And.. that's religion.

[Mr_Quick]

Someone up here was talking about morals... we don't need religion for morals and ethics.

No, we don't need religion to have morals. What we did need religion for, prior to the advent of modern social science and neuroscience, was to explain and justify our morals in a way that made sense to people back then. Without an explanation and justification, our moral intuitions are just feelings, no different than any other. Religion provided early humans with a solid set of ostensibly logical reasons to favor good behavior over bad, which is essential when a person's motivations conflict (e.g. you want to steal something and are sure you won't be caught, but have a niggling sense that it's somehow not the right thing to do). Moreover, it provided moral and ethical teachings to reinforce and strengthen said moral convictions. In short, there's a reason why religion has been a major feature of virtually every known human society, and that reason doesn't have to be supernatural.

Also those 2 date back BEFORE christianity and so on. They actually reside in the early civilizations.

Since when did early civilizations not have religions? Nobody specified that the religion had to be Christianity as far as I can tell.

[Michael_Levitt]

Religious people: God exists, and he created the world etc.
Atheists: No, Science has proven God does not exist and you are stupid for believing it (not to mention that they did nothing to prove/test that themselves, but are just following what others have laid out for them).
The debate aside, atheists are often a lot less respectful in their arguments.

Also: Deism. If nothing else, the universe is just too damn orderly to have just happened. Not to mention this, which reconciles 6 days of creation almost perfectly with the 14 billion year age of the universe.

[VivienTx]

@ Mr. Quick.

I admit I was wrong and too hasty in my comments. I can find myself in your last post. I agree to that. Sorry (:

[Mahometan]

Religious people: God exists, and he created the world etc.
Atheists: No, Science has proven God does not exist and you are stupid for believing it (not to mention that they did nothing to prove/test that themselves, but are just following what others have laid out for them).
The debate aside, atheists are often a lot less respectful in their arguments.

Also: Deism. If nothing else, the universe is just too damn orderly to have just happened. Not to mention this, which reconciles 6 days of creation almost perfectly with the 14 billion year age of the universe.

Your two major assumptions are wrong.

One, science has not proven that God does not exist.
Two, the universe is chaotic.

[Michael_Levitt]

Your two major assumptions are wrong.

One, science has not proven that God does not exist.
Two, the universe is chaotic.

I was saying that that is what Atheists say. I personally say that the more science reveals, the more we since a divine plan.
But what does the universe being chaotic have anything to do with this? If anything, it is not chaotic, further proof of a divine being.

[Mahometan]

I was saying that that is what Atheists say. I personally say that the more science reveals, the more we since a divine plan.
But what does the universe being chaotic have anything to do with this? If anything, it is not chaotic, further proof of a divine being.

I haven't actually heard any atheist claim that science has disproven god.

The universe is not orderly, hence it is chaotic. Now perhaps god created a chaotic universe, or he simply didn't create anything at all.

God as prime-mover would be the most believable form of divinity for me, because in this case, god can basically equate to any exterior force which caused the big bang.

[Mr_Quick]

@ Mr. Quick.

I admit I was wrong and too hasty in my comments. I can find myself in your last post. I agree to that. Sorry (:

No worries. I can understand being trigger-happy given all the uninformed "WITHOUT RELIGION PEOPLE CAN'T HAVE MORALS" talk that people regularly spout on the internet.