Actually, as I've argued before, all laws and rules made by humans and that rule society are based on someones personal beliefs.

Ummm, yeah ... but, no.

We don't kill (generally) because of pragmatic reasons. If we're free to kill whomever we wish whenever we want, we are subject to being killed just as easily. Since many tend to want to live as long as they can, we don't kill others in hopes that they'll think the same way and decide not to kill us either.

Also, if you want to account for all the bad things religion supposedly causes, you also need to account all the good things religion also causes. And in general, the overwhelming majority of religious people are good people who in their way try to do good. And often, their way of doing good doesn't even differ from the way atheists try to do good.

I agree that some people need religion to be good people, that's fine, atheists can also do good things and be good people. However, what you do see is religious people using their religion to justify bad things.

Meant in all seriousness ... .
Discuss the following:

1) Why have, and continue to be, murder and rape been "bad ideas" (to put it mildly).

2) Why was eating pork a bad idea? Why do Jews and Muslims still have a rule about it? Why do Christians not, when Jesus never said part of the New Covenant was the removal of the rule against eating pork? Is there a reason eating pork is no longer a bad idea?

3) Why was sex between two men a bad idea in the past? What was different then that may not have continued in to the present?

EDIT: Sure, if you need to believe to be good, that's fine. Right.

And now that I have given my own opinion on #1 in the question I asked (and I bet we could back up this hypothesis), anyone care to try #s 2 and 3 again?

1) Why have, and continue to be, murder and rape been "bad ideas" (to put it mildly).

2) Why was eating pork a bad idea? Why do Jews and Muslims still have a rule about it? Why do Christians not, when Jesus never said part of the New Covenant was the removal of the rule against eating pork? Is there a reason eating pork is no longer a bad idea?

3) Why was sex between two men a bad idea in the past? What was different then that may not have continued in to the present?

EDIT: Sure, if you need to believe to be good, that's fine. Right.

Answers:
1. if u need an answer 2 that Q, u definitively need a psychiatric help!

2.
- try to slaughter a pork in Middle east & prepare d meat...it will B clear 2 u! also, there is a problem about pork eating habits & it's meat...
- they live in Middle east...
- rule against eating pork was in Bible 'cause of their eating habits & it's meat...but many don't practice that rule...Christan & other...
- no, eating pork is still a bad idea...nutritionally!

3. gay sex is all about dominance & submission - analog 2 animal kind...even in old Greek a small boy would give himself 2 older man, but when he grows up he would dominate other boys...so nothing has changed!
also, all faiths says we r all equal...
;)

So, if the English swear word is not an abbreviation of "for unlawful carnal knowledge" but rather the English equivalent of the German "fokken" = "to strike" ... ?

Ummm, yeah ... but, no.

We don't kill (generally) because of pragmatic reasons. If we're free to kill whomever we wish whenever we want, we are subject to being killed just as easily. Since many tend to want to live as long as they can, we don't kill others in hopes that they'll think the same way and decide not to kill us either.

Really? You mean to say that the only reason you don't want to kill people is because you are afraid you might get killed in return? But otherwise you got no moral or ethical objections to killing people?

I think for most people that rationalization comes afterwards, something they make up because they are challenged on the supposed logic behind such simple things as why you shouldn't kill other people. You can't just say that you think killing is wrong because its wrong because that is not much of a logical explanation, so instead we come up with this argument so we can act that our morality is dictated by economic logic.

But fine, in the end your logic holds so its possible to argue that there is a logical reason not to promote pointless murder, or at least regulate when murder is acceptable and when it isn't. Thats one example against a whole host of laws and rules that exist because we all feel that they should exist based on our personal beliefs. Take for example the idea of private property. Its a man made concept that really makes little sense if you think about it. But look at the massive effects this simple idea has had on society, and the host of laws, rules and regulations that have spawned from this concept. A huge section of our judicial system exists solely to uphold private property as a workable concept, from property laws to criminal law, really from property law to criminal law. And the secondary effects that have also spawned their own sections of law, such as social welfare and poverty relief, those things all exists because of private property being a concept we believe in.

And unlike say pointless murder, there is no logical reason for private property to even exist. Indeed, for the vast majority of people private property is actually going straight against their interests. Its the reason we have haves and have nots, why there is poverty and why resources are allocated in a hugely unfair manner. It enables exploitation and dehumanization. So, supporting the idea of private property is little more than a personal belief, the belief that private property benefits society. And in this case, its a belief that underpins possibly the majority of laws.

EDIT: just to add, dare I say that the belief in private property is a religion in its own right?

Ummm, yeah ... but, no.

We don't kill (generally) because of pragmatic reasons. If we're free to kill whomever we wish whenever we want, we are subject to being killed just as easily. Since many tend to want to live as long as they can, we don't kill others in hopes that they'll think the same way and decide not to kill us either.

Really? You mean to say that the only reason you don't want to kill people is because you are afraid you might get killed in return? But otherwise you got no moral or ethical objections to killing people?

No, but that's how Phil Robertson (Duck Commander) would behave if it were proven to him that there's no God (or that some other religion was "the correct one" instead of his.)

But fine, in the end your logic holds so its possible to argue that there is a logical reason not to promote pointless murder, or at least regulate when murder is acceptable and when it isn't. Thats one example against a whole host of laws and rules that exist because we all feel that they should exist based on our personal beliefs.

It is my claim that laws came from practical considerations. The practical considerations could have existed for millenia before being codified into laws.

And unlike say pointless murder, there is no logical reason for private property to even exist.

What do areas such as biology and psychology have to say about the need for privacy? How does one have any time away from others if they have no private place to go? If they have a place to go, but it is not owned (or rented), then the possibility of privacy being invade may be greater because then why does someone else have to respect the desire for privacy in a public place? Are you so sure there's nothing pragmatic behind the development of the private property concept and the laws to uphold it?

Ummm, yeah ... but, no.

We don't kill (generally) because of pragmatic reasons. If we're free to kill whomever we wish whenever we want, we are subject to being killed just as easily. Since many tend to want to live as long as they can, we don't kill others in hopes that they'll think the same way and decide not to kill us either.

Really? You mean to say that the only reason you don't want to kill people is because you are afraid you might get killed in return? But otherwise you got no moral or ethical objections to killing people?

Here I thought the golden rule was a pretty good reason. I guess some people need a stone tablet, probably applied repeatedly to their cranium, to catch on.

---

Ummm, yeah ... but, no.

We don't kill (generally) because of pragmatic reasons. If we're free to kill whomever we wish whenever we want, we are subject to being killed just as easily. Since many tend to want to live as long as they can, we don't kill others in hopes that they'll think the same way and decide not to kill us either.

Really? You mean to say that the only reason you don't want to kill people is because you are afraid you might get killed in return? But otherwise you got no moral or ethical objections to killing people?

Here I thought the golden rule was a pretty good reason. I guess some people need a stone tablet, probably applied repeatedly to their cranium, to catch on.

Heh. :-D

No, but that's how Phil Robertson (Duck Commander) would behave if it were proven to him that there's no God (or that some other religion was "the correct one" instead of his.)

I think he said thats how he thinks other people would behave if there really wasn't a god.

It is my claim that laws came from practical considerations. The practical considerations could have existed for millenia before being codified into laws.

Well sure, all these laws regulating private property do come from the practical considerations of keeping private property a thing. But that doesn't mean that private property has practical or logical reasons for existing and by extensions it makes all these rules that aim to protect private property rules based on personal beliefs. Namely the belief that private property is something that should be kept intact.

What do areas such as biology and psychology have to say about the need for privacy? How does one have any time away from others if they have no private place to go? If they have a place to go, but it is not owned (or rented), then the possibility of privacy being invade may be greater because then why does someone else have to respect the desire for privacy in a public place? Are you so sure there's nothing pragmatic behind the development of the private property concept and the laws to uphold it?

Who says you would have valued privacy to begin with if private property was never a thing? And who says that people wouldn't know when to give someone some private space at certain moments or at certain places? Finally, does any of that weigh up against the fact that its private property that creates poverty, that turns people against each other and prevents them from cooperating more.

Ummm, yeah ... but, no.

We don't kill (generally) because of pragmatic reasons. If we're free to kill whomever we wish whenever we want, we are subject to being killed just as easily. Since many tend to want to live as long as they can, we don't kill others in hopes that they'll think the same way and decide not to kill us either.

Really? You mean to say that the only reason you don't want to kill people is because you are afraid you might get killed in return? But otherwise you got no moral or ethical objections to killing people?

Here I thought the golden rule was a pretty good reason. I guess some people need a stone tablet, probably applied repeatedly to their cranium, to catch on.

Pretty much my point.
Why is it we wish other do not bad things unto us?

No, but that's how Phil Robertson (Duck Commander) would behave if it were proven to him that there's no God (or that some other religion was "the correct one" instead of his.)

I think he said thats how he thinks other people would behave if there really wasn't a god.

It is my claim that laws came from practical considerations. The practical considerations could have existed for millenia before being codified into laws.

Well sure, all these laws regulating private property do come from the practical considerations of keeping private property a thing. But that doesn't mean that private property has practical or logical reasons for existing and by extensions it makes all these rules that aim to protect private property rules based on personal beliefs. Namely the belief that private property is something that should be kept intact.

1) His hypothetical scenario not only to applies to his thinking that atheists are immoral and unethical, but also to what he must think would happen to Christian behavior if they suddenly found out they were wrong.

(Without looking up Es' specific post, it was because of Robertson's sick rant that I said, "Sure, some people need religion." And Ozz recently pointed out that there are other ways to kick alcoholism than Alcoholics Anonymous and its implicit/explicit reference to a higher power.)

2) Again, you've evaded something I've brought up that I do not think is necessarily minor. I've read Marx, and I've read research by Soviet researchers on math education. While they tried to get things to fit the Soviet mold, they did not focus on one thing. So, again, I ask: what biological imperative, if any, might have pragmatically inspired the concept of private property in the first place? (Whether rules have kept the concept in place is another issue and is not the one I am addressing.)

(On a perhaps related note: why do any socialists get married?)

So, again, I ask: what biological imperative, if any, might have pragmatically inspired the concept of private property in the first place?

Well, (dig it deep), woodpeckers, squirrels and big game hunting cats will all hide excess food so they can come back for it later. I think that is the concept of private property. Since those all branched off the family tree a long long time ago, it seems to be pretty well buried in the DNA of most everything on the planet.

---

2) Again, you've evaded something I've brought up that I do not think is necessarily minor. I've read Marx, and I've read research by Soviet researchers on math education. While they tried to get things to fit the Soviet mold, they did not focus on one thing. So, again, I ask: what biological imperative, if any, might have pragmatically inspired the concept of private property in the first place? (Whether rules have kept the concept in place is another issue and is not the one I am addressing.)

(On a perhaps related note: why do any socialists get married?)

Biological imperative? None. I think it more or less happened when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started settling down and working the land. I suppose that once we started living in separate houses and working individual plots of land, its likely that people start to designate their houses and the land they work as theirs.

But biological imperative? Yeah, that doesn't exist as far as I know. Also, there are still tribes around the world that don't recognize the idea of private property.

So, again, I ask: what biological imperative, if any, might have pragmatically inspired the concept of private property in the first place?

Well, (dig it deep), woodpeckers, squirrels and big game hunting cats will all hide excess food so they can come back for it later. I think that is the concept of private property. Since those all branched off the family tree a long long time ago, it seems to be pretty well buried in the DNA of most everything on the planet.

Those are all pretty individualistic animals. Humans are social creatures that operate in groups. A group functions better if its members take care of each other, which wouldn't be the case if a few people kept excess food to themselves while not sharing with the rest of the group.

2) Again, you've evaded something I've brought up that I do not think is necessarily minor. I've read Marx, and I've read research by Soviet researchers on math education. While they tried to get things to fit the Soviet mold, they did not focus on one thing. So, again, I ask: what biological imperative, if any, might have pragmatically inspired the concept of private property in the first place? (Whether rules have kept the concept in place is another issue and is not the one I am addressing.)

(On a perhaps related note: why do any socialists get married?)

Biological imperative? None. I think it more or less happened when we stopped being hunter gatherers and started settling down and working the land. I suppose that once we started living in separate houses and working individual plots of land, its likely that people start to designate their houses and the land they work as theirs.

But biological imperative? Yeah, that doesn't exist as far as I know. Also, there are still tribes around the world that don't recognize the idea of private property.

Sounds like some sweeping generalizations in these last two posts.
Perhaps I should be asking anthropologists, biologists and historians.
Also, at least some of those tribes you were referring to were exploring longer and perhaps had the idea of private property re-imposed upon them by those that had settled a long time before beginning to explore again.

God was invented by the small minority of clever "Haves" to keep the vast majority "have nots" from stealing their booty. So they invented the concept of heaven and a big reward after you die to dissuade the have nots from breaking their laws. Great scam, because when you are dead it's hard to come back and complain that you were bilked.

It was relatively easy to control or eliminate those who didn't buy the lie by promising loyal soldiers an even bigger piece of the pie, again after they died.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

God was invented by the small minority of clever "Haves" to keep the vast majority "have nots" from stealing their booty. So they invented the concept of heaven and a big reward after you die to dissuade the have nots from breaking their laws. Great scam, because when you are dead it's hard to come back and complain that you were bilked.

It was relatively easy to control or eliminate those who didn't buy the lie by promising loyal soldiers an even bigger piece of the pie, again after they died.

You stated the essence of that before.
You never responded to my legitimate question.
The haves and have-nots is perhaps 12000 years old, from around the time of domestication of animals and agriculture beginning.
Evidence of worship goes back at least 30000-40000 years.
So, was God invented by those you claim or, once they came to be (with the God concept already in existence), did they take advantage of it along with so many other things they take advantage of?

God was invented by the small minority of clever "Haves" to keep the vast majority "have nots" from stealing their booty. So they invented the concept of heaven and a big reward after you die to dissuade the have nots from breaking their laws. Great scam, because when you are dead it's hard to come back and complain that you were bilked.

It was relatively easy to control or eliminate those who didn't buy the lie by promising loyal soldiers an even bigger piece of the pie, again after they died.

You stated the essence of that before.
You never responded to my legitimate question.
The haves and have-nots is perhaps 12000 years old, from around the time of domestication of animals and agriculture beginning.
Evidence of worship goes back at least 30000-40000 years.
So, was God invented by those you claim or, once they came to be (with the God concept already in existence), did they take advantage of it along with so many other things they take advantage of?

In my opinion your second explanation fits the facts. Early humans were apparently highly superstitious and like I have stated before needed an explanation for why natural events happened. Why does it rain, why are there draughts, why are there floods, why do volcanoes erupt, what are the stars and so on. They came to the conclusion that a god or gods caused things to happen and about the time humans shifted from being hunter gatherers to living in ever more organised communities the leaders and shamans got together to figure out how they were going to keep the population under control and gradually worked out the precepts of religion. They used the already in place concept of god(s) and created an atmosphere where the fear of god and themselves was used to control behavior. So they told the people that they were appointed by God to rule them and a combination of brutal punishment here on earth for misdeeds and a promise of a happy bountiful afterlife kept most of the masses in line. It has been ingrained in the human psyche for so long that modern humans, even in the face of massive evidence of how things really work, still believe in heaven and hell. My question is, where are heaven and hell? And without them in some form religion has no basis of operation and no hold over men and women.

When you think about it without bias it makes sense, doesn't it.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

P.S.
I also think that law and order might collapse without religion. I think that most people need something to believe in outside themselves and belief in god is that something that puts structure in their lives.

I see on TV every day now commercials about how God has a plan for me. Well, guess what, I want a new plan.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I also think that law and order might collapse without religion.

So do I.
The Golden Rule is a religion to me.
No God needed.

If there was a God, then every one in
the whole world would be Canadian!

:):)

---