10 Things Christians and Athiests Can And Will Agree On

[Member_of_STARS]

These two you mentioned are naturally social. Such is not the case with all the other animals, including humans.

What? Ants and bees are socially "natural", yet humans are not? Since when? How?

Humans established society because of reason. Because they needed security to live together.

Why do you think bees and ants are doing it then? Thats increasing their chances of survival. Same thing.

They are not naturally social.

Not naturally social? Human beings have been living in smaller or bigger communities- always. Our "ancestors" are living the same way right now. Theres not a single archeologist who will tell you that "humans used to live by themselves", anywhere, at any time.

Primitive men, fought for territories or women and even today they destruct themselves.

Territory = food
Vanquishing your enemy = chances of survival increase as potential threat or a contender to food is eliminated
Fighting for women is as natural as reproduction, through fighting the male with the best genes, or in our case (more sophisticated, again) males who are more financially secure, get "better" females to pass on their genes.

See how the world really works, people are selfish and individualist.

Even in the most primitive tribes... See what I did there? Of course they are selfish and individualist. Thats why being "social" is beneficial. You have the protection of your pack, you can choose your female within your pack, and your offspring are under protection of the pack.

All the man wants is to have more money and power than the other one.

Money and power used to be the same as "better genes". Whereas earlier, brute force decided the chances of survival for your offspring, nowadays its your financial security. People often say in derogatory terms that "women just want money and guys with power". Why do you think this is?

You can see this even on this board, everyone wants to show that the other is wrong and that their opinions matter more than the other.

Were "fighting" because its fun. And our competitive nature is also instinctive. Associated with reproduction.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Although, I'll throw my hat into the ring here and add this little thought - considering that our cells continuously die and regenerate and that every cell in our bodies goes through that process, technically are we no longer the same person we were as a baby? On a purely biological level. Think about it, the cells we had when we were born have all been replaced by identical cells, like a form of natural cloning.

Nothing to do with the whole theocracy debate, but an interesting thought on metaphysics nonetheless. Just to point out, I am in no way advocating that as truth or scientific fact, merely a thought.

Not really no, considering even though the cells have all been replaced, they still carry the same genetic code which makes us who we are, so we're still the same person. However, as we age, the copies of these cells begin to degrade. Think of it as photocopying a picture, and missing a little bit of the corner off each time. That information is lost and each time it is copied, we lose a little bit more, until the cell can't sustain itself any longer. So we die eventually.

in a way that reminded me of fanboys when arguing about which game console is the best.

*Looks at Mr Spencer in the corner of my eye...*

Spoiler:

show spoiler

360 IS BEST ARGHGH

[Darkmoon]

10 commandments? The Bible? The Quoran? The second we agree that those arent really what were basing our morals on, or that our morals are based on something which predates "popular" religions, youre discarding religious morality as a whole, on the spot. Atheists dont commit crimes either, Soviet States had as much crime as advanced Western states. Even Vietnam doesnt have its crime rates because its the most atheist country in the world, but because its literally a shithole.

The thing is, what we believe now doesn't make a difference. That's the point people are trying to make. Believe in God, don't...your morality is influenced by socities, which in turn has been influenced by thousands of years where 99.9% of the population has had religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether or not we believe now, because humanity has believed so long that those rules are a part of our culture. An Atheist does what he believes is right, but what he percieves to be right is a reflection of what society percieves to be right, yeah? And society has been influenced by religion for thousands of years.

Now youre convusing "religion" with "understanding how the world works". Religion was a simple answer, youll find that the less educated a person is, the more supersticious he is. Thats all religion really is, fear of the unknown and supersticion.

...religion? A simple answer? Given how many different religions there are, and the lore behind some of then, that's rather debatable. And remember...I'm not exactly your average redneck. Alexia can attest to having seen my degree. Besides which, I'm not afraid of the unkown...I'm intruiged.

Of course, many of the greatest minds in history were also staunchly religious. Including Darwin and even Einstein was a Deis Jew. None of them were exactly slow thinkers.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismh...Skepticism.htm

Not true. Atheism has been known for a very long time, and is usually associated with technological and social advancement of society. Its no wonder that studies tie IQ and education level with how religious a society is. Ancient Greece (and very likely others before them) had their own atheist movement. Naturally, you couldnt really be as vocal about it, unless you didnt want to get your throat sliced.

It existed, but again, 99.9% of the world believed that there was something after this life and some higher power. In social matters it takes at least a reasonable chunk of the population agreeing with a view to affect a change in general thinking.

That doesnt make the belief any more valid. We used to "believe" the Earth was flat, or that women were mens property (even this has changed during times, both ways).

It's certainly not hard evidence, but it is interesting to note that, to my knowledge, no race, tribe or people has come into being that doesn't have some belief in some higher power and life after, be it the ancestor spirites, the power of nature or a God.

The point was, however, that the majority of people have been religious for our known history. To believe that's had no impact on our morality seems to be rather short sighted.

Ants.

And where did the ants get it? Did they grow into that morality by chance and random mutation, or were they programed that way by a divine will? We each know what we believe, but it's not possible to proove one way or another. You can only prove that science hasn't discovered a fact, or that a religion is wrong...which, in fairness, religions tend to do themselves quite often. Proving a religion wrong doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Thats a bad example. "Social species" doesnt mean packs and small communities didnt fight for food supplies to keep their own groups survival as top priorities. "Society" isnt a global term.

I fail to see how it's not valid. You can change 'village' to 'nation' without much of an issue, if you wish. And again, these days, when someone tries ethnic cleansing it's generall considered deplorable regardless of where it's happening and who it's happening to. In that time period it was more 'Is it happening to my people? Then why should I care?' Hell, slavery was profitable. And yet, now it's gone. And it's because it benefited those in charge. It was society, as a whole, improving.

It hasnt. Its become more sophisticated. What youre referring to as "changed" are mostly artificial laws and rules. Or religious norms. Our morality comes from two basic instincts- survival and passing on our genes. As social species, its detrimental to our survival to kill those who are in our community, as its detrimental to harm them in nonphysical ways (a more sophisticated version/extension of survival instinct). Wiping out a neighbouring village was "morally acceptable" if they posed a threat to "our" food supplies, security or if striking them would be the only alternative left when our own survival was under risk.

That may have been the basis, but it's no longer the case today. Yes, we want to survive. But how many people opt out of having kids? Those rules have changed for no biological reason. Previously, it was also acceptable to whipe out a village if something else was there - would it positively benefit me? With slaves, gold, materials or whatever other resource was wanted. Now it isn't. That doesn't benefit a person, and doesn't increase there own chances of survival, nor passing on there genes.

The fact is, society and our morality has changed, but we don't have a corresponding change in our biology to account for it. If our morality is pure instinct, purely hardwire into our brain, there should be a change in our biology. There isn't. Therefore, our morality has been altered by us and outside forces...our society and enviorment. And as I've previously mentioned, society has been influenced by the vast majorty or the population holding religious views for the vast majority of time.

Which ones? Its become more sophisticated, but were still acting based on our simple needs/instincts.

I'd disagree. There is no basic need for us to be entertained, and yet here we are, on a forum devoted to a series of electronic entertainments. As I said, many people choose not to have children these days, and of course we've all seen cases of adults acting poorly to there own offspring, which is again against our basic need to pass on our genes. Albiet a rather horrible one.

We're more than the sum of instinct and need, because we do too many things that are against both.

[Trent]

As I said, many people choose not to have children these days, and of course we've all seen cases of adults acting poorly to there own offspring, which is again against our basic need to pass on our genes.

That occurs in nature as well. A couple of examples are bears that abandon their offspring and female lions that eat their offspring without any logical reasons.

[Alexia_Ashford]

I'm not exactly your average redneck. Alexia can attest to having seen my degree.

I can indeed. I shared a room with Jon's degree many a Friday night.

I can also attest to the fact that, having met him in person, he comes across as a very intelligent chap. So is his wife. Which is why I respect his opinions because I know they are well-informed, thought out ones.

And you too of course, Vass. ;)

[Darkmoon]

That occurs in nature as well. A couple of examples are bears that abandon their offspring and female lions that eat their offspring without any logical reasons.

I did not know that. The natural world is, sadly, my not my fortay. And of course, I'm generally happier not knowing about this stuff...

[TenderRondo]

Not really no, considering even though the cells have all been replaced, they still carry the same genetic code which makes us who we are, so we're still the same person. However, as we age, the copies of these cells begin to degrade. Think of it as photocopying a picture, and missing a little bit of the corner off each time. That information is lost and each time it is copied, we lose a little bit more, until the cell can't sustain itself any longer. So we die eventually.

Like a .JPG image. Every time you save it you lose bits of data and the picture becomes more and more granulated; but the picture itself retains recognizable traces of its original form.

Who to say that our parents and grandparents beliefs and morals are not passed down to us genetically, just as our ability to quickly pick up their native language at a very young age. Like it or not athiests, religion has had an impact on your decision making on a genetic level, as well as a concious one .

[Darkmoon]

Genetically? No. If that was true someone from, say, India would have a hellish time learning English because, genetically speaking, they would be inclined to the launguage of the are there parents came from. Equally, morally, it seems to be much more to do with nurture than nature.

You can inheret a pre-disposition towards certain character traits in the same way that you can inherit blonde hair and blue eyes. However, your enviroment and upbringing will modify those...hence the child of a brave, smart person might not be so brave or intelligent, and the child of a murderer isn't going to go stabbing for no reason.

Morals are something that's taught, both by the example of those around us and the personal experience we gather for ourselves. An example would be Spartan children...they were shown a brutal lack of regard for life, and developed a distinct lack of regard for life themselves, including there own. Which was the idea. A Spartan child raised in another city state would have behaved more like those people, most likely.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Like a .JPG image. Every time you save it you lose bits of data and the picture becomes more and more granulated; but the picture itself retains recognizable traces of its original form.

I suppose you could use that analogy, yes. They don't change forms though, they just gradually lose data so they can't perform their functions as well until it can't function anymore at which point it dies.

Who to say that our parents and grandparents beliefs and morals are not passed down to us genetically

What? Do you believe everything your parents and grandparents do? Beliefs have nothing to do with genetics. Hair and eye colour is genetics. Beliefs and morals come from social factors. You are more likely to believe what your parents do because that's what they teach you as a child, but of course that isn't always the case. It is of course possible for children to believe something different to the parent. For example, if you take two children of the same sex of identical genetic make-up, and place one in prison as a child and place one in the Church, then they are going to turn out very different people.

just as our ability to quickly pick up their native language at a very young age.

We pick up language based on the country we live in, not our genetic make-up. If you take a Spanish baby and place them with an English-speaking family living in England, they'll learn English, not Spanish.

Like it or not athiests, religion has had an impact on your decision making on a genetic level, as well as a concious one .

Please try and explain this in English because at the moment this just looks like complete nonsense to me.

[Member_of_STARS]

The thing is, what we believe now doesn't make a difference. That's the point people are trying to make. Believe in God, don't...your morality is influenced by socities, which in turn has been influenced by thousands of years where 99.9% of the population has had religious beliefs.

"Dont harm your fellow man" has nothing to do with religion. The norms of society which have changed over the time are almost all artificial set of morals. Like embracing slavery, dominating women or viewing people with different ethnic/racial background as inferior. Those are "religious" morals, morals validated by religion. All the morals which religious activists credit to "higher being" or "scripture", those which adress taking of life or property are all much, much older than organized religion or spirituality. And morals of our modern society are all sophisticated extensions of those.

It doesn't matter whether or not we believe now, because humanity has believed so long that those rules are a part of our culture.

Its not a matter of belief. Just as crediting God for creation of the universe is wrong as this belief is based on nothing but our own curiosity, no matter the answer.

An Atheist does what he believes is right, but what he percieves to be right is a reflection of what society percieves to be right, yeah? And society has been influenced by religion for thousands of years.

Again, what we consider to be morally valid today has been morally valid before religion. We punish those who act anti-social not because God tells us to do so, but because anti-social behaviour harms our wellbeing.

...religion? A simple answer? Given how many different religions there are, and the lore behind some of then, that's rather debatable. And remember...I'm not exactly your average redneck. Alexia can attest to having seen my degree. Besides which, I'm not afraid of the unkown...I'm intruiged.

Yes. "He did it." is a simple answer to satisfy our curiosity. It works for a lot of people because the answers we get today give them (people) no value.

Of course, many of the greatest minds in history were also staunchly religious. Including Darwin and even Einstein was a Deis Jew. None of them were exactly slow thinkers.

90% of NAS is atheist. Ive also seen plenty of Christians using Darwin not being an atheist as an "argument" to discredit evolution.

It existed, but again, 99.9% of the world believed that there was something after this life and some higher power. In social matters it takes at least a reasonable chunk of the population agreeing with a view to affect a change in general thinking.

The fact that 99% of the population believed that anti-social behaviour (along with a set of moral norms which were detrimental) rewards you with eternal punishment has nothing to do with the fact that those norms are still and were there before organized religion or spirituality existed.

It's certainly not hard evidence, but it is interesting to note that, to my knowledge, no race, tribe or people has come into being that doesn't have some belief in some higher power and life after, be it the ancestor spirites, the power of nature or a God.

Psychology. Hitchcock. Fear of the unknown for humans is one of the greatest fears there is. Religion provided the answers when our technological and social advancement was still in its infancy. Those answers were enough. The fact that there are so many religions, how splintered religion as a whole is and how many "stories" different cultures have should be enough to convince any logically thinking person to conclude that religion is very subjective.

The point was, however, that the majority of people have been religious for our known history. To believe that's had no impact on our morality seems to be rather short sighted.

"Impact on our morality" is something different compared to "Our morals come from religion". Religious morality enabled people to raise the sword against a fellow man for no actual need. It has enabled violence, indeed. However the basic instincts and the most fundamental morality by which we still live our lives today has (I feel like Im repeating myself) existed long before religion. And is shown in practice as a natural instinct and nothing more. Which religious morals do you think, which arent tied to natural instincts, come from nothing other than religion itsself?

And where did the ants get it? Did they grow into that morality by chance and random mutation, or were they programed that way by a divine will?

"Morality" is our own term for socially beneficial behaviour. When were talking about ants, were talking about instincts.

We each know what we believe, but it's not possible to proove one way or another.

"We" dont have to prove the existence of something which doesnt exist.

You can only prove that science hasn't discovered a fact, or that a religion is wrong...which, in fairness, religions tend to do themselves quite often. Proving a religion wrong doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

I doubt one has to be very critical of what they are saying to see theres a problem here. Considering theres no proof of any gods existence, and how the only "proof" of their existence are their respective traditions, scriptures or whathaveyou (also all disproven), proving a certain religion to be invalid is proving a God invalid.

I fail to see how it's not valid. You can change 'village' to 'nation' without much of an issue, if you wish.

Range of communication and range of borders. Thats a very significant factor which youre ignoring. A nation is defined by its borders and a society by its communication. Early settlements were limited to villages and the hunting/gathering land surrounding them. A nation is something else entirely. But thats even not considering that "villages" in terms of nations still wage wars with other "villages".

And again, these days, when someone tries ethnic cleansing it's generall considered deplorable regardless of where it's happening and who it's happening to.

Ethnic cleansing abides by the same instinctive "morality" of survival of ones pack. Have you seen nations where ethnic cleansing is "performed" to unban murder among their own? No.

In that time period it was more 'Is it happening to my people? Then why should I care?' Hell, slavery was profitable. And yet, now it's gone. And it's because it benefited those in charge. It was society, as a whole, improving.

See above.

That may have been the basis, but it's no longer the case today. Yes, we want to survive. But how many people opt out of having kids?

Instinct of reproduction doesnt necessarily result in a child. Social behaviour of attracting the opposing sex, sex itsself. Even though our instinct is to pass on our genes, it doesnt mean were flirting and having sex with a conscious thought of passing on our "blue eyecolour". We do it because we "like it", but the reason we feel like we "like it" or "want to do it", is instinctive.

Those rules have changed for no biological reason. Previously, it was also acceptable to whipe out a village if something else was there - would it positively benefit me?

Instinct of survival. If you disagreed with the alpha-male (your landlord), you were killed for being anti-social. Land-lord on the other hand either wanted to secure more land (power is closely tied to sexuality) or he could have any other reasons which can be simplified down to those two basic instincts.

With slaves, gold, materials or whatever other resource was wanted.

Now it isn't. That doesn't benefit a person, and doesn't increase there own chances of survival, nor passing on there genes.

Slaves were used only because they can be seen as a rivaling pack. As slaves/enemies/rivals werent part of "the pack", they were seen as threat or opportunity.

The fact is, society and our morality has changed, but we don't have a corresponding change in our biology to account for it.

Society has become more complex, but I fail to see your proof that religion or society has introduced new morals which are new to two basic instincts shown in all social beings?

I'd disagree. There is no basic need for us to be entertained, and yet here we are, on a forum devoted to a series of electronic entertainments.

Youre not entertaining yourself here. Youre socializing. Amusingly, again, all the rules on this forum have to do with preservation of this forum (no talk about piracy), preservation of the integrity of this "pack" (no flames or insults), all antisocial behaviour is punishable.

We're more than the sum of instinct and need, because we do too many things that are against both.

Like what? Reproduction is already adressed. Murder is a sign of antisocial behaviour. Selfdefense is allowed. I dont see a single "instinctive" behaviour which is banned unless the persons own morality is screwed by certain abnormality (mental sickness, trauma, et cetera).

Who to say that our parents and grandparents beliefs and morals are not passed down to us genetically, just as our ability to quickly pick up their native language at a very young age. Like it or not athiests, religion has had an impact on your decision making on a genetic level, as well as a concious one .

The difference between a design of HDDs has nothing to do with what data they are going to hold.

[EDIT] My Engrish

[Trent]

We pick up language based on the country we live in, not our genetic make-up.

Actually that isn't completely true. I suggest you read the book "Embracing the Wide Sky" by Daniel Tammet. Many scientists have managed through empirical data to prove that the connection of humans to languages is deeper than mere learning of the latter. When a child is born, it has an instinct to communicate. Languages were created by humans, and all the languages in the world have similarities. The "baby language" is a language that adults cannot understand, but it is indeed a way of communication between babies. Looking at it from this perspective, language is universally in the genetics of human beings. The same applies to animals.

Like it or not athiests, religion has had an impact on your decision making on a genetic level, as well as a concious one .

You might want to explain what you mean here because it does not make any sense.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Actually that isn't completely true. I suggest you read the book "Embracing the Wide Sky" by Daniel Tammet. Many scientists have managed through empirical data to prove that the connection of humans to languages is deeper than mere learning of the latter. When a child is born, it has an instinct to communicate. Languages were created by humans, and all the languages in the world have similarities. The "baby language" is a language that adults cannot understand, but it is indeed a way of communication between babies. Looking at it from this perspective, language is universally in the genetics of human beings. The same applies to animals.

Don't see the relevance to the point that the guy was trying to make. TenderRodo said that we inherit language from genetics, as we inherit morals and beliefs from genetics also. For example, if you had a German mother, you'd learn German because it's in your genes. I thought it was obvious that babies inherit skills necessary to learn to communicate, but you don't learn your native language because that's what country your parents come from. Babies learn the language that is spoken around them from birth.

[Darkmoon]

"Dont harm your fellow man" has nothing to do with religion. The norms of society which have changed over the time are almost all artificial set of morals. Like embracing slavery, dominating women or viewing people with different ethnic/racial background as inferior. Those are "religious" morals, morals validated by religion. All the morals which religious activists credit to "higher being" or "scripture", those which adress taking of life or property are all much, much older than organized religion or spirituality. And morals of our modern society are all sophisticated extensions of those.

...I disagree. There is plenty of evidence, from records and finds, that says those morals weren't held in regard in ancient times. Family first, tribe or nation second, everyone else was fair game. These days that simply isn't the case. We don't see raiding another nation simply because they're not us as a morally justifiable choice. Things have changed.

I think what you're trying to argue is that the idea that, say, killing somone and taking there stuff is bad has always existed, but before it was simply limited to close family and tribe. And now it has expanded to more of the world. In which case, we're partially agreeing. I'm simply saying that the change has happened, without any benefit to the people changing, and there's more at play than simple biology. Otherwise what worked before and was working should still be how we do it, right?

Besides, that's not really the issue being discused. The issue being discused is whether religion has had a lasting affect on society today, given that at least in part moral guideance was taken from religious works. I think that religion does have an impact on morality today, simply because the vast majority of people have, and still do, live by it. The idea that religion has had no effect, postivie or negative, upon society strikes me as rather absurd.

Its not a matter of belief. Just as crediting God for creation of the universe is wrong as this belief is based on nothing but our own curiosity, no matter the answer.

I'm...not sure what you are getting at here. I was trying to say that, due to religion being such a massive part of society for so long, that some of the moral codes set in religious works have spilled over into society and as such, even an atheist with no regard to a higher power, who believes that after death is oblivion and as such nothing we do now matters, is still at least partially influenced by society, which in turn has been influenced by religion.

Again, what we consider to be morally valid today has been morally valid before religion. We punish those who act anti-social not because God tells us to do so, but because anti-social behaviour harms our wellbeing.

But we also condone activities that we didn't used to. As I said, there was no benefit to the people in charge of it to end slavery. They lost money and power. It was purely a moral decision, with no benefit to them, which isn't something this could explain.

Yes. "He did it." is a simple answer to satisfy our curiosity. It works for a lot of people because the answers we get today give them (people) no value.

He did it is only part of the equation, and only if you believe in a single figure. There are also such answers as 'why?' and 'how?' and such. Believe it or not, simply believing that God created the Universe is only a starting point, not the end point. Trying to gain an understanding of the Universe, how creation works, how people works and why we are here is a big part of life for some folks as well. Yes, some will simply say 'cos he said so' and leave it at that. But that's another issue.

[QUOTE=Member_of_STARS;171226]90% of NAS is atheist. Ive also seen plenty of Christians using Darwin not being an atheist as an "argument" to discredit evolution.

Irrelevant. I have no idea what the NAS is, but I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say that it's also most made up of white males. Which doesn't mean that women and non white guys are dumb, of course. Due to social factors, it's simply most likely that a high ranking scientist is gonna be a white guy. Hopefully, that will continue to change.

Sciences do attract people with an atheist or agnostic view point, it's true. That doesn't make there view point right, simply that they're the ones most likely to be scientists.

And I don't think Evoloution is wrong, by the way. On the other hand, we have guys who argue that all the worlds ills are based on the fact we still believe, that every evil act is based in religion. Niether side is always rational in there argument and methods.

The fact that 99% of the population believed that anti-social behaviour (along with a set of moral norms which were detrimental) rewards you with eternal punishment has nothing to do with the fact that those norms are still and were there before organized religion or spirituality existed.

Again, I'd disagree that a lot of those norms did exist until quite recently. But that was above.

And many religions don't have the idea of eternal torment. Judaism, for example, has no hell. You simply relieve your life until you understand your mistakes, then go to heaven. The more mistakes you made the longer it takes is all. There are plenty of other views like that. Remember - Christanity does not equal religion.

Psychology. Hitchcock. Fear of the unknown for humans is one of the greatest fears there is. Religion provided the answers when our technological and social advancement was still in its infancy. Those answers were enough. The fact that there are so many religions, how splintered religion as a whole is and how many "stories" different cultures have should be enough to convince any logically thinking person to conclude that religion is very subjective.

Of course it is. Spirtuality is an extremely personal thing, and I personally doubt that any one religion has the right of it. And yet...most religious people are irrational lunatics. You get them, certainly, but most are people based in a world of logic. Sometimes, it's purely about belief. I won't deny that.

"Impact on our morality" is something different compared to "Our morals come from religion". Religious morality enabled people to raise the sword against a fellow man for no actual need. It has enabled violence, indeed. However the basic instincts and the most fundamental morality by which we still live our lives today has (I feel like Im repeating myself) existed long before religion. And is shown in practice as a natural instinct and nothing more. Which religious morals do you think, which arent tied to natural instincts, come from nothing other than religion itsself?

I'd argue things like charity to a stranger. It doesn't benefit you - it removes a resource with no hope of return. If the person is weak enough to need such charity, then they're not much use to society as a whole, are they? Biologically, it makes little sense. You don't benefit. Your social group doesn't benefit. Only the stanger benefits.

I'd also argue that most religious wars are fought over other things than religion as well. Land is a favorite, political power and resources another. I cannot think of a single historical conflict that can be blamed purely on religious reasons. Religion is often the excuse used, but not usually the motivator.

"We" dont have to prove the existence of something which doesnt exist.

I doubt we could if we wanted to, and lots of folks could. Religion would be simple if we got daily messages in the sky, after all. Faith would not be required.

I doubt one has to be very critical of what they are saying to see theres a problem here. Considering theres no proof of any gods existence, and how the only "proof" of their existence are their respective traditions, scriptures or whathaveyou (also all disproven), proving a certain religion to be invalid is proving a God invalid.

How so? I can prove the Four Elements theory is wrong, does that disprove all science is wrong? Of course not. That would be silly. The simple fact of the matter is this...science doesn't say that God doesn't exist. There is no theory or equation that is based on the idea. Science as we know it is based on the understanding of a series of universal laws, which occasionally we get wrong. But not one of those laws is 'No Supreme Being. If God exists, moledcular biology no longer makes sense.'

Science and religion aren't enemies unless you make them so, as some hardliners do. Personally, I feel that as science advances and we understand how more and more or creation works, we come closer to understanding our place in creation.

But let's go down to the basics...
1 - Lack of proof is not proof of lack. You and I both know that, just because something cannot be proved, does not mean that such a thing is false or wrong. Otherwise, half of our more advanced sciences no longer function. Astro-Physics is pretty much entirely based on the idea that such and such would have this effect, which we can see, but we can't prove that it was caused by such and such.
2 - Just because a theory is wrong doesn't mean it's invalid. Take the four elements. It's wrong, but the idea that the world is built up for smaller components that aren't obvious is, of course, correct to the best of our knowledge. Simply proving a point of Christian doctrine wrong, therefore, doesn't prove God false. It simply proves that a book written by humans is wrong.

I also think you're rather overstating things when you say that all religions have been disproven. Yeah, some of them have holes in them. So do most scientific theories. Doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means we don't have all the puzzle pieces.

Range of communication and range of borders. Thats a very significant factor which youre ignoring. A nation is defined by its borders and a society by its communication. Early settlements were limited to villages and the hunting/gathering land surrounding them. A nation is something else entirely. But thats even not considering that "villages" in terms of nations still wage wars with other "villages".

Yes. And today we have rules to warfare that didn't exist. We don't take slaves. Murdering non-combatants is generally frowned upon, etc. The point I'm trying to make is that, with no biological reason and no benefit to the people involved, we have morally changed.

There's a perfectly logical reason why total war is a good idea...if you don't then those people will, possibly, be a threat down the line. Biologically it makes more sense to kill 'em all. And yet we don't. There's no way to account for that through simple biology.

Ethnic cleansing abides by the same instinctive "morality" of survival of ones pack. Have you seen nations where ethnic cleansing is "performed" to unban murder among their own? No.

Not the point. Once it was perfectly acceptable, all across the globe, to kill an enemy down to the last man, regardless. Now it isn't. As I stated above, that's a change, and not one that's beneficial to the victors.

Instinct of reproduction doesnt necessarily result in a child. Social behaviour of attracting the opposing sex, sex itsself. Even though our instinct is to pass on our genes, it doesnt mean were flirting and having sex with a conscious thought of passing on our "blue eyecolour". We do it because we "like it", but the reason we feel like we "like it" or "want to do it", is instinctive.

But doesn't your very argument suggest that the instinct has changed? Our ancestors had sex for one reason - procreation. The good feeling was an added incentive. Now we do it for the feeling, not the instinct, and biologically that defeats the purpose, no?

Instinct of survival. If you disagreed with the alpha-male (your landlord), you were killed for being anti-social. Land-lord on the other hand either wanted to secure more land (power is closely tied to sexuality) or he could have any other reasons which can be simplified down to those two basic instincts.

Agreed. I think I mis-wrote that one, somewhat. There was a point in there that is long forgotten.

Slaves were used only because they can be seen as a rivaling pack. As slaves/enemies/rivals werent part of "the pack", they were seen as threat or opportunity.

Fine, fair enough. Riddle me this - why did it change? There was no benefit to the people in power or the people in control of the slave trade, and they were often the same people. 3000 years ago, slavery was an every day pratice. Yet today, most people are revolted by it. That's a change that has no benefit.

Society has become more complex, but I fail to see your proof that religion or society has introduced new morals which are new to two basic instincts shown in all social beings?

Difference of opinion there, then. Although I will say, I'm not trying to say that we have an entirely new moral code. I'm saying that the moral code has been changed and has no postive benefit towards and individual or a groups survival. As I've said, both slavery and total war have positives to the people carrying them out, and yet both are condenmed today.

Youre not entertaining yourself here. Youre socializing. Amusingly, again, all the rules on this forum have to do with preservation of this forum (no talk about piracy), preservation of the integrity of this "pack" (no flames or insults), all antisocial behaviour is punishable.

Not my point. My point was that we play video games. We read story books. We watch television shows. Entertainment, for no other purpose than to entertain. Glee doesn't impart advice on how to survive, Fringe doesn't help us procreate. Entertainment for the sake of entertainment is, biologically, fucking stupid. We waste resources that we could be using to survive on keeping ourselves amused. It doesn't make much sense, does it?

Like what? Reproduction is already adressed. Murder is a sign of antisocial behaviour. Selfdefense is allowed. I dont see a single "instinctive" behaviour which is banned unless the persons own morality is screwed by certain abnormality (mental sickness, trauma, et cetera).

We give to a beggar we'll never see again because it makes us feel good. We don't enslave and rob others, even though to do so could benefit us. We feel guilty for cheating on a spouse, even though, biologically, it's apparently what we were designed to do. Morality is more than a simple set of biological drives and imperatives. A lot of moral choices make little biological sense, as I've mentioned before.

[Trent]

Don't see the relevance to the point that the guy was trying to make. TenderRodo said that we inherit language from genetics, as we inherit morals and beliefs from genetics also. For example, if you had a German mother, you'd learn German because it's in your genes. I thought it was obvious that babies inherit skills necessary to learn to communicate, but you don't learn your native language because that's what country your parents come from. Babies learn the language that is spoken around them from birth.

It was a bit relevant because language is actually part of genetics. Language is not learnt by humans, it is already there after birth (hence the babies reference). Language has evolved in different parts of the world. Since that's the case, you will find a lot of similarities in different languages. The same applies for numbers and counting. Amazingly enough, babies can actually count. What is the conclusion? It's all universal in the human genes.

[Alexia_Ashford]

It was a bit relevant because language is actually part of genetics. Language is not learnt by humans, it is already there after birth (hence the babies reference). Language has evolved in different parts of the world. Since that's the case, you will find a lot of similarities in different languages. The same applies for numbers and counting. Amazingly enough, babies can actually count. What is the conclusion? It's all universal in the human genes.

What you're talking about is very rudimentary communication between babies. What he was talking about is full blown language. There are similarities between languages because they evolve from common ancestors, but language is taught to children, it isn't in their genetic code. A lot of modern European languages originate from Latin.

Tribal people first used to communicate through pictures. We see pictures and expression written on cave walls from ancient tribal British people used to express themselves, but they still communicated in a very basic way that monkeys do. Then we have for example, Ancient Egypt, where people wrote in hieroglyphics with pictures again, but the sounds of the pictures were used to form speech and people could also write their own names using these pictures within a cartouche. Like, if you wanted to write "Tutankhamun", you wouldn't use the letters like we do nowadays, you'd use three separate drawings for "Tut-ankh-amun". Then Greece invaded Egypt and the Greeks formed a more familiar language that we're used to today, then Romans adopted Greek culture as well as others, and took over most of Europe and so shared their technology as well as everything else with the rest of us.

My point is, language as a whole has evolved over millennia as have people. We of course have some rudimentary form of communication as babies as we need it to alert our parents when something is wrong (like screaming) as do other animals, but it doesn't mean animals have a written, spoken language which is inherited from their parents. It is taught. Communication and language are two different things. I could communicate to you by giving you a dirty look or sighing. It's a bit different than saying you know your mother's native tongue from birth because you've inherited it in her genetics. If I've inherited native languages from my ancestors, then I should by rights know English, German, and even a bit of Swedish I imagine. I don't. I wonder why that is.