1. “Because humans need an incentive or a reason of sort to know there is a more supreme ‘judgmental core’ …”

Yes. But it DOES NOT MAKE IT REAL.

2. “Where does our morality come from?”

After years of science extracting God and the Supernatural from the sciences you ask a very strange question. Why not, ‘Where does our sense of humour come from?’ ‘Where does music come from?’ (Satan invented heavy metal music, I know.) Where does our morality come from?

The 10th commandment of the Bible permits slavery. Not many other people do these days, but the Bible does. You can own a slave, but it’s a sin to covet your neighbours. So that’s our morality from a divine omniscient source?

Is it so incredible to you that a family group of cavemen might have eventually stumbled across the notion that killing each other (family members, too) might have a detrimental effect upon the likelihood of survival of the entire group? That they worked out that stealing from each other caused harm and anguish? You don’t believe some alpha male chieftain might not keep the peace of wailing females and banish the offender from the tribe? Do you really think that the most reasonable conclusion you can reach is that an invisible reclusive space being told them that murder, and coveting a friend’s slave, was taboo? Social laws, like mammals, cannot evolve over time? They’re all Zzapped into being by a higher power that requires candles burnt in its name?

And 3. “There’s a higher purpose to us all living here.”

No, you WANT there to be a higher purpose to us living here. You have no evidence to support the statement that there is a Purpose, but no way to confirm whether people are lifted up into the sky, raised from the dead, walk through a tunnel greeting long dead relatives. But you’re willing to entertain the notion because it’s happier, nicer, sweeter than the alternative. Great use of your education, buddy. Pick your conclusion, and find something to support it. (Before you claim I am doing the same, the evidence reveals there is nothing supernatural at work. The evidence reveals great gaping flaws in the supernatural theories and writings. Conclusion: there is nothing supernatural. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing except stories based on ignoranance.)

There are many popular reasons for why people WANT there to be a God, but no good ideas about its veracity. Ultimately, belief in religion and supernatural correlates so highly with fear and ignorance, that it chipped away every defence for it I ever saw. Until I was suddenly free.

And being space dust in an extraordinary universe isn’t so bad. Much better than wasting my life in fear of some slave owning bronze age desert deity who will punish me for the sins I’ve committed, which if I have read the Deity’s text correctly, are only a fraction of that committed by Him.

Slave owning, genocide, infanticide… I dunno. Just seems wrong somehow. I eventually figured that out on my own. God didn’t. He is eternal and all knowing… which means he still holds the same views he did 4,000 years ago. Evil prick.

I must say I am tempted to comment to you, that if you say: ‘God doesn’t exist’, to take it further and be somewhat your advocate of anarchy and down-to-the-bone rational, cold empiricism and say: ‘There’s no such thing as ‘a good thing’ or ‘a bad thing’. It’s all about congered-up ideas, just deceptional ideals we prefer to hold on to out of a fear of harm, pain and suffering – in the end we know nothing and are worm meat.’ Because humans need an incentive or a reason of sort to know there is a more supreme ‘judgmental core’ that ‘corrects’ human behaviour and deters chaos (killing, rape, maltreatment, any crime you can think of etc.).

Apart from a highly deficient civil justice aparatus, I acknowledge that we truly live in a anarchically structured world – that’s a basic assumption for a student of International Affairs (like me). But my point of debate is rather: Where does our notion of Morality stem from? Also from a vain, proposterous, ignorant, naïve illusion of Law, Order and Harmony? I hope you disagree (as I do). I think that these notions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were (historically) preserved and handed down with the aid of religions too. Of course, some have added stringent accents that may seem foolish to our modern day world and living standards. But then, seeing what religions did by disseminating the necessary heritage (or gift) of ’sanctified’ moral standards… that can’t be bad, as long as lengthy Commandments (because look: you’ve written your own just now too) do not manipulate your life to the extent you feel ’stymied’ as a human.

There’s a higher purpose to us all living here. ‘Yeah yeah, procreation of the human genealogical tree.’ Done with it? Please, spare me the nihilist and ‘defaitist’ remarks now! You cannot deny that the majority of us – sociopaths, psychopaths and deranged dangerous people aside – ALL have a basic notion and nuanced standards for what’s right and wrong. I – for the love of ‘That unidentifiable Supremacy’ (or Deity) – cannot confirm nor deny these were all just ‘generated’ out of the experience of mankind over the ages. I truly believe them to have a transcendental origin. Why? Because the majority of us – who believe in a just society – allow these guidelines to be imposed on us. We choose to live by them because we experience the positive effects on our lives and of others. You can argue: We don’t decide about what anyone does, that’s the (civil) law to judge. And the law did get inspiration from the notion of (reciprocal) Justice, that’s true (although both notions are not entirely commensurate). I think we can’t be so complacent about our system of social norms, concepts of justice and penalty, are only borne out of ‘necessity’. They were born out of marvelous idea(l)s, that hold such an intrinsic value by their own right. I cannot think these were generated in an arbitrary ad-hoc way over time. They sprang forth of (due to a lack of subsantive vocabulary) ‘an Ideal Supremacy’.

The problem with global cooling is that it will likely kill off a great deal of plant life making worldwide famine a much greater likelihood. During the mini-iceage famine in Europe was widespread.

Like most progressives you haven’t been keeping up with the latest science and are still clinging to what the guys with the megaphone keep telling you.

Far more likely than global warming is another mini-iceage like the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715.

To borrow (regrettably) from Bill Clinton: “It’s the sun stupid.” While the sun is a very constant thermonuclear furnace, it is also a highly variable magnet. And when the sun’s magnetic output changes, so does the earth’s climate. During the twentieth century, we had the most magnetic sun in perhaps the last 8000 years. But for about the last 5 years, the sun’s magnetic output has fallen off a cliff.

The sun’s magnetic output is evident by its sunspots. The more magnetic, the more sunspots. The less magnetic the fewer sunspots. 2008 was the most sun-spotless sun since 1913. 2007 was also in the top ten of sun-spotless years of the last 100. And so far 2009 is keeping up with 2008.

So this is the new news. Get on board and read everything you can about the Maunder Minimum and a theory put forth by a solar physicist by the name of Henrik Svensmark which attempts to explain why solar magnetic minimums cause global cooling..

If this sun-spotlessness keeps up, many solar physicists think that by 2030 it will be very cold, and unfortunately this kind of cold will be much worse for humans than the most dire predictions of global warming.

The Jewish God, that Jesus and Mohammed borrowed from. The one bloodthirsty God of the desert. Why does some complex biological trait of some sea ameoba that still baffles scientists automatically mean the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god is therefore the answer?

It. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

Why not made by Zeus? Why not Odin? Why not it came into being by a three headed chicken who demands weekly prayer and would like you to eat the body of her son?

Science has kicked many goals. Your health, for starters. Transportation, Communication, etc etc. What is proven about religion or spirituality or the loch ness monster?

We have a collection of old scrolls that have been heavily modified, contain mistakes and contradictions. And they speak of all manner of supernatural things that can never be witnessed. For no supernatural things may ever be witnessed (shock!) Ultimately the greed for the pot of gold at the rainbow* leads people to conclude it was created by a leprechaun, instead of being due to light rays bending through the atmosphere.

A joyous celebration of ignorance in the 21st century.

*eternal life, forgiveness for sins, fiery punishment for my political enemies

“I would defend the liberty of consenting adult creationists to practice whatever intellectual perversions they like in the privacy of their own homes; but it is also necessary to protect the young and innocent.” – Arthur C Clarke

Religion: Science doesn’t understand A!
Science: Celebrate! We understand A!
Religion: Well, Science doesn’t understand B! *prays for Science to fail*
Science: Celebrate! We figured out B!
Religion: Uh… well-
Scientist: C! Hurrah! Now this opens up a cure for Cancer-
Religion: Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

“If you want to get rid of the notion of some kind of creator, you are going to have to either explain or destroy consciousness.”

Spot on.

Spirituality is okay though. I used my divining rods to find beer at the supermarket, the crystals I place around my bed has kept away bone cancer, and I read auras… angry people have a kind of dark aura, and people who smile have a light coloured one.

You’re right, spirituality is very different to religion. Religion’s not real.

So this entire debate is pointless. I’m sure you’ve debated with religious people before, so you must understand how pointless it is to argue with you.

But I am a believer in things to. I’m a believer in the welfare state, the beauty of nature, and the belief that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you (even if I’m a bit surly here at times). I think the human body is beautiful (well, ideally, and maybe only to about age 28 or so). I believe that no group of humanity is less human than another, and that every societal effort must be made to provide optimum conditions for all individuals.

I don’t believe that science is infallible – after all it is a process, not a thing, and processes are subject to trial and error. But without science, we are not even discussing this here.

And I don’t believe in god just like I don’t believe there are banshees in my closet. In fact, I’m so sure of these two things – among others – that I can safely say that there is no god (and no banshees). The notion of a god has long been (except for occasional entertainment) irrelevant to my life. But I’m an agnostic on any number of other things.

None of this equates with ignorance. (Not bragging here, non-belief in one thing or another holds for all of us.)

When I was a kid Protestantism meant paying special attention to the four gospels – the Jesus who engaged a preferential option for the poor, the meek, the sick, the crippled. I found that to be a useful philosophy even as I came to realize that a god is not necessary to explain the universe – it’s like adding an extra step. Somewhere along the line Christianity – not so much mainstream Protestantism which is in decline – but what had been considered fringe groups, came to the fore with a vengeful muscular Jesus, one that wants homosexuals, abortionists, pre-marital copulators, and liberals punished for their wicked ways. And a few deaths along the way should help keep them in line. This is a line of Christianity that conflated nationalism and patriotism with faith to the point that it celebrated the shock and awe as if it were the second coming. These are people who will casually tell you they believe in miracles – in fact, that triple-bypass they underwent was a miracle, it had little to do with the surgeon. They will drop god into a conversation as if we were all believers. They’ll tell me to have a blessed day. They’ll drop by the house with pamphlets. They want more Christ in our government and less government in our religions (though they don’t mind the tax exemption). They want mandatory prayer in schools – and teaching of the Biblical Creation in science classes. When on rare occasion I say I’m an atheist, they give me grief. I might as well have said I’d had sex with a goat. So as far as I’m concerned Christ and Christianity are an imposition. And if we wanted to live in a theocracy we’d immigrate to Iran or time-travel to medieval Europe.

As far as questioning my own side, what side would that be? I’m in no union of atheists – the thought of joining a group dedicated to non-belief in god is a bit silly. Of course, if they were part of a bigger fight to keep religion out of governance then that’s fine – in fact, there are still mainstream Christians who fight that good fight.

On the subject of morals I certainly know that moral humans predate Christianity – and Judaism, for that matter. I surely don’t think that organized religion invented morals. The phenomenon of morals/ethics have long been tackled by sociologists and psychologists, and anthropologists, biologists and geneticists. It’s not necessarily the province of religion.

scientists do not put people on wrack for not accepting their findings as true for an eternity; churches do that.
and churches employ an antipodal scientific method of discovery: first one assumes then tries forever to prove that the assumption is forever valid.
judaism had demanded that anyone who wld dispute its science shld be killed. no scientist, as far as i know, has demanded death for anyone who disputed their discoveries.

in short, priests/cutlists/shamans put the cart before horse and scientist do not or at least say “let’s see” or “maybe”.
from scientific work s’mthing new emerges: a tool, a drug, etc.
from churhces nothing new arises; their members still kill one another; still proclaim eterne ‘verities’; spew hatred, intolerance, etc. tx

- The Bible is full of contradictions that any online search will reveal. – It’s morally reprehensible with accounts of slavery, infanticide, genocide, incest.
- Those who wrote about Jesus did not know him, and wrote 30 years after his death.
- No supernatural event has ever stood up to scrutiny. Ever.

Religions always come down to…. ‘A very long time ago some people tried to explain the world, eventually recording this oral account after centuries, where it was modified and distorted throughout the ages by the church. It is now the indisputable word of God! …-which individual religious leaders distort to pursue their personal agendas.’

Why give this bronze age philosophy credence? Why not all primitive superstitions?

Epicurus understood this in 350 BC…

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

God will never appear (as he did so frequently in Biblical times). His priests are no more moral for their beliefs than atheists (see Catholic church). Praying does NOT heal you, science does. And the invisible and the non-existant look very much alike. 350 BC(!!!) and Epicurus understands it. And yet still, in 2009, people refuse to critically examine this primitive philosophy. How is that not ignorance?

I agree that some people use religion to try to justify heinous acts and therefore, I would condemn the acts. The bottom line for me is that to stereotype all believers or all non-believers misses the point. It is the acts that should be focused on. Religious beliefs can sometimes motivate a person to do good – sometimes to do evil.

Did Dawkins ever pass judgment on agnostics? Maybe that is the group that receives the most discrimination.