What Happens When You Remove Faith

Taking definition of faith as #2 below (in yellow): When you remove arguments that are not based on proof, you are left with ones that are based on proof, logic, facts and guesses.Facts are things that we can validate as being true, either by proof or by elimination of other possibilities (guesses). Thus it is a fact that the earth is at least 4.5 billion years old, as lesser ages have been eliminated as contenders, but it is still a guess that the world is 4.55 billion years old.Guesses can (and do) range from wild out of the ballpark guesses (typical of creationist "rebuttals" to evidence that contradicts their belief) to high formulated guesses based on evidence and falsification of previous guesses: theories.Note that denial of evidence is not faith: The existence of contradictory evidence invalidates any argument that ignores it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : finished post

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What you are describing is instinctive behavior in (social animal) finches and equating that to morality. The conclusion then is that what we call "moral behavior" is instinctive social animal behavior, behavior that benefits the group. "Good" is then behavior that benefits the social group as a whole over the individual, and "Bad" behavior then is behavior that benefits the individual at the expense of the social group or behavior that is detrimental to the social group.But I fail to see how this has to do with the removal of faith, except that we can reach this same conclusion based on proof, logic, facts and guesses ... I think I know the one you mean: the study involved chimps in adjacent cages, but one had control over whether food was delivered to just themself or to both. I'm missing my link to that study too.There is also an example of morality in capuchin monkeys (the "organ grinder" monkey: Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says

quote:

---

If you expect equal pay for equal work, you're not the only species to have a sense of fair play. Blame evolution.

​

Researchers studying brown capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) have found that the highly social, cooperative species native to South America show a sense of fairness, the first time such behavior has been documented in a species other than humans.

---

Again this is explained logically by social group behavior that is beneficial to the group (if being in a group is beneficial for survival, then behavior that is beneficial to the survival of other members of the group is beneficial to individuals within the group).There is also examples of learned (and transfered) behavior that is beneficial to the group, in the case of Japanese Macaques: Japanese Macaque, Common Names: Snow Monkey, Nihon zaru)

quote:

---

Scientists have begun to rethink their ideas on culture within monkey society in a large part because of the Japanese macaques. It has been observed that the macaques invent new behaviors and pass them on by immitation. In 1963 a young female named Mukubili waded into a hot spring in the Nagano Mountains to retrieve some soybeans that had been thrown in by the keepers. She liked the warmth and soon other young monkeys joined her. At first the behavior caught on only with the young macaques and their mothers. Over the years the rest of the troop took up the behavior, which now finds shelter in the 109 F (43 C) hot springs to escape the winter cold. Young monkeys have also learned how to roll snowballs, which doesn't have any survival purpose, but with which they have a lot of fun, much like human children.

​

Potato washing by a troop in Koshima was first started by a one and a half year old female named Imo. Researchers would put sweet potatoes along the beach to bring the monkeys out in the open. Imo found that she could get the sand off the potato better by dipping it into the river water, rather than brushing it off with her hands, like the other monkeys were doing. Her brothers and sisters imitated her first and then their mother. Over time the entire troop took to washing sand off potatoes with river water. At first they simply washed the sand off, but Imo soon found that the potatoes tasted better if seasoned with salt water from the ocean. They began to bite into the potato then dip it into the sea water to season it and bite again.

---

Page down to the picture of the young Macaque with the snowball if you don't want to read the whole article.The lines between learned behavior that is transmitted ("memes") and instinctive behavior is blurred, but the result in both cases is behavior that is adapted by the social group for the benefit of the social group.Enyoy.Edited by RAZD, : )

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Isn't this circular definitions? Good is moral and moral is good?Synonyms: Christian, aboveboard, blameless, boy scout, chaste, conscientious, correct, courteous, decent, decorous, dutiful, elevated, exemplary, good, high-minded, honest, honorable, immaculate, incorruptible, innocent, just, kindly, kosher*, laudable, meet, meritorious, modest, moralistic, nice guy, noble, praiseworthy, principled, proper, pure, respectable, right, righteous, saintly, scrupulous, seemly, square, straight, true blue, trustworthy, truthful, upright, upstanding, virtuous, wAntonyms: bad, immoral, unethical Or we just don't observe the punishments. In either case we have instinctual behavior and learned behavior. Monkeys and chimps do have a more developed ability to learn ("monkey see monkey do" is true), and this could also make the difference. Troops that did not learn (or pass on the learning) to punish bad behavior would not have the edge on survival and reproduction that troops that did learn and pass on the knowledge would have.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Sorry for any disruption and for not being my usual self - however ...What I was responding to was the basic question: What happens when you remove faith from making decisions (morality is about making decisions, whether it is based on "X" or not). Arguments based on faith are actually another form of guess, but one that is accepted by the believer as true without question. As noted by Modulus this "pre-decision" is not a basis for making valid decisions: I have also been toying with the concept that instinctual group behavior (with social group behavior being partly instinctual) is part of the cause of religious behavior: religions appeal to the instinctual level to form and mold group behavior under a group leader or leaders, and that externalizing this to leaders outside the normal group limits may have been crucial to early human survival. Thus the instinctual basis is the reason we have evolved religions. This should be a new thread, and I haven't really put it together yet (my energy level is low these days). I think all you need here is the testimony of the numerous people who have lost their faith and the fact that they are not jailed mass murderers. One example disproves the idea that all are "freed" to do immoral things. We also have the examples of our prison populations (to resurrect another old issue): the population proportions of atheists to christians is the same (within the margins or error in the various not exactly comparable studies) in the prisons as in the general population, and if anything show that atheists are slightly more moral than christians (slight % fewer in prison, however other factors are involved, like education).Enjoy?

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ah. Missed that. Assuming the conclusion in the premise logical fallacy imho. Agreed. The fact remains that this does not occur every time: I believe that every YEC turned atheist on this forum has testified otherwise. This alone makes the conclusion invalid.You may get some that do, but you also get many religious nuts that kill their kids because some voice told them to: that particular immoral behavior is not prevented by their pet religion either, so it is doubly false to so assert.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

(d) stay away from such an insane country.The only reason to go to such a country would be to(e) actively try to change this custom (a pro-active (b)).More logical would be to stay away and wait 20-50 years and let the situation solve itself(see Shaker communities in New England for reference)
Shaker - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Turnover was very high; the group reached maximum size of about 6,000 full members in 1850, but now has only four members left.[1]

---

Where do the mothers come from? Even if all mothers were imported there would come a point where females would logically stop participating. The activists would be most productive at the borders convincing women not to cross: run out of women and you run out of children, run out of children and it is only a matter of time until the "nation" no longer exists.This solution allows for the rights of different countries to have different, even barbaric customs, and for the parents to take care of their children the way they see fit (an element of US law that allows parents to kill their children by withholding life support for religious reasons). It also would take care of part of the population problem.The problem that you are trying to create a situation where moral systems between two cultures collide, albeit with a drastic example. In any less drastic situation the answer could be (c).

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.