Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabic code is a key influence for law and morality in the Middle East, including Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs.

---

Evidence?

---

Jewish law.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions.

---

Ahem.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Are you saying religionists follow divine law without regard for the harm it causes? Which is different from the idea that harm is not considered at all.

---

Your comment reads as disingenuous, quash. There are as many conscientious thinkers in religion as anywhere, and some would argue more.

The difference from where I sit, is that religious thinkers add the contention that God is able to offer a truly objective and absolutely trustworthy perspective, and so that is added to consideration.

A good example of this would be the oft-mistated "eye for an eye", rule, which did not demand penalty to match the harm caused by the offense, but rather limited penalty to the damage caused by the offense. This was revolutionary in its day, because it worked to prevent massive escalation on the basis of perceive offense. It also offered the option of taking the moral high road and excusing sins in the interest of greater peace and respect.

This concept was carried further in Jesus' teaching to his followers not to hold grudges against those who hurt them, but instead to pray for those who persecute you, which also was revolutionary in its time. Human thought on its own did not comprehend, much less embrace, such concepts.

---

Nothing disingenuous about it. I was asking TS to clarify.

---

Eye for an eye was part of the Hammurabic code, about 1800 BC and was not a religious code, or proffered by religious thinkers.

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabic code is a key influence for law and morality in the Middle East, including Judeo/Christian/Islamic beliefs.

---

Evidence?

---

Jewish law.

---

That's evidence against your position, not for it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.

Morals would decay and change rapidly.

Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

Morals are the products of culture and society, that is of people. In this case, one is evidence based, the other arbitrarily determined by clerics.

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

Here in 4000 BC, the evil Longhorn tribe over in the next valley would like nothing better than to exterminate your tribe and steal your land. What is the scientifically moral evidence-based response?

Should you (a) exterminate them first? (b) conquer them and make them the slaves of your tribe? (c) ignore them and wait for them to attack you at a time and place of their choosing?

Doc Holliday said:

---

A non religious society will be nihilistic and suicidal.

Morals would decay and change rapidly.

Society would break down as religion is used to herd the sheep (in a good manner). Without it...complete chaos.

---

Why do you believe that? People tend to live by their culturally imposed rules. The areas around the world that have the most chaos and violence are those with religious based law. The areas where the quality of life is highest, in terms of happiness and violence, are the least religious. The most violent countries around the world tend to be the most religious. The Bible Belt in this country has high crime rates, low literacy rates, and lowest per capita income. Finland, Norway, Netherlands, and Denmark are the happiest and least religious. They're not nihilistic and suicidal.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

*eats popcorn*

JXL said:

---

Here in 4000 BC, the evil Longhorn tribe over in the next valley would like nothing better than to exterminate your tribe and steal your land. What is the scientifically moral evidence-based response?

Should you (a) exterminate them first? (b) conquer them and make them the slaves of your tribe? (c) ignore them and wait for them to attack you at a time and place of their choosing?

---

A real conundrum. LOL!

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Why are there Buddhist houses for spirits in Thailand? Didn't Buddha supposedly walk on water etc.?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Why are there Buddhist houses for spirits in Thailand? Didn't Buddha supposedly walk on water etc.?

---

Again, step back and start with what you know, not what you assume.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Why are there Buddhist houses for spirits in Thailand? Didn't Buddha supposedly walk on water etc.?

---

You are conflating those who misuse a faith to advance superstition with the actual tenets of that faith.

There are, for example, people who handle snakes because they misunderstand the scripture, and try to use it for personal gain rather than to walk closer to God. This happens in all groups.

You may recall that Thomas Beddoes and Humphrey Davy, for example, had parties using nitrous oxide for recreation in 1799-1800. That does not mean that Science in general is just looking for ways to get high.


So too it is invalid to judge Religion in general by those who use it for personal purposes rather than in following its tenets.

Man, I do love me some Holy Rolling in the aisles, playing with snakes, and speaking in tongues! Now them are some folks that know how to get their Jesus on!!!!!

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Man, I do love me some Holy Rolling in the aisles, playing with snakes, and speaking in tongues! Now them are some folks that know how to get their Jesus on!!!!!

---

Sadly, those people get to know Jesus of Las Vegas, not Jesus of Nazareth.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

"According to Jain philosophy, all Tirthankaras were born as human beings but they have attained a state of perfection or enlightenment through meditation and self realization. They are the Gods of Jains."

Scientology absolutely believes in the supernatural.. Ask any Operating Thetan. Go have a tin can reading.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Reincarnation is a supernatural belief.

JXL said:

---

Here in 4000 BC, the evil Longhorn tribe over in the next valley would like nothing better than to exterminate your tribe and steal your land. What is the scientifically moral evidence-based response?

Should you (a) exterminate them first? (b) conquer them and make them the slaves of your tribe? (c) ignore them and wait for them to attack you at a time and place of their choosing?

---

Depends on where these valleys are located. My Bronze Age tribe may be able to go to the king for help with the Whorns.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Reincarnation is a supernatural belief.

---

That's your assumption.

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

"According to Jain philosophy, all Tirthankaras were born as human beings but they have attained a state of perfection or enlightenment through meditation and self realization. They are the Gods of Jains."

Scientology absolutely believes in the supernatural.. Ask any Operating Thetan. Go have a tin can reading.

---

Sources?

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Value and agency are quantifiable phenomena with objectively observable qualities of mass, volume, and weight. Determining the answer to any moral question is therefore a simple matter of measuring moral values under laboratory conditions. The scientific research in this area is voluminous and readily available.

At least I assume this is what TS will say. I'll be disappointed if all we get is another version of "the feel good answer is good because logic."

---

Don't you believe morality is better determined by what is in others best interests in terms of harm and well being, as opposed to a theocratic approach, based upon interpretation of primitive writings and claims of divine revelation by a cleric du jour?

---

You know what I believe. I'm interested in what you can prove. Scientific proofs have certain elements and a certain form. They require more than rhetorical questions.

I'm not asking you to tell me I should care about the best interests of others. Even religion can tell me that. I'm asking you to prove it scientifically.

---

Survival of the species. We're genetically wired for that.

---

We also have the ability to question what we're wired to do. Maybe what's in everyone's best interest isn't in the best interest of the planet. Maybe a smaller human population could live better and more sustainably.

---

A good argument for contraception.

---

Not to mention genocide.

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. Tho other depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

Seems to me your use of "evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark" is fundamentally no different in kind than using a system dependent "upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings". Both positions could be said to be arbitrary and circular.

---

That's not how evidence based decision making works. And it never shrugs off bad outcomes with "mysterious ways". It seeks to illuminate mysteries with facts.

---

Not my point. Sorry if that isn't clear. What makes "harm to others" a preferred criterion over other possibilities?

---

The need to provide viable cooperation and order to facilitate interaction in large groups of people. It's an evolutionary survival trait.

---

You cannot demonstrate/prove that facilitating evolutionary survival is "good" apart from some sort of derived value system. If everything that exists (as I think you believe) is the product of time and chance, then there is no basis for such concepts as right or wrong. Again, you arbitrarily assume survival as a good. Thereby assigning it a value which is no different in method from your view of the behavior of religious clerics.

You often refer to a "moral benchmark". Based on what? You might say, "harm to others". Again, based on what? Your opinion?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

My wife's family is Buddhist. You are wrong on both claims in terms of the structure and nature of Buddhism.

Try again without the assumptions.

---

Reincarnation is a supernatural belief.

---

That's your assumption.

---

There is no valid evidence of reincarnation. That is a conclusion, not an assumption.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Please tell me how Matthew 5 doesn't directly contradict your claims.

---

One was written ~ 1800 BCE and the other sometime after late first century CE.

---

One changed the world, the other was largely ignored in its own country of origin.

---

Hammurabi influenced the world during and beyond his time. Religion has changed the world. Islam is changing the world.

---

Agreed about Islam. There's no evidence Hammurabi changed the lives of ordinary people or how they lived.

And I'd suggest that not all religions have the same effect, purpose, or consequence.

---

Historians would disagree with you about the effect of the earliest known code of justice. So would the people who benefited.

All religions share a supernatural component.

---

First, historians as a group disagree on a great many things. Name the ones who support your claim and we can discuss it but no, you don't get to pretend they all say what you say.

As for your second claim, Buddhism for example does not have a supernatural component per se, nor does Jainism nor Scientology. I have varying degrees of respect/interest in those, but they are definitely religions and do not have a supernatural component.

---

That's not right. Buddhists believe in spirits and they believe Buddha had supernatural powers.

---

"According to Jain philosophy, all Tirthankaras were born as human beings but they have attained a state of perfection or enlightenment through meditation and self realization. They are the Gods of Jains."

Scientology absolutely believes in the supernatural.. Ask any Operating Thetan. Go have a tin can reading.

---

Sources?

---

Googled Jainism, read up on Scientology years ago.

BaylorFTW said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Science can prove harm to other's wellbeing. Judeo/Christian/Islamic god's law doesn't take harm to other's into consideration, but instead provides justification for barbarism.

---

Quote:

---

Oh yes, Christianity does. And don't forget when we gave you a chance to take your atheistic morality for a spin, you directly avoided the specific questions that put your morality idea to the test. Who is to say your system wouldn't cause greater harm in the long run and is thus inferior?

---

Quote:

---

I haven't avoided any questions. My view is the only one out here that considers evidence based harm to others as a moral benchmark. The others depend upon belief in a religious cleric's various interpretations of ancient writings. The OT, the NT and the Quran all promote immoral acts and beliefs, to varying degrees.

---

My point was that Christianity and God do take harm of others into account. Christianity raised the value of women in society and also brought protection to those who were oppressed. Its teachings encouraged the creation of charities and services for them whether it be almshouses, women's shelters, hospitals, schools, universities, orphanages, etc. And this was all done based on the morality set out by God in the bible. So you can't make the claim that God isn't taking the harm of others into account. In fact, God's prohibitions are designed to protect people and keep them from harm in much the same way a parent might put a curfew on their teenage son. That is technically a restriction of their freedom but it is done to keep them out of harm's way by keeping them out of some potentially bad situations.

Also, it is interesting that you are claiming it is a benefit that your worldview is morally flexible and can change with the time and culture. This implies that there are not absolute rights and wrongs. It would be interesting to hear you try to justify why rape is sometimes ok or the torturing of small children for fun could be ok. I think your worldview with such flexible morality will invariably lead to abuse and harm because there is nothing preventing it. Your worldview eventually creates an apathy in its people where nobody is able to criticize anyone else because morality becomes subjective. It will lead to chaos instead of order.

---

Humanistic morality is not absolute (yay) but it does have values that help in determining right from wrong. YOu choose two odd examples given that TS has already said that harm reduction is key. Humanism would have no problem saying that rape and child torture is wrong. FTR.