Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
No one said you were, but as I stated a page ago, you can quote that document over and over and it still won't say what you're saying it says. Why is it that for nearly a century, the heliocentric universe was openly discusse, and then when Galileo wrote a theological argument in its favor was it shut down? Further, the Church was ready to allow a hypothetical discussion of the concept in 1632, but didn't want anyone advocating the issue. That's a rather nuanced position to be taking for a body that is against science.

That's where I thnk you are getting me wrong. I don't want it to say anything. I am completely indifferent. Its just an historical artifact. But it does say, and there is absolutely 0 interpretation here, that heliocentrism was heresy because it opposed scripture, and that books containing the proposition were banned.

That Holy Scripture was successfully used to discredit and ban an idea, which has real consequences (to say nothing of the punishment to an individual), is a case in point of a special conflict between relgion and science. Hence, John Paul II's pseudo-aplogy:

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....
—Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - November 4, 1992

emphasis mine

As a discussion of Galileo, this is very interesting. However, the same type of thing is going on today, in the here and now, by certain religious quarters against biology. Because the facts of biology are in "special conflict" with Holy Scripture, some people out there are actively trying to cast doubt among our youth about an established area of science, and wilfully ignoring mountains and mountains of fossil and DNA records, all because of a literal interpretation of their Holy Scripture. You don't have to dig too far to discover the true intent: to legitimize the ever-waning influence of religion by de-legitamizing the ever-growing influence of science. As proof, read the Wedge document produced by the Discovery Institute, which, like Galileo's condemnation, also speaks for itself: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

 jasper76 wrote:
Because the facts of biology are in "special conflict" with Holy Scripture, some people out there are actively trying to cast doubt among our youth about an established area of science, and wilfully ignoring mountains and mountains of fossil and DNA records, all because of a literal interpretation of their Holy Scripture.

Stormfront advocates that anyone who isn't white is inferior to whites. Am I to assume from them that white people are a detriment to Western civilization?

I don't understand the question, or its significance to efforts to try and undermine biology.

But no, one racist doesn't make everyone of the same skin color as the racist, also racist


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are implying that I feel the same way about religious people (one bad apple spoils the whole bunch), I do not think that, either\, and have said so numerous times on this thread. The OP question was whether religion was a net benefit or detriment to Western civilization.

We could ask the same thing about, lets say, public transportation, or private education, or centralized banking.

Yes it is needed in my opinion big time. For the most part for people like me, I do not care if people tell me it is wrong and I have no real apathy for "punishment". The only reason I don't do what ever I want is because the lord told me not to with the commandments. If not for them I see no reason not to take what you want or do what you like. If your bigger and have the means take what you want and screw them they should be better prepared. After all like my grampy always said cops are there for punishing you for things you got caught doing. Not to stop you from doing them.

I know I am not the only one with this train of thought either, but people never seem to understand that. Some people may do violence for religion. Religion also helps calm the violent. The prospect of someone "a almighty father" telling you whats wrong and right who understands far more then I ever could gives you a actual reason to behave and follow the rules. I see our laws kinda moot they are made by people just like us with a way to tell us what to do. Why who cares if they think it is right and wrong. The only reason people follow them is because more people agree to them then disagree.

But I will follow all the laws and behave because the Lord said to. Also his commandments are the same as our laws so all good.

Yes I think I was born 1000 years to late I think I would be far better off living way back then.

 LordofHats wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Because the facts of biology are in "special conflict" with Holy Scripture, some people out there are actively trying to cast doubt among our youth about an established area of science, and wilfully ignoring mountains and mountains of fossil and DNA records, all because of a literal interpretation of their Holy Scripture.

Stormfront advocates that anyone who isn't white is inferior to whites. Am I to assume from them that white people are a detriment to Western civilization?

No. But feel free to assume that racist ideologies and racist books are a detriment to western civilization. In the same manner, feel free to assume that religions and religious book that literally contradict what experiment and thorough research have taught us are also a detriment.

 jasper76 wrote:


As a discussion of Galileo, this is very interesting. However, the same type of thing is going on today, in the here and now, by certain religious quarters against biology. Because the facts of biology are in "special conflict" with Holy Scripture, some people out there are actively trying to cast doubt among our youth about an established area of science, and wilfully ignoring mountains and mountains of fossil and DNA records, all because of a literal interpretation of their Holy Scripture. You don't have to dig too far to discover the true intent: to legitimize the ever-waning influence of religion by de-legitamizing the ever-growing influence of science. As proof, read the Wedge document produced by the Discovery Institute, which, like Galileo's condemnation, also speaks for itself: http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

You do realize that the Catholic church has never believed in 'young earth' and has never disputed the scientific creation of the earth or accepted the literal position of '7 days' being solar days. So to claim that the extreme fringe of 20th century 'young earth creationists' is the position of the catholic church is wrong.

The Moses's accounts which alter became the bible are surprising accurate for being the verbal re-telling of divine inspiration. The 'days' actually correspond to known dates and times of the creation of the universe and life on earth. The processes of genesis actually is a very good metaphorical description of the big bang and how the solar system formed. A lot of the passages referring to giants on earth directly correspond to the end of the ice age and when neanderthal and man would have co-existed and interbred. It is TOO accurate to be coincidence compared to a lot of other myths out there where things are on the back of a turtle. It is almost as if someone who had full scientific knowledge of the universe tried to dictate it to a 2-year old and the result was genesis.

A majority of Christians and the catholic church (and the Jewish faith) do not believe in 'young earth' or 'fake dinosaur fossils put here by satan'. They also follow and teach evolution as evolution does not conflict with those faiths and does not attempt to disprove a soul. The position of the catholic church is to actually teach evolution in catholic schools and they do not at all teach creationism or young earth in catholic schools as that is not what they believe.

Anti evolutionists and 'young earth' creationism is no more 'Christianity's position' than murdering people with carbombs is 'islam's position'. Extreme ideology in any form is a problem... and there are non-religious extreme ideology which are just as bad...

OgreChubbs wrote:
Yes it is needed in my opinion big time. For the most part for people like me, I do not care if people tell me it is wrong and I have no real apathy for "punishment". The only reason I don't do what ever I want is because the lord told me not to with the commandments. If not for them I see no reason not to take what you want or do what you like. If your bigger and have the means take what you want and screw them they should be better prepared. After all like my grampy always said cops are there for punishing you for things you got caught doing. Not to stop you from doing them.

Is your stance that without religion, people would be amoral and/or chaotic and/or unlawful?

nkelsch wrote:
So to claim that the extreme fringe of 20th century 'young earth creationists' is the position of the catholic church is wrong

Well, its good for me then that I never made that claim.

OgreChubbs wrote:
Yes it is needed in my opinion big time. For the most part for people like me, I do not care if people tell me it is wrong and I have no real apathy for "punishment". The only reason I don't do what ever I want is because the lord told me not to with the commandments. If not for them I see no reason not to take what you want or do what you like. If your bigger and have the means take what you want and screw them they should be better prepared. After all like my grampy always said cops are there for punishing you for things you got caught doing. Not to stop you from doing them.

I know I am not the only one with this train of thought either, but people never seem to understand that. Some people may do violence for religion. Religion also helps calm the violent. The prospect of someone "a almighty father" telling you whats wrong and right who understands far more then I ever could gives you a actual reason to behave and follow the rules. I see our laws kinda moot they are made by people just like us with a way to tell us what to do. Why who cares if they think it is right and wrong. The only reason people follow them is because more people agree to them then disagree.

But I will follow all the laws and behave because the Lord said to. Also his commandments are the same as our laws so all good.

Yes I think I was born 1000 years to late I think I would be far better off living way back then.

But the laws of nature are cruel and harsh. Why can't I murder you, rape your wife and eat your children? It is all around good for me personally. Nature is survival of the fittest, and if it propagates my genetic material... why not? What makes it wrong? Chimpanzees seem to have no problem forming groups based upon defending DNA and murdering each other's children for fun and dominance... Why is it 'wrong' for humans to do the same thing?

This was the problem confronted by early man... And if good old Sky grandpa kept people from murdering their neighbor and taking their stuff out of fear, respect or whatever, so be it. It was way to early in our development for 'you don't do it because it is wrong' to mean anything, and in times of scarcity, it would have actually have been a 'good thing' to murder the weak in the civilization for the good of the human race.

Hell... Why not do that today? What makes it inherently wrong? Would the human race be better off if we purged bad genetics from the genepool? we could improve the human race if only the strong and fit reproduced. What makes that thinking wrong? Lots of dark truths about science and nature are really offensive if you think about it and extend them to their logical conclusions.

Sky grandpa did a lot of good in the dawn of human civilization, And while a lot of our laws handle what we consider 'morals and ethics' today, almost all of them in this world boil down to a concept that we are all equal and have a right to life even though nature tells us the exact opposite that we are not all equal and we do not have a right to life. A lot of that came from sky grandpa and while we may not need him watching over us today, I think it is hard to believe that we could have developed as a civilization without him in many cases.

nkelsch wrote:
Anti evolutionists and 'young earth' creationism is no more 'Christianity's position' than murdering people with carbombs is 'islam's position'.

I never tried to imply a majority of Christian sects are young earth creationists. Only that young earth creationism as an ideology is religious, and it is detrimental to society in that it misleads the youth.

nkelsch wrote:
Extreme ideology in any form is a problem...and there are non-religious extreme ideology which are just as bad...

Indeed.

 kronk wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Yes it is needed in my opinion big time. For the most part for people like me, I do not care if people tell me it is wrong and I have no real apathy for "punishment". The only reason I don't do what ever I want is because the lord told me not to with the commandments. If not for them I see no reason not to take what you want or do what you like. If your bigger and have the means take what you want and screw them they should be better prepared. After all like my grampy always said cops are there for punishing you for things you got caught doing. Not to stop you from doing them.

Is your stance that without religion, people would be amoral and/or chaotic and/or unlawful?

It is a possibility which cannot be tested... but when you look at our closest living relatives, Chimpanzees, they understand concepts like compassion, equity and emotion... but they also live amoral and unlawful existences in the way they fight territorial battles and murder and cannibalize young offspring simply to cause pain and scare rival groups. Survival of the fittest, and protect your DNA.

The shortage of resources would have naturally forced early man to fight as tribes, mostly based upon DNA, and rape and murder other humans for necessity. Spirituality was one of the things that curbed that in many early civilizations.

If you think that we wouldn't turn exactly into waring bands of chimpanzees if governments were to fall and civilization were to end, well I hope you are right. Let's hope it never comes to that.

 jasper76 wrote:
But no, one racist doesn't make everyone of the same skin color as the racist, also racist

Then why assume everyone who is religious is against science? You're not arguing against Christians or even the Catholic Church, you're arguing against Young Earth Creationists. Welcome to the club. No one likes them, not even other Christians. If your argument is that religion leads to people subverting science, well so do politics, economics, and random internet wackos who are convinced the lizard people really rule the Earth.

But feel free to assume that racist ideologies and racist books are a detriment to western civilization.

In what manner? Because it hurts your moral sensibilities? Just because you find something distasteful doesn't automatically mean there wasn't a gain. You can thank all that slave labor for saving the American economy in the 18th century. Doesn't make slavery right, but morality and reality don't always end up seeing eye to eye.

Likewise, why single out the Church for its persecutions? The Romans had mountains of religious persecution. The Greeks were even worse. I fail to see how the Church was any worse than its predecessors and contemporaries as an institution. If you were a scientist in the Roman world and tried to argue that the Earth orbited around the sun, they'd just throw Ptolemy in your face and tell you you were wrong. They didn't even entertain the notion that the great Greek philosophers weren't 100% correct.

As wonky as it was, the Catholic church created an education system, supported numerous scientific institutions, and had a system in place for the discussion of ideas. Compared to pretty much everyone but the Abassids and the Fatamids, they were way more open to new information and research than others and further, clergy were active participants in that exchange of ideas. Taking individual incidents like Bruno and Galileo and throwing all the rest of that history out is just putting pants on your head.

It is said that mankind need some assurance in their life, and a reason to live to make their lives meaningful and in many cultures Religion is the key. To bow down before a being/s that is taller and mightier than oneself is needed so people can find something to live up to and try and resemble to create a greater human being.
Religious spiritual value is necessary to create order based upon that If You Kill its Bad thing and DONT STEAL. For many cultures Religion is a way to pass on traditions and methods of their civilisation such as the Aboriginals Dreamtime that teaches them to not roam out of camp or the Rainbow serpent will eat you.
Religion as it is defined now, such as the Catholic Church is the reason Religion is given a bad name. This is the work of a thousand years of corrupt influence and the result of ultimate power that everyone gives because the chair is holy.

I believe in God and will gladly go to church, to meet new people and to converse in sacred ground. Church is needed as a social event as well as to use the anecdotes of Ancient Times and the stories of Christ and other prophets to apply to today and use their meanings to better shape our future by raising awareness and helping the poor, the cripples, the broken and those who are exiled.
The Christian Religion is based upon the principles that if you love your neighbour and you love yourself you will succeed in life and it is the same in nearly every other main religion such as Buddhism which is the belief that you must find the path of enlightenment and in Islam to follow the example set by Muhammad.
It is just greed, envy and the power of corrupt humans rip apart this cultural understanding and mould it into their own fantasies to further their gain in the name of God/s.
So yes, Religious and Spiritual guidance should be accepted and celebrated, but the Church of Catholicism and the strict teachings that try to further a particular persons gain such as the Islam radicals or the Catholic bishops or the Hindu teachings about Kashmir has to stop before we can evolve as human beings.
Rant over.

 jasper76 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Anti evolutionists and 'young earth' creationism is no more 'Christianity's position' than murdering people with carbombs is 'islam's position'.

I never tried to imply a majority of Christian sects are young earth creationists. Only that young earth creationism as an ideology is religious, and it is detrimental to society in that it misleads the youth.

nkelsch wrote:
Extreme ideology in any form is a problem...and there are non-religious extreme ideology which are just as bad...

Indeed.

That assumes you actually think the people who are promoting that, 'believe' it. It seems like it is a tool for controlling people and not at all something those people actually believe. It means the issue is not religion, it is the ambition and power of man to corrupt pretty much anything to control people via ignorance. It happens in government, economics, and other ideologies, not just religion... removing religion doesn't 'solve' anything and it is not a direct result of religion.

Extreme ideology used to manipulate and oppress people by power hungry humans is the core issue... Blaming religion is just the action of another power hungry human looking to use an ideology to oppress other people.

nkelsch wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Yes it is needed in my opinion big time. For the most part for people like me, I do not care if people tell me it is wrong and I have no real apathy for "punishment". The only reason I don't do what ever I want is because the lord told me not to with the commandments. If not for them I see no reason not to take what you want or do what you like. If your bigger and have the means take what you want and screw them they should be better prepared. After all like my grampy always said cops are there for punishing you for things you got caught doing. Not to stop you from doing them.

I know I am not the only one with this train of thought either, but people never seem to understand that. Some people may do violence for religion. Religion also helps calm the violent. The prospect of someone "a almighty father" telling you whats wrong and right who understands far more then I ever could gives you a actual reason to behave and follow the rules. I see our laws kinda moot they are made by people just like us with a way to tell us what to do. Why who cares if they think it is right and wrong. The only reason people follow them is because more people agree to them then disagree.

But I will follow all the laws and behave because the Lord said to. Also his commandments are the same as our laws so all good.

Yes I think I was born 1000 years to late I think I would be far better off living way back then.

But the laws of nature are cruel and harsh. Why can't I murder you, rape your wife and eat your children? It is all around good for me personally. Nature is survival of the fittest, and if it propagates my genetic material... why not? What makes it wrong? Chimpanzees seem to have no problem forming groups based upon defending DNA and murdering each other's children for fun and dominance... Why is it 'wrong' for humans to do the same thing?

This was the problem confronted by early man... And if good old Sky grandpa kept people from murdering their neighbor and taking their stuff out of fear, respect or whatever, so be it. It was way to early in our development for 'you don't do it because it is wrong' to mean anything, and in times of scarcity, it would have actually have been a 'good thing' to murder the weak in the civilization for the good of the human race.

Hell... Why not do that today? What makes it inherently wrong? Would the human race be better off if we purged bad genetics from the genepool? we could improve the human race if only the strong and fit reproduced. What makes that thinking wrong? Lots of dark truths about science and nature are really offensive if you think about it and extend them to their logical conclusions.

Sky grandpa did a lot of good in the dawn of human civilization, And while a lot of our laws handle what we consider 'morals and ethics' today, almost all of them in this world boil down to a concept that we are all equal and have a right to life even though nature tells us the exact opposite that we are not all equal and we do not have a right to life. A lot of that came from sky grandpa and while we may not need him watching over us today, I think it is hard to believe that we could have developed as a civilization without him in many cases.

You aren't going to like my answer so I won't answer because it may offend people.

I hold firmly that the reasons we don't do that is because the lord told us not to. I see no reason not to because we are animals and those in need will fight for what they need and those who have, will fight to keep what they have. We still do it look at our wars for the last... ever. Even the newest one the U.S.A. is in they are trying to kill those who are against them and their beliefs to keep what they have.

So yea I say the world would be a lot more chaotic and unruly if not for religion. We are creatures who try and self preserve we have enough to feed 3 we keep it for ourselves or share some to the most healthy. Why because they have the best chance of helping us if we are attacked or need help in a hunt. My religion tells me to keep only what I need and give the rest. It is almost as god is saying all tho these are your base desires you are in a era where they aren't needed anymore so here are new rules to follow. We seem to be the only animal that has the choice to obey our desires or ignore them and give.

nkelsch wrote:
That assumes you actually think the people who are promoting that, 'believe' it. It seems like it is a tool for controlling people and not at all something those people actually believe. It means the issue is not religion, it is the ambition and power of man to corrupt pretty much anything to control people via ignorance. It happens in government, economics, and other ideologies, not just religion... removing religion doesn't 'solve' anything and it is not a direct result of religion.

I think this assertion is correct on the issue of climate change. To the extent that religion is used to promote climate science denial, the primary underlying motivation is probably money.

As for biology denial, I'm convinced certain people really do believe it. Ken Hamm certainly believes it. The impressionable children he preaches to as fact certainly believe it.

As for curbing reproductive rights, that is based I think largely on sincerely held belief in religious doctrine.

As for denying people equal civil rights, again that is based I think largely on sincerely held belief in religious doctrine.

nkelsch wrote:

If you think that we wouldn't turn exactly into waring bands of chimpanzees if governments were to fall and civilization were to end, well I hope you are right. Let's hope it never comes to that.

Governments falling and the end of civilization is an interesting topic, but I'm more interested in Ogre's opinions/assumptions on people's behavior without religion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:

So yea I say the world would be a lot more chaotic and unruly if not for religion. We are creatures who try and self preserve we have enough to feed 3 we keep it for ourselves or share some to the most healthy. Why because they have the best chance of helping us if we are attacked or need help in a hunt. My religion tells me to keep only what I need and give the rest. It is almost as god is saying all tho these are your base desires you are in a era where they aren't needed anymore so here are new rules to follow. We seem to be the only animal that has the choice to obey our desires or ignore them and give.

Thank you for sharing, OgreChubbs.

 sebster wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Why single out the religious buildings, why not the barracks, or the munitions factories, or the banking infrastructure. Or maybe the gambling halls.
And why do those who wish to attack institutions always compare to how much health care or education could be bought witb the money, as if that was what redirected money naturally goes to.

And then maybe they'll realise how douchey it is to lecture other people about the money they spend on things they choose to spend their own money on, like churches.

They know its 'douchey', its a propaganda technique, compare the removal of something the proponents don't like and propose it is replaced by something everyone likes, dollar for dollar, with no corruption or retribution.

A successful removal of religion, or other independent instutions, might free up a lot of money, but you would need to spend more than you save on the secret police to do so, and you would have to trust said secret police to be uncorrupted and honest about their work. Yeah right.

 sebster wrote:

Its a one sided ideal, linked to a policy of cultural annihilation.
as a rule of thumb when someone wants to utterly eradicate part of society, and promise nice benefits from it, they tend to be up to no good.

Well that's going a bit far. You're now giving atheism some kind of real political power which simply doesn't exist. Address this problem as it actually is, a small minority of atheists being jerks who just can't let other people hold a different opinion than their own, and you're half way to solving the problem.

Sorry, I agree with you only so far.
Even 'mild' bigoted statements from fringe groups with no power are stomped on heavily, this should be taken no different as it is no different from a group saying 'wouldnt it be nice if we removed all the immigrants and spent the welfare money on education instead.'

 sebster wrote:

But by instead assuming that they harbour some kind of conspiracy to dismantle church and faith and odds are you're just taking up the opposite side of the fight, and contributing equally to the problem.

The process is viral not conspirational, and relies on successive empowerment of partisan parties at the expense of others, and need not have any guiding hand, the propaganda techniques used are from the public domain.
Still when someone proposes the removal of a structure of society they don't like we must assume the will of those who do want it will be compromised, and there is good reason not to be complacent..
Even if this group has no power to be a threat, it has power enough to sow a seed. The first step is often the hardest: Make it basically acceptable to consider completely abolishing religion, most forms of evil in society cannot occur while the populace has a democracy and the will to stand up over transparent rights violations. One or other has to go, with democracy being the harder part of the equation to dismantle.
The successful erosion of freedom is a long process, and those who wish to do so are patient.

 mondo80 wrote:

Dear Mondo80,

How DARE you spend money on Your Necrons when you could be giving it to schools and other needy charities?

Sincerely,

No One, because we're minding our own business.

 kronk wrote:

 mondo80 wrote:

Dear Mondo80,

How DARE you spend money on Your Necrons when you could be giving it to schools and other needy charities?

Sincerely,

No One, because we're minding our own business.

There are giant pharmaceutical corporations, health offices, hospitals, and government organizations all making vaccines to give our children autism.

Imagine a world in which we had used these resources to cure autism instead.

 d-usa wrote:

There are giant pharmaceutical corporations, health offices, hospitals, and government organizations all making vaccines to give our children autism.

Imagine a world in which we had used these resources to cure autism instead.

Please be joking... Pleeeeeeeease!

nkelsch wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

There are giant pharmaceutical corporations, health offices, hospitals, and government organizations all making vaccines to give our children autism.

Imagine a world in which we had used these resources to cure autism instead.

Please be joking... Pleeeeeeeease!

He is.

Damn you, d-usa! *shakes fist*

So, TRex didn't eat coconuts?

OgreChubbs wrote:
Yes it is needed in my opinion big time. For the most part for people like me, I do not care if people tell me it is wrong and I have no real apathy for "punishment". The only reason I don't do what ever I want is because the lord told me not to with the commandments. If not for them I see no reason not to take what you want or do what you like. If your bigger and have the means take what you want and screw them they should be better prepared. After all like my grampy always said cops are there for punishing you for things you got caught doing. Not to stop you from doing them.

Don't take this as anything personal (I'm going to attack this line of thinking, not you if I can help it), but this line of thinking terrifies me. Divine commandments from super-beings usually aren't the biggest constraint to most people being jerkwads, social pressures and people's own sense of morality usually does most of it. To my mind, if the only thing keeping someone from being a psychopath is the threat of divine retribution or eternal reward, something is wrong. If the urge to harm is only kept in check by a threat like this, that person isn't a good person.

If others can keep themselves from being destructive and harmful to others without the concept of divine retribution or the need of an eternal reward, while others of different faiths or no faith can manage, that speaks to the person and not the need for faith.

I don't believe in a heaven or hell, and despite having all the means at my disposal, I don't go around setting puppies on fire, killing my neighbors, hijacking cars, punching babies, plundering from stores, or anything else. Am I a naturally superior person such that I can do so even without divine commandment? I highly doubt it . I tend to think the vast majority of people just naturally aren't jerkwads, and what their natural instincts don't hold them back from, social pressures usually will.

nkelsch wrote:
It was way to early in our development for 'you don't do it because it is wrong' to mean anything

Nope. It was the other way around. People had already talked a whole lot about morals way before Christianity was invented, back when most religions had no such duality about one god dividing everything between right and wrong. Jews and Zoroastrians had that before Christianity, but I would bet you much that moral came first, and way later people tried to enforce it using religion.

nkelsch wrote:
Why not do that today? What makes it inherently wrong? Would the human race be better off if we purged bad genetics from the genepool? we could improve the human race if only the strong and fit reproduced. What makes that thinking wrong?

That is what Nazis believed. No, religion did not really made turn them into carebears. And before that we got the whole racism+slavery stuff.

nkelsch wrote:
Lots of dark truths about science and nature are really offensive if you think about it and extend them to their logical conclusions.

Here, the problem is neither with science nor with nature. The problem is with your preexisting opinion about what would be good. For instance, you speak about “improving the human race” as if it was automatically a good thing, and without even defining improving it in regards to which criterion ?

nkelsch wrote:
Sky grandpa did a lot of good in the dawn of human civilization

The dawn of civilization scarcely had a sky grandpa. The most influential antique philosophers, who thought a whole great deal about morals and ethics, had a religion full of immoral Gods with very human flaws, that were not to be taken as role models. Neither did ancient Egyptians.
Seriously, you need to back up your thoughts with facts.

 LordofHats wrote:
In what manner? Because it hurts your moral sensibilities?

I have no freaking idea. You tell me. Why did you write : “Stormfront advocates that anyone who isn't white is inferior to whites. Am I to assume from them that white people are a detriment to Western civilization?” ? Back then you totally implied that considering non-white people as inferior to white people was detrimental to western civilization. I merely told you you were free to do so, and now you start asking me why you would believe such a thing. Seriously, do you change your mind that often?
If you need someone to constantly remind you why you think racism is detrimental to western civilization, write it on a notebook or something. If you think racism is not detrimental to western civilization, do not imply you think otherwise.

 LordofHats wrote:
Likewise, why single out the Church for its persecutions?

Because if you read again what I said, I did not single it out. I forgot an s to books, but I did put it at religions at least.

 baxter123 wrote:
Religion as it is defined now, such as the Catholic Church is the reason Religion is given a bad name.

Come over to Iran, pal .

 baxter123 wrote:
The Christian Religion is based upon the principles that if you love your neighbour and you love yourself you will succeed in life and it is the same in nearly every other main religion

No. It is not much the case for Christianity, and it is utterly and completely wrong for some other religions. That is some big bs. Seriously, go read about other religions rather than use your preconceptions.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I hold firmly that the reasons we don't do that is because the lord told us not to.

So what? Were you not supposed not to fear punishment? And if you do not see any moral reasons not to do that, how can you say that your lord telling you not to do that is a good thing?
Your whole position make no sense. Either you have some sense of morality outside of what your lord tell you, in which case you should not need him to behave morally, or you do not, and then you cannot say that her laws are a good thing.

“Stormfront advocates that anyone who isn't white is inferior to whites. Am I to assume from them that white people are a detriment to Western civilization?” ? Back then you totally implied that considering non-white people as inferior to white people was detrimental to western civilization. I merely told you you were free to do so, and now you start asking me why you would believe such a thing. Seriously, do you change your mind that often?

I, didn't change my mind... The statement is ludicrous. That's why I said it. It's as ludicrous to make claims about all white people across all of time based on Stormfront as it is to make claims about all religion across all of time based on Young Earth Creationists. You can't boil down thousands of years and millions of lives that easily. You certainly can't make a moral declaration like "good" or "bad" based on it.

Come over to Iran, pal .

Khomeni after a brief visit to a Turkish beach decided that Bikini's were okay, so there's that XD

 Ahtman wrote:
A unthinking belief in science, or unerring trust in it, is no better than an unerring trust in religion.

We do run a risk of shifting "belief" to science as a religion.
The great thing about it is we start with a premise or a theory and try to prove/disprove it.
Finding a repeatable process that others can duplicate to review the credibility also helps.
Science is required to prove itself time and again while religion demands no proof, only faith.

For something to demand being reviewed critically gives me more "faith" in it than those who view criticism as "heresy".

 Talizvar wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
A unthinking belief in science, or unerring trust in it, is no better than an unerring trust in religion.

We do run a risk of shifting "belief" to science as a religion.
The great thing about it is we start with a premise or a theory and try to prove/disprove it.
Finding a repeatable process that others can duplicate to review the credibility also helps.
Science is required to prove itself time and again while religion demands no proof, only faith.

The statement doesn't address how the scientific method works, which is not a mystery, but in how we approach it; conflating science as the arbiter of absolute truth is problematic in much the same way as seeing religion as an arbiter of absolute truth.

 Vaktathi wrote:

I don't believe in a heaven or hell, and despite having all the means at my disposal, I don't go around setting puppies on fire, killing my neighbors, hijacking cars, punching babies, plundering from stores, or anything else. Am I a naturally superior person such that I can do so even without divine commandment? I highly doubt it . I tend to think the vast majority of people just naturally aren't jerkwads, and what their natural instincts don't hold them back from, social pressures usually will.

Because if you do, there are consequences... If you lived before the dawn of civilization... and you wanted another human's stuff, and his wife, why would you not simply take it if you physically had the power to do so? Especially if food was scarce and you needed to provide for your offspring?

Our closest living relatives in the animal kingdom have an answer... If you have what I want, I smash your head with a rock, rape your wife and eat your children.

So how come it should be different for humans? You don't punch babies because another human will come along and harm you if you do, not because 'it is a mean thing to do'. In the survival of the fittest, anything which increases your survival and your offspring's survival is a 'good thing' for you. Without a civilization with a punitive civil system to lay down unacceptable actions... there is nothing preventing you from killing your neighbors, punching babies, plundering resources except someone bigger and stronger preventing you from doing so. Might makes right.

Why do we believe every human has the right to live and exist, and we are all equal when nature shows us the rest of the world operates in an exact opposite manner? We are not all equal (at least scientifically not morally) and there is no guarantee that we can live as people die all the time for various reasons. What 'changed' with Humans that I am supposed to respect your right to exist and not cease your life in a competition for food/territory/offspring, but the rest of the animal kingdom does it as needed?

And when civilization breaks down, we see true human nature, humans are jerkwads, looking out for themselves, and will murder you, rape your wife and eat your kids if they felt it would benefit them and there is no retribution.

nkelsch wrote:
In the survival of the fittest

Darwin didn't apply that to humans, as he saw animals living in a state of nature where it was survival of the fittest, but humans live in a state of civilization where our ability to cooperate is more important to survival, or as he called it, empathy.