Evolution And Morals

Alrighty, lets get this show on the road!

I understand many of you are perhaps not very well versed on evolution and natural selection, so i suggest before debating on this or offering a view you read the basics of it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Thanks.

So, it should be know that:
Too many times now have i heard creationists flaunting the argument that humans having morals constitutes the evidence for the existance of a intelligent creator. This is simply irrational - if one takes the time to study various elements of biology and apply some basic logic, it can be learned that Humankind are social creatures. Historically we lived in groups, we hunt in groups, we SURVIVE on the basis of being a group - THAT is where the basics of what could be called a inner moral compass came from. Not from god, not from an intelligent creator applying it with a 'Moral tool' in their world creator. It is from natural selection that it is beneficial for humans to work together properly without angering or dismaying their fellows. So, when competition or environmental factors eliminate organisms unfit for their environment, and the surviving organisms that are better suited to their environment reproduce and pass on the traits that allowed them to survive, we get organisms that are even more socially applicable.

And so the very basics of morals are formed! What followed, was the great Ancient Greek philosophers many of which taught the very first Ethics of reciprocity, or simply:

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others"
Socrates.
Isocrates.
Etc..

That is where the more mature senses of philosophical being or sense of the self sprouted, not when an apparent Jesus flopped about. The majority of such teachings can be found very BC, almost up to 500 years BC. But of main consequence here is that their teachings were heavily Atheistic, and very Humanist. No belief in a intelligent creator, and no need for one either. Which links heavily into the argument of what some Christians call a moral loss if the world was Atheist. Which as i have pointed out, is utterly ignorant to suggest. Im sure we all know atheist friends, and im sure we all know Christian (to stick to one religion for this part) friends. Both of which have a moral compass (gained through evolution) that is truely seperate to such beliefs:

Both know that killing is wrong, and despite the advocation of genocide in the bible, the Christian knows that it is truely wrong. just like the killing of homosexuals is wrong, regardless of what their holy lord says. These obvious senses of what is right or wrong are NOT based on what a 'lord' pumped into you. They were gained through evolution, both socially and biologically.

And this is where the lesser followers of Religious dogma's come in. You follow it as a philosphy, as if the bible is relevant to your moral sense. I trust i need not go into how the 'lord' by obvious logic is a bad moral figure here - but part of you still decides albeit perhaps through social upbringing, or social pressure, or even a social conformity on beliefs that you must cling to its teachings? It is by far morally irrelevant, we have no need for its muddled senses and if anything, its contradictiory nature on the moral front leaves many with a somewhat puzzled and sad face. I emplore you to follow a internal moral compass, rather than the somewhat bigotted teachings of contradictionary external compass.


--------Off to bed will check replies and discuss in the morning (its 2am here for gods sake ;p)-------

 

Interesting read. Only point that might cause conflict is your grouping of all Christians under one perspective when there are many types of Christian believers with different beliefs.

Personally I've acquired my morals through general life experience and need neither bible nor a god to base them upon.

 

This bit, specifically the bolded part, you confuse morality with social etiquette. Morality is totally, utterly, and completely removed from social etiquette. If it was my culture to kill someone who offended me, or wronged me, does that then make murder moral? How about if I see a woman's skin above her knee or elbow, I'm entitled to sleep with her. Does that make adultery moral? Unattended goods are air game for whoever wants them (finders keepers culture). Does that then make theft morally acceptable?

In short, no. Correlation does NOT imply causation. Just because moral actions are socially acceptable does not mean that one stems from the other.

Since you seem so keen against the Bible, I think I'll pull my example from there. Ever hear of a thing called the Law of Moses? Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? Here's the real cool part. It's academically accepted that Moses was born between 1300BCE and 1500BCE. That gives him a heads up on even the pre-Socratics by over a millennium. What's more, this 'ethic of reciprocity' is decidedly unmoral. It promotes vengeance and vindictive behavior. More often then not, if left alone, victims on both sides of a dispute will escalate the terms, sometimes ending in a death, but more often, just extreme mutilation.

You should probably list more philosophers. If I recall correctly, the majority of Greek and Asian philosophers (And Islamic, obviously) were, if not heavily religious, than at least had a belief in spirits beyond the realm of human understanding. In fact, Socrates was one of the very few that was atheist, and not even completely. If you go more recently in the time scale, you'll find almost every single moral and ethic writer was a priest or monk.

Not sure what your point is here. It doesn't mesh with your attack on Christians. In fact, you're calling them just as moral as atheists. Aside from the last sentence, which I address in my first rebuttal, it's filler.

You do realize of course that the majority of our core laws in this society come from religious beginnings? The Lord preached kindness to all, he preached humbleness, he taught non-oppression. Sure, there's some bad cookies in the Bible, but for every example you pll, it's just as easy to pull an example from wordly sources.



In short, the entire argument is flawed for a few reasons. (A) You have a pre-disposition against religion in general, with a certain flavor for attacking Christians. (B) Your initial assumption is flawed. Read more on Social Conventions of Early Man. (C) Your bit on philosophy is pretty much fail. I suggest listing more than two philosophers to weigh your point. Especially when one of them has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand (Isocrates as a professor of rhetoric - basically, he taught how to give speeches and convince people)

 

Yay religious discourse! interesting topic to argue about. Mainly because, no matter what we say, probably nobody is going to change their minds. But alas, we just love talking about it which makes it kind of pointless, yet very entertaining.

Just one thing I would like to say before I start quoting. I have NEVER read the bible. Well, not the whole thing.I did read a few pieces here and there mainly because I studied in a religious school, but not much after that. Still, I consider myself to be a very moral person. I've never killed, and am pretty much a law-abiding citizen like any other.
Yet I am a hardcore atheist, so.. how is it possible that morality is based upon a book I've never read? What about the millions of people that didn't read the book?
Now, of course that probably you WILL be able to find good morals inside this book (''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'', etc) but I would dare say these precepts, as morally correct as they are, they seem to stem from common sense rather than anything else. I mean, lets be honest.. would you become a psycho killer if religion wasn't there to stop you? 'coz if you would, then men, you need a shrink a.s.a.p
But even if these moral precepts were unattainable anywhere else, that would not make atheist immoral, so really, the whole argument is pointless because Its just a matter of talking and being with an atheist to see that their only difference towards theist is their religious belief and nothing else.

By the way, Fenix, wasn't it the law of thalion? eye for an eye? I think he was a mesopotamian king iirc.

So.. me not killing you because I don't like you is social etiquette? :?

Meh no more quoting for now.

One last thing. My intention here is not bashing. Let me tell you, I'm fine with people believing whatever they want. I was a believer too back then. But hey, It doesn't hurt TESTING your religion. Worst case scenario, you either convert to atheism, which believe me its good, or you don't, and you strenghten your beliefs, which is good too.

Lets quote the G man before I end this post

Now I know how to justify me skipping work on sundays

 

To bring a small tidbit into this (since Phoe dominated far better than i ever could with his post), maelstrom, Jesus came and told them not to be lazy on sundays ;3 he told the people it is not unjust or unlawful to work on such days and so forth :3

 

@Mael - This could just be semantics, but it's generally without purpose to quote the OT to most Christians. They believe that, yes, it is a Holy Book, but that its teachings are obsolete due to Jesus and the New Testament. Kinda like how you could use an old CRT tv, but there's no point with LCD screens.

As far as the Social Etiquette thing goes, I don't quite understand what you're saying...Not liking someone isn't really a reason not to kill them

 

UH I'd just like to pint out that I use the OT along with the NT. Sure the OT is the old covenant but that desn't mean it should be cast aside. Sorry just had to give a few cents on the matter. I'm going to stop before I go into sabbath school teacher mode.

 

Fenix summed it up pretty well here. Morals were actually based on religious beliefs and mythology for the most part and yes even the Greeks and Romans.

What a lot of people don't know however about Christianity and the Bible in particular is that during Jesus' time he was not the only prophet or the only one with his kind of ideals and teachings there were MANY other messiahs and prophets with similar tales and claims of being able to do miracles and had followers etc. Also you can draw up a lot of parallels and similarities to more ancient civilizations mythology and religions with the stories in the Bible. The Bibles teachings and even Jesus himself were nothing new and actually old news, over the course of history however it was the one that became most popular and eventually won out to become one of the main religions that it is today.

Then we have Evolution, which is still just a theory and has things that don't make sense in it.

A lot of the arguments from Evolutionists/Darwinists are that their idea is based on science and logic so it must be more logical, right and more real because of that, which is not the case. They also claim that the people that don't agree with them aren't as educated by saying if they were they would agree, which isn't fair at all or even a valid point. Evolution, like Religion and a lot of other philosophy and ideals are just that ideas, not absolute fact ro anything.

By just spouting off stuff from Evolution textbooks etc doesn't make you any more right or wrong than those who are religious because I hate to tell you neither are 100% proved to be right.

You know there are actually a lot of very credible scientists and archeligosts etc that actually find evidence AGAINST Evolution even with dated fossils and artifacts to back up their claims, but you don't hear of them that much because they aren't really taken as serious or as much publicily as those that conform to the "book" so to speak.

 

Ahem, i was afraid people would miss interpret that part of my post, to the extent that i was almost about to edit it >.<. What i am referring to here is not a social etiquitte at all, it has nothing to do with social etiquette. I'll try to explain this to the best of my ability, but i am obviously no biologist so there may be inevitably a few flaws in the explanation. The problem here is you're not looking deeper. It is not a part of culture per say, but a part of the very foundations of how pack animals have evolved to co-exist and work better as a group. To elaborate - take pirannas for example, they are viscious to their prey yes, but in their frenzies do they go about destroying each other? No, it is understood by them that they are of the same species. They evolve to better suit their enviroment and working as a group effectivly and not destroying each other is what comes out. This is albeit a less well formed sense of the same moral compass that humans currently have.

And rightly so. You have yet to display why you decide to use it as a moral compass when it is filled with so many moral contradictions, and overall irrelevancy, we have evidence all around us that people can have morals and be atheist. An external compass is not needed here, it may have been in the old ages but in times like this it is truely irrelevant.

Hm. I have to admit i am not too well versed in the subject area, but that is news to me. It would be improper for me to attempt a rebuttle here without a little more research, I'll look into it!

Regardless, it is of little relevancy to my overall point - Morals are derived from evloution, not from a intelligent creator of which you have not attended to argue against. How they mature is indeed interesting, but it does little to disprove my point.

I would argue that a belief in a spiritual realm or simply a spiritual sense is not religious, they did not follow religious dogmas and they did not need to.

Blergh... Ok i read this and it finally hit home that you did indeed miss interpret my post. This is not an 'Attack!' on christians, thats probobly why my main argument seemed to slip by you. Yes i am calling them as internally moral as many atheists, give or take a few loons here and there on both sides. They both know that it is wrong to murder each other and they both know that if they're hungry they shouldnt go and eat their brother, to put it bluntly. Regardless of what their Deity says. (Due to tevolution)

Take Kurai for example, shes Catholic(?), but she disagrees with a lot of what is said in the bible, and understandibly, for it would be brutal to agree with the mass genocide and various other immoral things it advocates. My point there was to highlight the fallacy of what many Christians believe that a world of Atheism will result in everyone with no moral sense. Which i stated very clearly as being absolutly silly.

Yes... And religious beginnings came about from maturing philosophical understanding, from both atheist philosophers, and according to you, religious ones. But it would be foolish to suggest that the atheist ones are immoral, wouldnt it? If we look back, we can see that religious understanding is very heavily linked into maturing philosophy, but yet again. That isnt really relevant to my initial argument.

Evolution is responsible for the internal moral sense. Not God, as many of your same creed like to spout. This is commonly accepted in biology.

I didnt attack anyone in my initial post. Perhaps it would be better if you practiced some of the Christian teachings and stopped seeing punches in my tame posts. If i have a pre-disposition against religions then i damn well feel it is justified. As i said, and as you fail to address, better morals can be found elsewhere, you dont need to follow these dogmas, and you wont be any less moral if you dont follow them. You feel it is perhaps wrong to hold a opinion of hatred for books that are responsible for so much hatred and genocide in the world?
Or to hold hatred for a God who fails to stop natural disasters? Regardless of how many who pray to him?

Follow what beliefs you want. But i will adhear to my right to tell you why following them is stupid. And you can adhear to your right to argue back. Relative to the grounds on which the discussion is being held of course. Of which no rules are being broken.

No, your interpretation of my POINT is flawed. I didnt assume anything. I addressed this mainly at the top of my post. The social conventions of early man are what was built upon the evolutionary sense of a internal moral compass. See top of this post.

Yeah, i'll be looking into it more. Regardless my argument here was to simply convey that the philosophers were very central to the 'evolution', (if you will), of philosophical beliefs. Be them religious or atheist, they helped to mature sense of self and understanding. Of which we can both agree upon, and that God did not simply give the moral sense of right and wrong into us on creation. Like your book wrongfully suggests. Im sure you already know this, and agree with it. Which is why you attended to the other parts of my post and not this central point.

 

Yes, i agree, both had a hand in the further maturing of moral senses.

Just like gravity is just a theory?

First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experimentations. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of how these terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution. Like you are doing NOW.

The distinction between fact and theory is not limited to the study of evolution. Consider, for example, gravity. The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other.

Erhm.. No. I dont even know where to start with this.

Evolution IS based on science and logic. It IS more logical and it has more evidence backing it than the theory of intelligent design. This is widely known. But yes, as you said, it doesnt make it 'right'... to discuss this in a overly generalised manner as you are.. As i already stated, the vast majority of evolution IS fact.

See my first two points, and i suggest reading up on what evolution is before arguing here. im sorry, but its statements like this that just make me feel like you have no idea what evolution is.

Yes.. Im afraid that evolution textbooks have 10x more 'right' about them than the theory of intelligent design.. And no.. But the vast majority of Evolution is fact, and it is the fact part that is being taught in schools (the ones intelligent enough to allow it). Stop generalising.

Oh really? I would like you to give me some examples of this evidence that disproves evolution, if you would be so kind. Regardless, evolution has 10x more evidence and reason going for it than the idea of intelligent design.

 

No time to read through all the text wall(s) but just my two cents here. From what little I know, piranhas will go frenzy on each other as soon as one sheds a drop of blood.

 

Haha, i was sitting here thinking, Meee is gonna drop in here and point out pirhannas eat their families or something..

Yeah, it is a bad example, but it doesnt disprove my point, Lions are also social group creatures, but with some creatures, the benefits of eating ones friends are larger than co operating, so they evolve to do so! Albeit only on occassion ;D.

 

Seriously? I wasn't aware my nitpicking is that known yet

 

Again, you keep saying I have no idea what evolution is because I don't agree and because of my opinions. Sorry for being able to think for myself and taking in the knowledge and forming my own opinion from it instead of just accepting everything blindly. And I have no idea where you got the phrase "the fact of evolution" because it is still a theory for a reason. Just like the theories in quantum physics, string theory, etc. I guess all those must be true too because they are based on science, even though it is not proved completely and is still open for debate.

Also, I didn't mean Evolution had no science or logic backing it, it actually does but not enough for me to believe it as a fact.

So, how do you know Evolution is 100% fact? how do you know that it is random combnations of genetics and traits and natural selection that cause these developments? What excatly are you observing?

 

No, i am saying you have no idea what evolution is because you have no idea what evolution is. Not because you disagree with it, but for the reasons you stated WHY you disagree with it.

Did you not read my post?

"Just like gravity is just a theory?

First, the "fact of evolution" refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experimentations. Second, the "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur. Misuse and misunderstanding of how these terms are applied to evolution have been used to construct arguments disputing the validity of evolution. Like you are doing NOW.

The distinction between fact and theory is not limited to the study of evolution. Consider, for example, gravity. The law of gravity is a scientific fact that bodies of mass attract each other, but there are different theories of gravity that attempt to explain how bodies of mass are attracted to each other. In this way, gravity is both a scientific fact and a scientific theory.

On its own, the word "evolution" often refers to the combination of the underlying facts, and the theory that explains them. However, it is also frequently used to refer to one or the other."

So you choose to believe a theory which has 0 evidence for it over a theory which is been for the majority proven?

Im sorry, but in case you didnt catch what i just repeated, the majority of evolution IS FACT.
re-read what i quoted at the top of the post.

I never said it was 100% fact.

It is not that which causes the developments per say.. Im not sure if you're wording it wrong or you simply dont understand evolution. Im no biologist, but i'll try to explain.
We can observe Heredity, Variation, Mutation, and most Importantly Natural selection. They are all proven and taught in the majority of schools apart from ignorant holes like America.



This diagram may help you to understand.

Evolutionary biologists document the fact that evolution occurs, and also develop and test theories that explain its causes. The study of evolutionary biology when studies of the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms convinced most scientists that species changed over time.

However, the mechanism driving these changes remained unclear until the theories of NATURAL SELECTION. This powerful explanatory and predictive theory directs research by constantly raising new questions, and it has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

 

Some of the things that makes it hard for me to believe in evolution is the following. In biology I learned that a lot of these "simple celled organisms" are more complex then us. Also if everything evolves into something better, then why do we still have some of the other species left? Evolution says a long change over a period of time, there's a beetle that stores chemicals in it's abdomen that would destroy it a special membrane wasn't there. It's easy to spot and pick off so the chemcicals keep it alive. If it slowly evolved then how did it survive? Its easy to pick off without the chemicals, it needs both to be effective; if both chemicals touch inside the beetle it'll explode. So how did that happen?

 

You still fail to address my point. What I'm saying is you are, unintentionally, talking about social etiquette, not morality. Every example you pull is social etiquette, and has nothing to it from a moralistic standpoint. Also, I must say, horrid example. Piranha's will attack anything that is in the same water as blood, yes, even themselves. They are creatures of pure instinct, nothing more.

In short, it is still flawed. Morality has absolutely nothing to do with 'co-existing and working better as a group.' Morality does not dictate crime and punishment, it does not dictate cause and effect. In the current Western law systems, yes, most the laws are moral, but, as I said, correlation does not imply causation.

We don't need trolls, but far from attacking, I play with them
So, you're saying that "Thou shalt not kill" is bad? "Thou shalt not steal"? "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? I hope you realize that the basis of what Western culture considers moral is straight from this Book.

They're not. Evolution is a series of beneficial mutations to achieve a certain purpose. The entire point of evolution is to make one's species stronger, and onesself stronger than the rest of the species. As in, giraffes have a long neck specifically to reach the leaves on the top of the tree. Morals serve a arbitrary role to evolution. One could even go so far to say they weaken a race due to the fact that morality is nothing more than an internal sense of what is right and wrong. This severely limits the actions an entity will make, and this has a shorter range of actions. That is nearly the letter opposite of adaption, which is short term evolution.

You could argue that all you want, but when you're burning a sacrifice and asking fro this 'spirit realm's' protection, I'd call that religion.

Then you're doing it wrong. I'm a firm believer of free thought. You should never do something just because a book or a priest tells you to. However, that doesn't mean I go around saying that God doesn't exist, that Jesus sucks, and the Bible is more or less fill of tripe.

By the same token, it's foolish to suggest that religious people are immoral.

Again, no. Evolution has nothing to do with morality. It allowed morality, buy giving us larger cranial capacity and the ability for abstract thought, but claiming evolution caused morality is as silly as claiming that evolution is responsible for Lord of the Rings.

You realize that you were banned the first time for religious attacks, right? Tigers generally don't change their stripes. Of course, this is an instance where I wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

Show me where I can find better moral ideas than which I already follow (I'm a fairly religious person). One doesn't need to do anything. The majority of mainstream Christians follow it because they want to. If they don't, they don't go to church. Now, I'm not saying every single one of them has looked at the alternatives, not at all. But I'm positive a rather large chuck is pretty openminded. Also, I think you need to open your mind. You're near as bad as those you warn against. "Hatred" for a book? Do you realize how much that just invalidated you? Since you 'hate' that book, you'd say anything just to prove your misguided crusade against it, and, in the process, become the same, albeit on the opposite end of the spectrum, as those who crusade against atheism.

"tell you why following them is stupid" Wrong.
"tell you why I think following them is stupid" Right!

Morality is arbitrary. It varies from one person to another. Since that seems to be one of the keystones for your argument, your statement can never be proved. Plus, making finality statements like that again invalidate your side of the argument.

No, they are not. They are built upon an evolutionary sense of survival of the fittest. Early man would always take or kill something if he felt he wouldn't be harmed. Morality comes with a sense of moral outrage. Just look at how sex offenders are treated. There was none of that with prehistoric man. All the way through even the Neolithic period, which consists of what any would call a 'man', there is no evidence of morality.

I repeat my suggestion to you, research social conventions of early man. It's more or less the first nail in the coffin here, since it invalidates your main argument.

 

God gave us an early, undefined morality. There's both sides of it. Stone your wife if she cheats, yeah, but at the same time, he flat out said 'no adultery.' I would say that, rather than being amoral, he was simply advocating a overly effective punishment system.

Yes, overly effective. How many thieves do you think you'd have if you got your hand chopped off on being caught? How many liars would there be if you got your tongue burned out?




In summation, I agree with you. You are not a biologist, nor are you an anthropologist. Your ideas, though well thought out, are lacking in actual fact in a few too many places to hold much water. Learn a little more about the customs of early man particularly, as well as evolution, both physical and social. I think the main thing you could do to fix your argument would be to stop confusing morality and social etiquette, particularly in the opening paragraph. When your first assumption is flawed, the rest of your argument follows in line.

All in all, I'd give the writing (Both opening argument as well as the rebuttal) a C+. I do feel I'm being generous, but I figure I'll go easy on you since you're giving it an effort.




*LOL@character limit*

 

Which came first religious teachings or the morals which they preach!?

Imo our sense to not destroy each other merely came about through our past instincts. Though Renatus seems to be arguing it in a rather clumsy way (I don't have time to read Fenix's WoT's...). Our morality is purely a way of humans trying to come to terms with instincts which developed over the period of billions of years. Our brains are wonderful in how they adapt so well to different situations but still at the core of society there is the individual attempting to survive and satisfy his needs. This in turn requires him to gain the support of his fellow creatures by not pissing them off or killing them.

Religion came about for additional reasons (death, existence etc) so that morality and ethics are just something else which is stuck within them. Morals was something which had to be a part of religion as religion is our attempt at giving reason for what we do, ergo religion comes from morality+other human stresses which come from our instinct.



@Pancake
I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion many times. But i don't see whats so wrong with developing a fluid theory from observing the world around us. You should not reject a theory because it holds questions which cannot be answered. The main point is that it contains segments which give a reasonable and create observable conclusions (Ergo, if a dig up this fossil and it was from a certain period we can assume it will have these features etc, and to stop dancing around an answer, we do actually have alot more evidence than is normally said) . Take bacteria for example, it is the only human ailment we can cure. But we have had to develop more than a hundred new strains of antibiotics over the last century just to keep up with its evolving of resistance. I know this is far flung from exploding beetles, but if we can observe minute change in 10 years, or even a week surely our flawed animals will develop because its not whether or not i can outrun the tiger its, whether the guy next to me can.

What is so bad if evolution is what has actually occured? God may still exist in fact he may not be the evil bastard who damns us all to hell for grabbing someones purse as they had a god given right of ownership after they gave another person a peice of paper. Which raises another question, why does god care and how does he know what we own.

 

I won't lie, some stuff in the bible is...very contradicting to say the least. but most of it is between the new and the old. also, there are different interpretations, so not agreeing with pieces also depends on your outlook. For example, it says somewhere in the bible loving the man in a way you love a woman is wrong. Or not to eat pork. Or to wash utensils before and after eating. Yes, it's in the Bible. The bible should not be followed word for word. these things were to prevent the followers from getting sick. It was ahead of its time in that way, designed to keep people healthy. Rules can be outdated, as well. Like all the rules in the bible about slavery.

That's like saying i hate all white people, but i wans't directly attacking anyone so it's A OK and people shouldn't take offence. I don't mind if you disagree but they was you are this stereotyping is in poor taste. I really don't appreciate people taking hits at me because my religion and if you want, I can state key phrases i.e.

QUOTES by Renatus:

I agree it's not based off God, but it's not really necessary to put little quotes around it. Don't act naive as if it's not mockery, i am in no way ignorant to such. It has the same affect as if i say: Renatus is 'smart'. My point thus. I have no quarrels if you disagree, just call them their God or such. Also, yes it could be bad in the sense morals and time were corrupted and the church was very corrupt for a time, but many churches are repairing their ends. and it's unfair to call all of it such just based on the past. I mean, it's like calling communist evil because of what Stalin did, or calling all whites evil because some owned slaves. or calling all blacks ghetto because some live in poorer areas. Also, social pressure? upbringing? Clinging? Ha, my dear friend, as if. Some may 'believe' because they are pressured into it, or brought into it. But people need to be more independant. I believe because it's what I believe? You may say, yes, i was brought up this way. But people grow out of their parents' wings. I do many things my parents would never approve of, and why would not being catholic be any further a step? I might not be catholic (you got that right, though, I'm happy~)if my parents hadn't raised me, but it's my own choice. and social pressure? Please, half the people I know hate catholics or trash talk them every day. if nothing it'd be a deterrent.

Morally muddling? I agree it's not needed for morales; you seem to assume everyone here is judging atheists as -less- or -immoral- and presuming none of us think well of them. Or that all religious people do. Or that all people in general do. I'm frankly insulted you'd say it, talking to us, instead of speaking about them. Because I have NEVER thought of any person being less for being atheist. My two former BFs (dark and GM) were such and I had no problem with it. they are just as good as any other person, they're not degenerates, they're not evil heartless people. and neither are any other atheists I've met. They're no different from religious people. So maybe you were not intending to attack anyone, but you were generally talking down about them.

In my final thoughts; be atheist, or agnostic, or muslim, or satanist, or catholic. I'm not judging anyone because of their religion. I judge on character. and anyone who is going to think less of someone, judge someone or insult someone because who they are can eat razor blades, because this world doesn't need people behaving in such a way. I don't see why people can't tell what the believe and try to present their case without insulting/demeaning/lessening the other group. As religious, or not, you should tell others, not try to stomp the other to make it look bad. Because that, in itself, is the real immorality of it all.