(January 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I wonder have our morals really improved or do we kid ourselves that
because of our technology we seem on the surface to be more advanced.

Our morals have really improved.

Nations cooperate much more when disasters strike.
Capital punishment is not carried out in the more civilized nations.
Even war has rules now.

We are more tolerant to people of different sexual orientations women are more equal and not treated as things.

Slavery is frowned on.

The list goes on and on as to why morals are better now than in biblical times.

If you look for the most moral time in history it is now.

And the best part is, Plumb; another two centuries will see our morals even more improved and religious teachings even less common than they are today.

How strange it is, huh? The less and less of a grip religion has on affairs of state, personal life, and education, the more decent human beings act towards each other. Could just be coincidence. Something tells me it isn't.

(January 5, 2013 at 7:49 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I wonder have our morals really improved or do we kid ourselves that
because of our technology we seem on the surface to be more advanced.

Our morals have really improved.

Nations cooperate much more when disasters strike.
Capital punishment is not carried out in the more civilized nations.
Even war has rules now.

We are more tolerant to people of different sexual orientations women are more equal and not treated as things.

Slavery is frowned on.

The list goes on and on as to why morals are better now than in biblical times.

If you look for the most moral time in history it is now.

Some of what you say may be true, so although I don't agree with Capital punishment is non-Capital punishment a measure of civilization and by what benchmark do we define whats civilized or not?


Nations do co-operate more but is this due to a different morality or the technology to know quickly whats happening all over the world and to respond to it.

Yes slavery is frowned on ( I should hope stronger than frowned) but is what the modern society offers the less well off so much better?

Homosexuality is argued by many to have been quite well accepted in ancient times and that the intolerance of Monotheists is due to a misreading of the homosexuality quotes in the bible from specific types of events related to rape or participating in pagan practices in honour of other Gods and applying them to normal loving homosexual relationships. I can understand their position without endorsing it ( i'm in the don't know club ) but it doesn't affect my dealings with homosexuals as I just see a person.

some would say civilization is only skin deep and when put under stress and a restraining hand of authority is lifted the results are not pretty but i'm not sure how much this has been tested.

(January 5, 2013 at 8:22 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: some would say civilization is only skin deep and when put under stress and a restraining hand of authority is lifted the results are not pretty but i'm not sure how much this has been tested.

Some authority is required to keep order but the worst abuses occur when authority is involved.

Look at Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan under the Taliban and Europe in the middle ages.

The problems occur when authority gets too intrusive, this is amplified if they think they have a mandate from god.

(January 5, 2013 at 8:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 8:22 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: some would say civilization is only skin deep and when put under stress and a restraining hand of authority is lifted the results are not pretty but i'm not sure how much this has been tested.

Some authority is required to keep order but the worst abuses occur when authority is involved.

Look at Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan under the Taliban and Europe in the middle ages.

The problems occur when authority gets too intrusive, this is amplified if they think they have a mandate from god.

I agree and it was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church when it did gain temporal power in my opinion. But to say we shouldn't allow our beliefs to influence how we interact with society would be also just as dangerous and not just for Theists.

(January 5, 2013 at 8:42 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I agree and it was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church when it did gain temporal power in my opinion. But to say we shouldn't allow our beliefs to influence how we interact with society would be also just as dangerous and not just for Theists.

That depends on the beliefs.

(January 5, 2013 at 8:45 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 8:42 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I agree and it was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church when it did gain temporal power in my opinion. But to say we shouldn't allow our beliefs to influence how we interact with society would be also just as dangerous and not just for Theists.

That depends on the beliefs.

you seem to be full of good answers today, what did you have for breakfast?

(January 4, 2013 at 4:58 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: So the first Theist was an Athiest at the start and just invented GOD. Where did he/she get the idea from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog

(January 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I know I will never win anyone over by proving GOD exists

How do you know? How are you making that claim to knowledge?

And before you go and respond to rhetorical questions let me say this, no, you're wrong, if you prove "god" exists with rational verifiable evidence and data, you'd make one of the most significant discoveries of our time, you'd win noble peace prizes, you'll easily win those of us over who care about what is real, your "god" gets added to what we currently know and understand about reality.

What you mean to say is, its beyond your capabilities to convince anyone that any of your arguments for the existence of a magical being lacking a clear positive ontology, are either rational, sound or, remotely sane.

(January 5, 2013 at 8:42 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 8:35 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Some authority is required to keep order but the worst abuses occur when authority is involved.

Look at Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan under the Taliban and Europe in the middle ages.

The problems occur when authority gets too intrusive, this is amplified if they think they have a mandate from god.

I agree and it was the worst thing that ever happened to the Church when it did gain temporal power in my opinion. But to say we shouldn't allow our beliefs to influence how we interact with society would be also just as dangerous and not just for Theists.

Facists monopolies should be faught, but fascism is not what most westerners or even atheists avocate.

It is dangerous to influence politics with terms of absolutes either relgion or political party. In as such, it is not wise to have your personal beliefs on religion become the law of the land. Your response just another veiled attempt to stay relevent.

Religion will not die by force, but it should be questioned at every turn and it is fighting an increasingly losing battle in the face of modern understanding of reality.

You are intitled to your own beliefs, and as a human rights issue you are also intitled to express them. But none of us are intitled to our own facts.

(January 5, 2013 at 11:59 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(January 4, 2013 at 4:58 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: So the first Theist was an Athiest at the start and just invented GOD. Where did he/she get the idea from?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sUPvDZfog

(January 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: I know I will never win anyone over by proving GOD exists

How do you know? How are you making that claim to knowledge?

And before you go and respond to rhetorical questions let me say this, no, you're wrong, if you prove "god" exists with rational verifiable evidence and data, you'd make one of the most significant discoveries of our time, you'd win noble peace prizes, you'll easily win those of us over who care about what is real, your "god" gets added to what we currently know and understand about reality.

What you mean to say is, its beyond your capabilities to convince anyone that any of your arguments for the existence of a magical being lacking a clear positive ontology, are either rational, sound or, remotely sane.

LOL so now the burden of proof is mine to prove I won't win any of you
guys over. I tell you what I can't prove it so you win. I was wrong.
Thats one lost battle I can live with.