When it took place.

Thanks for the link, Tiggs. I'm looking at it now.

Truncated


I have to do this, though it'll open up a Pandora's box. Here goes...

Half the world does believe in human sacrifice. What is more Christian than the concept of the "god" who is sacrificed for the sake of all others? And this "god" is a mimic of the aborted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. I argue that the Israelites made a point not to sacrifice Isaac (and Muslims make the same point that Abraham does not sacrifice Ishmael) in order to separate themselves from the Phoenicians who followed Baal - and who offered children as sacrifice to Baal. Then, of course, there is Molech, another of the Anatolian/Levant "gods" who also asked his denizens to pass children "through the fire."

But again, at what point in time did Christianity NOT DEMAND human sacrifice? -Whether holy war, mutilation/martyrdom in the Colosseum, in the U.S. Civil War, or during the World Wars of the twentieth century. Christianity is seductive in its lure for alleging that "Christ" shows the way to peace. That notwithstanding, Christianity has historically shown that it advocates war at least as much as Islam and probably moreso - especially if we throw in the aforementioned wars, the Inquisition, the genocide of Native Americans (North and South), and the present turmoil in the Near East.

Half the world does believe in Human Sacrifice. And what's more, it's the half of the world with superior firepower!

Thanks Belle. I just read this one. It's good, though I think Gulack wrote it in a rush. I wish he had put in some footnotes or links to complement his arguments about Lincoln, Jefferson, Twain, and the New Jersey Courts. (Though, for Twain, it would be easy enough to read "What is Man?")
Now I want to see Matrix II. The Oracle tells Neo: "You've already made "the choice." You came here to find out why you made it." The implication is that a human being is simply a sum of influences and our reactions had been set in motion without individual reflection at each instant. All we can do in retrospect is to try to understand why we did things a certain way.
The article also alludes to the idea of "high-born" versus "low-born" birth. If we are basically machines reacting to a sum of past inputs, we could certainly infer that "high-born" well-educated and well-socialized persons will, on average, behave more in line with "civil notions" of society than others who had not had those "high-born" advantages. All the more reason to improve the nurturing and development of all human progeny...

Ya I agree it has a bit of a rushed quality to it (hopefully not playing fast and loose with the truth though). There is another forum I go to in which he expounds on the ideas a bit further in a discussion:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/505/P15/



LOL - I was talking about this free will thing with my boyfriend recently so he got me to watch Matrix II. Didn't think the movie was crash hot (I must admit I prefer the add on feature at the end with the MTV awards ), but yes some of the concepts are run along the same lines. I think we naturally constantly oscillate between believing in the two (free will vs no free will) to make sense of ourselves and how we act.

WRONG! People advocate war - Christianity does not. Jesus said to love your enemies and do good to those who mistreat you. It's hard to love your enemies while you are killing them.

I think Jesus advocated war... and violence... and hate. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Which is what I have been continually saying in the misunderstanding thread.

It doesn't matter if anyone is "reading it out of context" in your mind. Did you ever stop to think that you're reading it out of context?

It's ridiculous to suggest someone else is misunderstanding. Completely ridiculous.

Many would argue that it's easy to love and kill at the same time. I certainly would. I've had my dogs put to sleep... And if it were legal and was for any "greater good" I'd agree with euthanasia. I'm sure MANY people who kill in the name of any religion, God, faith, pies do it because they think (wrongly or rightly, there is no wrong or right when you are speaking about an all knowing creator) it's for the greater good.

I fail to see what's so hard to understand about that. You, personally, may not interpret any "hate" in Christian teachings - but clearly loads of people do. I bet you read what the average Muslim would call "misquoted" sections the Qur'an and say that's full of hate. It's just hypocritical. Just because you read something a particular way, never makes it the right way.

The...ATHEISTS...obviously..and its not a role playing game...

New Testament does not teach hate and anyone who has read it fully or to any extent would agree. Skeptics Bible is a horrible source to learn about the Bible and anyone who only gets their answers from there are doing a horrible disservice to themselves and/or are only using it as a source to further support their own hatred of the Bible. If one does not know the 'original meaning or intent of the authors' then they fail at understanding. In turn they can only promote a view of hatred which only is a reflection of themselves and not of the New Testament.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptic%2...ted_Bible#About

You're doing it again, Clovis.

Firstly - what source am I supposed to learn about the true meaning of the Bible from? A believer? Or a Skeptic? I certainly feel that the skeptic is far less bias.

If i read it for myself I cannot make sense of it's dribble. If i read the NAB I get yelled at because it's bad translation.

And besides ALL of that, what makes you think that wiki entry isn't written in bias? Of course it is. You can't argue that my source is "horrible" and then provide one which could quite easily be as equally bias.

"Personal interpretation" is my entire point. Any interpretation is personal and anyone's views are just as much "promoting one's own ideas".

You're being bloody ridiculous.

Serious belief in a theistic God leads to ignorance of science and the non-use of critical thought. Ignorance of science and the non-use of critical thought leads to stupidity. Stupidity leads to immorality and barbarism. Degression occurs.

Then if you cannot make sense of the Bible after reading it for yourself others will clearly see whenever you attack it it is not from a point of true understanding of it but rather from a point of a true lack of understanding.

Science and belief in God are only enemies among the people caught up in the stale debate where they oppose each other. In the real world people understand science and faith are not mutually exclusive. One can find use in both and utilize both in their life.



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.c...tary/index.html

Indeed, which is why I said serious belief in a theistic God. Perhaps I should have just said a fundamentalist. The people who think the Earth is six thousand years old.

If tomorrow everyone on Earth adopted the mindset that allows someone in 2008 to believe that the Earth is six thousand years old, it would not be long before this website seised to exist.

There is no "true understanding".

There is only personal understanding.

Seeing a broad variety of other people's opinions on things I am apparently, in your eyes, reading wrong, is the only way I can learn any different. Continually telling me that I'm reading out of context, but then failing to explain why. Or continually avoiding questions and queries and thoughts about negative passages does not help.

I have a serious belief in a theistic God and yet that does not make me an enemy of science. It does not make me an advocate for a Young Earth creationism either. Simply put those who wish to infuse fear into society by claiming a belief in Biblical infallibility will lead to a dark age are clearly being irrational. There is no danger of that happening ever and it is an irrational fear to believe so. I believe the Bible is infallible but that has nothing to do with me believing God works through evolution. We agree the theory of evolution has merit. Most people are in consensus when it comes to this. Just because a few refuse to believe it and a few others find joy in arguing with them, no way do either of those groups represent society at large.

Because it doesnt matter if god is real or not, it is the ideas presented in the name of religionor the very concept of religious faith/belief that scares people. Look back at the posts in this thread and you will identify what different peolpe fear.

I find it ironic that people blame religion when religion is simply a codified response to a set of human beliefs and philosophies. Lets take religion out of the equation and replace it with a formalised set of practices based on what is scientifically identified as the common good. Then you would see people whinge, and express fear, about this completely non religious based ethical system.


Why? Because as humans we put ourselves first and everyone else second. It is how we are ;biologically and psychologically programmed to respond. Even cooperative behaviour is based on the question what is in it for me?. Because a universal ethical system always imposes rules for both the benefit of individuals or groups most people eventually find such systems too restrictive on their wants desire. What humans require is both a formalised education which allows them to evaluate cost/ benefit analysis of all their actions, includinfg effects on both themselvesand others; and mandatory self discipline and emotional management classes. To be allowed any of the rights and privileges of adult hood, citizens would need to get a high rating in both these areas.

Why do people hate christians? Short answer; because no one likes to be told what is the best way for them to live, even if they know it is right, and particularly if they have never been taught why/how it is strongly on the plus side of any cost benefit analysis.

Of course, as governments move increasingly into "nanny state" mode, they are imposing expectations and norms on people, in far more restrictive ways than modern day christians possibly can.

While i agree that people should not smoke or drink, for example. I do not acccept that the state can evaluate a persons worth and assign medical aid on the basis of such factors. Obesity is the net big one. Watch out for increasing govt sanctions in this area. But then, to be fair, i guess we all love to fear, and hate, our governments too, for the restrictions they place on our lives.

Quite true Mr Walker the government is ever more intrusive and willing to tell people how to live. What is even more perplexing that laws can change on the whims of lobbyist and then again on the ruling of judges. Personally I think the government should outlaw fast food since heart disease is the number one killer and fast food is the number one contributor. The government regulates and controls too much as it is but the things they should be regulating and controlling seem to be vastly ignored.

Then you're not a what I consider a fundy. If everyone was, we WOULD degress into a dark age. It is precisely that ignorance, that allows someone to believe the Earth is six thousand years old, which would bring us unquestionably into a dark age. Unquestionably.

You are joking of course? There is no correlation between a knowledge of science and moral or sensible behaviour. Nor is there any connection between stupidity and religious belief. The real problem is the lack of balance in modern society. Science has made wonderful strides, but philosophy, ethics, morality and spirituality are neglected. The result is gang bangers using uzis and ingrams on innocent families in drive by shootings, and teenagers constructing amphetamine labs in their homes(atomic bombs are apparently not only passe but not profitable enough.)

What we need are people wise in both the ways of science and of god. I can assure you personally, and historically, that this balance is not only achievable, but necesary, for the survival and prosperity of any society, and the full development of individual human potential

For what would it profit a man to possess the whole world, but lose his soul? (to paraphrase)

yes there is morals can and have been scientificly proven take wolves they have moral behavior and social class. also yes there is stupidity and religon depending on who you are. think about it if i told u i belived in a giant cat who humps you when you die its stupid but thats my religon(not really)

You mean I am not what the media and others portray as a fundamentalist. I can assure you I most certainly am and that we are not the homogeneous group with an all inclusive set of beliefs that does not differ from one to another. In fact we disagree between ourselves. One of the big differences is that even if I believe the Bible is correct I do not believe you or anyone else has to follow it. Do as you wish but if you come and try to take my Bible or my guns away then we have a problem (~_^)

My whole point is that the creation-evolution controversy is not something we all have to take sides in. Some people cannot help but get sucked into it but many of us would rather discuss how to create consensus rather than stir more conflict. Even worse the majority of Americans could care less and rarely even think about it.

No wiser words spoken.

I was talking about crazy fundy people like Young Earth Creationists. Those kinds of people. For any other type of believer, religion is quite benign.

On Stupidity: Their absolute ignorance is their inherent stupidity.

On Morality: The moral standards in that of the Bible, Qu'ran, or any other holy book are outdated. The morals inscribed within the laws of our modern society today are greater than those within any holy book.

*sits and sleeps* i give up

QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Apr 29 2008, 07:17 AM)





Im sorry. I cant see any connection between my post and your response.

"A knowledge of science in no way guarantees moral or even sensible behavior." Proven demonstrable fact. Just think of adolf hitler's scientists, and the enthusiasm with which they approached their work. Think of the uses to which some of the work of our best present day scientists is put.

There is no connection between stupidity and religious belief. The two are completely separate entities.

Granted there are plenty of stupid believers, but there are also plenty of stupid athiests. Just observe human behaviour. There are some very clever athiests it is true, but historically, and today, some of the most intelligent people are still believers in a god of some form or another.

Some of the most" fundamentalist" people i know (who place their entire lives, every day, in gods hands) include architects, graphic artists, teachers ,accountants , lawyers etc. You dont get to be in those positions if you are stupid.

I'll argue with your position on the moral nature of wolves another time. I can't see how it connects to what i was saying in this context.

think about it everything can be explained and proven in terms of how we act and what morals we hold because animals have it ........yes but to some religon itself maybe a stupid thing thats what im saying i was just pointing that out and yes science had to do with morals and senseable behaviour think about it people are crazy cause they dont fit in to the "norm" of society.

Not that it really matters, of course, but I think those words are not only absolutely wrong, but the belief behind them is at the heart of the illness which afflicts contemporary western society.

I appreciate not everyone interprets/sees the bible as i do, but for me on a personal and societal level, if peole lived by the precepts of the bible, then every almost every individual life would be safer, richer and more wonderful. Our societies would be more just, safer, and self sustaining,. Our children would honour and respect their elders and our marriages would actually work.

In just those two things, the underlying factors underpinning so much of the human tragedy in western society would be overcome. Not to mention if people first loved and respected themselves, then applied that love and respect to those around them think how much better our communities would be. Im old enough to have actually grown up in such a society and while it wasnt perfect, in terms of ethical standards and treatment of peole it was far superior to today. If our ethical development had kept pace with scientific development from the 1950's to today, we could have both our plasma screens and a community in which we could keep our doors open and not have to worry about them being pinched. Thou shalt not steal.(because when you do you steal a mans labour and thus his life from him) how can you "improve" on that for a moral law

Once god is real to you and alive in your heart and mind, you can't steal, or deliberately harm others or cheat on your wife, without a great deal of physical and psychologicl efort. For some it is through fear but preferrably through love, but in any case a living god and the rules he lays down are the best guarantee for "good" behaviour humans have yet developed/ experienced.

For some of us god is a living reality which cannot be denied, but even a true belief, separate from any factual knowledge will have the same efffect.

How many people do you know who really have any faith/ belief in the justice and moral values displayed in the laws and the law courts off modern secular nations? In some cases the stated intent of the law may reflect some ethical principle of passing value, but almost never is true justice served on anyone in modern law courts.
The wisdom of solomon on the custody of children still exceeds anything ive read about, coming out of family law courts today.

ok i dont belive in go din fact i think people NEED to belive in something just cause it gives them hope im satanic ...im sorry but there is no god everything can be explained...and this world will end we will die and i will laugh as it happends

Indeed, but without the threat of unimaginable punishment or great reward, people do not. Anyway, the precepts of the bible are inherent in our laws, it's just that the punishments for not abiding by them is not absolute; and rightfully so.

To me I can't really see how ethical standards have really degraded in a way significant or damaging way. I mean, people in New York City might not hold the door for you, but that doesn't mean that if they saw you get shot, they wouldn't try and help. Perhaps courtesys have diminished, but I guess a youngling like me can't have much to say about it anyway.

ah i see, but i think weve had this discussion. Animals neither have morals or ethical systems. They act as they do, through biological or environmental imperatives(They have no or limited choices in how they act)

Humans have unlimited choice in their actions and as this ability to choose through sentience, evolved we also evolved philosophical, ethica,l religious, belief systems to govern what we seen as acceptable or non acceptable choices.

Thus a human mum can make a choice to abort a child based on a variety of ethical/ moral values. An animal only aborts when either there is a biological problem with the adult or unborn, or when the environmental conditions are too harsh for the unborn to survive.

And yes im sure to many "religion" is seen as a stupid thing, because indeed it often is.

Personal faith, belief, knowledge, spirituality; whatever form it comes in, is not stupid, however. iI is either a given, or an evolved, human response to our nature and the world around us, just as much as the wolf's behaviour is basically programmed to ensure its survival.

True, thanks to our intelligence/sentience, we can choose to ignore this element of our nature, but we do so at the same peril as ignoring any other aspect of our natures.

then neither do we. the only reson we evolve is a pscycologic norm we need to follow and that is what animals do. they have norms and if they dont follow what is right they are killed or shuned. so if we have morals so do they and its explaine able we are trained like dogs to speak act and be who we are to fit in. just as pups, cubs, fauns, or anything else

UM people have a wide range of academic sources. Not all of us have access to technical papers.

Well said.

Couldn't care less.*

Silly yank. ;P

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html

lol

In my observation, opinion, and viewpoint, I don't think that it's religion itself, as it is the idea of God, or notGod that scares people. I think that like some, some people atheist or not, might actually be happy if there is a god, and that religion could be more comforting than scary. I really think it's some of those who hold that religion, ie: the ones, some of them, who hold the belief of God, that people are scared of. Again, I really think it boils down to being wary of other people, specifially those, not all, who use religion and God to control them.


Where is there an example? I'm curious.



I believe you are talking about the id, as I remember learning in school. Yeah, it's there, but this is just deep down, like our capacity to all feel and care about others too.


Interesting, but yeah, a foregone conclusion, but I don't think religion has to play in this at all.


Granted, no one does, but that doesn't mean all Christians have that know how or the right to tell them such things. I don't think Christians, or what they believe in, is the conclusion of what is best for everyone. I don't think it's right to say that Atheist, or anyone for that matter, do not have the knowledge of best interest of what everyone needs. From also my viewpoint, it is not necessarily so that religion is the best thing, because of the fact that what the religion believes in cannot be scientifically proven. Atheist may not think that it is in their best interest to follow someone who thinks they know how an Atheist should live by their standards that cannot be proven. An Atheist would feel threatnend even, I would think, because of the idea that they should follow something that they cannot see or believe could be even dangerous to them.
To say, that all people, or particular people who follow a set of rules in a particular religion are the ones that know best, is arrogantly assuming too much, I really really think.


That difference in governments, "nanny state" mode or not, what they impose can be more provable and more seen, than what can be imposed in religions. In fact, governments can be fought against, for that same matter that what is wrong, can be proven as well. I find that, there is a big difference in Government rules and religious rules.


That is debatable indeed, and maybe that could happen. I think also whether government has the right to control our personal lives is another debate in all it's own. But when the government try to control our lives with religion as it's guide, now that is truely scary. Goes back to what I was saying on how an Atheist does not want to have someone who believes in something unproven and unseen trying to control their lives, but now it's a whole group in where they can see, trying to control them with something that they cannot see or believe in. That is what I think the government cannot and should not do.
I think what is constantly being missed here, in some posts, is that it's not God, it's not religion itself, it's some of the people using is as a basis to control others. That is the scary part!

If nothing else, your sense of humour, particularly irony, is wonderful. Its nice to know they would try and help you if you got shot, and new york is probably one place not very applicable to my example, but in the 50's i grew up in a place where you never locked your door and where young children's only injunction after playing int the streets vacant lots and neighbour hood all day was quite literally "make sure you are home when the streetlights come on."

This was not a safety issue, it was because, as no one owned a watch, it was simply an easy way for mum to get everyone home in time for tea.

Today, that same community has; home invasions, attacks in the streets, constant theft from shops, violence in the schools and at home. No one would leave a door unlocked or a car with valuables in it even if it was locked. Parents don't let their kids walk to school, let alone play out in the neighbour hood all day.

. I'm sorry, but morality and ethical standards have declined greatly. My young great nieces and nephews in one family have four different fathers for 4 children. In another family they have three fathers for seven kids. Those kids will never know the connection and cohesiveness, the sense of belonging, or continuity which generations like mine experienced. Luckilly they are loved now, but they have all been significantly damaged as human beings , educationally, emotionally, and in their spirits, by their experiences.

True, it is not enough to have a commonly agreed on set of standards. These must be taught and enforced . At heart the young must be disciplined so that they can learn self discipline. Most of the problems of today stem from the failure to teach children discipline, so they may develop the skill of self disciline. Only with self discipline can people learn to place the needs of others on an equal footing with the needs of themselves, even if they are taught the ethical requirements for this, and educated in the empathy and sympathy for others which is also necessary.

once agin they where not rained like the dogs we are sorry to say its the parents fault

It really doesn't have much to do with God or religion though. It's just America, but I guess that's what you were saying.

But I said that Christianity (as a religion) alleges that Christ advocates peace; but that Christianity proffers war. (Popes call for "jihad" Crusades etc.) Insofar as Christianity is the manifestation of Church leaders, Christianity, throughout history, has instigated warfare. Just google Christianity and American Church sermons post 9/11. You'll see what I mean.

if there was no thought of god we would find another reson to kill eachother (religon is very contredicting)

True. "Religion" is a political manifestation of faith and spiritualism. On the other hand, faith and spiritualism are a pure search for "GOD" and "TRUTH." I think this is the main contention in this argument about Christianity, violence, and the ambivalent or warrior god!

QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Apr 29 2008, 07:58 AM)


People dont like anyone to control them That was my point Unfortunately in increasingly complex societies we require more controls on individual freedoms at a time when peole are being taught only their individual rights and not their public/social responsibilities

QUOTE


I was creating a hypotheticl example because i dont know if a real one exists. However stalinist russia was an athiestic state, and he needed a huge secret police to keep the people under control. In modern secular societies the citizens complain about infringements on their personal liberties. But those infringements are based on non religious, ethical rules required to govern the behaviour of large mases of people in close proximity to each other. Today, people exhibit road rage at simple trrafic rules, where once people drove as much by common courtesy as by the road rules.

QUOTE

QUOTE

More likely the ego than the id, although its a long time since i did psychology at uni so im not sure. However, rather than deep down, this is one of the stongest drives in humans particularly at birth. And while this is being debated by some modern findings and interpretations, I dont think there is much compassion or caring born in children. Yes the capacity is there but they must be taught both to think and behave in this way. If they are not, the results in children growing up are clear and nasty.

One thing evolutionist are correct about in their observations is survival of those most fitted to survive. While some social behaviour may help survival, selfish behaviour initially by children, is in their best interests as a survival technique.




You may be right but religion has historically demonstrated its ability to deliver in these areas, whereas societies based on the rights of the individual rather than the rights of the society tend to have failed miserably

QUOTE



yes this is a difficult area, but again you are assuming that the rights of individual members of a society should take precedence over the rights of society as a whole. i disagree. A society protects the vulnerable for example. Thus the laws of the society should take precedence over individual rights up to a point. In fact in any society one persons' rights only extend out to the point where they start to harm another persons rights. In complex urban societies, that is not very far at all.

Christian is not the only model, but it is already familiar and underlies a lot of our social and legal frameworks, so in our societies i would go with it. However, any mandated code of behaviour aimed at the advancement and protection of society, even one based on simple human ethics would work for me.

However it is hard to force peole to comply with any set of laws. The best method is to teach people so that they all acknowledge from birth, the logic and rationality behind the laws, and appreciate how ithe laws benefit them.

Christianity once performed this function in society. Nothing performs it now, so children grow up thinking they have certain inalienable rights, rather than the rights which the civilization that supports them gives to them.



Im afraid i cant see much difference in practice or principle. The rules of the bible included rules on good health, how to treat widows and orphans, and civil laws like not stealing or commiting adultery. etc They are the same things the state rules on now. You accept the power of the state as most modern people do. Yoiu do not accept the power of the moral force of older laws because you feel they are religious. Thats fair enough, but both the state and the religious laws really only have the authority you give them. This is the basis of the saying "render unto god what is gods, and unto caesar(the state) that which is caesars"

In practice, for me, that means i obey the laws of the state until they come into conmflict with the higher moral laws of god. Then i choose gods laws, knowing they are both more ethically correct and that they will bring me more positive outcomes than if i obeyed the state's laws.
QUOTE



I believe govts will always try to control people mostly with the best intentions in the world. I understand what you are saying Where secular law comes in conflict with gods law i am forced into civil disobedience. I can see that athiests would be uncomfortable being placed in a similar position.

However back to my original point. In a democracy sometimes we are forced either to compromise or take a stand. If a majority of americans voted for laws based around religious beliefs, the practical implications would only be the same as those many people face each day; laws which conflict with their personal belief systems.

Good laws will make the most allowance possible for individuals but sometimes this is not possible or practical. Again the larger the minority group you belong to the better chance you haveof being listened to. Aas a sabbath keeper in rural australia my life is much more difficult in many ways practically and culturally than it would be if i lived in israel, even though everything else about israel would be completely alien to me.




Why is being controlled in the name of religion any more scary than being controlled for any other purpose?

--------------------

lol the community im refering to is a town of 10-14000 peole in rural australia. I can understand someone in new york not noticing much change in the moral nature of people, and in the breakdown in society resulting from this, but in my home town it is absolute, asd devestating in its effects. I would imagine that people throughout rural america have noticed the same chamges and atributed it to the same causes.

I think you've got more spin on that then a ........... centrifuge! The teachings I mentioned are clear and really not subject to interpretation. I think the problem that you're really having is that so many people fail to carry them out.

Some do espouse the view that Jesus was hateful. It is not a view that someone with any semblance of understanding of the Gospels would make. That view is just an 'expression' but I guess many of us have all had our own phases of 'expression' even though they were not grounded in any sort of reality.

that's why so many christians don't mind the wars in the middle east ? or what would jesus bomb ? that aside ..

Matt. 10:34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

then again

Matt 26:52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Far more afraid. I read the entire article but I knew where they were going with it from the start. They made critical logical errors in their reasoning. Lack of free will does not remove the need for punishment or remove the existence of hatred. These emotions are critical to human existence. They make us human. They are what allows us to survive. Hatred is in fact, the basis for all morality. People don't promote goodness, we oppose evil. Evil makes us and others suffer, we hate this. It allows us to prosper and survive. Punishment is good for one reason, it works. Punishment needs to fit the crime, but it works. They argue that we need not take revenge because the criminal had no control over their actions. I can argue that we must take revenge and that we have no control over our vengeance. They were correct in their facts, but once they began to come to conclusions about society, based on these facts, there logic faltered. Emotion is the source of human morality and to allow ideas such as theirs, would ultimately suppress freedom, justice, joy, love, sorrow, hate, peace, war, we would cease to be human. Humans are perceptive machines that feel, their ideas would make us perceptive machines that do not feel and such ideas are the greatest threat to life.

For some reason the knowledge that life arose by chance somehow diminishes its value in the minds of some. It makes it all the more valuable however. Without life there is nothing in any real sense. Matter exists but what purpose does matter have, what purpose does beauty have, if nothing can perceive its majesty. One must understand that life does have a unique place in this universe, and we should not seek to remove the value of life. One must understand that you can not great perfection by changing life, but by embracing it. Anger, hatred, war, sorrow, happiness, love, peace, joy and freedom are all vital parts of humanity. Lack of free will does not make these emotions any less important, rather it allows us to understand that these things make us who we are, and we can not lose sight of that.

I learned in Sociology class that even if we eliminated all that we consider crime and evil in society we might then just turn around and criminalize things that we find merely annoying now in others...like the way some chew gum etc...