Request for help...

[Max]

I got sucked into a conversation about fundi's going too far with...well...pretty much everything.

On when I compared science to policework.

The point is that forensice evidence and what we are talking about here are two different things. Forensic evidence is fingerprints, blood samples, and such, right? Well, don't they eventually vanish over time? Fossils and such do not, because the conditions are just right so that they do not disappear. Basically, your analogy of scientists being police detectives does not apply.

When I made the comment that christians don't have a monoploy on morals, and that atheists were just as moral.

Yes, but who's more likely to have good morals? Someone who has been raised in a church background where good morals are an integral part of life, or in an atheistic home where there is no higher authority to answer to? The answer is simple: the churchboy. People that are a part of a religion feel compelled to have good morals and teach them to their children. An atheist has no such compulsion, which is why you are posting your atheistic bull**** here right now, otherwise you would know better.

And..of course..on evolution.

You know, dinosaurs aren't just part of an evolution belief. They're in the Bible, too. They don't come right out and say "dinosaur", but they do describe them in detail with names like "behemoth" and "leviathan". If that school doesn't allow evolution to be taught, and yet don't allow dinosaurs to be taught, there's something wrong with that school system, there's no doubt about that, but it's not a Christian agenda; it might be that they think Darwinian evolution is just screwed up, whcih it is. Also, you pretty much can blame the decline of morals in the US on the fact that religion is being downplayed and attacked.

He's an ass.. and I'm running on little sleep, and am annoyed now. I just want to make some points that will also either shut him up, or make him feel like a stupid piece of shit.

[Surlethe]

The point is that forensice evidence and what we are talking about here are two different things. Forensic evidence is fingerprints, blood samples, and such, right? Well, don't they eventually vanish over time? Fossils and such do not, because the conditions are just right so that they do not disappear. Basically, your analogy of scientists being police detectives does not apply.

This entirely misses the point of the analogy, which regarded evidence collection and inferences therefrom.

Yes, but who's more likely to have good morals? Someone who has been raised in a church background where good morals are an integral part of life, or in an atheistic home where there is no higher authority to answer to? The answer is simple: the churchboy. People that are a part of a religion feel compelled to have good morals and teach them to their children. An atheist has no such compulsion, which is why you are posting your atheistic bull**** here right now, otherwise you would know better.

Why should morality require a higher authority to which to answer?

You know, dinosaurs aren't just part of an evolution belief. They're in the Bible, too. They don't come right out and say "dinosaur", but they do describe them in detail with names like "behemoth" and "leviathan". If that school doesn't allow evolution to be taught, and yet don't allow dinosaurs to be taught, there's something wrong with that school system, there's no doubt about that, but it's not a Christian agenda; it might be that they think Darwinian evolution is just screwed up, whcih it is. Also, you pretty much can blame the decline of morals in the US on the fact that religion is being downplayed and attacked.

Affirming the conclusion and the old, tired "decline of morals" argument, wherein he cherrypicks his definition of morals and post-hocs it onto evolution.

[defanatic]

Didn't we figure out that the behemoth was really a bull elephant, not a dinosaur? Some other post on this board.

Who says an atheistic family has no morals? My parents are fairly atheistic (they believe there is no God), and yet I am far better behaved than many christians I know.

[Guardsman Bass]

Didn't we figure out that the behemoth was really a bull elephant, not a dinosaur? Some other post on this board.

Who says an atheistic family has no morals? My parents are fairly atheistic (they believe there is no God), and yet I am far better behaved than many christians I know.

From what I remember, some of the "Behemoth=dinosaur" idea came from the passage which described his tail as being "stiff and full of vigor." Apparently, the creationists who started this didn't realize that 'tail' was a euphemism for 'penis' at the time, or something like that.

[Ariphaos]

The point is that forensice evidence and what we are talking about here are two different things. Forensic evidence is fingerprints, blood samples, and such, right? Well, don't they eventually vanish over time? Fossils and such do not, because the conditions are just right so that they do not disappear. Basically, your analogy of scientists being police detectives does not apply.

Saying forensics is not steeped in science is like saying English is not steeped in language.

Regardless, bone samples, structure, facial and tissue reconstruction, blood analysis and other items are common to both forensics and evolutionary science.

Yes, but who's more likely to have good morals? Someone who has been raised in a church background where good morals are an integral part of life, or in an atheistic home where there is no higher authority to answer to? The answer is simple: the churchboy. People that are a part of a religion feel compelled to have good morals and teach them to their children. An atheist has no such compulsion, which is why you are posting your atheistic bull**** here right now, otherwise you would know better.

On the contrary, it is christianity that had unleashed the first documented case of genocide (southern France in the 14th century IIRC, against suspected Cathars). "Kill them all, God will know his own." Does not fit a universally accepted morality. Many christians are also driven to believe that their god will forgive them, so long as they repent. I know athiests that have been threatened by christians in such a manner. "There is nothing wrong with me torturing and killing you, because God will forgive me."

On the other hand, a moral athiest has nowhere near as flimsy a moral grounding. An athiest, nontheist, diest or agnostic takes wonder in their insignificance, and realizes that the only true immortality lies in the memories of others.

You know, dinosaurs aren't just part of an evolution belief. They're in the Bible, too. They don't come right out and say "dinosaur", but they do describe them in detail with names like "behemoth" and "leviathan". If that school doesn't allow evolution to be taught, and yet don't allow dinosaurs to be taught, there's something wrong with that school system, there's no doubt about that, but it's not a Christian agenda; it might be that they think Darwinian evolution is just screwed up, whcih it is. Also, you pretty much can blame the decline of morals in the US on the fact that religion is being downplayed and attacked.

The behemoth is an elephant, and the tail that swings like a cedar is not referring to its tail, but more than likely its penis. The Old Testament is full of such sexual references, and the behemoth's tail is not alone among them.

Beyond which, if the behemoth referred to a dinosaur with a tail like that, it would also have mentioned the length of its neck and the rather odd nature of its head.

[Mal_Reynolds]

The point is that forensice evidence and what we are talking about here are two different things. Forensic evidence is fingerprints, blood samples, and such, right? Well, don't they eventually vanish over time? Fossils and such do not, because the conditions are just right so that they do not disappear. Basically, your analogy of scientists being police detectives does not apply.

He jumps from talking about the differences between the materials and tries to imply a difference in materials collection and analysis. Does not follow.

Yes, but who's more likely to have good morals? Someone who has been raised in a church background where good morals are an integral part of life, or in an atheistic home where there is no higher authority to answer to? The answer is simple: the churchboy. People that are a part of a religion feel compelled to have good morals and teach them to their children. An atheist has no such compulsion, which is why you are posting your atheistic bull**** here right now, otherwise you would know better.

He begs the question, assuming that religion alone imparts good morals, and somehow is the only thing that does. He also assumes that religion produces the only authority in a child's life, completely discounting parents, older siblings, etc.

Also, you pretty much can blame the decline of morals in the US on the fact that religion is being downplayed and attacked.

You can, but you'd be a damned simpleton if you do. I agree there's a decline in morality, but it has more to do with changing views on parenting than changing views on religion.

[Zero]

Yes, but who's more likely to have good morals? Someone who has been raised in a church background where good morals are an integral part of life, or in an atheistic home where there is no higher authority to answer to? The answer is simple: the churchboy. People that are a part of a religion feel compelled to have good morals and teach them to their children. An atheist has no such compulsion, which is why you are posting your atheistic bull**** here right now, otherwise you would know better.

He's absolutely wrong. In my personal experience, I've noticed that christianity's morality is based on the idea of God punishing you for breaking his rules, so the idea is basically that right and wrong are based on who knows, and how bad they'll hurt you. If nobody's ever going to know about something they did wrong, and they know their God will forgive them, they can do anything at all and still feel like they have the moral high ground.

Atheists, on the other hand, must value life, since it's all we can be sure we have, and we come up with morality based on some universally applicable principle. I'd rather have any of my atheist friends at my back, and historically, they're a lot more dependable. In fact, at least in the public arena, I can't think of a single good thing that the fundamentalist movement is trying to do. They're trying to ban things that don't affect them, such as gay marriage, even though there's no rational reason to fight it, and even though it doesn't affect them. Religious fundamentalism has been on the side of slavery, witch burnings, and the red scare, and any number of crackpot ideas that turned out wrong. Why the fuck should one just assume they have a more solid morality?

[Mal_Reynolds]

There are two forms of morality -- morality based on the perception of immediate results and morality based on loyalty to an abstract, and you can get either type from religion or from atheism.

Religious morality and atheist morality have about equal odds of producing decent people or not on that basis.

Still, atheist morality that's based on an understanding of immediate results will always produce people a little better grounded than religious morality based on an illusion of same will, in my opinion.

[Darth Wong]

If he is so confident that atheists are less moral, why doesn't he produce any evidence to show that this is the case, rather than his personal theories about why he thinks it should be the case?

Does he realize that according to his logic, Osama Bin Laden should be more moral than Carl Sagan or the Dalai Lama? Or does he not even realize that Buddhism has no "higher power to sit in judgment", unlike Christianity and Islam?

People tend to resemble the gods they worship. Those who worship the Old Testament God tend to act like him. Those who worship the New Testament Nice Guy Jesus tend to act like him. And those who worship the Book of Revelation Genocidal Asshole Jesus tend to act like him. As for those who worship no God at all ... I guess we're able to think for ourselves.

[The Guid]

What about worshippers of Polytheistic religions? Do they have split personality disorders?

[Darth Wong]

What about worshippers of Polytheistic religions? Do they have split personality disorders?

No, but they would fit in with the group.

[wolveraptor]

A lot of polytheistic religions never used the gods as symbols of morality anyways, so people didn't really act like them at all. Either that, or one particular god was designated as the god of morality (Marduk, Baldur, etc.).