Science Vs. God

I am talking about morality from a natural, material, and scientific perspective. From that perspective and compared to other animals, morals in their pure form are against: nature, materiality, and logic. Unless they comes with religion. You are claiming that the only reason Hannibal returned was to save his people, this is probably one of the main reasons. But strategically, it is a must. What is a leader without people? In theory, morality may only come in religion. But in practice, morality is in all of us. Moral hypocrisy proves that morality have a value. It can be compared to people printing fake money. Morals are subjective, not personal, it does not rely on human's desires or what they want. Good is good for the good and the evil person, and evil is evil for the good and evil person. It is against their desires, consciously or subliminally. There is no nation that claims lies are better than truth, or injustice is better than justice, or betrayal is better than trust. It is hard to define good and evil, but it is embraced by all humans. It is ridiculous that you attribute all wars to be morally good. Wars are often started because of greed and generally bad intentions. Morality exist, but that doesn't mean exceptions doesn't exist. If someone was born deformed that doesn't mean the law is wrong, but it is an exception for that law. Killing murderers for example can be seen as an exception because it attempts to fulfill that law. Lets assume, that you have the opportunity to steal something of great values with no material boundaries. Meaning that it would be impossible to get caught. Would you steal it? Talking from a material and logical and non-spiritual perspective. If you didn't steal it you are either insane or an idiot. There would be no single material argument that tells you to not steal. All arguments against that are metaphysical ones that are based on faith, so a religious person have the ability to argue against that, but a Darwin loyalist who believes in natural struggle and survival of the fittest have nothing against that. So you have three options: 1- Became a thief. 2- Be illogical and insane by denouncing the principles of materialism and atheism. 3- Be religious. The issue can be explored in Greek mythology, what did Prometheus gain by trying to help humans? If your wife or daughter asks you permission to preform adultery, would you refuse? If you did, then why? Why do we love our neighbors? Nature tells us that it is about survival of the fittest and we are not equal. You see, I pointed that humanism is simply a detour for naturalism. Meaning they will most likely lead to the same result because they are based on the same principle. First of all, I avoid using words such as "Always or Never" as a principle unless it is something proven. I never said morality is always non-profitable or always non-logical. Constitution and civil laws are mandatory and manifest human morality. (I am talking about decent laws, not laws that gives you the right to clap for royalty) But why do we need them? Why are humans the only creature that requires such thing? Why would the son of nature rebel on it? Why are humans the only ones who rebels? It is a struggle, between soul and body, between material body and higher values, between good and evil, duty and interest. The reason for all these laws is the attempt to balance between the body and the soul. For example: When someone accidentally kills someone, we don't judge by what happened physically, we judge by what that person's intention. Atheism is the only doctrine that calls for negativity and carelessness regarding morality, a submission for desires. And who resists is against Darwin and natural laws. www.nambla.org Madelyn Murry said we should have sex like cows, she stole tens of millions, and she said she will never forgive her son because he became a christian. You can't criticize such things as an atheist. We are not animals because animals can't rebel on their animalistic fate. Why people show dissatisfaction even if they are wealthy? Why is there suicide and psychological illness? Why doesn't advancement mean more humanity? You still seem unsatisfied by my answer of why God was interrupted as the cause of everything. That logic is false. When you ask someone: "Why are you climbing that mountain?" He can give two correct explanations: 1- "I want to see the view from top etc...". Which is a Teleological explanation. 2- "Since I consumed food, my body produced energy which my muscles used to start a chain of contractions after neuron signals were sent by the brain through the spinal cord after being stimulated etc..." which is the mechanical explanation. When Socrates was trialed, he answered sarcastically: "I sit here because I am made from bone and muscles... bones can be described as hard which have... muscles are elastic and they cover the bone... when bones are lifted at their joints... etc... The same joke is on atheists. These two answers are quite different, but they are both correct and exist at the same time. Thinking that the existence of one nullifies the other is false. It is a completely natural reaction, every cause have a causer. Hitler Mao Tse Tung Che Guevara Vladimir Lenin Karl Marx All had disgusting racist quotes calling for mass F'n murder. Result? 250 million killed in one century. Just because people are religious, does not mean all their wars are based on religion. English and France did not fight because of religion. True atheism spawned HEARTLESS people. I'd take religion any day. It is funny how some atheists believe that only the priests of Technocracy have the ability to uncover all the secrets of the universe solely through calculation. Lets face it, atheism is based on chaos and randomness. No two atheists can have the same belief, look the communists sects, they are completely different and see each other as parasites, and . This was forced upon them when the big bang theory took over since it removed the theory of a suspended universe, they tried to defend it as long as possible. This embarrassed atheism and scientists admitted it. Seculars are using the same argument of Jews. They brag that 40% of Nobel prize winners are Jews (Although Obama refuted Nobel prize). But look at Ethiopian Jews, only one of them won a Nobel prize. Science is completely neutral, it is does not really on your doctrine. Muslims were religious, but at some point they were advanced in science. SMH, I don't know why you'd mention Hawkins. That guy is contradictory beyond belief. "Philosophy is dead" at the beginning of the book. Yet all his book is based on philosophy... He is trying to soft resurrect the theory of suspended universe. 'Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.' -John Lennox Albert Einestine, Issac Newton, Allan Sandage believed in God. Here are some philosophic puzzles that I doubt could be solved based on atheist principles. 1- Like Descartes said, how can we prove everything around us is materialistic? Couldn't life be a dream? If you dreams of being a butterfly and woke up, how do you know you are not actually a butterfly having a long dream? Could we prove that objects still exist if we don't sense them? 2- Can you prove in a logical argument that the sun is going to raise tomorrow? 3- If someone killed your son for example, you would shout, be angry and intense. But that adds nothing to reality, thus it is meaningless. Therefore, saying that the world or life have no meaning is also meaningless and adds nothing to reality. So is anything real? 4- I have a mind and free will because I am conscious, but isn't it possible for me to be the only conscious mind in the universe and people around me are intelligent creatures similar to puppets? Since you used youtube: http://www.debate.org...