Religion Arguments

[Andi]

It's my own oppinion. And I prefer life to death. That's all. And I often read the part where god send these funny things to the egyptians.

And G3K is right. For every arguement here is an arguement against it. It's useless to go on. Be a happy christian if you want, if not, leave it. I'll leave this topic open, but don't plan to post here anymore.

[remline]

You have a knowledge of right and wrong because it was given to you by God. Where would you get this sense of right and wrong through evolution?

Anatol, what is your theory on cannibalism?

If, as you suppose, man is born with an innate sense of right and wrong, how could a system develop in which man kills and eats another man? This action is not only contrary to Christian morality, but to so-called "natural law" theory as well.

[hydraboxdog]

Ok. So, if what's good and bad is based on opinions...

THEN EVERYTING I DO IS GOOD AND BAD. so no matter what I do it's wrong and there's no point doing whats right cause it's wrong and doing what's wrong cause it's right and vise-versa.

[Liebatron]

Hmmmmmmmm...::..He's right. Technically, if people thought it was ok to have controlled battles watched by audiences
(cough Roman colloseum cough) then it would be right and good if everone agreed with it. (depending on your religion EG- catholics think that's bad)

[Timballisto]

This isn't an argument:

At times, I have thought about this thing called heaven, and how it's supposed to be a place where you stay forever after you die.  Have you ever actually thought more that forever part?  I mean, it takes awhile to hit you, but eventually, you realize what forever really is.  It is FOREVER.  Imagine.  Time does not end.  There is no limit.  Things continue endlessly.  Doesn't that just scare you?

[Proxima]

EDIT: I've toned my response down a little, because these kind of topic bring out the worst in me. It's just that I'm a philosopher specialising in ethics and meta-ethics (the question of where our moral values originate from), and it annoys me to see people talking nonsense about my subject when they don't know much about it themselves.

Firstly, the question Anatol actually asked was: "Where would you get this sense of right and wrong through evolution?" That's a question not about moral values, but about our moral sense. There's no doubt that we do have feelings about what is right and wrong. I don't know what a real biologist would say, but I think these feelings can be explained within evolution either as an inevitable concomitant of the development of intelligence, or because morality is necessary to hold together a society, and humans within a society are better equipped to survive than those without one.

The other question that could be asked is: if there is no God, how can statements about right and wrong be true? To answer this, I want to make it clear that the right/wrong distinction is not the same as the good/bad distinction. Everyone agrees that there are things that are good -- for instance, playing Lemmings is good because I enjoy it. I can also do good to other people by giving them things that they want. One action can be more good than another if it achieves more good things for more people. Once this is clear, we can take the right/wrong distinction away completely without losing any of our moral values. Atheists are just as likely to be moral people as believers -- it doesn't take much of an observer of the world to see that.

It's complete nonsense to say that if you think there are no divine moral commandments you MUST believe that right and wrong are just conventions. These are possibly the two easiest positions to understand, but there are many others -- try reading some actual works on meta-ethics if you really want to know more.

[Liebatron]

AhRibar, I have a teacher named Mr. ribar. Strange.....

[?QuErY?]

To me, there's no true 'universal' right and wrong. All I think about when I decide to do something is feelings and consequences, which vary from person to person and also tend to make a more accurate and easier to follow 'guide to life' than religion. No matter what, that's all I follow, and I've lived a happy eleven years. Because of the fact I have no true religion, I'm also a little harder to tease and apply stereotypes to, which, if you've been to a school like Holy Family or Abbey Infants, both of which are stuffed to the brim with bullies and future racists, is an advantage.

[Timballisto]

Before I decide to do something, I take this string of thoughts from when I wander around my brain, and apply it to the situation.

"Whatever I can do to get to heaven, I should do.  Well, then again, life is a valuable thing, and maybe not everything should be focused on using life as a tool to get to heaven.  I allow room for that already though.  Thusly these things are in check.  The thought of heaven and infinitely existing there is so scary.  Until a person thinks about it, they don'y realize what forever means.  Eternity is enternity.  This makes me afraid of heaven in a way.  However, I think of the even more sinister option, and, I must say, I will take heaven.  If I do anything that would take me away from going to heaven, why would it be worth it?  If my lifetime is an infinitely small speck in my entire being, then why should I worry so much about it?  Should I not worry more about whether or not I get to heaven and peacefully exist forever?"

Folks, my thoughts run into the weirdest little nooks and crannys you can find.  This is just a small piece of everything else.  So far, the above has provided me with a decent life, but at the same time, what seems to me will be a decent afterlife.