Christianity is made up..

you are asking a lot of different questions so i will try to narrow it down.

The whole eye argument that was is used is pretty simply debunked. Here is a really good demonstration and explanation of that.



Morality is something we don't fully understand yet either. Many scientists believe it to be an evolutionary trait that developed when we were a much younger species. When we used to live in small tribes as early bipeds the chance of seeing someone again in your life was very large so doing something for them which would benefit them meant that you would be helped by them in the future (this developed a type of empathy. of course I'm giving a very simple explanation of this idea). Also think of morality like this, because this is one of the more popular ways to think about it. I as an animal have an interest to keep my species healthy and a live. I do not wish to kill people because if i keep killing people my species will become extinct. Just as a bunch of piranhas in a tank won't kill each other even if they are hungry. This is pretty basic stuff that has been dealt with since the enlightenment. You give me the terrible impression you have never read any of the arguments against your position on this.



It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. - hitchens.

I dont dislike religious people personally i dislike their religion. It doesnt matter if they have come to a different conclusion religion is always striving towards a theocratic encroachment on free society . A quote from marx should do.

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower."

^ just touching on the morality issue.  Although the REASON why it was developed a long time ago makes perfect sense, still all that it is is chemical signals.  In this day in age, we don't really need more people in order to protect ourselves, and actually quite the opposite, so why wouldn't we just go against the signal pathways that have been implanted and begin killing people?  Really we are releasing strain on our society, and in all actuality all that we are doing is ending some chemical reactions to begin some others.  I mean I understand that I am extremely simplifying the human species in order to make a point, but really isn't it a valid one?  If all we are is reactions, we are no different than a dog,  and we put down dogs all the time, or an ant, which we step on all the time. 

Unfortunately I cannot watch your videos as I am at work, but I will after work.  I actually work in producing tissue engineering products for eye surgeries, and their intricacy I cannot fathom being a completely random biological coincidence.  I will, however watch the videos posted, but I doubt they will add much to what I have already heard about the evolution of the eye

What gives you confidence that Science will go beyond and answer moral questions that we fail to understand?

I watched the video on science and morality and can dispute very little of what he has said. What does upset me is that he asks and answers questions of intrinsic value. He is a utilitarian with a sensationalist title for his presentation. I would like to see science achieve something that is not as linear as a one dimensional ethical inquiry.

What are the boundaries of the scientific method in relation to ethics? Have you ever considered analytical philosophy (or logic if you will). Just because religion no longer the foundation for normative ethics does not mean that science is the answer. Nietzsche writes about this quite a bit.

"God is dead, he remains dead, and we have killed him"

yeah just watch the videos. The one on morality tries to answer some of your questions.

you know, i am a fan of Nietzsche but i disagree with his view on science. I don't have much more energy in me today to talk about this so ill just leave it at that for now haha.

I remember the first time I watched that movie.


Like 27 years ago

I would like a response. I am curious why you are set on science. Surely you have found something very profound in science that grants your trust in science

I like these discussions because the give you things to think about.  With that said, I agree with you assessment but not your conclusion.

The reason murder is bad? For me I would call it empathy.  The average person won't murder others because they can relate to that person and understands how the actions affect the person and the people around them.  If you want to put it in broader terms as you have, the chemical reaction that murder causes makes you feel bad.  People don't want to feel bad.  In the end every action triggers reactions that makes you feel better or worse.  Yes giving to charity helps other people, and yes murder harms others but in the end you are affected by how that action influenced you.  This is a little off topic so I'll stop there .

As for why atheists don't just bite the bullet and end it all?  I don't understand this question.  Why would they?  Sure life is just an elaborate illusion but its a damn good one.  Its also the only one humans know.  The chemical reactions in our brains have given us consciousness and allow us to experience the illusion to an extent that we have not observed in any other form.  Its a pretty amazing thing.  I don't know what its like to be dead and unconscious but I doubt its as good as this.

Finally, how are you using this as an argument for theism?  Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its not true.  Sure both of our brains are operating differently and come up with different conclusions but one of us is right.  Maybe your belief in god from an early age blocked your ability to reason around religion?  I don't mean to be condescending but I know that's what happened to me the first 18 years of my life so it does happen.

Anayways, it really doesn't matter to me just keep it out of the government, keep it out of the lab, and don't knock on my door with a bible in hand.

This really wasn't an argument for theism at all to be honest, but more of a question of our lives in general. My point was is that in the atheists point of view, really all we are is chemical connections. My point also was that our negative view towards murder might just be outdated if this assumption is true. We don't have a soul, and to me that's an extremely weird thing being the complexities of thought that everyone has, and the complexities of our interactions.

Somewhat relevant:

lol i love how people argue over issues like this on newschoolers for one its newschoolers and two im pretty sure none of you are over the age of 20.

for all you "we need religion for morality" "people". that is just not an argument. if you need to defend religion, fine, but not with such empty words.

you're wrong, several of us are

I believe in mothere nature.. just saying

Ok.  Yes I do believe everything can be reduced down to a series of reactions.  Sight is a result of a complicated process that our brain performs on electromagnetic radiation of limited frequencies.  Hearing is a result of a complicated process that our brain performs on environmental disturbances.  They form an illusion of the world around us from extremely simple and arbitrary things.  I don't think its a stretch to say that the "soul" is a similar illusion.  As for murder, its not outdated.  Humans still have empathy whether we realize that its just chemical reactions or not.

Conversion always seems to follow a life changing event that renders the person emotionally destroyed and highly influence-able.  I have never come across a case where an atheist living an average normal life was converted to any religion.  If you know of a case I would be interested.  As for you personally, yes I would consider you brainwashed but I doubt there is a person alive that isn't to some degree.  I think its extremely important to always consider the possibility and try to seek out why you truly believe in certain things.  But that goes for everyone including myself.

I think you may have taken my last sentence too literally so I will expand on it since I think it is important.  When I say keep it out of government, I mean don't use my tax money to meet religious ends.  Creationism should not be taught in public schools for example.  "God wants me to do blah blah blah" should not be uttered by an active public servant.

When I say keep it out of the lab, I mean keep it away from scientific progress.  I don't care if theists work on stem cell research as long as they follow due scientific process.

I have actually never had anyone come to my door and I wouldn't expect to since I live in a particular secular region (that's why I like having conversations like this - I don't talk to any theists on a regular basis).  If they were open to a reasonable discussion I wouldn't mind.  If they are there to tell me that I am going to burn in hell and suffer unimaginable pain because I don't worship the characters in their book they can fuck right off.  I can't think of any forum where that is remotely acceptable.

21, and I would argue that it is actually quite a good place to discuss these kinds of issues

I actually know A LOT of people in my church that just went to church one day with a friend and ended up converting. Not because their parent died, not because they lost their job, just something about it clicked with them. Other than that I think were on the same page on just about everything.