My thoughts on God and gods..

[Lullaby Chainer]

Below is one of my on-going essays. Please rip it to shreds as I wish to improve it. I realize much of it is in a non-debate form.. but don't let that stop you from debating why it should be there or not.. or if it's wrong to say, or if it's even effective in the essay (assuming my target audience are theists). Also! If you know of any atheist arguments that I haven't mentioned.. please let me know.

(Please be hostile. The more hostile you are towards the below, the better it can become)

-No one should go through life unquestionably worshiping a god. I'm fine with people worshiping an all-powerful being, but please first consider your world and choices. If you never question your god, you're simply a product of your environment. You're letting your environment think for you. Think.. if you've never questioned your beliefs, where did you get them from? Not yourself.. instead, your environment. If you were born in China, and were brought up as a Bhuddist, you would be just as faithful and certain of your religion (or philosophy, in this case) than you are now. A room of a 'you' brought up as a Christian and a 'you' brought up as a Buddhist would have one thing in common.. they are both 100% certain that their beliefs are correct. Are you really willing to leave your beliefs up to your environment? Please, take time to examine your world. Give yourself time to think and consider. Look at all religions, no religion, all philosophies, or create your own views, and I promise, this world will become a much nicer and tolerant place to live as soon as those born to think only one way and have never considered thinking any other way have all evaporated.
-It's OK not to know everything. As soon as you start filling in the blanks with crack-pot theories and magical beings, you've given up on the wonder and mystery of this world. I can't tell you how strange it sounds for someone to tell me that scientists are not certain about everything while they are.. because their god answers all questions for them. Actually, your god has not answered all questions for you. You now have a even bigger problem in your hands.. First, you criticize the immense complexity of life and the universe, and claim it MUST be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, conscious thinking supernatural being.. but you then ignore that if OUR current empirical world is so gosh-darn complex and impossible.. then a mind so intelligent and powerful as a god's must be infinitely more impossible than ours. You claim that the universe could not have popped out of no where, but then, neither could your god. You then claim your god has always existed, but then, so could the universe. You aren't solving any problems by introducing magical beings into your gaps of knowledge. You only introduce more problems while feeling strangely satisfied by the fact that your first problems have now been solved, or rather, covered.
-If you aren't familiar with Pascal's Wager.. it's a theist argument that goes like this:
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell. Therefore it is foolish to be an atheist."
Firstly, the argument does not indicate which religion to follow. By following one religion, you may end up in another religion's Hell. Another problem with the argument is that it assumes both possibilities are equally likely. To an atheist, this isn't so. I don't believe those possibilities are at all equal. In fact, I see it as 1 to 1000. Thus, the argument is likely only to convince those who already believe.. which defeats the purpose of the wager. Also, I, as well as many atheists, agnostics, non-theists, and followers of just gods, are not prepared to worship a god who hands out eternal judgment cards of two painfully infinite extremes based on one's beliefs rather than one's actions. I can honestly say I am not willing to worship that kind of god, and I find threats of agony and suffering for all of eternity very suspicious.. it seems this coax has been used in nearly all religions as far back as Roman mythology.
-Next comes the problem of suffering and evil in our world. The Christian god is capable of anything, anything less would not make him a god. Now lets see here, God is capable of anything, but he creates a world of suffering. Now, don't tell me its our own fault, that we would just be robots if we couldn't sin.
The classic retort by theists to the problem of evil is that God gave humanity free will. The usual reason given for this is that he didn't want to create mindless robots, and the consequence of this decision is that evil is the responsibility of man, not God. I will attempt to prove if the omnimax God exists, then the moral responsibility for evil lies with him whether or not he gave us free will. Let's consider the Xian description of post-judgment eternity in heaven. This will apparently be a place of moral perfection where there will be no evil - indeed there can't ever be any evil there. Now either the inhabitants of heaven will have free will or they won't. If they have free will then that's proof that it's possible for free will and moral perfection to co-exist. That means that having free will is not the reason for evil - which means that the ultimate responsibility for evil is back on God's shoulders. On the other hand if they don't have free will then the theist's logic falls completely apart. He is left in the absurd position of arguing that God gave us free will because he didn't want mindless robots serving him in order to ultimately have mindless robots serving him for all eternity. If God ultimately wants mindless robots then why bother giving us free will in the first place? In that case, he's still responsible for all the evil caused by giving us free will.
Not to mention, none of us chose to live with disease and natural disaster that causes mountains of agony and pain for billions of people. That certainly is a problem of suffering, but in this case, there is no free-will cop-out to fall back on. Granted, perhaps God wants to condition us? Why? What need does God have in teaching us a lesson through intense suffering that he could not just teach us himself? I find it absurd that an omnipotent being has needs. In fact, that goes against the definition of omnipotent. Why does God choose to test us on Earth when we could all just live in Heaven, which, according to a premise, is a much better place than Earth or Hell?
There are also many situations that challenge this idea. Such as the case with Johnny. Johnny didn't choose to be born with a disease that will slowly disintegrate his bones that will bind him to a motorized wheel chair, a distorted face, poor speaking capabilities, embarrassment from soiling himself, constant agony, and the knowledge that he will die at a young age. And what does God expect? That Johnny will just forgive God and accept that God just likes testing his faith? Oh and, if he didn't pass the test of faith, he would have just sent him to suffer forever in Hell? I would hope, even if Johnny disbelieved and even scorned the very idea of God, God would allow him in Heaven nonetheless. But even so, if God was going to just allow him in Heaven no matter what, why did he have to test his faith? What sick "need" does a god have that would allow him to do this? What finite sin deserves infinite punishment?
-There are countless errors in the "design" of our world. To name a few..
* Babies can swallow and breathe simultaneously, until the larynx descends after two or three months, making us prone to choking. Why would a supposedly intelligent creator combine our breathing and eating channels into one single orifice? Think of the lives this slipshod design has cost.
* How about the appendix and tonsils? Leaving such useless and dangerous components in the final-version human speaks ill of the creator's intelligence.
* In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland prone to infection and subsequent enlargement, which blocks the urethra. A better plumbing design requires little intelligence.
* Most any man, when questioned, would agree that having a scrotum, leaving his reproductive organs in an extremely vulnerable position, might not have been a particularly good idea.
* Other creatures have unnecessary features also, such as vestigial structures in whales and some snakes, or nonfunctional wings on some insects. An example of suboptimal design is also obvious in the African locust, in which the abdomen nerves are co-opted in flight because they connect to the wings located in the thorax.
Why would God mess up in these areas?
-The Bible (as well as most holy texts) is full of contradictions, brutality, racism, sexism, intolerance, scientific inaccuracies, historical inaccuracies, nonsensicalness, hatred, disgusting morals, repulsive holy figures, and what surprises me the most.. is that people can ignore all of the horrible things in the Bible and act as if they aren't even there. Please, read the Bible.. read it for what it is and pay attention to what it is actually saying.

[Lullaby Chainer]

-There are many misconceptions about atheists and non-theists. The first being, and the most silly, is that atheists worship the devil. No, we don't worship the devil nor do we even believe the devil exists. I'm afraid people who believe such things need to look up what 'worship' means. Now, if they want to say we support satanism, I can understand their concern but they are still being incredibly paranoid and not entirely truthful. We do not support Satanism, in fact, we do the exact opposite. We support free-thought away from religion and Satanism.
-The next misconception is that atheists are immoral. Firstly, the word "atheism" does not even dwell on morality. It simply means without beliefs in God or gods. Statistically, the number of atheist in prison to the number of atheists in the US is the same, if not better (in surveys in the 1990s) than the proportion of Christians in prison to the number of Christians in the US. Keep in mind this is a ratio and should not be mistaken for raw numbers.. as obviously there are a greater total of Christians in the US. If atheists are so immoral, why is this not reflect in prison statistics? In fact, the opposite is supported by the statistics. Now, where does an atheist or non-theist get his or her morals? From love of man-kind, from philosophy, from law, from instincts. The statistics show this is going pretty damn well for atheists. Theists, on the other hand, often have to cherry-pick the good morals from their holy book while ignore the bad, brutal, racist, sexist, intolerant (although many theists tend to accept the intolerant morals), or cruel ones.

[saltinespike]

The more you question your beliefs, the more ludicrous they seem. Another misconception that you did not mention was that atheists were brought up as atheists and have always been atheists and have never questioned their beliefs. It is almost always the opposite. Atheists started out as Christians, Catholics, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc. You question your beliefs, and it simply doesn't make sense.

This next thing is being brought up from a topic I made a long time ago: if you think that ANYONE is going to the way you imagine hell to be, for whatever reason, that is one of the most selfish things I have ever heard. I'll break it down. Everyone has (and is entitled to) their own beliefs. I'll set up a scenario. Let's say that you are a Christian and I am an atheist, and I believe in some sort of afterlife (another misconception: atheists don't believe in afterlife, yes, almost all of us do), but not Heaven. You believe that I'm going to how you believe Hell is going to be for not believing what you believe. If you didn't catch that, I'll repeat it. I'm going to what you think Hell is like because I don't believe what you believe. Selfish in 2 respects.

As far as your environment arguement, I agree. (By the way, religious people, this is why many atheists believe that they are smarter than you, because we asked questions that religious folks didn't.) In my eyes, most atheists are hungry for knowledge. We ask "why?" a LOT.

God: I am the most powerful being ever!
Atheists: Why?
God: I just am! Ok?
Atheists: Prove it!
God: Well... I can't, really.
Atheists: Well, you don't really makes sense then.

[gw120]

If you were born in China, and were brought up as a Bhuddist, you would be just as faithful and certain of your religion (or philosophy, in this case) than you are now. A room of a 'you' brought up as a Christian and a 'you' brought up as a Buddhist would have one thing in common.. they are both 100% certain that their beliefs are correct.

You ripped that off of a Dawkins speech.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: gw120 You ripped that off of a Dawkins speech.

I did? :]

I honestly haven't heard of that speech.. but to know that we think alike, if what you say is true, is very encouraging. I've actually been thinking what you say I ripped since I was 14.. it was one of the first notions that made me wonder about God.

[Yasa]

Good points all round. I especially like the questioning of free will and good/evil. How can we really have free will if an omnipotent being already knows what we will do? And, if he knows this, wouldn't this mean that he is the reason for evil as he would already know that we would "choose" evil? He must be laughing a lot if he knows our ultimate judgement already and we think we have choice. An omnipotent being who knows all past, present, and future makes the universe void of any meaning whatsoever. If the future is the present/past (in the eyes of such a being), there is no choice, no free will, and no meaning.

[Alive]

Just a few responses:

1. Everyone is a product of their environment. If you were born in the Middle Eeast and raised a Muslim, you probably wouldn't be an atheist--your very questioning self is a product of Western culture. Ever question why you question so much? A room of 'you' Muslim and 'you' questioner would have one thing in common--you are both 100% certain that your most fundamental beliefs are correct (Islam and the idea of questioning).

2. I've mentioned this before, when you wrote this earlier, so I'm not going to go into it again; but no one disagrees that its ok not to know everything. It is a myth that people believe in god because they have no other explanation for how things came to be.

3. Pascal's wager does not assume the possibilities are equal. Even if there's only a 1 in a million chance that disbelief in Christian god will send you to eternal hell, if eternal hell is 1 billion times worse than no eternal hell, it could still be rational (in game-theory terms) to be Christian. What Pascal's wager does assume is that the possibility of a Christian deity are finite and above zero. It also assumes that God wants faith; it ignores the possibility God only sends those who have faith in him to hell and the atheists to heaven.

4. Why is it bad that people ignore the Bible? What if people read it and actually believed it? Today Christians are very much Westerners with Western ideals, not Biblical ones. Ignoring the Bible is a good thing. Modern Christianity has almost nothing to do with the Bible, and that's a tremendous accomplishment. It has most of the good features of religion with few of the bad, especially the more liberal denominations.

[saltinespike]

I disagree about your view that your environment affects you, Alive. Sure it does, but not to the point where you think it does. My parents are both very much Christian, yet I believe there is no God, and my beliefs pretty much contradict theirs'. What you said is like "monkey see, monkey do". If a child's parents snort cocaine every day, that doesn't mean that there's a 100% chance that the child will even TRY it in his lifetime, for he saw what it did to his parents.

[Alive]

You're assuming that one's environment is composed only of one's parents. That is false. Much more important is the culture one belongs to. In Western culture, it is entirely acceptable to be a different religion than your parents; in some subcultures, it is even admired. In other cultures, being a non-mainstream religion is extremely frowned upon regardless of whether one's parents were also that religion.

My basic point stands: You would probably not be an atheist if you were born in certain places in the world.

[saltinespike]

I suppose you are correct. But only because you put probably in there. Because that's how other religions start: thinking differently than everyone else where that is not socially acceptable. How did Lutherans, Calvinists, Protestants, etc. come about? Thinking differently. But you put probably, so it's cool. Hah.

[5010]

There is a benefit to having the same belief as others around you. If you question it and become the maverick, then your life could become very difficult, which depends on the tolerance in the environment. Worse, lack of faith could lead to choosing behaviors that go against the morality based on that faith, which would be considered offenses to the others around you.

[Alive]

I put "probably" because it's not certain. You're correct that not everyone accepts their own culture unquestionably. Everyone is still a product of their environment. But a few go beyond that environment to innovate a little (or a lot). That's how you get new ideas.

But, on that note, innovation is not only one sided. Fundamentalism was an innovative reaction to religious liberalism. American evangelical Christianity (in its current form) is a new movement. "Intelligent Design" is a new idea. The form of absolutist Islamic fundamentalism that lots of Westerner's fear is also new. All these movements questioned the liberal aspects of their environment and rejected them in favor of becoming more religious. So neither secularism nor religion has a monopoloy on either innovation or tradition.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Alive Just a few responses: 1. Everyone is a product of their environment. If you were born in the Middle Eeast and raised a Muslim, you probably wouldn't be an atheist--your very questioning self is a product of Western culture. Ever question why you question so much? A room of 'you' Muslim and 'you' questioner would have one thing in common--you are both 100% certain that your most fundamental beliefs are correct (Islam and the idea of questioning).

Actually.. there's a huge difference between just letting your environment define you and letting existence and yourself define you. Enviroment refers to only your immediate surroundings.. your family, your friends, your church, your teachers. If you just let yourself go with THEIR flow.. you're nothing more than a sheep. If you look at the ENTIRE world.. and then into yourself, you'll find you'll be much more happy with your beliefs and chances are.. your beliefs will be far better educated and informed than your enviroment's beliefs may be.

Quote by: Alive 2. I've mentioned this before, when you wrote this earlier, so I'm not going to go into it again; but no one disagrees that its ok not to know everything. It is a myth that people believe in god because they have no other explanation for how things came to be.

That's a wildly dumb generalization. I simply said it OK not to know everything.. showing that it's not the end of the world if you don't know why we're here or how things came to be. By saying NO ONE disagrees is just plain retarded. :] It is a very common feeling to want purpose and answers.. not to mention I only mentioned that because it led into how "God answers our questions" is total BS.

Quote by: Alive 3. Pascal's wager does not assume the possibilities are equal. Even if there's only a 1 in a million chance that disbelief in Christian god will send you to eternal hell, if eternal hell is 1 billion times worse than no eternal hell, it could still be rational (in game-theory terms) to be Christian. What Pascal's wager does assume is that the possibility of a Christian deity are finite and above zero. It also assumes that God wants faith; it ignores the possibility God only sends those who have faith in him to hell and the atheists to heaven.

This isn't a freaking board game kiddo. This is life.

Not to mention, I'm physically incapable of worshiping a god that judges us to all extremes on our BELIEFS rather than our ACTIONS.

Not to mention, I think it is just as likely that if there is a god.. he or she or it could very well reward atheists instead.

Either way.. life isn't a freaking board game and those (stats) are really pointless. Secondly, I can't worship such a god. Thirdly, I feel it's just as likely a god would reward atheists for their skepticm or clear-thinking (that's just my opinion.. and in regards to a wager that is suppose to convince me I'm being foolish for not believing in God, my opinions are actually very important)

Quote by: Alive 4. Why is it bad that people ignore the Bible? What if people read it and actually believed it? Today Christians are very much Westerners with Western ideals, not Biblical ones. Ignoring the Bible is a good thing. Modern Christianity has almost nothing to do with the Bible, and that's a tremendous accomplishment. It has most of the good features of religion with few of the bad, especially the more liberal denominations.

I wish to uncover that nasty little book for what it is.

[Alive]

Actually.. there's a huge difference between just letting your environment define you and letting existence and yourself define you. Enviroment refers to only your immediate surroundings.. your family, your friends, your church, your teachers. If you just let yourself go with THEIR flow.. you're nothing more than a sheep. If you look at the ENTIRE world.. and then into yourself, you'll find you'll be much more happy with your beliefs and chances are.. your beliefs will be far better educated and informed than your enviroment's beliefs may be.

Hey, I don't disagree; I'm just saying that if you did all that, looked into yourself, etc. in a different environment it would probably lead you somewhere besides atheism because atheism is far more accepted in Western culture than other cultures. What one does with one's environment is one's choice, but it is still heavily influenced by things outside oneself. The way you think was not simply invented by you, it is the product of many years of cultural development that went before you.

That's a wildly dumb generalization. I simply said it OK not to know everything.. showing that it's not the end of the world if you don't know why we're here or how things came to be. By saying NO ONE disagrees is just plain retarded. :] It is a very common feeling to want purpose and answers.. not to mention I only mentioned that because it led into how "God answers our questions" is total BS.

Look, there's no definite proof I can give you for why I'm right here. I only think this based on my own experiences with religious people. And those experiences are that religious people do not turn to religion as a means of understanding how the universe came to be. Purpose, definitely; answers, as in factual answers, no. Some religious people look towards science for facts, some towards other sources including religion, but that is not the reason they are reliigious. Again, can't prove this to you, so I'm not going to go any further. It's just my experience interacting with real religious people, in person, over all the years of my life.

This isn't a freaking board game kiddo. This is life.

Life is life. Pascal's wager is a game. That is, it's an argument which is best expressed in terms of game theory. And if you're going to refute Pascal's wager, you should refute it correctly. It is quite true that Pascal's wager is fallacious, but it is not true that it depends on the probability of god's existance to be equal to the probability of his nonexistance. This is just a technical point, but it is a correct technical point, so you should get it right if you want to improve your essay.

Not to mention, I think it is just as likely that if there is a god.. he or she or it could very well reward atheists instead.

Which is exactly what I said. That's why Pascal's wager is stupid.

I wish to uncover that nasty little book for what it is.

May I ask why, honestly? What good does it do? You state two things: 1. The Bible gets ignored 2. The Bible is evil. Isn't it good when people ignore the sayings of evil books, or at least better than when they are following them?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Alive May I ask why, honestly? What good does it do? You state two things: 1. The Bible gets ignored 2. The Bible is evil. Isn't it good when people ignore the sayings of evil books, or at least better than when they are following them?

I want to dispel theism. By ignoring the nasties in the Bible, the delusion continues. If people see those nasties.. the delusion may be uncasted!

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer -There are many misconceptions about atheists and non-theists. The first being, and the most silly, is that atheists worship the devil. No, we don't worship the devil nor do we even believe the devil exists. I'm afraid people who believe such things need to look up what 'worship' means. Now, if they want to say we support satanism, I can understand their concern but they are still being incredibly paranoid and not entirely truthful. We do not support Satanism, in fact, we do the exact opposite. We support free-thought away from religion and Satanism. -The next misconception is that atheists are immoral. Firstly, the word "atheism" does not even dwell on morality. It simply means without beliefs in God or gods. Statistically, the number of atheist in prison to the number of atheists in the US is the same, if not better (in surveys in the 1990s) than the proportion of Christians in prison to the number of Christians in the US. Keep in mind this is a ratio and should not be mistaken for raw numbers.. as obviously there are a greater total of Christians in the US. If atheists are so immoral, why is this not reflect in prison statistics? In fact, the opposite is supported by the statistics. Now, where does an atheist or non-theist get his or her morals? From love of man-kind, from philosophy, from law, from instincts. The statistics show this is going pretty damn well for atheists. Theists, on the other hand, often have to cherry-pick the good morals from their holy book while ignore the bad, brutal, racist, sexist, intolerant (although many theists tend to accept the intolerant morals), or cruel ones.

I will comment more on different aspects of this essay and others you submit, but there are some important points that I feel are important over all.

this a repeat refer to the next post.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer -There are many misconceptions about atheists and non-theists. The first being, and the most silly, is that atheists worship the devil. No, we don't worship the devil nor do we even believe the devil exists. I'm afraid people who believe such things need to look up what 'worship' means. Now, if they want to say we support satanism, I can understand their concern but they are still being incredibly paranoid and not entirely truthful. We do not support Satanism, in fact, we do the exact opposite. We support free-thought away from religion and Satanism. -The next misconception is that atheists are immoral. Firstly, the word "atheism" does not even dwell on morality. It simply means without beliefs in God or gods. Statistically, the number of atheist in prison to the number of atheists in the US is the same, if not better (in surveys in the 1990s) than the proportion of Christians in prison to the number of Christians in the US. Keep in mind this is a ratio and should not be mistaken for raw numbers.. as obviously there are a greater total of Christians in the US. If atheists are so immoral, why is this not reflect in prison statistics? In fact, the opposite is supported by the statistics. Now, where does an atheist or non-theist get his or her morals? From love of man-kind, from philosophy, from law, from instincts. The statistics show this is going pretty damn well for atheists. Theists, on the other hand, often have to cherry-pick the good morals from their holy book while ignore the bad, brutal, racist, sexist, intolerant (although many theists tend to accept the intolerant morals), or cruel ones.

I will comment more on different aspects of this essay and others you submit, but there are some important points that I feel are important over all.

(1) This essay covers to much ground, and jumps from subject to subject within the general subject of religion, concepts of God and Biblical teachings.

(2) Avoid generalizing about the belief or concept of God. Deal with concept of a 'Source' some call God of each religion in the context of each religion and the time the religion was revealed or formed, culture relationships, and then describe how it evolved to today. Buddhism, Taoism, Judism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i concepts of the 'Source' are different. an essay on the 'Evolution of God' could be expanded into a book.

(3) the evolution of tolerance/intolerance, exclusion and inclusion involving different religions in history is a complex subject and could take up many essays. It is best described in a progressive manner dealing with each religion seperately and then describe the relationships through history. There is a whole book writen on the relationship between Christianity and Judism through history - Constantine's Sword by James Carroll.

(4) The evolution and nature of atheism and the relationship to theism, and the rise of logic and reason as an important part of human thought is an interesting subect. 'Origins and evolution of atheism and agnostism', or the 'Origins of Christian attitudes toward atheism/agnostism in the 20th century.'

(5) The evolution of morals and ethics in history involving different religions, cultures, and atheism/agnostism, and the rise of secular law is complex and needs to dealt with in specific essays. For example, 'The impact of the merging of Biblical ethics, morals and ethics with Roman Law, morals and ethics on modern law, morals and ethics.' or 'The evolution of the morals and ethics of contemporary Christianity.'

An essay on 'What are the origins of modern morals and ethics?' would be a great essay, but would have to include the inflence of Biblical morals and ethics, Islamic, Baha'i influence, and secular law, morals and ethics. Another essay may deal with 'The eastern influences on contemporary law, morals and ethics.'

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: shunyadragon I will comment more on different aspects of this essay and others you submit, but there are some important points that I feel are important over all. (1) This essay covers to much ground, and jumps from subject to subject within the general subject of religion, concepts of God and Biblical teachings. (2) Avoid generalizing about the belief or concept of God. Deal with concept of a 'Source' some call God of each religion in the context of each religion and the time the religion was revealed or formed, culture relationships, and then describe how it evolved to today. Buddhism, Taoism, Judism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha'i concepts of the 'Source' are different. an essay on the 'Evolution of God' could be expanded into a book. (3) the evolution of tolerance/intolerance, exclusion and inclusion involving different religions in history is a complex subject and could take up many essays. It is best described in a progressive manner dealing with each religion seperately and then describe the relationships through history. There is a whole book writen on the relationship between Christianity and Judism through history - Constantine's Sword by James Carroll. (4) The evolution and nature of atheism and the relationship to theism, and the rise of logic and reason as an important part of human thought is an interesting subect. 'Origins and evolution of atheism and agnostism', or the 'Origins of Christian attitudes toward atheism/agnostism in the 20th century.' (5) The evolution of morals and ethics in history involving different religions, cultures, and atheism/agnostism, and the rise of secular law is complex and needs to dealt with in specific essays. For example, 'The impact of the merging of Biblical ethics, morals and ethics with Roman Law, morals and ethics on modern law, morals and ethics.' or 'The evolution of the morals and ethics of contemporary Christianity.' An essay on 'What are the origins of modern morals and ethics?' would be a great essay, but would have to include the inflence of Biblical morals and ethics, Islamic, Baha'i influence, and secular law, morals and ethics. Another essay may deal with 'The eastern influences on contemporary law, morals and ethics.'

Thank you! I've taken all of your words into great consideration. If I think of something you said that I disagree with.. I'll come back here. But as of now all I see is very useful criticism.