Any one care to take a swing at this?

[b&wpac4]

You seriously can't believe that mankind is basically good. "Evil" doesn't just mean not killing and raping. It can also mean indifference, lovelessness, selfishness, greed, corruption, laziness, jealousy, apathy, prejudice, hypocrisy, judgmentalism, pride, vanity, deception etc.

Based on all those criteria, would you still say that mankind is basically not evil?

I think your terms are problematic.

Pride is only bad if over emphasized. A good amount of pride drives us to better ourselves.

A bit of greed drives us to work harder to get a better job, to do better for our family.

 

[BlackSabb]

Black Sabbath

Maybe you should note down that in evloutionary terms, good deeds are about replication, we do good deeds, becuase

A: It benefits the group.
B: Theirs a chance they will do the same thing back.

Now sometimes good deeds seem illogical, this is becuase the emotional brain, (the one that is primarily responsible for altruism), where as the neo-cortex (the brain that helps us draw up long term plans, learn etc/ side note, the major difference between us and other animals is our neo-cortex we have larger one than any other animal) is the "logical" brain.

Evoloution is crude, slow and bloody and never fully stops, the fact that we do alturistic things that do not help our conciounce is a flaw that has yet to be ironed out.

Note: In my eye's however that makes charitable deeds no less noble I personally try and make sure I give £1 to charity a day. Hurray me!!

Mankind can be evil, but it can also be wondrful.

Stop throwing things into arbitrary categories of good and evil man... I know it's simpler to just cut people down the middle. But it doesn't make sense in this complex world.

You are attempting to explain both good and bad in mankind by way of evolution which are contradictory. There is just no natural or evolutionary explanation why man would perpetrate evil and sacrifice himself for others.

But both good and evil are perfectly explained by both the divine spark in all of us, and the temptations of God's opposite counterpart which exerts influence on all of mankind. A conflict between the two, which explains both the evil and charitable of mankind.

 

[Fin12]

You are attempting to explain both good and bad in mankind by way of evolution which are contradictory. There is just no natural or evolutionary explanation why man would perpetrate evil and sacrifice himself for others.

But both good and evil are perfectly explained by both the divine spark in all of us, and the temptations of God's opposite counterpart which exerts influence on all of mankind. A conflict between the two, which explains both the evil and charitable of mankind.

I've already explained to you, the "sacrifice yourself", reason.

And what does the exhistance of your arbitrary definiton of evil have anything to do with evoloution?

Thiers an interesting fact about termites... would you like to know it?

 

[BlackSabb]

Thiers an interesting fact about termites... would you like to know it?

Sure, why not? They eat more wood when exposed to heavy metal?

 

[Fin12]

just to say heavy metal ftw!!

99% of male termites are tottaly sterile, yet they happy to work for the hive.

See if you can figure it out, within that fact, their is one reason for sacrificing yourself for "family".

 

[BlackSabb]

just to say heavy metal ftw!!

99% of male termites are tottaly sterile, yet they happy to work for the hive.

See if you can figure it out, within that fact, their is one reason for sacrificing yourself for "family".

That's actually no sacrifice at all. If they're mostly sterile, then it makes sense that there would be a primary program built into them expending their energies on other things-building the hive.

 

[Fin12]

All the termites are incredibly genetically similar. The differences genetically are almost none.

Evoloution does not support the survival of individuals, it supports the survival of gene's. They may never get their specefic gene into the pool, but if they work on the hive, their is a huge chance that gene's that are also theirs will get in.

Could I ask into what proof you have that animals have no concience?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why did humanity survive for 250,000 years before the bible was written?

Did it really? What exactly, did humanity do?

 

[b&wpac4]

Did it really? What exactly, did humanity do?

You tell me. Even from your point of view, Abraham, Noah, Adam, Eve, Cain... all these people existed before the Bible was written.

 

[atomweaver]

There is just no natural or evolutionary explanation why man would perpetrate evil and sacrifice himself for others.

Incorrect. Google "evolution of altruism" to allay your ignorance on the topic... A brief review of game theory might help, too.

But both good and evil are perfectly explained by both the divine spark in all of us, and the temptations of God's opposite counterpart which exerts influence on all of mankind. A conflict between the two, which explains both the evil and charitable of mankind.

Balancing desire for personal gain with the desire for the protection/benefits of life within a group/pack/tribe/city/nation does so, also, but without appealing to supernatural explanations. Occam's Razor, FTW!

But seriously, if you need the Bible and God to perpetuate your own morality, then please please please keep being a theist. Just realize that not everyone shares that need.

 

[blook]

Did it really? What exactly, did humanity do?

Lot's of things. Probably less diverse than right now, but that's also due to the smaller population back then. For one humanity separated itself from the less intelligent apes, learned to walk upright, discovered fire, learned how to make tools, domesticate animals, became top predator of the world, multiplied it's numbers. Among other things.

 

[Belk]

You are attempting to explain both good and bad in mankind by way of evolution which are contradictory. There is just no natural or evolutionary explanation why man would perpetrate evil and sacrifice himself for others.

How do you know, are you an expert on social dynamics with regard to evolutionary theory? In point of fact there is quite a lot of good reasons why mankind is capable of both.

Prisoner's dilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a good example. If you read the section on The Iterated prisoners dilemma it contains reference to the "Tit for Tat" program, which shows that there is a distinct survival advantage to those who show altruism, as long as the others they are cooperating with behave in the same fashion.

But both good and evil are perfectly explained by both the divine spark in all of us, and the temptations of God's opposite counterpart which exerts influence on all of mankind. A conflict between the two, which explains both the evil and charitable of mankind.

Where did the evil originate from if God is the creator of all and everything he creates is good?

 

[Zebra1552]

Check out Hammurabi's code sometime, or do research on Canaanite religion. Judaic morality was either borrowed from or a reaction to neighboring societies. It was the concept of monotheism and being "set apart" that made them distinct, not the moral code.

Even the famous "Love your neighbor as yourself" of the NT was taken from the OT, not a wild new revelation.

I quoted the following when I asked that question:
"The Bible got its moral codes from various earlier pagan and abrahamic traditions so to chalk morals up to the Bible alone is rather silly and short sighted."

Do you care to answer the question rather than back it with more claims? I don't care about Hammurabi or the Canaanites, mere similarity does not prove causation and assuming that it does is a fallacy. You should be familiar with what those are.

 

[Zebra1552]

I was unaware that statement needed backing, seeing as it's pretty much common sense...

Which part isn't?

Hm.... the bit about evolution, the Bible being illogical... probably all of it? You made one assumption right after the other. There's no evidence to back it that you've listed. Just a bunch of claims and assumptions.

 

[Sammy615]

Hm.... the bit about evolution, the Bible being illogical... probably all of it? You made one assumption right after the other. There's no evidence to back it that you've listed. Just a bunch of claims and assumptions.

Well, when asked why humans have morals if they don't originate from the Bible, or any other religious text, it's quite simple. Just as I stated. Humans have developed a mentality that in order to continue their line, and keep the species from dying out, they must work together. (You can see this evidenced in many animals as well, like when monkeys pick bugs out of each other's fur and when zebras circle injured herd members to protect them from predators.) This is why it serves no good to rape and murder and hurt our fellow man. This is why we feel close bonds with our family, even though some people have families that they can't exactly be proud of. And by the way, that's basically the standing of most people who don't feel we developed morals from the Bible. And um, it is common sense. Look around you, you'll see it.
And secondly, have you read the Bible? Because hardly a chapter goes by without something physically impossible happening. This makes it illogical. Logic tells me that people don't come back from the dead. Logic tells me that a single family is incapable of populating the entire earth(at least without severe mental defects). Logic tells me that people can't be swallowed by giant fish and survive inside them. Logic tells me that wine can only be made from grapes, no matter what sort of hocus pocus a magic man performs. Logic tells me that women don't get turned into pillars of salt for not obeying God. Logic tells me that it's okay to come into contact with a woman when she's menstruating. Logic tells me it is impossible for the God of this earth to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. What other sort of evidence could you possibly need?

 

[sidhe]

I quoted the following when I asked that question:
"The Bible got its moral codes from various earlier pagan and abrahamic traditions so to chalk morals up to the Bible alone is rather silly and short sighted."

Do you care to answer the question rather than back it with more claims? I don't care about Hammurabi or the Canaanites, mere similarity does not prove causation and assuming that it does is a fallacy. You should be familiar with what those are.

So, you expect causation to be proved historically over a span of almost 4000 years? Sorry, all you'll get is correlation and a timeline...and the timeline indicates that the moral code of the Hebrews came later, and most likely borrowed from existing legal/moral traditions of the era.

We'll start back in ca. 2100BCE, with the Code of Ur-Nammu.

The laws are arranged in casuistic form of if-(crime), then-(punishment) — a pattern to be followed in nearly all subsequent codes. For the oldest extant law-code known to history, it is considered remarkably advanced, because it institutes fines of monetary compensation for bodily damage, as opposed to the later lex talionis (‘eye for an eye’) principle of Babylonian law; however, murder, robbery, adultery and rape were capital offenses.

That sounds familiar, and reading the examples is like reading Leviticus...

8. If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered the virgin slavewoman of another man, that man must pay five shekels of silver.

Then the Laws of Eshunna:

The Laws clearly show signs of social stratification, mainly focusing on two different classes: the muškenum and awilum. The audience of the Laws of Eshnunna is more extensive than in the case of the earlier cuneiform codifications: awilum – free men and women (mar awilim and marat awilim), muškenum, wife (aššatum), son (maru), slaves of both sexes – male (wardum) and female (amtum) – which are not only objects of law as in classical slavery, and delicts where the victims were slaves have been sanctioned, and other class designations as ubarum, apþarum, mudum that are not ascertained.

Which would be similar, of course, to the layering of laws for the Levites, laws for the priests, laws for slaves, laws for Israelites, laws for dealing with foreigners...

Then we have the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760BCE):

3. If any one brings an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if a capital offense is charged, be put to death.

Again, that seems very familiar. These were written and formalized law codes a full 800-1100 years before the earliest estimates of the composition of the earliest parts of the Torah, the J passages. J passages are estimated to have been compiled ca. 950BCE. Israelite morality and ethics are laid out within Mosaic law - it is, after all, the will of G-d.

So, we have earlier recorded legal/moral codes of the area which follow the same "If-then" pattern of Mosaic law, which call for monetary penalties in addition to corporal/capital penalties, which come from areas which the Israelites would have been familiar. Not causative proof, of course, because we don't have time machines, but it does indicate borrowing from other cultures rather than a single divine revelation.

After all...the Codes of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi both claimed only mortal inspiration.

 

[Zebra1552]

And secondly, have you read the Bible? Because hardly a chapter goes by without something physically impossible happening. This makes it illogical. Logic tells me that people don't come back from the dead. Logic tells me that a single family is incapable of populating the entire earth(at least without severe mental defects). Logic tells me that people can't be swallowed by giant fish and survive inside them. Logic tells me that wine can only be made from grapes, no matter what sort of hocus pocus a magic man performs. Logic tells me that women don't get turned into pillars of salt for not obeying God. Logic tells me that it's okay to come into contact with a woman when she's menstruating.

You're confusing the matter. It is not logically impossible, it is scientifically improbable. In order to deny its possibility you would have to prove each and every law your above listed 'examples' breaks to be true beyond any doubt whatsoever. All I need to do in that case is cite the Bible and I have enough doubt to disprove your law.

Logic tells me it is impossible for the God of this earth to be omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. What other sort of evidence could you possibly need?

Then prove that God cannot be all three if it's 'logically impossible'. Prove that the creator of the universe, who established the scientific probabilities you list as broken and breaks them quite regularly, cannot do what your mind cannot comprehend possible. You need all the evidence in the world if you're going to start talking about logical impossibilities without understanding what they are.

 

[Zebra1552]

So, you expect causation to be proved historically over a span of almost 4000 years? Sorry, all you'll get is correlation and a timeline...and the timeline indicates that the moral code of the Hebrews came later, and most likely borrowed from existing legal/moral traditions of the era.

We'll start back in ca. 2100BCE, with the Code of Ur-Nammu.



That sounds familiar, and reading the examples is like reading Leviticus...



Then the Laws of Eshunna:


Which would be similar, of course, to the layering of laws for the Levites, laws for the priests, laws for slaves, laws for Israelites, laws for dealing with foreigners...

Then we have the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 1760BCE):



Again, that seems very familiar. These were written and formalized law codes a full 800-1100 years before the earliest estimates of the composition of the earliest parts of the Torah, the J passages. J passages are estimated to have been compiled ca. 950BCE. Israelite morality and ethics are laid out within Mosaic law - it is, after all, the will of G-d.

So, we have earlier recorded legal/moral codes of the area which follow the same "If-then" pattern of Mosaic law, which call for monetary penalties in addition to corporal/capital penalties, which come from areas which the Israelites would have been familiar. Not causative proof, of course, because we don't have time machines, but it does indicate borrowing from other cultures rather than a single divine revelation.

After all...the Codes of Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi both claimed only mortal inspiration.

It indicates similarity in style, sure. But trying to discount it as 'just another story' because it 'might be a copy' isn't going to get you very far if you don't have enough to show that it is, in fact, a copy. At least, not if you're being intellectually honest/objective.

 

[keith99]

Check out Hammurabi's code sometime, or do research on Canaanite religion. Judaic morality was either borrowed from or a reaction to neighboring societies. It was the concept of monotheism and being "set apart" that made them distinct, not the moral code.

Even the famous "Love your neighbor as yourself" of the NT was taken from the OT, not a wild new revelation.

I could argue there is one part of their moral code that sets the Jews apart the surrounding cultures. The idea (not yet fully flowered) that the moral treatmetn of outsiders should be the same as insiders. Centuries ahead of its time.

 

[sidhe]

I could argue there is one part of their moral code that sets the Jews apart the surrounding cultures. The idea (not yet fully flowered) that the moral treatmetn of outsiders should be the same as insiders. Centuries ahead of its time.

Yep, that is part of the differentiation.