The Bible Contradictions Thread

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

The word "origin" was bold faced and yet you still completely missed the point.
No one is even suggesting it is a philosophy.

Moral philosophies deal with origins as well as what they consist of. Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but if you look at any work of moral philosophy from Immanuel Kant to Aristotle, in all cases an explanation will be offered for how this thing called morality came into being.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Moral philosophies deal with origins as well as what they consist of. Perhaps I didn't make that clear, but if you look at any work of moral philosophy from Immanuel Kant to Aristotle, in all cases an explanation will be offered for how this thing called morality came into being.

Ah you see this goes back to the point I made earlier where theists expect to find equivalents in science to everything in their religion. Some moral philosophies talk about origins and in most cases those origins would be supernatural in some way. An atheist doesn't use such fancy notions to explain the origins of morality, he uses science to explain that, while in no way suggesting that the fact that our morality evolved through natural selection means our morality should be based on it. Our explanation of the origins of morality is not answered philosophically

You've said yourself many times "science explains the how, religion explains the why" but here you are insisting that as atheists we must use science to explain the why, ie why should we not kill people. That's not what science is for!

But just in case you want to make the this point, the fact that science does not tell you why you should not kill someone does not mean that religion can muscle in and make out as if it has the ultimate answer to that question. That question is to be answered through reason, not through evolution and not through calls to the authority of an intangible being either

philologos

It isn't scientific fact that our notions of morality are the products of evolution. It isn't science, it is one principle of science being used as a philosophical means of explaining the origins of morality. I think it's awfully dishonest to imply otherwise.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't scientific fact that our notions of morality are the products of evolution. It isn't science, it is one principle of science being used as a philosophical means of explaining the origins of morality. I think it's awfully dishonest to imply otherwise.

The problem here Jakkass is that you think that morality belongs entirely in the realm of philosophy because you think it was injected into us by god. The fact is that the origins of morality can be explained quite adequately with science. The origin of morality is not a philosophical question, it is a scientific one.

philologos

Sam, think about who I have mentioned.

Jurgen Habermas - doesn't believe in God
Nietzsche - didn't believe in God
Habermas - didn't believe in God
Hannah Arendt - didn't believe in God
Aristotle - believes in a philosophical God, but doesn't attribute morality to it.
Immanuel Kant - God is only a postulate, something to be inferred to make sense of morality.
Edith Stein - didn't believe in God

The vast majority of the people I have listed wrote secular moral philosophies. Of course I could include people like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and others.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't scientific fact that our notions of morality are the products of evolution. It isn't science, it is one principle of science being used as a philosophical means of explaining the origins of morality. I think it's awfully dishonest to imply otherwise.

Here ya go,
Layman intro :

Also, you should try the selfish gene.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't scientific fact that our notions of morality are the products of evolution. It isn't science, it is one principle of science being used as a philosophical means of explaining the origins of morality. I think it's awfully dishonest to imply otherwise.

Even if morality is in no way a product of evolution, this still doesn't make the Bible a divine source of moralistic behaviour, for reasons that Wicknight has pointed out already.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, think about who I have mentioned.

Jurgen Habermas - doesn't believe in God
Nietzsche - didn't believe in God
Habermas - didn't believe in God
Hannah Arendt - didn't believe in God
Aristotle - believes in a philosophical God, but doesn't attribute morality to it.
Immanuel Kant - God is only a postulate, something to be inferred to make sense of morality.
Edith Stein - didn't believe in God

The vast majority of the people I have listed wrote secular moral philosophies. Of course I could include people like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine and others.

What's your point? Did these people explain the origins of morality and if so, what explanations did they give?

Are you suggesting that because I'm saying that the origins of morality is a scientific question, that all of morality must be explained scientifically and are you pointing out that all of those people wrote secular moral philosophies to try to counter me in some way? If so, doing so shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point I was making. I hope that's not what you're saying

What I am saying is that morality is a philosophical question to be answered through reason but I am separating that from the ORIGINS of morality which is a scientific question, in the same way that science explains the origins of the eye or the fight or flight instinct

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point? Did these people explain the origins of morality and if so, what explanations did they give?

They all differed.

I think the vast majority (of whom I have mentioned) said that it was contrived. Numerous others have said that it is the result of God. Others such as Immanuel Kant said that morality is like the laws of physics, and that we prescribe ourselves a universal law. The law can only be discerned through a priori (before experiencing, calculating whether or not an action is moral before doing it) reasoning rather than determining a posteori (post experience) as Aristotle did along with saying that the good is that which everyone desires. Fulfilment being the highest or supreme good. Each action we do makes us conform to who we want to be.

These are all reasonable answers. I don't see how explaining it with evolution is any more valid or any more substantiated than any of these.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you suggesting that because I'm saying that the origins of morality is a scientific question, that all of morality must be explained scientifically and pointing out that all of those people wrote secular moral philosophies to try to counter me in some way? If so, doing so shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the point I was making. I hopr that's not what you're saying

I'm not doing it to counter you, I'm doing it to refute your notion that I am using philosophy as some means to insist upon God. It is rather that I believe that using science that was not intended for the field being looked at as a explanation (without substantial scientific backup) results in using science as a moral philosophy.

It is not using science in the means that it is intended. Darwinian evolution isn't intended to explain the origin of morals, but rather how we came to be biologically formed. Thus I would consider it an abuse of science.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What I am saying is that morality is a philosophical question to be answered through reason but I am separating that from the ORIGINS of morality which is a scientific question, in the same way that science explains the origins of the eye or the fight or flight instinct

Many different people have differing opinions on where morality came from, we have no clear factual basis for saying that morality came from evolution any more than it was contrived, or that it came through pure a priori reasoning, or that it was revealed by God Himself.

It isn't valid science but rather a hypothesis like all others.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Many different people have differing opinions on where morality came from, we have no clear factual basis for saying that morality came from evolution any more than it was contrived, or that it came through pure a priori reasoning, or that it was revealed by God Himself.

It isn't valid science but rather a hypothesis like all others.

Jakkass, you need to stop being ignorant of science.

Morality arose from evolution.
There are a couple of conflicting models as to how this happened, but to say science hasn't reached a consensus on morality arising from evolution is pathetic ignorance!

(Btw, Even if it were revealed by God, He still would have to have accomplished it via naturalistic processes.)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

These are all reasonable answers. I don't see how explaining it with evolution is any more valid or any more substantiated than any of these.

Because science is testable and falsifiable. You may find those answers satisfying but the fact that boards.ie member Jakkass finds a particular answer satisfying does not mean that it is the right one. Science could be wrong in saying that morality evolved but unlike philosophical explanations for the origins of morality, it spends most of its time trying to discover if it is in fact wrong through experimentation.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not doing it to counter you, I'm doing it to refute your notion that I am using philosophy as some means to insist upon God. It is rather that I believe that using science that was not intended for the field being looked at as a explanation (without substantial scientific backup) results in using science as a moral philosophy.

No one's using science in a field that it was not intended for, you just keep insisting that we are because you don't understand what we're saying. And btw, just because you haven't looked at the science behind the evolution of morality does not mean that it does not have substantial scientific backup

Jakkass wrote: »

It is not using science in the means that it is intended. Darwinian evolution isn't intended to explain the origin of morals, but rather how we came to be biologically formed. Thus I would consider it an abuse of science.

Yes Jakkass it explains how we biologically formed. Part of that explanation involves how the brains formed and how we came to think the way we do. Our brains are just very complicated biological computers and they evolved just like the rest of our bodies did

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't valid science but rather a hypothesis like all others.

A hypothesis is valid science. I hasn't been proven yet but then when you get right down to it nothing in science has been proven. But the hypothesis that morality evolved has not yet been falsified either and unlike philosophers scientists don't just declare things to be the way they think they are and go home, they form hypotheses and then go about testing if they are valid

Sam Vimes

I will grant you Jakkass that if I began with the assumption that your god existed, that he imparted morality on us and that it is metaphysical then using science to explain its origins would indeed be an abuse of science

Luckily I don't begin with that assumption and as far as I'm concerned our thought processes arose through evolution just like our physical bodies did. An animal growing a thumb is useless unless it has a brain that knows how to use it.

Flamed Diving

Malty, Sam; Jakkass knows what a hypothesis is, and he knows how science works. He knows this because people have been telling him on this forum for at least a year and a half (since I came along). Despite the numerous times people have made the effort to explain these basic facts to him, he persists in behaving as if this never happened.

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Malty, Sam; Jakkass knows what a hypothesis is, and he knows how science works. He knows this because people have been telling him on this forum for at least a year and a half (since I came along). Despite the numerous times people have made the effort to explain these basic facts to him, he persists in behaving as if this never happened.

I've personally linked him to several websites explaining the evolution of morality. There are none so blind as those that will not see

philologos

Sam Vimes: There is nothing scientifically factual in the slightest about morals having come from Darwinian evolution. It's only mere opinion. This is precisely the reason I have problem with Dawkins and others abusing science to make their points.

Passing opinion off as science is simply dishonest. It results in misplaced dogmatism to boot.

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've personally linked him to several websites explaining the evolution of morality. There are none so blind as those that will not see

I prefer:

'A blind man will not thank you for a looking glass.'

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: There is nothing scientifically factual in the slightest about morals having come from Darwinian evolution. It's only mere opinion. This is precisely the reason I have problem with Dawkins and others abusing science to make their points.

Passing opinion off as science is simply dishonest. It results in misplaced dogmatism to boot.

Jakkass,

I believe it was you that said,

Jakkass on John Bruton and John Waters opinions (Parpaphrased because too lazy to search) wrote:

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Scientific fact : Morality came from evolution!!

Do you have a better scientific explanation that you'd like to provide?

Flamed Diving

So, the Bible!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3TPRonT9SQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-eMfHrE9bE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVDWMIaCXwo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMf4joQsuuY

Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart D. Erhman

"Picking up where Bible expert Bart Ehrman's New York Times bestseller Misquoting Jesus left off, Jesus, Interrupted addresses the larger issue of what the New Testament actually teaches—and it's not what most people think. Here Ehrman reveals what scholars have unearthed:


The authors of the New Testament have diverging views about who Jesus was and how salvation works


The New Testament contains books that were forged in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later


Jesus, Paul, Matthew, and John all represented fundamentally different religions


Established Christian doctrines—such as the suffering messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the trinity—were the inventions of still later theologians

These are not idiosyncratic perspectives of just one modern scholar. As Ehrman skillfully demonstrates, they have been the standard and widespread views of critical scholars across a full spectrum of denominations and traditions. Why is it most people have never heard such things? This is the book that pastors, educators, and anyone interested in the Bible have been waiting for—a clear and compelling account of the central challenges we face when attempting to reconstruct the life and message of Jesus."



About the Author

Bart D. Ehrman is the author of more than twenty books, including the New York Times bestselling Misquoting Jesus and God's Problem. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the Bible and the life of Jesus. He has been featured in Time magazine and has appeared on NBC's Dateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets. He lives in Durham, North Carolina.

philologos

Malty T: I'm making two cases here, the first has long gone about Natural Selection in practice being an absolute disaster. The second is that the idea that morality is the result of evolution isn't factual, and is mere opinion not scientific fact.

The second is nothing to do with me not liking it.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I'm making two cases here, the first has long gone about Natural Selection in practice being an absolute disaster. The second is that the idea that morality is the result of evolution isn't factual, and is mere opinion not scientific fact.

The second is nothing to do with me not liking it.

Ok,

So how did morals come about then Jakkass?

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty T: I'm making two cases here, the first has long gone about Natural Selection in practice being an absolute disaster. The second is that the idea that morality is the result of evolution isn't factual, and is mere opinion not scientific fact.

The second is nothing to do with me not liking it.

Take it to "that" thread, Jakko...

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, the Bible!

STAY ON TOPIC!!:p

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: There is nothing scientifically factual in the slightest about morals having come from Darwinian evolution. It's only mere opinion. This is precisely the reason I have problem with Dawkins and others abusing science to make their points.

Passing opinion off as science is simply dishonest. It results in misplaced dogmatism to boot.

Again Jakkass, just because you choose not to look at the evidence does not mean it's not there. The evolution of morality is studied using the same process that put a man on the moon. These people don't do opinion, they form hypotheses and test them. I can see why you would misunderstand this since you follow a philosophy that says that if you try to test god it will fail because god does not like to be tested but I resent you belittling science because it doesn't fit with your religious beliefs.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've personally linked him to several websites explaining the evolution of morality. There are none so blind as those that will not see

Any proving it factually rather than merely as a philosophical idea. I'm quite aware the idea exists, as to whether it is anything more than a hypothesis, or anything more valid than Kantianism or Aristotelianism?

N.B - I didn't ask you whether or not it is studied. I'm sure it it is just as other notions concerning morality are studied.

As for banting on about it being incompatible with my religious beliefs, it isn't particularly if I can conceive God as having made the evolutionary process kick off, as by extension it would be God giving us this moral sense.

Where the issue lies, is in how it is evidenced beyond being a philosophical viewpoint about as valid as any other. It isn't science, until it is demonstrably shown to be true. If it cannot, it's merely one view amongst many.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Any proving it factually rather than merely as a philosophical idea. I'm quite aware the idea exists, as to whether it is anything more than a hypothesis, or anything more valid than Kantianism or Aristotelianism?

The two options are not proven fact or philosophical idea, that is a false dichotomy. There is hidden option C which you are not considering: scientific hypothesis/scientific theory. That is something that may or may not yet be proven but for which there is a body of supporting evidence. Unlike philosophy, science is not just someone's opinion

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Where the issue lies, is in how it is evidenced beyond being a philosophical viewpoint about as valid as any other.

It's called science. You may have heard of it

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's called science. You may have heard of it

This viewpoint concerning morality is pseudo-science. It isn't factual. I particularly resent people being dishonest about passing off viewpoints as if they are factual when it isn't the case currently.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Any proving it factually rather than merely as a philosophical idea. I'm quite aware the idea exists, as to whether it is anything more than a hypothesis, or anything more valid than Kantianism or Aristotelianism?

Maybe you should watch the video I posted.;)
Read the selfish gene.
You could also check this out.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

This viewpoint concerning morality is pseudo-science. It isn't factual. I particularly resent people being dishonest about passing off viewpoints as if they are factual when it isn't the case currently.

Jakkass,

Again I ask you how did morality come about??

philologos

What I think, is opinion and belief.

What Sam is claiming is that he somehow has scientific knowledge. I'd like to sort this out first.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

What I think, is opinion and belief.

What Sam is claiming is that he somehow has scientific knowledge. I'd like to sort this out first.

So em can you debunk it?
I mean if it's pseudoscience like..

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This viewpoint concerning morality is pseudo-science. It isn't factual. I particularly resent people being dishonest about passing off viewpoints as if they are factual when it isn't the case currently.

Just because you declare it to be pseudo science not make it so mate. Something doesn't have to be a proven fact to be called science. The theory of gravity is not a proven fact, the theory of evolution is not a proven fact, the theory of aerodynamics is not a proven fact, the theory of rocket propulsion is not a proven fact, quantum theory is not a proven fact. No scientific theory is considered a proven fact. All you're doing here is using the pathetic creationist "it's just a theory" nonsense. Of course it's a theory, hypotheses and theories are what science is built on. In science theory =/= opinion

Turtwig

Quick question,

Jakkass,
Would you agree that animals have morals?

philologos

Considering it is mainly a philosophical idea, the only way I can debunk such a notion is to subscribe to another philosophy and ardently defend it.

I recognise that Sam's view is one way of explaining morality, what I resent is when people pass off such views as scientific fact when they are mere opinions. It is my biggest objection to Richard Dawkins as well.

Opinion / philosophy != science even if such opinions and speculations are posed in scientific terms.

Sam, provide me evidence that is anything beyond an opinion, and I might regard it as fact. Otherwise, I will regard it as dishonesty.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering it is mainly a philosophical idea, the only way I can debunk such a notion is to subscribe to another philosophy and ardently defend it.

I recognise that Sam's view is one way of explaining morality, what I resent is when people pass off such views as scientific fact when they are mere opinions. It is my biggest objection to Richard Dawkins as well.

Opinion / philosophy != science even if such opinions and speculations are posed in scientific terms.

Sam, provide me evidence that is anything beyond an opinion, and I might regard it as fact. Otherwise, I will regard it as dishonesty.

Watch the dam video!!

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering it is mainly a philosophical idea, the only way I can debunk such a notion is to subscribe to another philosophy and ardently defend it.

I recognise that Sam's view is one way of explaining morality, what I resent is when people pass off such views as scientific fact when they are mere opinions. It is my biggest objection to Richard Dawkins as well.

No one is passing anything off as scientific fact. What we are talking about is a scientific THEORY

And theory =/= opinion, no matter how much you and the creationists want it to be

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Watch the dam video!!

He doesn't actually want evidence, he wants to proclaim that there is none, demand that we provide it and then ignore it when it's presented, just like Wendy Wright

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Watch the dam video!!

I'd rather that you demonstrate with sources as to how this is factual. If not, I will regard it as one idea amongst many in explaining the origins of morality. This for me is one idea, that is no more valid than any other.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd rather that you demonstrate with sources as to how this is factual. If not, I will regard it as one idea amongst many in explaining the origins of morality. This for me is one idea, that is no more valid than any other.

OK, let's make a deal first,

If I provide sources to you:

A) Better read them.

Show how they're refuted.

The video is a good layman place to start Jakkass, it has a few references in it too.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Considering it is mainly a philosophical idea, the only way I can debunk such a notion is to subscribe to another philosophy and ardently defend it.

Forgot to respond to this. You don't seem to understand the concept of debunking. Deciding that something is not true, picking something else to believe and defending it is not the same as debunking, debunking is when you show something to be wrong, not when you declare it to be

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd rather that you demonstrate with sources as to how this is factual. If not, I will regard it as one idea amongst many in explaining the origins of morality. This for me is one idea, that is no more valid than any other.

Jesus tap dancing christ Jakkass no one said it was factual. How big do I have to write the word theory before you stop claiming we're saying it's fact?


edit: and once again, in science theory =/= opinion no matter how much you and the creationists want it to be

Flamed Diving

The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism by Robert L. Trivers, cited 3997 times according to Google Scholar, which itself contains pages of such results (although many are subscription journals)

http://education.ucsb.edu/janeconoley/ed197/documents/triversTheevolutionofreciprocalaltruism.pdf

Reciprocal food sharing in the vampire bat:
http://www.life.umd.edu/faculty/wilkinson/Wilkinson84.pdf

Capuchin Monkeys refusing unequal rewards
http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html

The Evolution of Morality, Matthew Rutherford.
http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3723/1/rutherford3723.pdf


Note that these last two are not works published in science journals. This isn't because they don't exist, but because it is hard work to find free published papers, and what is the point making such an effort when their intended target won't even read them.

Back to the bible!

Turtwig

Jakkass,

I think you missed this,
Would you agree that animals have morals?

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Back to the bible!

Excellent point, perhaps we should discuss how morality in the bible evolved?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't factually the case. That is my issue. When Darwinian evolution becomes a philosophy, that is when I am not willing to accept it.

Your opinion, and Dawkins opinion on the origin of morality is no more valid than that of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, the Utilitarians / Consequentialists, Jurgen Habermas, Edith Stein, Nietzsche or anyone else.

Nonsense, the biological underpinnings of human ethics and morality are a well understood part of evolutionary psychology.

To say that the evolutionary explanation of ethics and morality is no more valid than these people simply pondering where morality comes from is totally inaccurate. We know where morality comes from, why know why we have tendency towards certain moral positions over others (eg. why it is wrong to drown 2 month old babies, why is it wrong to steal from people, why is it wrong to laugh at people when they are upset etc etc).

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a risk when we abuse science to explain things like Moral Philosophy that people can become dogmatic, and refer to such positions as fact rather than honestly claiming that it is their moral philosophy.

You are using two completely different concepts almost interchangeable and it is getting rather confusing.

Evolutionary psychology explains where human morality comes from, why it exists in humans and why it is the way it is. It explains it a lot better than any other theory and infinitely better than "God did it"

That has very little to do with moral systems that humans devise bar explaining why they devise them. I don't decide I'm not going to cheat on my girlfriend because I "following" Darwinian evolution.

I do decide that though because I have some innate sense that hurting my girlfriend is wrong. I have that innate sense because of Darwinian evolution.

Jakkass wrote: »

In a sense Dawkins is attempting to pass a moral philosophy as a science. I cannot help but have a profound issue with that.

I've never heard Dawkins do that and hear him specifically state that isn't what he wants many many times, normally in response to some Creationist saying that if we accept evolution we should all rush out and put to sleep our disabled children

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

There is nothing scientifically factual in the slightest about morals having come from Darwinian evolution. It's only mere opinion.

Quite right. It's been explained many times that basic genetic evolution produces ethical behavior, and that morals (in the usual sense of the term) are simply fossilized practices which are propagated principally by the world's religions.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is precisely the reason I have problem with Dawkins and others abusing science to make their points.

Since you don't appear to have any real understanding of the actual scientific position, how exactly can you claim to be upset with people abusing it?

BTW -- on a point of moderation -- if you're going to ignore somebody's contributions to the debate, either mine or anybody else's, it's polite to say this up front so that the ignoree can put you on ignore. Thanks.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

Excellent point, perhaps we should discuss how morality in the bible evolved?

According to the shifting zeitgeist. What else?

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism by Robert L. Trivers [...] it is hard work to find free published papers, and what is the point making such an effort when their intended target won't even read them.

Didn't know that this Trivers' paper was in the public domain -- thanks for the link.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask a question for a change. Do you think that if we based our moral structure on Darwinian evolution it would be a good thing given Natural Selection?

Darwinian explanations should be firmly confined to biology in my view. They are not in any way enlightening in how to live a full life.

I'm not condoning that we base our social philosophy on Darwinian natural selection. Why would we set our ethics to match a blind scientific process?

I do, however believe that origins of our 'morals' derive from evolved traits such as altruism, empathy etc. and not the Bible.

My real point here is that I don't think the Bible gives us ANYTHING. Definitely nothing that explains how life evolved and came into being. I also don't believe that the Bible is required to explain any of our moral values...

Do you think that before the Bible was written everyone was immoral and then suddenly God spoke to everyone and told them how to be moral beings?

I've also noticed you saying that it is not a fact that science explains our morals. The Selfish Gene puts up some really convincing arguments for evolved altruistic behaviour. Seriously, what are you suggesting as the alternative? A magic man in the sky told some guys in the Bronze Age to scribble them incoherently into a book? I mean, your not even providing a decent alternative.

(Let's ignore the fact that the Bible condones slavery and such)

krudler

Adam and Eve, right so god creates the first humans on earth who in turn have kids, one is killed, sooooo, doesnt that kind of put a halt to this whole procreation thing? are we all the result of inbreeding from Adam and Eves litter of kids? Not much of a gene pool god built himself there