Then if there is no life after death, we have no God to blame.
So blaming God to prove he does not exist or is cruel does not stand in that line of argument.

Human life is indeed valuable, but ironically that value is one that itself comes from religion.

As i said, I am not interested in the Bible.

If there is murder or rape - not concerned with that book.

But I have seen many accusations levied against my Book, by people citing murder adn rape, when in fact they only misquote to "bash".

I was therefore talking about your statemtn that religion has "murder and rape". Whether the bible has it in the exact sense as you put it, quite frankly "ist mir Scheiss egal".

All I was saying, is once we accept the probability that there is a God, logically the probability that he has revealed himself to his creation in some way also becomes highly probable.
In that vein, when we are disgruntled with Christianity or an existing religion, before becoming absolutely disenchanted, one should look to all avenues and clarify one's accusations.
Would make more sense to first evaluate if the avenue for which you are opting is truly different.

Otherwise it's out of the frying pan and into the fire. 
Posted on: November 13, 2007, 08:27:44 pm

---

no pun intended with the last line. 

Well, not exactly keeping us in the dark. People ask questions, but for the most part when receiving an answer that they do not like, they just ignore it, or claim that it is not good enough.
After all the Bible is not the only book out there. So no one is kept in the dark, except the he who wants to stay in it.

As regards altruism, the human gene has a propensity towards altruism as well as good, just as it has a propensity towards hate, violence, and war. Just as there is a genetic disposition to negative emotions, there is a genetic predisposition towards positive ones.

What is missed by these so-called arguments about the altruistic gene, is what actually makes us call one predisposition malevolent and the other benevolent. Ironically, religion itself says that man is capable of good and bad; it is this predisposition for both that according to religion makes man a worthy creation; simply according to one monotheistic faith - "it is easier to be pure and stay pure, but valuable in the eyes of the Creator is that which is dirty but strives to clean itself for the sake of the Divine".

In any case, the gene predisposition, does not answer why we consider some genetic traits in a favourable light and the others in a negative light.
You said so yourself - murder is abhorrent. Yet we do have a genetic predisposition for that too. What makes us demarcate.
This is where the gene altruism falls flat.

True I can be good as i am genetically predisposed to it. True I cna be "bad" because I am predisposed to that as well.
But why would I choose one over the other? Why would I value alturism over selfishness?
This is what I meant by religion being the root of morals.

On a more complex note - A money lender would charge 500% interest and milk his indentured farmers for life. Would any altrusitic gene need to be valued over the greedy gene? If so, why prefer one over the other? That is the gray area of the semantics of genetic altruism, and it is in response to these questions that plain altruism for altruism's sake is weak.
Why be altruistic when I can be rich?
No God, no heaven - why would I have to sacrifice my pleasure for someone who is a potential rival in the natural selection process?

I do agree that any God up there would reward morality and thinking ability. But the big question is "What is morality"? Genetic altruism too fell short in answering some crucial questions here. So where next?
Posted on: November 13, 2007, 10:38:09 pm

---

Religion is assumed to be that bridge over the gap.
The criteria for understanding what morality means. After all, western morality is quite different from Eastern or Middle eastern morality.
So what is the creator's view of what is moral?
If we say we do not know, simply because we want to disregard world religions, then one is not truly seeking an answer to one;s own question. Rather seeking an excuse to pursue one's own "pursuits"

Whatever it is, careful consideration is in order. Sometimes when the superficially abhorrent is analyzed in depth, it turns out to be the only feasible solution to an implacable question.

If you are arguing that there is no such thing as genetic altruism, Serpicus, you must argue this in all contexts: i.e. not just humans. We are animals; and apes and even "lesser" social organisms such as spiders  (for example Delena cancarides ) display altruistic behaviors. I suggest reading "the selfish gene" and perhaps coming to an understanding that what is good for your genes defines what you should do. If it means sacrificing yourself in order that most of your genes survive, than by all means. Altruism is by NO means limited to humans; so by your reasoning we should infer that this god also favors other animals (perhaps even more so?). "Why be altruistic when I can be rich?": this is an incomplete argument. You must define rich. Perhaps the statement is better epitomized by "what can I do to get what I want?". In this case you clearly can see that SOME people want to be rich, others want to make others happy, etc. We are all selfish according to this. We are all striving for something we want, and if "altruism" is the way to get it, than so be it. I think you are defining terms too narrowly, as altruism is really in the "eye of the beholder". Sorry if I left anything out in my rush. Perhaps Dr. Lazarus would be interested in this pessimistic view...?

Well sacrificing oneself for the survival of the species is not in dispute here.

The point is, if you argue that spiders sacrifice themselves for the greater good, there are also the same spiders that cannibalise in order to survive.

My question is why one over the other as a point of "good" or "bad". What would you call a person like Jeffrey Dahmer or The Manson Family. After all in their gene structure, altruism is out-weighed by the urge - again primal as you put it - to kill.
Chimps are also cannibalistic especially when the offspring is from a rival clan.

Would you then argue that a human that displays this tendency is also simply answering his "selfish gene" as opposed to another that displays his "altruistic gene".

you didnt get my initial point in this regard.

My question was simple, when both behavioural traits are inherent in the "animal" gene structure, why is it that the same animals - u and I - are taught to value altruism and castigate selfishness. After all, by your own admission, they are part of the same genetic tendency. Why call one "noble" and the other "abhorrent".
Where do you get the distinction? That's all I was asking.

Why would you call for example euthenesia or mercy killing good, but a life in the torment of prison better than the swiftness of capital punishment.

Is this all genetic?

If it is genetic only, then the idea that one trend of thought is more noble than another is in itself contradictory.
If it is genetic to sacrifice, it is also a basic animal urge to be selfish; or to pull out all the stops to become the alpha male. Where do we draw the line if everything is genetic. How will you explain that killing a rival is wrong, but having mercy is? If both are 2 sides of the same genetic attributes, why do we prefer one over the other.

To prefer one over the other is like an atheist saying he prefers to marry, as compared to another atheist who likes free hippie sex. Can one really claim to be more noble than the other? On what criteria or criterion?
If there is none, then what does the altruistic gene theory prove?
Nothing.
It simply states that animals have a propensity to do good, and bad. It is not in the position to actually call one behaviour "good", and the other "bad".

Ironically, it was felt in Barbarian Rome that feeding prisoners to lions was perfectly moral. Where is the altruistic gene there. And if it were not dominant, can we truly say that feeding another person to lions is "abhorrent"? Based on what?

These are the sematics that are left as logical loopholes in these theories. It is nice to read things on the net. But when does not have the proper questions to pose when weighing the theory, it becomes fallacious to accept it blindly simply because it sounds "new and rebellious".

When we say "nice guys finish last or first" (your pick), what makes a nice guy nice, and not just stupid? Think about it. Is he passing up an opportunity, or is he nice?
Again, how does Gene theory state which is which?

It's interesting that you guys mention these theories just because they are popular on the blogs. But shouldn't such theories be subjected to just as critical an evaluation as religion?
If you fail to do so, that too says simply what I have been saying all along, people pick the "anit-religion" stance not so much because the "scientific" views for atheism provide anything better or deeper. It's just a lighter load to carry.
Posted on: November 14, 2007, 04:01:46 pm

---

That was for Dominus.

Now to what you said Laz.

We are now at the point that the Abrahamic god is not the one we look at, instead there is another.

Fair enough.

But to go there, we then would have to ask ourselves if the Abrahamic God is uniquely isolated to the 3 monotheistic books, while other religions exoteric or esoteric provide another answer.

Before we look at God concepts from across the civilized world, we need to look at the origin of civilizations.

If we look at the oldest known settlements - we have Hinduism, Sumerianism, Egyptianism, and the Phoenicean/Myceneans. In the West we have the Incan and Aztec civilizations.
I'm not going to go into detail for all these, as these will encompass a whole thread; but all these religions have in their books more or less the same concepts of the Abrahamic religions down to circumcision and polygamy. Buddhism is a branch of Hinduosm and Buddha/Siddhartha Gauthama never in his life declared himself to bring a divine message. Nor did he exhort people to worship him. He stated that all he brought was a philosophy that was an expansion on Hinduism.
The Incans and Aztecs included human sacrifice to their Gods.

If we look at Greek philosophy, not mythology, we see that Plato and Pythagoras expanded on a form of gnosticism that was adopted by Greek philosophers during the period of trade with Egypt and India.
The idea of Atlantis that is the backbone of Gnostic - Blavatsky and Steiner etc - belief was again borrowed from Egypt. The description is no different from the Abrahamic description of Noah's people. Ironically, the oldest known civilizations are in the mediterranean belt - North West India, Sumeria/Mesopotamia, Egypt and Mycenae.
There is much in common as a linking essence in all religions, and philosophies.
One would ask why.
If there are several Gods, or at least more than 1, why the uniformity instead of absolute contradiction.
Don;t get me wrong. There is much contradiction. But how much is man-made, and how much is actually message based.
If you look at the last of the Abrahamic faiths, it does not discount any religion. It calls them all a continuing line in a process of gradual revelation - one built upon the other. Unfortunately, the conflict between the followers of the 3 faiths comes primarily from xenophobia, the "I'm right and you're wrong" approach, and of course let's not forget Imperialsit motive - even teh crusades were in actuality a call by Urban that was made at the behest of Constantinople; a call for help.
You will find, as I said at the outset, that religion is the most convenient rallying cry for people.
People who have a geo-political motive find it easiest to get help when crying foul in the name of religion.
So when you castigate the Abrahamic faiths, it is mostly what has been done and misinterpreted in order to be done in the name of that faith. But when taken in Reference to context and then applied to a circumstance you will see that much of the "blame" shifts to the people.
I for one do not subscribe to the existentialist "person is as person does" ideal.
No one is the same. Just because there is a minority in a community that is vociferous enough, and covered by the media enough to give one the impression that their extremist ideas are mainstream, does not in any way imply that it is necessarily the case.
As i said at the outset. a little more understanding adn patience, with a little less "jumping to superficial conclusions" will go a long way in promoting understanding.

I think the rome issue is where my point comes forward.

Simply put - your reaction showed that you do not find feeding people to animals for entertainment to be appealing.
My question is why?

Is it simply because of a gene?

As you said, it is in our nature to be aggressive.
Why do we find aggressiveness to be negative.
Also, why do we find kindness to be positive.

you said it yourself, we are all selfish. Hence we all do things non-altruistically, but selfishly.

Kant put is best when he said that there is not true altruism. If we get satisfaction from kindness then we are indeed doing it for selfish motives.
The ubiquitousness of this is challenged, because beleive it or not, many on the east do charity not to feel good, but because they feel it pleases God, hoping it will make him feel good. Regardless of how you dissect it, that culture is different. Their motivations are not always standardly ego-centric like the West; maybe Western modern thought tends to fall short in this regard, because they feel everyone in the world thinks as frankly "bastardly" as they do.. no offense meant.

However, to the point - da wir uns an einander vorbeireden.

I was concentrating on what makes an act abhorrent, and what makes it pleasing.
If we say that we are genetically geared to value some acts over others, we supercede here the mandate that is demonstrated by gene-based values.
By all examples cited by the "experts" that we like to read and quote, nothing shows that a spider would value anything outside its self-centric motives. The same spider equally values and appreciates its abhorrent facets of behaviour, and demonstrates no compunctions in behaving one way or the other as long as it survives.
An example in human form is a Medical Insurance official who tries to boost profits by denying assistacne to those who need it.

If we find this act abhorrent, my quesiton was and is, why is it abhorrent according to Genetically determined values? If we say that we have genes that naturally make us accept some deeds as good and some as bad, we need to first define good and bad.
The demarcation exists genetically - I agree. Religions says it simply in the form - man is capable of doing good and bad, and all humans have a propensity to good.
But define Good and Bad. This is where genetic theories fall short.

Why is Good good, and bad bad. Why is bad not good, and good not bad?

Example, for Hitler something was good, and somehting was bad - simplistically put. Why do we think his idea of good - ethnic cleansing - is bad? As per Gene theory.

That's all I am asking. Quantify good and bad.

And if you cannot, then you throw the door wide open for people like hitler to espouse their own brand of values - we've all seen what that lead to. Not to forget, many people too thought it was good until the Untergang; even TIME magazine voted him man of the year.

So define an idea that is "good" and define an idea that is "bad"
Posted on: November 14, 2007, 06:32:38 pm

---

In regards to the "nice" thing, you still cannot quantify "nice".
you tell me to read the book to see why he is "nice" - ok.

But can you describe "nice" as opposed to "not nice".

this is the philosophical depth I am referring to.

Condescending, and grand-standing does not say much. Attending lectures and reading other people;s ideas is good. But having one's own and evaluating them is still better.

That is why I am not talking about the superficial idea of altruism and selfishness that you are repeating. I am asking about why the word "selfish" or "exploitation" as an attribute carries in it for the reader (since you read you will certainly get one sensation about a character when he/she is described as selfish or exploitative) a negative sensation, and why is it that the attribute "just" or "equitable" carries for the reader a particular sensation when used as an attribute.

I am not talking about the sense it evokes, I am talking about why it evokes that sense.

Posted on: November 14, 2007, 06:42:03 pm

---

Define good.
Define bad.

If you say that there is no good and there is no bad.
Simple question - why condemn Hitler.

He just acted then - not good nor bad. Why the negative aura around his acts (in the mind of the reader when reading aboutthem)

If you say there is no good.
Simple question - why appreciate a philanthropist?

Why is a philanderer considered negative.
What is that "negative" sensation.

Btw. I have read the book, and about the author himself.
The book cannot answer such questions. And for the most part, you have dodged these questions redirecting me to your statements on spiders. But you too cannot explain why the brain tingles one way when u read the word "whore" and why it tingles the other way when you read "virgin".
Don't quote reproductory motive here, that is conjecture.
A person could just as well be enticed by a whore and repulsed by a virgin, as he is repulsed by a whore and enticed by a virgin.
But regardless of the enticement, the sentiment behind both is different. Can the "selfish gene" explain this difference in cerebral "appreciation".
It is this difference that houses the true concept of morality. If you say it is a gene that controls it, no scientist nor geneticist actually has demonstrated empiricity. In effect it is just as abstract and conjectural as religion.
More things change, the more they stay the same.

Serpicus is a great philosopher, and touches on some interesting points, but seems hardly capable of wording something with clarity and precision. Frankly, I tired of this wishy-washyness days ago, especially since the whole purpose of his debate is simply to distract from my original topic. As for the german thing, he said something to me in German, and I didn't understand it. I find that insulting, and smacks of the same "grand standing" which he acuses us of.

Serpicus, you can philosophise till the cows come home, and it will not change reality. What do I mean by reality? Allow me to explain:

For a moment, stop and have a look at the cold, humanless facts. Have you ever seen those maps where they expand or shrink a country based on statistics? You can easily find one that shows statistics for crime, murder and war. You'll be stunned at the results. On such a map, Western Europe and Japan are tiny. They have much lower incidents of violence than other parts of the world. They are also predominantly atheist and educated. The same is true to a slightly lesser extent for the US. The US is also noteworthy among the Western world as being religious, and yet it had higher crime than other western countries. Psychologists have discovered that Chrsitians are overrepresented in US jails, and usually they did not convert in prison. This demands explanation before you simply conclude that "Hubris" lis the problem.

Note also that violent deaths have dropped significantly worldwide since the industrial revolution. This seems like a shocking thing to claim, but it is true. If the male death rate of tirbal times had occurred during the world wars, 2 billion people would have died. It seems like the opposite due to a hugely bigger world population, and 24-7, negative media reporting. It is surely not a coincidence that this reduction in barbarity occurred during the "Enlightenment", when educating oneself became the emphasis. Education leads to peace. Yes, this is an oversimplification, but when you step back and look at the overall results, it is amazing.

I tend to diagree, on balance, that we need a holy book or creator to produce a yardstick for morality. Dawkins would argue that there is a naturalistic explanation for altruism. When you see a mother elephant protecting its calf from some natural disaster, it is heartwarming. Yet, no God requires the elephant to recite scriptures all day, or pray for guidance. What is more, the elephant has no concept of a creator.

Nature gives rise to both evil and good, but it is tending towards good. As evolution experts will show you, as intelligence increases, such as in (certain) chimp communities, altruism becomes mroe important. It seems that humans, on balance, are heading to a global family, and frankly the only thing standing in the way in religious fundamentalism.

It is surely also no coincidence that religion opposed scientific progress at every turn, right to this day, from ground breaking astronomical discoveries, to stem cell research which could save literally millions of lives. of all of the harmful ideologies, and there have been quite a few, religion holds this special position as being a blocker of progress. Countries such as China have already recognised that the key to progress is science, and it is plain to see that the most peaceful and prosperous (dare I say) nations have a strong innovation program.

I'd also like to point out that your past arguments about "atheist" atrocities are flawed. Hitler was in fact a Christian, I'm surprised you don;t know that. As for the others, it's plain to see that, like all dictators past and present, they dont give a flying monkey whether or not there's a God or not, they are simply interested in power, and will use any idea in any book or from any person to get it. You will find convincing proof of this on discussion boards all over the internet.

You're a fine debater Serpicus, your incoherence notwithstanding, but in your efforts to say that religion is merely a tool for violence, you have yet to explain why atheism leads to peaceful countries. Stunningly (or perhaps not), the most atheist countries (in Scandinavia) are so peaceful they rarely receive much attention on the world stage.

  Yes, you didn't read the entire article, nor the thread for that matter, that's all obvious.

I've never called Christianity "stupid", I simply think it is harmful and divisive.

As a matter of fact, I grew up with Christianity and as a devout Christian. I'm hardly going to call myself a stupid moron for believing, so how can I call other people those things? Don't put words in my mouth, and stop being lazy and read both the article and the thread, if you have the stomach for it.

I'm no fanatic, and my dicussion does not represent an "opinion" at all. I despise "opinions", as they are subjective. The article about biblical atrocity is about facts, facts that nobody can deny, they're plain to see just by reading the book. As for the way the thread went, I'm not trying to push "anything" on anyone. I'm trying to promote a logical basis of reasoning. They can then use that method to reach their own "opinions".

Cmd.Paul, I thank you for your "opinion". It must have taken several hours of deliberation for you to some up with such a sound, objective and unbiased analysis of this discussion. If I were you, I'd write up a reflective learning report and e-mail it to your supervisor, it could be worth something.

Next time read the thread.