WAT, we are not in school, we are in a forum and no one has the power to "force" their beliefs on you. The truth is that Chrisianity can't be "forced" on anyone, that is an urban boogeyman. You can't "force" a belief, anymore that you "force" your secularism when you share your views. Using your logic, it could be said that evolutionists are "forcing" their religious beliefs on others. But, the truth is that no one is "forced" to believe anything.

And I hope you do relax and I very much appreciate your good humor. You and I may differ on several things, but I always respect you and keep you at the top of my favorite rascal list! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Bob - OK, I'm with you on the "selfish gene" thingy. I guess all living creatures, with the exception of, say, plants (for the purpose of this discussion), are hard wired to perpetuate their species. After all, this is our basic function - and to go fishing and sailing. I won't include plants because they can't "act" in the manner mobile creatures do, but I'm sure some biologist might have something to say about that.


I would propose that species of high enough levels of intelligence such that they can make choices like not beating the tar out of an OM are simply demonstrating a broader view of "survival." "Fittest" includes the "smartest." This doesn't mean that the counter choices are not tempting and easily dismissed. You or I didn't harm OM maybe not solely because we conceive killing another person to be wrong, but also because it's against the law and we might go in the slammer for the rest of our lives. That wouldn't promote "spreading our genes" either.



I'm not sure what you mean by this. In the big picture, I don't think it's counter-evolutionary. I think it's quite evolutionary in that it's kept us from nuking each other - so far.

WAT

Mel, I'm with you on the "force" thingy. Who first used that word here? Did I?

How 'bout "seeking comformity" instead? To the extent that particular views rooted in a particular faith are required to be present? Back door influence. This is in regard to efforts to teach our children really bad science. So bad that it's not science at all. These are impressionable children who will more often than not believe anything the teacher says. Well, maybe not ALL of us did. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WAT

WAT, I beleive your exact term was "impose their faiths," which is the sam thing. I just don't think that sharing one's views is "seeking conformity." Of course, one would hope to persuade others, but there is nothing wrong with that. If you think you are right, of course you want to persuade others. I agree that bad science should not be taught in school, which is why I am against evolution. But, kids should always be taught to NEVER EVER just believe what a teacher says at face value. Many teachers teach all manner of numbnuttiness now, so parents have to be on guard for that no matter what.

Its not mercy that stopped us nuking each other, it was fear of MAD.

Mercy is not Darwinian. Why let competitors or threats live ?

Why did a merciful 'golden rule'develop contrary to evolutionary compulsion ? Thats what I'm getting at.

What I think is that God's external , almost inarguable codex of moality is hard wired into us uniquely amongst animals, and thats why 'decent' Rationalists and Christians ( and adherents of many other beliefs) follow similar codes.

You argue that the 'golden rule' was there and faiths picked dup on on.

What I'm trying to get from you is your thoughts as to how such a counter-evolutionary codex ever came to be.

I'm not expecting you to agree with the 'god ' thing, I just think its an unusually sloppy bit of thinking from you WAT if I may say , when you aver that " the golden rule" just 'is'. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Morality defines us apart from the animal community on Earth, is reflected in religion, but would seem to be contradicted by the selfish gene' assumption of evolution.

So where did it come from ? Why would godless advanced mammals develop an un=evolutionary senss of compassion and fairness ?

Dalai Lama for Pope!!!

Why do you think it's counter evolutionary? I don't.

Our minds give us the option of making choices - some of which could be delayed gratification or choices that are not immediately "survival."

Our minds provide us imagination and reasoning.

I think it's not correct to conclude it's counter evolutionary if we are capable of making decisions not directly associated with our immediate survival and procreation. We make great art (to fellow humans, anyway)and imagine extraordinary things that are thoughts and ideas WAY beyond those assocuated with survival needs. This includes the ability to feel emotion and act or not act on emotion, which includes the consideration of others - imagining the emotions and feeling of others. From thence, perhaps, came the intuitive Golden Rule.

"Fittest" here includes the notion of the smartest and most capable - which is not limited to the hairiest, strongest, healthiest, and most reproductive.

WAT

WAT, I am not articulating myself properly. Why would a capability that did not actively support personal existence evolve in humans?

Its floppy to say that " we're smart enough to decide against evolution sometimes". Why did we develop such risky smarts ?

Why have such risky decisions become enshrined in your'golden rule' and in the behaviour codexes of most peoples ?

Thats what I'm trying to get at.

Had to read this and now almost wish I wouldn't have. I have a feeling that i am gonna' feel the same way about posting..

Looks like a good discussion gone awry to me (except for the DL 4 Pope part).

I, like WAT, am a non-believer (omigod,I said it; please put DOWN those pitchforks). I think I understand BOTH sides here, tho.

WAT, I think that bOb is right, religiously affiliated schools SHOULD be inclined to uphold their ideologies. SHOULD be expected to. I'm not saying that secular schools shouldn't, but society would not expect it as such. Wrong thinking..He!! yeah. But way it is, probably.

I think (as a somewhat ignorant outsider of this thread) that what WAT was originally questioning is Why would people think this?! Secular or not, morals are morals. Unfortunately, You are BOTH wrong. People are people, no matter what they want to call themselves. There are bad catholics, muslims, buddhists....and good ones.

I also take it a little personally, when it is implied that I(we non-believers) have no morals, because I/we have no God. Hrumph, I was raised Catholic and know many people from many different religious groups. I agree, wholeheartedly WAT, someone WITH a God is always "feeling sorry" for me, or trying to convert me. I simply avoid these arguments as much as possible. I have NEVER had an atheist try to convert me (except Ayn Rand and I read her books, she didn't force me to).

Butting back out now... *shivering, somewhat fearfully*

*running back in*

And bOb, WHO is to say where the golden rule came from?!! Maybe some cavemen found that it was best to cooperate with each other. Then found that there were some that took advantage and some who didn't...some who were smarter, some who were stronger...Some who were just mean and killed other cavemen for sport...they had to do something..

It could have been an evolutionary beneficial thing from many standpoints.

*running real fast back out* <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

cool! Do we have some evidence of that? I am partial to evidence myself. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

As far as assuming that secularlists don't have morals, what is one supposed to assume since they have no universal standard of morality? Some are moral, others aren't. It all seems to depend on personal preference, so one really can't assume anything about them. On the other hand, when you are dealing with a religious institution, we know what their professed moral standards are. Doesn't mean they abide by it, but there is an expectation. Not so with secularists; there would be no reason to expect they adopt a Christian standard of morality.

nope Mel, no evidence. But none to say that the golden rule isn't an evol. benefit either. I didn't say that there was evidence,I formed a very weak hypothesis.

"their professed moral standards are. Doesn't mean they abide by it, but there is an expectation. Not so with secularists; there would be no reason to expect they adopt a Christian standard of morality. "

Yes, look Mel, I agreed with that above. But it DOESN'T mean they abide by it. --Not so with secularists?!! Just because my moral standards aren't presented in a listed fashion for all to see, doesn' mean that they are not THERE. You are right, I said that I did NOT abide by a Christian standard of morality. Why would that mean to ANYONE that I automatically have NO morals?

I would never presume all Catholics to be sex abusers (of children, nontheless). I would never presume all Muslims are terrorists.

I have to hope and presume that all people have some moral standards. And if they don't have ones that are close to mine, I will have them arrested or stay away from them, whatever is appropriate.

added: One must get to know someone, religious, secular or purple-polka-dot lover, BEFORE one knows what their TRUE moral standards are. Anyone can SAY, I am a Christian, Muslim...

And for that matter, bOb, as a a secularist, I can see what WAT sees in your original post whick initiated this thread...
" seemingly secular " (from memory) it does seem to imply that secularists don't have a good moral code!!

not that you meant it that way, but it reads that way. As it would if you would have said seemingly Muslim... or whatnot. ~Although I am not sure what the moral code od whatnots is?

*hitting self on forehead and saying "I KNEW I shoulda kept my big mouth shut". - Why did I not just stick with "Dalai Lama for Pope"!*

Very, very weak. And much too weak to qualify for a worldview, IMO. Making it up on the fly does not work for me.



But why would it mean that you DO have morals? There is no universal standard beyond personal preference. Many have no moral standard higher than "whatever feels good," so I would never presume you had any morals. And what is wrong with NOT having morals? Your objection implies there is something wrong with that, but the secular premise is that it is all based on personal preference, so having no morals is just as legitimate as having them in that world view.


But, trotting out exceptions does not make your point. You don't judge a group by it's exceptions and that is what you are doing. Catholics have a universal standard of morality. Muslims have a universal standard of morality. Secularists have no universal standard. Unless you are saying we should judge secularists by someone like Stalin? Mao?


Why would you have someone arrested for practicing their own moral code? I don't get that. Aren't others entitled to make up their own morals just like you are? Are your morals superior to others?

We are speaking in generalizations here, so it's not relevent what each person's individual moral code is. That is only a distraction. Besides, if each person gets to make up their own moral code, then it matters not what it is, because one man's moral code is just as valid as the next.

jlseagull - I can understand what you are saying, but it's stretching the meaning to deny that non-Christians CAN choose a "higher path," a better "moral" set of personal values and apply such a meaning to what Bob Pure, or anyone, says when they say, "seemingly secular."

We live in a society, predominantly determined by Judeo/Christian values, whether any particular individual IS a Christian, an Atheist, a Diest, a Wiccan, or a .... whatever. We learn much from those around us, family, teachers, friends, etc. and that helps to develop our own moral compass. So it's not in the least surprising that society in general, and many individuals within the society, choose principles that mimic biblical principles.

At some point in time, however, each individual must begin to make choices for themselves as to what Standards they will embrace for their lives and what Boundaries they will establish for protection from what others might choose to do who might have a "different" set of "Standards" that they are living their lives by.

"Definitions of terms" is often at the root of most misunderstandings. The issue is NOT whether or not someone can choose, for whatever reason, to behave in what could be termed "good" or "high moral" ways. The issue is "who has the authority to set the ultimate rules and to determine what is 'right and wrong' for all eternity and for all people regardless of time or society they happen to be in."

That immutable "standard" is God. He has revealed that standard through the Scripture. Jesus Christ is "put forth" as the one who is an historical figure who PROVED God exists and that God IS in control and CAN intervene miraculously in human events any time He chooses to do so.

ALL of Christianity "rises and falls" on the person of Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ is NOT who he said he was, and if Jesus Christ was NOT resurrected from the dead (a decidedly unevolutionary thing that went against virtually every "natural law"), then Christian faith is useless and as false as every other religion, or lack of religion, in the world.

What "sets Christianity apart" from every other religion of the world is that it is based up and takes it's complete existance from a PERSON, not a concept. Christianity is set up the reality and truth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. All other religions are philosophical ideals, but without any firm "anchor." Christianity has an "anchor" that keeps it firmly in place. Take that "anchor" away, and will be nothing more than "another good idea" in a pantheon of ideas fabricated my the human mind for selfish or esoteric reasons.

The "reason" it rankles nonbelievers, as does the mere idea of teaching students that evolution is simply just one of TWO theories that tries to explain how everything got here, is that it "forces" the individual to think, to ask, to examine, to investigate whether or not God exists and whether or not the "Christian God" is the "One true God".

The issue will ultimately boil down in virtually all cases to an issue of Pride. The mere thought that anyone could exist who has the right to tell us what to do and "judge" us based upon His standards, not our own chose code, terrifies and angers a lot of people. HUMANS are the top of the "food chain" on earth and nobody can be higher than humans.

That's why true Christians are admonished to recognize their own sinfulness and to submit their will willingly to God's will, to follow Him in humble obedience. To take on a posture of servanthood, not "masterhood." The way that Christ put it is, "If you loved me you would keep my commands."

But no, most often we all struggle with our "Taker" overpowering our "Giver." A "posture of servanthood" is NOT natural for fallen human beings. It is posture that arises out of love, not selfishness and pride. It is the embodiment of what is called "Agape Love."

I don't know if that helps to clear it up or not. But the "issue" will always remain "is Jesus Christ who he says he is." If he IS, then obedience is the only "moral thing" to do.

God bless.

Mel:

"cool! Do we have some evidence of that? I am partial to evidence myself. "

You live in Baja Oklahoma. Been in a bar recently? THERE's your cavemen!

-ol' 2long

As a former barmaid who worked in both OK and TX...

ROFLMAO

So very true!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

shhhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anyone but we have one or two of those out here in east Texas! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

WEAVER!

You're back!

...hope stuff is okay?

-ol' 2long