I am simply refusing to waste my time explaining something to you when WE BOTH KNOW you will pretend I never explained it and raise the same illogical arguments with the next person you argue with.

But then, you have shown yourself to have no interest in having a fair and honest discussion. Every atheist I know admits that they’re prepared to be wrong, if only the evidence and logic can prove it. You have no interest in honesty or the truth. You believe in god, and nothing will ever change your mind. You will never admit that you might be wrong. You have no interest in understanding science or evolution. You are trapped and deluded by ancient mythology, and rather than try and find evidence to support your belief, you simply “know” you’re right and refuse to consider alternatives.

Therefore, there is no point in debating.

I seriously encourage you to join http://www.iidb.org where you can get all the debating you want, until people there also get fed up of your short-memory and lack of logic. And I mean no offence by that.

See ya!

(but as usual, you still have not explained why physical nature evolved one way and our morals another. Why didn’t they both evolve the same way? Why haven’t we evolved physically to be monogamous so that we are not at odds with our “moral genes”?)

Since I know that there is no answer, you don’t need to respond. I will just go with Dawkin’s answer “It must have just happened that way!”
See ya!

A bigger fairy tale than you think the Bible is. There is absolutely no evidence (and I mean none) that morals evolve.

Read the Selfish Gene.

Can you even point to a time when the morals were different? Was there a time when rape and child abuse was acceptable and now 10 million years later we have changed.

Rape and child abuse are always wrong. Only when humans achieved sapience did we have responsibility for our action. This sets us apart from animals who have no guilt.

If you’d listened to what atheists said, you know that many of them believe there are constant objective moral facts, so you shouldn’t have even asked that question.

Are you going to show me a brain fossil that shows this evolutionary process. Even the best that Dawkins and Harris can do is to say “well, it must have happened that way.” But they have no evidence.

If you understood fossil evidence and how evolution works you wouldn’t have said that.

Don’t you know that you can’t go from a “what is” to an “ought”. (someone needs to take a philosophy course.)

Are you taking the piss? The fact that you can’t go from “is” to “ought” was precisely the point I was making about nature not being a guide to morals.

Speaking of philosophy Geno, ever heard of Occam’s razor? Slice. Bye bye “god”.

Look at it this way, we are shamed by society into not having public sex – it isn’t something that is good for the species therefore we evolved the morals to go into our bedroom.

But the shame that comes from not wanted to have sex in public, just like urinate or defecate, is a product of evolution. There are people who have no shame in this regard (how does your fairy tale explain them?), but in order to adapt better to a social environment, evolution selected humans with better etiquette.

See, once again evolution explains all, and your “god clicked his fingers, *snap*, there’s a universe!” theory is made to look like the ancient myth it is.

Speaking of evidence, got any for creationism??

We have gone completely off track now, and the conversation has meandered so many times.

A strong suggestion: http://www.iidb.org. Sign up to the discussion board and then you can post your own threads and discuss with hundreds of people your views, and there’ll always be someone to debate with. I’ll see you there.

Don’t you know that you can’t go from a “what is” to an “ought”. (someone needs to take a philosophy course.) Look at it this way, we are shamed by society into not having public sex – it isn’t something that is good for the species therefore we evolved the morals to go into our bedroom.

I’m not going over this ground again because it’ll go over your head and next time you’ll say all this again as if we’ve never talked about it.

Isn’t it time to just admit that man is bent to do evil and that you steal your good morals from religion, because you don’t want people crapping on your front lawn?

“However, incest does cause harm, which is why it’s “wrong”. Can you back this up? Consenting adults (brother and sister) – “which is why it’s “wrong”. You don’t really mean “wrong” here do you. Shouldn’t a good atheist just say that it is “unfashionable”? Quit being so “unreligiously” dogmatic.

Religion rejects gay sex for the same reason it rejects incest. If no children are involved why would anyone care? Just give me and my grandmother the marriage license and mind your own business.

“sexual gratification wherever and whenever you feel like” are you a prude? Why do you care when and where someone gets it on?

But to more serious issues 9th post up (my last one to you – was I on point?

Why wouldn’t you agree with or endorse something that is natural. That’s a pretty strange statement.

Argument from Nature – fallacious. Just because something is natural doesn’t make it right or wrong. Marriage and clothing are unnatural. Urination and sexual gratification wherever and whenever you feel like it are natural. Farming is unnatural. Rape is natural.

Nature is not a guide to morality, it’s simply the ways things are.

But you have to admit, if we can make way for gay marriage, why not father/daughter marriage. Come on, let’s be fair!

If incest didn’t HARM anyone at all, then I would not object to it. My own personal misgivings aside, if two consenting adult want to have sex and no one gets hurt, that’s up to them.

Now, not all atheists might agree with me on this (after all, why would they?), but that’s my personal opinion.

However, incest does cause harm, which is why it’s “wrong”.

Gay people get married because they want to express their love to their relative, friends, and the world, and want to live together in that union. Isn’t that what marriage is about? Gay people get married for the same reasons that straight people do! It’s a personal choice.

But gay sex is between two consenting adults and it harms no one, so there is no problem. So why do all religions condemn it??

Why wouldn’t you agree with or endorse something that is natural. That’s a pretty strange statement.

Your comment “Why get married if you just want fun monkey sex? It’s just a contract to further the goal of child-rearing. Why do you want it sanctified by the state? Still need that authority figure in your life?”

That’s the same question I ask gays. Why cause all this trouble, just retreat to your bedroom!
But you have to admit, if we can make way for gay marriage, why not father/daughter marriage. Come on, let’s be fair!

Why get married if you just want fun monkey sex? It’s just a contract to further the goal of child-rearing. Why do you want it sanctified by the state? Still need that authority figure in your life?

If sex is what you both want to do, and you think it’s ok, and it’s not hurting anyone, it doesn’t bother me. Whatever floats your boat. That doesn’t mean I will endorse it or practice it myself.

Atheists as a group don’t really endorse anything, including infidelity. It’s not a replacement for religion. There is no dogma to be handed down. We say that morality come from humankind’s own innate perceptions of right and wrong and that it’s not handed down from a character in a book.

So, an adulterer is no less wrong when he leaves the church, he is just rationalising it to himself because he believes that morals come from without rather than within. In this case, he’s wrong because his actions will eventually hurt someone else. He should leave his wife if his relationship is so poor that he needs to cheat, or make the effort to fix the underlying problem.

Furthermore, there’s a difference between leaving the social circle of the church (there is a case to be made that many church-goers attend for the social gathering rather than a true belief in a god) and becoming an atheist. It’s more likely that they didn’t really believe it in the first place and became uncomfortable with it’s rigid moral teachings.

Lastly, humans are not a naturally monogamous species, so I can understand why a man or woman cheats on the spouse (a whole other topic), but that doesn’t mean I endorse it or agree with it.

Anyway, we’re digressing again, so I’ll stop now.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1454,Richard-Dawkins-on-Hardtalk,BBC-Richard-Dawkins

Watch this Dawkins interview. Somewhere around midway he is asked if being brought up in the church is so damaging, how he was able to come out of his Anglican upbringing and being in an Anglican school. He says, with his great arrogance, of course he was able to come out of it. But when the interviewer brought up his parents, Dawkins gets a bit miffed – why? because, in that passage I quoted from the book, he had likened even his own parents to being worse than child molesters since they made him be brought up in the church. This is a man who is more dogmatic than any Ayatollah that the world has seen and has great hatred issues.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1454,Richard-Dawkins-on-Hardtalk,BBC-Richard-Dawkins

Beside that point, people leave because they THINK that they can be free. Someone who is cheating on their wife, will not admit to it being morally wrong and will therefore leave the church and reject God so that they can justify it by saying, “no god, no rules.”
Are you saying that atheists endorse cheating on their wives?

So in the end, they are no more free – but that is why they leave.