Grow Up or Die

[Munky]

Seriously, so you think it's fine to order someone to kill their child? You see nothing wrong with dragging a child to an altar, tying him up, and holding a knife over his head? You don't think that would be a devastatingly traumatic experience for the boy?

Cry me a river... You actually have no idea how it was done, or even if the son was a kid or a grown up. Just what I expected from someone with your bias.

Bzzt..Wrong. All humans have an innate sense of solidarity with one another. You see this everywhere in the animal kingdom among more intelligent primates. We are a social species and would not have survived this long without treating members of our fellow tribe with respect. Animals that failed to develop basic altruistic tendencies did not survive long (as evidenced by 99.8% of the species that have ever existed now being extinct.) Your intelligent designer must be incredibly inept if it took him so many false starts to create us.

Bzzzt... Earth to total noob: solidarity is not morality. Explain to me how the Aztecs survived just fine until the European conquest while practicing human sacrifice in a developed civilization?

Hmm..Why weren't the old testament laws in favor of slavery abolished? Why is the practice not condemned by Jesus (God) himself? If the bible is a perfect book of morality written by the creator of the universe, throughout the entire old and new testament, why didn't we see a "Thall shall not enslave." "Or thall shall not oppress women."? You would think a being of infinite morality would have included those, no?

Why are you still stuck on the old testament when I already showed that it has little relevance to Christianity?

 

[Munky]

No it doesn't apply to Christianity that way. It is moronic to even state that! Why? Is it not given that in Christianity that EVERYONE is a sinner? That we all do bad things but seeking forgiveness through God and Jesus is part of what it means to be Christian? The fact that Hitler did evil does not mean he is no longer Christian. Otherwise, no one would be Christian by that statement you just made. Everyone sins in the eyes of Christianity and thus no one can be Christian. Here you are flat out wrong. Again I point out that Hitler was Catholic, which is Christian, he believed in God and Christ, he believed he was doing things in their name and did not see what he was doing as evil because they "told him" to do those things. Just because you feel his sinning was so bad he couldn't possibly be a Christian doesn't change the fact that he was according to the tenements of Christianity. He still believed and sought forgiveness from them and even wrote that in his book!

The Bible does not give you a free pass to sin by just asking for forgiveness later. Everyone was born a sinner, and can attain forgiveness, but you can also "lose" your salvation.

 

[totalnoob]

solidarity is not morality. Explain to me how the Aztecs survived just fine until the European conquest while practicing human sacrifice in a developed civilization?

You prove my point buddy. Why did the Aztecs make human sacrifices? Did they do it because it was fun? Nope! They did it due to the same irrational beliefs in the supernatural that you have. They did it to propitiate their Gods. Like the story of Abraham & Isaac, this is yet another proof that religion pushes people to due insane and immoral things.

Why are you still stuck on the old testament when I already showed that it has little relevance to Christianity?

I was referencing the NEW testament friend. Even in the "kindler gentler" new testament slavery is repeatedly endorsed. It is never renounced or declared a sin. Jesus himself gave directions on how hard slaves should be beaten rather than demanding they be set free (as any infinitely compassionate God would certainly do). You can't get around these facts my man. Once you accept that your favorite book was not written by the creator of the universe, but by imaginative bronze age schizofrenics with a first century sense of morality, it makes much more sense.

 

[Munky]

You prove my point buddy. Why did the Aztecs make human sacrifices? Did they do it because it was fun? Nope! They did it due to the same irrational beliefs in the supernatural that you have. They did it to propitiate their Gods. Like the story of Abraham & Isaac, this is yet another proof that religion pushes people to due insane and immoral things.

However, the Aztecs did not consider it immoral, in fact, it was considered an honor to be sacrificed. Which goes against your belief that humans are born with some set of innate morals.

I was referencing the NEW testament friend. Even in the "kindler gentler" new testament slavery is repeatedly endorsed. It is never renounced or declared a sin. Jesus himself gave directions on how hard slaves should be beaten rather than demanding they be set free (as any infinitely compassionate God would certainly do). You can't get around these facts my man. Once you accept that your favorite book was not written by the creator of the universe, but by imaginative bronze age schizofrenics with a first century sense of morality, it makes much more sense.

You're stipulating that it should have been renounced... why? The Jews at the time assumed Jesus came to free them from Roman oppression, and they were wrong too. The whole reason for the existence of the new testament goes beyond those simple expectations.

 

[HumblePie]

However, the Aztecs did not consider it immoral, in fact, it was considered an honor to be sacrificed. Which goes against your belief that humans are born with some set of innate morals.

How thick is your head? really? We've stated many, many, many, MANY times that humans are innatly moral like every other animal. But our intangible ideas, our brains can be lead to believe things that go against our instincts. Religion is one such thing that makes us go against instinct. That is the whole point of the argument. Stop beating around the bush. I have never met a bigger idiot than you munky. Without their Religion the Aztecs would never have performed ritual sacrifice. The problem is, every human society to date has come up with a fairy tale belief structure to explain things they have no clue about. So every society to date has had religion influence them at a basic level for good or bad. Some turned out good and the people thrived. Some turned out bad and they didn't. Most had parts both good and bad to make a society limped along until something came along and changed it. The problem with humans, is we have the same morals as every other creature on this planet, but we use our reason to rationalize our morals. The problem is that rationalizations. We attempt to give justifications for our actions. When we start using religion as our justification, and the ideas behind a religion are flawed, the actions become flawed as well. Munky, to let you know something, I actually learned this in a Theology class many years ago by a catholic professor.

You know about theology right? The study of religions? not just one religion but ALL religions and all the backgrounds and many other things dealing with it. Personally, I never understood how people could keep slaughtering their own past beliefs and still continue to believe afterward. Which was one thing Maher pointed out in his movie when he interviewed "science" priests working as major scientists. They all know creationism is a bunch of "phooy" I think was the term they used. They all poked fun at some of what was silly in the Bible. However, even after that, they are still priests and believers. Which is also part of the irony Maher is trying to get across in his movie.

 

[Modelworks]

times that humans are innatly moral like every other animal.

Humans have no morals except those that are taught to them . They will kill, steal, rape, even when taught morals, how can you say they are moral by nature ?

[ But our intangible ideas, our brains can be lead to believe things that go against our instincts. Religion is one such thing that makes us go against instinct.

The human instinct is survival of the fittest, kill or be killed. If I have a child that is sickly and cannot produce then I should kill it, that is the human instinct. Look at how feral children behaved , that is human nature. Religion is the only thing that kept people from killing each other indiscriminately . If a human is the highest judge of right or wrong then whatever the strongest human decides is what the rules will be . Religion prevented this by placing the authority over right and wrong into the hands of something higher than humanity. While someone like a king could make rules, he could not break something that was considered a religious law handed down by God. Look at something like the constitution or bill of rights for examples of what happens when rules are mandated by man. Man will find a way around them.

Without their Religion the Aztecs would never have performed ritual sacrifice. The problem is, every human society to date has come up with a fairy tale belief structure to explain things they have no clue about.

Without religion the Aztecs would not have survived. They would have become a society of chaos. The thing I find funny about this generation is they are no different than the last. They think that what they know is the way everything works. They look at past generations and call them fools for what they believed, like this generation is enlightened and has everything all figured out.

The problem with humans, is we have the same morals as every other creature on this planet, but we use our reason to rationalize our morals. The problem is that rationalizations. We attempt to give justifications for our actions.

No. Read some psychology books. As I said above humans have no morals. We are just like any other creature, we are out for ourselves. Survival of what we consider personally important. If you leave it to man to control himself in all areas with no higher authority the species will degenerate into whatever the strongest want it to be.

They all poked fun at some of what was silly in the Bible. However, even after that, they are still priests and believers. Which is also part of the irony Maher is trying to get across in his movie.

It is called faith.
It isn't something that can be taught to someone or something that can be given.

 

[totalnoob]

ugh model, you clearly no NOTHING about the natural world. Humans are SOCIAL animals and we are naturally altruistic towards members of our own "tribe". You see this in modern chimps all day long. They care for and defend each other from predators. They routinely share food with the sick/weak among them. When one behaves aggressively, starting a fight or stealing food, he is immediately shunned by his peers..essentially being "kicked off the island" which greatly reduces his chances of mating and passing those aggressive genes down. Those who act for the good of the tribe are rewarded in turn with food and many more mating opportunities, increasing the odds that their genes will dominate future generations. This is a perfectly naturalistic account of how our sense of human morality/solidarity evolved. Without reciprocal altruism, mankind would not have survived long enough to invent religion.

Do you honestly think the Jews dragged themselves through the desert for thousands of years, only to discover (from a burning bush) that murder, theft, and adultery weren't ok after all? Until they knew about the great sky daddy, you think they killed children and ate kittens for fun? You certainly have a very low opinion of your ancestors. This is such a condescending attitude..yet more proof that religion is an insult to basic human integrity.

 

[Modelworks]

ugh model, you clearly no NOTHING about the natural world. Humans are SOCIAL animals and we are naturally altruistic towards members of our own "tribe". You see this in modern chimps all day long. They care for and defend each other from predators. They routinely share food with the sick/weak among them.

The natural world is harsh, not some place where animals love each other and work to the greater good. Those same chimps you refer to kill members not of their own . Those same chimps murder their own when food is short and let others die when they are weak or wounded. The males are known to kill other males that challenge their authority.

Do you honestly think the Jews dragged themselves through the desert for thousands of years, only to discover (from a burning bush) that murder, theft, and adultery weren't ok after all? Until they knew about the great sky daddy, you think they killed children and ate kittens for fun? You certainly have a very low opinion of your ancestors. This is such a condescending attitude..yet more proof that religion is an insult to basic human integrity.

Until religion started to appear, yes early man did murder, steal and kill. It was the strongest made the rules. Do you think that everyone just cooperated and shared food, cared for the sick because it was the right thing to do ? I do have a low opinion of my ancestors and humans in general. Humans are the scourge of the planet that destroys everything they encounter. Put several people in a room with limited food and they will not share it to the bitter end, one will kill the other to survive. The attitude that humans have evolved to a place where they have high morals, always do the right thing and are loving and caring because it is the way they are by nature is ludicrous.

The moment people stop forgetting that people are animals, that they do have animal instincts and they will revert to them if what they feel they need is threatened is when trouble starts.

 

[Munky]

How thick is your head? really? We've stated many, many, many, MANY times that humans are innatly moral like every other animal. But our intangible ideas, our brains can be lead to believe things that go against our instincts. Religion is one such thing that makes us go against instinct. That is the whole point of the argument. Stop beating around the bush.

Human instincts are innately self-serving. You were spewing some crap about how humans are born with altruistic morals, which if true, wouldn't result in humans murdering, raping and pillaging each other throughout human history, with or without religion.

I have never met a bigger idiot than you munky.

Coming from you, that isn't saying much.

The problem with humans, is we have the same morals as every other creature on this planet, but we use our reason to rationalize our morals. The problem is that rationalizations. We attempt to give justifications for our actions. When we start using religion as our justification, and the ideas behind a religion are flawed, the actions become flawed as well. Munky, to let you know something, I actually learned this in a Theology class many years ago by a catholic professor.

And where do these actions come from, wiseguy? If you use religion to justify some evil act, does that mean religion caused the act and it would otherwise never happen? Or did your professor forget to mention that such an act possibly originated from the territorial, competitive, selfish nature of humans, and religion was merely misused to justify it?

 

[HumblePie]

Munky and Model.. all I can say is fail.

Humans like all successful social adapted creatures are moral by nature. Very few humans are born with a genetic predisposition to want to kill, rape, or steal. Usually that is taught or brought on by a mental impairment. The only major difference between us and animals is our brains which can be used for greater good or greater evil. We KNOW when we are making a conscience choice to forgo our natural instincts to not kill others, or steal. Even a child that steals some food to live on the street doesn't do so naturally the first time. They have to work themselves up to it. Rationalize why the action of stealing is justified by the need to stay alive. Again, it takes a conscience decision to go against intrinsic morals and good in us all.

The fact that Model and Munky want to say that humans are not naturally predisposed to being good, and being social accountable creatures shows how twisted your thought processes have become. People are not "taught" to be good, but they are "taught" to be bad. Studies of brainwave patterns prove this. This is why lie detectors work in the first place! The body and mind HAS to make fundamental physical, chemical, and mental changes to even tell a lie in the first place. Let alone something more drastic like stealing, or even worse, killing someone.

The fact you IGNORE what science has already proven as a fact shows the fallacy of your whole argument. Fact is, people as a WHOLE, are innately social creature with instincts of social moral values. This is the Golden Rule used throughout nature. There are members within every species though that has something wrong genetically wise and have mental and physiological problems that cause them to be more aggressive or not have the mental blocks in place to make them recognize they are doing something wrong. But those outliers are the exception NOT the rule.

 

[totalnoob]

model, please do some reading before you blurt out nonsense taught by your pastor..

http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/monkeys.htm
http://www1.umn.edu/ships/evolutionofmorality/images/16c.htm
http://www.madisonmonkeys.com/masserman.pdf

Rhesus monkeys were trained to pull on one of two chains, depending on the color of a flashing light, in order to receive food. After training, another monkey was displayed through a one-way mirror.

By pulling the chains in the correct fashion, the first monkey would receive the food reward, but one of the chains now delivered a powerful and painful electric shock to the floor of the box holding the other monkey. It was discovered that most of the monkeys would not shock another monkey even if it meant not being able to eat. One of the animals went without food for twelve days rather than hurting the other monkey. Monkeys who had been shocked in previous experiments themselves were even less willing to pull the chain and subject others to such torment. (Masserman J, Wechkin S, Terris W. 1964. pp 584-5.)

Why would a monkey trained to use a device to gain food for himself suddenly STOP using the device (for up to 12 days in some cases..nearly starving to death) when he noticed that gaining the reward for himself caused pain to another monkey? Oddly, the ones chained to the electrodes in this experiment to receive shocks were complete strangers to the test subject..not family members and not even from the same geographical area..yet all monkeys involved showed the same general preference to deprive themselves of food once they noticed it meant harming another.

There have been numerous experiments done in the decades since to confirm Masserman's result. Please explain this to me. Do these monkeys believe in God? Did they develop a religion? Were they refraining from acting in their "Darwinian" interest out of fear of eternal punishment from a sky daddy? Or could their concern for their fellow primates be explained by a natural sense of solidarity and empathy ingrained in their genes over millions of years?

 

[Munky]

Munky and Model.. all I can say is fail.

Humans like all successful social adapted creatures are moral by nature. Very few humans are born with a genetic predisposition to want to kill, rape, or steal. Usually that is taught or brought on by a mental impairment.

This is where you fail. The most fundamental instinct common to all life is self-preservation, and passing on your genes, which have nothing to do with morality. A solitary human does not attack another if it serves no benefit to him. However, when contention for resources creates tension between humans, morality takes a back seat very often.

The only major difference between us and animals is our brains which can be used for greater good or greater evil. We KNOW when we are making a conscience choice to forgo our natural instincts to not kill others, or steal. Even a child that steals some food to live on the street doesn't do so naturally the first time. They have to work themselves up to it. Rationalize why the action of stealing is justified by the need to stay alive. Again, it takes a conscience decision to go against intrinsic morals and good in us all.

Nonsense. A child first had to be taught that simply taking things is wrong. If the child was never taught that stealing is wrong, it would have no concept of stealing, and therefore no way of knowing if simply taking food was right or wrong.

The fact that Model and Munky want to say that humans are not naturally predisposed to being good, and being social accountable creatures shows how twisted your thought processes have become. People are not "taught" to be good, but they are "taught" to be bad. Studies of brainwave patterns prove this. This is why lie detectors work in the first place! The body and mind HAS to make fundamental physical, chemical, and mental changes to even tell a lie in the first place. Let alone something more drastic like stealing, or even worse, killing someone.

Of course, when people have been taught from childhood about right and wrong. Do you have a control variable study, showing that the same processes occur in people who have never been taught that stealing is wrong?

The fact you IGNORE what science has already proven as a fact shows the fallacy of your whole argument. Fact is, people as a WHOLE, are innately social creature with instincts of social moral values. This is the Golden Rule used throughout nature. There are members within every species though that has something wrong genetically wise and have mental and physiological problems that cause them to be more aggressive or not have the mental blocks in place to make them recognize they are doing something wrong. But those outliers are the exception NOT the rule.

Oh, you mean like the golden rule that the dominant male gets to mate while the other males get outcast? It's a FACT across a huge number of animal species. How does you innate morality explain this inconvenient truth?

 

[HumblePie]

This is where you fail. The most fundamental instinct common to all life is self-preservation, and passing on your genes, which have nothing to do with morality. A solitary human does not attack another if it serves no benefit to him. However, when contention for resources creates tension between humans, morality takes a back seat very often.

Wrong, wrong, wrong Munky. As totalnoob explained in the post above with monkey experiements, our innate nature is to not hurt each other.

Nonsense. A child first had to be taught that simply taking things is wrong. If the child was never taught that stealing is wrong, it would have no concept of stealing, and therefore no way of knowing if simply taking food was right or wrong.

And this is where you are wrong again. There have been studies of this in regards to ethics and moral codes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100208123625.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300.html


Too many people in religion studies are taught old school rules of Tabula Rasa. That the mind is blank at birth. A clean slate and a hungry sponge that is looking to soak up data. However, this is simply not true. There are certain biological memories in all of us at birth. Some species of animals have a much greater degree of this than others, but all animals exhibit trait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

While it's a nice mantra to state that all men are created equal, and that we are all blank slates, this is patently untrue. We are all born with genetic predispositions for various things. Some of us will be a little taller, shorter, faster, slower, smarter, athletic, and so on. This includes a wide array of harder to measure abilities such as empathy. However, just because we are all born with various degrees of empathy, very few people are born with out that ability. Some are, but they are the exception not the rule. With empathy comes the basis of inherent morals. We as social creatures can empathize, and thus relate to one another on an emotional and physical level.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/080814/empathy.shtml

Again, the brain is hardwired for certain chemical responses. When we see pain in others for the first time there is a measurable chemical response in our brains. It is an empathic response to the plight of others.

It takes a LEARNED behavior to overcome our natural response to these situations.

Munky, any further argument on this only proves your ignorant bent on this issue. You've been brainwashed for far to long into thinking all men are evil. Such as the teaching of Christianity. Which is part of the point Maher was making in his movie and you so enthusiastically proved with your posts. You are more than willing to believe mankind is inherently evil. That your fellow man is always out to hurt you and that you are a sinner. These negative feelings of hate, hurt, and guilt are the basic problem with religion. The reason they are there is because those feelings are easier to used as tools to control people.

 

[Modelworks]

model, please do some reading before you blurt out nonsense taught by your pastor..

What pastor ? I am not a member of any organized religion. Your bias against religion is keeping you from seeing things objectively.

Why would a monkey trained to use a device to gain food for himself suddenly STOP using the device (for up to 12 days in some cases..nearly starving to death) when he noticed that gaining the reward for himself caused pain to another monkey

These are LAB animals. Not animals from the wild. They were raised primarily by humans and learn what is taught. Look at the research done by Jane Goodall where she talks many times about aggression and violence that she observed while studying apes. You have in your head that these are kind, caring creatures and want the best for everyone. That is what gets people killed that try to take things from the wild and make them pets.

There have been numerous experiments done in the decades since to confirm Masserman's result. Please explain this to me. Do these monkeys believe in God? Did they develop a religion? Were they refraining from acting in their "Darwinian" interest out of fear of eternal punishment from a sky daddy? Or could their concern for their fellow primates be explained by a natural sense of solidarity and empathy ingrained in their genes over millions of years?

Again your bias against religion shows. I am trying to talk about religion as a philosophy and its impact on development of culture and you want to try to make it into a discussion of science vs God. The fear primates have isn't from God, it is from fear from injury and pain . Animals in the wild do not have empathy they have survival instincts. Show me a monkey in the wild feeling bad that a baby gazelle just got eaten by a lion.

I have been to Kenya and seen things with my own eyes that prove to me beyond a doubt, wild animals do not have morals. They take care of their own groups if they are pack animals and anyone else is a threat. Animals do not all work together like some Utopian dream . Humans are immoral by nature that is why we have laws, police, jails. People most of the time do not do what they do because it is the right thing to do, they do it because they don't like the consequence of not doing it.

 

[Munky]

Wrong, wrong, wrong Munky. As totalnoob explained in the post above with monkey experiements, our innate nature is to not hurt each other.

Oh, you mean the experiments involving captive monkeys, undergoing forced conditioning, and then attributing their behavior to what the human observer thinks is happening? What evidence is there that the monkeys actually made a moral judgment and acted on altruism, as opposed to a natural response to pain aversion or reciprocity? The FACT is that science on innate morality is not settled, no matter how much you like to pretend it is.

And this is where you are wrong again. There have been studies of this in regards to ethics and moral codes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100208123625.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300.html

How about posting links that actually say something more conclusive than "The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have not been clearly established?"

Too many people in religion studies are taught old school rules of Tabula Rasa. That the mind is blank at birth. A clean slate and a hungry sponge that is looking to soak up data. However, this is simply not true. There are certain biological memories in all of us at birth. Some species of animals have a much greater degree of this than others, but all animals exhibit trait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

Again, what exactly do your link prove? That biological cell "memory" is somehow related to innate morality? Or the ridiculous experiment involving the ingestion if conditioned worms, about which your own link says "McConnell's results are now attributed to observer bias.[4] No double-blind experiment has ever reproduced his results."

While it's a nice mantra to state that all men are created equal, and that we are all blank slates, this is patently untrue. We are all born with genetic predispositions for various things. Some of us will be a little taller, shorter, faster, slower, smarter, athletic, and so on. This includes a wide array of harder to measure abilities such as empathy. However, just because we are all born with various degrees of empathy, very few people are born with out that ability. Some are, but they are the exception not the rule. With empathy comes the basis of inherent morals. We as social creatures can empathize, and thus relate to one another on an emotional and physical level.

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/080814/empathy.shtml

Again, the brain is hardwired for certain chemical responses. When we see pain in others for the first time there is a measurable chemical response in our brains. It is an empathic response to the plight of others.

It takes a LEARNED behavior to overcome our natural response to these situations.

That the we are born with genetic predispositions is not a debate. Neither is the argument that the brain is hardwired for certain chemical responses. However, that does not mean such a response is a result of some moral judgment based on predefined values coded into our DNA. This paper says more on the issue than all your links combined:

http://www.personal.usyd.edu.au/~rjoyce/acrobat/joyce_is.morality.innate.pdf

Munky, any further argument on this only proves your ignorant bent on this issue. You've been brainwashed for far to long into thinking all men are evil. Such as the teaching of Christianity. Which is part of the point Maher was making in his movie and you so enthusiastically proved with your posts. You are more than willing to believe mankind is inherently evil. That your fellow man is always out to hurt you and that you are a sinner. These negative feelings of hate, hurt, and guilt are the basic problem with religion. The reason they are there is because those feelings are easier to used as tools to control people.

On the contrary, I view all men as self-serving, which is a natural means of maximizing one's own survival. There is nothing inherently good or evil about it. You, on the other hand, are hell bent on proving that humans are inherently good, that we don't need God or religion, and that we could magically establish a utopia on earth if we could just get one more chance... and one more after that... and infinitely many more chances after all the previous ones have failed.

 

[zsdersw]

Consider the following:

1. Though we likely evolved from them, humans are not monkeys. nor are we any other animal. Therefore, it is not particularly correct to equate their shortcomings with ours.

2. Morality is, to some degree, demonstrated in almost every part of the animal kingdom. Complex social structures are found in many species. Why is this moral? Because social structures require some level of sacrificing selfish desires for the betterment of the group, though no sacrifice is ever 100% selfless.. same as in humans. Actions not done exclusively to further one's own self-interest is the basic principle of morality. Given this and our likely evolutionary connection it is entirely possible, if not probable, that mankind would have evolved a morality similar to what we have today without the purely religious concepts of creator Gods that punish/reward/judge behaviors and promise post-mortem happiness if we comply.

3. It is best not to speak authoritatively on this matter, in one direction or another. No one has a claim on the absolute truth.