>> ^xxovercastxx:
Religion's existence doesn't prove its necessity, either. As a form of control it might have been beneficial to society in general. You can do something illegal and potentially get away with it, but you can't hide from God so it's a more effective deterrent than any legal system. That doesn't guarantee that we wouldn't have made it with just laws, though.


There's also the case to be made that religion may have had no effect on survival at all, in which case the presence of an ability to believe wouldn't have been rooted out or especially promoted - just spread.

>> ^Crunchy:
Upvote for Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory clip


Looked like there were lasers tho.

ontopic:
I want to tell you about the most wonderful place in the world: Doggie heaven.
In doggie heaven, there are mountains of bones, and you can't turn around
without sniffing another dog's butt!

Bart: Is there a doggie hell?
Homer: Well... Of course, there couldn't be a heaven if there weren't a hell.
Bart: Who's in there?
Homer: Oh, uh... Hitler's dog... and that dog Nixon had, what's his name,
um, Chester...
Lisa: [annoyed] Checkers.
Homer: Yeah! One of the Lassies is in there, too. The mean one!
The one that mauled Jimmy!

>> ^mxxcon:
see, your logic fails to explain contradictions.
but when i say jesus made them that way, it's perfectly logical and acceptable.
therefore, god wins.


Therefore God Wins is going to be the name of my Christian rock band, if I ever start one.

>> ^Lodurr:
There are lots of unique examples of altruism in nature, but not every animal or living thing displays altruism. The only ones that display altruism do so because it benefits the species in the long run. Just because altruism can exist without manmade laws doesn't mean it always does.
If you took a step farther back, you would see that religion and laws are a part of nature in the sense that they're a part of culture, and we require culture to survive. Of course that's very different than saying any of the religions are right.
It's more strange to suggest that religion was unnecessary for our survival. If it wasn't necessary, it would not have existed (and persisted). Whether it's necessary for our future survival is another topic. It's not yet as vestigial as our tailbones, and in any case, it needs to shrink naturally just as our tailbones did while we adapt to its absence.


Just because something is beneficial doesn't mean it will develop in every species. Adding gills to humans would certainly benefit us, for example. Not having gills wasn't enough of a problem to wipe us out, is all.

Religion's existence doesn't prove its necessity, either. As a form of control it might have been beneficial to society in general. You can do something illegal and potentially get away with it, but you can't hide from God so it's a more effective deterrent than any legal system. That doesn't guarantee that we wouldn't have made it with just laws, though.

Your video, Natural Morality, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^imstellar28:
^jwray:
^imstellar28
Opinions on human rights are based on a combination of aesthetics and logic. There is no distinct other category to choose the reasons from.
aesthetics is just another word for value judgements.
So thats what the root of the problem looks like. You don't believe in unalienable human rights. If thats true, you can make no legitimate argument against someone pressing a cold barrel against your temple.


No, you misunderstand. I believe certain actions are wrong. However rights should not be stated as naive generalities, and rights cannot be completely derived with only reason and observation. Whatever else you draw upon to augment this decision of which actions are better than others is, by definition, aesthetic in nature. Morality is a partially aesthetic sense that one would die for.