kam, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that modern ethics are a product of religion.

modern ethics?

define modern ethics....and explain how religion caters to them. in Leviticus and Deuteronomy there are detailed explanations on how to treat your slave. of course we all know slavery is wrong....but obviously religion has more closely aligned itself with modern ethics...not the other way around.

not to mention this religion of yours was responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, salem witch trials, abortion doctor murders, gay rights violations etc....so i don't agree with your assertion at all there.

your confusion religion with messed up individuals who do stuff in the name of religion.

With or without (religion) you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things it takes religion.

Steven Weinberg

although it is a charming quote, it is utterly false. Good people do bad things all the time, but religion doesn't necessarily play a role in it. Heartbreak, personal crisis, desperation...

i'm curious what sorts of things you think religion in general (and if you want to be specific with your religion, thats cool too) has contributed to modern ethics or morality.

modern ethics got triggered by the age of enlightenment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment imo.

So deten is right when he says modern ethics is a product of religion, since without religious dogmas there would have been no need for enlightenment.

Every religion of course has its own code of conduct. However i believe religion is rather a symptom for the human desire to establish moral rules than the sole cause for it.

The universe cannot have existed for an infinite period of time. Just as we could never get to a point in time infinitely far away, we could never get to today from a time infinitely far in the past.

The conclusion is that time itself had to have a beginning. This is one of the reasons an event like the Big Bang is necessary.

The conversation in these threads in general seems to be mixing belief in theism and belief in Christianity. While one is required of the other, they are quite distinct.

And scrappy, sorry for never responding re our science discussion. When I came back later on it was 20+ posts later and off the main page. I'd be happy to continue discussing the differences between 'pure' science and the methods of processual archaeology if you like.

Although I'm also starting a new job and Monday and kdice will be even more a thing of the past for me. I'm sure I'll pop in on occasion, but for the most part...so long, and thanks for all the fish.

> I'm pretty sure that modern ethics are a product of religion.

There is no doubt that religion has influenced our legal system and most peoples code of ethics, but I don't see how that relates to Kam's statement. I agree with Kam, a higher power would make me feel my actions are more trivial, because I don't get to conclude for myself right and wrong, or my purpose. I'd just be a peon in their little game.

>The conclusion is that time itself had to have a beginning.

Right, but to be clear, this does not back up crap stackers claim that something had to start the big bang.

When we speak about "time", we usually assume that it is essential for an event to happen.
But that would mean that the state right before the big bang, where all mass and energy was confined to a single point, was unable to perform any change, since time was passing infinetely slow (as in not passing at all).

So time can not be the only dimension along which events can occur.