ligesh

This is the moral argument in favor of God, and the only thing that acts against it is the statistics. It almost seems a truism to state that the belief in God will make a man more moral. I don't know how you are going to refute that theoretically, I mean. Not using the statistics or anecdotes from your experience.


The fact that theists are not more moral than atheists itself would need explanation. There is no theoretical reason why a theist (or at least a true-theist) could be anything less than absolutely selfless, or at least follow the religious doctrine perfectly.

ligesh

That's why you need the massive modularity theory (MMT) proposed by Evolutionary Psycholgy, and also my own solipsist mind hypotheis and the Cognitive origins of Religion field of science. Putting it all together, the mechanism becomes clear.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html


Because every criminal before they embark on their mission to terminate their enemies will first give prayer to God, and then if he is succesful he will thank Him after the act. Havn't you seen Godfather, or mafia movies. Nobody is actually an unbeliever. Everyone thinks God is on their side.

Hitler, like Kaiser before him, thought God was on his side. Majority of the wars in the history were not fought to advance the cause of their own God. There were many intra-religious wars, and yet it did not prevent either of the warring factions from thinking that God was on THEIR side. So many inferences. Henry V thought he was doing God's work, though he laid to waste a Christian territory. So even when people commit actions that are not directly in God's name, they think God is on their side. This has been observerd throughout the history.

God just gives them extra courage and confidence. Hamlet vs Henry V.

Gods that encourage warfare.

http://ligesh.com/article.php?q=/phi...odsandwar.html


http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-03/religion.html
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articl...9_religion.htm

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

Stumpjumper

I'm a man, btw.

But I agree with Tomboymom's and Newtype's analysis. I would write more but I gotta run.

newtype_alpha

You're just repeating yourself. Since when has that been considered a truism? This is a commonly held belief by Abrahamics in theological circles. What place does this have in a "scientific" theory?

Yes, the explanation is simple: the reasoning that states a theist WOULd be more moreal than an atheist is incorrect. Therefore, statistics disprove a common urband legend. It is irresponsible to interpret the data as meaning anything more than that without some direct reason to do so.

newtype_alpha

This is an assertion you simply cannot backup, and if you actually checked, I can almost gaurantee you this would not be the case. Citing mafia movies (ROFL!) for support is not a valid argument by any stretch of imagination.

Certainly it has been observed. And this particular piece of data indicates nothing (or anything, depending on how active your imagination is).

A similar historic anamoly is the fact that, historically, nearly all military powers on Earth have used some kind of free-flying projectile as a weapon. Anything from slings and spears to crossbows and catapults to rifles, bazookas, up to and including ICBMs. I could, from this, hypothesize that mankind evolved from a species of flying primate, so the use of flying weapons is part of human instinct. But with the lack of fossil or genetic evidence, the hypothesis is really just a flight of fancy.

So until you have something a little more concrete than "Every criminal prays for God to help him with his crimes. Just watch Godfather!" your hypothesis is, also, a product of your own imagination.

newtype_alpha

I posted it in the other thread, and I'll post it again here, because it very concisely answers a question you, Ligesh, have been attempting to answer.

It was called the Milgram Experiment. The results showed that, on average, three out of five people would willingly (albeit highly reluctantly) submit to someone else's authority, even if that authority ordered them to cause obvious harm to another person. This authority need not be DIVINE authority; in the Milgram Experiment, it was just a guy with a clipboard.

The results:
Milgram demonstrated that moral judgement can easily be overidden by authority, without too much coercion. Therein may be a possible explanation for the prevalance of suicide bombers; the pathogen is propagating like a latent virus throughout the Islamic memeplex and it preys upon human suggestability. This same meme could easily mutate and spread to other memeplexes where submission to authority is more strongly encouraged (remember, the same concept of suicide missions was extremely prolific in the Japanese Empire in the latter days of the war). In other words, ANY system with a high degree of authoritarianism--from Christianity to Communism and anything in between--is vulnerable to this same infectious idealism of organized mayhem.

Belief or non-belief in God is incidental; the Kurdistan Workers Party, a Marxist-Leninist organization, is also well known for suicide bombings, without ever appealing to Islam or religion itself to justify them (in fact, it's possible the PLO borrowed the tactic from the PKK in the early 90s, which in turn passed it on to Hamas and Hezbollah which subsequently infected the rest of Al Qaida). Incase you haven't noticed, God doesn't really exist outside the minds of theists, so certain human beings have to act as proxies for God's authority on Earth. Criminal behavior simply doesn't factor into this, because criminals are self-motivated, while terrorists and fanatics are mostly externally motivated. One doesn't need belief in God to commit an obscene act of bravery, in fact just about ANY belief, properly crafted, will do nicely. But if you're just talking about behavior, even the belief itself is unneccesary. The presence of an authority figure and the right context will have the same results.

ligesh

I gave you statistics, which you can't Understand. So I had to lower my standards. Those doesn't constitute as evidences, I am just giving a lot of incidental observations. The evidence is a Jihadi, and the "40 times" in the criminal statistics.


I just gave you a lot of circumstantial evidences that support my theory. You just blabber nonsense which makes not an iota of sense. Throughout history, every warring faction, no matter what their actual aim -- for instance, most of the wars were secular -- would go to the battle with a firm conviction that God was on THEIR side. That would indicate that even if you are not directly involved in further your God's cause, you can still believe that God is on your side.

So people who go to ANY war think God protects them. So this can be easily extrapolated to the criminals. Every criminal believes that God is actively protecting him, and that's what gives him courage to engage in risky ventures.

ligesh

Hello: I am not saying God will make a person cruel; Cruelty is in-built into our psyche. I am saying that God will make a person more confident and courageous and this person will indulge in extremely risky activities that a purely logical person may balk away from.

Hurting others do not need any authority. People will make up reasons on their own, if they are asked to hurt others without giving any valid reasons. One of the mechanisms is to dehumanize your victim, and make him only worthy of scorn. So your experiment has no bearing on what we are discussing here.


Hurting other's do not need DIVINE authority. But putting oneself into grave danger does.

--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

ligesh

Damnit man! Then refute it!! And then we can finish this whole damn thing. Why don't you give me the theoretical reason for why a believer is not moral, even though his religions dictate so?


"Incorrect"? Why??????? That's the question. You are just making a naked assertion. Don't you feel that you should provide a theoretical explanation for why believers are not more moral than atheists. Please give me the REASON. please don't say that it is 'incorrect'. If it incorrect, please provide valid reaons why it is incorrect. Otherwise it is just a naked assertion. God!


--
:: Ligesh :: http://ligesh.com

DMC

Explain, then, why Christians are not plotting suicide attempts. Militant Islam and Mainstream Christianity do not have much in common. The people who adapt these beliefs do not have much in common. You are talking about a different worldview and a completely different upbringing, then topping that off with a completely different doctrine. I don't believe this is the simplest approach, as you have many gaps to cross to get to your conclusion from your premise. It may seem, on the surface, to be the simplest, but my guess is that it's not.