of an "agnostic" (using your psychoanalysis of anyone who calls themselves agnostic) than I am. I have never backed down from a religious argument in saying "Your God, the one in the Bible, Torah, etc., could very likely exist." My resolute stance has always been "If you give me rigorous scientific evidence for everything in your belief system, I'll start considering believing in your God. Otherwise, go convert needier people." Oh, and for the record, in the rare event that you've misunderstood an iota of my stance as an agnostic, I believe none of the higher powers in any organized religion ever existed. That's a more solid stance than your occasional-appeasement mantra seems. Maybe you like to call yourself atheist to feel better about yourself, that you're taking some sort of inner stand, when you do appease the big scary religious masses. Do you take offense to that? It's milder than what you've said about me.

As for your choice of definition for Atheist, I hope you're not suggesting that is the only legitimate authoritative choice. And since most topics one can think of have already been discussed and written about elsewhere, I'll save myself the bother of checking every point against that likelihood before I bring them up. Thank you. :)

I don't profess to say that my dictionary definitions are the only ones. I am also not the one declaring that all agnostics are cowards who are just too squeamish to own up to the religious folk.

Again, I haven't heard a real explanation as to why people use the old 'we just can't know one way or the other' excuse to avoid being called an Atheist.

This coming from the person saying that my taking offense to your blanket characterization of me is overreaction. Huh. Oh, right. You're not actually calling me a coward. You're just saying that what I call myself is an "excuse."

And I think a lot of Agnostics know that's how they'll be perceived which, as I said in an earlier comment, allows the Agnostic to avoid taking a strong stand against subjective claims of supernatural authority.

And you're entitled to that opinion. But, I don't think you should feel so smug in calling me a coward for not saying "I am an atheist, here me roar!" Further, if we were avoiding having to take a stand, I dont' think we'd be impliciting inviting the proselytizing religious masses to debate. We'd be calling ourselves atheists. ;-)

Why not do as Adam Kemp above and acknowledge the power of that 99.9999999999999999999% by calling oneself an Atheist while allowing for that 0.0000000000000000001% by clarifying, when asked, that you are an Agnostic Atheist (one who points to an overwhelming lack of empirical proof for God Beings while refusing to deny the possibility however minuscule)?

Why not do as Adam Kemp does and have the courtesy not to tell me who I am and who I should be?

Hmmm? :)

Oh, and with your probabilities, I would ask for any evidence supporting your probabilities if only they weren't pulled out of your ass. It's inherently unprovable, and for the record, if you want to define who I am for me, at least try to understand my viewpoints. Reading my column or looking at my stances in past religious debates would help. Do that, and then come back and tell me I should be an atheist just like you want to think of yourself as. Till then, I have no interest in wasting time talking to a person who apparently knows more about me than I do.

Cheers.

Am I the only one to find humor in two people arguing over who is less religious than the other?

'I don't believe more than you don't believe. Nah-na-na-na-na-nah!'

Again, you're overreacting and seeing demons in my statement where none are.

I'm asking questions about the intent of people choosing to call themselves Agnostic and stating my opinions about those intents. I'm clarifying the differences, in my view, between those who talk like an Atheist and those who additionally identify as one.

I think it's important but not worth personally attacking other rational people about such. I'm sorry you feel I have done so in your case. I disagree. I can only apologize for not having been more judicious with my choice of words in this discussion with you.

Since I don't know you, I never took into account in our conversations what I now know to be your affinity for being generously sensitive. Again, my apologies for that innocent omission on my part. :) Ciao

Actually, my comment was meant to show that people who call themselves agnostic have to put up with more crap, so it's not really fair to say that they would do it to avoid trouble. I started calling myself an atheist because it was easier, not because I was braver.

It's a shame this argument is happening when I think we can all agree, regardless of semantic bull@!$%#, that as of this moment, none of us have been presented with sufficient evidence to bother giving any credence to this whole "God" thing.

I'll assume that when you say "all" and "none" that you are referring to those who have stated their position as atheist and/or agnostic. I would not want to be mistakenly included in your statement.

Mr. Otis, yours is specious reasoning.

Ha! I almost wrote the exact same thing in my last post with regards the notion that a lack of evidence for something could lead one to posit its non-existence. But I didn't, thought it was a bit too inflammatory. =)

Have a great weekend. Catch you Monday.

Mr. Otis, I concur entirely.

Mr. Otis: A lack of evidence doesn't necessarily mean something doesn't exist. However, it does mean you don't have a very strong reason to believe in it.