Ben Stein Expelled

[Gryeyes]

I was expecting some links on it, since no, I don't really know shit about the laws that monkeys or apes apparently have.

Educate yourself it doesnt require a "link" to basically have any remote knowledge of great ape behavior. Watch animal planet for 15 minutes.

The definitions from Princeton I've used don't match up with your definitions.

Correct you used a half assed dictionary with a vague and all encompassing definition. Ignoring the manner in which you yourself provided describing the role of religion. Kinda hard to argue semantics when you defined in the EXACT manner that i have used it.

Morality is not instinctual, as you have said many times. If morality was instinctual it would be unchanging and unlearned. There wouldn't be an argument.

Why do you repeatedly create straw man arguments ignoring whats actually said. I never fucking said morality=instinct. What exactly is your malfunction? Can you not fucking read? Ive repeated myself probably a dozen times and yet you still repeat the same bullshit over and over. In how many ways and how many times do i have to explain it before you read it?

I didn't use Wikipeida, even though it's the only source I've found that has some agreement to your argument. You left out how half the Wikipedia article is about how it's unclear if animism can be considered a religion since it is present in all religions. The man who coined the phrase animism says it was the minimum of religion

.

Umm the quotes from the man you used are from wikipedia...idiot. The quotes i have given are from the same person you quoted to demonstrate the point. From the same article in fact.The man who coined the phrase "animism" considered all religions animistic. He is also the person quoted saying "Does not fit the traditional western definition of the word". The same man also contradicts your entire premise of religion being an integral part of society itself. But i dont actually expect you to read and understand the stuff you cut/paste from.

The list of six things was based on religion after civilization had taken place.

You defined religion... The manner in which you used that word EXACTLY matches the manner in which i have used it. And in which merriam-webster defines it. And the manner in which pretty much anyone would think the word implies. I know its common practice for retards to hide behind semantics once their arguement falls apart but jesus christ. YOU DEFINED ITS USAGE IN THIS VERY THREAD.

Also kind of hard to claim you didnt use ask.com/wikipedia since you cited it as a source for your previous quotes. Thats an awesome neo-pagan website tho.

[Schatze]

edit: people chose agriculture where there were no other alternatives. That's key, to understand where these civilizations emerged but also what the surrounding area was like. The areas where agriculture emerged were areas undergoing climactic shifts into desert and necessitated a new means of finding a way of life. People were hunter gatherers first with probable some minor agricultural activity and perhaps primitive domestication, when the climate shifted such that this way of life could no longer be supported, they found another means to survive. . But primitive agricultural society, for the farmer, was a horrible life marked by malnutrition, extremely heavy labor, and short life spans. Why do you think when civilization began to spread to regions that were not desert that it was necessary to use main force to keep farmers farming and supporting the elite, to tie them to their land, etc?

The desertification of the middle east where civilization emerged and the development of the sahara which was the spur behind the pattern of living that enabled Egypt occurred after humans had already established themselves there. Full time agricultural life which enabled the emergence of cities was not something chosen, but something forced upon people initially to survive, and then forced upon them as government and social strictures and religion imposed social control on those individuals.
--

Morality is the combination of instinctual social primate impulses combined with the ability to rationalize and conceive of abstract notions.

What we're saying is that instinctual social rules and laws and principles that existed before modern man in our ape like predecessors and cousins formed the basis, the root cause, for the development of morality in human beings.

Hell, we have mirror neurons. In cases of displayed pain or distress from one being, we experience a phantom experience of stress that is different but sourced from our observation of stress in the other. When we watch someone else perform an action, the regions of our brain that would conduct said action show activity. Mirror neurons were first detected and recorded in primates as you can't use humans in a wet lab.

Ignoring everything else, from this neurological quirk we get a large part of empathy from which we can derive one of the most basic rules of morality, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Except it's ultimately not rooted in religion, but in the neurological and cortical make up of higher primates. Which itself probably evolved in primates as a means to function in a cooperative complex society.

Without what is undoubtedly part of a major function of what we describe as empathy, how could morality even develop? If you fundamentally don't care about those around you and are only looking out for yourself, and this is neurologically ingrained, how would morality or even the idea of morality emerge? Without these neurological functions we'd all be sociopaths, or psychopaths (although not in the currently understood aberrant developmental pattern of ASPD). Sure, you could have laws passed from on high by main force to allow a society to succeed, but laws are not morality and never have been. Morality springs from empathy which is neurologically grounded in primates, and instinctual rules and guidelines that developed so as to allow us to live in small but complicated social structures better than those primates who were less cooperative; morality is derived from these basic traits which are common in most primates, except it uses our ability to reason to intellectualize and try to attain universality in what is moral and what is not.

[Xakk]

I believe this is at an end as it can go no further. You'll believe whatever you want to instead of bringing something to the table.

You find definitions that agree with what you believe. The definitions from Princeton are from and .edu site, those ones that have credibility beyond wikipedia? You advocate over and over that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to learn and then direct me to "watch animal planet for 15 minutes" and piss away credible sites like Princeton.

But it doesn't really matter, since the "all-encompassing" definition of religion is so half-assed it makes me wonder. What do you think when you hear the word religion? If you don't think of a multitude of people, events, locations, buildings, ideologies and philosophies you've really looked into religion.

You said you didn't believe animism was a religion because there was no worship, yet there is a site that says they worshiped the spirits as lesser deities. Now it's not a religion because Merriam-Websters dictionary's definition doesn't include it. Words change with time and today's definition of religion wouldn't match with what religion was when it first occurred, which is why Taylor stated it in the first place.

Finally, you have resorted back to insults, a true mark of your character and intelligence. Although the way you have wormed your way throughout positions is telling enough. There isn't any reason to continue on. It doesn't seem like we will come to any middle ground and you certainly aren't trying to. Anything short of what you believe is "wrong".

[Gryeyes]

[quote=Xakk;1069057]I believe this is at an end as it can go no further. You'll believe whatever you want to instead of bringing something to the table.

You find definitions that agree with what you believe. The definitions from Princeton are from and .edu site, those ones that have credibility beyond wikipedia? You advocate over and over that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to learn and then direct me to "watch animal planet for 15 minutes" and piss away credible sites like Princeton.

Wikipedia? My definitions came from Merriam-Webster.com. Of course just for fun i looked at every other major dictionary and they also agree with me but thats pretty irrelevant. I only requested you watch 15 minutes of animal planet because thats all that would be required for you to figure out how stupid your claims to Great Ape behavior are.

But it doesn't really matter, since the "all-encompassing" definition of religion is so half-assed it makes me wonder. What do you think when you hear the word religion? If you don't think of a multitude of people, events, locations, buildings, ideologies and philosophies you've really looked into religion.

No its more the point you have to attempt to equate any remote belief to a religion for your argument to make any kind of sense. Its evident by your usage of the word you understand what it means. And also it wasnt just "animism" which describes all manner of belief systems. Its "sympathetic magic and animism" of prehistoric cultures. By your attempted definition me picking up a lucky penny is an act of religion. A belief in a monster under my bed is a religious belief. That if i step on a crack i break my mothers back is now a religious topic.

You said you didn't believe animism was a religion because there was no worship, yet there is a site that says they worshiped the spirits as lesser deities. Now it's not a religion because Merriam-Websters dictionary's definition doesn't include it. Words change with time and today's definition of religion wouldn't match with what religion was when it first occurred, which is why Taylor stated it in the first place

.

Animism can be a religion... But its not in its very essence a religion. There are animistic religions that have evolved from prehistoric roots to become a system of beliefs and practices codified through oral tradition and cultural heritage. But thats not the subject. The subject is "animism and sympathetic magic" inherently religious. And the answer is NO. Yes words change all the time thats no excuse for you to hide behind semantic retardation to support your failing arguement...sorry

Finally, you have resorted back to insults, a true mark of your character and intelligence. Although the way you have wormed your way throughout positions is telling enough. There isn't any reason to continue on. It doesn't seem like we will come to any middle ground and you certainly aren't trying to. Anything short of what you believe is "wrong".

Of course we wont find a middle ground. You have devolved into semantic juggling to substantiate your erroneous position. Ignoring the manner in which yourself has used words whose definitions you are arguing against. You search for a single dictonary that gives the vaguest definition to support yourself. Its not my belief that you are wrong. You just simply are. You could spend 10 minutes of research about the social habits of primates and educate yourself but you refuse to do so.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

The rest of your post contradicts this. If prisoners are religious then obviously religion didn't stop them commiting crimes. Unless you mean that they are repenting, where it doesn't matter anyway because those kinda people are there for life. I don't think minor/non violent criminals are going to repent much.

At first I thought the same thing, but as I said, there are people in any society that for one reason or another will always violate the law. Usually it is due to mental illness of one sort or another. These folks are religious because they were born into it as a part of their culture, not because of any real belief.

People obey the law because they are inherantly good. Personally I'm not wanting to murder and rape all the time but held back by the fear of prison, I don't know about you maybe you do.

So what you are saying is that if last year the Olsen twins and Emma Watson were out clubbing together and happened to bump into you and decided they immediately needed to bang your brains out, you wouldn't do it? Let me make it easier, let's say someone beat up and raped your wife/girlfriend/mother. If the police were cool with it, wouldn't you want to take a bat to their knees for about a half hour? Now neither of these is really the behavior of a moral person, but I have to admit I would let Mary-Kate and Ashley have a turn with the bat while I fucked the hell out of them.

Unfortunatly there is a minority that is going to commit crime regardless of the puishment, the solution to that is probally down to culture and education. Parts of the USA for example are quite religious, have the death penalty and yet the USA has a high murder rate. So there is a double punishment of death and hell but violent crime still happens.

Good point, however many serial killers and school shooters come from relatively normal upbringings but still do things they are pretty sure they will be caught at and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Religions need to get rid of the divine element and just preach the core philosophy while turning themselves more into a charity.
I was born a Catholic, so I want to see priests teach all the parables and things that Jesus said to children and try and help people lead better lives.
However I don't want to be told that he is the son of God because it doesn't really matter if his teachings are meaningful enough to follow anyway without the hell threat.
I also want them to use their money on helping old/sick/poor people and not on gold plating everything they own, they can go and physically help people also instead of chanting/singing in church. They should let women in and let them get married also, what kind of man wants to be celibate in this day and age? Secret Pedophiles that's who :/

Awesome point. However I don't think it would be religion without the spirituality. I would say that if people who claimed to be religious lived by the codes they claim to follow and actively recruit others into, they would be much better people.

Originally Posted by Grumath

If you honestly think that a large portion of a society living in fear and shame of their actions or potential actions is a positive, you have a fucked up world view. Doing good things for stupid or bad reasons isn't always a positive. The person who gives to charity to help their fellow man is far more noble and advanced than one who gives to charity to get brownie points with their celestial dictator that they live in constant fear of like an extradimensional Kim Jong Il.

It is better than a large portion of society living in fear because the government terrorizes them into behaving. No matter the personal motivation, if someone is contributing to society rather than trying to bring it down it is a good thing.

Originally Posted by Eomer

wow, just wow

Dude, don't tell me you actually agree with Gryeyes. Or if you think I don't understand what I am talking about, refute my claims and join back into the debate.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

So what you are saying is that if last year the Olsen twins and Emma Watson were out clubbing together and happened to bump into you and decided they immediately needed to bang your brains out, you wouldn't do it? Let me make it easier, let's say someone beat up and raped your wife/girlfriend/mother. If the police were cool with it, wouldn't you want to take a bat to their knees for about a half hour? Now neither of these is really the behavior of a moral person, but I have to admit I would let Mary-Kate and Ashley have a turn with the bat while I fucked the hell out of them.

I don't get this. If they wanted to screw you..and you wouldn't...where is the morality issue? Did you mean you wouldn't rape them? Your point here fell apart. Whats wrong with screwing the 3 of them if they wanted to? Maybe if you were married?

And I fail to see how beating the fuck out of someone who raped your significant other is immoral. Thats fucking justice. Religion wouldn't stop anyone here. The only thing that would stop someone from doing this is being physically restrained by police not to. I'd say is more immoral to do nothing about someone raping your family.

Morals do stem from our brains though. Not religion. a) if you could just go around killing whoever you wanted, other people can come and kill you. This is bad. b) look at the animal kingdom. Tons of animals have social hierarchies where they don't kill each other in their specific tribes. We're just a step above them. Not much though...Look at the middle east...They are still killing other 'tribes'

[Kolle]

the stuff people claim to be good morals are violated many times in the bible. on many occasions god had the jews kill people simply because they didn't worship him.

not sure about those morals

[AngryGerbil]

"The God of Abraham has the values and morals of your average five year old."

[PerritoBites]

Religion adapts to society. Religion is a reflection of the moralities of a society. Morality does not come from religion. Moral values change over time within a society and religion adapts to fit these changes. You could say that religion is accountable for delaying these changes, but in no way religion defines or is the source of morality.

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Zerai

I don't get this. If they wanted to screw you..and you wouldn't...where is the morality issue? Did you mean you wouldn't rape them? Your point here fell apart. Whats wrong with screwing the 3 of them if they wanted to? Maybe if you were married?

And I fail to see how beating the fuck out of someone who raped your significant other is immoral. Thats fucking justice. Religion wouldn't stop anyone here. The only thing that would stop someone from doing this is being physically restrained by police not to. I'd say is more immoral to do nothing about someone raping your family.

Morals do stem from our brains though. Not religion. a) if you could just go around killing whoever you wanted, other people can come and kill you. This is bad. b) look at the animal kingdom. Tons of animals have social hierarchies where they don't kill each other in their specific tribes. We're just a step above them. Not much though...Look at the middle east...They are still killing other 'tribes'

This is my point exactly. People are not inherently moral, it has to be taught to us by our parents and the society we live in.

The girls were all underage last year and you would be charged with battery/attempted murder if you issued some street justice to the rapist. Both are worth the jail time IMO.

Originally Posted by PerritoBites

Religion adapts to society. Religion is a reflection of the moralities of a society. Morality does not come from religion. Moral values change over time within a society and religion adapts to fit these changes. You could say that religion is accountable for delaying these changes, but in no way religion defines or is the source of morality.

Yes to the first part, no to the second. The entirety of Middle Eastern culture is dominated by their religion. However, if Muslims actually followed the Koran there would not be suicide bombers or jihads. But as Chrisb3 alluded to, religious leaders take it upon themselves to preach what is politically expedient for them to preach. This abuse of power is what is offsetting most of the good that religion could be doing for society.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Dude, don't tell me you actually agree with Gryeyes. Or if you think I don't understand what I am talking about, refute my claims and join back into the debate.

Why would I bother? Last time I "debated" you, you left in a huff and whined about personal attacks when my posts contained absolutely none. On top of that, you're frequently intellectually dishonest, ignore clear facts and evidence given to you to refute your arguments, and often start your posts with a blanket "no u r wrong!" statement without bothering to actually show why.

[Zerai]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

This is my point exactly. People are not inherently moral, it has to be taught to us by our parents and the society we live in.

The girls were all underage last year and you would be charged with battery/attempted murder if you issued some street justice to the rapist. Both are worth the jail time IMO.

Except, to mete out justice to someone that breaks the social code...is hardwired into our brain. And that is what we do. We just make rules about it to make sure they are inherently guilty. So we have a 3rd party mete out the punishment.

As for underage..really...that has been changed and defined a hundred million times since the time of christ. It's immoral now because...we as a society say it is. Is it really immoral? 100 years ago it was perfectly fine. Now fucking them if they hadn't gone through puberty..only fucked up freaks do that..it doesn't happen in nature to creatures with social enterprises. Unless it's to rivals.

[Chrisb3]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

So what you are saying is that if last year the Olsen twins and Emma Watson were out clubbing together and happened to bump into you and decided they immediately needed to bang your brains out, you wouldn't do it?

Emma Watson? Hell yes, she would have been 17 and we are both english, 3 years older isn't too bad. This isn't a crime here.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Let me make it easier, let's say someone beat up and raped your wife/girlfriend/mother. If the police were cool with it, wouldn't you want to take a bat to their knees for about a half hour?

People may do crazy things under after tramatic events that they wouldn't normally do. Thinking about it in my normal mind without a raped family member present, I would look after the asaulted person rather than go on a killing spree.

Originally Posted by Arakkis

Now neither of these is really the behavior of a moral person, but I have to admit I would let Mary-Kate and Ashley have a turn with the bat while I fucked the hell out of them.

What exactly is your point here? These things have happened with or without religion. The only thing that would stop it is a heavily oppressive government that scares the shit out of you.

[Ronne]

Didn't that atheism pic win this thread like 10 pages ago?

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Eomer

Why would I bother? Last time I "debated" you, you left in a huff and whined about personal attacks when my posts contained absolutely none. On top of that, you're frequently intellectually dishonest, ignore clear facts and evidence given to you to refute your arguments, and often start your posts with a blanket "no u r wrong!" statement without bothering to actually show why.

In any other thread in any other forum I would be all about people telling me how my beliefs on a subject indicate that I clearly must suck cock. But this thread has become a relatively active academic debate between well educated people and I refuse to treat asshats and trolls with the same respect I show to people with valid points presented in a clear and concise manner no matter if I disagree with them or not. For this reason I have refused to even respond to people that add nothing to this thread but insults and misinformation. If you feel you can present your points without telling me how stupid I am, then by all means do so.

Concordantly, I have admitted that my understanding of some subjects has been flawed and I have had quite an education in a number of fields while reading this thread. When I disagree with a particular scientific fact I have done my best to cite information to back my claims in the hope that others will do the same. I don't understand how that is intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by Chrisb3

People may do crazy things under after tramatic events that they wouldn't normally do. Thinking about it in my normal mind without a raped family member present, I would look after the asaulted person rather than go on a killing spree.

That was simply an exaggerated example to show that we will do what we consider immoral things under certain circumstances unless our behavior is checked by something.

What exactly is your point here? These things have happened with or without religion. The only thing that would stop it is a heavily oppressive government that scares the shit out of you.

Or a religion that promises supernatural reprisal for such behavior. And it doesn't even have to be hell; it could be as simple as karma.