The Limits of Religious Belief

If 75% object to abortion they should simply refrain from it. The other 25% should also mind their own business. And, let's not forget, of course they should abstain from being raped.
​ Since being with God is the highest goal for evangelicals, I don't see why you have a problem with abortion. 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in a miscarriage. If God is so great, why doesn't he prevent them? Either he can't and is less powerful than presumed, or he won't and is less benevolent than presumed. In the latter case it's God who should stand accused.

There are many examples. There's a video on YouTube that shows a buffalo helping a tortoise lying upside-down. With its horn the buffalo flips the tortoise and then goes about its business. It has nothing to gain from helping the tortoise, so why it does it is anyone's guess, but it seems very much like a moral act on the side of the buffalo.Another example of morality in non-human animals is the indignant reaction of a monkey that gets treated unfairly. That's another video on YouTube, you can look it up.The primatologist and ethologist Frans de Waal has studied the phenomenon of moral behaviour in animals. You can take a look at his TED-talk. In it, that same monkey is featured. The previously mentioned examples should suffice, unless you think that these non-human animals are religiously inclined. But other than that, the age-old precept of "Treat others as you would like others to treat you" is probably as good a starting point as any. (By the way, it is noteworthy that this adage does not figure anywhere in the Ten Commandments, which in my opinion makes them rather lame.)

"Thus"? Do you mean that this universal condemnation is a logical consequence of the action of this one disobedient dustman? Such perverse logic defies any attempt at contemplating its merit. It's disgusting. But not enough, apparently, to be reasonable and not hold that first dustman's mistake against the rest of us. It's just more severely confused logic.

Well, the action of the buffalo to flip the tortoise with its horn is not accidental. The buffalo even has to try a few times to succeed. It's clearly a deliberate act. Now, the buffalo does not gain any advantage by flipping the tortoise, which precludes a selfish interest on the part of the buffalo. That makes it not only a deliberate, but also a selfless act. To me, a deliberate selfless act by one creature to remedy another creature's bad situation strongly suggests a sense of good and bad. It's not absolute proof, but it sure is an indication, in the sense that the evidence points to this possible explanation. In any case, I dare you to come up with an alternative explanation based on animal emotions only.
​ Initially, the monkey was satisfied with a piece of cucumber as a reward every time. But when it saw that the other monkey was rewarded with a grape whereas its own reward was still a piece of cucumber, it seems its sense of fairness kicked in. The fact that it even threw its reward away with an angry gesture and slapped the board with its hand so as to demand a grape suggests this explanation even more strongly. If it had been a human displaying the exact same behaviour you would not hesitate to call it indignant behaviour.The differences between species are on a gliding scale, not only as far as morphology is concerned, but also in behavioural aspects. Just as you tell me that I "have no idea that [...] an emotion was due to some moral principle", I can tell you that you can't possibly know for sure that animals have no concept of morals. And neither can I be absolutely sure that they do have them, but then again: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, remember? If it acts like a moral agent, it likely is one.
​ Again, you can't possibly know this for sure.
​ It is a universal concept that even a child could come up with. It's found in many cultures all over the world, ancient and modern alike, in some form or other. It certainly isn't the exclusive Jewish prerogative to claim it as their invention, as you make it out to be.

Hi Percy,
​ The only source of this is a book that has been written almost two thousand years ago, and that has been copied, adapted, edited and rearranged through the centuries. The original account, as far as it can be discerned, could be the result of Paul having a stroke, having eaten funny mushrooms, describing a bad dream after a copious meal, or just plainly confabulating an unlikely story to get attention. Those are all far more plausible explanations than that it really happened. How anyone in the twenty-first century can be so gullible as to take this Biblical account as literal truth is beyond me.