creationism in the us of a

by googlemagoogle 91 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

doogie

Doogie, I agree that most atheists are not also amoralists. But do you think that religion does serve the purpose of cordoning those that can't control themselves into a form of morality? Personally, I don't. I think folks would mostly do "the right thing" without the fear of a god hanging over them. But some people think religion is necessary to provide that fence.

hey dave,
wow, i started typing, but now i'm not sure... that's an awesome question.
i agree with you, i think the 2 are separate issues. i think the main draw of religion is that it offers concrete explanations for all the tough questions in people's lives. on the other hand, for the most part, mainstream religions offer incentives for good, ethical behavior (and usually strongly discourages other less ethical behoviors). however, i would be willing to bet that there are a large number of individuals that are drawn to religion because they are trying to bury their desire for, or guilt from, "immorality." (look at how many converts there are within the prison population. i can't remember any exact stats, but Time had an article on this not too long ago. i'm not saying that's proof, but it is interesting.) i would guess cases like these are probably the minority of believers, but how could you possibly determine that one way or the other? if the fear of god's wrath keeps some people from doing rotten things, that's awesome. as long as they don't do them, i don't care why they chose not to.
i do believe that the image of a non-religious, out of control, immoral world is an alarmist tactic either instigated or exacerbated by hardcore, fundamentalist religion, which then spills over a bit into the mainstream religious public consciousness.
man, this could not have possibly been any further off-topic. sorry...
Big Dog

It seems as though that the abscence of any form of religion is seen to be the ideal scenario among many here. Daunt and others, my point wasn't that you could only have morality through religion, it was that you can just as easily have amorality without religion, do you understand the point that I'm trying to make, that everyone suddenly jettisoning religious beliefs is not going to fix very many social problems? That neither religion nor non religion is going to give you a just society.
to say that the only reason people do good is fear of punishment is not really fair
Doogie, you know I love you man, but I'm not sure if I can go with the above. Have you seen the US Code, or the US penal code, or the local ordinances, etc. our whole secular justice system is a system of punishment for "wrongdoing". Do you think we would have the level of law and order we have (which according to many isn't much) without the threat of punishment we hang over the general population's head via the police and court system?
As for creationism, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it, I agree that it should not be taught in science classes, teach science in the schools and religion in church, fine by me. But I do think that kids need to be taught that yes science is self correcting, and the science you are taught today maynot be the science your grandchildren are taught 50 years from now.
As a side point, how is intelligent design via extra terrestrials religious?
Daunt

It does not matter what title you subscribe yourself, a christian can be a murderer and an atheist can be a worse murderer and vice versa and I agree with you on that. I feel that reason and rationality is the only way we can come with a reasonable populace. I am not talking a bout perfection, that in itself is irrational because of our inherent ignorance being prevalent everywhere, not to dismiss natural disasters and such. However, I feel that reason leaves no room for unreasonable acts such as senseless murder or abuse whether it be mentally or physically.

And yes, at some level penalty does shape our morality, but it is not total. Our natural morality shaped the penal code and things of that nature. However, punishment isn't the only thing that keeps a man from killing another man, because many people do it anyways.

And I feel that that reasoning that science is self correcting should be taught also, however, many times that implies that science is essentially nothing. Today's facts are nothing because tommorrow it will be something else. That is entirely false. Can look at the applied sciences we use everyday to see this as being an incorrect assertion. However, I feel that objective science should be thaught over any sort of theory that still has yet to be proven. Objective science has a low chance of being totally debunked, however objective science has the tendacy to advance and progress, not totally dissappear. Infact, I feel that this is the way most of science works, however as I said before, Objective, provable science should be held over any seemingly intangible theory.
doogie

Do you think we would have the level of law and order we have (which according to many isn't much) without the threat of punishment we hang over the general population's head via the police and court system?

BD,absolutely not. there would be absolute chaos if it wasn't for the threat of punishment. however, i don't break into my neighbor's house because i know that he worked hard to get the things he has; he's earned them and i have not (yet...). i feed my dog everyday because i love my dog and i know she's hungry. i don't beat my girlfriend because i love her and beating isn't a very nice thing to do. of course, there are laws preventing me from stealing, or abusing my dog or girlfriend, but that's not why i don't do those things. if they were lifted i firmly believe i would still hold to my ethics.
i'm with you though, that without law and the threat of punishment there would be far more crime than there is now. i just feel that that says more about where individuals fall on a continuum of self-restraint than it says about an inherent evil in humans that has to be cordoned off (through law or religion).
for some, the threat of punishment is all that is necessary to prevent them from committing "immoral" behavior. for others, prison is necessary to prevent the behavior. but for others, the law is not even necessary to keep them from bad/immoral/unethical behavior. i think the same applies to religion. some require the threat of hellfire, some just need the threat of God's displeasure, and some don't need any threat at all. i am with you regarding the removal of laws leading to mass chaos, i just don't think that religion has as great an impact on people's behavior as law, so if everyone suddenly willingly turned atheist, i don't think anarchy would follow.
Big Dog

i don't beat my girlfriend because ;i love her and beating isn't a very ;nice thing to do. of course, there are laws preventing me from stealing, or abusing my dog or girlfriend, but that's not why i don't do those things. if they were lifted i firmly believe i would still hold to my ethics.

Doog, I totally believe that statement, which I guess leads to the endless debate about where your ethics came from. You are a good person, why? Evolution programmed you to be good? You have a God given conscience that is born into you?
I think about ethics and morality sometimes and wonder, if there is no God, higher power, whatever, how did we arrive at what most of us would subscribe to as morally good things and morally bad things (and this is getting way off topic so I'll either shut up or start another thread)? Like the founding fathers with, we hold these truths to be self evident, sometimes I read that and think, huh, what does that mean. Are there some universal truths out there? More philosophy than anything i guess.
tetrapod.sapien

what about hindu or voodoo creation stories? what about native american creation stories? they won't teach children that turtles and snakes made humans, will they?

google,
of course not. those other "theories" are primitive. whereas the xian one is the right one...
who do you think 99% of ID-ots are?
doogie,
where ya been all my life man?
BD,
the point that I'm trying to make, that everyone suddenly jettisoning religious beliefs is not going to fix very many social problems? That neither religion nor non religion is going to give you a just society.
oh yes, for sure. except that religion is the principle label (if even only privately) that people can latch onto to justify their immoral actions.
that said, i don't think that there will ever be "no religion". there will always be religion and magical thinking.
if there was a nuclear war tomorrow, and the only survivors were a group of 2000 atheists, i would give us only a generation or two at the most before people started thinking magically and superstitiously again.
i do, however, think that as long as governments remain secular, we have a better chance of becoming a real super species (via science), instead of just the species that came down from the trees but killed each other over oil. and magical thinking, whether it's religiously based, or just simply anthropocentrically based, is what will be our major obstacle.
and that's what really gets me about religion. it's all about anthropocentrism. it's all about us humans. we don't see ourselves as a part of nature, with no special privileges and technically equal to everything else. we see our selves as separate from nature. religion aids us in this view. and yes, i do think it's dangerous.
cheers,
TS
tetrapod.sapien

As a side point, how is intelligent design via extra terrestrials religious?

as a science fiction reader, i quite like the idea.
however, until there is some evidence, any evidence, that would suggest that we are created by aliens, it remains a wishful and magical thought.
i also happen to think that the term "design" is slightly misleading when talking about cosmology, astrophysics and biology. from DNA to blackholes, everything computes. biological diversity is not the result of some blueprint design, but rather a program executing it's algorithms. if there was a creator, she could not have known at all what sort of bio-diversity would come about on earth. she could not have known for sure that humans would survive, and not the neanderthals. or that earth would ever house life, for that matter. it's an open ended program, that is not predictable over long geologic periods.
TS
Big Dog

except that religion is the principle label (if even only privately) that people can latch onto to justify their immoral actions.

Tetra,
I'm going to try and get a little technical with ya . I was reading an athiest website last night and I think I fully understand that atheism is non-belief. Okay, I get that, its not a belief system its just non-belief. Okay, so all of the people that commit crimes, immoral actions that are not christians, or have no moral beliefs are still committing crimes and immoral actions, they just aren't using a belief system to justify them, they are just doing them because that's what they want to do.
I'd be willing to wager that most hardened criminals in the prisions, both here and in Canada would not say they committed their crimes because of any religious beliefs, ie.they are not going to say, I blew away the liquor store owner because I am a christian, or I raped the lady next door because Jesus commanded me to, etc.. I'd be more willing to bet if you could get inside of their heads, that they did it because they are a little closer to our animal cousins that you, me, and Doogie are.
Okay, so my point, yes, people use religion (any religion) often times to justify heinous actions, but there are plenty of people, and that number I think might out weigh the religious folks that committ crimes, well, just because. As you pointed out above and as others did, its a people thing, its not because they believe or don't believe, its because they are rotten pieces of crap. I just don't see religion as the threat you do, believers and non-believers can be really, really rotten.
tetrapod.sapien

hmmm...reading atheist web sites, are we? you do know that is the path to the darkside, right? lol.
Okay, so all of the people that commit crimes, immoral actions that are not christians, or have no moral beliefs are still committing crimes and immoral actions, they just aren't using a belief system to justify them, they are just doing them because that's what they want to do.
I'd be willing to wager that most hardened criminals in the prisions, both here and in Canada would not say they committed their crimes because of any religious beliefs, ie.they are not going to say, I blew away the liquor store owner because I am a christian, or I raped the lady next door because Jesus commanded me to, etc.. I'd be more willing to bet if you could get inside of their heads, that they did it because they are a little closer to our animal cousins that you, me, and Doogie are.
i agree. but i would still like to know crime ratios. the number of criminal atheists in a population of atheists, as opposed to the number of criminal xians in a xian population. i am not asking you to go and procure the data for me. but it makes me wonder. and that's why i said "privately". it seems like it's the little dirty secret that people often do not want to talk about, and perhaps because there isn't much good data on the subject, i admit.
but, lets talk about depression and anger and ratios while we're at it. sure, no criminal is going to say i raped the lady next door because jesus told me to do it. but, where does his anger and sexulal frustration come from? and what role does an anthropocentric belief system play in such a person, if even privately OR subconsciously? i don't know, but i also see a lot of angry and depressed religious people. i wonder if the ratio of angry and depressed religious people within a religious population, is the same as the number of angry and depressed atheist people within an atheist population? i don't know. but i suppose it is determinable. i basically just created a falsifiable hypothesis that is testable.
"if there is no correlation between religion and crime, then you will find equal populations of atheist criminals to atheist populations, as you would find equal xian criminals to xian populations."
and the same can be done for "anger and depression", as i think these are involved in crimes with violent criminals.
zagor posted a cool article (essay?) on a related topic recently called: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies. here is the link. i, for my small part, thought it was a great read:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/99166/1.ashx
Okay, so my point, yes, people use religion (any religion) often times to justify heinous actions, but there are plenty of people, and that number I think might out weigh the religious folks that committ crimes, well, just because.
i totally agree with this statement. but, i still wonder what subconscious roll it plays in the ones who commit the crimes just because they're dirt bag humans?
TS
doogie

BD-
Doog, I totally believe that statement, which I guess leads to the endless debate about where your ethics came from. You are a good person, why? Evolution programmed you to be good? You have a God given conscience that is born into you?

yeah, i think we've opened up a huge can of worms here (and one that's been opened more than a few times before).
i think that if anything, people are born animalistic. through socialization we learn the bulk of our ethics, but we also inherit a form of ethics through biology. for instance, most animals will remorselessly kill each other. others go so far as eating their young (which could be considered unethical from an evolutionary or religious standpoint). however, many animals care for their young. some animals' parental instincts even extend to other species. in any case, to me this is evidence of an evolving ethical code. especially when you think about it from an evolutionary viewpoint, the fact that the more recent mammals exhibit more innate "ethical" behaviors (such as child care) than the more primitive reptiles could be evidence of an evolving moral code which may or may not have improved in humans (depending on who you ask).
in any case, i think that a) humans are animalistic; b) religion tempers that animalism in some and gives them a reason to be moral; OR c) it gives them license to be animalistic. HOWEVER, you could replace the word "religion" with "atheism" in b and c and i would still agree with it.
like you said, i think it comes down to how rotten the individual is, not necessarily the belief structure (or lack thereof ).
tetra-
what's up, man. yeah, it's been awhile since i've had a chance to get on here (full-time school + full-time work = full-time zombie ).

creationism in the us of a

Share this