gc1765

I don't, and that's why I asked. Anyways, the comment that started this was when I said that the old testament says you should kill people who worship a different God. Virtually everyone ignores this part nowadays, but that wasn't the case a few hundred years ago.

So, we can ignore some stuff in the old testament, but not other stuff? How do we know what we can and can't ignore?

Ok, so we can just throw out everything in the old testament?

Yes the church can decide who they want as a chairperson. My point is, this is an internet message board where people share opinions, and my opinion is it's pretty stupid to choose a chairperson based on sexuality. Therefore, for me to post my opinion stating that the church should choose their chairperson based on sexuality would be kind of strange, don't you think?

It also says things like "kill anyone who worships a different God". Unfortunately, there was a time when some people put more emphasis on those verses.

What's the alternative for the kitty? Besides, I choose to eat steak. Do I have the right to impose such a choice on an innocent cow?

If they want to sleep in an alley or eat out of a garbage can, why do you care? If they want to live in a nice home and eat good food, they can work for it.

Good enough for 18-25 year olds, but most of the bums I see are much older.

Well, you can tell that to Greg, as he is the one who said not to use profanity.

One more reason why I'd like to see reform take place in Iran...

Well, in the interest of mutual respect and common ground, I can agree to that much. Thanks for the discussion. Very interesting indeed.

True, but I am suggesting that the two traits could be independent of each other. Altruism, the result of random mutations, could be selected for through evolution. Belief in a higher power, the by-product of our need to understand the world around us, could still be found in 80+% of the world's population. Not that it's possible to ever prove which one of us is correct...

So, why is a belief in a higher power necessary for a person to be altruistic? Why can't random mutations over time produce the trait of altruism and that could be selected for (without the need for belief in a higher power)? Good question. I can't think of any reason why dreams would enhance our survival. Perhaps, as I was saying earlier, it is a by-product of some other trait (for example, the ability to think) just as, IMO, belief in a higher power is a by-product of our evolution. Going off-topic for a second, this is the reason, IMO, that homosexuality (or masturbation) can be genetic. Homosexuals (or people who masturbate) are not more likely to produce offspring. However, an increased libido is more likely to produce offspring and masturbation is certainly a by-product of our libido.

Most, if not all, changes are random mutations. But, using your example, what is the mechanism for how a person believes in a higher power? Simply believing in a higher power does not change your genes, so it must go the other way around. There must be some mechanism that produces the genes that causes a person to believe in a higher power. What is that mechanism?

I don't understand. I am claiming that evolution is the mechanism that produces altruism.

also continued from the other thread... Of course they will. Evolution does not only work on an individual level, it also works on the level of the species. If a person think that their chances of saving someone else are better than the chances of them dying in the process, the species will be better of if that person takes the risk. Thus, it is possible to select for this trait.

This is a much more appropriate thread, so I'll repeat what I said in another thread... There is no question that the vast majority of societies have some sort of religious beliefs. The question is why? I don't know the answer, though my guess would be that it's not believing in a higher power that allows our species to survive. More likely, it's our tendency to be curious/ponder/think/ask questions/try-to-explain-things that allows our species to survive, and belief in a higher power is a by-product of our curiousity.

I am talking about in this thread. In the future, it's a good idea to read the context of other peoples' posts before you post...especially when you use profanity, which, by the way, is not recommended .

Or the opposite could be true. People who believe that paradise is awaiting them when they die might not be as concerned about dying as someone who thinks that this life is all they have.

Again, certain beliefs are a result of culture/religion, while others are a result of evolution. In this case, this society probably believes that killing is wrong, but because of their religious (or whatever) beliefs they think it's ok to kill their children under certain circumstances. Even then, it could be argued that having obedient children will more likely result in grandchildren (and thus propogation of genes). More likely, however, is that evolution did not 'select' for a society that kills it's children under certain circumstances. Evolution is not perfect, it really is trial and error. It's likely that this society is in the "trial" phase. Absolutely. There is no question that the vast majority of societies have some sort of religious beliefs. The question is why? I don't know the answer, though my guess would be that it's not believing in a higher power that allows our species to survive. More likely, it's our tendency to be curious/ponder/think/ask questions/try-to-explain-things that allows our species to survive, and belief in a higher power is a by-product of our curiousity.

I never said that much. I said some sense of ethics is instinctive. Yes, societies may have a different set of ethics depending on their beliefs. However, every society that I can think of would agree that killing for no reason is 'wrong' (not to say that it doesn't still happen). If you can think of a society that doesn't have at least some aversion to killing their own species, they likely would have all killed each other and died off a long time ago. Basically, our sense of "ethics" (outside of any other beliefs) is whatever allows our species to survive. At the very least, that involves not killing eachother and helping each other out (eg sharing food).

One does not need to have faith in something to be ethical. One does not even need to know what ethics is in order to be ethical, since some sense of ethics is innate (through evolution). Just like I don't need to have faith in order to feel hungry or tired.

My mistake. This particular thread was doomed from the beginning (didn't notice the poll at first). The problem is when people start taking over legitimate threads that actually have interesting discussion. Since this topic is troll bait, I will ignore it as such. Troll away...

How many threads have been taken over by who is stalking who or who is ignoring who? I know I'm not perfect when it comes to getting off-topic, but can we at least TRY to stay on topic?

I think we as a society need to clarify the definitions of atheist vs. agnostic, which would avoid this confusion. IMO, there are three broad categories but only two definitions (atheist or agnostic) in common use: 1. I strongly believe that there is no God(s) 2. I have no reason to believe that God exists. (I believe in God as much as I believe in the flying spaghetti monster) 3. I'm not sure if God exists, it is possible but not necessarily true. IMO, both 2 and 3 get lumped in together as agnostic, but I think there is a distinction to be made. #2 has also been called the "weak" atheist position, but that term is rarely used. #1 could be considered a "belief" or "religion", but #2 is a lack of belief and can not be considered to be a religion, or taken on faith. I put myself in category #2. Perhaps I should start a new thread on this?