Mr Newton's Classroom

[Tigger]

BrainMan has presented the most intelligent argument I have come across so far.

1st Place for BrainMan for Intelligent Debate.

What? Where he said: "SLACKENHASH !!"? Agreed.

[hackenslash]

Let me put it this way, there are four possibilities to consider:

1)a)God exists and you believe = You go to Heaven.
b)God exists and you disbelieve = You go to Hell.
2)a)God doesn't exist and you believe anyways = Your life is generally better off if you live morally to avoid sin.
b)God doesn't exist and you disbelieved the whole time = No Hell, but quite likely you will be a Godless SOB, people wont [sic] like you and your life may suck!


OBVIOUSLY, believing is the best and safest bet. It does not hurt to believe in God unless you go Crusading, but as I have learned, most of the horrific things done in the name of a God did not comply with the belief system of that God.

Pascal's Wager? Really?!! Is that the limit of your vision? This is the crappiest argument for belief in existence, and Pascal himself knew it.

The first and biggest problem with it is the hidden assumption (not hidden too deeply) that belief is a matter of choice. It isn't. The second is that it's hucksterism at its worst, telling you you need a fucking safety net to protect you from the asserted bogeyman. Third, it enjoins you to simply fake it, and try to pull the wool over this celestial peeping-tom's eyes.

Your second clause is equally rooted in blind assertion, namely that believing in god is in any way connected to morality. It isn't. Morality is merely that which allows us to function as social animals, and it stems from our evolutionary history. Belief in preposterous blind assertions has fuck all to do with morality, and I utterly reject the concept of sin, because it's predicated on the existence of the magic man whose knob you seem so eager to polish.

As for the bold bit, better a godless SOB than a supercilious twat.

[charlou]

b)God doesn't exist and you disbelieved the whole time = No Hell, but quite likely you will be a Godless SOB, people wont [sic] like you and your life may suck!

It doesn't surprise me that this is the extent to which your thinking is limited.

[charlou]

I don't think this thread belongs in the science subforum. Jim, would you move it to the atheism and religion subforum, please? Cheers.

[harleyborgais]

OK, I went to far by saying that about people who don't believe in God. Sorry about that.

I am sure that most people who believe live morally, but It is unfair for me to suggest that most people who don't believe in God are bad.

I should be more clear and say that there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).

From my studies, the most universal definition for God (the one you are supposed to believe in to get into Heaven), is; the being who created Physical Reality (our Universe).


As for moving this thread, I would like to keep this discussion on the scientific definition, explanation, and origin of Consciousness.

That topic qualifies for this thread does it not?


I hope I have not discouraged BrainMan from this discussion with my comment of disbelievers, especially considering that he has presented the best arguments so far (better than any of my antagonists at: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post8 ... ml#p809966).

[Hermit]

there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).

If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.

[charlou]

I should be more clear and say that there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).

God as the bogeyman .... I notice that you make a distinction about belief here. There's no doubt that people are exhorted to behave in a certain way with the use of dogma (imposed values) to emphasise and manipulate their thinking and behaviour. Acknowledging that tendency does not mean that therefore god exists*.

From my studies, the most universal definition for God (the one you are supposed to believe in to get into Heaven), is; the being who created Physical Reality (our Universe).

What studies were those? I mean what resources did you use in your study? Are you indulging in confirmation bias with your resources? Have you considered dropping your emotional attachment to the god premise and studying outside your bias?

As for moving this thread, I would like to keep this discussion on the scientific definition, explanation, and origin of Consciousness.

That topic qualifies for this thread does it not?

Sure, if it's scientific. See my questions above.



* Therefore god exists

[LucidFlight]

I think that what a teacher teaches should be determined by the parents for a public school, and by the administrators of private schools.

I do however agree with evolution, and that it should be taught as a likely explanation, but creationist beliefs should also be presented. The young will hopefully grow up to prove to us which is right. I think Evolution is an intentional byproduct of Gods design (and that design refers to the forces of nature, not directly the design of DNA, life-forms, or galaxies).

Oh, OK.

So, the main product of design is the forces of nature, and we are a by-product? What leads you to this conclusion? How do you differentiate intentional design from unintentional design? That is to say, how do you know it was not God's specific intention for life to evolve, rather than it being a by-product?

Any thoughts about this, Harley?

[charlou]

[Brain Man]

there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).

If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.

Correlation is not causation. impoverished parts of the world which struggle for resources and deal with corruption tend to seek religion as a means to instigate moral standards. Hence those parts of the world have more religiosity. What else are they going to do. Economically they tend to be held in their poverty trap by multinational resource mining so they seek religion. The religious sectors are better behaved, less selfish and more moral. Studies back this up.

Have you considered how most of these multinationals are from the white or non religious nations. So by proxy these organizations are immoral sociopathic extensions of ourselves out of our sight of vision (like a slaughterhouse so we dont have to see what we do to animals) reaching into poor nations and forcing religionists out of them as means to cope. How often do you think about the effect of the actions in multinationals with british, american, oriental, european staff etc ? So it can be argued that athiesm is immoral because by proxy it requires organized sociopathy to maintain itself.

Not that simple of course, many nations are just not able to compete for other reasons

Again studies show that religious people have higher ethics, morality, generosity and self discipline. I find this also. I had the choice of being part of this community meet ups and altered my view when i had an insight into the actions of behavioral conduct that go on there. Its like a bunch of adults at the moral level of children. Or it was to begin with. Could be different now.

Particularly relevant to this forum...

Religion May Have Evolved Because Of Its Ability To Help People Exercise Self-Control
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 005355.htm


People Who Donate to Religions Are More Likely to Punish Selfish Behaviour, New Study Finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085942.htm


Religion Makes People Helpful And Generous -- Under Certain Conditions

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 172013.htm

Greater Religiosity During Adolescence May Protect Against Developing Problem Alcohol Use

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173727.htm

Morality Research Sheds Light on the Origins of Religion

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 123625.htm

[Brain Man]

God as the bogeyman .... I notice that you make a distinction about belief here. There's no doubt that people are exhorted to behave in a certain way with the use of dogma (imposed values) to emphasise and manipulate their thinking and behaviour. Acknowledging that tendency does not mean that therefore god exists*.

sorry i couldnt read this. Your breasts are way too distracting...

[Brain Man]

As for the bold bit, better a godless SOB than a supercilious twat.

NOT YOU AGAIN !! You are like my nemesis following me around every forum...

[Brain Man]

I hope I have not discouraged BrainMan from this discussion with my comment of disbelievers, especially considering that he has presented the best arguments so far (better than any of my antagonists at: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post8 ... ml#p809966).

It is true though. I posted studies above. Religious people have higher ethics, morality, self discipline, generosity etc. So of course with such fine attributes why give them up and risk denigration ?

There are of course way to have such a set of attributes without religion, but they are uncommon circumstances. Extreme hardship with a genetic predisposition to triumph over that in a positive manner without becoming disenfranchised or corrupt. That is not the majority of people. Problem is religion is not compatible with logical positivism which has helped build and rapidly evolve todays world.

We now live in an immoral atheist world, run by a minority of highly moral people of the character stock i mentioned above who we elect, as opposed to the old religious world where almost everybody was moral but the result was more poverty less technology, shorter lifespan etc..

[Hermit]

As for the bold bit, better a godless SOB than a supercilious twat.

NOT YOU AGAIN !! You are like my nemesis following me around every forum...

Hackenslash joined Jul 19, 2009. BrainMan joined Sat May 08, 2010.

[Hermit]

there is a greater chance of being a bad person, and living a miserable life if you don't live by a code of ethics, and most people who live by a code of ethics do so in correlation with a belief in a Creator of Physical Reality (God).

If you are trying to argue that atheists are less likely to live by a code of ethics, some sort of empirical data to back that claim up with might be in order. I am not holding my breath, though, for that to happen. Statistics very strongly suggest the opposite. There is a pronounced tendency indicating that the higher the percentage of atheism in a nation, the lower the crime rate, abortion rate, and so on. In short, atheists tend to live more moral lives than theists.

Correlation is not causation.

That is all I'm talking about. None of your special pleading or links undermine the relationship between moral conduct and religiosity as published by Zuckermann among others.