Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If the UN has been formed by Islamic countries, do you think it would have reflected Christian values?
Of course not.
But see, the UN is a secualr body that decided on a code of human rights that ironically bear an undeniable resemlance to Christian values. Gee.....
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Of course not.But see, the UN is a secualr body that decided on a code of human rights that ironically bear an undeniable resemblance to Christian values. Gee.....
But the reason it bears an undeniable resemblance to Christian values is not ironic at all. Christians made the UN that way.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaA neural substrate is the underlying neurophysiological/neuroanatomical basis for behaviour/psychology. Because morals are subjective, as you illustrated yourself, one person's morals are not necessarily another's.
What is a neural substrate? And why are you putting morals in quotes?
Originally posted by Quiero MotaWhile I don't agree with innate universal morality, the idea that particular morals such as viewing killing or stealing as wrong, began suddenly at a certain point in documented history is somewhat silly.
Yeah, Richard believes in an inate universal morality that is hard-wired into us. Just read The God Delusion; he has an entire chapter dedicated to discussing it, as well as an entire segment dedicated to it in his documentary The Root of All Evil?. He argues that "killing and stealing is bad" is inate, without giving a sinlge credit to the Mosaic Law, which is where those come from and effect his upbringing as an Anglican.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I know, but why?"Why are you so deadset on proving one religous law to be in our nature, but others?" is something I wanna ask him personally.
I can answer for him:
"It has nothing to do with it being a Religious law. I am set on proving that the morals that make us find murder and theft to be wrong are intrinsic through our evolution, while others like eating or not eating pork, what kind of head wear, if any, to disguise your hair with and to pray but to one God are not."
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And a religous one.
And a political, and a philosophical, and an ideological and a jurisdictional and a.....
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Yeah, his reasons are trying to explain that cherrypicked relgious laws that he personally decided are important are biological.
Well, I find it more likely that he was doing his job as Biologist, there found patterns that would be explained by certain morals to be biological and then formed a theory according to it, absolutely disregarding whether or not any Religion finds those morals important as it is of no matter to the scientific process.
Or he is a blind fanatic and does it for totally different reasons, we never know, but the more likely one, the one that he was doing what a scientist is supposed to, is the one I shall believe until convinced otherwise.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If one law is worth his attention, then so are the others.
Non sequitur.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
More? I don't think so. I'd rather have a dentist perform spinal surgery.
I am sorry, but especially theologians I do not trust with having any sort of decisions about morals. They are no more specialist than anyone else. There are no scientific findings about morals in this world (safe for some that might be explained by biology). My guess is as good as yours, is as good as Dawkin's, is as good as the Pope's.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the reason it bears an undeniable resemblance to Christian values is not ironic at all. Christians made the UN that way.
Wrong.
The US and France are both liberal democracies and the last time I checked, China and the Soviet Union were not Christian countries....in fact, quite the contrary.
The UN is a secular body.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Wrong.The US and France are both liberal democracies and the last time I checked, China and the Soviet Union were not Christian countries....in fact, quite the contrary.
The UN is a secular body.
🙄 The majority of countries in the UN are Christian based. BTW Christianity is the biggest religion in the USA. To say that Christianity has no influence on the UN is just silly.
China and Russia are there for political reasons. If they could, don't you think they would change the basic rules?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can answer for him:
Actually you can't, only he can.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I find it more likely that he was doing his job as Biologist
No, he's not, he's doing the opposite. "Good" and "Evil" have no place in science. He might as well try to prove that blue is cooler green.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Non sequitur.
All or nothing.
In fact him picking and choosing just goes to show that Atheists arbitrarily pick their own morals. Him looking at brain cells under a microscope to try to prove that killing bad shows that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
There are no scientific findings about morals in this world (safe for some that might be explained by biology).
I'm sure....
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
🙄 The majority of countries in the UN are Christian based. BTW Christianity is the biggest religion in the USA. To say that Christianity has no influence on the UN is just silly.
The US has a secular government and judicial system.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
China and Russia are there for political reasons. If they could, don't you think they would change the basic rules?
They're both powerhouses with veto power and they obviously agreed on the official code of human rights, because they consider them good for humanity.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The US has a secular government and judicial system.They're both powerhouses with veto power and they obviously agreed on the official code of human rights, because they consider them good for humanity.
US is a religous country. You can only see that when you are not a Christian. Just look at the money "In God We Trust".
China has real problems with human rights.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
US is a religous country. If can only see that when you are not a Christian. Just look at the money "In God We Trust".China has real problems with human rights.
What you mean is that the US has a significant religious population. So do India and Brazil, but they're also liberal democracies.
The money doesn't say "You Have to Believe in Jesus".
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Actually you can't, only he can.
Whatever.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, he's not, he's doing the opposite. "Good" and "Evil" have no place in science. He might as well try to prove that blue is cooler green.
True. To attribute either to "good" or "evil" is odd. But to explain why there is a incentive to behave according to certain morals is scientific.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
All or nothing.
Nonsense.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
In fact him picking and choosing just goes to show that Atheists arbitrarily pick their own morals. Him looking at brain cells under a microscope to try to prove that killing bad shows that.
What load of crap. Could you think before you type. Him "looking at a microscope" to see which forms of behaviour are innate in humans, has nothing to do with arbitrarily picking your own morals. It is just research.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm sure....
Hey, you accept the morals your Leader decided for you, I accept those Ayn Rand explained rather vividly. Why are yours better? Because you throw a believe in an unproven deity in with the morals?
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What you mean is that the US has a significant religious population. So do India and Brazil, but they're also liberal democracies.The money doesn't say "You Have to Believe in Jesus".
The US is the people. If the people are Christian, then the US is Christian.
Everyone knows what god you are talking about then you look at a coin.
Originally posted by Bardock42
What load of crap. Could you think before you type. Him "looking at a microscope" to see which forms of behaviour are innate in humans, has nothing to do with arbitrarily picking your own morals. It is just research.
That's basically what he's doing. Read the chapter in The God Delusion about it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey, you accept the morals your Leader decided for you, I accept those Ayn Rand explained rather vividly. Why are yours better? Because you throw a believe in an unproven deity in with the morals?
I'm not asserting mine are better, but I believe they're better.
But hey, that's better arbitrarily deciding.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaNo, they choose their religion so they choose the set of morals that they wish to believe in and even then they choose the ones inside that religion that they choose to follow. People switch religions all the time because they do not believe in the values of their current religion or their values or morals have changed over time.
No, most Athiests do, Theists have them made already.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That's basically what he's doing. Read the chapter in The God Delusion about it.
You mean he is picking his morals? Well obviously, everyone is. But he's not doing that by researching what traits in humans are favorable, that's just research. That he might base morals off of that is his thing. So you are attacking the wrong behavior.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm not asserting mine are better, but I believe they're better.
Sure, I believe mine are.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
But hey, that's better arbitrarily deciding.
Oh also, could you give me the passages in the Bible that support the Charter of the UN. Best article by article, I'd like to read them:
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The US is the people. If the people are Christian, then the US is Christian.
No, we're secular. If a country has no official religion, then it's not a Christian nation.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Everyone knows what god you are talking about then you look at a coin.
If it really bothers you that much, then send an email to the Governor of Oregon. I personally don't know too many Athiests or non-Christians that blame a bad day on the fact that they're paycheck endorses the Bible.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, most Athiests do, Theists have them made already.
I agree. Free thinkers vs. sheep. Good times.
...though bardock's right, nearly ALL people decide for themselves, theists and atheists alike. The ones that don't are indeed sheep being blindly led by whatever they were taught as children. The rest (most) may believe a religion, but they accept their morals because it is compatible with their own idea of morality, not because they blindly accept it without justification.
And if you simply accept them without thought, I'm sorry for you.