Then it would be better if you said that morality was given more credibility by religion. Certainly informal moral codes were around long before they were written down, it just makes sense. It's also worth noting that presence of rigid moral structure doesn't mean certain people won't break it's rules. They will.
People have always destroyed each other over the tastiest piece of the pie, except their methods have changed over time. Nowadays they no longer use clubs and spears to eliminate their opponents - rather they use lawyers and courts to do that. The benefit of a good and strong moral structure is to keep overall mischief rates lower.

PS: do you think monkeys have morals? They express grief when one of their tribe members dies, and they take care of each other. Sometimes their biggest ones duel over dominance....reminds me of some other species.
I find people can learn a lot about themselves just by watching animals.

Wonderz
Age- 16
Region- Ohio, USA
Beliefs- Christian
Why/Explanation of Beliefs- Jesus.

Of course people will break the laws set down by society- I simply meant that religion has had massive power over people for thousands and thousands of years, and I suppose I should have rephrased my statement, but you understand what I am trying to say. As I have said before, I personally don't agree with morality and its' origins, but they must exist. Also, monkeys take care of each other because the health of the individual adds to the strength of the group. Perhaps they grieve, but I don't think so. Despite apes' similarity to our genetic structure, I think that observation of animals and assigning them human characteristics is part of our psychological desire to feel less alone as the only "intelligent" species on the planet. While other species are undoubtedly as intelligent as humans, they are unable to take advantage of and change their surroundings on the scale that humans do, meaning that animals, in my opinion, play a small part in the minds of most people, despite affecting us in ways we can't even begin to imagine... holy shit I'm getting off topic. Anyway, you understand what I'm trying to say, and that's the important thing. Also, I will look at the Society vs. Intelligence thread now and see what you posted, I haven't checked on it in awhile.

EDIT: Wonderz, please be more specific.

EDIT: I did reply to you on the Society vs. Intelligence thread, Odlov. Maybe you just didn't see it?

And how do you think it was with early tribal humans? They were in groups of 10-15 people.

At the bottom of the pyramid yes, that would be the reason behind it. But it's something that's done instinctively, just like with humans. You don't help an old lady cross the street because you figure your survival depends on it, rather because it "feels nice" and a "good thing to do". It's a behavioral trait that has been developed in us by evolution and adaptation to our society -- a trait which is indirectly very beneficial for humans (and many other animals) who always work as a group.

Watch more animal channel and you'll see. It's not a behavior that can be confused with something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/he....15827535.html

Dog selflessly tries to save other dog (note how canines are very social animals like primates)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBLj1x86V74


This is what i was pointing at:

"Early evidence suggests that these early people killed each other for dominance of the group- obviously goes against what you're saying about "killing your own" laws."

You implied it happened then but doesn't happen now. I just pointed out that it did, and on a larger scale, it just changed form from primitive elimination with a heavy stick, to a more complex one.

You have a point.

hai hai hai dumb uninformed atheist (according to a certain person) here saying his opinion;

The question of the purpose of religion is quite an ambiguous one. Religion has never stayed the same over the course of history - the christanity today is very different from the one when it was founded twenty centuries ago, and even different from the christanity two centuries ago. The purpose of it has accordingly evolved over the years. I suspect the first purpose of religion was, and I'm forced to agree with you this one time hydrotoxin (must be a fluke xd), to strengthen the idea of morality. Over the course of history it has then evolved from this form - ever since people made permanent cities they had far more time to think about morals. However, by that time religion had grown to a tradition, and thus became the central piece of culture. With its importance it again spread the morals it was meant to teach to tribesmen. Many people clung on to them - however these morals became less and less important, and the cultural aspect of religion was put more and more into the foreground, until the dawn of the 20th century. By that time people were being drastically changed by science - something which religion never managed - and it drew the people more and more away from the old morals of religion. At this point a lot of people considered the old religious morals simply outdated. Only the cultural aspect of religion remained for many, many people, even the religious ones themselves. Needless to say some people still follow the religious morals set out by scriptures - it's just becoming less and less people that take these morals as really theirs.

Needs sources though xd

tl,dr; religion's purpose changed gradually from teaching morals to becoming the center of culture

^^What I've been saying all along.

Ok, may I ask what rational scientific explanation you are looking for? Origin of the Universe? Origin of Earth? Age of the Earth? Origin of Life? Evolution of Life?

I can provide you with conclusive proof (or some very good theories for the universe) for all of them.

(tl;dr at bottom)

Thanatos: You're able to, with 100% undoubted validity, explain the origin of the universe and everything in it, or for that matter evolution/Earth's creation?

:|

No. There is no conclusive proof that the universe formed one way or the other (aka that one theory is better than another [save if you're comparing the theory that the universe is balanced on the back of an elephant and the theory that it happened naturally).

Whether it happened because some omnipotent being created it through methods unbeknown to mere humans, or through chance resulting from an explosion of matter, or because there's over 400 flavors of ice cream in some parallel universe, you can't begin to validate anything beyond reasonable doubt, and vice versa (you can't invalidate anything beyond much reasonable doubt unless it's completely retarded).

Evolution of life, scientists have a rough idea how it would have occurred- not the exact events leading up to evolution's current result, or reasons for those events, or even IF some of those events happened. Earth, yeah, scientists know how it was probably created in the formation of the universe (pretty much like every other solid planet in the universe) but what led up that creation? The Big Bang? God? Some kind of mix? You can't definitively say which of the three. If you try to say "THIS ONE FOR SURE", you're an utter imbecile.

But even those are just theories, assumptions based upon assumptions based upon assumptions. That's how science works. It's a big network of assumptions which we have to assume are true until proven otherwise by new discoveries. Any moment now you could end up finding out that you're really in the Matrix, but until that moment, you have to assume you're in reality because you don't see any reason not to. Similarly, scientists from 500+ years ago saw no reason to assume that the universe didn't result from God farting and that the Earth was the center of the universe.

Modern scientists have more knowledge, they know what works and doesn't work, but they still can't solidly say something like evolution happened exactly the way they say it did. Their assumptions are still open to fault. Maybe a hundred years from now, or fifty, or maybe even five considering the rate of technological advancement the world currently enjoys, all those assumptions will end up being unfounded ramblings of some cockfaced guys who will seem stupid in comparison to future science.



tl;dr: Much of modern science is not disprovable fact. It's a network of ides and assumptions that we have to conceive as true until they're proven otherwise. This:


makes you seem like some arrogant prick with no basis for his arrogance. This on the other hand,


would have been a much better choice of words.

Regardless, the solid theories you would provide might give explanation for how some of those things happened, but they wouldn't disprove the existence of that guy's precious God- who says all of those theories didn't happen because God made them happen that way?

So now here's your reply, Mr. Thanatos; a fifty page thesis on how the universe was made (I WANT A TIMELINE IN THERE TOO), why it happened that way, why a God doesn't exist (please attach conclusive, indisputable proof), where we are now and where we will end up, how evolution happened (maybe an animated short), and in conclusion, why the grass is seemingly greener on the other side of the fence. (include psychological studies about humans' social perception)

Please include proper citation.

No you can't. What I'm looking for cannot be explained by anybody (except for God). So in other words I don't plan on ever changing my faith. I already know the origin of the universe, earth, and life (etc.) to the extent that humans currently have knowledge of. So no you cannot help me in anyway.