Where would the world be right now if religion never existed?

[Calmador]

sapphi_snake said:

@Calmador

I'm not an expert on animals but I think animals are obviously capable of making such risks... I had a dog named Happy when I was younger and he showed a lot of love and was protective of me... willing to risk himself for me when a much bigger dog would bark at me. Animals are Animals.... not evolution. I also believe animals have souls because in the Bible it says G-d gave them the breathe of life... the same breathe of life that mankind received... but the difference is we were made special and with a spirit which is another topic. Agian, animals are animals not evolution.

Such nonsense all in one post. I already explained to you that some animals (the social kind) form societies that have rules (morals) that make living together possible and assure the survival of the group (and thus assure a better chance of survival to the individual members of said group). Humans live in groups 'cause our ancestors found that living in groups gave them a better chance of survival. We developed rules and morals in order to make living together in a group possible. It has everything to do with evolution. Your example with the dog presents more a relationship of symbiosis rather than interdependence (the type of relationship formed between humans).

You talk of rubbish such as "souls"and "breath of life" and "spirit', as if they were facts. Please present proof that this nonsense is a "fact".

Me using Fallout was just an example... of how ugly it would look. It's better to die then not live with morals... but your right most of aren't perfect and would probably end up doing some evils at the very least.

Fallout - the world with no society. Morals have no place outside of a society. And beleive me, I've seen far worse fictional worlds than that of Fallout. It was the harsh living conditions and lack of resources that made the world of Fallout the way it was.

It used to be? It can be again? It can be right now... that's sad. Man-kind can change thier mind... I agree with the above. But I think its critical to see what's the reason behind actions like that. War? Self-defense? Hatred? Revenge? ... nations started cooperating with each other? Kind-ness? Greed? Power? Admiration?

Anyways I don't really see your point?

I told you: morals change all the time. They're relative, not absolute. I'm pretty sure you think otherwise.

Think about what you asked... why can't the truth be argued about? It's something to accept or deny. If someone asked me... What was your dog's name? I'd say Happy... and it's true and I wouldn't argue about it with people lol It's also Biblical.

If you don't argue than how do you know what is true and what is not? If you say that X is true you have to present evidence that it is. When someone asks you what your dogs name is whatever you answer they'll beleive you, because your dog (being yours) has whatever name you say it is. If you claim a "Creator" exists, present proof that it does. Your "truth" IS nothing more than an assumption, as you never had any empirical evidence to prove that it is a concrete fact. You accept it blindly 'cause you like how it sounds or grew up with it, were indoctrinated into it, and don't have the will or intelectual capacity to question it.

An insult? What for? I didn't do anything... but you went ahead did it anyways? The Bible prophesied Christians would be insulted, judged and put through hard times for our faith... if I remember correctly specifically just for talking about it.

I was merely pointing out one of your characteristics. It may be a negative one, but your church elders appreciate it. And please spare me the persecution complex you people have. That's what annyos me about your masochistic religion. You persecute others far more harshly then anyone "persecutes" you, but you not only overreact when someone says something bad about you, but you also love it 'cause it gives you a masochistic pleasure that something written in that book is true (as if not all groups would get criticised at some point, and your group is the only one).

 

"Such nonsense all in one post. I already explained to you that some animals (the social kind) form societies that have rules (morals) that make living together possible and assure the survival of the group (and thus assure a better chance of survival to the individual members of said group). Humans live in groups 'cause our ancestors found that living in groups gave them a better chance of survival. We developed rules and morals in order to make living together in a group possible. It has everything to do with evolution. Your example with the dog presents more a relationship of symbiosis rather than interdependence (the type of relationship formed between humans)."

So morals came from groups that formed to give a better chance of survival. Very darwin... I wonder where this idea came from?

Morals are not about self-preservation, they can be self-less... thinking about it, it sounds contradictary... I'll do what's right and good so I can survive... there's self-ishness in that. You do what's good and right because it's good and right, even if it means not surviving. That's why such way of thinking could'nt have been possible without G-d and doesn't fit very well in your example because it's about survival.

"You talk of rubbish such as "souls"and "breath of life" and "spirit', as if they were facts. Please present proof that this nonsense is a "fact".

It's beyond me to prove it to you. It's something you accept or deny.

"I told you: morals change all the time. They're relative, not absolute. I'm pretty sure you think otherwise."

Yeah I do, absolute makes sense...  it wouldn't make sense for them to change all the time... so today people think killing people for fun is good.... tomorrow they think this... that... it'll never be right that way.... EVEN if they get it "right" because in the end only G-d can do good and you need G-d to even begin to do any good because good is pure.

"If you don't argue than how do you know what is true and what is not? If you say that X is true you have to present evidence that it is. When someone asks you what your dogs name is whatever you answer they'll beleive you, because your dog (being yours) has whatever name you say it is. If you claim a "Creator" exists, present proof that it does. Your "truth" IS nothing more than an assumption, as you never had any empirical evidence to prove that it is a concrete fact. You accept it blindly 'cause you like how it sounds or grew up with it, were indoctrinated into it, and don't have the will or intelectual capacity to question it."

You don't either... and that's why it's something to be accepted or denied. My dog's name is Happy... do you believe me?

 

 

Were getting no-where... and I honestly never wanted to argue