Night FM

If God inspired people to institute it, then it can.

It may have, but, for the most part, I believe that science and understanding the universe is an end in and of itself, and something that scientists on some level simply find to be enjoyable. Animals may not "know how procreation works", but they know how to do it, and have been doing it successfully for millions of years, just as how humans lived as hunter-gatherers for most of human history and did not need detailed knowledge of how procreation works to be successful at it. This would correlate with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and the fact that mere survival is near the bottom of the hierarchy, while creative pursuits such as science are higher on the list. Therefore, rendering statements that life itself is about survival or procreation factually incorrect. If anything, procreation is just a way for society to further its creative pursuits, such as scientific theories which have developed over many years by many generations.

While my understanding of the Biblical text isn't all-encompassing, God seems to have given Adam and Eve different instructions after departing from the Garden of Eden. Some of these, such as requiring them to cover their nakedness may be easy to recall. God also did not give Adam and Eve permission to eat meat until after the fall of man, and prior to that they were presumably vegans, only being given permission to eat the fruit of the trees. Regarding childbirth, God instructed Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply" while in Eden, but after the Fall of Man, stated that childbirth would be a source of suffering (and if we skip to the New Testament, of course Paul stated that it would be better not to marry unless one could not avoid doing so). This implies that Eden was the ideal set of conditions for having children, and that, as a result of departing from Eden, childbirth would become a source of sorrow.

Lots of things are "made up", that doesn't mean they aren't true or valid. Laws that prohibit murder and rape are "made up" by people. That doesn't invalidate them or the principle that murder and rape are morally wrong. Hinduism is very diverse, so I have no idea what to say.

Paul mentioned that hardship could come from marriage, and recommended that people not marry unless they felt they had to (and most likely, this is the origin of the requirement of priesthood celebacy in the Catholic Church). My thoughts are that he recommended this because he was aware of dysfunctional and abusive relationships being a reality, as well as the dysfunctions caused by poorly-planned childbirth, particularily in a day and age where most people lived in comparative poverty and deaths in childbirth were likely a reality. I'd argue that this also renders the teachings of many religious sects heretical as far as the Bible is concerned, such as the Catholic Church treating marriage as a Sacrament, when in reality, the Bible states that it is something to be avoided unless a person feels they must.

Not sure. How can evolution be used to support Nazism and social Darwinism?

A majority of voters? No.

Well, no, you put it in what you've been told is "evidenced" by authority figures, and only be very specific standards and axioms for "evidence", not what you have actually evidenced yourself. Dreams are "imaginary" but are still real, in the sense that they actually exist. I'm not sure that's a risk worth taking, especially if the consequences exist after death and the only way to "evidence" them would be to return from the dead, or possibly have a near-death experience. There are plenty of cases where the minority overrules the majority, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, in the Jim Crow era the majority of white people may have wanted the minority of black people to use separate water fountains, something which could be overruled by a minority of justices on the basis of Constitutional law. Well, the majority of people in America believe in God, so what if the majority agreed to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools? Not really. It's just as apt an analogy, and nothing's been given to substantiate why one analogy fits but the other doesn't. "I don't believe in evolution for the same reason that I don't believe in green radioactive mutants who eat people's brains".

That's basically a conspiracy theory. The idea that rules against murder, theft and such aren't about the observable harm they cause and are part of some secret cabal's desire to "control people" just for jollies is worthy of Alex Jones. "Controlling people" isn't necessary a bad thing, especially if they won't control themselves. That's why we have laws. Right, the larger group of society doesn't accept murder and rape, and the subgroup who commits murder and rape gets outnumbered. That's a good thing. And in reality, that scenario isn't even accurate, as there would likely be plenty of instances where the group making and enforcing the rules is the minority. I'd argue that there are plenty of arguments in the Bible against slavery, so if some are cherry-picking parts of it while ignoring the whole then that's on them. There's nothing within Christianity or the Bible that says similar principles can't exist elsewhere. If anything the ubiquitous of them argues in favor of them being universal. Likewise, the Bible says that sin is "common to man", so I'd argue this further substantiates the idea of universal principles of right and wrong behavior. And while I'm not an expert on Buddhism, whether or not it specifically invokes a God, it more or less argues in favor of ultimate truths about how people should or shouldn't behave. Right, but there are examples of social groups (e.x. drug cartels) who have little to no respect for these rules, and this type of behavior would be easier to justify by holding a purely materialist worldview. Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that "most people don't" commit extremely atrocious crimes, but, in theory, they could justify doing so much easier from a particular worldview.

The rules in religion have an intent behind them, just as the rules of law in modern society do. Even if you want to argue that they are bad or unnecessary, it would be odd to think that people invented them for "no reason". Do you really think people made laws against murder just because "they felt like it", as opposed to the observable harm caused by murder?

That doesn't substantiate why that's a fitting comparison. One could just as easily say that believing in evolution is akin to believing in little green men from Mars.

No, I made it pretty simple. A person could create a law against eating chocolate ice cream just as they could create a law against murder. But, objectively, eating chocolate ice cream would not cause the harm to another person that murder would, and the harm would objectively occur even if there was no law against murder. So, obviously, there are reasons that it is illegal to murder but not illegal to eat chocolate ice cream, and these reasons heavily relate to the harm that murder causes. People didn't just create laws against murder on a whim. The idea that everyone should adhere to reason and truth is made up.

Whether or not something should be a norm or more isn't. If what you're saying, for example, is that whether or not slavery is allowed depends on what the group is trying to accomplish, then I accept that. But whether or not slavery should be allowed isn't dependent simply on the group's preference to allow it. The arguments for slavery being immoral are valid even if the group refuses to accept them. Not at all, I'm saying that there are absolute ways in which groups should behave, even if, in practice, they aren't doing so.

You're conflating the making up of rules or laws with the logic which said rules or laws are predicated on to begin with, and obviously people don't make the logic up. Obviously, there are specific reasons that people make rules and laws against specific behaviors and not others. As an example, people may make up rules or laws against murder, but the harm which murder causes its victims is objectively verifiable, even if there is not a rule or law against it.

That fails to substantiate whether or not the norms are moral or should be the norms, since obviously society can and does change. That also presumes that everyone shares the same norms and the same moral compass, when obviously they don't (e.x. in the context of a drug cartel, murdering rival gang members may be a "group norm" even if such behavior is illegal and considered wrong by larger segments of society). Slavery used to be a "group norm", and the people advocating the abolition of slavery would have been the ones more likely to be "voted off the island". A lot of morality and ethics is based in rational and philosophical thought, not simply mindlessly repeating what is currently a norm, or otherwise there would be no social evolution or change from prior norms which would be considered primitive by modern standards.

What you're saying is a moot point, because society "forces people" to live their lives a certain way, whether it specifically comes from religion or not. And some collective morality isn't necessarily a bad thing. No one has the freedom to live their lives "any way" they want to, or else this would mean society is obligated to allow rapists the freedom to rape, or serial killers the freedom to murder. How are laws which forbid murder, for example, any different than a religion forbidding murder on the basis of a holy book? It's a pretty simple point. If people demanded the same amount of evidence for the existence of Julius Ceaser that exists for the theory of gravity, then there would not be sufficient evidence that Julius Ceaser exists. There is no repeatable and testable way to prove the existence of Julius Ceaser. The evidence for his existence is primarily anecdotal and relies on historical records.

That's a rather nonsensical and unsubstantiated quote. I'm sure that plenty of people thought they were doing "good" in aiding Hitler and Stalin's rise to power. How do you know an atheist wouldn't extract a person's heart? Where does this source of morality derive from?

Even though an atheist can claim they have morals or ethics, I would argue that immoral behavior is easier to justify as an atheist than as one who believes in a God, meaning that they are morally accountable to something higher than themself. An atheist could easily believe that, since there is no life after death, that any immoral behavior they want to engage in is justified so long as they escape earthly punishment, such as by the law. I'm aware that many atheists argue in favor of morality, but even if they do, I think they'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it, or render it entirely subjective and subject to the feelings and whims of the individual (e.x. an atheist may say they personally find killing people abhorrent, but if someone else does not find abhorrent, an atheist would have a hard time coming up with a coherent argument as to why that person shouldn't kill). An ultimately, even if an atheist believes that murder is absolutely wrong, they would have to simply rest this axiom on faith (meaning it would be little different than resting it on God or on the 10 Commandments).

For example, some have asked for physical evidence, which would be unnecessary to provide since God is not a physical being. Anyone can demand an arbitrary standard of evidence for anything. For example, I could demand that someone provide a video recording that proves Julius Caesar existed, and declare that unless such a recording is provided, that there is "no evidence" for Julius Caesar's existence (while naturally discounting any other types of evidence). The reality is that people believe in lots of things which don't have or need the types of evidence that one might provide for the existence of gravity, they're just very selective about it, and I think that often selfish or emotional reasons come into play here (such as people simply not wanting to have to mentally tax themselves inquiring about the existence of a God, or what it means about humanity's place in the universe, or their fate after death).

I'd argue that trust in the axiom that something should be supported with evidence in and of itself cannot be supported with evidence and is predicated on circular reasoning. This also doesn't touch on the fact that most people have not personally acquired the evidence, and are simply relaying what others have told them is evidence. Therefore, their faith isn't actually in the evidence itself but in individuals. (e.x. Most people have never traveled to the moon, so their faith in what the surface of the moon is reported to look like isn't evidence they have seen with their own eyes, but rather what others have told them. Even seeing a photograph of the moon's surface isn't the same as traveling there oneself and seeing it with one's own eyes). The irony is that this quote, if true, would argue that faith is superior, and that being a "disciple of truth" is a waste of time. That isn't my belief, since I think that trying to be intentionally ignorant of something wouldn't give a person true peace of mind. It would be more akin to getting drunk, and I don't believe that most reasonable people would agree that being an alcoholic is the key to true happiness. Regardless, it leads me to believe that Nietzsche didn't really think through much of what he said and makes me question why he is popular. Is there a "God" somewhere compelling people to "care about truth" even if they get nothing out of doing so? If not, then a person would be better off believing in Santa Claus if that's what makes them happy.

It's purely an armchair proposal, so if you can't take it for what it is and the point it was making and are going to get offended by it I don't know what to say.

I don't seriously consider them a demographic, I was just making it clear that this wasn't about anyone who merely suffers from "social awkwardness" or trouble finding a relationship.

I know the demographic I'm talking about, and it goes beyond simply suffering from "social ineptitude". Essentially, it's a demographic that thinks they're entitled to sex from women (e.x. because they're a "nice guy") and resents women due to not getting the sex they believe they're entitled to (e.x. "women like jerks; I can't get laid because I'm too nice"), possibly even going so far as believing that the government should force prostitutes to have sex with them because they can't get laid.

No, your strawman aside, for centuries it's been a case of elites asserting the superiority of one race over the other. Whites over the case of blacks in the context of much of American history. Rather, when it comes to facts, idiots will observe some "difference" and use it to form an erroneous worldview based on the difference. People could just as easily observe physical differences between members of the same "race" or even the same immediate family, and many of the conclusions they could form based on these differences would be just as erroneous. "Elites" is just a term used and abused in the context of populist rhetoric, the users of which do not seem to hold the same opinion of their own "elites" who feed them said rhetoric. And it seems that the one attempting to create division along the lines of race here is you, by making a blanket statement that "differences exist" without substantiating what you believe the differences to be, or what they actually mean in the real world.

No, it's pretty simple. If your argument is essentially that, prior to viability, a fetus is merely "part of a woman's body", then fair enough. However, if your argument ignores defining a human life altogether, and is essentially apathetic to whether or not a human life exists merely because it physically depends on the woman's body, then my analogy still applies. A born child will die if it isn't provided care, so it likewise depends on its parents, and naturally we have laws which require a minimum standard of parental care for born children. That's assuming that "differences" don't amount to stereotypes or hasty generalizations. If you're talking about physical differences, then this boils down to minor differences in anatomy and melanin levels, which are pretty insignificant to the human condition as a whole. If you're talking about something along the lines of differences in crime statistics between black and white people, then you'd be naive to think that some people don't take this and use it to form a denigrating worldview such as that "black people are more violent than white people", when in reality there would be more differences between socioeconomic levels, and we could easily change the paradigm from which we evaluate things altogether (e.x. if we compared the differences between "white skinheads" and "black Harvard graduates", we'd see higher rates of crime, drug use, and poverty among the former demographic than among the latter one).