How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

What do you think about EQ?



Could empathy and mirror neurons be the reason?

That is a huge subject. Depending on what you mean by it, it may well be what separates us from animals. Our souls may be the source of our EQ and if so, God is the one who gave it to us.

Leadfoot Quote:
"If God is not the source of our rights, then there is no basis for them."


Maybe, but I would not want to make that the defining factor. You will find people who swear that animals have empathy and people who 'know' that human empathy is nothing more than an evolutionary adaptation.

Elephants are known to have feelings and empathy. And a long memory.

There ya go RL..

Join me for the elephants rights march in DC next month.

I like to take things much further than you, I will be joining these folks.

The above is what I was arguing against. You seemed to be saying that that paper gave us grounds for 'recognizing and correcting and preventing violation'.

Well, again, that lofty goal never materialized for many..and you seem to have shifted to talking about God being the 'grounds' for our inalienable rights.

That some being placed these morals in us, I cannot argue. What is there to argue against? Perhaps against your claim, I could claim there is a 1000 foot intangible invisible, in a word, imperceptible (except to me of course and a select few others who she chooses to reveal herself) tyrannosaurus Rex that gives me my morals.

Seriously, that God built into our genes the capacity for recognition of behaving correctly in a social group - there's nothing there to argue. Its a dead end, essentially a non sequitur.

However, after that, clearly we do not need a God to intervene to make us moral. In fact, when people claim that so called God intervenes, as often as not, violence follows. But of course, these aren't the 'true' followers, correct?

If, however, I am to take your example of rights and enslavement and what rights do we have etc. The conclusion you so reluctantly want to avoid stares you in your soul. We have every right to do as we wish. We create our morals, we create our goodness and our evil. It just so happens, that the balance of that creation happens to fall on what we would call the 'good end' and this because we are social creatures.

If we did not, on balance, tend towards love, preservation, etc..we would have long been since extinct. The majority of us are 'pushed' into this 'morality' from being born. We learn we have to get along to live without as much trouble as we can and even more than that, we are programmed to love, for empathy, its in our genes (and if you want to say that parts from God, I don't know what that means, but I can't argue that).

The rest, as alluded, is socially provincialized. We are pushed through the pipe of helping each other. And for those who don't, they don't and with varying degrees and by the era of our existence, most of the majority call them immoral. This should be self evident. We have no rights except those we bestow upon ourselves. Clearly this is the way we live, your ideals about absolute morals non withstanding..

So, this is the basis for our rights. We are the basis for our rights. I do not have to appeal to God to form the rights of my family. We create them, that is the basis and that is undeniable because we practice it every day with or without respect of deity. If you cannot handle the emotional turmoil, the disturbance in your 'force' over whether morals have to be absolute, then I cannot help you there..It is what it is..

If you haven't seen this, check it out. In this corner, William Lane Craig! Christian philosopher and apologist wearing the God pants. In that corner, Shelly Kagan, wearing the cool sneakers..Debate exactly what we are talking about..

In other interviews, Craig is kinda a bull dog bludgeoning his way past his foes with the same lines; Shelly is the only guy I have seen make Craig uncomfortable..see for yourself..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RbfIMudPaA&feature=youtu.be

Thanks for the props RL, I am learning all the time, there are some smart folks on this site. I'm glad for those I probably tend to agree with like you and equally as glad for others that I don't agree with.

At the end of the day, regardless of whether I agree with whoever, there are tidbits I pick up of things i didn't know before and there is also the challenge of defending yourself that makes you think about the validity of your own beliefs..we're all here, or most of us anyway, to learn the mind of God..

Cheers mate!

I agree; we are here to agree and disagree with folks, and beyond that it also provides the opportunity for a2kers to meet face-to-face.
I have met many a2kers over the years in San Francisco, Austin, Houston, Chicago, New York, London, Lippstadt (Germany), Mexico City and Moscow.

Sounds like you have quite the traveling shoes! Very cool..

You and I share much in common my friend, I look forward to more of the same

Its nice to find that huh?

I assume this is Emotion Quotient and not Encephalization Quotient?

If so, have you read the take on EQ by Chuck Klosterman in his new book, 'But What If We're Wrong'. He posits that animals may have a higher EQ than humans and so in the future, change our perception of moral superiority in humans compared to animals; especially relative to our slaying them to eat them or wear their hides..

On a side note, I think the distinction between animals and humans, while there are certainly differences, are far more quantitative than qualitative. That we have tried to distinguish and separate ourselves from other species is probably more fear and ego based than fact. To do this is a human psychological trait, but in my view unnecessary. I have absolutely no trouble thinking that animals are superior to me in whatever way my honest judgment deems they are..

If you haven't read them already, Frans De Waal has quite a few books you might like regarding this inflated dichotomy: 'Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are' and 'The Bonobo And The Atheist'. Fascinating reads.

We agree that is our task. I've laid my cards on the table about what I think the mind of God intends.

Catbeasy, It's your turn..., unless that phrase in your post was just a poetic flourish.

What do you think?

I've been to 85 countries in over 200 trips. I have been fortunate and priviledged. The reward has been making friends in many of those countries I have visited. Many are a2k participants.

I think you've been lukewarm and ambiguous.

Fair enough..I'm that way because, unlike you, I don't have as many hard and fast answers.

All I maintain is what isn't very likely to be true and what doesn't make logical sense..I'm pretty adamant about those things, but as far as the Truth about ontological things? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. I don't think its knowable. I'm pretty sure there's isn't a guy with a beard in the sky or any dimension or with any kind of 'personality' as described by any human..

If that's lukewarm and/or ambiguous..ok..

On the other hand Jesus said "I say and do nothing of my own accord, I only say and do what my Father tells me to", then went on to give us God's words such as- "The priestly classes are hellbound... full of filth...offspring of snakes...prostitutes are better than them"
So Gods personality sounds alright to me..

You have aquited youself of both charges, that was neither lukewarm nor ambiguous.

But don't stop looking anyway.

I have stopped looking..!

It never happened to me consciously. I found myself reading all kinds of philosophies, science books, text books, historical books, fiction novels (like the bible - ), biographies..

I started reading them to understand one thing someone said and then would read something and to understand that I needed another book etc.

I never really reflected beyond that until at some point I did and asked myself why I am reading these things. And without hesitation I realized I read these things because I enjoy reading an account of our knowledge, especially the historical development of our knowledge; the why of a particular belief and the tracing/development of how that belief changed and why it changed.

It was never for answers for myself. I intuitively realized early on that there are no ontological answers. No one has them, not me, not you, not the Bible. This is not because I am a skeptic. I am a skeptic because I realize there aren't knowable ontological answers in the same way that I know I have movie tickets.

So I read and engage in discussion for pleasure, for the pleasure of finding out the limits of what can be known and why those limits exist. And if I stumble across some ontological Truth on the way and so change my mind, fair enough. But unlikely. Why am I so special? No human throughout history has been able to accomplish this. Or maybe I'm the saviour! Hmmm...