Good behaviour doesn't require superstition.

Without going in to a huge discourse on it, as it would inevitably lead us off topic, yes I find it difficult to believe. Though I will say that one piece of anecdotal evidence in the favor of your proposition that I've noticed is that the greater the intelligence of a creature, the more they seem capable of mild forms of philanthropy, which is reciprocity.For instance, there are stories of dolphins helping drowning victims. A fish would not even have the mental capacity to know you were drowning, let alone help.Altruism is not just doing nice things in the hopes that someone will do something nice for you in return. A truly selfless act goes against natural selection since the only premise of natural selection is survival! Does the selfish gene explain why MA2 (SEAL) Michael Monsoor jumped on a live handgrenade, knowing full well it would kill him? No, as it is the very antithesis of natural selection.When these actions come about there are few words to describe such nobility. And dry science terms have never sufficed to describe such ineffable actions. Depends on what you would constitute as looking after their poor. Their poor may be directly because of them in the first place. Besides, how does one qualify a theist country with a non-theist country? Think about that. Truth by definition can only be understood in absolute terms. If I ask if 2 + 2 = 4, that is either a true statement or a false statement. There is no in between. That's the nature of mathematics, and that's nature of truth. Speaking of relativity, that is totally subjective. Your version of good behavior may vastly differ from what you refer to as non-infidel countries. And if its all relative, who is to say which is right or wrong? You thereby emasculate your own argument. Its worth mentioning that the so-called most "advanced" nations also have the highest rates of suicide and depression. This would insinuate that the comforts of Western living have not produced a better way of living, especially if its citizens find life unlivable. Poorer nations don't seem nearly as prone to the problems of the West, even if they superficially appear as if they have more reason to kill themselves.I think that says a lot about the gravity of the situation. Yeah, but doesn't everybody think that, regardless of specific belief? For instance, I'm pretty sure you view catastrophic should the world be ripped back in to a middle ages mentality. You aren't religious, yet you still identify with a similar rationale -- that if things aren't the way you envision them, society will be going to hell in a hand basket.This is not unique to "religious" people. Explain to me how religion produces any of those things in the first place? A non-religious American could die of a coronary at the exact same time, in the same way as a religious person would in the US. You are equating eating habits as a religious problem, rather than what it actually is -- a social condition. Some people find it enjoyable to go to church. Some people find it enjoyable to sleep in on Sunday. To each his own.In the final analysis, you seem to invent a false dichotomy -- namely that religion is the source of all the worlds problems, and by ridding the world of it, we'd live longer, our violent tendencies will all but melt away, we'll kill ourselves more, but who cares because it isn't immoral?, and we can sleep in on Sunday.I guess I'm just not all that impressed with your argumentation.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

I think your understanding of this is flawed.First, the "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer, and wasn't even a part of Darwin's theory. It was added a decade later by someone else.And second, much of evolution works at the populational, rather than the individual, level. Favorable mutations spread through populations, while unfavorable ones often are fatal to a single individual. Also, with many populations group cooperation is critical to survival, rather than individual strength. Look at baboon groups.This is why grandmothers, past childbearing age, can influence the spread of their genes--through child care, passing on accumulated knowledge, etc. By helping the population at large her own genes are passed on as well.So no, altruism is not the antithesis of natural selection; it is a survival mechanism.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

People that jump on grenades and people who opt not to have children pretty much dispel the notion that natural selection is all that drives the human condition.These stale, ad hoc explanations have never sufficed, and I doubt they ever will. We're not amorphous blobs or a random collocation of well-formed cells imprisoned by our DNA.Its in these actions that I've always seen a spark of the Divine, whether I fully comprehend it or not.And in this way, I see what C.S. Lewis meant when he said, "We don't have a soul, we are a soul."

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

We lose our perspective in modern society. Think back to when these traits would have evolved. Small tribes in which not only were many members related, but also which directly provided the support for one's widow and orphans. You watch out for your other tribe members, even giving up your own life, in order to protect them and, indirectly, to perpetuate your own genes both through your kin and by ensuring that your own progeny and kin would be provided for to maturity.Coyote mentioned "survival of the fittest" (to be honest, I didn't follow who had brought it up; I only saw Coyote address it). OK, so what is fitness? Which is more fit? The meanest most arrogant SOB in the valley? Or the one who cooperates with others? The SOB would be more fit if we were not a social animal and if the case were that it was everybody for oneself. Is that the situation? Or rather was that the situation when these traits (could we call them "instincts"; perhaps better to call them "proclivities")? I would submit, "hell no!".Back in hominid tribal prehistory, no hominid was completely self-sufficient. OK, maybe some were, but the ones who could support and provide for themselves and a mate and be able to successfully raise a brood to mating maturity, a brood that itself could do the same as their Pa did, for generation after countless generation? I would think that the chances of that line surviving would have been vanishingly small.Now, a cooperative line would be more successful, more fit. A team player. One who would join with a tribe and cooperate with tribe members, even to the point of sacrificing himself for the tribe. Because the tribe sticks together and takes care of its members. Through cooperation, the group ensures the survival of all its members, even the weakest and most vulnerable. Spreading one's seed is the least significant act in ensuring the survival of one's genes; the significant act is ensuring the survival of one's progeny to reproductive maturity. And the key to that survival is the survival of the tribe. So the survival of the tribe can indeed trump one's own personal survival.OK, that was then. So this is now. There's no tribe anymore, it's a super-tribe. We're no longer related in some way with our fellow super-tribe members. We get assigned to a hunting party nowadays (AKA "co-workers", AKA "ship-mates", AKA "brothers in arms") and we can be nearly absolutely guaranteed not being related to anyone in our combat squad (most especially after the Sullivan brothers). So why would we act altruistically? Why would we not only be willing to lay down our lives for people not even remotely related to us, but would do it without a second thought?The reason is simply that that is the way that our brains are wired. Oh, to be sure, combat training plays directly on those "instincts" that we're wired with and for good reason (I have myself served for 31 years and have three more years before they force me to retire). And our brains didn't get wired in the present day, but rather in the ancient past, in the tribes populated by our relatives and by those who would directly care for our family and our own personal contribution to the gene pool.How could altruism possibly not be due to natural selection? No, we are not amorphous blobs. At last count, most of us are five-pointed, in keeping what I seem to recall of oriental philosophy connecting our bodies with the five elements (the Oriental view adds metal to the four standard Occidental elements of fire, earth, air, and water). Nor are we any "random collocation of well-formed cells" , though I know of no system of thought outside of the false theology of "creation science" that would make such a claim (that idea most certainly has no place in evolution). We are intelligent (meaning possessing complex personalities and complex brain functions) social beings living in a complex social environment that has developed beyond anything that we have been prepared for biologically. And part of that social development includes ideas about religion and the supernatural. What we have developed into is by no means simple nor simplistic. Yeah, well, the "Divine" has always been used to explain what we do not understand. That's called "God of the Gaps", which is a false and losing theology.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

---

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

I'm an atheist and I try to treat people fairly, contribute to human happiness in general, and treat people as I'd like to be treated.I do this because it seems most reasonable to me. If I want to be part of a decent, safe society, I should act in a way that is consistent with that goal. it also seems most logical to me to treat others the way I want to be treated. I'd like to think everyone would think this way, but I don't really believe in a totally objective universal morality.

It's strange that you should give that as an example, because it would be used as typical "selfish gene" type example. Monsoor's action saved three out of four near identical genomes of his (instinctively perceived) tribe. All four could have been lost.250,000 years ago, four young men are hunting with crude basic weapons on the savannah in Africa. One of them realises that a pride of lions has approached stealthily and is about to attack, and that there are five or six in the pride, meaning they could all be killed. He runs into the open screaming, distracting the whole pride away from his brother and cousins, and giving them the chance to reach the nearest trees.Three out of four "Monsoor" ancestors live to pass on their genes (complete with altruistic characteristics), but had he run for the trees, the lions may have killed all four. See what I mean?If I were putting forward your argument, I'd have picked suicide as a better example, but as you say: Just to illustrate this for you. Scandinavians send aid to highly religious Africa, not the other way around. There aren't theist and non-theist countries which is why I used the phrase "the countries with the highest levels of non-theism" in the bit you quoted. But reality is not mathematics.The hill near my house is high. True or false? Well, err...relative to what? I just googled "half true" and got 180 million results! Half-true. That's why I explained in an earlier post that I'd used homicide as an example, because it is easy to get a pretty general liberal/conservative consensus. And you agreed.Get into stuff like staying married for life, and the poor, traditional religious societies do well, although it could be said that staying married for life might be easier if your life expectancy is nearer 40 than 80. So yes, you see how things are relative and subjective.Actually, that staying married for life stuff isn't as clear cut as we might guess, as American infidels are better at it than fundies, as I showed in an earlier post. Yes, that's interesting, but I've spent a lot of time in the "developing countries" (poor/religious) and frankly, it would be impossible to get any reliable statistics for depression (no-one gets treated for it), and because of taboos, we don't know how likely families are to describe a member's suicide as suicide, either. One thing I can tell you, though, the flow of migration is from these societies into the "suicide" ones, and, in spite of prejudice and discrimination, language problems etc. not many about turn and go back.Having said that, westerners do put themselves under ridiculous amounts of stress, mainly due to greed and competition, and we would also be better off, IMO, living closer to nature. Sure. What I'm pointing out, though, is that the religious worries don't make sense, because looking at the societies with the lowest levels of religiosity, there's nothing to fear. Remember, I'm talking about countries where you can practise whatever religion you want yourself, so it's really about the kind of people who want everybody else to follow their religion.But if you know anything about the realities of England in the middle-ages, I'd have a logical reason to be worried. I'm over the average life expectancy, for example, and if you're not, you won't be far off it! And that's when the black death wasn't sweeping the land. As for the killing rate, it was extraordinary, but that's Christendom for you.On the plus side, lovely countryside, more wildlife, no real industrial pollution, and more imaginative and colourful dress code. What we need is the best of both worlds. You can surely see that religion effects sex education and the related issues, can you not?However, small exceptions like that aside, I'm not arguing for a direct correlation between religion and problems, as I've said in a few posts above. It can be, for example, that religion is a symptom coming from a cause, and that cause also has other symptoms which are problematic.Let's take your eating problems, for example. Supposing we found out that the 50% of Americans who believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old are more inclined to obesity than the other 50% on average. (Would that surprise any Americans reading this if that were true? It wouldn't surprise me).Now, obviously people don't over eat because they are YECs. But supposing the unhealthy lifestyle and the religion were both the product of the same underlying cause, like, maybe, general ignorance. See what I mean? (Religion might be involved in a complex feed back loop that agravates problems, but it's not the direct cause of the obesity thing, obviously). Far from it. Religion is not the cause of all the world's problems, although I would argue that it is often a major problem, especially in the many areas where there's religious based conflict (obviously). As I explained above, it can be a symptom as well as a cause, and its role is complex. I wouldn't expect you to be impressed.

An anecdote was offered in a Unitarian-Universalist sermon. A Baptist child is doing her Sunday School assignment to talk with ministers of other churches to learn about the teachings of other churches. When he interviews a UU minister, she's shocked to discover that we don't believe in Hell.
She: "If there's no Heck, then why should we be good?"
He: "Because it is the better way."Similarly, the real purpose of morality is not to placate any god nor to avoid punishment. Rather, it is for the general order. It is to enable us to all live together as smoothly as possible. Both to ensure that society works smoothly and to ensure that, as much as possible, everyone's well-being is seen to.And the fundamental basis of morality is in how we regard and treat each other.

I would agree that it's certainly typical of a strict naturalist. It just also happens to make no sense, and seems like a wild stab in the dark. Yes, I'm sure he was thinking about their genome's as he leapt on the grenade. Come on, Blue, that's silliness While the story is certainly entertaining, it also is nonetheless completely speculative, right? These National Geographic scenarios, which are elaborate fantasies rooted in little to no fact, are no less compelling than a god of the gaps theory. In fact, these kinds of scenarios are no different, albeit one is theological and the other is atheological. So what are you trying to tell me? That caucasians are genetically more prone to altruism than negros? Because I could also just as easily point out the myriad of North American and European missionaries who help numerous African countries too. The irrelegion/religion connection to generosity would effectively end there, in which the next question would be if different races produced more or less altruism.See, it isn't difficult to fashion an elaborate myth out of shreds of truth. Just like religion in your eyes, irreligion has its mythical tales full of wonder and mystery too. While they provide a meaningful backdrop, it is nonetheless foolish myths rooted in little to no fact.

quote:

---

Think about that. Truth by definition can only be understood in absolute terms. If I ask if 2 + 2 = 4, that is either a true statement or a false statement. There is no in between. That's the nature of mathematics, and that's nature of truth.
  —nemesis

---

So it would be an illusion that a Jaws-of-life hydraulic system using 10,000 psi to extricate you from a twisted, mangled wreck that once was your car, but now is potentially your coffin?Even so, you understand the point of the exercise, I gather. Either something is true or it is not true. Either we have the precious selfish gene or we don't. Does that deal with reality or fantasy? Some things are relative. There is no question about that. If I took a poll and asked a group if they would consider you a tall person, you might get varying perspectives. A Pygmy might be inclined to say that you were tall, but a giant might be inclined to say that you were short. But if I asked a true or false question that isn't subjective, like, you are, say, 6'0 ft tall, that isn't subjective. That is either true or false. There is nothing relative about it. You either are or you aren't. Is the Christendom killing rate extraordinarily high now? If not, what changed? Or could it be simply that ascribing death to a person's religious faith, or lack thereof, justification for assuming the reason why they kill to begin with?You may be creating false dichotomies and false parallels via anecdote. I can't disagree with that.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

My story had nothing to do with what he was thinking. It was about altruistic instincts, and what their advantage to the genes might be. Obviously, it's speculative. There was no children's magic in my story. We're talking about cultural phenomena, which has nothing to do with race. I was trying to provoke your religious mind into the realization that the world doesn't seem to need this thing called religion. Of course religious people help other religious people, but they rarely need to help the irreligious, do they? If you or I send sign a check for aid, it'll be going to a religious area of the world, which is just another way of saying that religion seems to thrive where there's poverty.The implications of this, for you religious people, is that if we truly solve world poverty in the future, there'll be less religion in the world. You don't think there's a connection between religiosity and poverty?The rest of your post refers to mine, and I'll have to read back to find out what we were talking about! Don't get yourself suspended in the middle of discussions.

What? You believe that we breed in a completely rational manner? Plotting out every consequence of all our actions and all the possible outcomes in our progeny? Do you actually believe that? Have you seen breeding in action? Believe me, there's nothing rational about it. If your experience is different, then please share.What results from breeding is what results. What survives and propagates through the population is out of our hands. What has a better chance of surviving to breed itself, and to provide for its progeny to survive long enough to breed itself, etc for generation after generation after generation, etc, etc, etc, etc. Are you starting to get the idea? Even if not, then the lurkers most certainly are.Altruistic behavior within a tribe benefits one's own genes as the tribe takes care of the family of the one who had sacrificed himself for the benefit of his comrades. Did he do that consciously or almost instinctually? The obvious answer is: Almost instinctually. Because that kind of decision, made in an instant, is very rarely arrived at by a completely logical reasoned syllogism, but rather made by the gut. As Joseph Campbell quoted a policeman who had saved a suicide leaper at the very real risk of his own life (from memory, lo siento): "I had to do it; if he had died then I would have died too." That is not rational thought speaking there. If I may suggest: it is due to the influence of Universalism. Now, I have to admit that I have not been an active member of my church (UU) over the past five years or so. But in one the last sermons that I heard, our minister explained why the Univeralist church had failed. Because it was so stupendously successful. So many of the mainstream churches embraced its message of the Love of God (in opposition to the prevalent, now Fundamentalist, gospel of God's Wrath against us), that it ended up having nothing different to say than any mainstream church -- that led to its decision, in 1961, to merge with the Unitarian church, with which it had for so long had very little in common (Standard UU joke, expressed by famous 19th century Unitarian and Universalist minister, Thomas Starr King (one of the two statues California contributed to the Congressional rotunda, since he had broken the tie to keep California in the Union during the Civil War) (from memory): "Universalists believe that God is too good to damn anyone to Hell; Unitarians believe that they are too good to be damned to Hell".Universalist influence has staunched traditional Christian bloodlust. Fundamentalists are striving to reverse the trend.That's not a joke. Indications are that American society is becoming increasingly polarized. Mainstream church membership is dropping, while both the fundamentalists and the unchurched are growing in numbers.And, frankly, I see "creation science" in whatever chameleon-like incarnation it currently employs as being instrumental in this polarization. To the "faithful", it describes the hard line that they must follow, no matter what, even if it must completely disregard the truth. To the normals, it demonstrates that Christians believe fervently that Christianity must rely solely on lies and deception, that it has nothing else going for it. That it is pure crap.You want us to have a different view of Christianity? Then send us a different message. Duh?PS
Just a rather nasty after-thought:
If, in accordance with that UU anecdote I had related about the Baptists Sunday School student, believers are only good because of the promise of reward (or, at least, the avoidance of eternal punishment), then how could they possibly ever behave altruistically? You believe that if you do what God wants you to, then you'll be rewarded and if you do what God doesn't want you to do then you'll be punished (but then you could still do all kinds of bad things, just so long as you ask for God's forgiveness, etc; our first dog was also very "Catholic" -- we would banish him to "his room" (a cage under the desk) as punishment, so whenever he'd do anything wrong he'd automatically go there, then immediately come out wagging his tail since, in his mind, he had already done his pennance and was completely forgiven).Now, if an atheist performs an altruistic act (which we do, BTW, much more frequently and willingly than you could possibly imagine), what possible reward could he be seeking? No reward from the supernatural, that's for sure. At the most, it would be enlightened self-interest, that by promoting good and polite and considerate behavior, he would promote that kind of behavior in others and so be benifitting society at large, which would benifit him. Of course, those fracking selfish Christians who only care about themselves will surely screw everything up!Nu? (if you must consult a Yiddish dictionary, then by all means please, please do so; despite the multitude meanings of "Nu", you should hopefully be able to understand this one)Edited by dwise1, : The PSEdited by dwise1, : Added emphasis.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

I thought my sarcasm was obvious. Well, I've bred on quite a few occasions in my lifetime. My actions were deliberate, and so were the females. I assume you are speaking about copulation and not merely breeding in the sense of children. But your arrival at the conclusions is unfounded and completely speculatory. You have imagined this elaborate scenario for why Monsoor jumped on the grenade. Obviously he did it for his comrades. What we don't know is what would have compelled him to do such a thing, whereas, arguably, most people would have instinctually dove in the opposite direction of the grenade.According to his Medal of Honor citation, he was the only one by a doorway, with a clear escape. Instead of fleeing with his own life, he chose to smother the grenade with his body. Dwise, you are speaking about Universalists and Fundamentalists as if they battle these homicidal thoughts. Give me a break. Name me the last outbreak of Christians slaughtering people in the name of God, as opposed to recent slaughterings of Christians in the name of God. I guarantee more bloodshed has been inflicted upon Christians, than Christians have inflicted on others.Secondly, Christianity does not equal infallibility. Should a self-proclaimed Christian run counter to the very clear teachings, you have to wonder if that individual is a Christian at all. There are very clear tenants within a religion which makes it easy to see if they have gone astray. In such a thing as atheism, there are no guidelines whatsoever. Dwise, I really can't describe myself as a Christian, but I definitely lean towards a theology of sorts. I do know, however, that there are many, many selfless and devoted Christians in existence who simply share the love of God and not fire and brimstone. It is unfortunate that the scumbag televangelists leaven the whole lump. But I can assure you that most churches aren't filled with them. I can't think of a person who does nice things for some cosmic prize. In fact, the argument is that since God is love, according to the Bible, doing things of that sort is ingrained within the human conscience. Also in accordance with scripture, it wars with the other side of us. Dwise, I am not contending that one must be religious in order to do good towards man. Apparently Jesus thinks so too. There is a passage where Peter comes running up to him and says (paraphrasing) "These people are healing the sick but not in your name." Peter was shocked and indignant by their audacity. Jesus simply told Peter to chill out and let them do good.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

It's not a numbers competition NJ, unless your argument is that Christianity is morally superior because its genocides were less effective.Anyway, since you ask, ever heard of the Lord's Resistance Army?Joseph Kony - WikipediaThey may not have the numbers, but on sheer brutality, they have any Jihadist beat.

---

Mutate and Survive

I wasn't the one making the assertion. The assertion throughout this thread is that atheism produces more moral people than Christians, which is silly, not because it is or isn't true, but because these kind of comparisons are asinine.I was merely challenging the latest assertion of Dwise. Yes I have, actually. Ugandan mercenaries of all walks seem evil to me. If you'll note, Idi Amin was an atheist, and look what he had done in Uganda. Is there some connection? Can I now scourge atheists all across the world? Can I now scourge Christians all across the world now?Try and remember that it was Dwise and Bluegenes that have asserted that Christianity is responsible for all this death. When I ask for a paper trail showing this, no one can produce anything substantive.In my opinion, we are asking the wrong questions with the polarization. It's not that atheists or Christians, in and of themselves are evil for any particular brand of atrocity, but rather a common thread that unites them. Angry fundamentalists. They both share more in common than they have differences."The blustering televangelists and the atheists who rant about the evils of religion are little more than carnival barkers. They are in show business, and those in show business know complexity does not sell. They trade cliches and insults like cartoon characters. They don masks. One wears the mask of religion, the other the mask of science. They banter back and forth with predictable soundbites, and promise, as all advertisers, a simple and seductive dream. This debate engages two bizarre subsets who are well suited to the television culture because of the crudeness of their arguments. One distorts the scientific theory of evolution to explain the behavior and rules for complex, social, and economic ans political systems, and the other insists that the six-day story of creation in Genesis is fact, and Jesus will descend from the sky to create the Kingdom of God here on Earth. These antagonists each claim to have discovered an absolute truth. They trade absurdity for absurdity. They show that the danger is not religion or science. The danger is fundamentalism itself."

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

If the ancient and respected aristocratic name of "bluegenes" is mentioned in relation to unsubstantiated assertions, could it be accompanied by relevant quotes, please?Thankyou, Mr.Juggernaut. This thread, if you read the O.P., is really a reaction to religious people (not only Christians) who seem to say or imply that the world will fall into moral decline or chaos if their religion(s) are abandoned.

That's the very problem, though. You haven't given anything in which to quote. I can't very well give counter evidence to no evidence at all. At most you've simply made the declaration As I pointed out in an earlier thread, EVERYONE thinks the world will fall in to moral decline if their view is abandoned or neglects to be instituted. Pat Robertson thinks the world will decay if not everyone is a Christian on his terms, and Sam Harris thinks the world will decay if religion remains at all.The difference is which side you choose to align with. But it should be noted that most people probably reside in the middle of the road, not straying too far to either side. And maybe that's where we all need to be so we are objectively trying to learn instead of excoriate.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo