Jump to content
I don't see how you could possibly read what I wrote and interpret it as me using anthropology to disprove the existence of god. I was using it to show that there is at least one explanation for our moral code that doesn't require a god. It's possible that a god exists, but you can't prove it using the "argument from morality." That's the point that was made earlier and the one to which I was responding. If you're going to interject in the conversation, please take the time to understand what the conversation is about.
Earlier you wrote, "Do you think they are not defensive and argumentative?" Now, you're going on about opinions being expressed "louder and louder." I'm sure that you would love to have an argument with this "angry, screaming atheist" stereotype that you have in your head, but I really don't think that's who you're dealing with here. Sorry.
In fact, if you read back through all of the comments, the person being the most "defensive and argumentative" is you.
You don't need a god to determine morals. Humans are communal animals. We live in societies. The only way we've been able to survive and advance is through cooperation with one another. In order for that cooperation to exist, we must be able to trust one another. In order for that trust to exist, we can't allow people to go around committing acts of violence against others and stealing from others. What we think of us "right and wrong" is really just a set of rules that encourage co-operative behavior and help assure our survival. Over the course of about 200,000 years, these things have become innate within us. No god necessary.
Last login: Monday, May 6, 2013