10 Things Christians and Athiests Can And Will Agree On

[Trent]

When you talk about languages you have to go far back. I am not talking about Latin here, I am talking about the stone age; the very first evolution of human kind. Scientists have proven that the originations of language and number counting were embedded in the human genes, they were part of the human instincts. Again I refer to the book "Embracing the Wide Sky" by the autistic genius Daniel Tammet. That book is good because it refers to many papers written by scientists.

The core of a language is not taught to a human being. The only reason that modern languages are taught is to prevent the process of language evolution all over again. This is what I am trying to explain.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Perhaps the beginnings of very basic language, yes, but as I've explained, language has evolved into what it is today, it's not simply there because it's in our genetics. We had to have basic language to be able to function as a species in our tribal days, but not language as we know it today. Language as we know it today is taught and picked up from our parents in infancy. TenderRondo stated that we know our parents native tongue and their beliefs/morality from their genetics.

So let me put you into a hypothetical situation to prove how utterly ridiculous that above point is.

Say, for example, you were a child born to two Spanish immigrants living in the UK. Let's say that unfortunately, just after you were born, they were in a car crash and died, and you got sent to live in an English orphanage and grew up with an English family, and English is the only language you will have ever heard in your life. What language will you know? Spanish, according to the above statement, because even though you've been raised in England, you learn your native tongue from your genetics.

[Darkmoon]

It would perhaps be best to say that humans have the genetic ability to learn a luanguage, especially while young, but that we don't haveany predisposition to any specific toungue.

[Trent]

Exactly, Darkmoon. Well, not a genetic ability to learn, but it's there already and we don't need to learn it, like instinct.

So let me put you into a hypothetical situation to prove how utterly ridiculous that above point is.

It is ridiculous and I agree with you. I was just trying to explain what Darkmoon summarized in the previous post.

[Alexia_Ashford]

Right, I understand. I read something about babies having the ability to pick up language as well and we watched a video in secondary school once from a study claiming that girls pick it up quicker or something.

[Trent]

It's very interesting. Especially that babies can count, now that is fascinating.

[TheSelfishGene]

I've arrived too late to this party, so I'm not going to add too much.

Except bees communicate information without prior learning of the language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_dance#Communication

That said, of course there's a propensity to learn language in humans, but the idea that you inherit language from your parents is just nonsense. Even just look at how quick someones accent can change when they move to another country for a while.

[Trent]

I'm still waiting for Grem and TenderRondo to answer to my arguments.

[Member_of_STARS]

Dont bother, Trent.

...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.

Which morals? Survival through socially acceptable behaviour and behaviour which enables us to pass our genes with more chances? Or artificially introduced behavioural patterns which may actually be harmful to those two instincts? Because the first two have stayed the same throughout our whole evolutionary process while the other ones are artificial behavioural norms which in vast majority of cases still benefit the first two. Again, religion has nothing to do with neither of these. The form and complexity is the only thing which has changed, the essence itsself hasnt. Even (taking Christian 10 commandments as an example) the 10 commandments are all beneficial to individuals who are either too weak to defend their female or their property, or to enforce and regulate behaviour which is again socially acceptable thus strenghtening the groups chances of survival.


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.

Correctamundo. And the reason for this is our technological advancement which expands the range of communication. This, in turn, means that the effects of antisocial or socially acceptable behaviour is expanded.

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?

Youre misunderstanding. My point is simple- nothing has changed, its just more complex and sophisticated. Basic rules still stand as they stood before we were Homo Sapiens, and they are comparable to less intelligent beings. Not even comparable- they are the same.

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

Those morals are either sophisticated and extended versions of morals which have "always" existed, just limited to smaller groups (ethnic, racial, territorial), or supersticious bullshit which was detrimental to society and changed anyway (burning of witches).

The whole point Im making is that religion did not introduce morality, morality is part of us as social beings. Religion may have worded something which we took as granted, but it hasnt introduced anything new, even though religious apologists claim it has.

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.

Like the ones shown in your last quote? You seem to believe that religion came before society. The moral norms which you take today as granted are a foundation of any society, any pack/group/tribe. Again, repeating, they are basic instincts of social beings to keep the society´s survival chances at their highest. Even "being good to those in need" is nothing more than our empathy, similar to herbivores defending their weak ones against predators by grouping around the calf or a slower member.

Not to mention the fact that not everyone (by far) is giving money/help to the poor, an evolutionary trait weeding out those whos chances of raising a strong offspring are limited.

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.

No. Slavery was abolished at the time of industrial revolution or close to it. Slavery was a direct competitor to the white working class. Especially to Northern states.

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.

Speculation with absolutely no proof, no evidence, no recorded events. Nothing.

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.

And this is why NAS is 90% atheist.

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.

If you dont know what "National Academy of Science" is, then perhaps you would not use the names of scientists in the same way zealous creationists do. As for your "white male" comment, again a rather primitive and ignorant dismissal of a rather known group, who had its first black president 1965.

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.

If you think its atheism or agnosticism which is responsible for curiosity for the world, and science, then youre answering your own question here. What youre basically claiming here is that those who are willing to question the world, research and observe, study and learn- their viewpoint isnt right. Yet youre not discrediting the viewpoint of those who choose to live in ignorance, and accept simple answers. Sciences dont attract atheist point of view. It, you might say, is atheism. Atheism is nothing more than living without God. So far, I have never seen "God did it" in any peer reviewed academic paper, given as a reason or explanation to anything.

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.

And they are correct. Two of the major stalls in technological advancement in the worlds history are caused by Christianity and Islam. In US, peoples rights are limited because of different religious beliefs. I assume youve heard about the whole "Texas Board of Education" disaster? You can use an atheist as an example, preferably one who acted on his "faith". I suggest Hitler. Im sure "Gott ist mitt uns" has something to do with atheism.

Religion wouldnt be a problem if it didnt have so many devout followers who would put aside critical thinking and embrace blind faith. Youre viewing religion as a separate entity which can be blamed. Religion is a symptom, or a disease. Its caused by our own psychology and amusingly by our own intelligence.

I assume you can imagine what thoughts raced through a "cavemans" mind when he saw a meteorite crash close nearby. It certainly wasnt "its a piece of cosmic rock, made of iron, sometimes some ice, drawn in by Earths gravity". Religion gives people answers, and considering how we evolve and grow, our whole intellectual progression from toddler to adult is based on curiosity.

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.

I was talking about rewards and punishments given to people for socially beneficial behaviour and youre giving me a lecture on different rewards/punishments different religions have.

Christianity may not equal religion, but its based on the same things. Faith is one of them. Supersticion, another.

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.

If spirituality is a personal thing, how can it have factually correct answers? And even further, how can it provide factual answers to our questions? Spirituality and religion provided answers when Man couldnt get those answers. He can now. Even though most people accept some answers which science provides, they keep their faith only because there are questions still left unanswered. And they will keep frogleaping this way until the very last question anyone can ever have, is finally answered.

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.

Ill let this piece of text answer your question.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100527213924AAWq6xK

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.

Wars have always been fought for economical gains. Religions part is in enabling and encouraging those who would not fight, to do so.

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 believe in the Flying Spaghetty Monster and theres nothing you can do to prove his existence wrong. I also believe youre a woman, you cant prove me wrong. Earth is still flat.

Faith has no validity. When you communicate with people on a daily basis, or send your kids to school, youre not acting based on faith.

How so? I can prove the Four Elements theory is wrong, does that disprove all science is wrong?

You mean the Four Elements theory by Aristotle? Hasnt it been disproven a long time ago? And considering you have a diploma, you are probably aware of the "scientific method", "peer review" and that science thrives on theories being proven or disproven through public challenge.

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 doesnt say God doesnt exist. God doesnt exist for/in science. Its not even a position of opinion or an argument. God is absent in science.

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.

Except that with how science is advancing and how many answers it keeps providing us with, religion is taking a step back in providing any answers at all. I find your position on this matter to be strange. I assume AIDS will be cured because of the Quoran? The only thing which religion is left with, is faith. Your everyday life is based on not living by faith. You live in certainty or logic. Not faith.

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.

Absolutely not true. And this is how theories work- effect of gravity is tested, its measurable, its predictable, you just dont see it visually. Its not even comparable to religion where you cant measure, see, predict or falsify the effects of a higher being.

Theres proof of gravity existing.

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.

The book is a summarization of the ideas, stories and theories people had before they had access to any real answers. The difference between faith and Bible is something youll have to explain to me, because from where Im standing, both are based on blind faith, something passed down from generations to generations and throughout all this time, without any proof.

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.

I assume you dont believe that a "scientific theory is not factual"?

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.

All of those are actually beneficial. Murdering of noncombatants is a mutual agreement which benefits both sides. Which means it benefits "your side". Slavery less economically beneficial today because it takes away jobs. "Etc." all of these "moral differences" are benefiting the same thing, based on the same instincts.

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.

See above.

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?

No. The good feeling and the urge itsself are the instinct. Unless youre detached from your body, you should know that the effects of hormones and primitive urges arent like words on the screen flashing to you.

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?

I can only speculate on the importance of entertainment based on my experiences. Havent done any reading on this matter. But what you call "fucking stupid" can be seen as something like switching your brain off and focusing on other things rather than your everyday problems. The most miserable people Ive come across are those with no entertainment, and a shitload of obligations. The happest are those with hobbies (entertainment), obligations dont matter.

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.

Already covered above. What doesnt make sense to you, doesnt only because of lack of knowledge. Similar to how sex with more than one woman (simultaneously or one at a time) doesnt make sense to a devout religious person who believes monogamy is the only choice their deity allows.

[Darkmoon]

I'm sorry, I've actually been enjoying this...but I hit the part where you said religion is the cause of all evil and sorta just shook my head. I think I'll just hold my hand up and go you win on this one. Honestly? As much as you believe faith in a higher being to be irrational, MoS, I'm gonna have to go with blaming all the worlds ills on religion to be way, way more so. Thanks for all the fish.

[Member_of_STARS]

"Religion is the root of all evil" is a very simplified conclusion.

[Trent]

"Religion is the root of all evil" is a very simplified conclusion.

Not from the victorious religious side.

[Pikminister]

It would perhaps be best to say that humans have the genetic ability to learn a luanguage, especially while young, but that we don't haveany predisposition to any specific toungue.

Actually, there is a window of opportunity when children can learn any language. Once that window closes, it's extremely hard for them to learn it once they grow older.

You see examples of that with either the feral children or the "Your baby can read" language program.

And in Asia, there is talk about some guy that made an experiment with children. Basically, he let about 10-20 kids grow up with no human contact whatsoever. This to find out if they would speak the language of the Gods. Well, they didn't. They grew up pretty much like animals.

Anyway, religion... a form of mind control that's been perfected since humans decided to explain the unknown to those that were too afraid to find the truth for themselves.

[Trent]

Anyway, religion... a form of mind control that's been perfected since humans decided to explain the unknown to those that were too afraid to find the truth for themselves.

And too afraid to accept anything else.

[Darkmoon]

Guys can we stop with the sweeping generalisation? I mean, accroding to you lovely folks, all religious folks are less intelligent, terrified to see any kind of truth, bigoted against everyone not like them and generally cause evil due to blind faith. They have no moral purpose and re too closed minded to be of any use to the world.

...if you guys can't see the irony here, of you folks paiting any people who think there might be a higher power with such lovely and broad strokes of the brush, then I'm just gonna have to keep on shaking my head. For crying out loud, some of you are comming across as true fanatics. 'ALL religious people do this. ALL religious people are like this. ALL religious people think like this. ALL religious people believe this.'

At least I can admit I might be wrong, that I'm working on faith. Blind faith is stupid, and yet how many scientists have an equally blind faith that science has all the answers? You sure as hell can't prove that any more than I can, but you wouldn't be able to tell by some of these statements. As I'm sure MoS will be happy to explain, a lot of what you know isn't proven. Take how gravity works. It's a theory. We have evidence for it. It makes sense. But it's not a deffinite thing. It's not a perfect theory, and that's the problem...despite the evidence for it, it's still considered a theory because there is no certain evidence. The Theory of Evoloution is the same.

But, and this is the kicker, science gets it wrong. Four Elements. Bad Humours. Gremlins. The pure, stunning arrogance that humanity posseses today in assuming that now, of course, we have it right. That's what they thought then. Again, as MoS will attest to, every year we have a theory that yesterday was regarded as perfectly safe, perfectly solid and perfectly rational collapse in the face of new evidence. And yet a blind faith that science has all the answers? Perfectly acceptable. Totally logical, even. Sure, we have no evidence that science holds all the answers. Sure, it's just as blind a faith as any religion. But because it's science, it must be fucking true.

You know, it's tiring having people looking down on you because you think that there might be a God. I don't have a specific set of believes. I don't believe in Adam and Even beyond the idea of the single shared ancestor humanity has, I don't believe in Hell, or Satan. I'm pretty fucking sure the world is more than 7000 years old, because I've handled things that I'm pretty sure are older. I have assembled the bones of a dinosaur, and held the skull of a child that, if tests are true, died 500,000 years ago. I have a tested IQ of 139.

But because I believe there might be something more than buying and fucking my way through life, that something might be after this, even though I admit it's faith, even though I admit I could be wrong...I'm afraid of the truth, I'm a bad person, I'm judgemental, I'm suffering from mind control 'cos I'm too fucking simple to think for myself, I'm bigoted. All because I have a fucking religion.

Well, I'll tell you lot one thing. I loathe fucking fanatics of all kinds. I hate those who tar others with a big brush because of one thing, fuck those of you trying to tar me with it. I've read some messages from a few people that I din't really care for, but I respected there opinions. Well, fuck that. I enjoyed debating with MoS, but honestly, there are too many closed minded people who point blank refuse to admit even the slimmest chance they could be wrong, and fuck you if you think different.

Ah, fuck it. I'm too irriated to be rational at this point. Let me sum it up - too many of you guys are just as fanatical as your rabid Christian screaming about Hell outside an abortion clinic, just as fanatic as a mas Muslim cleric screaming that everyone not a Muslim isn't human and deserves to die. When there's no more room in your mind for doubt, when you look at someone who has a belief other than yours and think of them as less in anyway, you're a fanatic just the same as they are. And no, being a fanatic for science doesn't make it better or worse. It sill makes it fucking stupid though.