Ah- and that is a problem for an atheist- their moral code is no more right or wrong than anyone elses. So if one atheist believes that ritual killings are O.K., far be it for another atheist to protest that this is wrong.
Indeed. However, that is where the notion of 'consensus' comes in: one British atheist may contend that paedophilia is morally acceptable, but the vast majority of British citizens (atheistic or otherwise) contend to the contrary. Thus, paedophilia is illegalised.
Evolutionary theory and memetic theory both explain why such commonalities exist.
I maintain that the moral code that the Holy Spirit has implanted in our brain provides a universal standard- killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc.
There are untold thousands of civilisations that endorse killing in one form or another: from the US pro-gun hunters who kill for sport, to the soldiers in wartime who kill for money and/or patriotism, to the Aztecs who kill for their faith. Where was God's standard morality then?
Evolutionary theory may explain why a species cares for its young- those that didn't, tended to die out. But as for other ethical phenomena, I'm not so sure- wouldn't the law of the jungle prevailed, for example?
The what?
I would suggest these statistics are suspect- where did you get them anyway?
Holysmoke.org. Note that it may not work on all browsers; I used Google's cache to view that article.
Like, about 85-90% of human beings admit to believing in a Supreme Being- but only a small percentage are Christians that actually practice what they preach.
Nevertheless, atheists are far less likely to commit a crime than their Christian counterparts.
Good question- and I don't have an answer. I put that sort of question into the same bin as those concerning why children are killed in wars, die of cancer, etc. etc.
Yet it doesn't concern you that you worship an apathetic god?
What I meant was that some behaviors that help a species survive can be explained by evolutionary processes, but that ethical phenomena, such as whether a person is altruistic, patriotic, etc. cannot be explained by the "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest".
Yes, they can.
Altruism is beneficial to geneplex because the sacrifice of one altruistic individual benefits multiple other altrustic individuals.
Patriotism is beneficial to the society in which the patriot lives for obvious reasons: the society that acts as a team gets far more food and children, resources and territory, than the society that does not.
Other phenomena of the mind- such as being passionately in love with someone, marveling at the beauty of a sunset or an alpine flower, appreciating the unfathomable order of a Vivaldi symphony, or marveling at the art of a Vincent Van Gogh, are all matters that I maintain cannot be explained in a rationale scientific way, and therefore suggest the working of God.
So because you can't explain it with science, you contend that it must therefore be God?
Would it change your mind if I told you that concepts such as 'art' and 'beauty' are entirely explanable by evolutionary theory?
A great symphony is especially interesting- obviously, there is a phenomenal order involved, and yet nobody but the composer can understand that order and appreciate how it is able to captivate audiences hundreds of years later.
I dare say
What I meant is that the U.S. may be considered a "Christian Nation", but the number of people who actually subscribe to even the most basic beliefs of Christianity are much fewer, and those who actually practice their faith (attend church, tithe, stay married, etc.) are far fewer still.
With all due respect, what one Christian considers to be Christian beliefs may not be what you consider to be Christian beliefs (who's to say going to Chuch is Christian behaviour?).
EDIT: I thought a thread was automatically closed and "Thread (2)" was made, once this thread exceeded 1000 posts? Oh well...
